Welcome to Sebastian Fixson's homepage at
Babson College
CONTACT
Sebastian K. Fixson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Technology and Operations Management Technology, Operations, and Information Management Division Tomasso Hall 226 Babson College Babson Park, MA 02457, USA
++1.781.239.4414 (office) ++1.781.239.5272 (fax) e-mail:
sfixson@babson.edu
At Babson College I currently teach the following
courses:
Product Design and Development (PDD)
MOB-7555 (Graduate) This course is an elective in the MBA curriculum; it is taught in the
Fall term. It is a hands-on course that leads student teams
through the process of product development from problem recognition, to
user studies, to concept creation, selection and refinement, to
prototype construction and manufacturing. The course culminates in a
public showing of the team's products at the MBA product design fair at
Babson in early December. For pictures of the 2008 MBA product design fair on the
Babson news blog, click
here.
Some teams build a business around their products and bring them to
market; for an
example see the "foldable
flats."
MOB-3578 (Undergraduate) This new course,
first taught in the Fall term of 2008, is a core element of the product design track of the new
undergraduate concentration Technology Entrepreneurship and Design.For more information on course and concentration, please click
here.
Resources for PDD: Click
here to find
several resources helpful for product design and development. Topics
range from design, creativity, usability, to manufacturing.
Technology & Operations Management
(TOM)
TOM-Stream in intermediate curriculum Organizing
for Effective Management (OEM)
RESEARCH
Within the larger field of Technology and
Innovation Management, in my research I focus on New Product Development (NPD). In my recent research I have been exploring two
major aspects of NPD: product and process.
(i) Product - In this research stream I study the
relationship between the structure of products on one hand and the
structure of industries on the other. More specifically, I am
investigating the effects that architectural aspects of products and product
systems - such as modularity, integrality,
and commonality - exert on the strategic and operational competitiveness of
firms, and ultimately on the competitive structure of entire industries.
(ii) Process - This research stream focuses on
individual activities within the NPD process - such as knowledge search, concept
creation and selection, or prototyping and testing - and how the ways in which
these activities are conducted affects NPD performance. In addition to
better understand these mechanisms at work in industrial settings, I am also
looking into how to teach better these capabilities in NPD and Innovation
courses.
Below you can find abstracts and pre-prints of my
recent publications.
Publications
Fixson, S. K. 2009. Teaching Innovation
through Interdisciplinary Courses and Programmes in Product Design and
Development: An Analysis at Sixteen U.S. Schools. Creativity and
Innovation Management. 18 (3), 199-208.
Abstract:
If innovation is understood as a process of inventing and commercializing
new products and services, as a process that incorporates activities from
multiple disciplines, and as a process that follows more heuristic than
algorithmic rules, then perhaps this process can be taught in an
interdisciplinary setting with a strong experiential emphasis, such as
product design and development. In this paper, I compare and contrast 14
courses and three programmes in interdisciplinary product development at 16
leading U.S. schools. The overall finding is that while the courses appear
similar on a high level, there exists substantial variation in the details.
In particular, the way in which multiple disciplines are involved in these
courses and programmes varies substantially. Similarly, while a team-based
term project tends to be the common element across the courses and
programmes, the degree of fidelity to which the products and services are
developed varies considerably. Overall, although these courses and
programmes tend to be very labour and co-ordination intensive, their success
has established the legitimacy of interdisciplinary, experiential product
design and development education at leading schools in the U.S.
Fixson, S. K., and J.-K. Park, 2008. The Power of
Integrality: Linkages between Product Architecture, Innovation, and Industry
Structure. Research Policy. 37, 1296-1316.
Abstract: A substantial literature stream
suggests that many products are becoming more modular over time, and that this
development is often associated with a change in industry structure towards
higher degrees of specialization. These developments can have strong
implications for an industry’s competition as the history of the PC industry
illustrates. To add to our understanding of the linkages between product
architecture, innovation, and industry structure we develop detailed product
architecture measurements based on a previously proposed method [Fixson, S.K.,
2005. Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process, and
supply chain design decisions. Journal of Operations Management 23 (3/4),
345–369] and study an unusual case in which a firm – through decreasing its
product modularity – turned its formerly competitive industry into a
near-monopoly. Using this case study we explore how existing theories on
modularity explain the observed phenomenon, and show that most consider
technological change in rather long-term dimensions, and tend to focus on
efficiency-related arguments to explain the resulting forces on competition. We
add three critical aspects to the theory that connects technological change and
industry dynamics. First, we suggest integrating as a new design operator to
explain product architecture genesis. Second, we argue that a finer-grained
analysis of the product architecture shows the existence of multiple linkages
between product architecture and industry structure, and that these different
linkages help explain the observed intra-industry heterogeneity across firms.
