A Conceptual Framework for Production Innovation: Expanding and Creating New Production Capabilities

• Autorzy: Larsson Lisa , Romero David

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/mper.2023.146019

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Production development has for decades concentrated on incremental improvements by exploiting existing manufacturing knowledge to improve existing production systems or adapt them for new product developments. Building up an "ambidextrous innovation" ability, and more specifically in increasing focus on explorative production innovation, is important to balance production development efforts and obtain sustainable development of production. This paper aims to provide a conceptual framework for “ambidextrous production innovation” that conceptualizes and highlights phenomenon characteristics from exploitative and explorative perspectives. The conceptual framework describes “production innovation” as the process of either increasing or developing a new production capability, enabling opportunities for new product designs. This process can be either “product-driven” or “production-driven” depending on the primary objective of the development.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ambidextrous innovation; production development; production innovation; process innovation

• Wydawca: Production Engineering Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences ; Polish Association for Production Management
• Czasopismo: Management and Production Engineering Review
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 14, No. 2
• Strony: 3--17
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 48 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Larsson Lisa

• Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

autor

Romero David

• Departments of Industrial Engineering and Mechatronics, School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico

Bibliografia

• Adner R. and Kapoor R. (2016), Innovation Ecosystems and the Pace of Substitution: Re-examining Technology S-curves, Strategic Management Journal, No. 4, Vol. 37, pp. 625–648.
• Adrodegari F., Bacchetti A., Pinto R., Pirola F., and Zanardini M. (2015), Engineer-to-Order (ETO) Production Planning and Control: An Empirical Framework for Machinery-Building Companies, Production Planning and Control, No. 26, Vol. 11, pp. 910–932.
• Antony J., Snee R. and Hoerl R. (2017), Lean Six Sigma: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, No. 34, Vol. 7, pp. 1073–1093.
• Atuahene-Gima K. (2005), Resolving the Capability: Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation, Journal of Marketing, No. 4, Vol. 69, pp. 61–83.
• Becheikh N., Landry R. and Amara N. (2006), Lessons from Innovation Empirical Studies in the Manufacturing Sector: A Systematic Review of the Literature from 1993-2003, Technovation, No. 26, Vol. 5, pp. 644–664.
• Bednarek R., Burke G. (2016), Dynamic Client Portfolios as Sources of Ambidexterity: Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Client Relationships, Long Range Planning, No. 49, Vol. 3, pp. 324–341.
• Bellgran M. and Säfsten E.K. (2009), Production Development: Design and Operation of Production Systems, Springer Science and Business Media.
• Benner M.J. and Tushman M.L. (2003), Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited, Academy of Management Review, No. 28, Vol. 2, pp. 238–256.
• Birkinshaw J. and Gupta K. (2013), Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies, Academy of Management Perspectives, No. 27, Vol. 4, pp. 287–298.
• Boscari S., Danese P. and Romano P. (2016), Implementation of Lean Production in Multinational Corporations: A Case Study of the Transfer Process from Head-quarters to Subsidiaries, Production Economics, No. 176, pp. 53–68.
• Brunet P.A. and New S. (2003), Kaizen in Japan: An Empirical Study, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, No. 23, Vol. 12, pp. 1426–1446.
• Chandrasekaran A., Linderman K. and Schroeder R. (2012), Antecedents to Ambidexterity Competency in High Technology Organizations, Journal of Operations Management, No. 1-2, Vol. 30, pp. 134–151.
• Elgh F. and Cederfeldt M. (2008), Cost-based Producibility Assessment: Analysis and Synthesis Approaches through Design Automation, Journal of Engineering Design, No. 2, Vol. 19, pp. 113–130.
• Flick U.(2014), An introduction to Qualitative research. 5 ed. Sage publications.
• Foster R.N. (1985), Timing Technological Transitions, Technology in Society, No. 7, pp. 127–141.
• Frishammar J., Ericsson K. and Patel P.C. (2015), The Dark Side of Knowledge Transfer: Exploring Knowledge Leak-age in Joint R&D Projects, Technovation, No. 41/42, pp. 75–88.
• He Z.L. and Wong P.K. (2004), Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis, Organization Science, No. 4, Vol. 15, pp. 481–494.
