Search results

In the process industries, it is essential to have a well-articulated manufacturing strategy within companies. However, to facilitate manufacturing strategy development, it is important to start with a good characterisation of the material transformation system and company production capabilities. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A grounded theory approach, with inspiration from configuration modelling, attempted to characterize the material transformation system as a set of variables. The variable development was based on a literature review and the knowledge base of five industry experts. Two exploratory mini-case studies were carried out, primarily to illustrate the use of the model, but additionally to test its industrial usability.

A set of 31 variables was developed, and related measures and scales were tentatively defined. Two mini-cases supported the usability of the model. The model, focussing on company generic process capabilities, is a conceptual taxonomy and the study’s theoretical contribution.

The lucidity of the definitions and scales for the variables are open to further refinement, and the limited discussions of variable relationships in this study are addressed in an agenda for further research.

The model can be deployed as a facilitative instrument in the analysis of company material transformation systems and may serve as a platform in further discussions on companies’ strategy development.

The model is a new instrument for analysing company generic process capabilities and an effort to build new theory rather than to test an existing one.

This extended editorial viewpoint aims to introduce the individual contributions for this special issue.

The articles included in this special issue are reviewed.

The preliminary synthesis of all articles identifies four different perspectives on this topical area: a corporate strategy perspective, a cross-functional work-process perspective, an outsourcing perspective and a specific Chinese perspective.

Some of the articles in this special issue are of a theoretical character; thus, further empirical research is recommended.

The individual papers present important information, guidelines and frameworks that firms can use in their efforts to bridge the manufacturing – R&D interface.

This special issue focuses on a less-researched topical area and attempts to bridge the disciplines of operations and innovation management.

A robust description of the material transformation system is fundamental for understanding its capabilities and thus for communicating, prioritising and changing the system. Deploying a previously developed configuration model the purpose of this paper is to test the industrial usability of the model as an instrument to gain a better understanding of the material transformation system through externalising the generic production capabilities of the system.

In a multiple case study approach and using a prior conceptual configuration model of the material transformation system in the process industries as a research instrument, company-generic production capabilities were investigated in three companies representing the mineral, food and steel industries.

The empirical results supported the utility of the model as an instrument in providing a coherent set of elements that define operations and thus serve as a platform to model company-generic production capabilities and serve as input to strategizing though implicating needed change to the material transformation system. The theoretical contribution was mainly the empirical validation of the previously developed conceptual model as a tool in knowledge formation of the capabilities of the system and to outline the concept of “production capabilities configuration”.

Three sectors of the process industries were studied but it is recommended that the results should be replicated in complementary case studies or a survey of larger samples from the process industries. Those studies should not only be limited to increase the empirical knowledge base, but possibly to identify additional new variables, further refine the set of variables in the present model and investigate their relationships.

It is argued that the model can already be used as a tool to support both horizontal and vertical communication on production capabilities, thus facilitating, e.g. manufacturing strategy development.

The validated conceptual model supported by the empirical evidence is new knowledge to be used in the analysis of company-generic production capabilities in the process industries.

The purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical insight and practical guidance on how both process firms and equipment manufacturers can address the challenges posed by collaboration during the operational stage of the process technology/equipment life cycle.

Motives and driving forces for entering collaborative projects far from always converge, and while some projects require deep and long‐lasting relationships, others call for pure transactions and arms‐length relationships. The questions of why, when and how collaboration should take place and be organised and managed are addressed and discussed in the light of the literature on technology diffusion and technology transfer, and supplemented by ideas from industry professionals.

A tentative list of potential pros and cons has been compiled to serve as an embryo for further creation of a more complete set of expected outcomes with a view to developing a firm benchmarking instrument for establishing new collaborative relationships. Subsequently, a conceptual model of the full life‐cycle of process technology/equipment is developed to create a platform for determining collaboration intensity and success factors during different phases. Finally, a matrix with the dimensions “type of capability” and “expected performance improvements” is introduced as a tool for selection of different forms of collaboration.

