228
Int. J. Product Development, Vol. 17, Nos. 3/4, 2012
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles: a current and future state analysis framework for international engineering operations Tomás Seosamh Harrington* and Jagjit Singh Srai Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0FS, UK Email:
[email protected] Email:
[email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: Many manufacturing firms have developed a service dimension to their product portfolio. In response to this growing trend of servitisation, organisations, often involved in complex, long-lifecycle product-service system (PSS) provision, need to reconfigure their global engineering networks to support integrated PSS offerings. Drawing on parallel concepts in ‘production’ networks, the idea of ‘location role’ now becomes increasingly complex, in terms of service delivery. As new markets develop, locations in a specific region may need to grow/adapt engineering service ‘competencies’ along the value chain, from design and build to support and service, in order to serve future location-specific requirements and, potentially, those requirements of the overall network. The purpose of this paper is to advance understanding of how best to design complex multi-organisational engineering service networks, through extension of the ‘production’ network location role concept to a PSS context, capturing both traditional engineering ‘design and build’ and engineering ‘service’ requirements. Keywords: international engineering operations; network configuration archetypes; location roles; engineering service capabilities; integrated productservice systems; ConOps; concept of operations. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Harrington, T.S. and Srai, J.S. (2012) ‘Defining product-service network configurations and location roles: a current and future state analysis framework for international engineering operations’, Int. J. Product Development, Vol. 17, Nos. 3/4, pp.228–253. Biographical notes: Tomás Seosamh Harrington is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. He joined the Institute in 2009, having previously worked in industry in a series of senior engineering roles with Intel. His current research interests include the design of nascent networks for emerging technologies and the synthesis of approaches for mapping and analysing value creation and capture in complex industrial systems. He holds Bachelors and PhD degrees in Chemistry from UCC and the University of Southampton respectively and an MBA (with distinction) from GCU, where his ‘service innovation’ dissertation received a Chartered Management Institute award in 2008. Jagjit Singh Srai is Head of the Centre for International Manufacturing at the Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. His main research and Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
229
practice interests are in the areas of international manufacturing and supply networks, in particular network configuration and industrial capability. With over 18 years industrial experience, previous roles have including a series of senior management positions, including that of Manufacturing and Supply Chain Director. A Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the Institute for Chemical Engineers, he holds a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering from Aston University and a PhD from the University of Cambridge.
1
Introduction
Many manufacturing firms have developed a service dimension to their product portfolio. In response to this growing trend of servitisation, organisations (often involved in complex, long-lifecycle product/system provision) need to reconfigure their global engineering networks to support integrated product-service system (PSS) offerings. However, existing approaches to the design and global operation of engineering service networks continue to be largely design, build and product-oriented, paying little attention to the more customer-facing, relationship-based and complex partnering nature of services. Secondly, in terms of capabilities and activities, many manufacturers in developed economies, having moved production facilities to low-cost locations, are looking to refocus on engineering services which may be competitive in home markets (NAE, 2008; Engineering UK, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). This trend within the manufacturing sector has necessitated the identification and development of consistent engineering capabilities or activities across the whole of the value chain (Zhang et al., 2011), i.e. not only for traditional engineering ‘design and build’ but also for emerging ‘service and support’ elements of the business. Hence, a key challenge for organisations is how to ‘reconfigure’, optimise and ‘locate’ the necessary ‘engineering competencies’ to support the product-service operation of increasingly dispersed global networks, in response to changes in industrial context, e.g. growth of (new) export markets serving an increasing diversity of customers. Drawing on parallel concepts in ‘production’ networks, the idea of ‘location role’ now becomes increasingly complex, in terms of engineering service delivery. As new markets develop, locations in a specific region may need to grow/adapt engineering service ‘competencies’ to serve its future location-specific requirements and, potentially, those of the overall engineering service network. The concept of “factory roles” has been widely explored (Ferdows, 1997) within the manufacturing/factory environment, with strategic roles of ‘plants’ largely dependent on different products/markets. Categorisation is based on site competence (e.g. Lead, Source, Contributor, Server, Offshore and Outpost) and has enabled organisations to identify current roles of factories and enable transfer into preferred future roles based on future operations strategy. Similarly, in the product-service network environment, there is often a requirement for different sites to focus on different elements of the product offering. However, in addition to specific site focus on product/markets, there is often significant variation in service delivery roles ‘Through-Life’, from requirement identification to service contract end. This added differentiation results in a need to define location roles perhaps more significantly in a product-service network context. A methodology for aligning PSS network configurations with network location roles is presented in this paper. The approach involved the extension and integration of the Ferdows’ factory role concept with segmentation and CADMID (Concept-Assessment-
230
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
Design-Manufacture-In Service-Disposal) lifecycle methodologies to align industrial context, PSS network configuration options and engineering activities (across the ‘Through-Life’ CADMID cycle) required to support effective delivery. The process involved two stages: 1
Development of seven exemplar PSS network configurations or archetypes, based on the network configuration literature and secondary data/multiple case studies from the academic literature to first understand network configuration from different perspectives, e.g.
International manufacturing production networks: ten cases in aerospace, electronics, heavy engineering and pharmaceuticals (Shi and Gregory, 1998).
International supply networks: ten exploratory and ten in-depth cases in aerospace, electronics, FMCG, garments and pharmaceuticals (Srai and Gregory, 2005; Srai and Gregory, 2008).
Global engineering networks: seven in-depth cases in aerospace, automobile, electrics and electronics and FMCG sectors (Zhang et al., 2007). The PSS archetypes were further informed by a review of the literature on industrial systems-network context and product service systems. The archetypes were then tested and refined in the context of service supply networks through four preliminary case studies involving large service contracts, each providing complex ‘product service solutions’ in the sectors of aerospace, naval, power and telecoms (Srai, 2011; Harrington et al., 2012).
2
In parallel, a Ferdows’-type ‘product-service’ network location roles matrix was constructed based on core engineering activities derived from fifteen in-depth case studies involving exemplar engineering organisations across a series of sectors.
This two-step methodology was then tested using an in-depth case study involving three diverse PSS networks operating across four lines of business, ten PSS platforms and twenty-six geographical locations. Current and desired ‘target’ product-service network configurations were mapped and reviewed versus the generic PSS network configuration archetypes. Associated network location roles to support current and desired configurations (based on location-specific engineering activities and the projected role specific locations may play in future mid-/long-term networks) using the Ferdows’-type ‘product-service’ network location roles matrix developed are presented. The paper presents data providing strong empirical support for an extended Ferdows’ model, with new insights in an engineering service context.
