IT and the mass customization of services: the challenge of implementation
1. Introduction
This century has seen mass production working wonders, efficiently producing products and services at low prices. However, as customers become more sophisticated, standardized mass produced products often lose their appeal (Anon, 1998). One means of addressing this problem is the adoption of mass customization. The mass customization approach is a “lens” through which firms may view the world, and build upon previous lenses(Hartamp;Taylor,1996).It attempts to give customers what they want, when and where they want it, and at a cost comparable to that of mass produced goods (Anon, 1998).
2. Theories of mass customization
The term mass customization was coined by Stan Davis (1987) who predicted that the more a company was able to deliver customized goods on a mass basis, relative to their competition, the greater would be their competitive advantage, a view supported by Pitt, Bertham and Watson (1999), and Duray and Milligan (1999). Pine, Victor and Boynton (1993a) describe the synergy of mass customization and continuous improvement as a “new” competitive strategy to challenge “old” strategies such as mass production. Hart and Taylor (1996) offer an operational definition: “Mass customization is the use of flexible processes and organizational structures to produce varied and often individually customised products and services at the price of standardised, mass produced alternatives”.
The concepts of flexibility, timeliness and variety are essential to the notion of mass customization. It is determining what the customer really needs and attempting to respond quickly with an offering which costs the customer relatively little more than standardized, mass produced alternatives (Duray amp; Milligan, 1999). So mass customization is a firm#39;s ability to meet customer requirements en masse, yet at a low cost, which rivals mass production capabilities. How can the organization achieve this?
The key word is flexibility, both in processes and organisational structures (Pine amp; Gilmore, 1998). This distinguishes mass customization from mass production. Such flexibility demands new skills in organisational learning, business processes, and procedures. Haeckel and Nolan (1993) prescribe a three part model dealing with the problems of unpredictability and customer variation. In this “sense and respond” model they suggest that information, capabilities, and leadership are the key elements. Information on the marketplace needs to be sensed and acted upon, and for this they suggest “managing by wire” (an analogy taken from the air pilot#39;s use of technology to codify information and events in such a way as facilitates appropriate and rapid response).They state that the degree to which a firm can “manage-by-wire” will depend on the size and complexity of the business. This is also known as the “corporate IQ”, which is the ability of the institution to access, share, and extract meaning from all the signals and information in the environment. To truly manage-by-wire, the IT infrastructure must be designed according to an enterprise model, “a high-level map of a business that guides the writing of a computer code and the execution of nonautomated activities” (Haeckel amp; Nolan, 1993).
However, they caution that for the enterprise model to be complete, it must incorporate “the notions of commitment and human accountability in business processes” and must also “deal with unstructured work and ad hoc processes” (Haeckel amp; Nolan, 1993). Leadership in this context needs to follow a distinct governance mechanism that not only stresses principles but also true accountability. Governance, as opposed to management, is the word selected because the old “command and control” management style needs now to give way to employee empowerment and process management (context and co-ordination), which needs to be governed instead of managed or dictated (Haeckel, 1995).
Pine, Victor and Boynton (1993b) suggest that organizations can operate at four stages of what they term the “product-process change matrix”. These stages are: (1) invention (coping with dynamic product change through craftsmen-like customization); (2) mass production; (3) continuous improvement; and (4) mass customization. They characterize the synergy between mass production and invention as the bases for the old competitive reality, with roots in the nineteenth century Industrial Revolution. Invention may be successful at the early stages of a product life cycle, but it then must feed new products and processes to the mass producer who takes over the competitive edge. The condition of dynamic stability is a synergistic state reached once the organization has mastered continuous improvement and is practising mass customization, and is suggested therefore to be the result of a sequential process of development (Pine et al., 1993a).
3. Objectives of the research
The objective of this research is to examine the concept of mass customization, and as a result, the implications for implementation of mass customization. In particular:
●The drivers of mass customization: What factors drive a firm to adopt mass customization? Why choose mass customization and not alternative strategies?
●The applicability of mass customization: What are the criteria which may be used by an organization in considering the appropriateness of implementing mass customization? Is it related to organizational readiness? Are there any differences in implementation in a services versus products setting?
●The constraints of implementing mass customization: Is the transformation to mass customization practical? What are the main constraints and difficulties in implementing mass customization?
题目作者出处
Linda Peters,Hasannudin Saidin. IT and
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[419755]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
