國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6.4 Suggestion to the future research
6.4.1 Suggest use other research methods
In my research I used case studies only. This approach gives more analytic and complex
explanations on the issues and questions faced. On the other side, due to the fact that most of my data was obtained through direct interviews with representatives from the companies, these data might be biased in multiple ways. The interviewee might be reluctant to answer truthful (accurate) answers rather than more acceptable ones due to the fact of face to face contact. Also there might be some bias due to the conversation misunderstandings as well as this method is very time consuming and therefore allows small samples only. For the future research, I would recommend to use questionnaires or customer variable as well. This might decrease the sample size, since less time is necessary and questionnaires might be distributed to large number of subject. Also they might bring more standardized way to data collection and evaluation.
6.4.2 Suggest employ supplier`s perspective
In my study, I researched the relationships between suppliers and buyers from the customer perspective. This will give us quite good explanation on why are the suppliers involved into the NPD and also bring some insights on strategies how can they be selected. Although this is valid approach, I believe that in the future research the suppliers should be subjected to research as well. Once having the points of views of the both sides analyzed, we can present with an more complete and comprehensive research as well as answers.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Literature
Baccarini, D., (1996), The Concept of Project Complexity‐ a Review, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, Issue 4, pp. 201‐204.
Baldwin, C.Y., and Clark, K.B, (2000). Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Boston: The MIT Press.
Barnett, B.D., and Clark, K.B., (1996), Technological Newness: An Empirical Study in the Process Industries, Journal of Engineering and Technology management, Vol. 13, No. 3‐4, pp. 263‐282.
Bidault, F., Despres, Ch., and Butler, C., (1998), The Drivers of Cooperation Between Buyers and Suppliers for Product Innovation, Research Policy, Vol. 26, No. 7‐8, pp. 719‐732.
Bozdogan, K., Deyst, J., Hoult, D., and Lucas, M., (1998), Architectural Innovation in Product Development Through Early Supplier Integration, R&D Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 163‐
173.
Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc. (1982). New Product Management for the 1980’s. New York: Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc.
Chesbrough, H.W., and Kusunoki, K., (2001), “The Modularity Trap: Innovation, Technology Phases Shifts and the Resulting Limits of Virtual Organizations”. In I. Nonaka, and D.J. Teece, (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization (pp. 202‐ 230).
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Clark, K.B., and Fujimoto, T., (1991), Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dyer, J., (1996), How Chrysler created an American Keirestu, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 42‐60.
Dyer, J., and Singh, H., (1998), The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Inter‐
organizational Competitive Advantage, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Fine, Ch. H., (1996), Industry Clockspeed and Competency Chain Design: An Introductory Essay, Proceedings of the 1996 manufacturing and Service Operations Management Conference, Darthmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Fine, Ch. H., and Whitney, D.E., (1996), Is the Make‐buy Decision a Core Competence? New York:
MIT Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development.
Garud, R., and Kumaraswamy, A., (1993), Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, Issue S1, pp. 93‐109.
Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., Petersen, K.J., and Monczka, R.M., (2000), Product Development:
Strategies for Supplier Integration. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality.
Henderson R.M., and Clark, K.B., (1990), Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No.1 Special Issue: Technology, Organizations, and Innovation, pp. 9‐30.
Hippel,Von E., (1990), Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable. Research Policy, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 407‐418.
Kamath, R.R., and Liker, J.K., (1994), A Second Look at the Japanese Product Development, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72, No. 6, pp. 154‐170.
Langley, R.B., (2000), Smaller and smaller: The Evolution of the GPS Receiver, GPS World, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 54‐58.
Langlois, R.N., (2003); The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Industrial and Corporate Change: Special Issue: Theory of the Firm, Learning and Organization, Vol. 12, No.2, pp. 351‐385.
Monczka, R.M., Peterson, K.J., Handfield, R.B., (1998), Success Factors in Strategic Supplier Alliances: The Buying Company Perspective, A Journal of Decission Sciences institute, Vol. 29, No.3, pp. 553‐577.
Nonaka, H., and Takeuchi, (1995), The Knowledge‐Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, USA.
Olson, E.M., Walker, O.C., and Ruekert, R.W., (1995), Organizing for Effective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness, Journal of marketing, Vol. 59, No.1, pp. 48‐62.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B., and Scannel, T.V., (1997), Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 190‐202.
Sanches, R. (1995), Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. S1, pp. 135‐159.
Sanchez, R., and Mahoney, J.T., (1996), Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, No.: Special Issue, pp.
63‐76.
Sanchez, R., and Collins, R.P., (2001), Competing‐and Learning‐in Modular Markets, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, Iss. 6, pp. 639‐783.
Schling, MA (2000), Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity, Academy of management review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 312‐334
Simon, H.A. (1962), The Architecture of Complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 106, No.6, pp. 467‐482.
Sturgeon, T., (2002), Modular Production networks: a New American Model of Industrial Organization, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 451‐496.
Swink, M. (1999), Threats to New Product Manufacturability and the Effects of Development Team Integration Processes, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 691‐701.
Takeishi, A., (2002), Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development, Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 321‐338.
Ulrich, K., (1995), The Role Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm, Research Policy, Vol.
24, Issue 3, pp. 419‐440.
Utterback, J.M., (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Veloso, F., and Fixson, S., (2000), Make‐Buy Decisions in the Auto industry: New Perspectives on
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Willias, T.M., (1999), The Need for New Paradigms for Complex Projects, International Journal of Project management, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 269‐273.
Wheelwright, S.C., and Clark, K.B., (1992), Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. New York: Free Press.
Yin, R.K., (1994), Case study research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage, International Education and Professional.
Internet resources:
Hewlett‐Packard web page: www.hp.com Asus web page: www.asus.com
Sanav web page: www.sanav.com
Wikipedia web page: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/motherboard www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/heat_pipe