2
Literature review
The following areas were reviewed to provide the relevant dimensions of analysis for the investigative phases of this research in order to develop a series of product-service network configuration archetypes:
Network Configuration
Industrial Systems – Network Context
Product Service Systems (PSS)
Ferdows’ Factory Role-type concepts
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
231
2.1 Network configuration In order to develop a network perspective, the key literature on configuration concepts, from established domains, is summarised in the following sections. In order to inform the development of configuration archetypes in the context of engineering service networks and product service systems, focus specifically centred on e.g. configuration as a ‘state’, firm archetypes and network context within the broader domain of the configuration literature. Historically, the configuration concept has primarily been focused at the firm strategy level (e.g. mission, resources, markets) and in the organisation structure literature (e.g. levels of centralisation, co-ordination mechanisms, matrix structures) (Srai and Gregory, 2008). More recently, as business activities have become increasingly dispersed across geography and ownership boundaries, there is a growing research community working on network configuration, especially in operations management and strategic management (e.g. Shi and Gregory, 1998; Bozarth and McDermott, 1998; Oltra et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2007; Srai et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2011). In the context of international engineering networks, a key challenge for today’s organisations is how best to ‘reconfigure’, optimise and ‘locate’ the necessary ‘engineering competencies’ to support the operation of increasingly dispersed and fragmented global networks, in response e.g. growth of (new) export markets serving an increasing diversity of customers. The configuration of the network (rather than the firm) becomes progressively more important with respect to future development potential. The following sections support development of the conceptual framework, examine other potential configurations and highlight the key sources used in informing the development.
2.1.1 Configuration concepts in the literature How types of configuration have been used in directing e.g. influence, resources and motivations, has been a focus of the firm-based strategic management literature (Chandler, 1962; Khandwalla, 1970; Rumelt, 1974; Miller, 1996). More recent development of the configuration concept in the strategic management literature has seen its application and relevance to firm strategy, company mission, strategic resources, target markets etc. (Kotter, 1995; Miller, 1996; Mintzberg et al., 1998). In this section, focusing on the key authors in the field (Chandler, 1962; Khandwalla, 1970; Rumelt, 1974; Miles and Snow, 1978; Miller, 1986; Miller, 1996; Mintzberg et al., 1998), the literature is reviewed to capture the progression of the configuration concept. Specifically, the role configuration plays as a ‘state’ is considered in the context of this research on current and future PSS operations.
2.1.2 Configuration as a state The idea that there are basic ‘stages’ of firm evolution or ‘stable states’ of organisations (whilst recognising the need for periodic transformation) during their life cycle (Chandler, 1962) forms the basis of PSS archetype development. Subsequent potential ‘stages’ have also been reported, e.g. as a move to consolidation, outsourcing and a focus on core competences (Mintzberg et al., 1998). In contrast, a comprehensive perspective of network configuration has not been addressed in the operations management field (Neher, 2005; Srai and Gregory, 2005; Srai et al., 2006). However, particular dimensions have been reported that may contribute to the development of network configuration theory. Such dimensions have included the influence of product characteristics on network dynamics (Fisher, 1997), the impact of
232
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
product variety (Christopher, 2000) and product complexity (Lamming et al., 2000). In addition, the influence on network operation of demand characteristics and supply characteristics, e.g. decoupling point (Mason-Jones et al., 2000) and supply uncertainty (Lee, 2002) introduce dimensions of upstream and downstream network structure. Fisher (1997), Lamming et al. (2000), Lee (2002), Klass (2003) and Srai et al. (2005) also introduce supply network management approaches that address particular operational dimensions and these contributions have been used to inform dimensions to consider in the development of PSS network configuration concepts, e.g. in particular, approaches capturing emergence of ‘network profiles’ and a need to capture coherent sets of network configuration attributes. Previous research on ‘manufacturing strategy configurations’ (Bozarth and McDermott, 1998, Oltra et al., 2005) has also focused on product type, but specifically on the associated plant processes and roles that focus on the ‘product (or service) specification’. These operational inputs have been considered in the capture of network configuration attributes and associated network location roles in a PSS context (dimensions of analyses are summarised in Table 1). Table 1
Product-service network configuration and location roles – dimensions of analysis
PSS Network Configuration and Location Roles – Dimensions of Analysis Structure Dispersion Explore the geographical footprint of a network, including the dispersion (shape, levels of vertical and horizontal integration) of product-service network units and their interdependence (partnerships, Interdependence ownership, flexibility) in the context of international engineering operations Network Dynamics Explore strategic orientation towards product-service systems flow of materials and information; between and within key unit operations; Standardisation value and non-value adding activities, process steps, optimum sequence; levels of flexibility in terms of international engineering operations Governance and Coordination Commercial Control Explore the governance system and coordination mechanism between key product-service network players (commercial control, engineering control and external coordination); the nature of these interactions or Engineering Control transactions e.g. number, complexity, partner role, in the context of international engineering operations Support Infrastructure Engineering Systems Explore the support infrastructure of the international engineering Engineering Resources operations network (including IT systems, people and skills) in supporting product-service capabilities and associated network locations Culture Relationships Explore the linkages between multi-organisational network members Partnership-supplier e.g. customers and suppliers, partnering modes, key network partners, inter-firm relationships, value sets, in the context of international Partnership-customer engineering operations Product Explore the composition and product-structure (e.g. components, subassembly, platforms, and modularity), product replenishment mode (e.g. Configuration make-to-stock, make-to-order, and configure-to-order), SKUs, products as spares, through-life support, services and intellectual property considerations, in the context of international engineering operations
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
233
2.1.3 Types of configuration Types of configuration (often depicted as organisational caricatures) have been represented in various ways in the strategic management literature and are summarised as follows:
Ten archetypes categorised as successful (Dominant, Entrepreneurial, Innovator etc.) or failed (Stagnant Bureaucracy, Headless Giant, Aftermath etc.) (Miller, 1986).
Four configurations exhibiting contrasting characteristics and classified as Defender, Prospector, Analyser and Reactor, following a review of four industry sectors (Miles and Snow, 1978).
Seven forms of organisation, categorised as Entrepreneurial, Machine, Professional, Diversified, Adhocracy, Missionary and Political (with four potential patterns of change observed) from organisational structure research (Mintzberg, 1979) and an examination of power relationships within organisations (Mintzberg, 1983).
In the operations management literature, supply network ‘profiles’ have emerged based on alternative supply network management approaches, e.g. alternative approaches to differentiating ‘competitive priorities’ (Lamming et al., 2000), managing ‘supply uncertainty’ (Lee, 2002), and ‘supply-demand dynamics’ (Srai and Mills, 2005), each of which providing elements of network configuration to consider. Shi et al. (1998) contended that the dispersion and coordination of intra-firm manufacturing networks require different international manufacturing capabilities. The dispersion dimension refers to the structure of a network; and the coordination dimension emphasises on the relationship between network members. Zhang et al. (2007) identify types of contextual environments of global engineering networks; introducing support infrastructure as a new configurational dimension. Srai and Gregory (2005, 2008) describe the configuration of supply networks from the perspectives of network structure, flow of information and material between/within operation units; relationships between network partners; and product structure. The research highlights the importance of interfirm network structure and dynamics, partner relationships, governance arrangements and the importance of product architectures in the overall assessment of ‘coherence’ of particular supply network configurations. The configuration concepts discussed in this section are largely from firm-based strategic and organisational perspectives. However, these have been extended to the operational domain and to the inter-firm engineering service network context through recent research by the authors on service supply networks, where tight constellations of interdependent multi-organisational networks provide integrated product-service solutions (Srai, 2011, Harrington et al., 2012). The concept of capabilities or engineering service activities to support such particular network configurations and archetypal forms that support particular strategic objectives is introduced in the next sections.
