ditional view that has dominated the automotive sector is that 'first-tier' ... Group, Kingston Business School, Kingston Hill, Kingston upon Thames. KT2 7LB, UK. ..... Manufacturers and Suppliers, 1994 (Department of Trade and Industry).
521
An evaluation of value-transfer within a modular supply chain D Doran1* and R Roome2 1International Strategy and Research Operations Group, Kingston Business School, Kingston upon Thames, UK 2School of Engineering, Kingston University, London, UK
Abstract: The paper explores the impact that modularization is having on the structure of supply chains in general and on the role of rst-tier suppliers in particular. Two concepts are presented to illustrate rstly the need to rede ne the term ‘ rst-tier’ supplier and secondly to determine how and why value can be transferred within a modular supply chain. The rst concept, the ‘continuum of rst-tier suppliers’, contends that only certain ‘ rst-tier’ suppliers will be able to compete within a modular environment, whilst the second concept, ‘value-added second tier’ examines the role (in many cases, the enlarged role) that second-tier suppliers are likely to play within a modular landscape. Keywords: supply chain, buyer–supplier relationships, modularization, automotive
1
INTRODUCTION
In the last decade there has been a plethora of research examining the characteristics of rst-tier suppliers and the nature of supply chain relationships within a number of geographic and commercial contexts [1–9]. The traditional view that has dominated the automotive sector is that ‘ rst-tier’ suppliers deliver discrete components to their customer (s)—the vehicle manufacturer —and in so doing manage that part of the supply chain that provides services and parts for its product. While this is still the case in many situations, the development of ‘modular supply’ or ‘systems integration’ [10] is calling into question the role of rst-tier suppliers and is necessitating a reorganization of value creation within the remaining tiers of the supply chain [11, 12]. Of particular importance is the expanded role that some rst-tier suppliers are likely to play within the emerging modular environment. Indeed, it is the contention of this paper that some rst-tier suppliers will not have the capabilities to supply modules or systems and may be better positioned to undertake lower value operations transferred from those rst-tier suppliers that are actively positioning themselves to supply on a modular basis. To distinguish the traits that a module supplier is likely to require, a continuum of rst-tier suppliers is presented (Fig. 1). The continuum addresses a number The MS was received on 9 July 2002 and was accepted after revision for publication on 20 February 2003. * Corresponding author: International Strategy and Research Operations Group, Kingston Business School, Kingston Hill, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK. D07602 © IMechE 2003
of the issues that are likely to in uence the positioning of some rst-tier suppliers. The consequent reorganization of value, referred to as ‘value transfer’, concerns an examination of the opportunities for di ering tiers within a supply chain to optimize their contribution to the e ectiveness of the supply chain ( Fig. 2). Such ‘value transfer’ is likely to be a natural development of the move toward the developing ‘modular supply’ approach to car assembly that is currently dominating the emerging automotive landscape. 2
METHODOLOGY
The ndings and concepts presented in this paper are based, primarily, on case study research undertaken within the last year relating to automotive component suppliers within a single modular supply chain. The case protocol was developed as a result of a four-year research programme that examined characteristics of ‘ rst-tier’ automotive suppliers within the United Kingdom [12]. This research indicated that the role of rst-tier suppliers within an emerging modular environment was likely to change as car manufacturers continued to push value-creating activity to key rst-tier suppliers with the capability to deliver modular solutions. Value within the context of this paper refers to the contract value associated with the enlarged role likely to be played by key module suppliers. So, for example, case 1, which deals with a seating supplier, is an example of the increased value-creating activity associated with the delivery of seating modules rather than seating Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
522
D DORAN AND R ROOME
Fig. 1
Continuum of rst-tier suppliers
Fig. 2
Value transfer
components. Traditionally, seating suppliers would supply basic seating components which the vehicle manufacturer would assemble; within a modular supply chain the seating manufacturer will design, test, assemble and synchronously deliver the seating systems (including all airbags and associated electrical plug-ins) directly to the assembly line of the vehicle manufacturer. This increased role increases contract value while at the same time increasing the responsibility of the seating supplier to manage and organize the supply chain associated with the seating system. The paper will rst deal with the development of modular supply and will then present two concepts that will aid suppliers in terms of positioning within a modular environment. The nal section of the paper will present the ndings of case-based research, which demonstrate the need for a broader understanding of the term ‘ rst tier’ and a greater emphasis on how value should be added within modular supply chains. 3
MODULARIZATION
