Abstract
The previous chapter has shown that currently there is no concept or tool in the field of complexity management that satisfies all five criteria of Section 3.1 (strategic aspects, market aspects, product architecture, quantification of complexity, and applicability in an industry setting). This chapter presents a model that attempts to combine all of these issues. It is obvious, therefore, that the five criteria will be drawn upon at a later stage of this work to assess the complexity management model presented here. The model’s focus is on products and their architectures and, thus, is always applied to a particular product (or close-knit product families), but never to an entire product portfolio, an enterprise, or some other organizational unit.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A study by Miller and Dess (1993, pp. 553–554) found that between 1986 and 1990, half of all manuscripts published in the Strategic Management Journal referenced Porter’s (1980) work.
It can be argued whether a firm should exploit several aspects of differentiation, as Porter (1980, p. 37) argued. In certain cases it is more appropriate to concentrate the firm’s resources on one or two dimensions of differentiation.
Similarly, Piller (2003, p. 213) reasoned that cost leadership is based on special structural preconditions of the producer (such as efficient fabrication systems), while differentiation is driven by market aspects.
White (1986, p. 230) introduced the two concepts of either combining differentiation and cost leadership simultaneously or giving sequential attention to both strategies.
The objective of the PIMS (profit impact of market strategies) program is to investigate the factors that are decisive for sustained success of SBUs. PIMS data are based on more than 3000 SBUs, collected over several years. Eight factors were identified that are strongly related to and very important for a business’ profitability (Seiler, 2000b, pp. 301–302).
According to Porter (1996, p. 62), the best possible trade-off can be determined by investigating existing best practices.
The graphic in Figure 4.6 is derived from Porter (1996, p. 62). In the original version, the ordinate is labeled “nonprice buyer value delivered.”
As an example, Lampel and Mintzberg (1996, p. 28) mentioned that we do not generally bargain over price with our medical doctors.
Seiler (2000a, pp. 200–201) differentiated between the core product, the formal product (packaging, quality, styling, product characteristics, etc.), and the extended product (installation, service, warranty, free delivery, etc.). This classification is similar to Kotier and Keller’s (2006, pp. 372–373), who introduced a hierarchy of five levels: core benefit, basic product, expected product, augmented product, and potential product. Kotier and Keller’s typology, in turn, is based on Levitt (1980).
See Kotler and Keller (2006, p. 323) for depictions of the three alternate patterns and the three special categories, respectively.
See Kotier and Keller (2006, p. 331) for a brief critique of the PLC concept.
As an example of handling product variety, Sekolec (2005, p. 30) mentioned the introduction of computer aided selling (CAS) and product configurators.
The graphics are based on the following sources: “generic strategies,” Porter (1980, p. 39); “customization vs. standardization,” Schuh and Schwenk (2001, p. 62); “hybrid strategies,” Miller and Dess (1993, p. 565); “product life cycle,” Kotier and Keller (2006, p. 322).
The functions and percentages are based on Tanaka (1989, pp. 62–65).
The graphic is based on Rapp’s (1999, p. 38) visualization of product structures.
Browning (2001, p. 293) reported that the DSM has found applications in the building construction, semiconductor, automotive, photographic, aerospace, telecom, small-scale manufacturing, factory equipment, and electronics industries. The correlation matrix (the “roof”) of the QFD matrix (see Figures 3.4 and 3.5) exhibits the same principles as the DSM. Pimmler and Eppinger (1994) used the DSM to identify interactions between components and cluster them into major chunks. Also by means of the DSM, Baldwin and Clark (1999) analyzed the influence of design parameters and product attributes on each other and on the production process.
Decoupled interfaces allow for changing one component while eliminating the need for also altering the other component. Contrary to that, two components share coupled interfaces if a change made to one component necessitates changing the other component, too (Ulrich, 1995, p. 423). See boxed example below.
Monofunctional interfaces are encountered more frequently in practice than multifunctional interfaces. An example of a monofunctional interface is an automobile’s cylinder block. Many different cylinder heads can be connected to the block, but to function properly, a cylinder head (and no other component) must always be attached to the block (Rapp, 1999, pp. 34–35).
A socket can handle a large variety of different appliances, such as a TV set, lamp, drill, etc. Drawers, shelves, cupboards, etc. can be connected to the vertical rods of a book shelf system by the same interface (Rapp, 1999, p. 35). USB interfaces are another example of multifunctional interfaces.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Complexity Management Model. In: Complexity Management. DUV. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-5435-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-5435-6_4
Publisher Name: DUV
Print ISBN: 978-3-8350-0866-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-8350-5435-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)