« Comment Here on "Too Much Theory, Not Enough Understanding" | Main | Comment Here on "Integrating Political and Social Issues in Operations and Supply Management" »

March 17, 2009

Comments

Dr. Antonio Lau

Dear All,

I think that the articles show a common product development approach adopted in big companies. From my brief research experience, some good companies adopt modular organization approach to optimize both productivity and innovation simultaneously. On one hand, they set up a separate product development centers in China for exploitation and acquire low-cost innovation in the region. In this region, the centers are tightly controlled to gain efficiency. On the other hand, they build innovation institutes in their home countries in Europe for exploration. The institutes are loosely organized to encourage innovative and creative ideas. They build a weak linkage between the centers and institutes to maximize both productivity and innovation.
In addition, I believe that a manufacturer is built to provide value-added products (or services) to the customer. To do so, the manufacturer should be organized to fit the products developed. If these associations are acceptable, I suggest that, to solve the productivity dilemma by building a disciplined but cooperative bureaucracy capability, we may start from “product(s)”. That is, we strategically design new products that embed this capability. For example, we can develop a new product that some components or processes are developed based on the efficiency perspective while others based on the adaptability perspective. Or, we develop some new products for efficiency, whiles other new products for adaptability.

Antonio Lau

Dear all OSM scholars,

Could we find ways to promote this forum or doing something to encourage sustainable participation of OSM scholars in this forum?

or we just wait and see it die soon

Regards,

Antonio

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad