The Development of a Collaborative Design Chain Reference Model for the Motorcycle Industry

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The development of a collaborative design chain reference

model for the motorcycle industry

Wen-Hsiung Wu&Shen-Chou Yeh&Long-Chin Fang

Received: 5 February 2006 / Accepted: 10 July 2006 / Published online: 28 September 2006

# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Abstract A well-defined and flexible design chain reference model forms the basis for promoting collaborative design chain. The Special Interest Group under the Design Chain Council proposed the design chain operations reference (DCOR) in an attempt to assist enterprises building a design chain modeling frameworks. To date, DCOR version 1.0 only provides preliminary definitions, such as those for major design procedures, and lacks an example of best practices in the industry. Additionally, few studies have attempted this research issue. This study integrates the concepts of design chain, collaborative product design, and collaborative product commerce in a proposed collaborative design chain operations reference model (CDCORM) based on DCOR as a reference for developing a collaborative design chain system in the product lifecycle. The CDCORM consists of four hierarchical levels: collaborative design chain business model; collaborative design chain coopera-tive model; collaboracoopera-tive design-chain process model; and, a collaborative design chain operational model. Based on pro-ject management, the CDCORM has five core

procedures-product plan, concept design, detail design, design review, and design amend. This study also assesses the effectiveness of the CDCORM by applying it to the motorcycle industry. In summary, this study extends the DCOR model and pro-poses a complete collaborative design chain reference model and implements a system in the motorcycle industry as a case study. This case study serves as a best practices example for the motorcycle industry.

Keywords Collaborative product commerce . Collaborative product design . Design chain . Design chain operations reference model . Motorcycle industry

1 Introduction

Facing small-volume production and diversified market, enterprises must increase the flexibility and responsiveness of their product design and manufacturing operations. Davidow and Malone [1] pointed out that due to the com-plexity of products and markets, firms must be able to respond quickly to customized products. Moreover, as con-sumers now change their preferences at a rapidpace, product lifecycles have been shortened. Thus, an increasing number of firms are asking their suppliers to become involved in the product design stage in the new product development pro-cess [2]. Such collaboration in product design reduces R&D time, risk associated with product development, costs, and time to market [2–4].

To gain a competitive edge, firms have started adopting design chains to shorten the duration between product design and time to market [5]. O’Grady and Chuang [6] further applied this concept to all product development activities, such as collaborative product commerce (CPC) and collab-orative product design (CPD). In CPC, the integration of W.-H. Wu (*)

National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China

e-mail: whwu@cc.kuas.edu.tw S.-C. Yeh

Department of Collaborative Commerce, Corporate Synergy Development Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China e-mail: 553@email.csd.org.tw L.-C. Fang

Department of Information Management,

National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China

product R&D, manufacturing and sales information become the primary applications at the product development stage. Additionally, information technology (e.g., the Internet) allows CPD to be instant and facilitates accurate exchange of product design information among customers, a manu-facturer, and suppliers [7], thereby reducing time and cost in new product development. The internationally acclaimed strategic management guru Michael Porter, in a 2001 speech, encouraged the manufacturing industry to abandon its OEM mode and enhance its competitiveness using innovative CPC/CPD technologies to bolster its product R&D and design capabilities.

Firms are aware of the advantages of design chains, CPD, and CPC. However, firms require a complete framework as a reference model when developing a collaborative design chain that consists of a manufacturer, design house, and suppliers. The Supply Chain Council, based on the successful supply chain operations reference model, proposed a design chain operations reference (DCOR) model to assist firms constructing their framework [8]. We agree that the DCOR concept provides considerable reference value for firms. To date, however, DCOR version 1.0 only offers preliminary definitions, such as those for major design procedures, and lacks a best practice example. Furthermore, few studies have attempted this issue.

This study integrates the concepts of design chain, CPD, and CPC in proposing a collaborative design chain opera-tions reference model (CDCORM) based on DCOR. The CDCORM consists of four hierarchical levels: collaborative design chain business model, collaborative design chain cooperative model, collaborative design chain process model, and a collaborative design chain operational model. These models represent different views of collaborative design chains. Finally, this study applies this model and implements a system for the motorcycle industry to assess the capability of the CDCORM in establishing a best practice example.

