This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

Developing an approach for design-or-buy-design decision-making

Marie-Anne Le Dain a,n, Richard Calvi b, Sandra Cheriti a
a
G-SCOP Laboratory, Grenoble Institute of Technology, School of Industrial Engineering, 46 Avenue Felix Viallet, 38031 Grenoble Cedex 1, France
b
CERAG Laboratory, Grenoble University, School of Business Administration (IAE), Domaine Universitaire, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9, France

articleinfo abstract

Article history: A key issue in New Product Development (NPD) projects is defining which design responsibilities
Received 8 June 2009 should be kept in-house and which ones could be delegated to suppliers. This paper focuses on the
Received in revised form design-or-buy-design decision process and proposes a structured approach to support the decision -
28 January 2010 making of a project team. The background of this study stems from Early Supplier Involvement
Accepted 25 March 2010
literature and the context in which design-or-buy-design decisions should be made. Derived from two
existing conceptual models, the approach has been further developed as part of an action research
Keywords: project in the company Schneider Electric. Within the context of this company, it is used to measure the
New product development developmental risk of the supplied product, provide a risk response plan and facilitate coordination
Early supplier involvement
between design engineers and purchasing professionals.
Design-or-buy-design decision-making
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction how they differentiate themselves from their competitors, is also

For a long time, ‘‘make-or-buy’’ decisions have received
considerable attention from both academics and practitioners.
This trade-off is often considered as a binary ‘‘make’’ or ‘‘buy’’
option, although the actual choosing is likely to be much more
complex. Nowadays, companies from various industries (auto-
motive, electronics, aeronautics, etc.) are increasingly outsourcing
their activities in order to face the competitive environment.
Kotabe and Mol (2009) reviewed existing literature and recog-
nised that most analyses of ‘‘make-or-buy’’ processes have
focused on a limited set of activities (manufacturing, services,
information technology, or retail activities) and have provided
insight into what determines whether firms integrate (make) or
outsource (buy) a particular activity. However, while firms may
decide to contract out, they can also decide to let suppliers handle
the design activity. Literature available on the subject provides
different explanations for this trend. In the automotive industry,
Veloso and Fixson (2001) pointed out the development of
modularization as a key enabler for increasing supplier respon-
sibility in design activity. Indeed, in a modular design strategy,
decomposability of the components and interface compatibility
make concurrent engineering with suppliers much simpler. For
Hsuan (1999), technical collaboration between the supplier and
the buyer at the early stage of development is a key success factor
for NPD. The competitive strategy of suppliers, in other words
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 33 0 4 76 57 48 16; fax: + 33 0 4 76 57 46 95.
E-mail addresses: marie-anne.le-dain@g-scop.inpg.fr (M.-A. Le Dain),
richard.calvi@iae.upmf-grenoble.fr (R. Calvi),
sandra.cheriti@g-scop.inpg.fr (S. Cheriti).
expected to have an impact on their involvement in design
activity. ‘‘Design suppliers’’ strive to achieve an attractive position
and gain power in the relationship and, in the long term, they may
even overcome the policy of supply-base reduction, which is now
widely adopted by clients in industrial sectors (Anderson et al.,
2001).
In this context of extended design activities between a client
and its suppliers, Clark and Starkey (1988) were the first to
introduce the concept of a ‘‘design chain’’ to describe the network
of participants, both internal and external to the focal firm and
created throughout the NPD process. Twigg (1998) later indicated
that an important step in managing the ‘‘design chain’’ was to
choose the appropriate level of supplier responsibility in the
development process.
In defining the design chain, decisions have to be made
concerning the roles and responsibilities that will be handled by
the suppliers in the NPD process. In this respect, since the ‘‘make-
or-buy’’ decision cannot ignore design activities, we have
introduced the concept of design-or-buy-design decisions to take
into account both design and production activities.
This paper mainly deals with the issue of what we call the
design-or-buy-design decision. This topic has received tremendous
attention in the automotive sector. Previous research suggested
that Japanese companies were more skilful in their choices of the
‘‘exit points’’ in the NPD process at which a company opts to buy
design rather than design internally (Fine and Whitney, 1996).
Research also indicated that this ability was an important factor
relating to the superior performance of Japanese companies in
NPD, in terms of lead time and cost (Clark, 1989; Clark and
Fujimoto, 1991). However, other studies empirically found
negative effects of buy-design decisions: such as increased product

