Review of a process prioritization in mass customization

Gedas Baranauskas

doi:10.33605/croma-022018-012

Abstract

Purpose – The present article aims to analyze the content of process prioritization methods and possibilities of its application in the context of Mass Customization. Design/methodology/approach – As the analysis is based on exploratory approach, qualitative methodology is the main tool used in the research. Moreover, author do not aim at providing conclusive answers to research questions; in opposition, generating relevant insights about a current situation is a goal. Findings – Results suggest that prioritization methods and principles are compatible, necessary and can be successfully applicable to Mass Customization at different process stages or even this concept types. In addition, this research reveals the need to have a combined and multidimensional prioritization at the beginning of Mass Customization processes. Research limitations/implications – Main research limitations can be divided into two parts. Firstly, when prioritization is taken into consideration, it is noticed that a limited scope of research focus on combined prioritization models as well as their effect on organizations results, especially in Public and Non-governmental sector. Secondly, in a case of concept of Mass Customization and its analysis, scientific discussions show extremum transitions to Big Data, Internet platform capabilities and overall customer flow management via modern economic theories in the last decades. Therefore, a lack of sufficient scientific attention to important parts of prioritization severely affect customer input, Design and Infrastructure of Mass Customization. In addition, both parts require not only proper understanding of the theoretical background but also following detail description of practical implication tools and guidelines as well as defining possible application effect. Since this article is based on the theoretical literature review, case studies and comparative analysis towards a practical implication are elaborated briefly. Practical implications – This research may serve as relevant insights into the context of the Mass Customization system and processes, where organizations constantly cope with prioritization by making a number of decisions on product selection, specifications, quantities, or pricing. From the perspective of process prioritization, the research serves as a concise review of main quantitative and qualitative methods, showing their demand of alignment and effect for Mass Customization. Originality/Value – The main value of the presented article can be described as a holistic theoretical focus on different types of prioritization methods and underlying points where it takes effect in Mass Customization concept. Moreover, the selected research object and findings are also valuable and applicable for organizations of different type, sector and working field Keywords: process prioritization, optimization, combined methods, Mass Customization Research type: general review. JEL classification: M19.

Highlights

In the digital society where knowledge and information have become inseparable to economy, organizational performance, brand and overall competitive advantage are increasingly becoming dependent on the proper management of customer data and its application at operational and strategic levels (Blazquez and Domenech, 2018)
All aspects mentioned precedingly lead to transformation of the approach towards process and project management as well as a practical transition from mass production to mass customization
In parallel, new type of issues might stand out such as a significant lack of knowledge of complex and aligned management methods, struggle in finding proper IT solutions and applying them in practice, a high need of effective prioritization of activities and resources (Lorange, 2017; Masoumik et al, 2015). Taking into consideration this concept retrospectively, it should be noted that in practice Mass Customization concept has been applied since the last decade of the 20th century

Summary

Introduction

It should be noted that both in practice and in scientific research, organizations at this point are often referred to a homogeneous position of assessment, for instance, solely relying on the quantitative calculation of Full Time Employee (FTE) or Return of Investment (ROI) as sufficient indicators for prioritizing activities and resources (Duan et al, 2009) Qualitative indicators such as customer experience or employee satisfaction, impact for brand, level of human resource involvement and network indicators such as process and system hierarchy and compatibility are not sufficiently taken into account (Tomov, 2017; Kadoić et al, 2017)

Methods

Results

Conclusion