The evolution of the modular approach has been explored within a number of sectors. Carliss et al. [13] explored the development of modular systems within a computer and automotive context, while Robertson and Ulrich [14] chart the development of modularization within the market for cameras which they refer to as ‘platform planning’. The basic idea of platform planning revolves around the sharing of assets that are used for a set of products. These assets are divided into four distinct categories: components, processes, knowledge, and people and relationships. The sharing of each of these components allows organizations to reduce costs and to enhance product exibility. Earlier research [15] provided evidence of modular systems within the microcomProc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
puter and stereo component industries. While such work is, perhaps, a little dated, the suggestion that ‘the development of modular systems can lead to vertical and horizontal disintegration, as rms can often best appropriate the rents of innovation by opening their technology to an outside network of competing and co-operating rms’ (p. 297) has proven to be accurate in terms of current developments within the automotive sector as it moves closer to the procurement of modular systems. Within a modular environment purchasing of modular systems is extremely important. In this regard, Gadde and Jellbo [16 ] provide a framework for systems sourcing analysis and demonstrate that while the concept of modularization can provide bene ts to both parties the journey to e ective modularization will be dependent on supplier capabilities, division of labour, the e ectiveness of the customer–supplier interface and product architecture. This view is echoed by Carbone [10], who demonstrates the di culty associated with de ning what exactly constitutes a module. Carbone researched the modular approach adopted by Honda, which highlights the di culties associated with de ning a module. Honda’s purchasing manager states that: We do not have a complete [instrument panel] assembly with instrumentation ready to bolt in and plug in [because of the mixed technologies involved]. Say we have an instrument panel module, and we decide to give it all to a company that is an expert in plastics that does not mean the company is an expert in instrumentation because of all the electronics involved. If we give it to someone who is an expert in electronics, they may not be an expert in plastic moulding. It’s hard to get that level of integration, and even if we could, we do not want to give up control of something that is critical to the customer’s driving experience.
Useful in de ning what exactly constitutes a module is the work of Carliss et al. [13], who describe modularity D07602 © IMechE 2003
AN EVALUATION OF VALUE-TRANSFER WITHIN A MODULAR SUPPLY CHAIN
as the process of ‘building a complex product or process from smaller subsystems that can be designed independently yet function together as a whole’ ( p. 84). The authors describe how Mercedes-Benz developed the modular concept for their sport-utility assembly plant in Alabama. Mercedes-Benz structured the vehicle around sets of large production modules, which included a module for the driver’s cockpit. This particular module contained all airbags, heating and air-conditioning systems, the instrument cluster, the steering column and the wiring harness. However, what constitutes a ‘module’ di ers from manufacturer to manufacturer, with some manufacturers de ning modules in relation to function, form or element. The basic modular concept requires some rst-tier suppliers ( primarily those suppliers that are considered global modular rst tier) to deliver complete systems rather than individual parts that constitute a system [12]. Perhaps the most tangible representation of the modular approach to car assembly is the ‘Smart’ car collaboration between the watchmaker Swatch and carmaker Mercedes-Benz. This collaboration has been developed around modular supply and modular assembly and draws on the experience of Mercedes-Benz in terms of how modules were de ned and assembled for their sport-utility vehicle [13]. While a typical car is likely to necessitate the coordination of around 200 rst-tier suppliers, the Smart car collaboration has been engineered and designed using only 25 modular suppliers. Modules are generally designed and conceived around key areas of a vehicle; for example, body shell, chassis, electrical componentry and interior elements. Indicative of the modular approach is the transfer of a higher percentage of value added to upstream suppliers; at the Smart car assembly plant only 20 per cent of value added relates to activities undertaken within the vehicle assembly plant. More recently, Daimler Chrysler, Ford and General Motors have all built new plants that speci cally accommodate modular assembly. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the trend towards modularization is determining the changing relationships of the vehicle manufacturers and their component /module suppliers. In a sense it would appear that vehicle manufacturers are increasingly taking on the role of project managers rather than true manufacturers. Anything that has had the potential to be supplied (and in some cases tted ) in a modular format has been actively encouraged by many vehicle manufacturers. The key players in this new modular environment are likely to be those global modular suppliers that have developed the competences that will become key to modular supply. Such suppliers are referred to as ‘mature’ rst-tier suppliers along the continuum of rst-tier suppliers presented below. A critical issue relating to this trend is the shift in value creation and the impact that such a shift is likely to have on modular and discrete component rst-tier suppliers. It seems apparent that the power of vehicle manufacD07602 © IMechE 2003