1478-4092/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2010.03.010
 Author's personal copy
78 M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87
and development costs, worse product performance and, above
all, longer development times (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995),
(Hartley et al., 1997), (Wynstra et al., 2001), (Von Corswant and
Tunä lv, 2002).
These obviously contradictory results could be explained by
the fact that the positive effects of supplier involvement, argued
for at the strategic level, are not easily achieved at project level
(Ragatz et al., 1997), (Wynstra et al., 2003), (Hoegl and Wagner,
2005). In a recent study, Van Echtelt et al. (2008) analysed the
management of supplier involvement as a double loop framework
integrating two levels of management: strategic management and
operational project management. In their approach, successful
involvement of the supplier in the NPD depends on the firm’s
ability to capture both short and long-term benefits by smoothly
developing both management levels.
We agree with this view and target our contribution at the
operational level of the supplier involvement process. This paper
proposes an approach to support the design-or-buy-design deci-
sion-making process within an NPD project team.
Like Novak and Eppinger (2001), we believe that the lack of
efficiency in the decision-making process mainly results from the
chronological and organisational separation between product
design decisions and sourcing decisions. In this paper, we suggest
a structured approach for the design-or-buy-design decision
process where the aim is to allow product design engineers and
purchasing agents to make decisions in collaboration.
The following section presents the background of our
approach, which stems from Early Supplier Involvement (ESI)
literature, and the context in which the design-or-buy-design
decisions should be made. Thereafter, two conceptual models,
which form the basis of the decision-making approach, are
introduced. The research methodology is presented and the
research findings are elaborated upon. Subsequently, we present
feedback from practitioners and combine this empirical insight
with a literature review to explain our approach. Finally,
conclusions are drawn from this work by discussing its theoretical
and managerial implications as well as its limitations and
potential for further work.
2. Background
2.1. Early supplier involvement configurations
ESI is generally defined as a form of vertical cooperation in
which manufacturers involve suppliers at an early stage in the
NPD process (Bidault et al., 1998). A substantial body of research
focuses on the impact of ESI outcome. Numerous scholars have
argued that ESI contributes to project performance by improving
development time and cost as well as product quality (Birou and
Fawcett, 1994), (Hartley et al., 1997), (Ragatz et al., 1997), (Primo
and Amundson, 2002). Others have pointed out long-term
benefits for future projects, obtained by improving collaboration
through better client–supplier process alignment (Dyer and
Ouchi, 1993), (Ragatz et al., 1997), (Petersen et al., 2005), and
by client companies creating privileged relationships with their
suppliers in order to fully benefit from new technologies and
innovation (Handfield et al., 1999), (Monczka et al., 2000),
(Wynstra et al., 2001), (Emden et al., 2006), (Koufteros et al.,
2007). To achieve these objectives, one of the main challenges for
a project team is to define the extent to which a client
organisation shares responsibility with a supplier for the design
and development of a supplied item (e.g., part, component, or
sub-system) included in a new product (Takeishi, 2001). Indeed,
client firms can only gain benefits from supplier involvement if
they develop managerial competencies adapted to the various
inter-organisational configurations induced by the ESI process
(Bonnacorsi and Lipparini, 1994), (Ragatz et al., 1997), (Bidault,
et al., 1998), (Dowlatshahi, 1998), (Twigg, 1998), (Petersen et al.,
2005), (Van Echtelt et al., 2008). The notion of ESI covers a variety
of configurations. Different categorisations of supplier involve-
ment in NPD have been defined by researchers (Asanuma, 1989),
(Clark and Fujimoto, 1991), (Kamath and Liker, 1994), (Bidault
et al., 1998), (Monczka et al., 2000), (Wynstra and Ten Pierick,
2000), (Lakemond et al., 2006). Asanuma (1989) was the first to
propose a typology according to supplier initiative in the design of
the product and process based on an in-depth analysis of Japanese
automotive sector practices. Most of the categorisations are based
on the extent of supplier responsibility in the NPD process and are
consistent with the model of supplier involvement presented in
previous works (Handfield et al., 1999), (Monczka et al., 2000),
(Petersen et al., 2005). These authors conceptualised the level of
supplier responsibility as a continuum of configurations ranging
from ‘‘no involvement’’ to ‘‘white box’’ (informal supplier
integration), ‘‘gray box’’ (joint development with formalised
integration) and, finally, ‘‘black box’’ involvement where the
design is driven by the supplier according to the buyer’s
performance specifications. In recent studies, Petersen et al.
(2005) and Koufteros et al. (2007) explore the effects of black
box and gray box configurations on NPD performance.
In addition, several authors (Bonnacorsi and Lipparini, 1994),
(Handfield et al., 1999) identified the timing of supplier involve-
ment in the NPD process as an additional important dimension in
their categorisation. In this respect, Hartley et al. (1997) stressed
that earlier supplier involvement is always the best way to ensure
project performance. Other authors pointed out that involvement
timing depends on the intrinsic characteristics of the customer–
supplier relationship (Kamath and Liker, 1994), (Twigg, 1998),
(Wynstra and Ten Pierick, 2000), (Le Dain et al., (2008)),
suggesting that timely involvement may be more appropriate than
early involvement.
Most of these existing ESI configurations assume that the
extent and moment of involvement are directly related: the more
crucial the extent of involvement is for the client, the earlier this
involvement should start. An extensive case study of a Dutch
manufacturer led Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000) to conclude that
‘‘a high degree of involvement does not automatically lead to
early involvement; this also depends on the degree of develop-
ment risk’’. According to them, existing categorisations distin-
guish generalised supplier roles rather than specific development
‘‘situations’’ that may occur in an individual development project.
These authors propose a Supplier Involvement Portfolio that
distinguishes between four ‘‘situations’’. These are determined
according to the degree of development risk, i.e. the impact of the
supplied item on the customer NPD process, and the degree of
responsibility held by the supplier in the development activity.
The second dimension is located at the core of the design-or-buy-
design decision.
2.2. Design-or-buy-design decision context
The decision to outsource is multi-dimensional and includes
benefits in terms of increased economies of scale, access to
expertise in the supply base, short and long-term financial
advantages and a better focus on core operations (Behara et al.,
1995). In addition, Quinn (1992) advocated outsourcing for
greater flexibility and shorter product design cycles, especially
where rapidly developing new technologies or highly complex
systems are involved. However, studying product design activities
requires special attention to many other issues. For Elfring and
Baven (1994), a firm that is likely to outsource component design
 Author's personal copy
M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87
will need coordinating, strategic and interfacing skills as well as
the ability to manage contractual relationships. In engineering
design literature, the trade-off is highly influenced by the product
architecture. Thus, the degree of modularization appears as a key
element in the design-or-buy-design decision (Ulrich and Ellison,
1998). For Ulrich (1995), product architecture is considered as
modular if it induces a one-to-one mapping between functional
elements and physical components, and if the interfaces between
components are sufficiently uncoupled, so that each functional
element can be changed independently by simply changing the
corresponding component, and if this change does not entail a
redesign of the interface. The more modular the final product is
the easier the component buy-design decision should be since less
coordination with suppliers during the development phase is
required (Balwin and Clark, 1998). Moreover, Veloso and Fixson
(2001) maintained that modularization is the key enabler for
increasing supplier responsibility in the automotive sector.
However, not all products can be designed with a modular
architecture. What happens in the case of a product with an
integral architecture (Ulrich, 1995)? In this context, the client firm
is obliged to apply design-or-buy-design decision-making, but
must clearly identify the supply development risks at the
beginning of the project and plan ahead in terms of possible
responses to such risks.
Based on the above background review, the following question
can be raised: how can the design-buy-design decision-making
process be supported? Before this question can be answered, two
related research questions must first be addressed
● What are the key issues that need to be tackled prior to making
the design-or-buy-design decision?
● How can clients manage the specific development risks
associated with each supplier involvement configuration?
3. Conceptual models used in the research
In this research, two conceptual models are combined: the
Supplier Involvement Matrix (SIM) proposed by Calvi and Le Dain
(2004) and the portfolio approach introduced by Wynstra (1998)
and Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000).
3.1. The Supplier Involvement Matrix
Calvi and Le Dain (2004) enhanced the Supplier Involvement
Portfolio model introduced by Wynstra (1998) and Wynstra and
Ten Pierick (2000) following a study of 15 cases in French
companies representing a wide range of industries. The findings
of this study resulted in a new portfolio model – the SIM – which
identifies five supplier involvement configurations in collabora-
tive NPD projects. These configurations are a combination of the
following two dimensions (Fig. 1): (1) the development risk linked
to the outsourced item and (2) the supplier’s level of autonomy
in NPD.
3.1.1. The development risk
Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000) noted that the risk measure-
ment used in the traditional purchasing matrix is not appropriate
for describing the particular case of supplier involvement in NPD.
These matrices aggregate various levels of risk (internal, external,
commercial and technical risks) whereas the only relevant risk for
supplier involvement in NPD is linked to the impact of the
development of the outsourced item on the customer NPD
project.
To determine this development risk, Calvi and Le Dain (2004)
suggested six types of risks that express the possible impacts of
79
4
Black box
Strategic
3 « Co » Design
Delegated Design
supplier’s autonomy
2b Gray box
Degree of
« Critical » Co-Design
2a
Traditional
Subcontracting
1
Co-Ordinated
Development
0 White box
0% 50% 100%
Development risk
Fig. 1. The Supplier Involvement Matrix (Calvi and Le Dain, 2004).
Table 1
Risk definition adapted from (Wynstra, 1998; Wynstra and Ten Pierick, 2000).
Type of risk Risk Definition
Systemic link Systemic link refers to the tightness of the
interdependence links between the outsourced item and
the other items. The tighter the links, the stronger the
outsourced item impacts on the technical performance
and on the design of the final product.
Newness Newness risk refers either to the use of new
