Production systems and supplier selection: a multi-phase process model

Purpose: This paper presents a combined multi-phase supplier selection model. The process repeatedly revisits the criteria and sourcing decision as the development process continues. This enables a structured adoption of product and production system innovation from strategic suppliers, where previously the literature purely focuses on product innovation or cost reduction. Design/methodology/approach: The authors adopted an embedded researcher style, inductive, qualitative case study of an industrial supply cluster comprising a focal automotive company and its interaction with three different strategic stamping suppliers. Findings: Our contribution is the multi-phased production and product innovation process. This is an advance from traditional supplier selection and also an extension of ideas of supplier-located product development as it includes production system development, and complements the literature on working with strategic suppliers. Specifically, we explicitly articulate the previously unreported issue of whether a supplier chosen for its innovation capabilities at the start of the new product development process will also be the most appropriate supplier during the production system development phase, when an ability to work collaboratively may be the most important attribute, or in the large-scale production phase when an ability to manufacture at low unit cost may be most important. Originality/value: The paper identifies a multi-phase approach to tendering within a fixed body of strategic suppliers which seeks to identify the optimum technological and process decisions as well as the traditional supplier sourcing choice. These areas have not been combined before and generate a valuable approach for firms to adopt as well as for researchers to extend our understanding of a highly complex process.

Crowdsourcing User-Contributed Solutions to Aerospace Product Development Issues through Micro-Blogging

Revenue and production output of the United Kingdom’s Aerospace Industry (AI) is growing year on year and the need to develop new products and innovative enhancements to existing ranges is creating a critical need for the increased utilisation and sharing of employee knowledge. The capture of employee knowledge within the UK’s AI is vital if it is to retain its pre-eminent position in the global marketplace. Crowdsourcing, as a collaborative problem solving activity, allows employees to capture explicit knowledge from colleagues and teams and also offers the potential to extract previously unknown tacit knowledge in a less formal virtual environment. By using micro-blogging as a mechanism, a conceptual framework is proposed to illustrate how companies operating in the AI may improve the capture of employee knowledge to address production-related problems through the use of crowdsourcing. Subsequently, the framework has been set against the background of the product development process proposed by Maylor in 1996 and illustrates how micro-blogging may be used to crowdsource ideas and solutions during product development. Initial validation of the proposed framework is reported, using a focus group of 10 key actors from the collaborating organisation, identifying the perceived advantages, disadvantages and concerns of the framework; results indicate that the activity of micro-blogging for crowdsourcing knowledge relating to product development issues would be most beneficial during product conceptualisation due to the requirement for successful innovation.

Accessibility Instrument Survey

This chapter presents the main results of the Accessibility Instrument Survey (AIS), collecting basic information on each of the accessibility instruments reviewed in this report (for more detail on these Instruments see Chapter 3). The aim of the survey was to enable quick, objective and comparable overviews of each of the reviewed accessibility instruments. The information collected will enable the categorization of accessibility instruments present in this research, aiming to be a reference for future categorization of accessibility instruments for planning practice. These categories will support the analysis of the coverage of accessibility instruments in this research, i.e., identify how representative this research is across different accessibility instrument types. In addition, these will be used to analyse the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments. Finally, the survey also collects developer’s perceptions on the usefulness of their accessibility instruments in planning practice, enabling the first insight into the main research question of this COST Action, although limited to the developer’s point of view. In summary, the results of the survey will be used for four purposes: Development of an accessibility instrument sheet for each accessibility instrument summarizing its main characteristics (Appendix A); Identify the coverage of accessibility instrument types present in this research (Section 4.3.1) discussing the representativeness of this Action; Provide a glimpse on the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments (Section 4.3.2); Provide a first insight into the perceived usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice from the point of view of the developer (Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3). The next section provides an overview of the Survey describing the information collected. This section also describes the development process of this survey including data collection, dates and means. The results of the survey are analysed in the third section starting with a discussion on the coverage of accessibility instruments reviewed by this research (Section 4.3.1), identifying accessibility measure types which are represented and which are absent. This discussion is accompanied by the presentation of the main categories of accessibility instruments from the perspective of the end user. These categories try to summarize the main concerns planning practitioners are expected to have when searching for an accessibility instrument and is built upon some of the information collected by the survey. Following, the third section also presents a general analysis of the results (Section 4.3.2), focussing on the dominant characteristics of the accessibility instruments reviewed and on the developer’s perception of the usefulness their instrument will have for end users. The section ends with a brief cross analysis of results (Section 4.3.3) trying to identify relationships between accessibility instrument characteristics and perceptions of usefulness by developers. The fourth and last section presents the main conclusions of this study.