A typology of interfaces between new product development and production

Transcription

1 A typology of interfaces between new product development and production Frido E. Smulders 1, Harry Boer 2, Poul H.K. Hansen 2, Ebbe Gubi 2, Kees Dorst 3 Abstract This paper describes and illustrates a typology of interfaces between new product development and production processes, including both intra-firm and inter-firm interfaces. The typology will serve as a basis for further research aimed at identifying consistent configurations of the many different types of integration mechanisms that are available for industry to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of product innovation processes. Introduction During the last two decades various interconnected trends have emerged, which have had and will continue to have serious implications for the texture of industry. The trends that are important for the argument developed in this paper, include: A (further) move from vertically integrated companies to core business driven companies (specialists in a limited number of functions) collaborating in supply chains and networks. From management in the hierarchy (hierarchical control) to increased 'managerial control' of and by partners in the market place (market control). From collocated collaboration on-site to dispersed collaboration between sites, other companies or even competitors. From few to many essentially different partners. In other words, the scene has changed from a relatively simple industrial texture to an increasingly complex one. The implications of these trends are many. The most interesting ones for the research presented here is that it is no longer within the hierarchy that the (communication on the) interface between functions involved in product innovation (e.g. marketing, product development, production development, production, distribution) takes place. Rather, the communication on and the management of the interfaces move to the increasingly complex market of (possible) partners, i.e. suppliers and customers. At the same time, however, the increasing performance demands that follow from increasing demands from the end users of products (functionality, price, speed, variety) require collaboration if not integration of the specialists collaborating in supply chains and networks. The core hypothesis following from the above is that these trends must have serious impact on the process, technologies, organisation and management of the interfaces between partners offering the marketing, product development, process development, production and distribution services that, together, are needed to initiate, develop, produce and bring to the market place, new products. 1 Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 2 Aalborg University, Denmark 3 Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands 4 In this paper, will be referred to as the process that leads to the creation of product and process 2 Aalborg University, Denmark 3 Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands - 1

2 However, much will depend on the configuration of the collaboration between partners. It is for this reason that this paper aims at developing a typology of interfaces. This typology will serve as a basis for further research aimed at identifying consistent configurations of the many different types of integration mechanisms that are available for industry to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of product innovation processes. In order to reduce the complexity of the research, we decided to focus on the interface between new product development 4 () and production. Another factor that helps us to reduce the complexity is that we will only focus on new or customised, not standard, parts, components, subassemblies or products, which have to go through some sort of development cycle in order to fit the requirements as been formulated for the new product. The reason for looking at this interface is that the quality of the -process is largely a function of the implementation of the results within the production. Poor implementation means that the product and process descriptions has delivered are not yet finished or too poor for production to actually start producing the new or customised design. Boer and During (2001) have found that companies tend to overlook the organisational adaptations required to successfully develop, produce and launch innovations. This was found in all three different types of innovation processes they included in their research, i.e. product innovation, process innovation and organisational innovation. This misfit in perception regarding the necessary adaptations is one of the symptoms that call for a better understanding of innovation processes, including the interfaces between various essentially different types of activity, such as and production. A term that seems to be a variation on the term product innovation is integrated product development (Buijs and Valkenburg 2000, Andreasen and Hein 2000). Andreasen and Hein have an explicit motivation for this. Product development cannot be carried out in the best possible way if it is allowed to disintegrate into different areas of specialisation, areas of activity or areas of responsibility (Andreasen and Hein 2000, p. 2). In other words, their choice for integrated product development is to stress the integration of different elements during the product innovation process. In this paper we will use the more overall term product innovation, and discuss some integration mechanisms. In order to find our way within this complex environment of interfaces, we need to create an overall picture of these different types of interfaces. In fact, a typology of interfaces that could serve as a more generic umbrella for the research projects in this area, including the ones that we are currently involved in (see Appendix). We will do this by making use of two generic system perspectives, i.e. the process view and structural view of the product innovation process. The structural view of product innovation provides a description of the organisational units involved. The process view provides a description of the set of activities needed to produce a specific output. It implies a strong emphasis on how work is done, in contrast to who is doing the work. To complete the picture we additionally need to address the question of what is being done. This could be regarded as a separate, content view. In this paper, however, we will approach this view as an interface combining the structural and process views. In the next two sections we will introduce the process and structural views. Then we shall combine the two views into a comprehensive framework and introduce the notion of task as the interface between the two views. An example will illustrate some of our current thinking. Next, we provide an overview of integration mechanisms that companies could use to configure the 4 In this paper, will be referred to as the process that leads to the creation of product and process descriptions. is the process transforming these descriptions into physical products and delivering them to the market. - 2

3 - production interfaces so that they contribute to the success of their product innovation processes. The paper is concluded with some implications for further research. Process view of product innovation The notion of processes has gained significant attention in the past years due to the managerial focus on Business Process Reengineering (Davenport 1993). To create a process structure for we need to come up with a generic division of activities that together make up for the process structure. In the field of product innovation studies the process of innovation is in its broadest conceptualisation believed to embrace periods of design and development, adoption, implementation, and diffusion (Slappendel 1996). These periods of activities more or less cover the product innovation process, however these are too generic. We have found many other process descriptions by different authors. Although most of these models describe quite similar phases around the actual development of the product, many of them include different phases at the beginning and the end of the product innovation process. Some of them include strategic processes like strategic planning (Archer 1971), strategy formulation and policy making (Roozenburg and Eekels 1994), direction setting (Buijs and Valkenburg 2001), and vision building and strategic analysis (Smulders et al. 1996) at the beginning of product innovation. At the end of the process authors include phases like launch (Cooper 1993), production and sales (Andreasen and Hein 2000), market introduction (Smulders et al. 1996), commercialisation (Arthur D. Little 1995), ramp up and production (Ulrich and Eppinger 1995) and distribution, sales and use (Roozenburg and Eekels 1994). In this paper we will consider the product innovation process as one single process initiated by an idea and ending with a specific product ready to be delivered at the market. We will not include the use of the product by the customer, nor the strategic phase often referred to as fuzzy front end. Following this delimitation the process can be divided in into five generic phases: Concept Development, Product Development, Preparation,, and Delivery (see Figure 1). This means that the object of innovation will gradually change over time. Of course, each of these overall phases can be broken down into several sub-processes. sub-process Operational sub-processes Concept development Product development preparation Delivering Figure 1 Process structure of the product innovation process. In reality, innovation processes are highly unlikely to evolve according this neat, linear and sequential model. The real process will be a more simultaneous and iterative way of going through the various stages. However, all stages will somehow have to be addressed during the product innovation process. Structural view on product innovation There is a multitude of relationships between and production. It is not longer the case that companies just have an in-house department that has to collaborate with the in-house production. There are many more configurations at hand in terms of e.g. early involvement of - 3

4 customers within the processes, co-design with first tier suppliers, etc. All these different forms of involvement from external partners create different types of interfaces with different patterns of interactions across the interface. In order to find our way within this complex environment, we need to create an overall picture of the different types of interfaces. In this section we will describe our first idea of a typology for interfaces that can exist between the -process and production. We will categorise these interfaces by two viewpoints: The number of different legal entities involved. The lead partner and supply partner on each side of the interface. There are a few reasons for choosing these two viewpoints. Firstly, we want to create insight into the force field that is present around the (interface between the) and the production processes. One element that is an indication for this force field is the legal structure around the product innovation process. The simple fact that more than one legal entity is involved when we have suppliers taking part in the product innovation process may have substantial influence on the interface between and production. Even if the involvement of the supplier is limited to the -process itself only, i.e. they deliver to the customer the design solutions asked for and stop their involvement, this could still influence the interactions between the customer s process and production. A second factor that influences the force field and, through that, the interface, is the party who is initiating the outsourcing of work to another party (inside or outside). We will address this party as the lead partner and the party on the other side the supply partner. The positions of the two partners, relative to each other, may affect the specific form of the interface between and production. In the case of an inter-firm partnership, the customer is of course in the lead, at least initially. His formal power may in fact turn out to be much lower than in an intra-firm relationship in which hierarchy, rather than market mechanisms, determines who is actually in the lead. A typology of production interfaces If we apply the two elements (legal entities, lead versus supply partner) to the cases we have seen in previous and ongoing studies in which we have been involved, we get four different types of lead partners (see Table 1) on one axis. On the other axis we identified 4 possible configurations of supply partners that play a role in the interface between the and the production process. This makes a 4 x 4 matrix with 16 possible variants. Only 12 out of these 16 variants are relevant in the paper. Each of these 12 variants will be discussed and illustrated. We realise that within one product innovation process more than one interface type is possible. Therefore the reader needs to keep in mind that the variants discussed are possible organisational structures regarding the development and/or production of new or customised, not standard, parts, components, subassemblies or products. Lead partner type 1: Lead partner has and production This type of lead partners, with in-house and in-house production, is still much around in business. This does not necessarily mean though that they are fully integrated companies. In fact, we think that very few companies are left that do not do any outsourcing of (part of) or (part of) production. This also the only configuration that has an internal as well as an external interface between and production. In this paper we will not illustrate the internal interface. - 4

