The impact of organizational culture on Concurrent Engineering, Design-for-Safety, and product safety performance

Abstract

Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Design-for-Safety (DFS), and product safety performance. We propose that the underlying assumption of safety first affects the espoused values (group level product safety culture at NPD) and artefacts of organizational culture (Concurrent Engineering and Design-for-Safety); espoused value influences artefacts; and artefacts impact product safety performance. These hypotheses are tested by structural analyses of 255 survey responses collected from 126 firms in the juvenile product sector. While management commitment to safety, product safety culture, andDesign-for-Safety are significant product safety predictors, as expected, Concurrent Engineering has no significant direct effect on product safety. We discuss the implications of these findings for the field of product safety.

Concurrent Engineering Model for the Implementation of New Products in the Textile Industry: A Case Study

“…At the same time, they channeled work efforts towards fulfilling specific objectives in order to achieve the product specifications. This situation matches with Zhu et al [18], who pointed out that the integration of information and customers' influence in the product development process positively affect the products' quality.…”

Concurrent Engineering, Knowledge Management, and Product Innovation

“…As recognized by de Sousa Mendes and de Toledo (2015), Naveh (2005), and Pullan et al (2010), practitioners have been guilty of implementing CE practices without a full knowledge of effects that impact the success or failure of their implementation of CE practices. A key challenge in implementation of CE has been the vagueness of the construct and lack of adequate theory development in the area of CE (Swink, 1998; Zhu et al, 2016). To this end, this study was specifically designed to provide both researchers and managers with an overarching framework for the underlying mechanisms involved in CE implementation and its consequences.…”

“…The current study sought to address this issue and provide insight in this direction. Third, as mentioned by Gerwin and Susman (1996), Koufteros (1999), and Zhu, von Zedtwitz, Assimakopoulos, and Fernandes (2016), much of the research in CE is based on anecdotal evidence and case studies. Furthermore, there has been a lack of strong empirical research in the area of CE practices (Gerwin & Susman, 1996; Koufteros, 1999).…”

Green Customer Behavior on Eco-Friendly Products: Innovation Approach

“…It is known before that perceived innovation is one of which can influence customer's perceived value on eco-friendly products (Wu & Chen, 2014). In the review of innovation, it is known that there are three important service factors in the company like product innovation, process innovation, service innovation (Zhu et al, 2016).…”