Paper 2 introduces a managerial framework for the customisation of solutions by taking advantage of their commonalities. Robertson and Ulrich (1998) have posited that components, processes, knowledge, and people and their relationships are assets that can be shared between offerings. Different commonalities can also be exploited in different phases of an offering’s life cycle (Halman et al., 2003; Sawhney, 1998; Zhang, 2015).
Paper 2 begins by presenting three categories of drivers in applying a strategy that leverages commonalities: external drivers, internal drivers, and interaction drivers. First, external drivers concern customers. A major objective of customisation is to increase the effectiveness of solutions by tailoring them to customers’ operations and contexts. However, that idea does not necessarily mean that the solutions need to be unique. Instead, customers expect solutions that work well in
82
their contexts and address their needs. By ensuring commonalities among solutions, the lead times of developing them and the associated costs can be reduced. Commonalities can also enable a more extensive process of verifying and debugging shared assets in advance, which affords higher- quality solutions such that attention can be paid to validating solutions in a given customer’s context, not verifying individual components. Second, internal drivers largely concern improving internal efficiency by achieving the effects of economies of scale and scope. Arguably, a commonalities-oriented strategy can benefit the internal communication among different departments in an organisation, providing a common language for personnel to use. Third, in a similar vein, interaction drivers concern facilitating interactions between customers and manufacturers. In that context, the concept of so-called ‘referenceability’ (Sawhney, 1998) seems to be significant, because a common starting point for discussions can support efforts to bridge possible gaps between the needs of customers and potential solutions provided by manufacturers. Similarity among solutions also seems to benefit demonstrations of potential solutions, because they showcase potential savings and improvements in various similar cases.
Paper 2 thereafter proposes subdividing a solution intro three major elements: product(s), services, and manufacturer–customer interaction. A three-layer model, shown in Figure 7, is thus proposed to guide the framework of how to provide customised solutions leveraging commonalities.
Figure 7: A three-layer model representing a solution
Following that visualisation, Paper 2 argues that commonalities can be achieved by sharing elements among solutions to various extents. In that process, solution providers are advised to start with the problem—that is, the needs of customers and their operations. Thereafter, following the proposal that a solution should be customised via integration, the paper presents a framework with five steps for customising solutions by utilising different commonalities at various stages. The framework is illustrated in Figure 8. Although a wide range of commonalities may be used in the
83
different steps, the general process does manifest some potential commonalities. Also, what needs to be considered is when the integration of products and services should occur, along with what the principal objectives of the strategy are.
Figure 8: Five steps in customising solutions
As shown in Figure 8, the first step entails identifying key needs, particularly in relation to the three mentioned types of drivers (i.e. internal, external, and interaction drivers). In that step, knowledge about the use of solutions and their specific users is likely to play an important role. Such knowledge can thereafter form the basis for several solutions. A truck manufacturer, for instance, may organise so-called ‘learning projects’ in order to establish in-depth knowledge about its customers’ operations. In those projects, ideas are tested, and new insights are gained about both the user and the technology used to address the problem. The knowledge is thereafter used in other projects with other customers, which further expands the overall knowledge base. In those projects, close collaboration occurs between the customer and the manufacturer. Although the process starts with the key needs of the customer, it is likely that additional needs are revealed throughout the development process.
The second step concerns products. In that step, component commonalities can be beneficially exploited in the solutions, thereby reducing the costs and lead times of developing new products.
84
In the development of goods, the manufacturing equipment and facilities form a significant part of the costs, and accordingly, commonalities among components could provide major benefits by enabling economies of scale. The third step regards elements of services, which are processual in nature. In that step, it is essential for services, the products forming a core of the solutions, and the specific customer’s needs to be aligned. Services are likely to constitute processes, which if standardised can be shared among a set of different solutions—for instance, standardised ways of performing maintenance on trucks. The fourth step, by contrast, is associated with interaction between the customer and the manufacturer. For interaction, relationships and people are essential, and manufacturers should take advantage of those important resources in developing and customising solutions. For example, personnel with expertise in either technology or the operations of customers could be used in the provision of several different solutions. The fifth and final step concerns the thorough integration of various elements to suit the operations of customers. Such integration should be a process of matching an offering, along with the elements of the solution, to the customer’s operations—that is, external integration instead of integration among components. In that process, the key needs of the customer should be revisited, the solution evaluated in light of those needs, and, if necessary, a new iteration of the process developed. In that way, the process ultimately becomes iterative as well as cyclic.