Int. J.

Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Connecting product design, process and supply chain decisions to

strengthen global supply chain capabilities
Erika Marsillac a,n, James Jungbae Roh b,1
a
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
b
Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Rd., Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The importance of product design as a main determinant of process design has been emphasized in
Received 1 June 2012 operations management literature for decades, but the direct and indirect impacts of product design on
Accepted 3 April 2013 process and supply chain activities is a research area that has received less attention to date. This
Available online 18 April 2013
multiple case study addresses this research gap by assessing how and why changes in product design
Keywords: shape process and supply chain practices and in particular, how these changes inuence global supply
3DCE chain behavior and capabilities.
Product design Utilizing a 3DCE theory base, multiple manufacturing case studies are compared and contrasted to examine
Product design changes the interrelationships and dependencies among product, process and supply chain behaviors and capabilities.
Process
Product design changes were found to alter the scope and scale of process and supply chain modications in
Process changes
specic ways that alter rms' competitive product design customization capabilities and competencies; exible,
Supply chain
Supply chain changes advanced process technologies; and collaborative supplier practices.
Multiple case study This study contributes to operations management literature by providing a rich empirical analysis of
operations system interplay. The study develops substantive research propositions and a 3DCE theoretical
framework that may be used to drive future operations management research and in addition, provides
managerial insights that can be used to strengthen supply chain capabilities in a global and dynamic context.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction integrative perspective through the concept of three-dimensional

Previous research in operations management has emphasized
the emergent importance of product design, particularly as a large
determinant of the total cost of producing and delivering products
(Child et al., 1991; Hong and Roh, 2009). Perceived as essential in
today's competitive and dynamic business environment, product
design bears a strategic role, and can determine the direction and
competitive advantage of a rm for years to come (Kilsun and
Chhajed, 2000; Hong et al., 2011).
In the early stages of product development research, Hayes and
Wheelwright (1979a, 1979b) developed a product process matrix
to illustrate how product design can stimulate and determine
process design. Many rms, and even government agencies such
as the US Department of Defense, have subsequently used this
matrix or similar principles to integrate product design and
process selection, and to encourage cross-functional coopera-
tion among operational, marketing, nance and engineering areas
(DoD, 1998). Complementary research has expanded on this
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 757 683 3662; fax: +1 757 683 5639.
E-mail addresses: emarsill@odu.edu (E. Marsillac), Roh@rowan.edu (J.J. Roh).
1
Tel.: +1 856 256 5430; fax: +1 856 256 4439.
concurrent engineering (3DCE), which describes certain overlap-
ping responsibilities found among product, process and supply
chains (Fine, 2000), but gaps in knowledge and research still exist.
Operations management research has separately addressed the
inuence of product design on supply chain type (Beamon, 1998;
Christopher and Towill 2001; Lee, 2002; Christopher and Peck, 2004;
Wang et al., 2004; Vonderembse et al., 2006; Kristianto et al., 2012),
and the connections between product characteristics on supply chain
strategy (Fisher, 1997; Vonderembse et al., 2006; Selldin and Olhager,
2007; Droge et al., 2012), but the majority of the research has
addressed the individual associations between product and process,
and between product and supply chain. Although valuable, by
focusing on the individual linkages achieved, such as through
product architecture or supplier integration (Fixon, 2005; Petersen
et al., 2005; Rauniar et al., 2008), research on the simultaneous
associations among product, process and supply chains has been
addressed less frequently (Forza et al., 2005; Rungtusanatham and
Forza, 2005; Marsillac and Roh, 2012).
This paper intends to address this research gap by utilizing a 3DCE
theory base to examine the inuences among product design, process
and supply chain activities, determine how these inuences develop
and evolve, and in particular, explore how these changes inuence
global supply chain behavior and capabilities. This research contributes

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.011
318 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
to operations management literature by using case study methodology
to comprehensively examine four illustrative companies and their
product, process, and supply chain activities. Assessments from within
and across companies suggest the existence of integrative principles
that may be used to strengthen rm's global supply chain capabilities.
Study ndings offer insights leading to a number of theoretical
propositions and a framework of product/process/supply chain inu-
ences and behaviors.
2. Literature review
This paper begins by providing a brief overview of the underlying
theoretical foundation that can support and integrate product, process
and supply chains for global supply chain capabilities, that of three-
dimensional concurrent engineering (3DCE). Following this overview,
critical concepts are dened and reviewed, specically: Product design,
manufacturing processes, and supply chains, and the links between
and among these concepts. The four illustrative case studies are then
described and examined (both within each case and across all cases),
with interrelationships and dependences among product design,
process, and supply chain decisions elucidated. From this analysis,
several propositions and a research framework are developed for
future research. The paper then ends with a discussion of managerial
implications and a section devoted to conclusions and future research
directions.
2.1. Theoretical foundation
Three dimensional concurrent engineering (3DCE) was rst
introduced by Fine in the late 1990s in his seminal tome Clock-
speed (Fine, 1998). 3DCE advocates the concurrent integration of
product design into process and supply chain design, which is a
departure from previous operations management foci of solely
product and process. By concurrently addressing and balancing the
needs of product, process, and supply chain, improved operational
performance is encouraged and the entire system can be harmo-
nized (Ellram et al., 2007; McKay and de Pennington, 2001).
System harmony, in addition to yielding scal benets, provides
an opportunity for enhanced environmental benets, an impor-
tant cost/benet/impact equilibrium that is unfortunately some-
what rare in todays global marketplace (Ellram et al., 2007, 2008).
Although recognized as an operations management theory
with valuable potential applications, research on 3DCE and its
applications remains nascent and its practical application is not
yet widespread (Fine, 2000; Ellram et al., 2008; Ellram and
Stanley, 2008). The simultaneous and dual-directional integration
of design ideas in product, process and supply chains has been
found to be challenging with few successful implementations of
the theory in practice, e.g. Intel, Chrysler (Fine, 2000, Ellram et al.,
2007; Caniato et al., 2012) (Fig. 1).
When addressing product, process and supply chain design,
development and activities, 3DCE can be used as a unique
theoretical lens to examine the inuences of each area on the
others, to help determine how those inuences develop and evolve,
and most importantly explore how those inuences can be
leveraged to improve global supply chain behavior and capabil-
ities. To examine this effectively, a solid and shared understanding
of the foundational elements of 3DCE, i.e. product, process and
supply chains, and their potential interactions, must be presented.
2.2. Product design/development
Krishnan and Ulrich (2001) dene product development as
a deliberate business process involving hundreds of decisions.
PRODUCT PROCESS
(performance (technology &
specifications) processing
planning)
SUPPLY CHAIN Details and Strategy
(time, space &
availability)
Fig. 1. 3DCE product, process and supply chain responsibilities (adapted from Fine,
2000).
This sum of multiple decisions focuses on developing a tangible,
physical product, or developing an intangible service product.
Krishnan and Ulrich (2001) focused their attention chiey on the
development of a tangible, physical product, and to simplify a
complex subject, this paper will similarly focus on the role of
product as a physical good.
Multiple perspectives of product development exist due to the
fact that the product development process spans a broad range of
decision areas (Hong et al., 2011; Hong and Roh, 2009; Rauniar
et al., 2008; Petersen et al., 2005). Krishnan and Ulrich (2001)
advocate for a operations management perspective of product
development, which they dene as including a sequence of
development and/or production process steps, critical success
factors of supplier and material selection (and) design of produc-
tion sequence, and decision variables that may include develop-
ment process sequence and schedule (and) point of differentiation
in production process (Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001, p. 3). Again to
simplify a complex subject, this paper will similarly focus on the
operations management perspective of product development.
2.3. Manufacturing processes
Manufacturing processes have changed as production has evolved
from traditional craft systems to more modern industrial manufactur-
ing infrastructures (Skinner, 1985). Throughout this evolution, process
design has taken on greater prominence. Process design commitments
are long-term, signicant, capital intensive, and can determine the
direction of a rm for years to come. They can help a rm develop
sustainable competitive or rst mover advantages, or instead shackle
a rm to an inappropriate and unprotable manufacturing future.
In order to be successful, process design demands a coordinated
strategy and integration of multiple areas of the rm (Hayes and
Wheelwright, 1979a, 1979b).