technology(ies) for the customer or to the use of known
technology(ies) in a new context.
Internal Internal complexity refers to the number of distinct
complexity technologies or components used in the outsourced item.
Produced The outsourced item represents an essential new
differentiation contribution to the functionalities of the overall system, in
comparison to the previous system.
Timeline Timeline refers to the position of the outsourced item
along the critical path of the customer product
development project.
Cost weight Cost weight refers to the impact of the outsourced item’s
cost on the cost of the final product. (Inspired by Birou
and Fawcett, 1994)
the outsourced item development (Table 1). Five types of risks
defined in the SIM are similar to those previously proposed by
Wynstra (1998) and Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000), i.e. systemic
link, newness, internal complexity, produced differentiation and
timeline. Calvi and Le Dain (2004) introduced an additional
risk – cost weight – which had already been identified by Birou
and Fawcett (1994). According to these authors, intensive
contribution poses a potential risk in terms of compliance with
the target product cost and the overall cost of the development
project. The relevance of this risk has been confirmed through the
case studies carried out by Calvi and Le Dain (2004).
3.1.2. The supplier’s level of autonomy in product development
The autonomy given to a supplier in the development of an
outsourced item was determined according to a five-level scale
(from 0 to 4). For Calvi and Le Dain (2004), the distinction made
between these levels is a function of (a) the level of responsibility
assumed by the supplier in the customer’s NPD process (Hand-
field et al., 1999), (Kamath and Liker, 1994), (Monczka et al.,
2000), (Wynstra, 1998), (b) the type of needs specified to the
supplier (technical or functional specifications) (Clark and
Fujimoto, 1991), (Wynstra, 1998), and (c) the associated intellec-
tual property rights (Bidault et al., 1998), (Fujimoto, 1995). This
scale will be presented in Section 5.2.2.
 Author's personal copy
80 M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87
3.1.3. The five types of customer/supplier involvement in
collaborative NPD projects
Calvi and Le Dain (2004) introduced five configurations of
supplier involvement in collaborative NPD projects. When the
level of supplier autonomy is low, the relationship is said to be
based on a ‘‘white box’’ model. In this case, Calvi and Le Dain
(2004) distinguished between two configurations according to the
development risk level: traditional subcontracting, characterised
by a low development risk and co-ordinated development,
characterised by high systemic link and timeline risks. In both
configurations, outsourced items are mainly simple parts that
continue to be designed in-house. However, with co-ordinated
development, the product design activity carried out by the
customer and the process design activity carried out by the
supplier must be coordinated owing to the nature of the risk.
The aim of such coordination is to effectively integrate both
activities (product design and process design) while keeping the
supplier informed of modifications. In fact, in a co-ordinated
development situation, the supplier may be consulted at the
product design phase to provide tacit knowledge about its
manufacturing process. Thus, it plays the role of ‘‘silent designer’’
(Dumas, 1988) because it contributes to the design activity
without taking any responsibility for it.
When supplier autonomy is high (‘‘black box’’), Calvi and Le
Dain (2004) also identified two configurations according to the
level of development risk: delegated development and strategic
co-design. In both cases, the supplier is fully responsible for the
design and development of the outsourced item. However, in
strategic co-design, the high level of risk requires a great deal of
communication with the supplier in order to clarify customer
needs and to monitor changes occurring throughout the project.
Lastly, critical co-design (supplier autonomy level from 2a to 3
and risk greater than 50%) is the term used by the authors to qualify
the configuration where neither the customer nor the supplier
possesses the knowledge or the ability to completely execute the
product design in-house. The greater the development risk, the
more the customer will try to promote and manage collaboration
between its own project team and the supplier’s. This reasoning
thereby explains the triangular nature of the conceptual SIM.
We chose the SIM because this matrix helps to make the
appropriate decision (design-or-buy-design) according to supplier
involvement configurations. The SIM clearly links the five
configurations with the black, gray and white box models
commonly used. According to the level of supplier autonomy, a
position in the SIM associated with white box configurations will
require a design decision, whereas a position associated with gray
or black box configurations will require a buy-design decision. In
our study, we propose to use this matrix in the design-or-buy-
design decision-making process. In this respect, we draw inspira-
tion from the portfolio approach described below.
3.2. How to use the SIM: The portfolio approach
The aim of the portfolio approach introduced by Wynstra
(1998) and Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000) was to provide
support when setting priorities relating to the involvement of
suppliers in a development project. According to the authors, this
approach can be shared by purchasers and development
engineers when discussing, planning and carrying out product
development in collaboration with suppliers. This approach is
based on the use of the Supplier Involvement Portfolio and is
applied in four steps:
(1) The degree of responsibility is determined. This covers both
the development responsibility that the project team wishes
to give the supplier and the possibilities offered by the
supplier market.
(2) The development risk is determined. This involves allocating a
score to questions relating to the five types of risks previously
described.
(3) The item is positioned in the Supplier Involvement Portfolio.
This results in the appropriate supplier relationship and
determines the sequence in which the supplier should be
involved and
(4) The distribution of the various items across the portfolio is
analysed and, if necessary, some are repositioned.
Our objective is to analyse the application of this approach
using the SIM model to support the design-or-buy-design decision-
making process. This work was carried out with the collaboration
of a French company and led to the adaptation of both original
conceptual models.
4. Research methodology
This study combines the SIM conceptual model with the need
expressed by Schneider Electric to improve its supplier involve-
ment in their NPD process. World leader in electricity and
automation management, Schneider Electric wished to use this
matrix to help project teams when making decisions about
collaborative design with suppliers.
This research project sought to create a tool for supporting
the design-or-buy-design decision-making process in NPD
projects with a view to improving the ultimate outputs of the
collaborative-design-with-suppliers process. This ambition was
consistent with the aim of engineering design research, i.e. to
support industry by improving engineering design understanding
and by using this understanding to develop knowledge and
methods to improve the likelihood of producing a successful
product (Blessing and Chakrabarti, 2009). In this study, the goal
was to produce knowledge not for itself but to support action.
The approach adopted was therefore geared towards Action
Research (AR). AR proceeds through a cyclical process of planning,
taking action and evaluating action, leading to further planning.
AR requires active participation by both researchers and
practitioners in this cyclical process (Coughlan and Coghlan,
2002). The active participation of both actors in the co-construc-
tion of knowledge for action shall be described in what follows.
In January 2006, Schneider Electric launched a project for the
worldwide unification of methods and tools to facilitate
and improve supplier involvement in NPD. The first author
joined the project team on a full-time basis for one year to
handle the development of a design-or-buy-design decision-
making approach using the SIM. A mirror group including
representatives of all the skills involved in NPD (i.e., Purchasing,
Electro-mechanical Design, Electronic Design, Software Design,
Industrialization, Project Quality and Project Management) was
set up to support this mission. The author/action researcher acted
as an external helper to the industrial partner in order to ‘‘inquire
into their (own) issues, and create, and implement solutions’’
(Coughlan and Coghlan, 2002, p. 227). Unlike consultants, action
researchers require theoretical justifications and a rigorous
research design process for their collaborative work to result in
the creation and implementation of a solution (Gummesson,
2000). In addition, the consultation process is frequently linear
(i.e., analyse and act) whereas AR is cyclical. This means that
several loops are performed between the findings from the review
of literature and from the exploratory cases in order to carry out
the collaborative work.
 Author's personal copy
M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87
The research was conducted in three phases:
(1) Data gathering. Data was collected through regular progress
meetings with the mirror group, and semi-structured inter-
views with NPD project teams. The goal of these exchanges
was twofold: (1) to analyse their practices in terms of
collaborative design and explore collaborative design difficul-
ties experienced with their suppliers, and (2) to collect their
opinion about the SIM and the portfolio approach. In addition,
with the position held by the action researcher within the
project, there were no restrictions in documentation and
observation. More particularly, Schneider Electric documents
about analysis risks, the NPD process and the purchasing
process were studied in detail. As required by Coughlan and
Coghlan (2002), data from literature and practitioners was
analysed with both the researchers and the client company.
This analysis was done with the mirror group.
(2) Tool development. Following several cycles of reviewing
literature, gathering data and analysing it, the SIM model
was adjusted to the industrial context of Schneider Electric
and a preliminary tool was devised. This tool was presented
during workshop sessions with the mirror group in order to
discuss the viability of the approach as well as to check on the
content and the structure of the tool. Modifications were
made in response to feedback. The tool was then tested on
two NPD projects for which a buy-design decision had already
been made. These cases acted as ‘‘learning histories’’ and were
used to stimulate thinking and encourage learning in the
project teams (Kleiner and Roth, 1997). The remarks made by
the teams interviewed were taken into account in the design
of the tool presented in this paper.
(3) Validation. In order to evaluate and improve the wider
applicability of the design-or-buy-design decision-making
approach, and to identify a number of implications for
management, we conducted five case studies within Schnei-
der Electric project teams. These teams had to make this sort
of decision in their ongoing NPD projects. For confidentiality
reasons, only one case study is reported here. It concerns the
development of a product that is already available on the
market. The five products developed within the five case
studies required the integration of connectors. The case
described is therefore representative of the design-or-buy-
design decision-making process concerning the connector
commodity. This is why this case study was selected to
illustrate the application of the approach within the training
