IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v47y2001i1p22-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cross-Functional Approach to Evaluating Multiple Line Extensions for Assembled Products

Author

Listed:
  • Kamalini Ramdas

    (Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906)

  • Mohanbir S. Sawhney

    (Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

Abstract

Assembled product manufacturers often introduce line extensions that share components with existing products, or among themselves, resulting in cost interactions among products because of shared costs, and revenue interactions because of cannibalization. We present a cross-functional approach to evaluating multiple line extensions that simultaneously considers revenue implications of component sharing at the product level and cost implications at the component level. We develop a source-of-volume model and a measurement procedure to decompose the life-cycle sales volume from a line extension into sales from cannibalization, competitive draw, and demand expansion. We develop an activity-based costing procedure for estimating the life-cycle costs of line extensions that share components. We develop an optimization model that uses these revenue and cost estimates to identify a subset of line extensions that maximizes incremental profits. We implement our approach at a quartz wristwatch manufacturer. Results suggest that our approach would have improved profits for the firm by over 5%, while actually launching fewer line extensions. We also find that the drivers of cannibalization are counterintuitive. In simulation studies, our approach outperforms three managerial heuristics. We demonstrate that this approach is most valuable when cannibalization dominates competitive draw as a source of volume, and discuss its relative merits under low and high parts-sharing.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamalini Ramdas & Mohanbir S. Sawhney, 2001. "A Cross-Functional Approach to Evaluating Multiple Line Extensions for Assembled Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 22-36, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:47:y:2001:i:1:p:22-36
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.47.1.22.10667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.22.10667
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.22.10667?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1988. "Positioning and Pricing a Product Line," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 107-125.
    2. 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.
    3. Schmalensee, Richard. & Thisse, Jacques François., 1985. "Perceptual maps and the optimal location of new products," Working papers 1722-85., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. John Paul MacDuffie & Kannan Sethuraman & Marshall L. Fisher, 1996. "Product Variety and Manufacturing Performance: Evidence from the International Automotive Assembly Plant Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 350-369, March.
    6. Karl T. Ulrich & David J. Ellison, 1999. "Holistic Customer Requirements and the Design-Select Decision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(5), pages 641-658, May.
    7. Kelvin Lancaster, 1990. "The Economics of Product Variety: A Survey," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 189-206.
    8. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger, 1985. "Models and Heuristics for Product Line Selection," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 1-19.
    9. Richard D. McBride & Fred S. Zufryden, 1988. "An Integer Programming Approach to the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 126-140.
    10. Suresh K. Nair & Lakshman S. Thakur & Kuang-Wei Wen, 1995. "Near Optimal Solutions for Product Line Design and Selection: Beam Search Heuristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 767-785, May.
    11. V. Krishnan & Rahul Singh & Devanath Tirupati, 1999. "A Model-Based Approach for Planning and Developing a Family of Technology-Based Products," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 132-156.
    12. Glen L. Urban & Philip L. Johnson & John R. Hauser, 1984. "Testing Competitive Market Structures," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 83-112.
    13. Marshall L. Fisher, 1985. "An Applications Oriented Guide to Lagrangian Relaxation," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 10-21, April.
    14. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    15. Gregory Dobson & Shlomo Kalish, 1993. "Heuristics for Pricing and Positioning a Product-Line Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 160-175, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yenipazarli, A. & Vakharia, A., 2015. "Pricing, market coverage and capacity: Can green and brown products co-exist?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 304-315.
    2. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Xiao, Tiaojun & Xu, Tiantian, 2014. "Pricing and product line strategy in a supply chain with risk-averse players," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 305-315.
    4. Kraus, Ursula G. & Yano, Candace Arai, 2003. "Product line selection and pricing under a share-of-surplus choice model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(3), pages 653-671, November.
    5. Israelsen, Poul & Jørgensen, Brian, 2011. "Decentralizing decision making in modularization strategies: Overcoming barriers from dysfunctional accounting systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 453-462, June.
    6. Kirca, Ahmet H. & Randhawa, Praneet & Talay, M. Berk & Akdeniz, M. Billur, 2020. "The interactive effects of product and brand portfolio strategies on brand performance: Longitudinal evidence from the U.S. automotive industry," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 421-439.
    7. Brun, Alessandro & Capra, Eugenio & Miragliotta, Giovanni, 2009. "VRP revisited: The impact of behavioural costs in balancing standardisation and variety," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 16-29, January.
    8. Palsule-Desai, Omkar D. & Tirupati, Devanath & Shah, Janat, 2015. "Product line design and positioning using add-on services," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 16-33.