2 Related work

2.1 Design chain and collaborative design

With respect to the design chain concept, Twigg [5] dis-cusses the exchange of design information with suppliers and customers, through which engineering designs in inter-organizational project management are compared. More-over, as the design documents at different firms are combined to form a mutually influential chain system, system members can share development costs and enjoy increased benefits. This chain system is called a “design chain”. The design chain can be applied to activities at all stages of new product development-idea generation,

prelim-inary evaluation, concept design, product development, product testing, trial run, and product launch [9]. Some industries, such as the automobile or motorcycle industry, have incorporated the design chain concept into new prod-uct development.

The design chain involves the collaboration among firms when performing design work. The participants (including designers, a manufacturer, suppliers, and marketing staff) can participate in product development simultaneously to communicate and engage in discussions. Thus, the design process can be called a“collaborative design” process [10]. Wognum et al. [11] stressed the importance of collaboration during product development between clients and suppliers. The main objectives of collaborative design are optimiza-tion of product funcoptimiza-tion, minimizaoptimiza-tion of producoptimiza-tion or assembly costs, and simple and economic way to use and maintenance of product design. The benefits of collabora-tive design encompass reduced costs associated with new product development, reduced R&D time, and enhanced competitiveness [12]. The process of collaborative design requires identification of customer needs and product specifications, and, based on these needs and specifications, a product designer determines the basic product framework and design parameters. Next, members in a collaborative design project design each component in a distributed envi-ronment. During the design process, even when team members use different rules in completing their respective activities, the entire design project must be interwoven to maintain product consistency. In short, planning and imple-mentation of a design chain and that utilizes collaborative design concepts are central to enhancing competitiveness.

O’Grady and Chuang [6] applied the collaboration concept to all collaborative activities relating to product development, such as CPC and CPD under collaborative commerce. The literature related to CPC and CPD is discussed in the following subsection.

2.1.1 The concepts of CPC/CPD

Notably, CPC is defined as an integrated suite of software and services that provide cross business processes for indi-vidual products, thereby establishing a singular, closed-loop resolution schema [13]. The purpose of CPC is to ensure information sharing between firms or between firm depart-ments, thereby closing the gap between design, prototype and inspection processes. Consequently, firms can quickly respond to customer needs, reduce costs and enhance production speed in highly competitive markets and maxi-mize competitive advantage. Through CPD, as proposed by the Aberdeen Group [13], firms can monitor, coordinate, and control product development in a collaborative setting and use visual representation tools that facilitate informa-tion sharing during a product’s lifecycle. For example,

collaborators must be able to share and revise documents such as engineering diagrams and schematics. Such collab-oration may be transferred via delivery of a simple document or a complex process that uses collaborative tools to track and manage the entire tasks.

2.1.2 The crucial dimensions for implementing CPC/CPD PwC Consulting [14] pointed out that a firm must consider technology, flow process, organizational behavior and stand-ards to successfully implement CPC/CPD. In terms of tech-nology, the Internet can link partners in the supply chain and facilitate direct, rapid and secure transfer of data (e.g., stock, production schedule). Sun Microsystems [7] contended that CPD can utilize the Internet to provide access to product-related information at anytime and anyplace, and, at the same time, allow employees and external partners to participate in the CPD process via integrated information technology. Ozer [15] proposed that the Internet facilitates collaboration and information sharing among team members involved in a design project.

In terms of flow processes, a firm must reexamine and redesign its flow processes to improve the efficiency of inter-department or inter-organizational information transfer, information sharing, and decision-making. Barrett and Konsynski [16] argued that the primary incentive in inter-organizational information transfer and sharing is the re-duction of transaction-processing cost. Lee and Chen [17] indicated that a manufacturer and suppliers need efficient exchange and sharing of information throughout the CPD process. Corbett et al. [18] stressed that information sharing and coordinated decision-making among supply chain part-ners improves the efficiency of supply chain management. Thus, information flow is likely a supply chain“lubricant” that facilitates inter-organizational collaboration.

In addressing its organizational behavior, a firm should improve operational processes to facilitate collaboration among intra-organization departments and employees, such that products can be developed through concerted effort. Additionally, early participation of suppliers is an important factor for success of the CPD process for inter-organization. Faced with increasingly intense global competition and market and customer needs, firms must reduced product R&D time and improve product quality to stay competitive. Carlisle and Parker [19] suggested that suppliers must par-ticipate early in the product design process such that their capabilities are integrated into a manufacturer’s supply chain, thereby effectively reducing manufacturing costs, design time and service costs for components.