program run for NPD newcomers at Schneider Electric.
4.1. Case description
In 2005, Schneider Electric launched the development of a
bottom-of-the-range protection relay. The aim was to complete
its range and to re-use the relay in other NPD projects. The
project’s main objectives were twofold: to lower the target cost by
30% and to offer a more compact solution without accessories.
A protection relay contributes to the safety of goods and people by
detecting electrical failures and isolating the faulty part from the
network while securing electrical distribution in the healthy part.
In addition, it must be able to work in severe temperatures (from
— 40 to + 70 1C) for a period of over fifteen years with a high level
of reliability. Generally, the protection relay is connected to the
current transformer and the circuit-breaker. The relay measures
and analyses the electrical data provided by the current
transformer. If an electrical failure is detected, the protection
relay sends a signal to trip the circuit-breaker.
81
In the case study reported here, the item selected for
outsourcing by the participants was an automatic shorting
connector. It is a specific component that handles the interface
between the current transformer and the protection relay. It is
considered a key component because of its considerable impact
on the performance and functionality of the protection relay.
5. Developing the design-or-buy-design decision-making
approach
As previously described, the approach was iteratively devel-
oped through action research. This was supported by feedback
from the Schneider Electric case and findings from literature, all of
which was combined in a cyclical process.
At the outset of this study, we presented the SIM model and its
use according to the portfolio approach introduced in Section 3.2
during the workshops carried out with the mirror group and the
10 semi-structured interviews with project team managers and
project leaders for purchasing, design, quality and industrializa-
tion in Schneider Electric. The aim was to collect the opinion of
practitioners. As previously outlined in the methodology section,
the SIM model was also tested with the project team in charge of
the buy-design decision about the automatic shorting connector.
The following two sections describe the feedback given by
Schneider Electric about the SIM model and its use (Section 5.1),
and the adaptations made to the original approach using the SIM
model. These adaptations were built on a learning cycle during
which the Schneider Electric experience was compared and
contrasted to the findings from literature. This led to the
finalisation of our design-or-buy-design decision-making approach
(Section 5.2).
5.1. Applying the SIM model: The Schneider Electric experience
Two major feedback points emerged from the presentation and
the application of the SIM model according to the approach
introduced by Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000). These relate to the
risk development analysis and to the determination of the
supplier’s level of autonomy. The key points suggested by
practitioners are summarised below.
5.1.1. Development risk analysis
All participants considered the development risk analysis
concerning the outsourced item as crucial. Risk analysis is a
common practice in NPD. Schneider Electric has developed
procedures to manage risks arising from components (mechanical,
electrical or software-related) and sub-assemblies in NPD projects.
This management process is described as a collaborative process in
which the activities and responsibilities regarding each function
included in NPD projects are specified. The risk analysis must be
conducted in three steps: identification of risks, measurement of
risks and definition of risk response plan(s). All participants
suggested that this development risk analysis of the outsourced
item should be adopted. According to them, the analysis should be
performed as part of the first step in the decision-making process.
Indeed, it is more logical to clearly define and share the content of
the potential collaboration before choosing the level of supplier
autonomy.
The different project leaders (purchasers, designers, etc.)
interviewed in this study considered the 6 types of SIM risks
appropriate for specifying the impact of the development of the
outsourced item on the final product. For example, they reported
that the systemic link risk is often decisive since most Schneider
Electric products have different but highly interdependent
 Author's personal copy
82 M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87
components. However, our analysis of their risk management
practices highlighted two means of improving development risk
identification and measurement. According to the technical
leaders, internal complexity is already included as a risk in the
Schneider Electric risk management procedures. In these proce-
dures, the risk is linked to the number of different technologies
used in components or sub-assemblies. The company definition
also takes into account a second criterion: the difficulty involved
in specifying the performance required by certain characteristics
of a product or process and measuring this performance. The
technical leaders suggested that we improve the original defini-
tion of internal complexity by integrating this second criterion. The
second improvement concerns the introduction of the supply
chain risk described in the Schneider Electric procedures. This risk
refers to the management of the network of suppliers involved in
manufacturing and delivery activities. The practitioners reported
that this risk may also occur in design and development activities.
According to them, the more the development of the outsourced
item requires various technologies mastered by different partici-
pants, both internal and external to the first-tier-supplier, the
higher the supply risk. A technical leader gave a real-life example
concerning the development of a mechanical component. This
component required different operations including die-trimming,
bending, welding and machining to be successively performed by
different tier-suppliers. During the development, a bending
problem arose; the first-supplier detected it and dealt with it
only when the component was delivered for the pilot run. This
latency period had a high impact on the company’s product
development time.
Concerning development risk control, the mirror group and the
action researcher suggested a number of risk response plans to
match the Schneider Electric product risk management proce-
dures. These initial proposals were improved following the SIM
application to ongoing projects. We report here the experience of
the project team concerning the risk analysis related to the
shorting connector. The two dominant risks linked to the
automatic shorting connector and identified by the project team
were the systemic link risk and the internal complexity risk. In order
to anticipate the possible impacts of these risks, a number of
supplier actions were carried out at the beginning of the project.
Concerning the systemic link risk, the impact analysis was shared
with the supplier through a clear presentation of the environment
in which the connector was to be used. This presentation allowed
the supplier to thoroughly identify the impacts of its connector on
the protection relay by fully understanding development and
utilisation requirements and establishing an overall picture of
what was expected of the device. Thanks to this presentation of
the environment, the supplier was able to suggest different design
solutions for its connector in order to meet Schneider Electric’s
needs. The supplier outlined the advantages and risks of these
solutions, so that a joint and well-informed decision could be
reached. Concerning the internal complexity risk, the verification
plan was drawn up with the supplier. The goal of this co-defined
plan was to clearly specify the acceptance criteria and the
verification tests, as well as respective roles and responsibilities
in terms of the actions and resources needed to implement the
verification process.
5.1.2. Determination of the supplier autonomy level
The five levels introduced in the SIM are consistent with
Schneider Electric practices. According to the practitioners, when
the supplier holds the intellectual property rights for an item, it is
also in charge of eventual changes made to the item during mass
production of the customer’s product. Schneider Electric describes
this activity as ‘‘continuous engineering’’.
The practitioners also reported that this decision was strongly
influenced by the capability of the suppliers listed in Schneider
Electric’s supply base. Sometimes, the project team’s outsourcing
needs cannot be fulfilled by an official company supplier and
according to the purchasing strategy they must use suppliers from
the official list.
5.2. Adapting the original approach: proposal for a four-stage
approach to the design-or-buy-design decision
This section presents the adaptations made to the original
approach and on which our final design-or-buy-design decision-
making approach is based. These adaptations were made in a
transformative cycle that continuously alternated emphasis
between theory and practice. As described above, suggestions
were also inductively put forward by practitioners. A review of
literature allowed us to analyse their suggestions in the light of
academic results. Based on this cyclical process between practice
and the analysis of literature, four major adaptations to the
original approach were proposed. Firstly, as suggested by
Schneider Electric, we inverted the order of the first two steps,
beginning the decision process with the determination of the
development risk. This sequence is also consistent with the
findings of the study carried out in the automotive and
telecommunication industries by Brennan (1997). This author
suggested that practitioners should carefully review their product
categories and adjust their relationships with suppliers as a result.
The second adaptation focused on the step consisting in
determining the vertical axis of the SIM. To determine this axis,
Wynstra (1998) and Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000) did not only
consider the supplier’s degree of responsibility but also the
opportunities offered by the supplier market. The practitioners
recommended choosing the desired level of supplier autonomy
regardless of the supplier market. This would then dispense the
project team of limiting its requirements to the few possibilities
provided by the Schneider Electric supply base. The third
adaptation concerned the introduction of a risk management
process for the outsourced item that would require the Schneider
Electric team to implement the risk identification, risk measure-
ment and risk response plans together with the supplier. The last
adaptation covered other key issues relating to the decision-
making step.
Following these adaptations, the approach introduced is based
on the use of SIM and comprises four steps:
(1) Determination of the development risk related to the outsourced
item.
(2) Determination of the supplier’s desired level of autonomy.
(3) Positioning in the SIM and management of the development
risk and
(4) Adoption of the final design-or-buy-design decision.
The modifications made to the different steps compared with
the original approach are detailed in the following section.
5.2.1. Revision of step 1: Determination of the development risk of
an outsourced item
The development risk for each item is determined according to
the overall score for seven types of risks. Six of these are similar to
the risks previously presented in the SIM, i.e.: systemic link,
newness, internal complexity, produced differentiation, timeline and
cost weight. Based on Schneider Electric’s suggestions, a new risk
was introduced, the design chain complexity risk. The score for
each risk is computed from questions comprising an ordinal
 Author's personal copy