Third, we propose that the firm boundary choice can also be a pre-condition of
the origin of architectural innovation, not only an outcome of efficiency
considerations.
Ro, Y., J. K. Liker and S. K. Fixson,
2008. Evolving models of supplier involvement in design: The
deterioration of the Japanese model in US auto. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management. 55, 2, 359-377.
Abstract: The U.S. auto industry in the 1990s was in a state
of transition, driven by a rapidly changing environment and attempts to
adopt best practices from other automakers. The Japanese supplier
management system is regarded as extremely effective in delivering
high-quality component systems integrated into the vehicle with short
design lead times. American automakers dedicated themselves to
reengineering their product development systems, benchmarking the
Japanese model, and outsourcing increasing levels of vehicle content and
design responsibility. This paper analyzes how these attempts at
institutional imitation evolved new approaches to supplier involvement
in design in the U.S. auto industry based on interviews conducted during
1998-2001. Although once copying the Japanese model, the United States
has chosen a modified approach and developed models distinctively
different from the original. The authors identify two dominant supplier
management models emerging during this time and a newly emerging hybrid
original equipment manufacturer/supplier relationship style. Concepts
from organizational design and behavioral economic theories are used to
explain observations across industries overtime. Evidence suggests that
American automaker practices have not evolved to support the great
responsibility being outsourced to suppliers. There are still barriers
that create adversarial relationships when a partnership model is
required for true integration of design efforts.
Fixson, S. K., 2007. Modularity and
Commonality Research: Past Developments and Future Opportunities. Concurrent
Engineering: Research and Applications. 15, 2, 85-111.
Abstract: Research on modularity and
commonality has grown substantially over the past 15 years. Searching 36
journals over more than the past 35 years, over 160 references are identified in
the engineering and management literature that focus on modularity or
commonality in the product and process development context. Each of the
references is analyzed along the dimensions subject, effect, and research
method. The subjects of these studies have been products, processes,
organizations, and even innovations, although the set of references shows a
strong preference towards products. Similarly, a broad range of effects has been
studied, albeit with the topic cost dominating all other effects. A variety of
research methods has been applied to the study of modularity and commonality but
the distribution of research methods differs substantially for modularity and
commonality research. Despite the wealth of existing research, there are still
significant opportunities for future research. In particular, studies that
incorporate modularity and commonality’s multiple effects on various players
along the supply chain, that combine multiple research methods, and that follow
systems over time appear very promising.
Ro, Y.,
Liker, J. K., and S. K. Fixson, 2007.
Modularity as a Strategy for Supply Chain Coordination. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management. 54, 1, 172-189.
Abstract: Companies across industries have
admired the success of Dell Computers in using modularity as part of a mass
customization strategy to achieve build-to-order and a streamlined supply chain.
Many companies are attempting to emulate this successful model, including the
American automotive industry. This paper focuses on how the auto industry has
been attempting to move to modularity, in part, motivated by a desire to build
cars to order. This movement has led to major changes in supply chain practices
based partly on imitation of successful keiretsu models in Japan and a move
toward modules. This study finds significant impact of modularity on
outsourcing, product development, and supply chain coordination based on
interviews conducted with automakers and suppliers from 2000–2003. Based on our
interviews, we observe that modularity has accompanied a major reorganization of
the automotive supplier industry. We identify two major issues that appear to
block U.S. automakers from gaining most of the advantages possible through
modularity. First, most modularity activities appear to be primarily
strategically cost reduction driven, leaving the potential of modularity for
mass customization largely untapped. Second, the shift in industry
reorganization has not been accompanied by changes in the supply chain
infrastructure to encourage long-term partnerships. We contrast this to the more
gradual approach used by Toyota as it incorporates modularity on a selective
basis and moves to a build-to-order model.
Fixson, S. K., 2006. A Roadmap for Product
Architecture Costing. In: T. W. Simpson, et al., Eds., Product Platform and
Product Family Design: Methods and Applications. Springer, New York, pp.
305-333.