5 Lead partner 1 Supply partner(s): supplies (part of)... A B C D production and production (one supplier) and production (more suppliers) 2 not relevant in this paper 3 not relevant in this paper 4 not relevant in this paper not relevant in this paper Table 1 Supplier involvement regarding components and/or sub-assemblies. Interface type 1A: o Components/parts that are developed in-house and produced out-house o Interface /production within two legal entities The lead partner makes the specifications, drawings and maybe even a prototype of components. A supply partner will do the full production of these components according those specs. There are many examples of this variant: metal body parts of cars, injection mould covers for televisions, microprocessors, mechanical subassemblies, etc. Interface type 1B: o Components/parts that are developed out-house and produced in-house o Interface /production within two legal entities In this configuration part of the design, e.g. the outer appearances of the new product, is outsourced to a (famous) designer. Examples of this are the body designs of cars by e.g. Pinifarina, Bertone, or Alessi s link with Philips. This could also concern other parts of the product like FEM-calculations or the development of a gearbox. Of course more then one - 5

6 supplier can be involved in the development, each developing different parts. However the lead partner does the integration of all these parts. Interface type 1C: o Components/parts that are developed out-house and produced out-house o Interface /production within two legal entities This variant occurs when the lead partner orders from same supply partner the development as well as the production of a specific component. In most cases such a supply partner has specific knowledge that is not present at the lead partner. E.g. the development and production of optical lenses for theatre lighting or the break system of cars. This interface becomes more complex if the lead partner has two of such suppliers that have to collaborate during their respective development processes. E.g. one that supplies the lenses and another one that supplies the reflector of the same lamp. Interface type 1D: o Components/parts that are developed out-house (supplier X) and produced outhouse (supplier Y) o Interface /production within three legal entities The development of specific components is outsourced to supplier X. The production of that same component is outsourced to another supplier, Y. E.g. the design of a television set is done by a famous designer (supplier X) and produced by an injection moulding company (supplier Y). Lead partner type 2: Lead partner only has production and no The lead companies in this case are very much oriented to production. They cannot develop new products themselves but need design companies to do that for them. It might be so that those companies in earlier days produced their own products. However, the increased complexity of technologies and increased market demands made it necessary to either create a -department, thus becoming a lead partner type 1, or outsource the development. Even possible that more then one supplier is involved in order to develop the complete product. Question then is, who is responsible for the integration of the various parts, since the knowledge for doing so might not be present at the lead partner (there is no ). Interface type 2A, outsourcing of production, misses the interface with and is therefore outside the scope of this paper. Interface type 2B: o Components/parts that are developed out-house and produced in-house o Interface -production within two legal entities The development of (part of) the new product is outsourced. As already mentioned, the involvement of more than one supplier in the development of the product raises the question of integration. However, we know of companies that outsource the concept development and after that also outsource to a different supplier the engineering of all components. In such a case there will be two (or more) suppliers involved in the part. We also know of companies in e.g. the biking business, which outsource the development of mudguards, chain guards, lamps etc. takes place at the lead partner. These products are sold to the bicycle industry for first fitting on new bikes and to retailers for second fitting. - 6