2.2 Industrial systems – network context Traditional engineering management approaches have been built on the assumption of ‘stable’ environments which are incapable of providing theoretical or practical guidance
234
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
for today’s industrial systems to effectively capture emerging and market opportunities (Zhang et al., 2007; NAE, 2008; Zhang et al., 2011). The network context approach introduced in this paper specifically examines and reviews environmental features which are influenced by dynamic factors (internal and external) such as market, product, production system, technology, policy, people and culture. Researchers have previously used two dimensions to differentiate business/ organisational environments: complexity and dynamism (Child, 1972; Duncan, 1972; Sia et al., 2004). Complexity refers to the heterogeneity and range of environmental activities which are relevant to an organisation’s operations (Child, 1972). It can be measured by whether the environment leads to difficulties in gathering sufficient and necessary information, analysing the causes and effects, or predicting the trends and outcomes (Sia et al., 2004). Dynamism refers to the degree of change, which characterises environmental activities relevant to an organisation’s operations (Child, 1972). It can be measured by the rapidity of changes or the number of possible outcomes in the environment (Sia et al., 2004). Networks within different contexts will have different strategic objectives. In this research, the ‘industrial system’ refers to the environmental features of the ‘network organisation’ and how it is influenced by such internal and external factors, e.g. institutional trends, industrial trends and firm level strategies. Furthermore, how these factors impact on both dimensions of configuration and capability of international engineering operations is explored (summarised in Figure 1) and further informs the dimensions of analysis summarised in Table 1. Figure 1
Industrial Systems – network context approach used to examine institutional trends, industrial trends and firm-level strategies and effect on capabilities, configuration and the overall PSS network (see online version for colours)
Industrial trends Institutional trends e.g. Global regulation, International standards, Open trade, Sustainability
w: revie d t n e an onm Envir ral drivers s e i Gen racterist c cha
e.g. Increased globalisation, Network fragmentation, Open manufacturing systems, IT‐enabled communication
Firm Level strategies e.g. Cost/efficiency, Flexibility (time, range, volume), Dependability (reliability, quality), Uniqueness of product‐service
INDUSTRIAL CONTEXT
CONFIGURATION OF OPERATIONS
CAPABILITIES OF OPERATIONS
e.g. Network structure Network dynamics/flow, Governance, Partnering /collaboration models, Product configuration
e.g. Footprint design capability, Connectivity – internal/external, Network performance, Process development capability, Product and Business innovation capability
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
235
This approach can inform target outcomes and the contextual environments of such operations, e.g. the constraints, key problems, current situation or background and future trends within the context of a particular network.
2.3 Product-service systems Comprehensive reviews of product-service system concepts and definitions have recently been presented (Baines et al., 2007; Pawar et al., 2009) in the literature. Baines et al. (2007) present a review and a classification of the literature, defining the product-service system (PSS) concept. The paper reports on its origin and features, gives examples of applications along with potential benefits and barriers to adoption, summarises available tools and methodologies, and identifies future research challenges. Pawar et al. (2009) use a multiple method approach to analyse the literature and case studies in order to synthesise a framework for the understanding and investigation of PSS. Critically, it demonstrates the need to consider the ‘organisation’ or network of firms involved in defining, designing and delivering value through the PSS. The paper finds that value can be most effectively delivered by networks of collaborating firms, integrating the products and services they offer, in order to create the value that the customers seeks. In summary, creating value requires the simultaneous design of product, service and organisation and is conceptualised as the product-service-organisation (PSO) triangle (Pawar et al., 2009). In categorising PSS as part of this research, the approach of Through Life Capability Management (TLCM) is used in configuration and network location role analysis. The approach has previously been used to capture the behaviours, systems, processes and tools used to deliver and manage projects through the acquisition lifecycle (AOP, 2010). Historically, TLCM has been used to translate Defence policy into an approved programme that delivers the required capabilities, through life, across all Defence lines of Development (DLoDs). The acquisition lifecycle (as defined in AOP, 2010) can be broken down into a number of discrete phases. The phases of the CADMID cycle are classified as follows:
Concept
Assessment
Design/Demonstration
Manufacture/Migration
In-service
Disposal
The prioritisation of stages in the CADMID cycle may be captured (e.g. from a firm and/or network level strategic perspective) and used to understand potential trade-offs between stages, which stages were amenable to common engineering management structures where operational priorities are similar (e.g. CAD- vs. CADM-), and what stages require different priorities (i.e. CA- vs. -I-). This approach enables capture of the strategic intent within the individual CADMID stages and can be effectively used to aid the re-design of increasingly differentiated operational networks.
236
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
In an international engineering context, the approach is also used within this research to assess the critical engineering activities (e.g. activities across the ‘Through-Life’ CADMID cycle), required to support effective product-service delivery. These engineering activities provide the basis of current and future analysis and the assignment of Ferdows’ factory role-type classifications in order to align with product-service network configuration options and with product-service network location roles.
2.4 Ferdows’ factory role-type concepts This section summarises the key literature used to extend the Ferdows factory role concept to a product-service context. Ferdows identified six strategic roles of factories within a firm’s international network: off-shore, source, server, contributor, outpost and lead (see Figure 2). Figure 2
Product-service network location roles framework – adapted from Ferdows, 1997 (see online version for colours)
Location Competence
‘Lead’
‘Source’
‘Contributor’
‘Offshore’
‘Server’
‘Outpost’
Access to low‐cost resources
Access to Skills /Knowledge
Proximity to Market
Primary Location Driver He also proposed a pattern of evolution of these roles over time. The categorisation is based on the site’s competence in terms of the extent of technical activities and the main drivers of production abroad, which are considered to be access to low cost production, access to skills and knowledge and proximity to market (Ferdows, 1997). The identified plant roles may change over time and it is proposed that it is desirable for a company to invest in plant competencies and upgrade plants towards source, contributor and lead factories (Ferdows, 1989). However, even without an explicit decision towards an upgraded role, some plants seem to follow that path in a natural way. However,
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
237
companies should identify the current roles of their factories and transfer them into preferred future roles (Ferdows, 1997). Ferdows’ model has been further tested and refined by Vereecke and Van Dierdonck (2002). Feldmann and Olhager (2009) also tested Ferdow’s model in a study of more than 100 Swedish manufacturing plants. They concluded that the strategic reason for a site and the site competence are independent of each other. Site competencies can be grouped into three bundles of technical activities, which are production, supply chain and development (Feldmann et al., 2009). If the role of a site evolves, an additional bundle of ‘activities’ are added to the plant. This leads to three groups of plants; some plants with responsibilities for production solely, others have competencies concerning both production and supply chain, while the third group possesses competencies in production, supply chain and development. Feldmann and Olhager also tested which decision areas are related to the site competence levels, and found vertical integration, planning and control are related to the site competence (Feldmann et al., 2009). Plants with more bundles of technical activities have more autonomy over these decision areas. Another recent paper by Feldmann et al. (2010) highlighted that changing the role of one plant affects the network and the roles of the other plants. Another early contribution was made by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), who identify four generic roles that national subsidiaries can play to meet the goals of the transnational organisation. These roles are strategic leader, contributor, implementer and black hole. The focus here is rather on national organisations than on single plants. Bartlett and Ghoshal interlink the strategic importance of the local environment with the level of local resources and capabilities, and these dimensions closely resemble Ferdows’s point of view. National subsidiaries with a high level of local resources and capabilities and a location in a strategically important market are considered to be strategic leaders. This includes a close partnership with headquarters in terms of developing and implementing strategic direction. Contributors are those national organisations which have high internal competencies but the strategic importance of the market is limited. These subsidiaries try to provide benefits to regional and wider global operations. However, in most companies the majority of national subsidiaries play the role of an implementer. They do not have access to critical information, have scarce resources and are not located in an environment of strategic importance. However, they have to fulfil the important task to deliver the company’s value add. The last role a subsidiary can possess within Bartlett and Ghoshal’s matrix is the black hole. This is a strategic role which should be avoided by a company, because the strategic importance of the local environment is high while the internal competence is low. Another typology of plants focuses on knowledge flow between plants and identifies four different roles: the isolated plants, the receivers, the hosting network players, and the active network players (Vereecke et al., 2006). The centrality of communication, the innovations absorbed, innovations developed and passed to other plants, as well as the inand outward flow of people are considered. Hosting network players and active network players are considered to play a stable role in the company, while isolated plants and receivers are expected to experience an increase or a decrease in terms of their strategic roles (Vereecke et al., 2006).