This book chapter lays out the landscape to be
considered when trying to understand the cost impact of product architecture
design decisions. It develops linkages between individual aspects of the product
architecture and various costs along the product life cycle. The
roadmap for product architecture costing comprises four steps. The first
step is an assessment of the differences in product architecture between
potential candidates. This step is crucial because in order to make the
analysis of cost consequences of different product architectures possible
requires the ability to distinguish different product architectures in the
first place. The product architecture costing roadmap builds on a
multidimensional product architecture description methodology. In the second
step of the roadmap the relevant life cycle phase, or phases, with respect
to costs have to be identified. The question of relevance hinges on a
variety of factors such as product lifetime, production volume, total value,
and cost ownership. The third step requires determining the cost allocation
rules to be used for the costing procedure. The choice of certain accounting
decisions can have a profound effect on how the product architecture-cost
relationship is modeled. Finally, in its fourth step, the roadmap calls for
the selection of suitable cost models. Existing models differ in their
requirements for data accuracy and sample size, as well as their ability to
predict cost differentials of product architectures differences.
Fixson, S. K., Ro, Y., and J. K. Liker, 2005.
Modularization and Outsourcing: Who drives whom? - A Study of Generational
Sequences in the U.S. Automotive Cockpit Industry. International Journal of
Automotive Technology and Management. 5, 2, 166-183.
Abstract: In this paper, we study the
interactions between modularity and outsourcing in the auto industry. Focusing
on vehicle cockpit projects in North America, we collect data over three product
architecture generations and the associated shifts in firm boundaries for
multiple processes covering product development and production. We find that the
direction of influence between product architecture and firm boundary varies
across individual processes and over time, resulting in a zig-zag path towards
higher levels of modularity and outsourcing over the observed timeframe. The
relative strength of the factors that drive these changes appears to be
dependent on (a) idiosyncrasies of the logic of individual processes, i.e.,
their cost structure, their perceived strategic value, and the capabilities
available in the supply chain for their completion, and on (b) the relevance and
relative weight of external factors such as labour costs, capital cost, and
external development of technologies.
This paper received an 'honorable mention' in
the 2006-2007 Industry Studies Best Paper Prize of the Sloan Foundation
Industry Studies program. Download a preprint
here.
Fixson, S. K., 2005. Product Architecture
Assessment: A Tool to link Product, Process, and Supply Chain Design Decisions.
Journal of Operations Management. 23, 3/4, 345-369.
Abstract: Increasingly heterogeneous
markets, together with shorter product life cycles, are forcing many companies
to simultaneously compete in the three domains of product, process, and supply
chain. Dependencies among decisions across these domains make this competitive
situation very complex. To address this complexity, three-dimensional concurrent
engineering (3D-CE) has been suggested ([Fine, C.H., 1998. Clockspeed—Winning
Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage. Perseus Books, Reading,
MA.]). Applying 3D-CE requires an operationalization of one of its core
elements: the product architecture. In this paper, I develop a multi-dimensional
framework that enables comprehensive product architecture assessments. The
framework builds on existing product characteristic concepts such as component
commonality, product platforms, and product modularity. The framework’s utility
is illustrated with two example products, showing how individual product
architecture dimensions link decisions across different domains. This framework
can be used to focus advice for product design on product architecture
dimensions that are critical for a given operational strategy, to assess
advantages and limitations of operational strategies in conjunction with given
product architectures, or to develop dynamic capabilities such as planning
effective product–operation strategy combinations.
Fixson, S. K., 2007. What exactly is
Product Modularity? The answer depends on whom you ask. MIT Sloan Working
Paper 4631-06. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, pp. 35.
Abstract:
‘Product modularity’ has recently experienced a significant increase in
interest in the academic literature. While the concept of product
modularity is used across a wide range of academic research areas,
substantial variations exist in the ways in which the concept is
described and interpreted. In this paper, I develop a framework to
represent the similarities and differences that appear across these
variations of the concept of product modularity. Next, through an
extensive literature search I construct a set of 85 references
representing the use of product modularity in the engineering and
management literature over the past 30 years (1975– 2006). With help of
the framework I then analyze the use and interpretation of product
modularity in every reference in the set. The analysis demonstrates that
the product modularity concepts taken together really encompass a bundle
of product characteristics rather than a single condition, and
individual research areas exhibit certain preferences in which they
define and operationalize product modularity. I conclude with some
recommendations for future research. Overall, this paper strives to
provide a vocabulary to improve cross-disciplinary understanding of
product modularity.