523
turers is set to diminish as the trend to value transfer increases and the emergence of global suppliers possessing key modular capabilities dominate the automotive landscape. The emergence of modular supply will be particularly evident in buyer–supplier relationships, especially in terms of the debate concerning the various modes of commercial engagement [4–9, 17–20]. Of particular signi cance in this regard is the supplier network research of Jarillo [17], Gullander [18] and Casper [19] who between them identify the motives and elements seen to be signi cant in terms of the development of the systems or modular supply approach developed in this paper. Collins et al. [11] suggest that it is the pressure to attain annual cost-downs which is seen as a key driver of the trend towards modularization of supply chains and that such a trend will necessitate a reorganization of value creation within supply chains that are developing a modular approach. More recently, Gadde and Hakansson [21] demonstrate that modularization or ‘system sourcing’, in general, leads to close collaboration with suppliers. This paper, however, will demonstrate that close collaboration between suppliers and buyers will, to a large degree, be dependent on the positioning of such suppliers along the ‘continuum of rst-tier suppliers’. 4
CONTINUUM OF FIRST-TIER SUPPLIERS
Research over a four-year period [12] indicated that within the broad description of ‘ rst-tier’ supply exists a body of suppliers operating at a number of levels within the rst-tier domain that would be unlikely to supply on a modular basis. As a result of these ndings the authors have developed the continuum of rst-tier suppliers (Fig. 1) to provide a greater understanding of the term ‘ rst tier’ and to determine the role of di erent types of rst-tier supplier within the emerging modular paradigm (see Table 1). The continuum consists of three levels of rst-tier supplier, referred to as ‘mature’, ‘developing’ and ‘fringe’ rst-tier suppliers. ‘Mature’ suppliers are those suppliers that have the capacity and capabilities to supply (and, in some cases, to t) modules on a global basis. ‘Mature’ suppliers are likely to have a distinctive quality culture, a signi cant research and development capability, a global presence and ownership of ‘key’ areas of the supply chain. ‘Developing’ suppliers are rst-tier suppliers that are positioning themselves to supply on a modular basis. Such positioning is likely to involve the development of supply chain management skills, the acquisition of ‘key’ areas of the supply chain and the development of operations in such a manner that global just in time (JIT ) can be achieved. ‘Fringe’ suppliers are likely to be those suppliers that are primarily second tier with some rst-tier business and can be considered as marginal players within a Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
524
D DORAN AND R ROOME
Table 1
Continuum of rst-tier suppliers
Fringe
Developing
Mature
(a) A marginal player that is likely to become a second-tier supplier as modular solutions are sought by vehicle manufacturers (b) Poor knowledge management skills (c) Small-scale operation (d) Low technological capabilities (e) Component is small part of a potential ‘system’ (e.g. switches in a dashboard) (f ) Parts subject to inspection by buyer (g) Poor buyer–supplier relationships (h) Resources low (i) Reactive rather than proactive ( j) Operations not geared for signi cant exibility (k) Quality issues are not paramount
(a) Aware of sector developments and in the process of positioning itself strategically to take advantage of such developments (b) Developing knowledge management skills (c) Developing a quality culture (d ) Involved in supply chain development (e) Developing buyer–supplier relationships (f ) Part of a larger organization with some supply chain ownership (g) Multimillion pound turnover (h) Represented in many of the key trading regions (i) Has the capability to ‘direct line’ feed to buyer ( j) Deals with many of the established vehicle manufacturers (k) Flexible operations ( l ) Enjoys contractual trust with its customers
(a) Has the skills/resources necessary to become a ‘systems supplier’ (b) A well-developed knowledge management capability (c ) Has a distinctive ‘quality culture’ and has achieved recognized national and international standards (d ) A distinct research and development orientation (e) Possibly a system seller (f ) Global presence/player (g) Lean and e ective supply chain (h) May have ownership of ‘key’ links in the supply chain (i) Has the capability to ‘direct line’ feed to buyer ( j) Likely to have a ‘branded’ product or product range (k) Flexible operations ( l ) Expects high levels of contractual trust from its buyers (m) Well-organized supply chain management capabilities
modular context. ‘Fringe’ suppliers are unlikely to survive as rst-tier suppliers and may be better placed to accommodate the transfer of non-core activities upstream from modular suppliers. The transfer of value therefore provides some ‘fringe’ rst-tier suppliers (or possibly some second-tier suppliers) with the opportunity to position themselves as value-added second-tier ( VAST ) suppliers.
by vehicle manufacturers for systems solutions and synchronous supply [22, 23]. Such a view is likely to involve the transfer of activities traditionally undertaken in house that in a global modular environment do little to add value and can easily be transferred upstream to second-tier suppliers.