Process goals have shifted through time, and as technology has
advanced. For example, many traditional process priorities have
changed or been replaced by new priorities, e.g. a traditional
process emphasis on high volume has evolved to a process
emphasis on faster time, or a traditional process emphasis on
increased standardization has been replaced with an emphasis on
increased exibility and product variety (Skinner, 1985; Doll and
Vonderembse, 1991). Even the role of manufacturing has changed,
from that of a back-up, secondary player to that of a lead player,
replacing the narrative of a silo mentality with one accentuating
a more integrative, global approach. Within this evolution,
researchers have recognized that former process expectations
are no longer effective, so they must be modied. These
 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
modications include a growing recognition of the importance of
the product design on process design.
2.4. Product design and manufacturing processes
Hayes and Wheelwright's seminal HBR articles (1979a, 1979b)
describe a product-process matrix which matches a product's
process life cycle stage to its product life cycle stage. The matrix
also includes various product and process dependency levels.
As an example, high volume and standardization product require-
ments best illustrate commodity or functional products such
as sugar, which then are a good match for continuous ow
production. Alternately, low volume and standardization product
requirements best represent the features of innovative products,
which then are a good match for jumbled ow production.
According to Hayes and Wheelwright's matrix, product character-
istics are strongly associated with manufacturing processes, and
respectively product design should be actively considered when
designing manufacturing processes.
Supporting these integrated design perspectives, several design
methodologies have been developed which propose recommenda-
tions for best design practices. One design methodology example is
Design for Manufacturing (DFM), which is the practice of designing
products with manufacturing in mind (ODriscoll, 2002, p. 318). DFM
emphasizes simultaneous process cost reduction and improvement of
production processes (ODriscoll, 2002; Fixon 2005, Forza et al., 2005;
Kilsun and Chhajed, 2000; McKay and de Pennington, 2001). While
more conventional design methods focus on sequential product
development, DFM recommends a concurrent and integrated design
process. A benet to this concurrent process is easier modications to
and restructuring of conventional designs, achieved by creating and
inserting manufacturing integration checkpoints into the new product
development process. By sharing information earlier across impacted
functional areas, checkpoints help reduce costs and lead time when
moving from product design to full scale production, leading to
signicant capital savings (ODriscoll, 2002). Based on this previous
literature and theory, a logical relationship could be inferred between
product design characteristics (such as product variety, product nature,
or platform usage) and the selection of certain process types.
2.5. The supply chain
Supply chains are complex, expensive systems where the inherent
risks of costly mismanagement of a globally connected and affected,
typically poorly communicating, and organizational network are
relatively high. Starting in the 1980s and early 1990s, researchers
and practitioners began analyzing the general principles of supply
chain management as a tangent from Toyota's successful application of
the lean paradigm (Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones, 1996;
Pil and Fujimoto, 2007), and they soon realized that well-managed
supply chains yielded reduced costs, and improved information ow,
production, products, and customer service. Researchers also deter-
mined that supply chains strategies worked best when they were
market-specic (Christopher and Towill, 2002). Consequently, much
effort was focused on nding the right supply chain for the right
product, industry, and product life cycle.
Multiple supply chain typologies exist in literature, and are
often distinguished based on various supply chain characteristics.
Those characteristics might include levels of supply chain risk and/or
exibility, supply chain antecedents, etc. For the purpose of this paper,
the supply chains discussed here are based on the work of Fisher
(1997), who suggested a supply chain framework based on the
product type the supply chain is responsible for moving, and Lee
(2004), who differentiated supply chains based on the levels of
technology found within the supply chain.
319
2.6. Product design and the supply chain
Product design plays an important role in shaping a rm's
supply chain and in guiding its eventual behavior (Park et al.,
2009; Hong et al., 2009; Roh et al., 2011). The particular role of a
product within the entire supply chain can change based on its
positioning within the chain, context, and value. In short, as a
product moves through the supply chain, it is a moving, mutating
target. For example, the role of the product which interests an end
consumer differs from the role of the same product while it is in
transit from the manufacturer to the distributor. To this end,
supply chains are almost entirely dependent on the product type
they convey.
When evaluating the inuences of specic product character-
istics on supply chain behavior, Droge et al. (2012) found that
product modularity had positive impacts on supplier integration,
and Ellram and Stanley (2008) conrmed that the participation of
suppliers and customers in product development resulted in the
enhancement of supply chain responsiveness. Conceptualizing on
product architecture, Fixon (2005) delineated that designing
products with supply chain and reverse logistics in mind would
greatly help to holistically tackle the low margin of errors in
competitive business environments. Forza et al. (2005) also
acknowledge the criticality of the integration of product design
and supply chain decisions in early stage of product development,
and Park et al. (2009) present more evidence of the strategic
nature of an integration between product architecture and supply
chain in examples from Nokia and Texas Instrument Inc.
Based on these associations found in literature, the relationship
between product and supply chains is found to ll the virtual role
of customer to supplier, respectively. The supply chain (or sup-
plier) must meet the needs of the product (or customer) and
therefore its design should be based on the product characteristics
that determine its customer needs. As the product needs and
position vary throughout the supply chain process, the supply
chain must exibly adapt to meet those changing customer needs
at the fast pace required in a global marketplace (Lee, 2004).
2.7. Manufacturing processes and the supply chain
While manufacturing processes remain heavily dependent on
their type of production, the supply chain also remains heavily
dependent on the processes which provide the product to the
supply chain. Product, process and supply chain links are therefore
predictable and circular, with manufacturing processes having
been described as highly inuenced by both product development
and supply network efciency (Saad and Gindy, 2007; Yang et al.,
2011). Droge et al. (2012) found that manufacturing process
modularity has a positive inuence on integrating supply chains,
and Cagliano et al. (2006) reported that making manufacturing
systems lean facilitates a seamless ow of information and
physical goods throughout the supply chain. Recently, So and
Sun (2010) examined the process/supply chain relationship from
the reverse perspective and found that the integration of supply
chains through information sharing and through supplier selection
benets the implementation of lean manufacturing. Today's highly
dynamic market environment provides process design a challen-
ging role to ll, that of providing responsive and agile, yet also
cost-effective, production which can be rapidly and efciently
moved by the supply chain to meet consumer needs.
Several manufacturing process model frameworks have been
previously developed in operations management research. One
framework example is the Responsive Manufacturing Model
(RMM), which seeks to integrate a range of manufacturing areas
of concern into one model. The RMM model assimilates the
product development process, adaptability, supply network
320 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329

Table 1
Summarizes the core 3DCE concept denitions reviewed in Sections 1 and 2 (Sections 2.12.7).

Core 3DCE concepts Denition Contributing author(s)

Product design/ A deliberate business process involving hundreds of decisions, Krishnan and Ulrich (2001), Hong et al. (2011), Hong and Roh (2009),
development with the intent of developing a tangible, physical product Rauniar et al. (2008), Petersen et al. (2005)
Manufacturing The activities responsible for the production of tangible, physical goods Skinner (1985), Hayes and Wheelwright (1979a, 1979b)
processes
Product design and The interdependencies that arise from the inuence of product Hayes and Wheelwright 1979a, 1979b), ODriscoll (2002), Droge et al.
manufacturing characteristics on the process activities required to produce them (2012), Ellram and Stanley (2008), Fixon (2005), Forza et al. (2005),
processes Park et al. (2009)
Supply chains Complex partner interactions with the purpose of conveying materials, Christopher and Towill (2002), Fisher (1997), Lee (2004)
products, information and capital from source to consumer and back
Product design and The interdependencies that arise from the inuence of product Fisher (1997), Park et al. (2009), Hong et al. (2009), Roh et al. (2011),
the supply chain characteristics on the supply chain activities required to convey them Vonderembse et al. (2006)
Manufacturing The interdependencies that arise from the inuence of process Saad and Gindy (2007), Yang et al. (2011), Droge et al. (2012),
processes and the characteristics on the supply chain activities which follow them Cagliano et al. (2006), So and Sun (2010)
supply chain

efciency, and organization characteristics, and heavily weights
the inuence of the product on the process design, while also
noting the inuence of the supply chain (Saad and Gindy, 2007;
Park et al., 2009; Kristianto et al., 2012).
Flexible manufacturing systems have also been developed
which combine exibility, speed, and recongurability. These have
been dened as production unit(s) capable of producing a range
of discrete products with a minimum of manual intervention
(Manseld, 1993, p. 149). The benet of manufacturing exibility is
that it supports the production of a wider range of products or a
larger product variety span, thus allowing a company to do more
with less. This increased exibility however impacts supply chain
design due to the increased product variability that must be
accommodated.
Recongurable manufacturing systems are able to accommodate
increased exibility requirements and more manual interventions.
Recongurable manufacturing systems can support rapidly designed
production that allows prompt conversions to new product designs,
swift capacity adjustments, technology integrations, and produc[ing]
an increased variety of products in unpredictable quantities (Mehrabi
et al., 2000, p. 403). Since a recongurable manufacturing system is
designed to meet a product's dynamic needs by providing function-
ality and capacity pro re nata, it (1) minimizes lead time, (2) supports
rst mover advantage process strategies, and (3) supports rms in
highly dynamic industries (Mehrabi et al., 2000). With rapid product
changes and recongurations resulting in an ever changing product
mix, the supply chain requires ensuing adaptations, such as modica-
tions to transportation types or routes, changing partners and/or
customers, and changing volumes.
Since the new types of manufacturing systems can produce
more product variety, at varying production levels, more respon-
sively than ever before, the new types of supply chains which
follow production must therefore either adapt or be redesigned to
meet these changing process customer characteristics. Table 1
provides a summary of key 3DCE denitions.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Background
Case studies are considered powerful and valuable tools for
purposeful research. According to Yin (2003), case studies are a
preferred research methodology when asking how or why
questions. Eisenhardt (1989) and Glaser and Strauss (1967) have
advocated that case study research is highly appropriate for
exploratory research areas and has many useful applications.
Although clearly no one particular methodology is optimal for all
research situations, case studies are able to provide an assessment
depth and rich event descriptions which may not be available
using other methodologies (McDonald, 1985; Closs et al., 2008).
Case studies are considered empirical research, having been
dened as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contempor-
ary phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2003, p. 13),
but they provide a more qualitative perspective than typical
quantitative empirical research. In operations management
research for example, qualitative methods have been productively
used to examine organizational adoption of various information
technologies and the management of product complexity (Crook
and Kumar, 1998; Closs et al., 2008).
The results reported from the case studies included in this
paper are derived from the adopting rms reported perceptions of
expected future benets and outcomes, rather than on analyses of
accrued measured benets. The research questions posed (see
Appendix A for specic questions and Section 3.2 for development
description) were exploratory in nature, open-ended, and
attempted to identify and analyze product design changes and
determine how and why those changes lead to specic modes of
process and supply chain modications. Therefore, utilizing a case
study methodology was essential to describing and understanding
the reactions and behaviors of the target rms. The qualitative
method of inquiry used allowed for data collection that included
appropriately detailed, but potentially unstructured information.
3.2. Sampling
A multiple case study design was used for this paper. Informa-
tion was gathered through face-to-face interviews and phone and
email contact with employees at the companies of interest, and
triangulated with literature data sources such as academic and
practitioner literature, media reports and articles.
Firm choices were based on four primary conditions. First, the
rm must have changed or be in the midst of changing product
designs, thus allowing for the identication of outcomes from such
product design changes on process and supply chain design.
Second, the participating rms were selected from different
industries in order to experience a broad range of conditions and
contexts. Third, since product design changes could be indepen-
dently considered high or low, several rms were recruited,
depending on the relative degrees of changes in product design.
Fourth, data collection was focused on categorizing (a) the number
of intra- and inter-organizational functions and activities in which
the rms had changed or were in the midst of changing product
design and (b) the process and supply chain modications that
 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
Table 2
Overview of sample rms.
Company Prole Products or services
A Regional North American ooring manufacturer Residential and commercial ooring
and retailer products
B Global printer manufacturing company Information support services e.g. printers,
subscriptions, databases
C Regional North American mattress and box High quality value-driven sleep support
springs manufacturer and retailer
D Global clothing manufacturer and wholesaler Custom-designed athletic clothing
were inuenced by the changes in product design. Table 2 reects
overview rm information and characteristics.
3.3. Data sources and data analysis
The interview questions (see Appendix A) were developed and
driven based on the 3DCE theoretical framework and literature
support which forms the foundation of this study. The interview
guide was designed and utilized to gather rich descriptive information
from the participants. The interviews were conducted in accordance
with the guide and open-ended questions were used specically to
encourage a guided but deep narrative, with limited constraints placed
on the participants and the information they provided.
Initial contact was made by the researchers with each selected
company via email to ascertain if the company was willing to
participate in the study. Follow up emails and phone calls were
made to set up face-to-face interviews, which took place at the
company sites over a period of several months in mid-2011. The
specic number of face-to-face interviews varied by company
(from 2 to 5 per company depending on employee availability),
and each face-to-face interview took place with the designated
company respondent or respondents, with additional information
elicited from other employees who were brought in to the inter-
view area or questioned on walk-throughs of the facilities. Inter-
views were recorded and transcribed to maintain accuracy.
Interview data were collected from executive and high level
managerial participants in each company, e.g. Chairman, VPs or
Senior Managers (of production, distribution, engineering, supply
chain, etc.) and subjective information was triangulated with
literature sources that contained information on product changes
at the rms. To ensure data reliability, peer reviewed articles and
the rms websites were referenced to keep abreast of rm specic
product, process and supply chain trends. Follow up emails and/or
phone calls by the researchers were also used to clarify any
outstanding questions on the data gathered. Each company was
provided a summary transcript of the information gathered for
their review and given the opportunity to validate the information
or correct any misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
Data analysis was performed by the researchers in two phases:
1. Within case analysis for each of the cases in the framework of
the broad theoretical structure. In each case, three broad
categories of codes were identied which described:
(a) major changes in product design,
(b) the scope and scale of process and supply chain modications,
(c) the relationships between product design changes and
process and supply chain modications.
2. Cross-case analysis that compared ndings across the rms, to
identify a fourth category of codes, which represented patterns
of product changes and impacts on process and supply chain
modications.
321
Main objectives of product design changes
Keep abreast of customer requirements and respond to
competitor challenges
Compete and adapt to changes in consumer preferences and
technologies
Adapt to changing regulations and consumer tastes, while
balancing product quality and value
Continue meeting customer requests for superior product
quality in a dynamic business environment
The articles were rst coded independently by the authors.
Then the two sets of codes were veried against one another.
Similar coding was included in the nal set. Differences were
resolved by the authors in discussion and incorporated in the nal
set of codes.
4. Analyses
4.1. Within case analyses
The description of each case consists of background information,
changes in product design that the rms underwent, and the impact of
those changes on the scale and scope of process and supply chain
decisions. Best efforts were made to refrain from subjective inter-
pretation in an attempt to obtain greater objectivity.
4.1.1. Company A
4.1.1.1. Background. Over the past century, Company A has grown
into a multinational ooring corporation with an extensive
product range including hardwood, porcelain tile, and carpet
oor coverings. In 2008, the company acquired a complementary
company and also began producing rubber ooring tiles, wall base,
and treads. Most manufacturing is found on the North American
East Coast. Company A maintains its competitive advantage by
offering what customers value in ooring design, color, shape, and
durability. The company strongly believes that maintaining
centralized and integrated manufacturing processes, distribution
and product design control allows it to better meet customer
expectations, is better for business in the long term and is a key
contributor to its success.
4.1.1.2. Product design changes. Over Company A's working century,
few product changes have occurred, and most were esthetic, involving
embedding new colors and textures to original ooring patterns and
underlayments. Product construction methods are considered stable,
with most ooring products based on felt, on which vinyl layers are
adhered and then texturized. The products have been relatively static
for the last 20 years except for periodic changes in color or texture.
Company A's main ooring products are predominantly vinyl
composition tile (a commodity type product). Primary customers
maintain institutional settings and seek functional, reasonably
attractive products that are inexpensive to purchase and maintain.
Primary product innovations are limited and there are no replace-
ments on the competitive horizon. The intent of the company is
maintenance of a functional product versus implementing
dynamic changes to an innovative product.
4.1.1.3. Manufacturing process changes. Company A's manufacturing
methods have not changed substantially over the past century.
322 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
Historically, vinyl texturing was completed chemically, but within the
past 20 years, a mechanical process was introduced. Although the shift
from chemical to mechanical increased product variety options, the
mechanical process was not slated to replace the former method.