In terms of standards, a firm must acquire consensus in database coding systems, communication protocol, and collaborative process templates to decrease the time of inter-action and the costs of connection between clients and

suppliers. Hardwick et al. [20] developed an information infrastructure architecture that improves collaboration in a virtual manufacturing enterprise by applying STEP and CORBA. Pahng et al. [21] proposed a distributed object modeling environment (DOME) system based on object-oriented methodology that decomposes product design and production processes into various module-based elements for collaborate among designers. Yeh et al. [22] proposed an integrated data model and an implementation approach for product data management (PDM) that uses the STEP as a standard for product data exchange. Kim et al. [23] devel-oped a framework for product information sharing for CPC among enterprises. This framework is based on STEP PDM schema standard and represents product metadata and applies web-based standards to attain interoperability for product data, system applications, and processes.

2.1.3 The major obstacles to collaboration during product design

As noted, planning and implementation of a design chain, collaborative design, and CPD/CPD are becoming increas-ingly important to corporate benefits and competitiveness. However, Choi et al. [24] identified two major obstacles to collaboration during product design. The first obstacle arises from the characteristics of product design chain processes, such as frequent and iterative feedback, content- and re-source-dependent processes. The second obstacle is rooted in limitations in conventional process modeling methodolo-gies that are excessively generic for specific processes, and lacks common terminology and performance metrics as these processes are designed by and for IT specialists, not by and for business process managers. To resolve these problems, Choi et al. [24] suggested constructing a product design chain collaboration framework using a reference model.

2.2 Design chain operations reference (DCOR) model The Supply Chain Council identified the same problems as Choi et al. [24] and instructed the Special Interest Group, under the Design Chain Council, to initiate the development of a DCOR model in 2004 [25]. The DCOR is a standard design chain model (Fig.1) to identify the principal process elements in the design chain of the industry. The major concepts in the DCOR model are described as follows. – Under the basis of project management (PM) and

through five major design procedures-product plan (PP), concept design (CD), detail design (DD), design review (DR), and design amend (DA)-the principal process elements are formulated in a hierarchy, and the relationship between management processes are defined as a standard format for design chain modeling.

– Operational performance requires quantitative indica-tors to help firms understand their current performance status.

– Through clear definitions for standard processes in the design chain, DCOR model should be applied to indus-tries and provided a best practice model as a reference for firms constructing models and formulating improve-ment plans.

Based on the major concepts in the DCOR model, firms can analyze their intra-organizational and inter-organiza-tional design chain framework and processes and undertake in-depth research and institute improvements to identify the position of each design chain member and their impact on design chain performance. From a strategic perspective, an efficient collaborative product design process is central to firm competitive strategies [26]. In summary, the DCOR model provides substantial value to firms as a reference. However, the DCOR model remains in preliminary stages of development (version 1.0) and lacks the best practices examples for specific industries. Furthermore, few studies have attempted this issue. Thus, development and assess-ment of collaborative design chain operations require further discussion.

3 Collaborative design chain operations reference model (CDCORM)

Based on the integrative design chain concepts, CPC, and CPD-based on the DCOR model-this study proposes the CDCORM (Fig. 2). The CDCORM contains four hierar-chical levels: collaborative design chain business model;

collaborative design chain cooperative model; collaborative design chain process model; and, a collaborative design chain operational model. By planning these four hierarchical models, the collaborative design chain encompasses a high-end strategic business model, middle-high-end procedural collab-oration patterns and interactions, and low-end detailed operations.

Under the basis of project management (PM), CDCORM contains five core procedures-PP, CD, DD, DR, and DA- that span the distance between front-end customers and back-end suppliers and correspond to a firm’s business strategy, de-signer deployment, division of design labor, and information flow. The relational authority among collaborative design chain members is connected through the five core proce-dures. The design procedure of each member can become part of the customer design procedure. This design procedure can also be outsourced to suppliers. The following provided detailed descriptions of the four levels and five core pro-cedures in the CDCORM.

3.1 Collaborative design chain business model (Level 1) The collaborative design chain business model encom-passes the core processes in a collaborative design chain. Based on PM, this business model contains five core design procedures. PP covers from market planning to product planning, such as pre-design planning; CD includes definition of product structure, layout, interaction between customers and suppliers, and production of the conceptual model; DD encompasses parts design, trial and planning from product structure deployment; DR covers activities from functional and production testing, and its pre-production verification; DA encompasses design mod-ification and analytical feedback.