5
The research ndings suggested that the term ‘ rst-tier supplier’ was used too broadly to characterize a certain type of supplier. In reality, the term is used by suppliers that by virtue of their product type or grouping are categorized as rst tier. Examples include glue suppliers, weather-shielding products, bonnet badging, etc. In an e ort to determine how the term ‘ rst tier’ might be better understood a number of case studies were undertaken. Three of the case studies are presented below. The suppliers studied broadly represented suppliers that are located at each of the three stages identi ed in the continuum of rst-tier suppliers. Case 1 (classed as a ‘fringe’ supplier along the continuum) relates to a component supplier that supplies seat belt xings to an occupant safety equipment supplier as a rst- and second-tier supplier (case 2). The supplier is proud to be a rst-tier supplier and does not see any reason for changing what it regards as a coveted status within the supply chain hierarchy. Case 2 (classed as a ‘developing’ supplier along the continuum) relates to a company that supplies occupant safety equipment to vehicle manufacturers world-wide as both a rst-tier and a second-tier supplier. The company is in the process of positioning itself to become a modular supplier. The third and nal case
VALUE-ADDED SECOND TIER
The transfer of value from rst-tier suppliers to secondtier suppliers results in what the author refers to as the development of VAST suppliers. This concept re ects the need for modular rst-tier suppliers to concentrate on ‘key’ activities and to transfer low value-adding, labour-intensive activities to the second or third tier of their supply chain(s). The transfer of such activities will allow ‘mature’ and ‘developing’ modular suppliers to concentrate on strategic supply chain management activities and the expanded role that they are likely to inherit as their customers; the vehicle manufacturers concentrate on coordinating the assembly of modules into completed vehicles. The development of VAST may also overcome the problem commonly associated with the fear that some rst-tier suppliers have of losing their rst-tier status and is an opportunity for ‘fringe’ rst-tier suppliers, and some advanced second-tier suppliers, to increase value added at a second-tier level. Critical to the success of VAST is the recognition by rst-tier suppliers of the need to take a strategic view of their core capabilities in the light of continuing demands Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
6
FINDINGS
D07602 © IMechE 2003
AN EVALUATION OF VALUE-TRANSFER WITHIN A MODULAR SUPPLY CHAIN
(classi ed as a ‘mature’ supplier along the continuum) relates to a supplier that supplies modular seating systems on a synchronous basis for a Japanese vehicle manufacturer located in the United Kingdom.
6.1 Case 1—a ‘fringe’ supplier The supplier is a privately owned business that supplies seat belt components to a number of UK-based vehicle manufacturers. The technology for the product is basic and aged. The business does not appear to benchmark its activities and is not actively engaged in supply chain development. The production process is characterized by intensive inspection and there is little evidence of a quality culture or of employee involvement in problemsolving activities. Buyer/supplier relationships appear, on the whole, to be characterized by adversarialism, particularly in terms of trust, annual cost-downs and general contractual issues. Reject rates are improving but are not yet best in class. There appears to be little scope for the development of ‘order winners’ [24] and given the nature and value of the product produced the development of a modular solution seems limited. As a consequence, it is likely that a larger supplier may subsume this supplier. Alternatively, the supplier may bene t from VAST activity should its customer (s) or other rst-tier suppliers decide to refocus their own core competences and transfer value up the supply chain. Essentially, a fringe rsttier supplier is most likely to become a second-tier supplier within the emerging modular environment or may nd that strategic withdrawal from the automotive sector may be the most appropriate solution.
