TY - JOUR
T1 - Exploring the archetypes of engineer-to-order
T2 - an empirical analysis
AU - Willner, Olga
AU - Powell, Daryl
AU - Gerschberger, Markus
AU - Schönsleben, Paul
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
PY - 2016/3/7
Y1 - 2016/3/7
N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize archetypes of engineer-to-order (ETO) to support companies in determining the appropriate degree of design standardization and automation, and as a result achieve superior performance. Products of ETO manufacturers are classified in a 2×2 matrix using annual units sold and engineering complexity as dimensions. Design/methodology/approach – This research adopted a theory refining approach based on multiple case studies. Seven ETO manufacturers from different industry sectors participated in the study. Data collection was primarily based on a series of in-depth interviews supported by observations and archival sources. Findings – The paper proposes four distinct archetypes of ETO (complex, basic, repeatable, and non-competitive) and empirically validates three of them. The organizational structures and processes most suitable for the different archetypes are described, and standardization and automation strategies are linked to the quadrants of the matrix. The matrix can support practitioners in making strategic choices and provides a framework for benchmarking their ETO products and processes. Originality/value – Existing conceptualizations of ETO consider the company as the primary object of investigation, rather than the product or product family. However, companies often have different product families demanding different strategies. Also, there is little or no focus on the engineering perspective. The authors move the engineering perspective to the center of investigation and identify a set of standardization and automation strategies for different types of ETO products.
AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize archetypes of engineer-to-order (ETO) to support companies in determining the appropriate degree of design standardization and automation, and as a result achieve superior performance. Products of ETO manufacturers are classified in a 2×2 matrix using annual units sold and engineering complexity as dimensions. Design/methodology/approach – This research adopted a theory refining approach based on multiple case studies. Seven ETO manufacturers from different industry sectors participated in the study. Data collection was primarily based on a series of in-depth interviews supported by observations and archival sources. Findings – The paper proposes four distinct archetypes of ETO (complex, basic, repeatable, and non-competitive) and empirically validates three of them. The organizational structures and processes most suitable for the different archetypes are described, and standardization and automation strategies are linked to the quadrants of the matrix. The matrix can support practitioners in making strategic choices and provides a framework for benchmarking their ETO products and processes. Originality/value – Existing conceptualizations of ETO consider the company as the primary object of investigation, rather than the product or product family. However, companies often have different product families demanding different strategies. Also, there is little or no focus on the engineering perspective. The authors move the engineering perspective to the center of investigation and identify a set of standardization and automation strategies for different types of ETO products.
KW - Case study
KW - Classification
KW - Empirical
KW - Engineer-to-order
KW - Mass customization
KW - Operations strategy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958697471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0339
DO - 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0339
M3 - Article
SN - 0144-3577
VL - 36
SP - 242
EP - 264
JO - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
JF - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
IS - 3
ER -