C o n f i g u r i n g P r o d u c t V a r i a n t s I n C u s t o m i s a t i o n S t r a t e g i e s
21
Figure 8: Alternative configuration sequence proposed for
case
study 3 (Rocha, 2011)
Case study 4
In case study 4, product variants are residential schemes, which are created by mixing
and matching dwellings from a defined set of dwelling designs. These dwelling designs
are organized in two customisation units
: C1 – eight dwelling designs to be
used in a particular location in the UK that has specific requirements for social housing,
and C2 – nine dwelling designs to be used elsewhere.
There is only one tree with one branch in the first level and two branches in the second
level
. The branch in the first horizontal level is related to the location of the
plot, which is not under the control of the consortium members, but that defines which
branch at the second level will be used. Depending on the location of the plot, one
customisation unit or the other will be used. Case study 1 has a similar configuration
process in terms of the number of levels. Case studies 1 and 4 show how chain of
decisions, similar in terms of levels, can be actually different depending on who makes
the decisions at each level. As previously discussed, in case study 1 it is Company 1 that
makes the decision at the first level. In that study, the clients make the decision at the
second level (branches 2.1 and 2.2). Hence, from the clients’ perspective, it is a simple
configuration process because it entails a single horizontal level, involving only one or
two customisation units. Alternatively, in case study 4, the decision in the first level is not
made by the registered providers but hinges on the scheme location. Only the decision
at the second level concerning the mix and amount of dwellings to be used in the
scheme is made by the registered provider.
Figure 9: Configuration process in case study 4 (Rocha,
2011)