238
3
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
PSS network configuration archetype development
The concept of configuration has received considerable attention at the firm strategy level (e.g. mission, markets, resources etc) and in the organisation structure literature (levels of centralisation, coordination mechanisms etc.). These configuration perspectives are predominantly static focal firm-based considerations describing forms of organisational coherence. The configuration of the network (rather than the firm) becomes progressively more important with respect to future development potential in the context of understanding of how best to design complex multi-organisational PSS networks. In order to develop a network perspective and understand network ‘options’, we draw on the literature (summarised in section 2) to capture the progression of the configuration concept to an engineering service and PSS context. The approach (summarising the relevant literature, domains, case studies etc) in developing the PSS network configuration archetypes is presented in Figure 3. Figure 3
Literature Synthesis: Investigate phase exploring PSS network configuration archetypes derived from (i) literature on network configuration (ii) informed by the literature on industrial systems, PSS system concepts, Ferdows’ factory-role concepts and by secondary data, i.e. 30 network case histories from the literature (see online version for colours)
Network Configuration Literature e.g. Dimensions of Analysis
Industrial Systems – network context e.g. – Literature review, examination of institutional trends, industrial trends and firm‐level strategies and the subsequent impact on the configuration and capabilities of International Engineering Operations ‐ Segmentation Analyses
Ferdows’ Factory Role‐type Concepts e.g. Literature Review, Dimensions of Analysis
Product‐Service System Concepts e.g. Literature Review, Through‐Life Capability Management and CADMID cycle dimensions
Informing
Informing
Network case histories from the literature Informing
Informing
Secondary data i.e. 30 Preliminary case studies (using common configuration dimensions) from the literature on Engineering Networks, Production Networks, Supply Networks. Data sets captured between 2004‐2010 ‐ Discriminating criteria
Product‐Service Configuration Archetypes
Tested and refined in the context of service supply networks through four preliminary case studies involving large service contracts, each providing complex ‘product‐service solutions’ in the following sectors ‐ aerospace, naval, power and telecoms
The literature on network configuration, supported by in excess of thirty cases/secondary data from the literature reflecting a number of diverse network forms, e.g. International manufacturing production networks (Shi and Gregory, 1998); International supply
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
239
networks (Srai and Gregory, 2005; Srai and Gregory, 2008) and Global engineering networks (Zhang et al., 2007) was first used to explore operational PSS network configuration dimensions. Table 1 summarises the dimensions of analysis used to develop product-service configuration archetypes as a basis to understanding network option attributes and characteristics of organisations developing product-service provision as part of their ‘product’ portfolio. It was also used as a basis for exploring attribute identification, engineering activity identification and the assignment of associated network location roles. The literature on industry systems – network context, product service systems and Ferdows’ factory role type concepts (presented in sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) further informed these dimensions of analysis and provided useful insights to consider in the development of product-service network options and network location role assignment. The series of PSS archetypes developed were then tested and refined in the context of service supply networks through four preliminary case studies involving large service contracts, each providing complex ‘product service solutions’ in the sectors of aerospace, naval, power and telecoms (Srai, 2011; Harrington et al., 2012). The approach involved semi-structured interviews, based on the dimensions of analysis from Table 1, and involved seven interviewees across the four identified sectors. In all cases, interviews involved senior management reviewing their current and desired network configuration, as a means of better understanding product-service network configuration options. The industrial system/network context drivers, with respect to these current and desired future network configuration options, were also examined. In the context of engineering networks and new emerging markets, locations in a specific region needing to grow/adapt PSS ‘competencies’ or ‘activities’ to serve future desired location-specific requirements and, potentially, those of the overall service network were also examined. The approach tested in the context of service supply chains points to the emergence of certain ‘network profiles’ for such complex multi-organisational product-service networks and the need to capture coherent sets of network configuration attributes, which may be applicable across diverse industrial sectors involved in product-service provision. The output from the literature synthesis and interviews involving the four preliminary case studies in the sectors of aerospace, naval, power and telecoms is summarised in Table 2 with seven emerging product-service network configuration archetypes identified as:
‘Innovative’ Manufacturer
‘Flexible’ Manufacturer
Efficient Service Provider
Resource Optimiser
Quasi-autonomous operations
Operator by Market Theme
Project-centric Operator.
Dispersed engineering centres with different roles; adaptable common processes for individual site centres; regional, project or group level governance with central influence; common support infrastructure for key activities; strategic relationships on key activities across business network
Dispersion: (Project specific/group centres) Interdependence: (Interdependent across the business network on key activities)
Standardisation: (Common processes tailored for individual site needs)
Overview
Structure
Network Dynamics
‘Innovative’ Manufacturer
Standardisation: (Individual groups with their own working processes; shared best practices)
Dispersion: (Individual site centres) Interdependence: (Interdependent within line of business)
Dispersed and independent engineering resources; local working processes; distributed local control; customised support infrastructure; transactional relationship with suppliers
‘Flexible’ Manufacturer
Standardisation: (Mandated processes for key activities across enterprise)
Dispersion: (Dispersed engineering resources, individual site centres) Interdependence: (Interdependent within projects/groups)
Dispersed and interdependent resources close to customers/users; common processes for key operations; central commercial control and distributed engineering control; common support infrastructure across enterprise; strategic partnership with main customers and key suppliers
Efficient Service Provider
Standardisation: (Mandated processes for key activities across enterprise)
Dispersion: (networkwide/enterprise level centres for key activities) Interdependence: (Interdependent across enterprise)
Dispersed integrated engineering centres; integrated processes where applicable; centrally controlled; strategic partnership with main customers and key suppliers.