M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87 83

answering scale (from score 1 to 5). Table 2 describes the Regarding internal complexity, the definition initially proposed
definition that we developed for each risk and the questions used by Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000) and used by Calvi and Le Dain
to evaluate it. (2004) was enhanced. The updated definition is consistent with

Table 2
Questions for the development risk determination relating to each risk’s type.

Type of risk Risk definition Questions Quotation

Systemic link Systemic link refers to the tightness of the To what extent does the 1 2 3 4 5
interdependence links between the outsourced item determine the
outsourced item and the other items. The technical performance of the
tighter the links, the stronger the customer product?
outsourced item impacts on the technical
performance and on the design of the final
product.
weakly strongly
To what extent does the 1 2 3 4 5
outsourced item determine the
design of the customer product?
weakly strongly
Newness Newness risk refers either to the use of To what extent are the 1 2 3 4 5
new technology(ies) for the customer or to technologies of the outsourced
the use of known technology(ies) in a new item new, or to what extent is the
context. application of these technologies
new to the customer?
known new
Internal Internal complexity refers to the number What is the internal complexity of 1 2 3 4 5
complexity of distinct technologies or components the outsourced item?
used in the outsourced item, to the
difficulty to specify the performance
required by some product or process
characteristics as well as to the difficulty
to measure the performance criteria, the
product/process feasibility and/or process
capability.
simple complex
Produced The outsourced item represents an To what extent does the 1 2 3 4 5
differentia- essential new contribution to the outsourced item make an
tion functionalities of the overall system, in essentially new contribution to
comparison to the previous system. the functionalities of the
customer product, as compared to
the previous product?
weakly strongly
Timeline Timeline refers to the position of the To what extent is the outsourced 1 2 3 4 5
outsourced item along the critical path of item on the critical path of the
the customer product development customer product development
project. project?
weakly strongly
Cost weight Cost weight refers to the impact of the To what extent does the 1 2 3 4 5
outsourced item’s cost on the cost of the outsourced item’s cost contribute
final product. to the customer product’s cost?
weakly strongly
Design chain Design chain complexity refers to the How many of sub-items 1 3 5
complexity management of the tier suppliers involved developed by the first-tier
in the development of the item outsourced supplier’s network of suppliers
to the first-tier supplier. The first-tier are considered as critical with
supplier is responsible for managing this regard to the customer’s product
tier-supplier network. development project?
Few medium
many
According to the design chain 1 3 5
framework of the first-tier
supplier, how long does it take for
a problem occurring in a tier
supplier of this design chain to
reach the customer’s first-tier
supplier and be dealt with?
1¼ short

