Defining Solution Spaces for Customizations

Abstract

Customization in different flavors have been identified as an important differentiator if low-cost competitiveness is not viable. To provide a customer unique solution is however not the same as providing a solution that is designed and individualized for a particular delivery to a customer. These two cases are illustrations of how customer requirements may be fulfilled differently depending on the match between stated requirements and the solution offered. The range of solutions that can be offered is represented by a solution space consisting of either predefined or postdefined solutions. Predefined refers to solutions that are defined before commitment to a customer and postdefined refers to solutions that are defined after commitment to a customer. Both cases are constrained by a boundary of possible solutions but the postdefined solutions provide opportunities for bounded innovation beyond what the predefined solutions can provide. Combining the properties of the different solution spaces provides not only an operational definition of customization but also supports in identifying strategic opportunities for extending the solutions and types of customizations a business provides.

Customizations vs. Platforms – A Conceptual Approach to COSI

“…By extending the EDP-framework and in line with [18], the ETO scenario can be described as a continuous solution space where the customizations are individualized.…”

“…The point in the manufacturing flow when the customer order is received is referred to as the customer order decoupling point (CODP) [17]. The CODP separates the forecastdriven flow from the customer-order-driven flow in the supply chain (by Käkelä and Wikner [18] referred to as separating speculation driven activities from commitment driven activities). Hence the position of the CODP, results in different product-market situations or manufacturing situations.…”

“…According to Lampel and Mintzberg [23] there is a continuum of customization strategies ranging from pure standardization via segmented standardization, customized standardization, and tailored customization to pure customization, see Figure 2. [18] further define three categories of solution spaces where the single-point discrete solutions space corresponds to MTS/MTO or mass-production, the multiple-point discrete solutions space corresponds to ATO or mass-customization and the continuous solutions space corresponds to ETO or individualization.…”

On Multi-Disciplinary Optimization in Engineer-to-Order Product Configuration

“…The utilization of configurators is especially familiar when considering a grade of customization pertaining to a selection of predefined product variations. This grade of customization, falling within the ATO or CTO strategies, typically yields a finite and discrete solution space (Käkelä and Wikner 2018). Zhang (2014) however points out a lack of configuration applications involving new component design, what could be referred to as ETO scenarios.…”

Early steps in learning about organizational learning in customization settings

“…Here, a customer’s individualized needs are responded to, which is why this type of customization is hereafter referred to as an individualized customization. An individualized customization can be defined as a customized solution that are defined after commitment to the customer, of which there are no predefined solutions to choose from (Käkelä and Wikner, 2018). It differs from modularization and mass customization (Fogliatto et al , 2012) where suppliers design or engineer possible solutions in advance of committing to a customer by speculating about prospective customer’s idiosyncratic needs (Salvador et al , 2009).…”