Project Management

Customers Manufacturer Suppliers

Fig. 1 Design chain operations reference (DCOR) model (Source: Adapted from Supply Chain Council [8])

3.2 Collaborative design chain cooperative model (Level 2) The collaborative design chain cooperative model describes interactions and collaboration patterns between suppliers and customers. Such interactions in the collaborative design chain have numerous interactive modes of PM when plan-ning multiple interactive relationships of the five core processes between customers and suppliers. Also, each core process has multiple and concurrent tasks.

Two collaborative patterns exist: management mecha-nisms and collaboration mechamecha-nisms (Table 1). The

top-level management mechanism is based on PM and its collaboration patterns consist of PP management, CD management, DD management, DR management, and DA management. Each core process has particular managerial activities. The bottom-level collaboration mechanism is based on communication between suppliers and customers and is deconstructed into a buyer’s internal project review, buyer-seller joint review, and seller’s internal project review, such as buyer’s demand planning. Buyers and sellers can select suitable communication pathways based on core processes.

Table 1 Collaborative design chain cooperative model based on collaboration patterns PM

PP CD DD DR DA

Management mechanism

PP management CD management DD management DR management DA management

Collaboration mechanism

Buyer’s internal project review/Buyer-seller joint review/Seller’s internal project review

Buyer’s PP Buyer’s CD Buyer’s DD Buyer’s DR Buyer’s DA

Buyer-seller joint PP Buyer-seller joint CD Buyer-seller joint DD Buyer-seller joint DR Buyer-seller joint DA

Seller’s PP Seller’s CD Seller’s DD Seller’s DR Seller’s DA

Hierarchical level

Title Representation Definition

Collaborative design chain business model P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t D e s i g n R e v i e w D e t a i l D e s i g n C o n c e p t D e s i g n P r o d u c t P l a n D e s i g n A m e n d

. Five core procedures

Collaborative design cooperative model . Collaborative interaction relationships . Collaboration patterns Collaborative design process model . Process items . Input data . Output data Collaborative design operational model . Scenario analysis . Interaction analysis

. Information flow analysis

the designer, customer, and suppliers. Then, the designer modifies the appearance of the bike to meet customer needs and uploads the revised design to the platform. The plat-form members involved in the project can access the results. 4.5.2 Information sharing platform

This platform records all product information such as part attributes, tables, engineering changes and BOM. All members involved in the project can access the required information (Fig. 11). For example, when manufacturer designers complete the design of medical bike body parts, they upload this information to the platform and inform the members involved the project that the information has been uploaded. All members can access the part information. When project members find a problem, they can revise the design instantly and store this new design on the platform. 4.5.3 Part drawing library module

This library provides functions for accessing and storing design drawings (Fig. 12). For example, the manufacturer designers upload their design drawings to the library. Con-versely, the supplier can download design drawings. When engineers change of certain parts, the supplier is immedi-ately notified and they can re-download the new drawing for revisions.

4.5.4 Component library module

This library provides stores existing and new design compo-nents generated by suppliers; this data can be accessed by manufacturer designers (Fig. 13). For example, if a seat component needs to be outsourced, a procurement clerk at the manufacturer notifies the supplier based on purchasing procedure via the system. The seat supplier downloads the design and manufactures this component. When the supplier completes the seat design for the medical bike, the supplier uploads the components into this library and notifies the manufacturer designers. Then, the designers check the new component information and further know the detailed specification and drawing according to the working list. When the manufacturer designers want a new component, they can check this library to find the component that meets customer needs.

5 Conclusion

Establishing an operations reference model and providing an example of best practices for industry is a common goal for academics and practitioners. In the field of supply chain management, the supply chain operations reference model

proposed by the Supply Chain Council is an important paradigm. The Special Interest Group under the Design Chain Council further provided the DCOR model for collaborative design. The DCOR model is an excellent reference model. To date, DCOR version 1.0 only maps out preliminary definitions, such as those for major design pro-cedures and lacks an example of best practices in industry. Additionally, few studies have investigated this issue.