Instead it was added as a complement to the existing chemical
process. The rest of the manufacturing processes have remained
fairly static for a century. Newer design technologies have allowed
the company to produce more realistic and attractive products for the
consumer, but the designs still occur via the traditional process
methods.
One recent process change which has occurred is the addition
of berglass as an option to vinyl. While vinyl can present
inconsistent responses to temperature or moisture changes,
a berglass underlayment is considered stronger and more stable,
with the ability to maintain its conguration through temperature
or moisture changes. Although berglass has been used for several
years in Europe, it is considered a recent entrant to the North
American market. Since its North American introduction, its
market has grown 15%. Company A does not expect berglass to
replace the traditional vinyl product, but the market segment
is large enough that it cannot be ignored. Therefore, the comp-
any has had to alter some processes to incorporate the new
component.
4.1.1.4. Supply chain changes. Because Company A's products have
remained largely unchanged over its history, its processes have
also remained largely unchanged, and this stability has diffused
through to its supply chain. When the berglass method was
introduced, some raw materials were modied so that the ooring
surface would remain exible and still accept aggressive
embossing, but beyond that, process changes were limited to
purchasing an additional piece of line equipment and enhancing
the shop oor to accept the machinery.
The introduction of the luxury berglass tile did not require a
different process, only modications to the raw materials. Initially,
Company A was unable to manufacture the luxury tile. It was unable
to source the higher quality raw material needed and it did not have
the necessary manufacturing equipment, but bringing in some new
supplier sources and modifying current equipment resolved those
problems. So Company A has been able to maintain supply chain
stability and the limited process changes that have taken place have
not substantially changed its supply chain.
4.1.2. Company B
4.1.2.1. Background. Company B was founded in 1972 as a joint
venture (JV) between two North American entrepreneurs and their
Japanese customer, with the goal of developing and producing leading
edge information technology products. The parent company provides
the JV all the support needed (e.g. R&D resources, technological
applications, etc.) to serve its customers. Although headquartered in
New Jersey, USA, Company B has international branches located
throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. In early 2010 the
company was ranked the number one manufacturer of impact
printers in the United States, holding a 53.6% market share.
Company B manufactures, distributes, and sells full lines of color
and monochrome printers and associated printer accessories, and it
feels that customer service is its key competitive advantage. Recently,
it has begun moving away from more standardized products and
moving towards developing more customized products for their
customers. The company works individually with customers to
develop a product that meets their unique needs and ts perfectly
into their routine.
4.1.2.2. Product design changes. Company B's product lines have
undergone considerable changes due to technological advances.
Historically, the company produced serial impact dot matrix
(SIDM) printers, with heavy metal chassis, and limited speeds,
characters, and graphics. In the 1990s, Company B experienced a
materials shift from nylon to plastic and signicant advances in
integrated circuit chip technology allowed faster printing, larger
memory storage, and more sophisticated graphics. During this
period, Company B developed a patented image transfer process
and moved into the monochrome laser printer market. Company B
also developed and commercialized a plain paper facsimile
machine and in 1999 the technology was upgraded to include
color printing.
The 2000s witnessed signicant developments in the miniaturiza-
tion of various electronics, and an increased pace of product design
changes. Company B began allotting more resources to color capability
products and improving print speed, resolution, and paper handling
capabilities. The company also reduced the product's footprint and
began to evolve into predominantly a desktop color printer company.
Meanwhile, the company continued developing larger units to accom-
modate up to 12  18 printing paper sizes. By 2005, Company B had
begun a transition from facsimile technology to multi-function prin-
ters and exited the fax market by 2007. As a result, from 2000 to 2007
the company transitioned from a large volume, minimal stock keeping
unit (SKU) business, with few big dollar customers, to a lower volume,
greater SKU business, with multiple lower dollar customers.
More recently, Company B has broadened its focus on specialty
products to also serve customers requesting point of sale, label and
receipt printers. The development of more sophisticated printers
for proong applications, envelopes, stationary, photo applica-
tions, and large format digital prints is also being pursued.
4.1.2.3. Manufacturing process changes. The multiple product
changes experienced by Company B resulted in multiple process
changes. Company B rst reduced the amount of metal components
in its products by swapping screws and other mechanical fasteners,
and later it switched from metal to molded plastic parts which
allowed snap together assembly designs. As process technology
advanced, more automated processes were implemented to produce
key components, but some technological advances required the
implementation of costly clean room assembly areas. Long
production assembly lines were replaced by cell manufacturing
operations to improve material and labor efciencies, and many of
the subassembly operation responsibilities were moved to the
component suppliers to reduce nal assembly cycle times.
The older SIDM product technology required minimal assembly
and testing skills, but as monochrome LED printers were introduced,
plastic molding technology required improvements to component
strength and dimensional tolerances. Electronic devices progressed to
improve the controls required for paper handling and image transfer
and increased operator expertise and new assembly/testing devices
were required to conrm functional and print quality. Costlier clean
room production was allocated for critical components and robotics
began to be implemented for key devices and assemblies. The quality
testing processes became signicantly more complex.
Color printers required greater employee technical skills in
assembly and testing, as variations in plastic parts and electronic
devices could quickly lead to defects in paper feeding or print
quality. Since the color machines printed images using four
distinct color stations, registration of the colors was critical for
satisfactory images. This advanced technology forced tighter
component process tolerances, and generated signicantly more
research and development investments to ensure product designs
that could be consistently built to quality standards and withstand
the various environmental use conditions. The complexity of the
electro-mechanical device drove more sub-assemblies to be built
by component suppliers and the move to cell manufacturing to
 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
maintain quality control and assembly speed. As Company B's
products have changed, improved and increased in complexity, its
production and inspection tools have advanced accordingly, and
the time needed to build and inspect the products has increased.
4.1.2.4. Supply chain changes. Faced with multiple product design
iterations, Company B's supply chain has gone through several
modications. Improved information exchange and sharing
between Company B's customers and manufacturing facilities has
been enhanced by the implementation of better software tools,
data exchange and analysis. This improved information ow has
enhanced the alignment of product design changes, process
requirements, and supply sources.
Increasing product complexities have however limited supplier
availability, in particular, for sourcing the high quality levels
needed for the electronic components. Company B has borne
more costs, in terms of time and in capital investments, to seek
out or develop alternate supply sources. Limited supplier options
for key electrical component items have also made it challenging
to recover from supply chain interruptions, such as natural
disasters or geo-political economic disruptions.
In addition, as Company B's product design customization
levels have increased, accurate supply chain forecasting has
become more difcult. The increase in whole product and compo-
nent variety has created inventory management challenges, which
have required greater investments in better forecasting tools and
expertise to minimize the costs of potential shortages or excess
inventory.
4.1.3. Company C
4.1.3.1. Background. Company C was founded in 1990 as a mattress
and box spring manufacturer and retailer. Processing and retail
locations are located in eastern and mid-western North America.
Company C was begun with a vision of providing quality bedding
products for direct consumer sale. It now has over 10 processing
facilities, over 100 retail locations, and several hundred employees.
The company has maintained a very centralized organizational
structure since its inception.
Company C's products come with a generous warranty and are
delivered factory-direct from Company C owned and operated
processing sites, using Company C owned delivery services. The
company feels that centralized processing and logistics control
allows it to keep a tight rein on quality, product design, and costs,
and has contributed to its competitive edge and capabilities. In
line with this centralized control strategy, Company C chooses not
to outsource its manufacturing processes and maintains close
supplier ties.
4.1.3.2. Product design changes. Barring esthetic changes, products
have not changed substantially in the industry since the introduction
of waterbeds. Company C does not manufacture waterbeds, so its few
product design changes have been in response to changing
government regulations or consumer trends.
One of the more extensive product design changes Company C
implemented was in response to updated government regulations
regarding mattress ammability. In 2007, American re retardant
regulations for mattresses were upgraded to require the mattress
material to be able to withstand an open ame for up to 70 s. Most
bedding manufacturers chose to comply with the regulations in
the least expensive manner, by applying a re retardant chemical
to the bedding material, but because of quality concerns and
concerns about potential side effects, Company C chose to comply
by using non-toxic alternatives. For this route, Company C had to
research new raw materials and modify its product designs to
323
accommodate new materials. In some cases, Company C worked
directly with suppliers to develop and create these new non-toxic
raw materials, which are used today in all of Company C's
products. Other product design changes were less substantial.