6.2 Case 2—a ‘developing’ supplier The supplier is part of a global group of companies that specializes in the design, manufacture and assembly of occupant safety equipment exclusively for the automotive sector. The supplier has contracts with all major vehicle manufacturers and has recently won contracts to supply airbags to UK-based Japanese vehicle manufacturers. Operations are benchmarked against vehicle manufacturer standards and against group operations viewed as best-in class. Reject rates are measured as parts per million and there is a distinct quality culture throughout the operation and there was evidence of employee involvement in problem-solving initiatives (represented by a Kaizen team) underpinned by an active sta training programme. Buyer–supplier relationships are characterized by sta exchange and are largely cooperative. The supplier employs a number of operations strategies, including total quality management ( TQM ), JIT, cellular manufacture, benchmarking and concurrent engineering, and is currently in the process of rede ning D07602 © IMechE 2003
525
its position in terms of the development of modular supply. Such positioning has involved strategic acquisition of elements of the supply chain, including fabric suppliers, steering wheel suppliers and suppliers of steel housing units that hold the pyrotechnic devices used to activate airbag systems. A natural development of modules within this sector might include the acquisition of suppliers involved in the provision of electronics, insulating products (some airbags are located beneath carpets or within the headliner above the driver position) or steering systems. The company does not invest enough resource in the development of supply chain management and coordination; this was particularly evident in terms of duplication of activity noted during the case study visit. In addition, the company needs to divest some of its basic assembly operations, which both are labour intensive and add little in terms of value or modular development. Examples of such activities included basic seat belt assembly, which was a core aspect of the company’s business ve years ago but is now seen as an unnecessary and ill- tting operation within a high technology occupant safety context. There was considerable scope for the transfer of these low value-adding activities to upstream second-tier suppliers; this would allow the company to concentrate on higher value-adding activities and would also allow elements of its supply chain to bene t from the increase in assembly activity. In terms of order winners and quali ers, the company is not exposed to intensive competition and can, to some degree, develop its own quali ers. However, the company is proactive in terms of product development and is at the forefront of developments within its eld. In this regard, it was the rst to develop the in atable curtain (which avoids head injury should a car overturn during a collision) and the in atable carpet (which reduces the incidence of leg and feet injuries by pushing the legs towards the driver during impact). This would suggest that the company is actively looking for order winners and is determined to de ne the way in which occupant safety equipment is developed. The key to this organization’s becoming an e ective module supplier is the need to transfer low value-adding activities to second- or third-tier suppliers. In this regard, a number of activities undertaken within the plant—e.g. basic assembly of seat belt xings—could be transferred to the ‘fringe’ supplier detailed above. This would allow for a greater focus on high value assembly and allow the organization to concentrate on key module assembly operations that add greater value.
6.3 Case 3—‘mature’ supplier The supplier supplies seating modules to a single vehicle manufacturer on a synchronous basis and is part of a Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
526
D DORAN AND R ROOME
global organization that supplies to the majority of volume manufacturers located in the USA, Europe and South-east Asia [22]. The company is involved in design, quality assurance and testing, cutting, sewing, injection moulding, frame manufacture, assembly and delivery on a synchronous basis. This integrated manufacturing system is designed to deliver completed seating systems [front and rear seating, including lumbar supports, head supports, height adjusters, airbags (and associated technology)] within 2 h of receiving an order from its customer. The synchronous supply system means that there is no stock left at the end of each day; seating modules have to be produced right rst time, every time. As a result, reject rates are extremely low, quality is evident in all aspects of the process and supply chain management is an integral part of the quality assurance process. In terms of operations strategies, the supplier employs TQM, JIT, concurrent engineering and cellular manufacture. The company is actively involved in selling module solutions to potential customers, rather than simply producing according to speci cation. In terms of order winners, the ability to o er bespoke synchronous supply is clearly an order winner since it negates the need for a vehicle manufacturer to manage the seating supply chain. Additional order winners centre on the ability to manage the entire seating module supply chain and to provide research and development expertise for future initiatives and innovations. 7
CONCLUSION
Modular supply is calling into question the role of ‘ rsttier’ supplier and is necessitating a reorganization of value creation within supply chains. Of particular importance within such an environment is the need to focus on which activities should be transferred to upstream suppliers ( VAST ) and to determine operations positioning within the emerging modular paradigm. ‘Developing’ and ‘mature’ suppliers are likely to remain rst-tier module suppliers whilst ‘fringe’ suppliers are likely to emerge as VAST suppliers or to leave the market completely. In terms of how modularization will a ect operations strategy, the research presented in this paper suggests that, if rst-tier suppliers wish to position themselves as module suppliers, then the operations function will need to be exible enough to accommodate value transfer as well as exible enough to recon gure resources (perhaps developing the platform planning approach of Robertson and Ulrich [14]) to accommodate a trading environment which will increasingly be characterized by demand instability. To succeed in such an environment, modular suppliers will need to adopt a mixture of operations strategies rather than to concentrate on one particular strategic direction. The issue of buyer–supplier relationships within a modular context Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
seems likely to grow in importance as the trend to integrate modules /systems gains pace. Perhaps research should now concentrate on the potential shift in power from vehicle manufacturers to global modular suppliers and the consequent impact that such a shift may have on buyer–supplier relationships.