7 Interface type 2C: o Components/parts that are developed out-house and produced in- and out-house o Interface -production within two legal entities This interface type is expected to often go together with type 2B. E.g. the product is developed by a design agency. However some components need additional development by another supplier who also produces that component and delivers it to the lead partner. Let us consider again a company that produces lamps for bikes as a lead partner. They demand a design of a new lamp by a design agency, which comes up with a new lamp that has an electronic component. Neither the agency nor the lead partner has enough knowledge on this technology and the lead partner is also not able to produce the component. The lead partner asks a supplier of type 2C to do additional development and produce the lamp. The assembly will be in the production line of the lead partner. Interface type 2D: o Components/parts that are developed in- and out-house and produced out-house o Interface /production within three legal entities Here we have the situation that product development is outsourced to company X and part of the production of that newly developed product is again outsourced to company Y. The other part is done by the lead partner. If e.g. the lead partner is very good at injection moulding, but also needs for a certain product a customised metal component or sub-assembly, then they need to outsource that to another supplier (Y). Lead partner type 3: Lead partner only has and no production Lead partners like these could be (large) engineering, design or trading companies that are able to do the development of new products. They do not have any production, other than maybe a prototype shop. All production must be outsourced according to their specifications. Another possibility is that they outsource part of the (e.g. engineering, concept, etc.). They might have a shipping department. Interface type 3B, outsourcing of, misses the interface with production regarding the outsourced component and is therefore outside the scope of this paper. If part of is outsourced, then type 3C and 3D are possible interface types. Interface type 3A: o Components/parts that are developed in-house and produced out-house o Interface /production within two legal entities In this situation the lead partner sends the drawings, bill of materials and other relevant information to the supplier that will produce the component, sub-assembly or product. E.g. a design agency comes up with the design of a (computer) cable roll-up device that shortens the hanging cables and wires in a simple way. They outsource the production and assembly to the same supplier and let them ship it directly to the retailers. Or a lead partner that develops household appliances and let them produce in China. Interface type 3C: o Components/parts that are developed in- and out-house and produced out-house - 7

8 o Interface /production within two legal entities The lead partner in this situation outsources part of the and the production of a component, sub-assembly or complete product to one and the same supplier. In the above-mentioned example of the cable roll-up device, not only production is outsourced to the same supplier but also the engineering. Another example is the combination of this interface with type 3A, in which e.g. an electronic component and the rest of the production including the assembly, is outsourced to another supplier. Interface type 3D: o Components/parts that are developed in- and out-house and produced out-house by two (or more) suppliers o Interface /production within three (or more) legal entities Here, the lead partner outsources the of a component or subassembly to supplier X and the production of that same element to supplier Y. Consider the situation that the lead partner is a company that is brand owner a furniture line. Because they are brand owners, they do the conceptual development of new products. Then they outsource the engineering to a specialised engineering company, while the production of that new product is outsourced to another supplier. Lead partner type 4: Lead partner has no and no production Type 4 lead partners are typically brand owners and trading companies. They have to outsource both and production and therefore to orchestrate all product innovation activities across company borders. Interface type 4C: o Components/parts that are developed out-house and produced out-house by the same supplier o Interface -production within one legal entity Here the lead partner sources out the development and production of a component, sub-assembly or complete product to one supplier. If this supplier is the only supplier, then he develops and produces the complete product under the brand name of the lead partner. When there are more suppliers, e.g. interface type 4B, then this supplier might develop and produce a component or sub-assembly to fit in the end product. Interface type 4D: o Components/parts that are developed out-house and produced out-house by two (or more) different suppliers o Interface -production within three (or more) legal entities This interface type concerns the outsourcing of a component, sub-assembly or product to two different suppliers. One that develops the part and the other one to produce it. An example is a lead partner in the childcare business. They bring on the market all kind of products to carry and transport babies. For every product in their portfolio, they select a design agency and a separate supplier for production. Discussion Although the division in different types of interfaces may seem somehow theoretical, for all of - 8