3¼ medium

5¼ long

or
 Author's personal copy

84 M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87

practitioner feedback and the definition introduced by Clark and
Fujimoto (1991, p. 10). These authors combined two dimensions
to describe the new product complexity as follows:
(1) The ‘‘complexity of internal product structure’’, which refers to
‘‘the number of distinct components and production steps, to
the number of interfaces, and to the technological difficulty and
severity of the trade-offs among different components’’ and
(2) The ‘‘complexity of product user-interface’’, which is linked
‘‘to the number and specificity of the performance criteria, to
the importance of measurable dimensions versus subtle and
Table 3
Five levels for determination of the supplier’s autonomy in product development.
4 On the basis of functional specifications, the supplier is responsible for the
global design (concept, feasibility studies, design, supply chain
organisation), the detailed design, the testing of global and detailed design
and the setting up of the production and assembly processes of a complex
subsystem. The supplier holds the intellectual property rights of the
subsystem and then he is in charge of its continuous engineering.
3 On the basis of functional specifications, the supplier has the full
responsibility from concept design to manufacture of an entire part/
component. The supplier holds the intellectual property rights of the part/
component and then he is in charge of its continuous engineering.
2 On the basis of specifications, the supplier is fully or partly responsible for
the detailed design, the testing and the setting up of the production and
assembly processes.
2a The customer keeps the intellectual property rights of the component
and pays design fees to the supplier. The customer is in charge of its
continuous engineering.
2b The supplier holds the intellectual property rights of the component and
is held legally responsible. The supplier is in charge of its continuous
engineering.
1 The supplier is responsible for the setting up of the industrialization and
production processes based on the drawings supplied by the customer.
Supplier provides feedback on the customer’s design including suggestions
for cost or quality improvements.
0 The supplier is responsible for the setting up of the production process. The
supplier provides input in the customer’s product design by sharing
information about its equipment and process capabilities and production
scheduling.
equivocal ones, and to the holistic criteria versus narrow
ones’’. In addition, Novak and Eppinger (2001) provided
evidence of complementarities between product complexity
and vertical integration. For them, an item that is considered
complex due to its performance requirements may need more
time to be developed by a supplier because of coordination
problems between firms. This evidence stressed the impor-
tance of an accurate definition of this risk.
Regarding design chain complexity, as explained earlier, practi-
tioners suggested taking into account the design chain manage-
ment of their first-tier suppliers. If we adopt the point of view of a
customer who considers this design chain, the more complex the
design chain is, the more its management becomes crucial and
presents a risk in terms of successful collaboration. This point is
also highlighted in literature. We therefore added this risk and
chose a name that refers to ‘‘design chain management’’, as
introduced by Twigg (1998). Two criteria were introduced to
evaluate the complexity of this design chain
(1) the number of items considered critical by the customer’s
NPD project and developed by the first-tier supplier’s net-
work; this number provides an estimation of the iterations
required for design and validation activities and
(2) the time needed by the first-tier supplier to deal with a
problem occurring in its design chain; this time depends on
the design chain framework (Aggeri and Segrestin, 2000).
Both criteria provide a measure of the coordination cost to
design and execute production within this network (Novak and
Eppinger, 2001).
5.2.2. Revision of step 2: Determination of the supplier’s level of
autonomy
As previously mentioned, this determination is only based
on the autonomy that the project team wishes to grant the
supplier. To determine supplier autonomy the project team used

Fig. 2. Position of outsourced items (OI) in the SIM and associated dominant risks. (a) Position in the Supplier Involvement Matrix and (b) dominant risks for each product.
 Author's personal copy

M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87 85

a five-level scale (Table 3). This scale is practically identical to the
scale proposed by Calvi and Le Dain (2004) in their SIM model.
The minor change in the previously defined levels relates to the
responsibility of the continuous engineering activity.
5.2.3. Revision of step 3: Positioning in the Supplier Involvement
Matrix and management of the development risk
The position of each item in the SIM is automatically
calculated from the values on the horizontal and vertical axes.
This position indicates the desired supplier involvement config-
uration. Following practitioners’ requirements, we also proposed
an analysis of the development risk based on three steps: risk
identification, risk measurement and risk response plan defini-
tion. This risk analysis is consistent with the one proposed by
Hallikas et al. (2004) for the purpose of managing risks in the case
of close customer/supplier relationships.
To implement the first two steps in this analysis, the
contribution of each risk to the overall development risk is
automatically calculated to identify and measure the dominant
risks for the outsourced item. For example, Fig. 2a illustrates
the position of three non-real outsourced items (OI): strategic co-
design for OI-1 (57% development risk and level 3), critical co-
design for OI-2 (71% development risk and level 2a) and co-
ordinated development for OI-3 (48% development risk and
level 1). Fig. 2a also describes the main characteristics of each
supplier involvement configuration. Fig. 2b specifies how each
risk contributes to the development risk so that the dominant
risks can be identified. In the non-real example, the dominant
risks relating to outsourced item OI-1 are as follows: systemic link
(20%), timeline (15%), cost weight (20%) and design chain complexity
(15%).
With regard to the last step of the risk analysis, i.e. the
definition of a risk response plan, the impact of each risk on the
final product was identified and a number of appropriate risk
responses suggested (Table 4). For example, three main responses
to the systemic link risk are suggested. As previously stated, this is
often a high risk for Schneider Electric because most of its
products are based on integral rather than modular architecture.
Ulrich (1995) described this product architecture as not made
up of ‘‘off-the-shelf parts’’, but rather consisting of a set of
components designed to fit in with each other. In addition,
functions are typically shared by components and components
often display multiple functions. This definition explains why the
systemic link risk for a product based on integral architecture is
often high. Thus each upgrade and modification in the definition
and validation of the Schneider Electric product must also be
integrated into the outsourced item. Moreover, coordination
challenges with suppliers should not be underestimated. To
counter the systemic link risk, the following plan was proposed:
first, in order to facilitate interface management, the product
should be developed as an engineering system defined by a top-
down design process (Fine and Whitney, 1996). Indeed, this
design process models the product as cleanly decomposable into
subsystems, at points where interfaces are simple and clearly
defined. Second, the impact analysis stemming from this
decomposition must be shared with the supplier. This should
encourage the supplier to contribute to the design process chosen
by the customer. This contribution allows the supplier to better
meet functional requirements, without including excessive
specification requirements that lead to unproductive additional
costs (Humphreys et al., 2007, p. 44). Finally, intensive and
reciprocal communication should be observed with the supplier
during the project. This third action was inspired by O’Neal
(1993), who argued that regular supplier participation in design
reviews, including some co-location periods in the customer’s
development centre, can help ensure an optimal NPD process.
5.2.4. Revision of step 4: Adoption of the final design-or-buy-design
decision
In this step, the project team attempts to validate the expected
positions in the SIM and makes their design-or-buy-design decision
accordingly. A position associated with ‘‘white box’’ configurations
will require a design decision, whereas a position associated with
‘‘gray’’ or ‘‘black box’’ configurations will require a

Table 4
Impact of each type of risks and proposition of associated risk responses.