• Jabareen Y. (2009), Building a Conceptual Framework: Phi-losophy, Definitions, and Procedure, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, No. 4, Vol. 8, pp. 49–62.
• Jaghbeer Y., Motyka, Y., and Hallstedt, S. (2017). A Process for Designing Lean- and Sustainable Production, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17).
• Kaplan B., Litewka S. and Koppel R. (2021), Artificial In-telligence and the Future of Primary Care: Exploring the Technology and its Potential Impact on Population Health, American Journal of Public Health, No. 5, Vol. 111, pp. 827–832.
• Kondou S. (2003), Striving for Kakushin (Continuous Innovation) for the 21st Century, International Journal of Technology Management, No. 6–7, Vol. 25, pp. 517–530.
• Larsson L. (2017), Characteristics of Production Innovation, Licentiate Thesis, Luleå University of Technology.
• Larsson L. and Romero D. (2017), Expanding the Industrial Design Space through Production Innovation(s), International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, pp. 649–656.
• Larsson L. and Larsson J. (2018), Sustainable Development in Project-Based Industries-Supporting the Realization of Explorative Innovation, Sustainability, No. 10, Vol. 3, pp. 683.
• Levinthal D.A. and March J.G. (1993), The Myopia of Learning, Strategic Management Journal, No. 2 , Vol. 14, pp. 95–112
• Lin H.E. and McDonough III (2013), Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Ca-pability and Innovation Ambidexterity, Product Innovation Management, No. 2, Vol. 30, pp. 262–278.
• Liu X., Wang Z. and Xie Y. (2019), Progression from Technological Entrant to Innovative Leader: An Analytical Firm-Level Framework for Strategic Technological Upgrade, Innovation, No. 3, Vol. 21, pp. 443-465.
• Lorenzoni G., Vezzoli M. and Prencipe A. (2021), Business Model Innovation in the Age of the Platform Economy: A Systematic Literature Review, International Journal of Management Reviews, No. 1, Vol. 23, pp. 96–122.
• Majava J. and Ojanperä T. (2017), Lean Production Development in SMEs: A Case Study, Management and Production Engineering Review, No. 2, Vol. 8, pp. 41-48.
• March J.G. (1991), Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science, No. 1, Vol. 2, pp. 71–87.
• Miles M.B. and Huberman A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage.
• Nascimento J.L., Anholon R., Quelhas O.L.G., Leal Filho W. and Rampasso I.S. (2021), The Role of Technological Innovation in Industry 4.0: Insights from the Field, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, No. 163, 120436.
• Neirotti P. (2018), Work Intensification and Employee Involvement in Lean Production: New Light on a Classic Dilemma, International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp. 1–26.
• Olhager J. (2003), Strategic Positioning of the Order Penetration Point, Production Economics, No. 3, Vol. 85, pp. 319–329.
• Phaal R. et al. (2004), Technology Roadmapping - A Planning Framework for Evolution and Revolution, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, No. 1–2, Vol. 71, pp. 5–26.
• Raisch S. and Birkinshaw J. (2008), Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators, Journal of Management, No. 3, Vol. 34, pp. 375– 409.
• Raisch S., Birkinshaw J., et al. (2009), Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance, Organization Science, No. 4, Vol. 20, pp. 685–695.
• Romero D., Larsson L., Rönnbäck A.Ö. and Stahre J. (2017), Strategizing for Production Innovation, Shaping the Future of Production Management, IFIP, AICT 513, Part I, Springer, pp. 3–12.
• Salerno M.S., de Vasconcelos Gomes L.A., et al. (2015), Innovation Processes: Which Process for Which Project?, Technovation, No. 35, pp. 59–70.
• Sandberg B. and Aarikka-Stenroos L. (2014), What Makes it so Difficult? A Systematic Review on Barriers to Radical Innovation, Industrial Marketing Management, No. 8, Vol. 43, pp. 1293-1305.
• Schneider F., Kuckertz A. and Hinderer S. (2021), The Impact of Regulation on Social Innovation: Insights from the Renewable Energy Sector, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 166, 120620.
• Simsek Z. (2009), Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding, Journal of Management Studies, No. 4, Vol. 46, pp. 597–624.
• Smith W. K. and Tushman M.L. (2005), Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams, Organization Science, No. 5 Vol. 16, pp. 522–536.
• Ulrich K.T. and Eppinger S.D. (2012), Product Design and Development, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, Philadelphia, PA.
• Utterback J.M. and Abernathy W.J. (1975), A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation, Omega, 3, 6, 639–656.
• Wheelwright S.C. and Clark K.B. (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality, Simon and Schuster.
• Womack J.P., Jones D.T. and Roos D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of Lean Pro-duction.
• Yamamoto Y. (2013), Kaikaku in Production Towards Creating Unique Production Systems, PhD thesis. Mälardalen University.