The company had to develop new mattress and box spring
covers to isolate potential sanitary issues, and introduced a
single-sided mattress to its product line to meet changing custo-
mer preferences.
4.1.3.3. Manufacturing process changes. Most of Company C's
manufacturing processes have not changed substantially over its
history. Product design changes in response to government
regulation have affected Company C's raw materials and supply
chain more so than the manufacturing processes. Product design
changes in response to changing customer demands did affect the
manufacturing processes, but mostly to incremental degrees,
rather than by full substitution or replacement.
For example, the manufacture of mattresses and box springs is
a very manual, assembly line/cell hybrid process, with machines
providing support to workers versus a more robotically driven
assembly line. Various bedding materials are placed on and then
fastened around a metal spring or latex core of varying stiffness.
Product redesigns which essentially add or remove different
materials (such as a pillow top) utilize the same process activities
as the original product designs, just with different inputs or small
process modications (such as wrapping a latex core versus a
metal spring core or changing the sizing of a fabric cover).
4.1.3.4. Supply chain changes. Company C has a localized and
centralized supply chain philosophy. It prefers to maintain
approximately 6 weeks of inventory in stock, thus is not inclined
towards a Just-in-Time strategy. Although suppliers are vetted by
headquarters, each processing facility is allowed the autonomy
and authority to seek out local suppliers. The company has a
preference for longer-term and local supplier relationships (within
a 300 mile radius guideline), and maintains tight control of its
supply resources. Its tightly managed supply chain, and preference
for longer-term supplier relationships, have helped ease any
changes that have resonated through Company C's system from
the product redesigns.
Overall, Company C's supply chain adapted to product design
changes by working with a few new suppliers and/or modifying
the product mix from current suppliers. Company C has not sought
to expand its supply chain through outsourcing. Some supply
chain quality improvements have been implemented in response
to increased government regulations, such as increased inventory
tracking abilities to adhere to updated health/sanitary regulations.
4.1.4. Company D
4.1.4.1. Background. Company D is a recently established specialty
manufacturer and wholesaler of custom-designed athletic clothing,
which provides high quality, custom-designed, athletic clothing for
schools, sporting clubs, and similar group customers. Processing
locations are currently located exclusively in Peru, while sales occur
throughout the Americas. Focusing production in Peru allows
Company D to benet from shorter lead times, fewer trade barriers,
and geographically centralized expertise in highly skilled, labor
intensive, garment nishing. Although still in the process of business
expansion, Company D was immediately successful at gaining a
toehold in the industry, with success based in a large part on
leveraging previous business relationships. Moving forward,
Company D intends to expand into other clothing lines, producing
for private label owners. Unlike competitors who mainly offer blank
clothing templates or standardized screen printing for customer to
modify, Company D offers both pre-set templates for customization,
324 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329

and made-to-order athletic clothing designs, tailored to the customers
specications and budget.
4.1.4.2. Product design changes. In its limited history, Company D's
product designs have already weathered several changes. While
the clothing industry typically has a rather rapid product life cycle,
many product changes are predominantly esthetic and do not
require substantial process changes. Company D's niche market of
made-to-order custom-design athletic clothing has a somewhat
longer product life cycle and experiences higher customer loyalty
than industry standards, due to the high customer investment and
involvement in custom-designing a product.
Most of Company D's products are manufactured in smaller
volumes than its larger branded athletic clothing competitors.
Although Company D is capable of production runs in the thousands,
it is also capable of producing smaller runs, in the hundreds or even
less. Company D feels that its exibility and quality levels contribute to
its competitive advantage and allow it to meet and conquer the far
more challenging product design changes that are forced on them by
non-customer sources, such as changing industry trends, technological
advances, and changing government regulation.
One of the major factors inciting Company D's product design
changes has been changing trends in fabric innovations and
ergonomic design changes. As an example, fabric innovations have
taken place such as cotton mercerization, or fabric treatments to
repel water, block UV rays, etc., and ergonomic designs have been
developed such as venting panels. These advances result in
modications to product patterns and designs.
Company D's product designs have also been inuenced by
changing government and NGO regulations. An advantage to an all
Americas market is the (relatively) fewer trade barriers within the
hemisphere. But those advantages must be balanced out with
compliance with ever changing trade regulations for the region.
Typically, design changes due to changing trade regulations are
relatively minimal (e.g. a tag in the neckline of a garment), but the
pace at which the changes are occurring and must be implemented
has lead to challenges.
4.1.4.3. Manufacturing process changes. Several product design
changes have had resultant impacts on manufacturing processes.
In particular, the introduction of novel fabric technology modied
some machine and process requirements. For example, the
machines needed for mercerized cotton products or sublimation
printing differ from traditional machines, and cutting templates or
fabric specications (e.g. roll length, width, etc.) can differ.
Some contracted manufacturers, especially smaller ones, were
initially hesitant to adopt the new technology (e.g. machines,
computer or software support, etc.), but were eventually per-
suaded. Important to note however, is that some of the contrac-
tors initial cautions were justied, as it took time for them to
recognize that although technology can improve quality control,
it does not eliminate defects or errors, and in some cases, it simply
creates others which the manufacturers then must monitor.
Company D chose to share the technology investment costs with
some contractors to incite them to adopt.
Transparency has become an integral part of Company D's
transactions, particularly with regard to sourcing requirements,
and has resulted in process changes. As an example, manufac-
turers previously sourced their own thread from local distributors,
but after regulation changes, Company D was required to provide
source documentation for all garment components, including
thread. In response, Company D was forced to either provide
thread or use certain suppliers who had shown themselves
capable of meeting administrative and documentation needs.
Product changes due to government and NGO regulations for
ethical and social issues have also changed Company D's processes.
For example, Fair Labor Association (FLA) standards mandate
certain working hours, breaks, chemical exposures, etc. In addi-
tion, in the interest in transparency, Company D must audit and
certify work procedures and processes, including independent
auditors.
4.1.4.4. Supply chain changes. Company D has a geographically and
administratively centralized supply chain, currently limited to the

Table 3
Within case comparison summary.

Companies

A B C D

Primary Flooring manufacturer (vinyl, Information technology Bedding manufacturer Athletic clothing
products hardwood, tile, carpet) (printers/accessories) (mattress, box springs) (batch/made-to-order )
Product Stable, low tech, functional, Innovative, high technology, short life cycle Stable, low tech, functional, Innovative, low tech, commodity,
classication long life cycle long life cycle short life cycle
Level of product Low High Low Moderate
design
changes
Drivers of Esthetics, competition Technological advances, competition Esthetics or regulation (re- Material innovations (fabric/
design retardant/health/sanitary) ergonomics) or regulation
changes
Process Assembly line Assembly line to cell Assembly line/cell hybrid Job shop/batch hybrid
classication
Level of process Minimal Substantial Minimal Moderate
changes
Types of process Chemical to mechanical, Changes in materials, process layouts Incremental changes to Changes in material, machine
changes addition of berglass (line to cell), standardized activities requirements, transparency, labor
substrate quality control and expertise, requirements
movement of sub-assemblies to suppliers
Supply chain Efcient Market-responsive Efcient Hybrid
classication
Level of supply Few Substantial Few Moderate
chain changes
Types of supply Some supplier/machinery Improved info exchange, limited supplier Some supplier additions, Supplier/machinery changes (quality,
chain changes additions availability (quality), forecasting challenges very centralized transparency, exibility)
 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
western hemisphere. Supply chain decisions are made at
headquarters, although processing facilities are allowed some
autonomy. Company D chose to work exclusively with Peruvian
manufacturers because manufacturers in other countries (e.g. the
United States, China, etc.) were unable or unwilling to perform the
same level of quality and labor intensive work at an acceptable
cost. Maintaining processing within the Americas also provides a
promotional advantage for their products.
Company D's high reliance on custom-designed products has
resulted in supply chain changes. For example, Company D's
supply chain partner philosophy is to work with fewer suppliers
and manufacturers, but to maintain deep ties with them so as to
maintain high quality standards. In addition, due to the smaller
volumes that are more typical of Company D's customer orders,
it airfreights all its merchandise and prioritizes quick delivery.
Due to changing government and NGO regulations, Company
D's supplier interactions have also changed. Sourcing regulations
have resulted, in some cases, with Company D stipulating which
suppliers manufacturers could use. In other cases, Company D
sought out new suppliers to provide new types of fabric, materials,
or technological support. In these cases, Company D used its rich
partner relationships to introduce and guide partners to each
other, implementing a microcosm version of global supply chain
optimization (Table 3).