Risk Impact on the customer project Risk response

Systemic link n Management of modifications: all modifications to parts n Make sure that the item is specified with straightforward and
interfacing with the outsourced item must be reported to, even well-defined interfaces. n Organise regular face-to-face meetings
validated with, the supplier. for an intensive and reciprocal communication with supplier
during the project.
n The greater the systemic link, the less the guarantee for the n Define with the supplier complementary verification tests on
customer that the outsourced item will turn out to be reliable mock-up, simulation, correlation analysis.
during final testing within the environment of the overall product’s
use.
n Share the impact analysis.
Newness n Lack of expertise on customer’s part. n Analyse competitors on purchasing.
n Uncertainty regarding the reliability of the outsourced item n Define with the supplier complementary verification tests on
during final testing within the environment of overall product’s use. mock-up, simulation, correlation analysis.
Internal Uncertainty regarding the reliability of the outsourced item during n Perform FMEA.
complexity final testing within the environment of overall product’s use.
n Define complementary verification tests on mock-up, simulation,
correlation analysis.
n Co-define the verification plan with suppliers.
Produced Customer satisfaction. Make sure that the supplier has clearly understood the customer
differentiation need.
Timeline Impact on time to market. Identify with the supplier the measures needed to control these
risks, when analysing the risks involved in the project.
Cost weight The success of the project is jeopardized. Drive the project according to the target cost, standardize as much
as possible.
Design chain n Impact on time to market.
complexity
n Possibility of delays due to the supplier’s inefficient management Make sure that the first-tier supplier is transparent with regard to
of its design chain. the suppliers it involves in its own product development project.
 Author's personal copy
86 M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87
buy-design decision. This decision-making is based on the
possibilities offered by the supplier market as well as the analysis
of the item’s distribution across the SIM. Both points were already
introduced in the original approach but their combined use to
support decision-making was not clearly specified. We explain
hereafter how we improve on this.
As illustrated in Fig. 3, design-or-buy-design decision-making is
based on the following two questions:
● For each part, is there a known supplier capable of meeting our
requirements, or can we find a suitable supplier on the
supplier market so that we can attain the desired position in
the SIM?
● Is the desired distribution of all items across the SIM
acceptable in terms of management?
For example, the distribution will be considered unacceptable
when the project team thinks that the supplier’s management risk
is too critical due to the substantial number of ‘‘strategic co-
design’’ configurations.
If there is no suitable supplier or no acceptable distribution,
repositioning in the SIM is necessary. Two scenarios are proposed
(Fig. 3). The first requires a decrease in the supplier’s level of
autonomy for the development. Of course, when the supplier has
a lower level of autonomy, the item can only be subcontracted out
if the necessary skills and resources are available in-house. The
second scenario requires a lower development risk. To achieve
this, the item has to be redefined. For example, this may involve
changing the technology, the component and/or the design chain
architecture used.
6. Conclusion and implications
The research presented in this paper results in an approach to
support project teams in their design-or-buy-design decision-
making in NPD projects. This approach is based on four steps that
address key issues relating to the construction of cross-functional
decisions. The first three steps use the revised SIM, and result in
identification of the supplier involvement configuration desired
by the project team as well as in management of the development
risk. Positioning in the SIM provides an initial basis for the overall
decision-making process. A position associated with white box
configurations will require a design decision, whereas a position
associated with gray or black box configurations will require a
Analysis for each outsourced item
Repositioning in the Supplier Involvement Matrix
IO
Supplier
Market
Analysis
Analysis for all potential outsourced items
Analysis of
the relationships
distribution
across the matrix
Repositioning in the Supplier Involvement Matrix
Fig. 3. Making design or buy design decision.
buy-design decision. In the last step of the approach, the project
team attempts to validate their choices. First, they analyse the
existence of suppliers capable of accommodating their needs.
Second, they evaluate supplier management risks by analysing
the distribution of all items across the SIM. Finally, they define
risk responses that need to be set up during collaboration with the
supplier.
From a theoretical standpoint, our research contributes to the
improvement of the previous conceptual models proposed by
Wynstra (1998), Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000) and Calvi and Le
Dain (2004). More particularly, we construct a more accurate
definition of development risk measurement and suggest neces-
sary risk control measures. Moreover, literature on economics and
management science has widely explored the ‘‘make-or-buy’’
decision. More recently, systems engineering literature has
established the importance of product architecture and product
complexity. However, little research has stressed the connection
between these two important decisions or studied them jointly
within NPD projects. Our research contributes to creating this link
by developing an approach in which both decisions are combined.
Based on the case studies, several managerial implications have
been identified. First, if a project team uses a stage-gate
process for moving an NPD project from idea to launch, the
application of the approach may be considered as deliverable in
the early phases of this process. This deliverable may help project
managers to clearly identify the needs during the early phases in
terms of internal or external competencies and resources needed
for the project. Secondly, the approach may facilitate interaction
between design engineers, who typically determine product
architecture, and purchasers, who typically make sourcing
decisions. It is possible to help these two professions to define
the design-or-buy-design decision-making process together. Novak
and Eppinger (2001) highlighted that while these two groups
certainly interact, they rarely make these decisions jointly. These
authors suggested that greater ‘‘coordination of these functions
within (the) NPD process could improve firm performance’’
(p. 202). Thirdly, the approach provides an analysis of the
development risk that a project team should share with the
selected supplier. Finally, the approach may facilitate the supplier
selection process. Joint decisions about the expected require-
ments and the risks relating to outsourced items contribute to
defining the appropriate criteria for supplier selection.
Two main limitations were identified in this research. First, the
approach was only applied to case studies at Schneider Electric.
A recommendation for future research would be to carry out
no
yes
Is the supplier Design
market acceptable?
or Buy
Is this distribution
acceptable yes Design
in terms or Buy
of management?
no
 Author's personal copy
M.-A. Le Dain et al. / Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16 (2010) 77–87
investigations on a larger sample including other industrial cases
in order to test how general the approach is. Second, during the
design-or-buy-design decision-making process, repositioning a
given item in the SIM can impact decisions relating to other
directly connected items. The interdependence between items has
not been specifically dealt with in this article. Taking such
interdependence into account may help with the decision-making
process and is worth exploring further in future research work.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Schneider Electric for their close
cooperation in this work and for the opportunity they gave to
conduct an applied research on the topic of design or buy design
decision-making.
References
Aggeri, F., Segrestin, B., 2000. Comment concilier innovation et ré duction des
délais? Gérer et Comprendre 67 30–42.
Anderson, J., Oliver, N., Anderson, J., 2001. Collaborative new product development
in a multi-customer context: challenges for Western auto component