Resource Optimiser
Standardisation: (Individual groups with their own working processes; shared best practices)
Dispersion: (Individual site centres) Interdependence: (independent strands, some activities common through e.g. Central Engineering)
Dispersed and independent centres with commercial control; support infrastructure based on individual business needs; strategic partnerships where applicable
Quasi-autonomous Operations
Standardisation: (Individual groups with their own working processes; shared best practices)
Dispersion: (Enterprise centres by market themes) Interdependence: (Independent centres)
Independent enterprise centres by market theme, location businessdependent; Business unit (BU)/market theme level partnership with customers
Operator by Market Theme
Standardisation: (Common processes within projects/groups)
Dispersion: (Project specific/group centres) Interdependence: (Interdependent within line of business)
Project specific engineering resources predominantly within lines of business; basic common processes with need to adopt adhoc processes as per project
Project-centric Operator
Table 2
Configuration
240 T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
PSS network configuration archetypes derived from the academic literature and informed by multiple network case studies
Relationships Supplier: (Strategic relationship with suppliers across enterprise) Customer: (Strategic partnership on key activities across enterprise) Supplier: (Transactional relationships with suppliers) Customer: (Project specific/group partnership)
Supplier: (Strategic partnership on key activities across enterprise) Customer: (Strategic partnership across enterprise)
Engineering Systems: Engineering Systems: (Diversified (Common systems engineering systems across enterprise) customised for Engineering individual site needs) Resources: (Enterprise level resource Engineering Resources: (Resource management) management within line Culture: (Common of business; central culture across control of some specific enterprise) engineering skills, e.g. project management) Culture: (Individual site culture)
Commercial: (Enterprise level control) Engineering: (Distributed line of business control with limited central influence)
Efficient Service Provider
Support Engineering Systems: Infrastructure (Common basic systems across enterprise) Engineering Resources: (Enterprise management of key activities) Culture: (Common orientation for key activities across enterprise)
‘Flexible’ Manufacturer Commercial: (Line of business control with limited central influence) Engineering: (Distributed line of business control with limited central influence)
‘Innovative’ Manufacturer
Supplier: (Strategic partnership on key activities across enterprise) Customer: (Strategic partnership across enterprise)
Engineering Systems: (Common basic systems across enterprise) Engineering Resources: (Enterprise level resource management) Culture: (Individual site cultures)
Commercial: (Central commercial control) Engineering: (Project specific/group control with central influence)
Resource Optimiser
Supplier: (Line of business partnership) Customer: (Line of business partnerships)
Engineering Systems: (Diversified engineering systems customised for individual site/business needs) Engineering Resources: (Resource management within line of business; limited central control) Culture: (line of business cultures)
Commercial: (Line of business control with limited central influence) Engineering: (Distributed line of business control with limited central influence)
Quasi-autonomous Operations
Supplier: (BU/project specific/group partnership) Customer: (BU/market theme level partnership with customers)
Engineering Systems: (Diversified engineering systems customised for business/market needs) Engineering Resources: (Line of business control of resource management) Culture: (individual line of business cultures)
Commercial: (Project/BU control with central influence) Engineering: (Project/BU control with central influence)
Operator by Market Theme
Supplier: (Project specific/group partnership) Customer: (Project specific/group partnership)
Engineering Systems: (Common basic systems across enterprise) Engineering Resources: (Project specific/group resource management) Culture: (project specific/group cultures)
Commercial: (Project/BU control with central influence) Engineering: (Project specific/group control)
Project-centric Operator
Table 2
Governance Commercial: (Project and specific/group level Co-ordination control with central influence) Engineering: (Project specific/group level control with central influence)
Configuration
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles PSS network configuration archetypes derived from the academic literature and informed by multiple network case studies (continued)
241
242
4
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
Network location roles matrix development
The purpose of this section is to advance understanding of how best to design complex multi-organisational product-service networks, through extension of Ferdows’ network location role-type concept. A methodology for aligning network location roles with current and future product-service network configuration options is presented as part of this study, informed by PSS engineering activities identified from an in-depth assessment of fifteen international engineering operations across four sectors. At a practice level, this research can support firms in effectively designing their operational networks and in identifying the key engineering activities or ‘competencies’ required to support ‘traditional’ engineering design and build and integrated PSS offerings.
• Prototype development & demonstration
New Platform
• New market opportunity (customer requirement) capture & analysis
• Emerging technologies exploration & exploitation
• Production trials
• Pre-production demonstration
• Qualification & acceptance testing
• Partner/supplier assessment
• System integration
• Product performance verification
• Design for open architecture and through life
• Validation, verification & acceptance
• Product de-bugging
• Risk assessment
• New solution/idea generation; features definition
• Solution service; Support concept development
• Selection of equipment and services providers
• Product introduction & ramp-up
• Reliability assessment
• Manufacturing process & facility design
• Partner & supplier management (Manufacturing)
• Make/buy decision
• Pilot manufacturing
• Continuous improvement
• Interface definition
• Supportability verification
• Product enhancement
• Market & technical analysis
• Plant maintenance planning
• Business & financial analysis and business case development • Option selection against customer requirement
Service
• Operate reliability and reliability improvement processes
• Continuous improvement of maintenance techniques
• Documenting and implementing product specification changes
• Service and support concept adjustment
• Support solution design • Support facility design/selection
• Training solution development
• Engineering strategy development •Engineering & Service Standards • Contracting and approvals; Terms and conditions • Learning and development • Product safety • Resources, recruitment and retention • Research and technologies • Tool sets and support • Best practice identification and transfer
Disp osal • Hazardous material management
• High value material management
• Archiving documentary evidence against legislation
• Recovering security or IP sensitive materials
• Refit for resale
• Recycle • Network and facility reconfiguration for in service support
• Partner & supplier selection • Internal Organisational Framework training
Engineering systems
• Operate failure analysis , engineering change processes
• Organisation & system design • Proving compliance with • Managing partners and operational capability suppliers (service) specification • Risk mitigation
• Manufacturability assessment
Enhancement • Solution improvement; concept development
• Support transfer into service
• Detailed design & drawing
• Rapid prototyping and demonstration
In-Se rvice
Man ufactu re
ment Asse ss
Engineering Activities
Deve lopm ent
Definition of PSS Engineering Activities v. CADMID Lifecycle, from in-depth assessment across four sectors of fifteen international engineering operations Conc ept
Table 3
• Issuing technical instructions & repair schemes
• Product components obsolescence and upgrade
• Support planning and coordination with customer • Support on customer locations
• Processes, including documentation and lifecycle management • Project management • Estimating • Knowledge management • Performance measurement • Capability and maturity management • Legislation and environmental adherence • Configuration management
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
243
In summary, the investigative approach involved in matrix development consisted of:
In-depth assessment of fifteen international engineering operations, involving case companies from four diverse industrial sectors (Defence, Maritime, FMCG, Aerospace) versus the PSS archetypes developed in the previous section.
From the assessment, definition of seventy-six core PSS engineering activities across the CADMID cycle and subsequent categorisation against the themes of new platform, enhancement, service and engineering systems (summarised in Table 3).
A Product-Service Network Location Roles Matrix was then constructed using Ferdows’-type network location role definitions previously reported (Harrington et al., 2011). PSS engineering activities across CADMID and supporting engineering systems were classified in terms of network location role, e.g. Lead, Contributor, Server, Offshore and Outpost (X denoting ‘critical’ requirement; p denoting ‘partial’ requirement for activities) and these are summarised in Appendices A–C.
