USING AHM APPROACH TO POSITION CODP

Mladen Velev, Ognyan Andreev, Tanya Panayotova

Abstract

The concept of Customer Order Decoupling Point/CODP is a popular approach to increasing the diversity of end items, while taking advantage of standardization/unifi¬ca¬tion due to increased repetitiveness of operations devoted to components and/or subassemblies manufacturing. CODP marks the place (the operation, the phase of the process etc.) where customer intervention occurs, in order to define, according to his/her wishes, the final mode of the end item (product or service). An underlying issue here is to make an economically motivated decision about the exact CODP position (1) among different end items of the company’s product mix, and (2) inside a particular product/service line. Inside the operations process, before CODP, forecasts are usually used (Make-To-Stock), and after it – Make-To-Order. Consequently, the opportunities to achieve economies of scale are different before and after CODP. Therefore, the opportunities for optimizing the total operating costs are different as well. In the present paper, an approach is suggested for applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process/AHP in solving such a problem. Some examples of criteria are also presented to give reasons for the “pros” and “cons” during the decision making process about CODP position.

References

  1. Andreev O., 2009. Modern Production and Operations Systems - A Concept for Achieving Lean Mass Customization, Softtrade. Sofia.
  2. Feitzinger E., H. Lee, 1997. Mass Customization at Hewlett Packard: the Power of Postponement. Harvard Business Review, 75, 116-121.
  3. Gupta D., S. Benjaafar, 2004. Make-to-Order, Make-toStock, or Delay Product Differentiation? A Common Framework for Modeling and Analysis. IIE Transactions, 36, 529-546.
  4. Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R. & Melnyk, S., 2002. Applying Environmental Criteria to Supplier Assessment: A Study in the Application of the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 141/1, 70-87.
  5. Olhager J., 2001. Strategic Positioning of the Order Penetration Point. Linköping Institute of Technology. http://www.renard2kanak.eu/documents/Supply_Chai n_Managment_-_Readings_-_Strategic_Positioning_- _A200.pdf
  6. Panayotova T., 2004. Organizational Connections Modeling in Complex Reengineering Projects. Dissertation thesis. Sofia.
  7. Pine II B. J., 1992. Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition. Harvard Business School.
  8. Ramachandran K., L. Whitman & A. B. Ramachandran, 2002. Criteria for determining the push - pull boundary. Wichita State University, Kansas, USA.
  9. Saaty, 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGrow Hill.
  10. Stevenson W., C. Ozgur, 2007. Introduction to Management Science with Spreadsheets. McGraw Hill.
  11. Velev M., A. Tsvetanova, 2010. Mass Customization - Strategy for Competitiveness Improving, Softtrade. Sofia.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Velev M., Andreev O. and Panayotova T. (2011). USING AHM APPROACH TO POSITION CODP . In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD, ISBN 978-989-8425-68-3, pages 80-87. DOI: 10.5220/0004458800800087


in Bibtex Style

@conference{bmsd11,
author={Mladen Velev and Ognyan Andreev and Tanya Panayotova},
title={USING AHM APPROACH TO POSITION CODP},
booktitle={Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,},
year={2011},
pages={80-87},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004458800800087},
isbn={978-989-8425-68-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1: BMSD,
TI - USING AHM APPROACH TO POSITION CODP
SN - 978-989-8425-68-3
AU - Velev M.
AU - Andreev O.
AU - Panayotova T.
PY - 2011
SP - 80
EP - 87
DO - 10.5220/0004458800800087