REFERENCES 1 Ford, D. The development of the buyer–seller relationships in industrial markets. Eur. J. Marketing, 1998, 14(5/6), 339–353. 2 Lamming, R. The Post-Japanese Model for International Automotive Components Supply, 1988 (MIT International Motor Vehicle Program). 3 Lamming, R. A Review of Relationships Between Vehicle Manufacturers and Suppliers, 1994 (Department of Trade and Industry). 4 Sako, M. Prices, Quality and Trust: Inter-Firm Relations in Britain and Japan, 1992 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). 5 Sako, M. The essence of success in supplier development: the Japanese experience. JAMA Forum, April 1999, 17(2). 6 Hines, P. Purchasing for lean production: the new strategic agenda. Int. J. Purchasing Mater. Managmt, Winter 1996, 31(1), 2–10. 7 Lang eld-Smith, K. and Greenwood, M. Developing co-operative buyer–supplier relationships: a case study of Toyota. J. Managmt Stud., May 1998, 35(3), 331–351. 8 Correa, H. and Miranda, N. Supply network management in the Brazilian automotive industry. Integrated Mfg Systems, 1998, 9(5), 261–271. 9 Spekman, R., Kamau Jr, J. and Myhr, N. An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships. Int. J. Phys. Distribution Logistics Managmt, 1998, 14(3), 66–82. 10 Carbone, J. The system is the thing. Purchasing, February 1999, 60–66. 11 Collins, R., Bechler, K. and Pires, S. Outsourcing in the automotive industry: from JIT to modular consortia. Eur. Managmt J., 1997, 15(5), 498–508. 12 Doran, D. An examination of the impact of Japanese automotive investment upon UK-based component suppliers. PhD thesis, University of Portsmouth Business School, 2000. 13 Carliss, Y., Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B. Managing in the age of modularity. Harvard Business Rev., September– October 1997, 84–93. 14 Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. Planning for product platforms. Sloan Managmt Rev., 1998, 39(4), 19–31. 15 Langlois, R. and Robertson, P. Networks and innovation in a modular system: lessons from the microcomputer and stereo components industries. Res. Policy, 1992, 21, 297–313. 16 Gadde, L. and Jellbo, O. System sourcing—opportunities and problems. In Proceedings of the Tenth IPSERA Conference, Jonkoping, Sweden, 2001. 17 Jarillo, J. On strategic networks. Strategic Managmt J., 1988, 9, 31–41. 18 Gullander, S. E ective partnership in product development D07602 © IMechE 2003
AN EVALUATION OF VALUE-TRANSFER WITHIN A MODULAR SUPPLY CHAIN
in buyer/supplier networks. In Proceedings of the Logistics Research Network Conference, 1997. 19 Casper, S. Automobile supplier network organisation in East Germany: a challenge to the German model of industrial organisation. Ind. Innovation, June 1997, 4(1), 12–19. 20 Farooq, A., Smith, G. and Saker, J. Developing buyer/ supplier relationships in the automobile industry. A study of Jaguar and Nippondenso. Eur. J. Purchasing Supply Managmt, March 1997, 3(1), 20–29.
D07602 © IMechE 2003
527
21 Gadde, L. and Hakansson, H. Supply Network Strategies, 2001 (John Wiley, Chichester). 22 Doran, D. Synchronous supply within an automotive context. Eur. Business Rev., 2001, 13(2), 114–120. 23 Doran, D. Manufacturing for synchronous supply: a case study of Ikeda Hoover Ltd. Integrated Mfg Systems, Int. J. Mfg Technol. Managmt., 2002, 13(1), 18–24. 24 Hill, T. Manufacturing Strategy, 2nd edition, 1993 (Macmillan, London).
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