The main limitation is that so far this is only a theoretical framework, but as such it will serve as a new platform and a guide for further empirical studies of this important yet under‐researched area.

This area of technology and innovation management research for the process industries has not been addressed before in depth. The new framework can already be deployed by industry professionals in their efforts to improve inter‐company collaboration and technology transfer, but also as a means of avoiding unintended technology diffusion.

The purpose of the research presented is to analyse and discuss critical challenges related to the development of a production system portfolio.

The study employs a longitudinal case study of an industrialization project at a global supplier in the automotive industry.

This research makes two clear theoretical contributions. First, it extends the existing research on the manufacturing and R&D interface by proposing an innovative structure for production system development facilitating manufacturing companies in their efforts of being fast and cost-effective when introducing new products to the market. Second, this research identifies challenges related to the adoption of a production system portfolio and the necessary actions of a manufacturing company applying such a portfolio strategy.

The findings should be seen as a first attempt at assisting the development of a production system portfolio that matches the product portfolio. However, since the findings are based on only one case, the findings are to some extent context-specific and thus need to be complemented by more research.

The research unveils challenges related to production system development and provides managers with a better understanding of some of the implications of the adoption of a portfolio strategy.

This empirical study is among the first to explore the implications of a production system portfolio strategy. It advances the understanding towards a fully integrated product and production system development.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of challenges related to interfaces in industrial innovation processes, together with suggestions on how these interface challenges can be managed. The paper investigates similarities and differences between the interfaces and identified challenges in terms of required managerial issues.

The result presented in this paper is based on in-depth case studies of ten product development projects from five different manufacturing firms in Sweden. The empirical results are supplemented with results from a review of relevant literature.

To manage the interface challenges market uncertainty, technological uncertainty, product complexity and/or degree of change in product, production complexity and/or degree of change in production, geographical and/or organisational dispersion between technology development and product development, and between product development and production, it was found that several issues have to be considered. Most of the identified managerial issues concern transfer synchronisation, transfer management and transfer scope. The authors have shown that despite many differences between the different phases in the innovation process, a quite concordant picture emerges when it comes to how to manage interface challenges.

The classification of managerial issues into transfer synchronisation, transfer management and transfer scope provides an overview of areas that need to be addressed to manage interface challenges during the industrial innovation process. This knowledge provides some guidance for managers aiming at a smooth transition process, from technology development to production.

By addressing both the interface between technology development and product development, and between product development and production in the same study, the authors have been able to provide a comprehensive overview of managerial issues related to interfaces challenges in industrial innovation processes in manufacturing firms.

In a study of the development of process technology in the process industry, 25 potential success factors were developed and later ranked in a survey to R&D managers in the European process industry. The results show that success factors for process development and product development are different, but also that success factors for process improvement and process innovation are different. For R&D managers in the process industry, the success factors can be used as a “shopping list” for the development of a company‐specific list of success factors for process development. The difference between success factors for process improvement and process innovation indicates that there is a need to better distinguish between process development work of different nature and content.

Operations management and marketing have played important roles in contributing towards an ongoing corporate objective of delivering enhanced customer satisfaction. Focusing on the concept of producibility, this paper aims to explore the potential for developing an inter-disciplinary approach to market centric value delivery.

For its approach, the paper uses a review of the literature and analyses a number of company examples to highlight the benefits of extending design for manufacture and assembly (DMFA) into the operational processes of physical distribution and service support management.

A solution will be an increase in design for manufacturing or producibility engineering. Changes to achieve this will not only reflect the short-term “drivers” of performance, cost and time management but also “industry performance drivers” such as knowledge management, technology management, relationship management, and process management. In the development of an interdisciplinary approach, R&D and design would be a logical candidate for such an integration.

The paper is based on specific examples, but there are general implications as business organisations have been able to increasing levels of sophistication in the processes used to understand the customer and to effect delivery.

The new directions for operations management have practical implications for information communications technology (ICT) as well as the technical capabilities and capacities of production.

By exploring some novel approaches from practice, the paper offers an original perspective from which to deliver enhanced customer satisfaction.