Product architecture, product development process, system integrator and product global performance

References

• Alexander, C. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, C. Y., and K. B. Clark. 2000. Design rules: the power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjaafar, S., M. Sheikhzadeh, and D. Gupta. 1998. “Machine sharing in manufacturing systems: total flexibility versus chaining.” International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 10: 351–378.
   Google Scholar
• Brusco, M. J., and T. R. Johns. 1998. “Staffing a multiskilled workforce with varying levels of productivity: an analysis of cross-training policies.” Decision Sciences 29: 499–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyukozkan, G., and J. Arsenyan. 2012. “Collaborative product development: a literature overview.” Production Planning & Control 23: 47–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., A. J. Vakharia, and A. Alptekinoglu. 2008. “Product portfolio strategies: the case of multifunction products.” Production and Operations Management 17: 587–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, K. B., and T. Fujimoto. 1991. Product development performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, S. T., J. A. Bradley, and A. A. Yassine. 2010. “Analyzing product development task networks to examine organizational change.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57: 513–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai, P., et al. 2001. “Product differentiation and commonality in design: balancing revenue and cost drivers.” Management Science 47: 37–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ethiraj, S. K., and D. Levinthal. 2004. “Modularity and innovation in complex systems.” Management Science 50: 159–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, C. H., B. Golany, and H. Naseraldin. 2005. “Modeling tradeoffs in three-dimensional concurrent engineering: a goal programming approach.” Journal of Operations Management 23: 389–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fixson, S. K. 2005. “Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions.” Journal of Operations Management 23: 345–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fixson, S. K., and J. K. Park. 2008. “The power of integrality: linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure.” Research Policy 37: 1296–1316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujimoto, T. 1999. The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota. NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fujimoto, T. 2004. Japan's manufacturing philosophy. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha.
   Google Scholar
• Gokpinar, B., W. J. Hopp, and S. M. R. Iravani. 2010. “The impact of misalignment of organizational structure and product architecture on quality in complex product development.” Management Science 56: 468–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gourville, J. T., and D. Soman. 2005. “Overchoice and assortment type: when and why variety backfires.” Marketing Science 24: 382–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, P. E., and V. Srinivasan. 1990. “Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice.” Journal of Marketing 54: 3–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin, A., and J. R. Hauser. 1996. “Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis of the literature.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 13: 191–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gungor, A., and S. Gupta. 1997. “An evaluation methodology for disassembly processes.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 33: 329–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, Sj, E. T. Bradlow, and B. Wansink. 1999. “The variety of an assortment.” Marketing Science 18: 527–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopp, W. J., and M. P. Van Oyen. 2004. “Agile workforce evaluation: a framework for cross-training and coordination.” IIE Transactions 36: 919–940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopp, W. J., and X. Xu. 2005. “Product line selection and pricing with modularity in design.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 7: 172–187.
   Google Scholar
• Jiao, J., T. W. Simpson, and Z. Siddique. 2007. “Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the art review.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 18: 5–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, K., and D. Chhajed. 2000. “Commonality in product design: cost saving, valuation change and cannibalization.” European Journal of Operational Research 125: 602–621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, V., and C. H. Loch. 2005. “A retrospective look at production and operations management articles on new product development.” Production and Operations Management 14: 433–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, V., and K. Ramachandran. 2011. “Integrated product architecture and pricing for managing sequential innovation.” Management Science 57: 2040–2053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, V., and K. T. Ulrich. 2001. “Product development decisions: a review of the literature.” Management Science 47: 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liker, J. K. 2004. The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturing. NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, J., et al. 2008. “A dynamic model for managing overlapped iterative product development.” European Journal of Operational Research 185: 378–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C. G., et al. 2010. “Seru seisan – an innovation of production management mode in Japan.” Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 18: 89–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikkola, J. H. 2006. “Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 23: 128–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihm, J. 2010. “Incentives in new product development projects and the role of target costing.” Management Science 56: 1324–1344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netessine, S., and T. A. Taylor. 2007. “Product line design and production technology.” Marketing Science 26: 101–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I. 1990. “Redundant, overlapping organizations: a Japanese approach to managing the innovation process.” California Management Review 32: 27–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I. 1991. “The knowledge-creating company.” Harvard Business Review 69: 96–104 . November–December.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ohno, T. 1988. Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. NY: Productivity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., and W. Beitz. 1996. Engineering design – a systematic approach. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ramachandran, K., and V. Krishnan. 2008. “Design architecture and introduction timing for rapidly improving industrial products.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 10: 149–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramdas, K. 2003. “Managing product variety: an integrative review and research directions.” Production and Operations Management 12: 79–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvador, F., C. Forza, and M. Rungtusanatham. 2002. “Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions.” Journal of Operations Management 20: 549–575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez, R. 1999. “Modular architectures in the marketing process.” Journal of Marketing 63: 92–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shibata, T., M. Yano, and F. Kodama. 2005. “Empirical analysis of evolution of product architecture: Fanuc numerical controllers from 1962 to 1997.” Research Policy 34: 13–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soja, P. 2010. “Understanding determinants of enterprise system adoption success: lessons learned from full-scope projects in manufacturing companies.” Production Planning & Control 21: 736–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stecke, K. E., et al. 2012. “Seru: The organizational extension of JIT for a super-talent factory.” International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences 3: 105–118.
   Google Scholar
• Taleb, K., and S. Gupta. 1997. “Disassembly of multiple product structures.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 32: 949–961.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulku, S., and G. Schmidt. 2011. “Matching product architecture and supply chain configuration.” Production and Operations Management 20: 16–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K. T. 1995. “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firms.” Research Policy 24: 419–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K. T., and S. D. Eppinger. 2008. Product design and development. 4th ed. NY: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Wheelwright, S. C., and K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing product development quantum leaps in speed, efficiency and quality. NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt, D. F., D. C. Wynn, and P. J. Clarkson. 2009. “A computational method to support product architecture design.” In: Proceedings of IMECE2009. FL, USA: Lake Buena Vista.
   Google Scholar
• Yao, J. 2011. “Supply chain scheduling optimisation in mass customisation based on dynamic profit preference and application case study.” Production Planning & Control 22: 690–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, Y., et al. 2011a. Data mining – concepts, methods and applications in management and engineering design. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, Y., C. G. Liu, and I. Kaku. 2011b. “Cooperation and leadership policies in a serial supply chain.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 30: 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, Y., K. E. Stecke, and I. Kaku. 2008. “The evolution of seru production systems throughout Canon.” Operations Management Education Review 2: 27–40.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, G., and R. Gao. 2010. “Modularity and incremental innovation: the roles of design rules and organisational communication.” Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 16: 171–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar