Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
14
This paper aims to fulfil this research gap by proposing three elements (trees, branches,
and levels) to analyse and improve the chain of decisions of a configuration process. In
order to illustrate that, these elements were used to analyse the configuration processes
of four organisations of the house-building sector. Based on these analyses,
opportunities for improvements could be drawn. This paper builds upon the results of the
Ph.D thesis
of the primary author, which proposes a conceptual framework with ten
decision categories for defining customisation strategies in the house-building sector.
The elements presented here form one of the decision categories (i.e. configuration
sequence) of this framework. The analysis of the processes of the four organisation
presented in this paper are also part of this Ph.D. thesis.
Configuring a product variant
The chain of decisions to configure a product variant can be carried out by the
organisation providing the customisation or by clients. In the former, the configuration
process involves transparent approach (Gilmore, Pine, 1994) since product variants are
created by according to clients’ requirements but they are not aware that a customisation
is taking place. In the latter, it involves a collaborative approach (Gilmore, Pine, 1994)
since clients and the organisation engage in a dialogue to create the product variant.
This approach is similar to what is termed by Piller (2004) as product co-design,
emphasising the client active participation in creating the product variant. A major
advantage of co-design (or a collaborative approach) in configuring a product variant is
the sense of ownership instilled in the clients, besides the recognition that the product
was tailored according to their requirements (Piller and Kumar 2006). Other benefits of
clients’ participation in creating the product variants described by Schreier (2006)
include:
(i) The perceived uniqueness of the self-designed product: this is closely related to the
style dimension (i.e. a customised product becomes a means to communicate the
client’s identity) discussed by Piller et al. (2005);
(ii) The process benefits: the joy that ensues from the design act itself and that has a
positive impact on the value of the outcome of the design process, namely, the self-
designed product; and
(iii) The ‘pride of authorship’ effect: taking pride in having done it oneself. It emanates
from the cycles of trial and error and learning by doing that the client is likely to
undertake. It makes clients value more customised products than standard products
designed by a design agent.
Although there are several benefits in clients’ active engagement in configuring a product
variant, there are also problems associated to it. For instance, it is not a simple task to
elicit and capture clients’ requirements and clients may have difficulties in clearly
expressing what they want or need (Zipkin 2001). Also, the client will define the product
in terms of its attributes, which might not contribute towards the more abstract goals and
objectives in terms of value aimed by the client. Clients may also specify attributes that
they considered valuable, but that in fact might not be aligned with the desired
outcomes. Piller (2004) and Piller
et al.
(2005) outline other problems that can happen
when clients engage in the configuration process:
(i) Burden of choice: happens when an excessively large number of options is offered,
overwhelming clients and increasing the complexity in configuring a product variant.
1
Rocha, C. G. (2011). “A conceptual framework for defining customisation strategies in the house
building sector”, PhD thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