The network location roles matrix (see Appendices A–C) was then tested as part of the in-depth case study in a product-service network context – across a diverse set of three network forms operating within a single case study focal firm, to capture product-service network location role characteristics in a consistent and coherent way to support specific network configurations. Current and future desired network location profiles for the in-depth case study organisation’s international engineering operations are captured. Segmentation analyses using the in-depth case study networks to capture network priorities based on specific PSS contexts at different nodes enabled future reconfiguration options and engineering activities to be explored at different stages of the CADMID cycle and are summarised in sections 5–7.
5
Case study selection criteria
The case study organisation under investigation is a complex global equipment manufacturer engaged in the development, delivery and support of advanced defence, security and aerospace systems in the air, on land and at sea. While the large core of its engineering function continues to be largely design, build and product-oriented the organisation faces a considerable strategic challenge over the next fifteen years in transforming the business (changing industrial landscape will see greater service and international orientation). During this time the engineering function is projected to evolve significantly in order to support complex, long-lifecycle PSS provision. With a growing emphasis on service and support activities, it is projected that PSS will represent the organisation’s dominant revenue generator by 2020. Hence, the organisation is looking to effectively organise engineering resources and coordinate engineering to support both PPS offerings over the next ten years whilst retaining the engineering capability to deliver on design, build and new product development. Key challenges identified from semi-structured interviews as part of the in-depth case study include: Improved understanding of the value proposition for the business within particular PSS offerings
Clarity on core and non-core activities as part of a comprehensive value chain analysis, including mechanisms to manage/partner on non-core operations
244
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
Significant restructuring of the engineering function required if cross-business synergies are to be realised across a highly diverse international footprint
Future structure of engineering (e.g. centres of excellence or capabilities, management of dispersed front line resources and 3rd parties)
The in-depth case study specifically examined three diverse networks within the aerospace division. Operating within multi-entity service supply chains the networks provide services on-site across four lines of business and twenty-six global locations. Strategically, these networks will have significantly different priorities with the projected restructuring of the engineering function over the next ten years. Hence, the associated core and non-core activities required for each network will also be significantly different. In summary:
Network A is classified as “Corporate Engineering”, spanning all lines of business and product platforms, with priority in ‘concept’ and ‘assessment’.
Network B is classified as "Traditional Engineering: new line of business” with growth potential, operating primarily within ‘design’ and ‘manufacture’, targeting new markets and customers.
Network C is classified as a "Mature Engineering line of business” looking to expand the support element of its business, with focus on maintenance and upgrades. Hence, the ‘in-service’ element is critical.
6
Case study methodology
The case study methodology is summarised in Figure 4. It involved two steps, namely: 1
Twenty-six senior managers (involved at different nodes of networks A, B and C) first mapping network configuration states (i.e. previous, current and future) for each node of the selected networks and reviewing versus the generic PSS network configuration archetypes (e.g. ‘Innovative’ Manufacturer, ‘Flexible’ Manufacturer, Efficient Service Provider, Resource Optimiser, Quasi-autonomous operations, Operator by Market Theme and Project-centric Operator) previously presented in Table 2. In order to better understand network transition over the next ten years, transition points and evolution paths to the ‘desired’ PSS archetype options identified were gathered through the use of semi-structured interviews. These in-depth interviews with senior management indicated three primary bases for segmentation of the case study networks’ primary lines of accountability: Asset-based whereby key product lines lead (e.g. Platforms and capabilities). This structure is essentially internally driven Demand-based in which markets and/or Geography lead (e.g. Markets/ Geography, Customers, Centres of excellence). This structure is essentially customer-driven to the extent that centres of excellence are concerned with external value proposition development and delivery Supply-based in which the nature of contracts lead (e.g. Lifecycle stage, Contract type, Partnering model). This structure is externally driven, but may be influenced by supply chain as well as customer requirements
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
245
The possible segments considered based on these three options were identified as: Platform, Location, Line of Business, Market/Customer, Contract Type, Role and Partnering Model. Using a weighted criteria analysis across CADMID to establish a preferred rank order, segmentation analysis indicated a clear preference for Platform or Contract Type, which were supportive of the different key business drivers of networks A, B and C, e.g. Platform: in terms of cross lifecycle integration and IP exploitation (at the expense of Market Alignment), Market/Customer type was a slightly lower preference, favouring the building of new capabilities retaining whole platform, innovation, service transformation/ excellence and export markets (at the expense of Lifecycle integration and Technical supplier management), Contract Type: in terms of affordability and cost, building new capabilities whilst retaining whole platform, innovation, service transformation/excellence and engineering in home markets (at the expense of cross lifecycle integration). 2
The network location roles matrix, developed as part of this research (and summarised in Appendices A–C), was then used to classify network location roles for each particular node, e.g. three projected network transformations in a 2010–2020 timeframe for networks A, B and C.
Figure 4
Generating current and future state network configuration and location roles for the International Engineering Operations of Networks A, B and C: Methodology (1) Mapping Current and Future state configuration profiles and reviewing v. generic PSS archetypes from table 2 (2) classification of network location roles for selected nodes e.g. three projected network transformations over a ten-year timeframe (i.e. 2010–2020) (see online version for colours) PSS archetypes derived from the network configuration literature and informed by (a) literature on industrial systems, PSS systems and Ferdows’ factory‐role concepts (b) secondary data i.e. 30 network case histories, using common configuration dimensions, from the literature. Data sets captured between 2004‐2010
Generation of Generic PSS Network (Step 1) Configuration Archetypes
Tested and refined in the context of service supply networks through 4 preliminary case studies involving large service contracts across 4 industry sectors
(Table 2)
Development of PSS Engineering Activities v. CADMID:
(Step 2) Network Location Roles Matrix (Appendices A‐C)
Constructed using 15 in‐depth case studies involving international engineering operations, across 4 industry sectors
Tested using in‐depth case study involving: •3 diverse PSS networks A, B and C •Operating across 4 lines of business •Involving 10 PSS platforms •26 geographical locations
Current and Future State Network Configuration and Location Roles for the International Engineering Operations of Networks A, B and C
246
7
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
Case study results
Current and future PSS network configurations and associated network location roles for 2010, 2015 and 2020 for case study networks A, B and C were assigned, and the results are summarised in Table 4. Table 4
Network Location roles for 2010, 2015 and 2020 assigned based on future network configuration archetypes of Networks A, B and C
Network A, classified as “Corporate Engineering”, spanning all lines of business and product platforms, will retain priority in concept and assessment in terms of future Through-Life capability priorities. Network transformation will see evolution from a ‘current’ Project-Centric Operator to a ‘future desired’ Resource Optimiser state in the next ten years with segmentation priority remaining platform-based. In supporting network transformation, three locations/nodes of the network were identified as having to evolve significantly in terms of engineering activities. Nodes A1, A2 and A3 at locations A, B and C will transition from ‘Outpost’ to ‘Contributor’, Server’ to ‘Contributor’ and ‘Contributor’ to Lead’ respectively. Network B, classified as "Traditional Engineering: new line of business”, will retain priority in design and manufacture in terms of future Through-Life capability priorities. Network transformation will see evolution from a ‘current’ Innovative Manufacturer to a ‘future desired’ Flexible Manufacturer state in the next ten years with segmentation priority remaining market/customer. In supporting network transformation as new markets emerge, two locations/nodes of the network were identified as having to evolve significantly in terms of engineering activities e.g. node B1 at location D needs to transition from ‘Outpost’ to ‘Contributor’ to ‘Lead’ in the next ten years to support future location D-specific requirements and, potentially, those of network B globally. Network C, classified as a "Mature Engineering line of business” is looking to expand the support element of its business, with focus on maintenance and upgrades. Hence, the in-service element is critical. Transition from priority in design and manufacture to in-service in terms of future Through-Life capability priorities is necessary over the next ten years. Network transformation will see evolution from a ‘current’ Innovative Manufacturer to a ‘future desired’ Efficient Service Provider state over this period with segmentation priority evolving to that of contract type. In supporting network transformation, as the service element of the business grows, three locations/nodes of the network were identified as having to evolve significantly in terms of engineering activities e.g. node C2 at location G will need to transition from ‘Outpost’