9 these types mentioned we found one or more real life examples. Of course, some of these types occur quite frequently while other types are much more rare. In future research we want to find out what contingencies influence successful co-ordination of the tasks at hand for each of these interfaces. In the next section we will combine the process and the structural views on product innovation to support that research. Combining the structural and the process view By combining the structural and the process view we can further classify the interfaces in a matrix like framework (see Table 2). Phases Interface type Concept development Product development preparation Delivery 1A 1B 4D Table 2 A matrix of generic phases and interface types. The relationship between the structure and the process is effectuated via tasks. Tasks define what has to be done, e.g. in terms of external requirements and conditions, internal constraints and specified objectives. Starting with the overall strategic task of the enterprise, i.e. its mission, we may develop a structure of tasks and sub-tasks. A task will be carried out in one structural unit but will depend on other tasks in other structural units. Furthermore, in order to realise a given task, a series of activities is required. Thus, tasks relate activities to structural units. The link between two tasks and a specific relationship with a chain of activities constitutes the interface, see Figure 2. In the particular case the supply partner is involved in the product development process and two interfaces have been identified: 1. Interface 1 describes the portfolio of efforts related to task 1 at the lead partner and task 3 at the supply partner according to the concept development phase. 2. Interface 2 describes the portfolio of efforts related to task 1 at the lead partner and task 3 at the supply partner according to the product design phase. - 9

10 Figure 2 Schematic illustration of the combined process and structural view specifying the interfaces. Example of managing the production interface with involvement of suppliers Company I develops and manufactures audio and video equipment. For a number of years the company had focused on defining core competencies and outsourcing parts of the traditional production. This led to a significant increase in the efficiency of the whole supply chain. Following the success within production of components the company considered applying similar methods in new product development. This included outsourcing of both the development and the production of components. The final assembly would still to be done internally. In the automotive industry, this approach has proven to be successful but the batch sizes in company I were much smaller. For some years, the company had outsourced part of the software development but the experiences were not very satisfactory. Some of the internal software people pointed to the role of ownership as the problematic part. It was felt difficult to create this feeling of ownership with the software suppliers. Considering these experiences the company defined a new approach in the product development process. The initial concept development was done internally. As soon as top management approved the concept the involvement of pre-selected partners were initiated. This phase was named the architectural phase. During this phase the product specifications are defined only loosely and mainly qualitatively. The focus is on defining the modules and, in particular, the interfaces between them. The architectural phase is split into five smaller phases: 1) involvement of partners, 2) development of modules and interfaces I, 3) evaluation, 4) development of modules and - 10

11 interfaces II, and 5) evaluation and accept. In each of the development phases at least three alternatives are required. During the evaluation phases the different stakeholders (assembly, service, purchasing, logistics, quality assurance, test, etc.) are confronted with the alternative solutions. The fact that the solutions are physical and that there are alternatives, makes it possible for the stakeholders to comment on and assess the different solutions. After the final acceptance of the architecture the traditional product development process begin. During this process the different partners formulate and negotiate specifications. Each partner is responsible for defining their own specifications regarding their part(s) or component of the final product. By doing so, the amount of ownership of these specifications and amount of responsibility regarding these parts or components is increased substantially. The first attempt to organise the process this way was a product with 10 well-defined modules, three of which were fully developed by external partners. External partners produced seven of the modules. The product could be assembled manually with no need to use of any specialised tools. Company I is so convinced about the power and the way of handling the architectural phase that they have launched a training program aiming at training a new category of employees: product architects. A new project has recently been launched within the core products of Company I. This project is to follow the same principles as the one reported above. By doing this, the company can increase the capacity of their product development function and thereby add more features for customisation. Configurations of interfaces and integration mechanisms The objective of this paper was to propose a typology of interfaces that would provide a basis for further research aimed at identifying consistent configurations of the many different types of integration mechanisms that are available for industry to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of product innovation processes. The case study of company I is just one example of the many different configurations of and production interfaces that companies may consider to increase the success of their product innovation processes. Furthermore, the case study shows a few of the many mechanisms that are theoretically available to achieve an efficient and effective level of co-ordination or even integration on these interfaces. The present section proposes a typology of integration mechanisms that may be used in research projects aimed at identifying and explaining configurations of interfaces and integration mechanisms that appear to enhance the success of product innovation processes. Some of these projects will be briefly described in the final section of this paper. The simplest form of an interface element is based on informal communication between the partners. However, as process, structures and tasks become more complex, these informal contacts often become insufficient, and consequently they must be supplemented by other, integration mechanisms, including more formal ones. Organisation theory offers part of a classification of co-ordination mechanisms. Of particular relevance are publications by Galbraith (1973) and Mintzberg (1979). However, according to Paashuis and Boer (1997) there is also a range of non-organisational mechanisms that may serve to achieve co-ordination and integration across interfaces, both on the intra-firm and the interfirm levels of product innovation processes. These authors propose four categories of mechanisms namely: integration by strategic, process, technological and organisational integration, which can be understood as follows. - 11