This study integrates the concepts of a design chain, CPD, and CPC in proposing the CDCORM, which is based on the DCOR model. The CDCORM has four hierarchical levels: collaborative design chain business model; collabo-rative design chain coopecollabo-rative model; collabocollabo-rative design chain process model; and, collaborative design chain oper-ational model. Based on PM, the CDCORM has five core procedures: PP, CD, DD, DR, and DA. Figure2presents the proposed CDCORM. To assess the CDCORM, the study applies the model to the design of a new medical bike in the motorcycle industry. Figures3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,

13and Table2 present application results.

In summary, the contribution of this study is that it extends the DCOR model in proposing the CDCORM and establishes a universally applicable collaborative design chain reference model. This study also applies the CDCORM and implements a system to the motorcycle industry, which serves as an example of best practices for a collaborative design chain involving customers, a manufac-turer, and suppliers. Given that the proposed CDCORM is only evaluated by its application to the motorcycle indus-try, further studies should apply this model to other industries (e.g., the electronics industry).

References

1. Davidow W, Malone M (1992) The virtual corporation. Harper Collins

2. Bidault F, Butler CD (1998) Leveraged innovation unlocking the innovation potential of strategic supply. Macmillan, London 3. Clark KB (1989) Project scope and project performance: the

effects of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Manage Sci 35(10):1247–1263

4. Dyer JH (1997) Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strateg Manage J 8(7):535–556

5. Twigg D (1995) Design chain management: inter-organisational co-ordination of product development in the UK automotive industry. Dissertation, University of Warwick

6. O’Grady P, Chuang WC (2001) Research issues in e-commerce and product development. Cybern and Syst 32(7):75–786 7. Sun Microsystems (2001) Collaborative product commerce.http://

www.sun.com

8. Supply-Chain Council (2004) Design-chain operations reference-model (DCOR) version 1.0. Supply-Chain Council, Pittsburgh, PA

9. Cooper RG (1994) Perspective: third generation new product process. J Prod Manag 11:3–14

10. Wang L, Shen W, Xie H, Neelamkavil J, Pardasani A (2002) Collaborative conceptual design-state of the art and future trends. Comput-Aided Des 34(13):981–996

11. Wognum PM, Fisscher AM, Weenink AJ (2002) Balanced relationship: management of client-supplier relationships in product development. Technovation 22:34–351

12. Huang CJ, Trappery A, Yao YH (2003) Collaborative design, collaborative product commerce, configuration management, workflow management. J Chin Inst Ind Eng 20(4)

13. Aberdeen Group (2000) Beating the competition with CPC 14. PwC Consulting (2002) Sustaining value in the new corporation

integrated analyticshttp://www.pwcglobal.com/

15. Ozer M (2003) Process implications of the use of the Internet in new product development: a conceptual analysis. Ind Market Manage 32:517–530

16. Barrett S, Knosynski B (1982) Inter-organization information sharing system. MIS Quarterly 6(4):93–105

17. Lee DL, Chen YM (1996) Integrated product and process data management. Integr Comput-Aided Eng 13:1–4

18. Corbett C, Blackburn J, Wassenhove L (1999) Case study: partnerships to improve supply chains. Sloan Manage Rev 71–82 19. Carlisle JA, Parker RC (1998) Beyond negotiation: redeeming

customer-suppliers relationships. Wiley, Chichester

20. Hardwick M, Spooner DL, Rando T, Morris KC (1996) Sharing manufacturing information in virtual enterprises. Commun ACM 39(2):46–54

21. Pahng GDF, Bae S, Wallace D (1998) A web-based collaborative design modeling environment. Proc 7th IEEE workshops on enabling technologies infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, Stanford, CA, pp 161–167

22. Yeh SC, You CF (2002) STEP-based data schema fro implement-ing product data management system. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 15(1):1–17

23. Kim H, Kim HS, Lee JH, Jung JM, Lee JY, Do NC (2006) A framework for sharing product information across enterprises. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 27:610–618

24. Choi Y, Kim K, Kim C (2005) A design chain collaboration framework using reference models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26:183–190 25. Supply-Chain Council (2004) Supply-chain operations reference

model, version 6.0. Supply-Chain Council, Pittsburgh, PA 26. Hakanson B (2004) Design-chain council established as a special

interest group within the supply-chain council-Focus on design chain issues and the design chain operations reference model.

http://www.supply-chain.org/

27. Yin RK (1994) Case study research, design and mehtods, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, CA