4.2. Cross-case analysis
Following the within case analyses, the cases were examined in
aggregate to determine if commonalities existed in how the
organizations dealt with product design changes and if the
organizations experienced similar reverberations throughout their
processes and/or supply chains based on those product design
changes. These commonalities formed the foundation for the
development of several propositions and a framework which
may drive future research.
In summary, what was observed in the cross-case examination
was that product design changes at the various rms resulted in
differential impacts depending on (1) the extent of the product
design changes on a continuum, (2) the type of product being
redesigned or changed, and (3) the type of supply chain associated
with the product. The interactions of product, process, and supply
chains took place as if the composite operations area was in fact
three dimensional, with each area forming an axis. Fig. 2 sum-
marizes this perspective.
All of the organizations analyzed experienced product design
changes of varying scope and scale, e.g. the product design
changes could be categorized on a continuum as a substantial
(high) or not substantial (low). Based on the level of product
design change, certain variations moved though the organizations
process and supply chain systems, with varying velocities and
effects, in a process similar to the bullwhip effect (Forrester, 1961)
observed in inventory management. Products which experienced
more substantial design changes produced greater changes to the
associated process and supply chain structures dependent on
them. Products which experienced less substantial design changes
produced fewer changes to the associated process and supply
chain structures dependent on them. Additionally, the growing
complexity of the products themselves lent substantial challenges
to managing product design changes (MacDufe and Fujimoto,
2010). These observations lead to the rst global proposition:
P1: Product design changes that are more substantial and complex
will generate more substantial and complex changes in the process
and supply chain systems associated with them.
325
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
Fig. 2. Three dimensional product, process, supply chain.
Although philosophically broad in scope, P1 is necessary to set
the stage to examine other contributors to the changes roiling
through this three dimensional operations system. For example,
across organizations, the primary antecedents to product design
changes were found to be competitive changes or imposed
external regulations, adapting to customer trends, or adapting to
outsourcing decisions/constraints or technological advances. In
some cases, technological advances evolved in stable and
forecast-able fashions, while in others, they vaulted past current
techniques.
The product design changes required in response to these ante-
cedents forced the companies to increase their product design
customization competence in every way. Nomologically, a process
should be designed based on a product's characteristics and specic
design, or else the system will not be able to meet production needs.
However, practically speaking, it is impossible to design and build a
manufacturing facility for each and every new product design. An
alternative method utilized by rms to increase product design
customization competence is to therefore acquire advanced manufac-
turing technologies, so that the rm can manufacture multiple product
varieties at lower cost and faster speed.
The second set of observations, noted in the across case
analysis, is that product design changes were found to be more
common and substantial in organizations that manufactured
innovative and/or high technology products than in organizations
that manufactured functional and lower technology products.
Organizations that manufactured innovative and/or highly techni-
cal products implemented more numerous and substantial pro-
duct design changes because their industrial environment and
competitive partners were much more dynamic and fast-paced (e.
g. small electronics, fashion clothing), and their product design
changes resulted in more substantial modications to both the
manufacturing processes and the supply chains.
Process modications for the more innovative and higher-tech
products emphasized changes that would increase response time
and exibility, and included such changes as switching from line
assembly to cell or increasing the employee expertise needed to
manage new machinery and quality assessments. Processes were
also changed as a result of the modied materials utilized, e.g.
moving from metal to plastic, polyester to mercerized cotton, etc.
Supply chain changes included making modications to supply
sources and the number of supplier partners, or exclusively using
air freight.
Product design changes in organizations producing more func-
tional and lower-tech products were fewer in number and tended
to be smaller in scope. The industrial environment for these
326 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
organizations tended to be slower paced, and although still
competitive, less dynamic. Product design changes in these orga-
nizations still resulted in changes to processes and supply chains,
but to a lesser degree. Process modications involved such things
as expanding product lines to take advantage of new markets, and
developing new raw material components to respond to changing
regulations, technological advances or consumer trends. Supply
chain changes included expanding current supplier responsibil-
ities or developing relationships with new suppliers to meet these
new raw material needs.
These observations suggest that products with innovative
features or designs may require (1) more sophisticated manufac-
turing processes and (2) more collaborative and time-focused
supplier practices. Sophisticated processes are likely to require
associated manufacturing and supply chain systems that are able
to change rapidly. If a market or industry requires a rapid time to
market for its products, manufacturing processes would be
required with short set up times and the inherent exibility to
adapt quickly. This would suggest that products which require
high levels of innovation and rapid speed to market would be well
served with process exibility, and that a company which strives
to acquire competitive design capabilities will make every effort to
acquire exible process technologies. In addition, if a market or
industry requires a rapid time to market for its products, then the
associated supply chain system would be required to adapt quickly
and responsively in a collaborative, not competitive, fashion. These
observations lead to the second and third propositions:
P2: The more competitive product design competence a rm seeks,
the more exible, advanced process technologies it will acquire.
P3: The more competitive product design competence a rm seeks,
the more likely a rm will be to implement collaborative and time-
focused supplier practices.
Competitive product design competence is a rm's aptitude to
increase product design customization, variety, and innovativeness
to proactively anticipate and comply with market demands (Zhang
et al., 2003; Iversen and Buur, 2002; Chastain and Elliott, 2000).
As was observed in the across case analysis, as rms endeavored to
develop competitive product design competence, they tended
to require and acquire more capability to customize products to
satisfy customers. In the across case analysis, the companies strove
to increase their product design customization capabilities (for
custom designed printers, athletic wear, or oor products) in part
to meet changing market demand, but also to enhance their own
product design competence. As these rms achieve higher product
design competence, they present more attractive and more varied
products that appeal to customers, yielding a competitive advan-
tage. This observation leads to the fourth proposition:
P4: The more competitive product design competence a rm seeks,
the more likely a rm will be to achieve product design customi-
zation capability.
An additional across case observation was that product design
changes had differential impacts depending on the type of supply
chain associated with the product being redesigned or changed. In
organizations characterized by predominantly responsive supply
chains, the supply chain changes were greater in number and
scope that those seen in the efcient supply chain organizations.
This invigorating effect appears to be the result of the greater
number of product design changes implemented, which is also
related to the more exible, advanced process technology required
to produce the product.
Organizations with more responsive-type supply chains tended
to provide products with a much shorter life history, as well as a
shorter use history (e.g. printers versus industrial ooring). In
addition, the industrial environment in which the responsive
supply chain organizations exist is dynamic and faster paced. If
the products change more often, whether due to technological
advances or changing consumer trends, these organizations must
respond rapidly by changing their product designs, or else risk
losing market share. These rapid product design changes are then
captured in the level of product design customization capability
found in a rm. Since innovative and high-tech products are being
changed more often, those changes are then more impactful and
also build on each other quickly, whereby one design change may
rapidly overlap with the next, thus causing even more system
variation.
The companies responses to this variation were to require the
use or implementation of more sophisticated process technologies,
to develop more collaborative supplier relationships, and to seek
out supplier redundancies when possible. These strategies were
necessary to acquire knowledge and buy-in from suppliers, as well
as to be proactive in acquiring and supporting process technology
that would meet dynamic system needs.
In contrast, in the organizations characterized by predomi-
nantly efcient supply chains, the supply chain changes were
fewer in number and scope than those seen in the organizations
characterized by responsive supply chains. This efcient supply
chain mufing effect appears to be the result of the fewer product
design changes implemented. Organizations with more efcient
supply chains tended to provide products with a longer history of
existence, and which are also used by the same customer for a
longer period of time (e.g. 10+ years versus less than 5 years). Even
the athletic clothing organization, which would typically provide
shorter use products, was found to experience this, as its emphasis
on high-quality products resulted in longer than expected product
life cycles. These product characteristics combined (product design
customization, product longevity and customer loyalty) yield a
greater likelihood that product improvements or tweaks were
likely already implemented in the past, which yields a smaller
likelihood that substantial improvements still remain. Or to state
the inverse, everything that needs improving, has already been
improved. Since there are fewer things to change, there is less
variation and therefore less impact on the efcient supply chain.
Thus in summary, the product design changes, and the level of
product design customization capability of the rm, inuenced to
a much greater degree the innovative supply chains than the
efcient supply chains.