    9. Agi, Maher A.N. & Yan, Xinghao, 2020. "Greening products in a supply chain under market segmentation and different channel power structures," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    10. Verma, Nishant Kumar & Chatterjee, Ashish K., 2023. "Process flexibility in the presence of product modularity: Does modularity help?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    11. Kamalini Ramdas & Taylor Randall, 2008. "Does Component Sharing Help or Hurt Reliability? An Empirical Study in the Automotive Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 922-938, May.
    12. Huang, Shui-Mu & Su, Jack C.P., 2013. "Impact of product proliferation on the reverse supply chain," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 626-639.
    13. Kamalini Ramdas & Marshall Fisher & Karl Ulrich, 2003. "Managing Variety for Assembled Products: Modeling Component Systems Sharing," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 142-156, November.
    14. Sergey M. Aseev & Masakazu Katsumoto, 2020. "On Optimal Leader’s Investments Strategy in a Cyclic Model of Innovation Race with Random Inventions Times," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, November.
    15. Maher Agi & Xinghao Yan, 2020. "Greening products in a supply chain under market segmentation and different channel power structures," Post-Print hal-02898158, HAL.
    16. Matsushima, Noriaki & Shinohara, Ryusuke, 2014. "What factors determine the number of trading partners?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 428-441.
    17. DeCampos, Hugo A. & Rosales, Claudia R. & Narayanan, Sriram, 2022. "Supply chain horizontal complexity and the moderating impact of inventory turns: A study of the automotive component industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    18. Jans, Raf & Degraeve, Zeger & Schepens, Luc, 2008. "Analysis of an industrial component commonality problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 801-811, April.
    19. Nathan Williams & P. K. Kannan & Shapour Azarm, 2011. "Retail Channel Structure Impact on Strategic Engineering Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 897-914, May.
    20. Anocha Aribarg & Neeraj Arora, 2008. "—Interbrand Variant Overlap: Impact on Brand Preference and Portfolio Profit," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 474-491, 05-06.
    21. Eva Labro, 2004. "The Cost Effects of Component Commonality: A Literature Review Through a Management-Accounting Lens," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 358-367, June.
    22. Menezes, Mozart B.C. & Pinto, Roberto, 2022. "Product proliferation, cannibalisation, and substitution: A first look into entailed risk and complexity," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    23. Stadtherr, Frank & Wouters, Marc, 2021. "Extending target costing to include targets for R&D costs and production investments for a modular product portfolio—A case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    3. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    4. V. Krishnan & Rahul Singh & Devanath Tirupati, 1999. "A Model-Based Approach for Planning and Developing a Family of Technology-Based Products," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 132-156.
    5. Hongmin Li & Scott Webster & Gwangjae Yu, 2020. "Product Design Under Multinomial Logit Choices: Optimization of Quality and Prices in an Evolving Product Line," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1011-1025, September.
    6. Albritton, M. David & McMullen, Patrick R., 2007. "Optimal product design using a colony of virtual ants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 498-520, January.
    7. G. E. Fruchter & A. Fligler & R. S. Winer, 2006. "Optimal Product Line Design: Genetic Algorithm Approach to Mitigate Cannibalization," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 227-244, November.
    8. Day, Jamison M. & Venkataramanan, M.A., 2006. "Profitability in product line pricing and composition with manufacturing commonalities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(3), pages 1782-1797, December.
    9. Winfried J. Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "Produktliniengestaltung mit Genetischen Algorithmen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(7), pages 575-601, November.
    10. V. Krishnan & Saurabh Gupta, 2001. "Appropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 52-68, January.
    11. Alexandre Belloni & Robert Freund & Matthew Selove & Duncan Simester, 2008. "Optimizing Product Line Designs: Efficient Methods and Comparisons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1544-1552, September.
    12. Tallys H. Yunes & Dominic Napolitano & Alan Scheller-Wolf & Sridhar Tayur, 2007. "Building Efficient Product Portfolios at John Deere and Company," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 615-629, August.
    13. Wilhelm, Wilbert E. & Xu, Kaihong, 2002. "Prescribing product upgrades, prices and production levels over time in a stochastic environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 601-621, May.
    14. Wallace J. Hopp & Xiaowei Xu, 2005. "Product Line Selection and Pricing with Modularity in Design," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 172-187, August.
    15. Bechler, Georg & Steinhardt, Claudius & Mackert, Jochen & Klein, Robert, 2021. "Product line optimization in the presence of preferences for compromise alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 902-917.
    16. Dimitris Bertsimas & Velibor V. Mišić, 2017. "Robust Product Line Design," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 19-37, February.
    17. Eva Labro, 2004. "The Cost Effects of Component Commonality: A Literature Review Through a Management-Accounting Lens," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 358-367, June.
    18. Kyle D. Chen & Warren H. Hausman, 2000. "Technical Note: Mathematical Properties of the Optimal Product Line Selection Problem Using Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 327-332, February.
    19. Kamalini Ramdas & Marshall Fisher & Karl Ulrich, 2003. "Managing Variety for Assembled Products: Modeling Component Systems Sharing," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 142-156, November.
    20. Palsule-Desai, Omkar D. & Tirupati, Devanath & Shah, Janat, 2015. "Product line design and positioning using add-on services," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 16-33.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:47:y:2001:i:1:p:22-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.