The product-process matrix, developed by Hayes and Wheelwright in 1979 was designed to show the trade-offs in operations and marketing by linking product plans and process choices. The model is based on traditional trade-offs evident in a single manufacturing facility environment. The product-process matrix has been empirically tested, but improvements in operations flexibility by applying advanced technologies have caused many to question the model's continued validity. In recent years, the environment has changed significantly, with manufacturing companies offering more product customization as they gain process flexibility. In addition, the model as originally developed, does not incorporate the supply chain perspective. New models are required that include the entire supply chain as well as the impact of developments in manufacturing.
The operations strategy literature discusses the importance of defining the appropriate production process to support the competitive priorities specified in the business strategy. Building on the works of Skinner (1969) and Abemathy and Townsend (1975), this hierarchical structure was further analyzed by Hayes and Wheelwright as they looked at the relationships between marketing and operations. They suggested that there should be a link between product plans and process choice that supports the overall business strategy (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979). Furthermore, they contended that firms operating on or close to the diagonal of the product-process matrix will outperform those that hold significantly off-diagonal positions (see Figure 1). Much of the operations strategy literature since then has supported their assertions, and many operations management texts use the model to describe process choice in manufacturing.
More recently, research has been conducted to validate empirically whether firms actually link their process choice to product volume and customization and whether those decisions result in better performance. Safizadeh et al. (1996) in a study of 144 U.S. manufacturing plants, found that process choice was linked to product plans and competitive priorities and that there was some evidence of improved performance when they were well aligned. However, the authors recognized that some batch shops and continuous flow shops were able to increase their ability to customize products through flexible manufacturing systems and by using common parts and subassemblies.
Their work suggests that as flexibility increases it may be possible to move away from the diagonal on the matrix and still be successful. The authors go on to suggest that flexibility is a "complex phenomenon and the literature has gradually uncovered its multiple dimensions and their strategic implications." They also note that companies may appear to be off the line because product and process choices don't happen simultaneously. Companies may have partially implemented processes that would move them closer to the diagonal, but not have the processes completely in place. More work is required to determine the true relationship between process choice and product customization.
About the same time, other researchers felt it was necessary to continue to validate the Hayes and Wheelwright model, given changes in manufacturing technology and practice. McDermott, Greis, and Fischer (1997) conducted an in-depth study of nine firms that made up 95% of the total U.S. market for portable electric tools. Through surveys, semi-structured interviews, and plant tours, they determined that new production technologies and practices enable firms to provide flexibility, responsiveness, and low-cost production at the same time. Their results suggested that the process-product trade-offs may have changed and that the Hayes and Wheelwright model may no longer be suitable for describing the environment in that particular industry. They proposed that models based on mass customization (Pine, Victor, and Boynton, 1993) and...
References: Abernathy, W. J., and Townsend, P. L. (1975). Technology productivity and process change. Technical Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 379-396.
Bhattacharya, A. K., Coleman, J. L., and Brace, G. (1995). Re-positioning the supplier: An SME perspective. Production Planning & Control, 6, 218-226.
Childerhouse, P., Aitken J
Fisher, M. (1997). What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review, 75(2), 105-116.
Heim, G. R., and Sinha, K. K. (2001). A product-process matrix for electronic B2C operations: Implications for the delivery of customer value. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 286-299.
Lee, H. L. (2004, October). The triple-a supply chain. Harvard Business Review, 102-112.
McDermott, C. M., Greis, N. P., and Fischer, W. A. (1997). The diminishing utility of the product/process matrix: A study of the U.S. power tool industry. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(1), 65-84.
Safizadeh, M. H., Ritzman, L. P., Sharma, D., and Wood, C. (1996). An empirical analysis of the product-process matrix. Management Science, 42 (11), 1576-1591.
Whipple, J. M., and Frankel, R. (2000). Strategic alliance success factors. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(3), 21-28.
March 22, 2006
Culture, self-directed learning readiness, and per capita income in fi...
March 22, 2006
Please join StudyMode to read the full document