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
247
to ‘Server’ to ‘Lead’ over the next ten years to support future location G-specific requirements and, potentially, those of network C globally. Findings also indicate within the context of the case company, that primary location drivers critical for the future involve: ‘access to skills/knowledge’ and ‘proximity to market’ (see Figure 2) i.e. “Outpost-Server-Contributor-Lead’ pathway and are reflected in a detailed analysis of the engineering activities across the product lifecycle (see Appendices A–C). External reviews conducted as part of this research also confirmed that many organisations are similar to the case study company in seeking to integrate engineering into the business in order to establish a tight fit between business and engineering strategies with comparator examples supporting the general future desired case study configurations of networks A, B and C (e.g. ‘Resource Optimiser’, ‘Flexible Manufacturer’ and ‘Efficient Service Provider’). Those with similar ‘current’ configuration characteristics are focusing on improving project delivery by moving to a partnering rather than a technical basis of working and building new capabilities in lifecycle management. Those also seeking to adopt a similar future configuration to that desired by the case study company have the following features: improved networking to offset skills imbalances; increased centralisation of governance; transferring engineers into other functions to broaden skills and knowledge of the wider business. Implications of this research provide managers with a methodology on how best to ‘reconfigure’ and optimise the PSS operation of increasingly dispersed global networks, in response to future changes in industrial context e.g. growth of (new) export markets serving an increasing diversity of customers. In addition, future priorities and associated engineering activities required to support such network transitions may be identified.
8
Conclusions
In the design of a future global engineering organisation, decisions on location-specific capabilities and specialisations of location sites, as well as the role that specific locations will play in a future network need to be balanced between strategic priorities of the network and dynamic capabilities of each of the locations. Many manufacturers in developed economies have moved production facilities to low-cost locations and have refocused home country operations towards engineering services. The importance of services and the trend of servitisation in the manufacturing sector have articulated a strong demand for consistent engineering capabilities along the whole value chain, not only for traditional engineering ‘design and build’ but also ‘service and support’. Hence, the idea of ‘location role’ now becomes increasingly complex, in terms of service delivery. Location roles will evolve over time, in response to changes in “industrial context”, e.g. institutional trends, industrial trends and to shifts in firm level strategies, e.g. increasing export market focus. As a consequence, location role capabilities may need to grow and, therefore, will evolve over time. As markets develop, a location in a certain region may need to increase (or adapt) its location advantage, within the overall network. A Ferdows’-type product-service network location role matrix, linked to the network configuration mapping approach across the CADMID cycle (extending established strategic and firm level constructs to the service network operational level), was
248
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
constructed based on external interviews involving multiple exemplar engineering organisations. The application of the approach, using an in-depth case study, has demonstrated a useful methodology for describing and assessing current network location roles and in defining future network location roles, by platform, contract type and market/customer segments. Key high-level findings from cross-network analysis include:
The approach has demonstrated that decisions on location-specific activities, as well as the role that specific locations will play in a future network, need to be balanced between: - Strategic priorities of the engineering network and, thus, the need to set goals and objectives for each of the locations in its network. - ‘Dynamic engineering activities’ of each of the locations, and their optimal exploitation, regionally and globally for the future.
Strategic intent of the PSS network should be defined at both a network level and across each of the CADMID functional elements.
The relative business priority of each CADMID element needs to be considered and trade-offs made where necessary.
The research suggests particular archetype configurations support specific activity or ‘capability’ outputs, and involve trade-offs across the design-build-service and support elements of the product lifecycle.
This research forms the basis of a ‘Concept of Operations’ (ConOps) for multiorganisational networks. It sets out the key elements and defines the operating principles and protocols, applicable to all stakeholders, to be used in the design and operation of complex product-service systems. ConOps terminology has been used in many operational contexts where multiple equipment and service providers operate in a shared environment. It can provide an overview, as well as a strategic objective of an operation or series of operations, based on a definition of the roles and responsibilities of all the related stakeholders in an organisation or network. A methodology for aligning network location roles with network configurations is presented, which can support the implementation of future integrated PSS strategies, as organisations will need to define such roles in supporting future service network design. The methodology also provides theoretical insights on PSS archetypes, the design and operation of integrated product and service systems and strong empirical support for an extended Ferdows’ model, with new insights in a product-service context. The current network configuration for the organisation (with associated network location roles) and potential future ‘target’ network configurations (based on location-specific activities and the projected role specific locations may play in future mid-/long-term networks) may be defined. At a practice level, the approach supports the design of future service organisations and has been adopted by the main prime (lead service organisation), involved in the indepth case study, in implementing a future service-driven engineering strategy.
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
249
References Acquisition Operating Framework (AOP) (2010) Available online at: http://www.aof.mod.uk/ (accessed on 16 May 2011). Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H. et al. (2007) ‘State-of-the-art in product service-systems’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers – Part B – Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 221, No. 10, pp.1543–1552. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) ‘Managing across borders: the transnational solution’, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Bozarth, C. and McDermott, C. (1998) ‘Configurations in manufacturing strategy: a review and directions for future research’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.427–439. Chandler, A.D. (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Christopher, M. (2000) ‘The agile supply Chain – competing in volatile markets’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 1 pp.37–44. Child, J. (1972) ‘Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice’, Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1–22. Duncan, R. (1972) ‘Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty’, Adm. Sci. Quart., Vol. 17, pp.313–327. Engineering UK (2010) Engineering UK 2009/10 report, Engineering UK, London. Feldmann, A. and Olhager, J. (2009) ‘Plant roles and decision-making in manufacturing networks’, EurOMA 2009, Gothenburg, Sweden. Feldmann, A., Olhager, J., Fleet, D. et al. (2010) ‘Linking networks and plant roles: the impact of changing a plant role’, EurOMA 2010, Porto, Portugal. Ferdows, K. (1989) ‘Mapping international factory networks’, in Ferdows, K. (Ed.): Managing International Manufacturing, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Ferdows, K. (1997a) ‘Made in the world: the global spread of production’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.102–109. Ferdows, K. (1997b) ‘Making the most of foreign factories’, Harvard Business Review, March–April, pp.73–88. Fisher, M.L. (1997) ‘What is the right supply chain for your product?’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp.105–116. Harrington, T.S. and Srai, J.S. (2011) ‘Defining Engineering Service Network Location Roles in Global Operations’, EurOMA 2011, Cambridge, UK. Harrington, T.S., Kirkwood, D.A. and Srai, J.S. (2012) ‘Performance metric selection methodology for multi-organizational service network integration’, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.20–35. Khandwalla, P.N. (1970) The Effect of the Environment on the Organizational Structure of the Firm, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Klass, T. (2003) Logistics Organisation. A configurational approach towards a logistics orientedorganisation, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden. Kotter, J.P. (1995) ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’, Harvard Business Review, March–April, pp.59–67. Lamming, R., Johnsen, T., Zheng, J. and Harland, C. (2000) ‘An initial classification of supply networks’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.675–691. Lee, H.L. (2002) ‘Aligning Supply Chain Strategies with Product Uncertainties’, California Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.105–119.
