IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Product Line Design with Component Commonality and Cost-Reduction Effort

  • Hans Sebastian Heese

    ()

    (Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Jayashankar M. Swaminathan

    ()

    (Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3490)

Registered author(s):

    Market pressure for low prices paired with customer demand for high product variety presents a considerable dilemma for many manufacturers. Industry practice and research to date suggest that approaches based on component commonality can substantially lower the costs of proliferated product lines, but at the cost of reducing product differentiation and revenues. We analyze a stylized model of a manufacturer who designs a product line consisting of two products for sale to two market segments with different valuations of quality. The manufacturer determines the component quality levels, the amount of effort to reduce production costs, and whether to use common or different components for the two products. Explicitly considering potential interdependencies between cost-reduction effort and quality decisions, we characterize environments where the optimal product line involving component commonality features products of higher quality and yields higher revenues. Counter to earlier research we show that it can be preferable to make those components common that, relative to their production cost, are attributed a higher importance by customers. Disregarding the interactions between commonality, production cost, quality, and effort decisions can lead manufacturers to offer product lines with excessive differentiation and inefficiently low quality.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.1060.0103
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Manufacturing & Service Operations Management.

    Volume (Year): 8 (2006)
    Issue (Month): 2 (May)
    Pages: 206-219

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:8:y:2006:i:2:p:206-219
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA

    Phone: +1-443-757-3500
    Fax: 443-757-3515
    Web page: http://www.informs.org/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Kim, Kilsun & Chhajed, Dilip, 2000. "Commonality in product design: Cost saving, valuation change and cannibalization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 602-621, September.
    2. Jayashankar M. Swaminathan & Sridhar R. Tayur, 1998. "Managing Broader Product Lines through Delayed Differentiation Using Vanilla Boxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-2), pages S161-S172, December.
    3. Marshall Fisher & Kamalini Ramdas & Karl Ulrich, 1999. "Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: A Study of Automotive Braking Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 297-315, March.
    4. Swapnendu Bandyopadhyay & Rajat Acharyya, 2004. "Process and Product Innovation: Complementarity in a Vertically Differentiated Monopoly with Discrete Consumer Types," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 55(2), pages 175-200.
    5. Stole, Lars A, 1995. "Nonlinear Pricing and Oligopoly," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(4), pages 529-62, Winter.
    6. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    7. Preyas S. Desai, 2001. "Quality Segmentation in Spatial Markets: When Does Cannibalization Affect Product Line Design?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 265-283, August.
    8. Preyas Desai & Sunder Kekre & Suresh Radhakrishnan & Kannan Srinivasan, 2001. "Product Differentiation and Commonality in Design: Balancing Revenue and Cost Drivers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 37-51, January.
    9. K. Sridhar Moorthy & I. P. L. Png, 1992. "Market Segmentation, Cannibalization, and the Timing of Product Introductions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 345-359, March.
    10. Kenneth R. Baker & Michael J. Magazine & Henry L. W. Nuttle, 1986. "The Effect of Commonality on Safety Stock in a Simple Inventory Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(8), pages 982-988, August.
    11. J. Miguel Villas-Boas & Udo Schmidt-Mohr, 1999. "Oligopoly with Asymmetric Information: Differentiation in Credit Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 375-396, Autumn.
    12. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    13. Nile W. Hatch & David C. Mowery, 1998. "Process Innovation and Learning by Doing in Semiconductor Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(11-Part-1), pages 1461-1477, November.
    14. Sudheer Gupta & Richard Loulou, 1998. "Process Innovation, Product Differentiation, and Channel Structure: Strategic Incentives in a Duopoly," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 301-316.
    15. de Groote, Xavier, 1994. "Flexibility and marketing/manufacturing coordination," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 153-167, September.
    16. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1984. "Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 288-307.
    17. Kyle J. Mayer & Jack A. Nickerson & Hideo Owan, 2004. "Are Supply and Plant Inspections Complements or Substitutes? A Strategic and Operational Assessment of Inspection Practices in Biotechnology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(8), pages 1064-1081, August.
    18. Bonanno, Giacomo & Haworth, Barry, 1998. "Intensity of competition and the choice between product and process innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 495-510, July.
    19. L. Lambertini & R. Orsini, 2000. "Process and Product Innovation in a Vertically Differentiated Monoply," Working Papers 367, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:8:y:2006:i:2:p:206-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.