Search results

A novel development process aims at finding solutions for lightweight stiffened shell structures and their efficient production. To respect the strong interdependency of structural design and production planning, particularly observed for composite structures, it is of high interest to start considering production effects in early development phases. This integrated approach requires an integrated representation of structure and production. The purpose of this study is to investigate the scope of relevant data and to find a structure for its representation.

The development task is analyzed and a system of so-called solution dimensions is presented, which covers all important aspects of stiffened shell structures and their production. An integrated product data model is developed to cover all of the solution dimensions.

The product data model consists of five coherent partial models. It is explained how these models are defined and how they are connected to each other. An academic example of an aircraft fuselage panel is used to demonstrate the definition process. It is shown how even complex structural concepts are defined systematically.

It is explained how this integrated product data model is used in a software project for the development of aircraft fuselage structures.

The presented approach for the definition and representation of stiffened shell structures enables the developer, e.g. of aircraft fuselage, to respect the crucial criterion of manufacturability from early development phases on. Further, new design approaches, e.g. as inspired by topology optimization, can be considered.

This paper deals with the organizing of interactive product development. Developing products in interaction between firms may provide benefits in terms of specialization, increased innovation, and possibilities to perform development activities in parallel. However, the differentiation of product development among a number of firms also implies that various dependencies need to be dealt with across firm boundaries. How dependencies may be dealt with across firms is related to how product development is organized. The purpose of the paper is to explore dependencies and how interactive product development may be organized with regard to these dependencies.

The analytical framework is based on the industrial network approach, and deals with the development of products in terms of adaptation and combination of heterogeneous resources. There are dependencies between resources, that is, they are embedded, implying that no resource can be developed in isolation. The characteristics of and dependencies related to four main categories of resources (products, production facilities, business units and business relationships) provide a basis for analyzing the organizing of interactive product development.

Three in-depth case studies are used to explore the organizing of interactive product development with regard to dependencies. The first two cases are based on the development of the electrical system and the seats for Volvo’s large car platform (P2), performed in interaction with Delphi and Lear respectively. The third case is based on the interaction between Scania and Dayco/DFC Tech for the development of various pipes and hoses for a new truck model.

The analysis is focused on what different dependencies the firms considered and dealt with, and how product development was organized with regard to these dependencies. It is concluded that there is a complex and dynamic pattern of dependencies that reaches far beyond the developed product as well as beyond individual business units. To deal with these dependencies, development may be organized in teams where several business units are represented. This enables interaction between different business units’ resource collections, which is important for resource adaptation as well as for innovation. The delimiting and relating functions of the team boundary are elaborated upon and it is argued that also teams may be regarded as actors. It is also concluded that a modular product structure may entail a modular organization with regard to the teams, though, interaction between business units and teams is needed. A strong connection between the technical structure and the organizational structure is identified and it is concluded that policies regarding the technical structure (e.g. concerning “carry-over”) cannot be separated from the management of the organizational structure (e.g. the supplier structure). The organizing of product development is in itself a complex and dynamic task that needs to be subject to interaction between business units.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Although it is often posited that quality circles are an instrument for improving both efficiency and quality of working life, little systematic research has been done. In 1985 therefore, the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment initiated a research study. Describes the results of this study in seven Dutch organizations about the effect of quality circles on the quality of working life. First presents an analytic model in which the main assumption is that the structure of the production process can be considered as an important contingency for the success of quality circles. Next, examines seven cases of Dutch quality‐circle programmes. These programmes are analysed using the above mentioned framework. One of the main overall conclusions is that whether quality circles are a means to improve the quality of working life or not is, among other factors, determined largely by the characteristics of the production structure. Therefore, more attention should be focused on the given production structure of organizations whenever quality circles are initiated.

The Dutch version of sociotechnical systems design called “modern sociotechnology” stresses that the quality of working life is dependent on the choice for a certain “production structure”, i.e. the physical layout of operations. Two propositions about this relationship are derived from modern sociotechnology, and tested on a sample of Dutch textile companies. No empirical support is found for the propositions. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Co‐ordination of the activities of production units is necessary to realise the required delivery performance in the market. These should not conflict with reaching the production economics objectives of each of the units. Production structure is needed to reduce the complexity and should minimise the loss of potential flexibility. Any structure will have some elements in common — the definition of basic elements (e.g. capacities) as a first step in production control structure design; the introduction of product units and the decomposition of the total production control to Goods Flow Control and Production Unit Control; the relationship of sales and manufacturing and the interference of products and capacities as two main determining factors of the Goods Flow Control structure. The generality of these elements means it is possible to develop a small but relatively complete set of reference structures. A reference structure for Goods Flow Control in a repetitive manufacturing situation is discussed. Its main elements are master planning, material co‐ordination, workload control and work order release.

A comprehensive review of the literature for the problem of lot‐size scheduling (serial and assembly) considering the uncapacitated problem and complicated capacitated assembly manufacturing structure. Analyses the different solution techniques and findings for each product set.

Lester and Wolff (2013) find little empirical support for the Austrian business cycle theory. According to their analysis, an unexpected monetary shock does not alter the structure of production in a way consistent with the Austrian view. Rather than increasing production in early and late stages relative to middle stages, they find the opposite – a positive monetary shock typically decreases production in early and late stages relative to middle stages. We argue that the measures of production and prices employed by Lester and Wolff (2013) are constructed in such a way that makes them inappropriate for assessing the empirical relevance of the Austrian business cycle theory’s unique features. After describing how these measures are constructed and why using ratios of stages is problematic, we use a structural vector autoregression to consider the effects of a monetary shock on each stage of the production process. We show that, with a clearer understanding of what is actually being measured by the stage of process data, the results are consistent with (but not exclusive to) the Austrian view.