154
J. F. Urnau and O. Canciglieri Junior
also suggesting greater coordination between product purchase and design, in order
to maximize profit and improve the company’s performance. Salvador et al. (2004),
studied how the supply, manufacturing and distribution network should be configured for different levels of customization of product architectures. In addition, Fixson
(2005) stated that the coordination mechanism between product, process and supply
chain is not fully known, but that the product architecture can serve as a coordination
mechanism.
In addition to these studies, there was also research that followed the work of
Fisher, who had his model tested empirically by Selldin and Olhager (2007), who
evaluated the structure in a Swedish context and observed that a correspondence
between product and supply chain does not translate necessarily in higher performance, and Lo and Power (2010) researched and found that the association between
the nature of the product and the supply chain strategy, as proposed by Fisher (1997)
that it is not clear.
Carrillo and Franza (2006) argue that the NPD process should assist in the ramp
up of SC processes and other activities that support the commercialization of the
newly developed product. The representatives of the SC process must be involved
from the beginning of the product development process (Van Hoek and Chapman
2007). In addition, when it comes to product design, process design and supply chain
design, the literature brings 3DCE, which is based on simultaneous engineering,
and which assumes that products and processes must be designed simultaneously,
involving multifunctional teams in the beginning of the process, which may include
suppliers and customers (Birou and Fawcett 1994; Blackburn et al. 1996; Swink
1998; Koufteros et al. 2002).
While it is widely accepted that product design decisions and their associated
supply chain are interrelated, it is not clear how they interact with each other (Zhang
et al. 2008). Research that simultaneously focuses on the coordination of both NPD
and SC in order to bring new products to the market is scarce (Carrillo and Franza
2006; Van Hoek and Chapman 2007; Hilletofth et al. 2010; Marsillac and Roh 2014).
It is necessary to consider the rate of renewal of products and business models in the
supply chain processes to be aware that the supply chain in the NPD process due to
the occurrence being more frequently.
As this relationship covers a very wide range of processes, whether internal or
external, to be coordinated, it is hard work to ensure that this alignment is done
correctly and effectively. Understanding and coordinating the interactions between
people and systems is challenging in complex and dynamic environments. However,
this relationship needs to undergo refinements and adjustments in order to achieve
its proposed result. Currently, with the advancement of technology, new systems and
programs appear to improve and guarantee the success of this interaction. In the
midst of this context, industry 4.0 appears, which for Kafermann et al. (2011) “this
becomes a new level of organization and management of the value chain throughout
the product life cycle”.
This aims to optimize the product based on the communication of Internet of
Things tools, as it allows the connection between objects, environments, systems,
among others, and can be accessed remotely, allowing the automation of industrial
J. F. Urnau and O. Canciglieri Junior
also suggesting greater coordination between product purchase and design, in order
to maximize profit and improve the company’s performance. Salvador et al. (2004),
studied how the supply, manufacturing and distribution network should be configured for different levels of customization of product architectures. In addition, Fixson
(2005) stated that the coordination mechanism between product, process and supply
chain is not fully known, but that the product architecture can serve as a coordination
mechanism.
In addition to these studies, there was also research that followed the work of
Fisher, who had his model tested empirically by Selldin and Olhager (2007), who
evaluated the structure in a Swedish context and observed that a correspondence
between product and supply chain does not translate necessarily in higher performance, and Lo and Power (2010) researched and found that the association between
the nature of the product and the supply chain strategy, as proposed by Fisher (1997)
that it is not clear.
Carrillo and Franza (2006) argue that the NPD process should assist in the ramp
up of SC processes and other activities that support the commercialization of the
newly developed product. The representatives of the SC process must be involved
from the beginning of the product development process (Van Hoek and Chapman
2007). In addition, when it comes to product design, process design and supply chain
design, the literature brings 3DCE, which is based on simultaneous engineering,
and which assumes that products and processes must be designed simultaneously,
involving multifunctional teams in the beginning of the process, which may include
suppliers and customers (Birou and Fawcett 1994; Blackburn et al. 1996; Swink
1998; Koufteros et al. 2002).
While it is widely accepted that product design decisions and their associated
supply chain are interrelated, it is not clear how they interact with each other (Zhang
et al. 2008). Research that simultaneously focuses on the coordination of both NPD
and SC in order to bring new products to the market is scarce (Carrillo and Franza
2006; Van Hoek and Chapman 2007; Hilletofth et al. 2010; Marsillac and Roh 2014).
It is necessary to consider the rate of renewal of products and business models in the
supply chain processes to be aware that the supply chain in the NPD process due to
the occurrence being more frequently.
As this relationship covers a very wide range of processes, whether internal or
external, to be coordinated, it is hard work to ensure that this alignment is done
correctly and effectively. Understanding and coordinating the interactions between
people and systems is challenging in complex and dynamic environments. However,
this relationship needs to undergo refinements and adjustments in order to achieve
its proposed result. Currently, with the advancement of technology, new systems and
programs appear to improve and guarantee the success of this interaction. In the
midst of this context, industry 4.0 appears, which for Kafermann et al. (2011) “this
becomes a new level of organization and management of the value chain throughout
the product life cycle”.
This aims to optimize the product based on the communication of Internet of
Things tools, as it allows the connection between objects, environments, systems,
among others, and can be accessed remotely, allowing the automation of industrial