An exception to this trend was found when the efcient supply
chain organizations were forced to deal with externally imposed
product changes, such as those resulting from government regula-
tion. In that case, even if the organizations were predominantly
based on an efcient supply chain model, the supply chains had to
change more rapidly due to the external constraint (e.g. re,
sourcing regulations, etc.).
These observations lead to the fth through eighth propositions:
P5: The more advanced, exible process technologies a rm
achieves, the higher level of product design customization cap-
ability a rm will acquire.
P6: The more advanced, exible process technologies a rm uses,
the more collaborative supply chain practices it will implement.
P7: The more a rm collaborates with its strategic suppliers, the
higher level of product design customization a rm will achieve.
P8: The more a rm is exposed to regulatory oversight/interven-
tion, the higher level of product design customization a rm will
achieve.
Based on the theoretical foundation of 3DCE, the case study
observations, and the propositions developed in response, the
 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
product, process, and supply chain framework is suggested as
shown in Fig. 3.
5. Discussion and managerial implications
Examining the relationships among product design, process
and supply chains is a complex task, but it can provide signicant
benets to researchers and practitioners. Building on a 3DCE
theory base and literature support regarding the importance of
product design and the integration of product, process, and supply
chain, this paper has sought to evaluate the inuences among
product, process and supply chains.
Case study results suggest that product development changes
exists on a continuum and that the degree of product design
changes inuences the scope and scale of ensuing process and
supply chain response modications. Product design changes were
found to be preceded by a variety of situations, particularly
changing competition, external imposed constraints, and changing
consumer trends or technological advances. In chiey competitive
and fast paced industrial environments or in industries exposed to
high levels of regulatory oversight, product design changes were
more substantial in both number and scope. Product design
changes were also implemented in differing degrees depending
on the type of products under examination, e.g. innovative or
functional. The product design customization capabilities of a rm
appeared to be related to the competitive competencies of a rm
and to the level of process technology brought in to support the
product design changes.
Process changes were particularly inuenced by the number
and scope of product design changes, to the extent that manu-
facturing lines and methods were substantially modied when
substantial product design changes were implemented. The types
of process modications that resulted from substantial product
design changes tended to revolve around developing more exible
and faster processing methods, which was accomplished either
through the use of improved, more exible, advanced process
technology or through the modication of the accompanying
human skill set. These more advanced process technologies also
appeared to be related to a changing rm emphasis on collabora-
tive supply chain practices and interactions.
With regard to supply chain behavior, the inuence of product
design changes was linked to the level of the product design
change implemented. If the product design changes were not
signicant in number or scope, the behavior of the supply chain
remained largely unchanged. In dealing with product design
changes in this situation, the organization might have sought out
some new suppliers or material alternatives, but the supply chain
activities themselves remained relatively stable and easy to
manage. If however, the product design changes were greater in
number and scope, then supply chain behavior was changed to a
greater degree. In addition to seeking out new suppliers and
alternative material sources, the organizations increased informa-
tion sharing among supply chain partners and developed more
accurate forecasting methods. The collaborative supplier practices
enhanced the depth of supplier relationships and encouraged
more time-focused supplier practices, but layering product design
changes upon product design changes exponentially increased the
ensuing complexity of the supply chain, making it more challen-
ging to manage successfully.
The managerial implications of these ndings are several, and
in particular, can help distinguish the signicant inuence of
product design changes on other operational areas. Operations
managers and practitioners should be aware that the degree of the
product design change implemented, on which type of product it
327
is implemented, in which process setting it is applied, and in
which supply chain type it is executed, produces different results.
To dampen the level of system agitation, rst, practitioners and
designers should try to limit the number and scope of product
design changes to those that are necessary for continued compe-
titive survival, since more design change yields more process and
supply chain variation and modications. Second, operations
managers should have comprehensive knowledge of their parti-
cular product and market characteristics, since some products and
markets require more numerous product design changes than do
others. This knowledge is not to be used to reject the idea or
implementation of product redesigns, but instead is to be used to
better anticipate the systemic repercussions of design changes.
Third, operations managers and practitioners should familiarize
themselves with the type of supply chain which is best matched
with their particular product type and which is exemplied by
their organization. Supply chains are complex entities, with broad
reach and ever-evolving participants and partners. As such com-
plex entities, composed of humanorganizational connections,
they can exhibit varying behavior and reactions, and yet are still
continuously evolving. Managerial operational strategies must
continue to evolve with them (Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2011).
Recognizing the typical characteristics of the organization's parti-
cular supply chain can allow the operations manager to better
forecast the reactions that will ensue from implementing product
design changes in the system.
The recognition of the interdependencies among product, process
and supply chains should lead managers toward integrating product
design and development efforts with those of process and logistics
efforts. By gathering and aligning key stakeholders from across the
operational divides, operations managers can develop the most
efcient and relevant product designs and redesigns, which can then
be best supported by the interrelated areas.
6. Conclusions and future research directions
To contribute to operations management literature, this multi-
ple case study was developed to empirically explore the inter-
relationships and dependences among product, process, and
supply chain decisions. Although much previous research has
been completed on the silo associations between these operational
areas, limited research has been performed on the simultaneous
connections among them, which is where this paper makes a
signicant contribution to operations management literature.
The ndings here suggest that product design changes are
indeed a signicant impetus of operational changes, and result in
differential impacts depending on (1) the extent of the product
design changes on a continuum, (2) the type of product, and
(3) the type of supply chain associated with the product. In
summary, the greater the number and scope of product design
changes, the greater the impact of those changes on ancillary
systems. Depending on the product type and market, product
changes or redesigns are likely to be more numerous, with greater
scope, and thus greater impact. In addition, the type of supply
chain associated with the product design being changed results in
a different reaction and with different behaviors depending on its
particular characteristics.
These results provide managers, practitioners and researchers
novel information with which to better support their operational
decisions and determine better courses of action, whether for practical
application or research direction. Despite its value however, this
research comes with limitations. Case study research is only one tool
for exploratory research, and provides different, although not lesser,
analytical results. In addition, the organizational examples used here
are only a sample, and as such, limit the implications of the results.
328 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
Global
Competition
Product Design
Product design
competence
Complexity,
customization,
Interactions
innovation
Increase in complexity
Demand for
customization
Regulatorymandates
Fig. 3. Product, process, and supply chain framework.
An additional contribution of this research is that the 3DCE
theoretical foundation and within and across case study observa-
tions were used to develop several propositions and a compre-
hensive product, process, supply chain framework which may be
used to direct future research activities. A three dimensional
perspective of product, process, and supply chain interactions is
one that has not been extensively explored in operations manage-
ment literature. Future research directions will focus on rening
the propositions into specic research questions, and developing
additional empirical research methods with which to perform
more comprehensive assessments. These assessment activities will
include expanding the research to include more typical empirical
research methods that can more deeply explore the signicance of
any expected relationships. Future research may also expand
investigations into potential dual direction correlations which
may better describe and illustrate the iterative design nature
needed for operations planning, and better support future theore-
tical and practical applications of the research.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the case study company
representatives (particularly Dennis, Brian, Keith, Curtis, Stella,
Matt, and Eric) who generously agreed to speak with us and share
their experiences. The authors would also like to thank the
anonymous reviewers for their valuable and gracious improve-
ment suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Appendix A. Interview guide questions
(1) Could you describe and explain any major changes in product
design that have taken place at [company name] over
the years?
(2) Could you describe and explain any major changes in manu-
facturing processes that have taken place at [company name]
over the years?
(3) Could you describe and explain any major changes in supply
chains that have taken place at [company name] over
the years?
Changes in Technological
Customer Advances
Trends
Manufacturing Processes Supply Chain
Technology Raw materials/
Responsiveness components/suppliers
Outsourcing, centralization/
Automation, reconfiguration,
labor expertise localization, supplier qualification
(development,diversity)
Tightly controlled Flexible and responsive
manufacturing environment supply chain
Custom manufacturing Reliable and innovative
process and assembly supplier development
systems Decision on locus of suppliers
Advanced technology
(4) How have such changes in product design impacted or
inuenced your manufacturing processes?
(5) How have such changes in product design impacted or
inuenced your supply chains?
References
Beamon, B.M., 1998. Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods.
International Journal of Production Economics 55, 281294.
