英语论文网

.htm
MRN
32,7
634
customizers (e.g. Pine et al., 1995; Duray, 2002; Hvam, 2006; Petersen and Jørgensen,
2005; Steger-Jensen and Svensson, 2004). However, it can be questioned if thesecompanies conform to popular definitions of mass customizers, such as being able tooffer products at prices close to mass produced products. In this paper we focus on
engineering companies who by definition deliver products which are engineered to thespecific requirements of the customer, referred to as engineer-to-order (ETO) companies.
Therefore, two important questions need to be answered: First, what are the differencesin the transition characteristics when mass producers and ETO companies movetowards mass customization? Second, is it reasonable to label ETO as mass customizersand subsequently under which conditionswould this be appropriate?
The paper describes some of the major differences between mass production and
ETO companies in their transition towards mass customization, and concludes that itis reasonable to label some ETO companies as mass customizers although the endproductsare not at prices near mass produced ones, as many popular definitions ofmass customization require. To avoid dilution of the concept of mass customizationwhile not excluding ETO companies it is suggested to start out with a broad definitionof mass customization under which more specific definitions of different kinds of masscustomizers are created.
The customer order decoupling point
The concept of customer order de-coupling point (CODP) provides a way ofdifferentiating between manufacturing approaches. The CODP defines where in themanufacturing process a product is linked to a customer order. Sometimes the CODP isreferred to as the order penetration point (e.g. Olhager, 2003). A literature-review byWikner and Rudberg (2001) shows that four CODPs are most frequently applied,namely: ETO, make-to-order (MTO), assemble-to-order (ATO) and make-to-stock(MTS). These are shown in Figure 1.Wikner and Rudberg (2001) note that most literature does not distinguish betweenengineering and production related activities. To provide a more nuanced picture thanthis traditional distinction, Rudberg and Wikner (2004) suggest that the CODP is bothseen in an engineering dimension (ED) and a production dimension (PD). In the EDthey define ETOED, adapt-to-order (ATOED) and engineer-to-stock (ETSED) and in the
PD they define MTOPD, ATOPD and MTSPD. According to Rudberg andWikner (2004),
Figure 1.
Approach to the CODP
From ETO
to mass
customization

 

References
Davis, S.M. (1987), Future Perfect, Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, MA.
Duray, R. (2002), ‘‘Mass customization origins: mass or custom manufacturing?’’, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 314-28.
Duray, R., Ward, P.T., Milligan, G.W. and Berry, W.L. (2000), ‘‘Approaches to mass customization:
configurations and empirical validation’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 605-25.
Edwards, K. and Ladeby, K. (2005), ‘‘Framework for assessing configuration readiness’’,
Proceedings of the World Congress on Mass Customization and Personalization 2005
(MCPC 2005), Hong Kong, 18-21 September.
Edwards, K., Hvam, L., Pedersen, J.L., Møldrup, M. and Møller, N. (2005), ‘‘Udvikling og
implementering af konfigureringssystemer: Økonomi, Teknologi og Organisati本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。