12 Integration by strategy Goals and strategies serve several purposes. The selection of specific goals and strategies to achieve these goals, has considerable consequences. Two issue (ought to) have great impact on the design of processes, technologies and organisational arrangements, namely: The choice of product-market combinations. The role companies want to play in the market place, both individually and collaboratively, through the qualifying criteria that govern the market and decisions regarding the intentions to win orders in the market, Furthermore, goals give a sense of direction to employees, motivate them, act as guidelines for decision-making, and provide a standard for assessment. If well and unambiguously communicated, goals and strategies have great co-ordinating influence on the behaviour of (groups of) employees. Without at least a common sense of direction, it is essentially impossible to know whether current projects are performed effectively, i.e. contribute to the individual companies' and indeed the supply chain's or network's strategy. And similarly, if no or conflicting goals and strategies have been established, it will be impossible to determine the most suitable configuration of activities, technologies and organisational arrangements, both within and on the interface between firms. Integration by process Perhaps the most important and certainly the least understood "mechanism" of improving performance is re-designing the design process itself, so that it is intrinsically optimised. Related to business process re-engineering, this involves eliminating activities that do not add value, and simplifying and, if possible, integrating (also organisationally) or even automating (technologically) remaining activities. Research aimed at understanding the process of is relatively recent and the dynamic, relatively unpredictable and pulse-like (rather than flow-like) character of the process (Verganti 1994) does not make the process easy to understand and (re-) design. Integration efforts will have to be primarily directed at activities or functions that have a major impact on the goals which are set (e.g. in terms of time and cost), because in most processes it will not be feasible to integrate all activities or functions. This contrasts with some of the CE management literature, which suggests that all activities should be integrated, rather than just those activities that have a major impact on the attainment of goals. Integration by technology Technology consists of the knowledge, experience, skills, methods, techniques, tools, machines and equipment people in organisations use to perform their task. The wide range of technologies used in organisations can be divided into three broad categories, namely: "humanware", software and hardware. Given these categories, there are several ways of achieving technological integration. "Humanware" concerns the knowledge, experience, skills, not only in a technical sense, but also including the social and managerial skills (e.g. communication, leadership, decision making, project management), that people use to do their job. Important "humanware"-related aspects that affect integration appear to be associated with people's: (Predominantly technical) knowledge of upstream and downstream activities. - 12

13 Social and managerial skills. Attitude towards cross-functional co-operation collaboration and communication. Important mechanisms contributing to the designers performing their own task more effectively (i.e. first-time-right in less time) are: Formal training. Training-on-the-job. Job rotation (e.g. designers working on the shop floor, for a while) Learning by 'just' (starting to) working together. Management not only committing itself, but really involving itself and setting the example. Software technologies are the methods, work practices, procedures, either automated, in the form of computer software, or not, that people use to perform their task. Some design technologies, especially the applications of information or communication technology, are integrating in themselves, for example computer-aided design (CAD), computer aided process planning (CAPP) and CAD/computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM); engineering databases (EDB) and electronic data interchange (EDI). Other applications, such as teleconferencing, support the communication between people working on different locations, but are still very much in their infancy. Yet other not necessarily automated technologies in this category, such as quality function deployment (QFD), force design and marketing to collaborate if the techniques are to be applied to their full potential. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and the whole range of Design for... (Df ) approaches basically do the same for the interfaces between design, manufacturing and assembly. Hardware technology includes tools, machines, computers, handling devices and many other pieces of equipment. In the case of product design, hardware in the form of computers and communication linkages is the medium that enables the use of some of the software applications mentioned before. In a dispersed environment, hardware and software technologies (ICT) are likely to play a key role to facilitate communication on the interfaces between partners. Integration by organisation This refers to the use of suitable organisational arrangements, i.e. the more or less durable, formal and informal, structural and cultural arrangements organisations use to divide and co-ordinate labour. The following, not necessarily exhaustive, list provides a continuum of horizontal linkages, ranging from informal to formal, temporary to permanent, and process-oriented (grouping by function) to product-oriented (grouping by output), ways of linking (groups of) people (e.g. Galbraith 1973): Standardisation and formalisation, i.e. integration through e.g. paper work. Direct, face-to-face communication. Liaison roles. Task forces and project teams. Matrix structure. Secondment. Co-location. Self-contained groups. Role combination. Whereas these alternatives may all be feasible within the firm, some of them are less likely to contribute much to in dispersed. The most likely candidates worth considering to support - 13

