Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2233-4165(Print)
ISSN : 2233-5382(Online)
The International Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business Vol.9 No.2 pp.47-55
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/ijidb.2018.vol9.no2.47.

An Empirical Study on Nonlinear Relationship between Product Modularity and Customer Satisfaction

Sunil Hwang*, Eung-Kyo Suh**
* First Author, Research Professor, School of Business, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, E-mail: hwangsunil@gmail.com
** Corresponding Author, Professor, Graduate School of Business, Dankook University, Gyeonggi, Korea. Tel: +82-31-8005-3981, E-mail: eungkyosuh@dankook.ac.kr
January 15, 2018 January 31, 2018 February 15, 2018

Abstract

Purpose - To meet the needs of various customers in an uncertain market environment, many companies use product modularization strategies. Modularization of a product means that one product consists of several components and that the type of product can be changed according to the combination of components. The greatest feature of modularity is that changes in one component do not significantly affect the physical changes in the other component to which they are connected. Modularization of products is recognized as a very important strategy to reflect increasingly complicated customer requirements to products and respond to the needs of various markets. Many studies have been made in connection with the concept of mass customer satisfaction. There are many prior studies that modularization of such products positively affects the operational performance (manufacturing cost, fast delivery, etc.) and innovation of the product. However, excessive modularization has been found to have a negative effect on this performance. However, there are very few studies on the nonlinear relationship between product modularization and customer satisfaction. Supplementing these academically insufficient parts is very necessary when considering the current market environment.
Research design, data, and methodology - In order to make up for the shortcomings of academic research in Korea, this study collects data through questionnaires in electronic, auto, and defense industry. This is because these industries are using modularity of products. based on lots of previous studies and information overload theory, we made two hypothesis and verify with empirical analysis. All 108 data were used. We used the R program and SPSS program for statistical verification.
Results - As a result of the study, modularization of products showed positive relationship with customer satisfaction to a certain level. However, it has been found that when the modularization is over and beyond a certain level, there is a negative relationship with customer satisfaction.
Conclusions – Excessive modularization of products can have a negative impact on customer satisfaction. This result can be understood as a result of human limited rationality due to information overload. Therefore, it is important for companies to apply appropriate modularity to product design.

JEL Classifications: D22, D24, O32.

제품의 모듈화 전략과 고객만족의 비선형적 관계에 대한 실증적 연구

황선일*, 서응교**

초록


 

Figure

Table

Reference

  1. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark K. B. (1997), Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, Sept–Oct, 84– 93.
  2. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  3. Bayus, B. L., & Putsis Jr., W. P. (1999). Product proliferation: An empirical analysis of product line determinants and market outcomes. Marketing Science, 18(2), 137-153.
  4. Cho, Y. (2016). The Moderating Effects of Specificity of Technology in the Knowledge Transfer of Distributive Manufacturing MNEs. Journal of Distribution Science, 14(9), 121-132.
  5. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.
  6. Cusumano, M. A., & Selby, R. W. (1995). [BOOK REVIEW] Microsoft secrets, how the world's most powerful software company creates technology, shapes markets, and manages people. Economist, 337(940), supp-5.
  7. Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. (2004). Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management science, 50(2), 159-173.
  8. Fisher, M., Ramdas, K., & Ulrich, K. (1999). Component sharing in the management of product variety: A study of automotive braking systems. Management Science, 45(3), 297-315.
  9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
  10. Forza, C., & Salvador, F. (2002). Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfillment process: The contribution of product configuration systems. International journal of production economics, 76(1), 87-98.
  11. Gualandris, J., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2013). Product and process modularity: improving flexibility and reducing supplier failure risk. International Journal of Production Research, 51(19), 5757-5770.
  12. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010), Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  13. Hoogeweegen, M. R., Teunissen, W. J., Vervest, P. H., & Wagenaar, R. W. (1999). Modular network design: Using information and communication technology to allocate production tasks in a virtual organization. Decision Sciences, 30(4), 1073-1103.
  14. Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion?. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 491-513.
  15. Hwang, S., & Suh, E. (2017). A Study on the Effect of Supplier’s Strategy on New Product Development Performance. Journal of Distribution Science, 15(9), 95-107
  16. Innis, D. E., & La Londe, B. J. (1994). Customer service: the key to customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and market share. Journal of business Logistics, 15(1), 1-27.
  17. Jacoby, J. (1975). Perspectives on a consumer information processing research program. Communication Research, 2(3), 203-215.
  18. Gualandris, J., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2013). Product and process modularity: Improving flexibility and reducing supplier failure risk. International Journal of Production Research, 51(19), 5757-5770.
  19. Gualandris, J., Golini, R., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2014). Do supply management and global sourcing matter for firm sustainability performance? An international study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 258-274.
  20. Kang, S., & Kim, G. (2014). Profiling Approach for the Choice between Speculation and Postponement Strategy in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Distribution Science, 12(4), 47-54.
  21. Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2002). To be Modular or not to be? Some Answers to the Question. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 166-168.
  22. Koufteros, X. A., Cheng, T. E., & Lai, K. H. (2007). “Black-box” and “gray-box” supplier integration in product development: Antecedents, consequences and the moderating role of firm size. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 847-870.
  23. Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. (1992). Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research policy, 21(4), 297-313.
  24. Lau, A. K., Yam, R., & Tang, E. (2011). The impact of product modularity on new product performance: Mediation by product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 270-284.
  25. Lawrence, C., & Spiller, P. T. (1983). Product diversity, economies of scale, and international trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(1), 63-83.
  26. Martin, M., Hausman, W., & Ishii, K. (1998). Design for variety. In Product Variety Management (pp. 103-122). Springer US.
  27. Matutes, C., & Regibeau, P. (1988). " Mix and match": Product compatibility without network externalities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 19(2), 221-234.
  28. Matzler, K., Waiguny, M., & Fuller, J. (2007). Spoiled for choice: consumer confusion in Internet-based mass customization. Innovative Marketing, 3(3), 7-18.
  29. Miller P. (2016). LG is reportedly abandoning its modular phone strategy after one try. CircuitBreaker. Retrieved November 20, 2017 from http://www.theverge.com/ circuitbreaker/2016/10/21/13362240/lg-g5-abandoning -modular-phone-android-strategy
  30. Mitchell, V., Walsh, G., & Yamin, M. (2005). Towards a conceptual model of consumer confusion. Advance in Consumer Research, 32, 143-150.
  31. Moon, J., & Hwang, H. (2016). Case Study on Critical Success Factors and Unexpected Consequences of Structured OJT, Journal of Distribution Science, 14(2), 65-72.
  32. Nevins, J. L., & Whitney, D. E. (eds.) (1989). Concurrent Design of Products and Processes: A Strategy for the Next Generation in Manufacturing (1st ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
  33. Parnas, D. L., Clements, P. C., & Weiss, D. M. (1985). The modular structure of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on software Engineering, 3, 259-266.
  34. Pine, J. B. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  35. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
  36. Quelch, J. A., & Kenny, D. (1994). Extend profits, not product lines. Harvard Business Review, 72(5). 153-160
  37. Sanderson, S. W., & Uzumeri, V. (1990). Strategies for new product development and renewal: Design-based incrementalism. NY: Center Sci. Technol. Policy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Ins.
  38. Sanchez, R. (2000). Modular architectures, knowledge assets and organizational learning: New management processes for product creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 19(6), 610-629.
  39. Sanchez, R., & Collins, R. P. (2001). Competing—and learning—in modular markets. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 645-667.
  40. Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 63-76.
  41. Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of management review, 25(2), 312-334.
  42. Starr, M. K. (1965). Modular production–a new concept. Harvard Business Review, 43(6), 131-142.
  43. Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu‐Nathan, T. S., & Ragu‐ Nathan, B. (2004). Measuring modularity‐based manufacturing practices and their impact on mass customization capability: A customer‐driven perspective. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 147-168.
  44. Tully, S. (1993). The modular corporation. Fortune, 8, February, 106-114.
  45. Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research policy, 24(3), 419-440.
  46. Ulrich, K. T., & Tung, K. (1991). Fundamentals of Product Modularity Issues in Design/ Manufacture Integration, 73-79. Sharon, Ed. New York: ASME.
  47. Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change(1st ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press
  48. Van Hoek, R. I., & Weken, H. A. (1998). The impact of modular production on the dynamics of supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 9(2), 35-50.
  49. Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management science, 40(4), 429-439.
  50. Woolsey, J. P. (1994). PREVIEWING THE 777-Boeing's new large twinjet that rolls out this month is a celebration of an entirely new concept in designing and developing a transport. Air Transport World, 31(4), 22-31.
  51. Yoon, K. (2016). The Effects of Management Consulting Quality and Consultant Capability on Entrepreneurial Firms’ Performance. Journal of Distribution Science, 14(5), 81-89.