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
781.239.4414 (office)
781.239.5272 (fax)
e-mail: sfixson@babson.edu

Research Affiliate with the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP),
a Sloan Foundation Industry Studies Center.

 

 

TEACHING

At Babson College I currently teach the following courses:

 

 

RESEARCH

In my recent research I have been exploring the relationship between product architecture design decisions, such as modularity and integrality, and their strategic and operational consequences for firms' competitiveness.  Below you can find abstracts and pre-prints of my recent publications and working papers.

Publications

  1. 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.

    Download a preprint here.

     
  2. 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.

     
  3. 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.

    Download a preprint here.

     
  4. 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.

     
  5. 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.

    Download a preprint here.

     
  6. 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.

     

  7. 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.

Download a preprint here.

 

Working Paper

  1. Fixson, S. K., 2007. What exactly is Product Modularity? The answer depends on who 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.

    Download a preprint here.