14 communication between companies are standardisation, liaison roles and secondment. Summary and conclusion The typology of - production interfaces proposed in this paper combines structural and process views on product innovation and uses the concept of task to combine the two. Twelve relevant interfaces between and production were identified. Furthermore, the paper describes a classification of integration mechanisms. We are using this work and will continue to do so, in research aimed at identifying consistent configurations of interfaces and integration mechanisms. That is, different configurations of different types of integration mechanisms that fit to the different - production (and also - ) interfaces in such a way that the 'sum-total' effectively contributes to the success of product innovation processes. An aspect that has so far not been included in our research is the role of contingencies (other than the type of interface involved). Future research will be aimed at finding out what contingencies influence successful co-ordination of the tasks at hand for each of these interfaces. References Andreasen, M.M. and Hein, L. (2000), Integrated product development, Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark. Arthur D. Little (1995), Best of the Best - Colloquia Series, Wiesbaden. Archer, L.B. (1971), Technological innovation: a methodology, Frimley: Inforlink. Boer, H. and W.E. During (2001), Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process and organizational innovation, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 22, Nos. 1-3, pp Buijs, J.A., and R. Valkenburg (2000), Integrale productontwikkeling, Utrecht: Lemma. Cooper, R.G. (1993), Winning at new products: Accelerating the process from idea to launch, Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley. Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process innovation Reengineering work through information technology, Cambridge (MA): Harvard Business School Press. Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing complex organizations, Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley. Mintzberg, H. (1979), The structuring of organizations, Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall. Paashuis, V. and H. Boer (1997), Organizing for concurrent engineering: an integration mechanism framework, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp Roozenburg, N.F.M. and J. Eekels (1995), Product design: Fundamentals and methods, Chicester, John Wiley & Sons. Slappendel, C. (1996), Perspectives on innovation in organizations, Organization Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp Smulders, F.E.H.M., L. de Caluwé and O. van Nieuwenhuizen, (2001), Last stage of project: intervention in existing processes!? In Idea Safari, Proceedings of the 7 th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation, Enschede. Smulders, F.E.H.M., J.M.L.M. van Engelen and M. Kiers (1996), Handboek voor commerciéle - 14

15 Ingenieurs, thema Productinnovatie, Alphen a.d. Rijn: Samson. Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.T. (1995), Product design and development, New York (NY): McGraw-Hill. Verganti, R.(1994), "Re-engineering the new product development process". In: De Weerd- Nederhof, P.C., Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C. and Verganti, R., Managing the R&D process, Enschede: University of Twente/Politecnico di Milano/Twente Quality Centre. Appendix: Research projects in which the authors are involved At the School for Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, a range of research project is taking place. The most relevant ones for this paper are: The interface between design agencies and their clients (who are the lead partners). Aimed at understanding the interface from the perspective of the supplying -partner. The interfaces studied in this project are 1B-type and 2B-type interfaces. An explorative study of the actual interventions that facilitate or provoke the necessary changes within the operational processes (Smulders et al. 2001). This project is aimed at developing a better understanding of the soft side of the interface between a lead partner and the -in this case- internal supply partner. A study of the ramp-up or implementation of newly developed products in the production process, aimed at developing a better understanding of what is actually passing the interface between and production and what is being done with that regarding the ramp-up processes. At the Center for Industrial at Aalborg University, Denmark, a range of relevant project is in process. The topics studied include: Sourcing of new technology. This project is aimed at the effective implementation and absorption of new technology through collaborative relationships with external partners. The strategic use of product architecture to combine customer-oriented product innovation with internal standardisation and cost reduction. Design for Logistics. The purpose of this single case based research project is to investigate the potential interactions between products and logistics by studying the structure of existing products and their supply chains, and then developing a framework for concurrent product and supply chain development. Distributed collaboration in. This project is aimed at identifying best practice models for ICT-supported collaborative high speed/right speed. - 15