Cagliano, R., Caniato, F., Spina, G., 2006. The linkage between supply chain
integration and manufacturing improvement programmes. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 26 (34), 282299.
Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Moretto, A., 2012. Environmental sustainability in
fashion supply chains: an exploratory case based research. International Journal
of Production Economics 135 (2), 659670.
Chastain, T., Elliott, A., 2000. Cultivating design competence: online support for
beginning design studio. Automation in Construction 9 (1), 8391.
Child, P., Diederichs, R., Sanders, F.H., Wisniowski, S., 1991. The management of
complexity. Sloan Management Review 32, 7279.
Christopher, M., Towill, D.R., 2001. An integrated model for the design of agile
supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management 31 (4), 235246.
Christopher, M., Towill, D.R., 2002. Developing market specic supply chain
strategies. International Journal of Logistics Management 13 (4), 114.
Christopher, M., Peck, H., 2004. Building the resilient supply chain. International
Journal of Logistics Management 15 (2), 113.
Closs, D.J., Jacobs, M.A., Swink, M., Webb, G.S., 2008. Toward a theory of
competencies for the management of product complexity: six case studies.
Journal of Operations Management 26 (5), 590610.
Crook, C.W., Kumar, R.L., 1998. Electronic data interchange: a multi-industry
investigation using grounded theory. Information & Management 34, 7589.
Department of Defense, 1998. Integrated Product and Process Development Hand-
book (last accessed on 14.03.2013) http://www.mitre.org/work/sepo/toolkits/
ippd/tools/les/DoD_IPPD_Handbook.pdf.
Doll, W.J., Vonderembse, M.A., 1991. The evolution of manufacturing systems:
towards the post-industrial enterprise. Omega 19 (5), 401411.
Droge, C., Vickery, S.K., Jacobs, M.A., 2012. Does supply chain integration mediate
the relationships between product/process strategy and service performance?
An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics 137,
250262.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review 14 (4), 532550.
Ellram, L.M., Stanley, L.L., 2008. Integrating strategic cost management with a 3DCE
environment: strategies, practices, and benets. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 14 (3), 180191.
Ellram, L.M., Tate, W.L., Carter, C.R., 2007. Product-process-supply chain: an
integrative approach to three-dimensional concurrent engineering. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37 (4), 305330.
 E. Marsillac, J.J. Roh / Int. J. Production Economics 147 (2014) 317329
Ellram, L.M., Tate, W., Carter, C.R., 2008. Applying 3DCE to environmentally
responsible manufacturing practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15),
16201631.
Fine, C.H., 1998. Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary
Advantage. Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Fine, C.H., 2000. Clockspeed-based strategies for supply chain design. Production
and Operations Management 9 (3), 213221.
Fisher, M.L., 1997. What is the right supply chain for your product. Harvard
Business Review 75 (2), 105116.
Fixon, S., 2005. Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process,
and supply chain design decisions. Journal of Operations Management 23 (34),
345369.
Forrester, J., 1961. Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Forza, C., Salvador, F., Rungtusanatham, M., 2005. Coordinating product design,
process design, and supply chain design decisions: part B. Coordinating
approaches, tradeoffs, and future research directions. Journal of Operations
Management 23 (34), 319324.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago, Aldine de Gruyter.
Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E., 2011. The future of operations management: an outlook
and analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 135, 687701.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., 1979a. Link manufacturing process and product life
cycles. Harvard Business Review 57 (1), 133140.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S., 1979b. The dynamics of process-product life cycles.
Harvard Business Review 57 (2), 127136.
Hong, P., Doll, W., Revilla, E., Nahm, A., 2011. Knowledge sharing and strategic t in
integrated product development: an empirical study. International Journal of
Production Economics 132 (2), 186196.
Hong, P., Kwon, H.B., Roh, J.J., 2009. Implementation of strategic green orientation
in supply chain. European Journal of Innovation Management 12, 512532.
Hong, P., Roh, J., 2009. Internationalization, product development and performance
outcomes: a comparative study of 10 countries. Research in International
Business and Finance 23 (2), 169180.
Iversen, O., Buur, J., 2002. Design is a game: developing design competence in a
game setting. Participatory Design Conference, Malmo, Sweden.
Kilsun, K., Chhajed, D., 2000. Commonality in product design: cost saving, valuation
change and cannibalization. European Journal of Operational Research 125 (3),
602621.
Krishnan, V., Ulrich, K.T., 2001. Product development decisions: a review of the
literature. Management Science 47 (1), 121.
Kristianto, Y., Gunasekaran, A., Helo, P., Sandhu, M., 2012. A decision support system
for integrating manufacturing and product design into the reconguration of
the supply chain networks. Decision Support Systems 52 (4), 790801.
Lee, H.L., 2002. Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties.
California Management Review 44 (3), 105119.
Lee, H.L., 2004. The triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business Review 82 (10),
102112.
MacDufe, J.P., Fujimoto, T., 2010. Why dinosaurs will keep ruling the auto industry.
Harvard Business Review 88 (6), 2325.
Manseld, E., 1993. The diffusion of exible manufacturing systems in Japan,
Europe and the United States. Management Science 39 (2), 149159.
Marsillac, E., Roh, J., 2012. The impact of product design on process and supply
chain decisions. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Supply Chain
Management Symposium and Workshop, Tokyo, Japan, March 810.
McDonald, M.H., 1985. Methodological problems associated with qualitative
research: some observations and a case analysis of international marketing
planning. International Studies of Management & Organization 15 (2), 1940.
329
McKay, A., de Pennington, A., 2001. Towards an integrated description of product,
process and supply chain. International Journal of Technology Management 21
(3), 203220.
Mehrabi, M.G., Ulsoy, A.G., Koren, Y., 2000. Recongurable manufacturing systems:
key to future manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 11 (4),
403419.
O'Driscoll, M., 2002. Design for manufacture. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 122 (23), 318321.
Park, Y.W., Ogawa, K., Tatsumoto, H., Hong, P., 2009. The impact of product
architecture on supply chain integration: a case study of Nokia and Texas
Instruments. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 5,
787798.
Petersen, K.J., Handeld, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., 2005. Supplier integration into new
product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design.
Journal of Operations Management 23 (34), 371388.
Pil, F.K., Fujimoto, T., 2007. Lean and reective production: the dynamic nature of
production models. International Journal of Production Research 45 (16),
37413761.
Rauniar, R., Doll, W., Rawski, G., Hong, P., 2008. Shared knowledge and product
design glitches in integrated product development. International Journal of
Production Economics 114, 723736.
Roh, J.J., Min, H., Hong, P., 2011. A co-ordination theory approach to restructuring
the supply chain: an empirical study from the focal company perspective.
International Journal of Production Research 49, 45174541.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., 2005. Coordinating product design, process design,
and supply chain design decisions: Part A: topic motivation, performance
implications, and article review process. Journal of Operations Management 23
(34), 257265.
Saad, S.M., Gindy, N.N.Z., 2007. Future shape of the responsive manufacturing
enterprise. Benchmarking: An International Journal 4 (1), 140152.
Selldin, E., Olhager, F., 2007. Linking products with supply chains: testing Fisher's
model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12 (1), 4251.
Skinner, W., 1985. The taming of lions: how manufacturing leadership evolved,
17801984. In: Clark, Hayes, Lorenz (Eds.), The Uneasy Alliance: Managing the
ProductivityTechnology Dilemma. The Harvard School Press, Boston, MA,
pp. 63110.
So, S., Sun, H., 2010. Supplier integration strategy for lean manufacturing adoption
in electronic-enabled supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An Interna-
tional Journal 15 (6), 474487.
Vonderembse, M.A., Uppal, M., Huang, S.H., Dismukes, J.P., 2006. Designing supply
chains: towards theory development. International Journal of Production
Economics 100 (2), 223238.
Wang, G., Huang, S.H., Dismukes, J.P., 2004. Product-driven supply chain selection
using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology. International
Journal of Production Economics 91 (115).
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 1996. Lean Thinking. Simon Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine That Changed the World.
Rawson Associates, New York, NY.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P., Modi, S.B., 2011. Impact of lean manufacturing and environ-
mental management on business performance: an empirical study of manu-
facturing rms. International Journal of Production Economics 129, 251261.
Yin, R., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, third edition. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 2003. Manufacturing exibility: dening
and analyzing relationships among competence, capability, and customer
satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management 21 (2), 173192.