250
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000) ‘Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supply chain to the markeyplace’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38, No. 17, pp.4061–4070. Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978) Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York. Miller, D. (1986) ‘Configurations of strategy and structure: towards a synthesis’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp.233–249. Miller, D. (1996) ‘Configurations revisited’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp.505–512. Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mintzberg, H. (1983) Power in and Around Organisations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998) Strategy Safari, The Free Press. NAE (2008) The offshoring of Engineering: Facts, Unknowns, and Potential Implications, National Academy of Engineering, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Neher, A. (2005) ‘The Configurational Approach in Supply Chain Management’, in Kotzab, H., Seuring, S., Muller, M. and Reiner, G. (Eds): Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg and Springer, New York, pp.75–90. Oltra, M.J., Maroto, C. and Segura, B. (2005) ‘Operations strategy configurations in project process firms’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.429–448. Pawar, K.S., Beltagui, A. and Riedel, J. (2009) ‘The PSO triangle: designing product, service and organisation to create value’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.468–493. Rumelt, R.P. (1974) Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Shi, Y. and Gregory, M. (1998) ‘International manufacturing networks: to develop global competitive capabilities’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp.195–214. Sia, C.L., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2004) ‘Effects of Environmental Uncertainty on Organizational Intention to Adopt Distributed Work Arrangements’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp.253–267. Srai, J.S. (2011) ‘Supply Network Integration in Multi-Organisational Network Systems’, International Journal of Manufacturing Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.122–133. Srai, J.S. and Gregory, M.J. (2005) ‘Supply Chain Capability Assessment of Global Operations’, EurOMA Conference Proceedings, Budapest, Hungary. Srai, J.S. and Mills, J. (2005) ‘Product Price-Variation and Its Impact on Supply Chain Operations’, Proceedings 10th International Manufacturing and Supply Networks Symposium, Cambridge. Srai, J.S., Shi, Y. and Gregory, M.J. (2006) ‘Supply Chain Process Maturity and Performance – the Network Configuration Dimension’, Performance Measurement Association, Conference Proceedings, London. Srai, J.S. and Gregory, M. (2008) ‘A Supply Network Configuration Perspective on International Supply Chain Development’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp.386–411. Srai, J.S. and Fleet, D.E. (2010) ‘Exploring the Configuration of Emerging Country Multinationals’, in Brennan, L. (Ed.): The Emergence of Southern Multinationals and their Impact on Europe, Palgrave. Vereecke, A. and van Dierdonck, R. (2002) ‘The strategic role of the plant: testing Ferdows’s model’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.492–514.
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
251
Vereecke, A., Van Dierdonck, R. and De Meyer, A. (2006) ‘A Typology of Plants in Global Manufacturing Networks’, Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 11, pp.1737–1750. Zhang, Y., Gregory, M. and Shi, Y. (2007) ‘Global Engineering Networks (GEN): The Integrating Framework and Key Patterns’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 221, pp.1269–1283. Zhang, Y. and Gregory, M. (2007) ‘Managing Global Network Operations along the Engineering Value Chain’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp.736–764.
252
T.S. Harrington and J.S. Srai
Through Life (CADMID) Stage
PSS Engineering Activities New market opportunity (customer requirement) capture & analysis Emerging technologies exploration & exploitation
Concept
New solution/idea generation; features definition Solution improvement; concept development Solution service; Support concept development Option selection against customer requirement Partner/supplier assessment Design for open architecture and through life Rapid prototyping and demonstration Risk assessment
Assessment
Manufacturability assessment Reliability assessment Make/buy decision Interface definition Market & technical analysis Business & financial analysis and business case development Engineering strategy development Engineering & Service Standards Contracting and approvals; Terms and conditions Learning and development Product safety Resources, recruitment and retention Research and technologies
Supporting Engineering Systems
Tool sets and support Best practice identification and transfer Processes, including documentation and lifecycle management Project management Estimating Knowledge management Performance measurement Capability and maturity management Legislation and environmental adherence Configuration management
X X X X X X X p X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
p X X X X p X p X X X X X X p X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
p p p p p
p X X
p p p p X p X X X X p p p p p p
p
p
p p
p
p X
p X
X p p
X p p
p X
X
p p p p
p p
p p p p p
p p
Network location roles matrix – PSS engineering activities for ‘Development’ and ‘Manufacture’ classified in terms of Lead, Contributor, Server, Offshore and Outpost (X denotes critical requirement; p denotes partial requirement)
Through Life (CADMID) Stage
PSS Engineering Activities Prototype development & demonstration Detailed design & drawing Pre-production demonstration System integration Validation, verification & acceptance Organisation & system design Risk mitigation Selection of equipment and services providers
Development
Manufacturing process & facility design Pilot manufacturing Supportability verification Plant maintenance planning Support solution design Support facility design/selection Partner & supplier selection Internal Organisational Framework training Training solution development Production trials
Manufacture
Le ad Co nt rib ut or Se rv er O ffS ho re O ut po st
Appendix B
Le a Co d nt rib ut or Se rv er O ffS ho re O ut po st
Appendix A Network location roles matrix – PSS engineering activities for ‘Concept’, ‘Assessment’ and supporting engineering systems classified in terms of Lead, Contributor, Server, Offshore and Outpost (X denotes critical requirement; p denotes partial requirement)
Qualification & acceptance testing Product performance verification Product de-bugging Proving compliance with operational capability specification Product introduction & ramp-up Partner & supplier management Continuous improvement Product enhancement Network and facility reconfiguration for in service support Issuing technical instructions & repair schemes
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X p X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X p X X X X X X X X X X X X
p p p p p p p p p
p p
X X
p p p
p X
p p X X X
p p X X X
X p
X p
p p p p p p p p p X X X X p p
Defining product-service network configurations and location roles
Network location roles matrix – PSS engineering activities for ‘In-service’ and ‘Disposal’ classified in terms of Lead, Contributor, Server, Offshore and Outpost (X denotes critical requirement; p denotes partial requirement)
Through Life (CADMID) Stage
PSS Engineering Activities Support transfer into service Operate failure analysis , engineering change processes Operate reliability and reliability improvement processes Managing partners and suppliers
In-Service
Continuous improvement of maintenance techniques Documenting and implementing product specification changes Service and support concept adjustment Product components obsolescence and upgrade Support planning and coordination with customer Support on customer locations Hazardous material management High value material management
Disposal
Le ad Co nt rib ut or Se rv er Of fS ho re O ut po st
Appendix C
253
Archiving documentary evidence against legislation Recovering security or IP sensitive materials Refit for resale Recycle
X X X X X X X X X X p p p p p p
X X X X X X X X X X p p
X X X X X p p X X
X p p p p p p p p
p p
