Procurement and contractual choices for engineer-to-order supply chains

Complex projects are increasingly collaborative, involving ever greater numbers of multiple organisations, while also seeking to deliver high levels of innovation. To gain insight into how supply chain management might be developed to better support these developments, many have looked to high volume manufacturing to benchmark and seek best practice. Outcomes have often fallen short of expectation: in the construction sector, for instance, productivity and adversarial relationships are still a major cause of concern in many countries. While there have been some successes in transferring technologies and supply chain innovation from high volume manufacturing to engineering intensive sectors, such as construction, shipbuilding, machinery and capital goods, the more general narrative is of the difficulties that have arisen. We see these difficulties arising from underlying differences between the between supply chain types, and have developed a body of knowledge for "engineer-to-order" situations to better support such sectors. The procurement process is crucial to establishing conditions for success and is typically a major source of concern for the supply chain. Hence, we summarise the findings of a research project that focused on developing the principles required for procurement excellence and to structure the possible contractual choices in engineer-to-order supply chains

Extending customer order penetration concepts to engineering designs

Purpose - The customer order decoupling point (CODP) concept addresses the issue of customer engagement in the manufacturing process. This has traditionally been applied to material flows, but has more recently been applied to engineering activities. This later subject becomes of particular importance to companies operating in ‘engineer-to-order’ (ETO) supply chains, where each order is potentially unique. Existing conceptualisations of ETO are too generic for practical purposes, so there is a need to better understand order penetration in the context of engineering activities, especially design. Hence, we address the question ‘how do customer penetration concepts apply to engineering design activities?’ Methodology - A collaborative form of inquiry is adopted, whereby academics and practitioners co-operated to develop a conceptual framework. Within this overarching research design, a focus group of senior practitioners and multiple case studies principally from complex civil and structural engineering as well as scientific equipment projects are used to explore the framework. Findings - The framework results in a classification of nine potential engineering subclasses, and insight is given into order penetration points, major uncertainties and enablers via the case studies. Focus group findings indicate that different managerial approaches are needed across subclasses. Implications –The findings give insight for companies that engage directly with customers on a one-to-one basis, outlining the extent of customer penetration in engineering activities, associated operational strategies and choices regarding the co-creation of products with customers. Care should be taken in generalising beyond the sectors addressed in the study. Originality - The paper refines the definition of the ETO concept, and gives a more complete understanding of customer penetration concepts. It provides a comprehensive reconceptualization of the ETO category, supported by exploratory empirical research

Relational investments and contractual choices for diverse engineering designs

Engineering design has a major impact on downstream performance, but is often guided, in both procurement and solution type, by intuition rather than a solid science base. Engineering is also increasingly collaborative, crossing organisational boundaries. However, the long-term close partnerships, as often proposed, are difficult to achieve in the context of individual engineering projects. Building on concepts related to investments in specific assets, this study describes the underlying characteristics of engineering design investments and then prescribes the relational investment and contract forms to select them, thereby contributing to our understanding of the engineering design and relational investments that can and should be made. We undertook multiple case study research, which is presented in two phases. The descriptive phase identifies positive outcomes for solutions based on off-the-shelf designs with fixed price mechanisms, for solutions based on adaptive designs with target cost mechanisms, and for bespoke solutions contracted either on cost-plus mechanisms or, if in bite-sized pieces, on fixed price mechanisms. Negative performance outcomes were found for adaptive solutions with Fixed Price mechanisms. A prescriptive phase, yielding a visualized model, then offers guidance for relational investments and contract mechanisms that are suitable for different engineering designs. Applicability zones and three potential transitions to challenge and guide current practice are developed to inform decision making

Rethinking infrastructure supply chain management – a manifesto for change

Infrastructure projects exemplify engineer-to-order supply chains, where there is a high degree of complexity and uncertainty associated with developing a ‘unique’ product. While there is much advocacy of translating operational excellence techniques from high volume manufacturing sectors, we argue that such an approach is based on a mis-presumption of order and structure at all systems levels. We suggest an alternative ‘travel of an idea’ from the knowledge management discipline, a phenomenological framework describing contexts in terms of ordered and un-ordered, which directs us towards the need for diverse management approaches if we are to minimise the risk of project underperformance and failure. We contemplate the value of the framework and reflect on the contribution it can make to the construction industry specifically and to engineer-to-order production systems more generally; we provide a basis to bring a healthy challenge when ‘travelling ideas’ and expose how unthinking choices can be expected to fail

Managing designing for safety: a framework for whole-team decision making and risk control

Designing for Safety (DfS) aims to make designs inherently safer to build, operate and maintain, but any residual risk must be controlled, something essential to realising the benefits of inherently safer designs. Here, a conceptual decision-making framework to support DfS, developed in conjunction with industry, is introduced. It aims to assist designers in communicating risk, residual risk and actions needed to support DfS, in a way easily understood by non-specialists such as clients and business leaders. The framework proposes a qualitative categorisation for DfS linked to a clear numerical scale, which embraces the complexity of engineering assessment across the full asset lifecycle, while using a form of language (numbers) that can be readily understood by all. The framework was empirically explored through an operational design workshop with the four engineers leading design and planning teams on the framework. It was found to bring a range of benefits for DfS at the design stage: it provided structure for the discussion of DfS, made the consideration of DfS objective, gave a new vernacular which improved the collective thought process, and made the debate and the resultant design decisions more accessible to non-specialists. The framework provides a tool to support the implementation of DfS across the entire lifecycle of an asset, enhancing DfS communication within the decision making process from the initial strategic definition stage onwards

Xlib -- C Language X Interface

this documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies, and that the names of Digital and Tektronix not be used in in advertising or publicity pertaining to this documentation without specific, written prior permission. Digital and Tektronix makes no representations about the suitability of this documentation for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. Acknowledgments The design and implementation of the first 10 versions of X were primarily the work of three individuals: Robert Scheifler of the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science and Jim Gettys of Digital Equipment Corporation and Ron Newman of MIT, both at MIT Project Athena. X version 11, however, is the result of the efforts of dozens of individuals at almost as many locations and organizations. At the risk of offending some of the players by exclusion, we would like to acknowledge some of the people who deserve special credit and recognition for their work on Xlib. Our apologies to anyone inadvertently overlooked