suppliers. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management
1 (2/3), 169–182.
Asanuma, B., 1989. Manufacturer–supplier relationships in Japan and the concept
of relation-specific skill. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 3
(1), 1–30.
Balwin, C., Clark, K.B., 1998. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Behara, R.S., Gundersen, D.E., Capozzoli, E.A., 1995. Trends in information systems
outsourcing. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
31 (2), 46–51.
Bidault, F., Despres, C., Butler, C., 1998. Leveraged Innovation: Unlocking the
Innovation Potential of Strategic Supply. MacMillan Press, London.
Birou, L.M., Fawcett, S.E., 1994. Supplier involvement on integrated product
development: a comparison of US and European practices. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 24 (5), 4–14.
Blessing, L., Chakrabarti, A., 2009. DRM, A Design Research Methodology. Springer-
Verlag, London.
Bonnacorsi, A., Lipparini, A., 1994. Strategic partnerships in new product
development: an Italian case study. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment 11, 134–145.
Brennan, R., 1997. Buyer/supplier partnering in British industry: the automotive
and telecommunications sectors. Journal of Marketing Management 13 (8),
759–775.
Calvi, R., Le Dain, M.-A., 2004. Le partage de l’activité de conception entre un client
et ses fournisseurs: quels modes de coordination adopter ? [Collaborative
development between client and supplier: How to choose the suitable
coordination process?], Sous la direction de Thomas Froehlicher et Björn
Walliser In La mé tamorphose des organisations—Design organisationnel:
créer, innover, relier, L’Harmattan, pp. 79–93, ISBN-10: 2747563200.
Clark, K.C., 1989. Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts
strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management
Science 35 (10), 1247–1263.
Clark, K.C., Fujimoto, T., 1991. Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organisa-
tion and Management in the Word Auto Industry. Harvard University Press.
Clark, P.A., Starkey, K., 1988. Organisation Transitions and Innovation-Design.
Pinter, London.
Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D., 2002. Action research for operation management.
International Journal of Operation and Production Management 22 (2), 220–240.
Dyer, J., Ouchi, W., 1993. Japanese-style partnerships: giving companies a
competitive edge. Sloan Management Review 35 (1), 51–63.
Dowlatshahi, S., 1998. Implementing early supplier involvement: a conceptual
framework. International Journal of Operations and Production Management
18 (2), 143–167.
Dumas, A., 1988. Design roles. In: Clark, P.A., Starkey, K. (Eds.), Organisation
Transitions and Innovation-Design. Pinter, London, pp. 100–104.
Eisenhardt, K., Tabrizi, B., 1995. Accelerating adaptive processes: product
innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly
40 (1), 84–110.
Elfring, T., Baven, G., 1994. Outsourcing technical services: stages of development.
Long Range Planning 27 (5), 42–51.
Emden, Z., Calantone, R.J., Droge, C., 2006. Collaborating for new product
development: selecting the partner with the maximum potential to create
value. Journal of Production Innovation Management 23 (3), 330–341.
Fine, C.H., Whitney, D.E., 1996. Is the make-buy decision process a core
competence? Working Paper MIT International Motor Vehicle Program,
Cambridge, MA.
87
Fujimoto, T., 1995. A Note on the Origin of ‘‘Black Box Parts’’ Practice in the
Japanese Motor Vehicle Industry, Fordism transformed. Oxford University
Press, pp. 184–216.
Gummesson, E., 2000. Qualitative Methods in Management Research 2nd ed. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hallikas, J., Karvonenb, I., Pulkkinenb, I., Virolainen, V.-M., 2004. Risk management
processes in supplier networks. International Journal of Production Economics
90, 47–58.
Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., Petersen, K.L., Monczka, R.M., 1999. Involving
suppliers in new product development. California Management Review 42
(1), 59–82.
Hartley, J., Zirger, B., Kamath, R., 1997. Managing the buyer–supplier interface for
on time performance in product development. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 15, 57–70.
Hoegl, M., Wagner, S.M., 2005. Buyer–supplier collaboration in product develop-
ment projects. Journal of Management 31 (4), 530–548.
Hsuan, J., 1999. Impacts of supplier/buyer relationships on modularization in new
product development. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Manage-
ment 5 (3), 197–209.
Humphreys, P.K., Huang, G.Q., Cadden, T., McIvor, R., 2007. Integrating design
metrics within the early supplier selection process. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 13 (1), 42–52.
Kamath, R.R., Liker, J.K., 1994. A second look at Japanese product development.
Harvard Business Review 72 (6), 154–170.
Kleiner, A., Roth, G., 1997. How to make experience your company’s best teacher?
Harvard Business Review 75 (5) 172–177.
Kotabe, M., Mol, M.J., 2009. Outsourcing and financial performance: a negative
curvilinear effect. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 10.1016/
j.pursup2009.04.001.
Koufteros, X.A., Cheng, T.C.E., Lai, K.-H., 2007. ‘‘Black-box’’ and ‘‘Gray-box’’ supplier
integration in product development: antecedents, consequences and the
moderating role of firm size. Journal of Operation Management 25 (4), 847–870.
Lakemond, N., Berggren, C., Van Weele, A., 2006. Coordinating supplier involve-
ment in product development projects: a differentiated coordination typology.
R&D Management 36 (1), 55–66.
Le Dain, M.-A., Calvi, R., Cheriti, S., 2008. Measuring the supplier’s performance in
collaborative design: Proposition of a model. In: The 17th International
Conference IPSERA, Perth, Australia, 9–12 March.
Monczka, R., Handfield, R.B., Frayer, D., Ragatz, G.L., Scannell, T., 2000. New Product
Development: Supplier Integration Strategies for Success. ASQ Press, Milwaukee.
Novak, S., Eppinger, S.D., 2001. Sourcing by design: product complexity and the
supply chain. Management Science 47 (1), 189–204.
O’Neal, C., 1993. Concurrent engineering with early supplier involvement: a cross-
functional challenge. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 29 (2),
3–9.
Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., 2005. Supplier integration into new
product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design.
Journal of Operation Management 23 (3), 371–388.
Primo, M.A.M., Amundson, S.D., 2002. An exploratory study of the effects of
supplier relationships on new product development. Journal of Operations
Management 20 (1), 33–52.
Quinn, J.B., 1992. Intelligence Enterprise. Free Press, New York.
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B., Scannell, T.V., 1997. Success factors for integrating
suppliers into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 14 (3), 190–202.
Takeishi, A., 2001. Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: management of
supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 22, 403–433.
Twigg, D., 1998. Managing product development within a design chain.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 18 (5), 508–
524.
Ulrich, K., 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm.
Research Policy 24, 419–440.
Ulrich, K., Ellison, D., 1998. Beyond make-buy: internalization and integration
of design and production. Production and Operations Management 14 (3), 315–
330.
Van Echtelt, F.E.A., Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A.J., Duysters, G., 2008. Managing
supplier involvement in new product development: a multiple-case study.
Journal of Production Innovation Management 25 (2), 180–201.
Veloso, F., Fixson, S., 2001. Make-buy decision in the auto industry: new
perspectives on the role of the supplier as an innovator. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 67 (3), 239–257.
Von Corswant, F., Tunä lv, C., 2002. Coordinating customers and proactive
suppliers: a case study of supplier collaboration in product development.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19 (3), 249–261.
Wynstra, F., 1998. Purchasing involvement in product development. Doctoral
Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
Wynstra, F., Ten Pierick, E., 2000. Managing supplier involvement in new product
development: a portfolio approach. European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 6 (1), 49–57.
Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A., Weggemann, M., 2001. Managing supplier involvement
in product development: three critical issues. European Management Journal
19 (2), 157–167.
Wynstra, F., Weggeman, M., Van Weele, A., 2003. Exploring purchasing integration
in product development. Industrial Marketing Management 32 (1), 69–83.