The Managing Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT) Conference was held at the University of Warwick in January 1986. The conference theme covered those elements which are part of the total process of management of AMT: manufacturing strategy, technical planning, relations with equipment suppliers, implementation and performance and evaluation. These elements are reviewed here in the context of the background to the conference.
Service organizations are increasingly managing customer experiences to promote differentiation and customer loyalty. This article examines the design of experience-centric services, particularly the design of their context. Drawing on relevant literature in service and experience design, the authors develop a theory-based set of propositions for experience design.The propositions are then investigated empirically by means of 17 case studies of design agencies, consulting firms, and experience-centric service providers in different industries. Strong support was found for the designing of “customer journeys” and “touchpoints,” for sensory design, and for the designing of a dramatic structure of events. In addition, the engagement of employees, the management of fellow customers, and the close coupling of backstage employees and frontstage activities represent promising new frontiers in experience design. By identifying the current design practices of leaders in experience design, this study both informs this practice and presents a unique perspective on the design of service delivery systems.
Measuring performance is helpful, but it's only part of the story. To learn from our past successes and failures, we need to understand how they came about. To continually improve, we must examine not only our innovation performance, but the processes with which we develop and exploit these innovations. Vittorio Chiesa, Paul Coughlan, and Chris Voss present a framework for auditing technical innovation management. Their auditing methodology goes beyond performance measurement by highlighting problems and needs, and providing information that can be used in developing action plans for improving performance. The foundation of their audit methodology is a process model of technical innovation. The model addresses the managerial processes and the organizational mechanisms through which innovation is performed. Underlying this method is the notion that success in innovation is related to good practice in the relevant management processes. The model identifies four core processes: concept generation, product development, process innovation, and technology acquisition. Supporting these core processes are three enabling processes: the deployment of human and financial resources, the effective use of appropriate systems and tools, and senior management leadership and direction. The outcome from these core and enabling processes is performance in terms of innovation and the resulting competitiveness in the marketplace. This model provides the basis for a detailed audit of current innovation practice and performance. The audit has two dimensions: the process audit assesses whether the processes necessary for innovation are in place and the degree to which best practice is used; and the performance audit focuses on the outcomes of each core and enabling process and of the overall process of technological innovation and its effect on competitiveness. The performance audit helps identify needs and problems, but it doesn't explain why gaps exist between current and required performance and it doesn't provide an action plan for closing these gaps. The process audit meets these needs. The audit methodology uses a two‐level approach: a rapid assessment based on innovation scorecards and an in‐depth audit. These scorecards provide an overview of the company's strengths and weaknesses with regard to technical innovation management, highlighting those areas that require in‐depth examination. The in‐depth audit identifies not only the processes, but the areas within each requiring attention.
Volume ramp-ups are notoriously difficult in digital services, where market pressures can lead to ramping up too soon and too rapidly which in turn can lead to the need to ramp-down. This paper addresses the challenge of taking innovation to scale in an established firm by enhancing our understanding of the nature of service ramp-ups and ramp-downs. Digital service ramp-ups differ substantially from production ramp-ups as the speed is much greater, and problems are visible to customers. However there are similarities between service ramp-downs and product recalls and an important contribution is exploring the nature of ramp-downs their processes and possible causes. Using an engaged research approach, longitudinal data from three consecutive ramp-ups in a European telecom operator were collected. Through analyses of cases, qualitative and quantitative case data, and using a system dynamics model, we identified a set of issues that affect service ramp-ups and ramp-downs. These include the need to ramp up the service supply chain, biases leading to unrealistic assumptions about scalability and problem-solving, decision biases in various functions, launching digital services in beta form, a lack of transparency of capacity and lack of learning from previous ramp-ups. We show that if these problems are not addressed or resolution is delayed, this can lead to cycles of delay, backlogs and productivity problems and the inevitability of a ramp-down. We explore reasons and importance for such delays that lead to service ramp-downs.
The study of innovation has been approached from many disciplines and from the point of view of different real life problems. As a result, we have a series of clusters of knowledge that are related but seldom integrated. Chris Voss suggests it is time we closed at least one of these gaps. He suggests there should be a field of study should be established that will build a bridge between work on the process of innovation and work on the diffusion of innovation. He presents a starting point for the new field of study.
The paper begins by highlighting the limited focus in studies of production and operations management as a discipline, which have tended to focus on researchers, journals, and institutions located in North America, and thus to overlook the long-standing streams of research conducted elsewhere. As examples of other approaches to production and operations management, two research streams -- in Scandinavia and in the United Kingdom -- are described. In analysing each of these streams and positioning them versus North American research, the paper uses Chase's (1980) three dimensions along which POM research can be positioned: research strategy (qualitative/quantitative), research orientation (integrative/reductionist), and research emphasis (people/technology oriented). Scandinavian research is characterised by its emphasis on managerial relevance and the use of qualitative research strategies, a broad view of operations and a contingency view, and an emphasis on human/organisational aspects of operations. British research is characterized by field-based research and international comparisons, the plant as the unit of analysis, and an equal emphasis on human and technical aspects of operations. A synthesis is offered that locates each on the
Examines quality strategies within the manufacturing strategy. Discusses how the difference and the relationship between order winning criteria and order qualifying criteria is crucial to the understanding of the role of quality in the manufacturing strategy. Asserts that a manufacturing strategy must fully support the market strategy. Emphasizes the need to sustain and improve quality. Concludes that as more companies achieve total quality, this moves them to strategies where quality is a qualifying criterion rather than an order winner. Asserts a strategy of using quality as a qualifying criterion can only be pursued when high levels of quality have been achieved. Contends the necessity to come to terms with this in order to meet the competitive challenges of the 1990s.
The research reported examines the role of service in manufacturing. Focuses on the degree to which Chase′s “Service Factory” concept is applicable in the UK. Also examines the role of service in four manufacturing companies. It was found that the roles reported by Chase in the USA are also used by a number of UK companies, and it is concluded that the service‐factory concept is robust and is not necessarily embedded in some of the cultural norms of the USA, as are some TQM practices. The case data indicated that the source of customer service may be in customers being served by various parts of the organization, that customer service is complex and that service levels are a function of both manufacturing and distribution. This would seem to point to the distribution view of customer service, the field‐service view and/or the service‐factory view being too narrow in terms of the company as a whole.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
