IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/uiiexx/v49y2017i10p967-979.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic design of multiple lifecycle products for remanufacturing operations

Author

Listed:
  • M. Serkan Akturk
  • James D. Abbey
  • H. Neil Geismar

Abstract

Based on observations from practice, this study analytically investigates product design philosophies for remanufacturing original equipment manufacturers to determine how the optimal design choice depends on market conditions. Though designing to increase the level of remanufacturability can yield increased profitability by lowering remanufacturing costs, several complicating factors exist. We examine how these market factors—industry clockspeed, the level of competition, and the product’s original market value—interact with characteristics whose values are determined by the choice of design paradigm: time-to-market, manufacturing cost, and remanufacturing cost. A key determinant of the optimal design choice is the number of profitable lifecycles that each design choice provides under specific combinations of values for the market factors.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Serkan Akturk & James D. Abbey & H. Neil Geismar, 2017. "Strategic design of multiple lifecycle products for remanufacturing operations," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(10), pages 967-979, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:uiiexx:v:49:y:2017:i:10:p:967-979
    DOI: 10.1080/24725854.2017.1336684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24725854.2017.1336684
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24725854.2017.1336684?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    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. Patricia van Loon & Luk N. Van Wassenhove & Ales Mihelic, 2022. "Designing a circular business strategy: 7 years of evolution at a large washing machine manufacturer," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 1030-1041, March.
    2. Akshay Mutha & Saurabh Bansal & V. Daniel R. Guide, 2021. "Managing the Inter‐Functional Tension between Accounting‐ and Financial‐Profits in Remanufacturing Multiple‐Usecycle Products," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(9), pages 2993-3014, September.
    3. Li, Qingying, 2018. "The optimal multi-period modular design with fairness concerns," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 233-249.
    4. Shuiye Niu & Honglong Zhuo & Kelei Xue, 2019. "DfRem-Driven Closed-Loop Supply Chain Decision-Making: A Systematic Framework for Modeling Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.

    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. Filippo Carlo Wezel & Gino Cattani & Johannes M. Pennings, 2006. "Competitive Implications of Interfirm Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 691-709, December.
    2. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    4. Seppo Kuula & Harri Haapasalo & Arto Tolonen, 2018. "Cost-efficient co-creation of knowledge intensive business services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 12(4), pages 779-808, December.
    5. Gambardella, Alfonso & Conti, Raffaele & Novelli, Elena, 2018. "Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work," CEPR Discussion Papers 12782, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Morgan Dwyer & Bruce Cameron & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2015. "A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 568-583, November.
    7. Fei Li & Jin Chen & Ying Ying, 2019. "Innovation Search Scope, Technological Complexity, and Environmental Turbulence: A N-K Simulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-12, August.
    8. Bruce Fallick & Charles A. Fleischman & James B. Rebitzer, 2006. "Job-Hopping in Silicon Valley: Some Evidence Concerning the Microfoundations of a High-Technology Cluster," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 472-481, August.
    9. Markus Menz & Sven Kunisch & Julian Birkinshaw & David J. Collis & Nicolai J. Foss & Robert E. Hoskisson & John E. Prescott, 2021. "Corporate Strategy and the Theory of the Firm in the Digital Age," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1695-1720, November.
    10. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Jong Seok Lee & Mark Keil & Daniel Lunn & Dirk W. Bester, 2022. "The Empirical Reality of IT Project Cost Overruns: Discovering A Power-Law Distribution," Papers 2210.01573, arXiv.org.
    11. Scaringella, Laurent & Burtschell, François, 2017. "The challenges of radical innovation in Iran: Knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity highlights — Evidence from a joint venture in the construction sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 151-169.
    12. Gianluigi Giustiziero & Tobias Kretschmer & Deepak Somaya & Brian Wu, 2023. "Hyperspecialization and hyperscaling: A resource‐based theory of the digital firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(6), pages 1391-1424, June.
    13. Isabel Soares & Paula Sarmento, 2012. "Unbundling in the Telecommunications and the Electricity Sectors: How Far should it Go?," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 157-194.
    14. Krafft Jackie & Quatraro Francesco & Colombelli Alessandra, 2011. "High Growth Firms and Technological Knowledge: Do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201114, University of Turin.
    15. Yang, Chia-Hsuan & Nugent, Rebecca & Fuchs, Erica R.H., 2016. "Gains from others’ losses: Technology trajectories and the global division of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 724-745.
    16. Sanjith Gopalakrishnan & Moksh Matta & Hasan Cavusoglu, 2022. "The Dark Side of Technological Modularity: Opportunistic Information Hiding During Interorganizational System Adoption," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 1072-1092, September.
    17. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    18. Markus Reitzig, 2022. "How to get better at flatter designs: considerations for shaping and leading organizations with less hierarchy," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(1), pages 5-10, March.
    19. Willy C. Shih, 2021. "Increasing the Level of Abstraction as a Strategy for Accelerating the Adoption of Complex Technologies," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 54-61, March.
    20. Robert Schmidt & Kasper Sanchez Vibaek & Simon Austin, 2014. "Evaluating the adaptability of an industrialized building using dependency structure matrices," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1-2), pages 160-182, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:uiiexx:v:49:y:2017:i:10:p:967-979. 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 Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uiie .

    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.