实验室质量管理体系在型号工作中的应用

试验验证环节在航天型号研制工作中起着至关重要的作用,为型号飞行试验任务提供决策性的技术支持。为提升试验质量可靠性,中国运载火箭技术研究院总体设计部引入了国际通用的实验室认可思路对试验工作流程和资源管理进行统筹管理,并建立了质量监督机制,各个环节的管控,有效。以实现对试验确保试验结果     

航天型号技术风险及产品质量的量化管控

2012年是中国航天科技集团公司型号技术风险和产品质量与可靠性全面量化控制之年,也是中国运载火箭技术研究院型号质量全面量化控制的强化之年。     

航天企业推行全面生产管理的思考与实践

近年来，随着我国航天事业的高速发展，中国航天科技集团公司逐渐明确了构建大型科研生产联合体、建设国际一流大型航天企业集团的战略目标；中国运载火箭技术研究院也随之提出了推进二次创业、市场化转型，建设具有国际竞争力的大型科研生产联合体的宏伟     

型号物资需求管理模式的研究与实践

近年来，随着中国运载火箭技术研究院二次创业、市场化转型的逐步深入以及型号科研生产任务的急剧增加，型号物资供应工作效率要求更高，不同用户单位的个性化需求凸显，供应市场的经济规律与型号科研生产的计划经济矛盾日趋严重，各级型号领导和用户迫切需要掌握更加详细、精准的型号物资供应信息。因此，运载火箭研究院物流中心提出了“精细化、一体化、信息化”的战略目标，以质量、效率优先为原则，兼顾型号物资专业、用户与     

航天型号科研生产模式转型的思路与途径（下）

四、模式转型的总体思路与新模式设计1.总体思路分析我国航天型号科研生产能力的现状与差距,在＂十二五＂及后续时期,仅仅依靠扩大科研生产规模、增加科研投入等措施难以满足能力提升和跨越式发展的要求。因此,为解决不断增长的航天型号任务需求与现有能力不足之间的矛盾,必须构建适应发展需求的航天型号科研生产新模式,并科学有序推进模式转型.     

对高密度任务下航天科研生产流程的思考

当前,我国航天科技工业发展进入战略转型期,呈现出产业经济规模快速扩大,型号研制和批生产数量大幅增加,发射试验任务空前繁重,转型升级不断加快,战略牵引作用日益突出,竞争愈加激烈的新形势。在这样的形势下,航天企业以研制为主的科研生产流程已越来越不能适应高密度任务的需要,不断暴露出从管理到技术,从设计到生产,从工艺到质量保证,从人员到基础能力保障等一系列问题。航天企业急需按照战略转型要求,全     

有效提升航天型号科研生产能力的策划与实践

<正>为了全面贯彻中国航天科技集团公司第四次工作会精神,航天动力技术研究院以"构建航天科技工业新体系,建设大型科研生产联合体,推动研究院科学发展"为主题,系统梳理了影响研究院航天型号科研生产的突出问题,     

以高度的责任感完成后续工作——中国航天科技集团公司总经理马兴瑞在9·21质量日视频会议上的讲话(摘要)

9月21日是中国航天科技集团公司5年前确定的航天质量日.我们召开质量日视频会,目的是进一步动员大家提高质量意识,进一步落实航天质量管理要求,确保集团公司后续科研生产任务,特别是型号发射任务的成功.2009年以来,尽管集团公司的型号科研生产试验任务取得了一定成绩,但是在型号研制过程中也暴露出很多质量问题.     

型号共性质量问题分析与治理机制建设

<正>由于中国航天电子技术研究院的前身是重组成立的,各组成单位的科研生产管理模式与流程不完全相同,因而,研究院不但面临着航天型号科研生产任务不断增长和质量问题归零的双重压力,还面临着管理体系和制度的建设与不断完善的局面。     

航天型号科研生产模式转型的思路与途径（上）

经过几十年的发展,我国航天科技工业至今已累计研制并成功发射了上百个运载火箭和航天器（包括卫星、飞船、月球探测器等）。在此期间,通过不断总结、积累与实践工程研制经验,逐步形成了适用于技术难度大、研制经验少、复杂程度高、投产数量小的科研生产模式,成功实施了载人航天、月球探测等重大工程项目的研制活动,取得了举世瞩目的成就。     

Knowledge Disclosure and Transmission in Buyer–Supplier Relationships

A buyer’s technical knowledge may increase the efficiency of its supplier. Suppliers, however, frequently maintain relationships with additional buyers. Knowledge disclosure then bears the risk of benefiting one’s own rival due to opportunistic knowledge transmission through the common supplier. We show that in one-shot relationships no knowledge disclosure takes place because the supplier has an incentive to transmit and, anticipating that, buyers refuse to disclose any of their knowledge. In repeated relationships knowledge disclosure is stabilized by larger technological proximity between buyers and suppliers and destabilized by the absolute value of the knowledge.      

赋予标准协调发展理念探索实施标准新途径

随着人类社会的不断发展，标准和标准化管理的理念也在不断更新。经济全球化的国际趋势，全面建设小康社会、完善社会主义市场经济体制的新任务．以及科教兴国战略、可持续发展战略．都给标准化管理工作提出了新的课题。作为企业来说，如何把标准实施融入生产经营管理的全过程，最大限度地发挥标准所带来的经济效益．是我们所要解决的突出问题。     

Improving Supplier New Product Development Performance: The Role of Supplier Development

Suppliers play an increasingly central role in helping firms achieve their new product development (NPD) goals. The literature implicitly assumes that suppliers are able to meet or exceed the quality standards and technological expectations of the firm, and yet, in practice, suppliers often lack the technological capabilities needed to undertake collaborative NPD. In such situations, a firm may choose to intervene and actively develop the supplier's technological and product development capabilities. We develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes supplier development activities within interorganizational NPD projects as part of a bilateral knowledge‐sharing process: design recommendations, technical specifications, and new technology flow from supplier to the firm, and in turn, the firm can implement supplier development activities to upgrade the supplier's technological capabilities. Antecedents (supplier responsibility, skills similarity, single sourcing strategy) and consequences of supplier development activities (on supplier, product, and project performance) are examined using a sample of 153 interorganizational NPD projects within UK manufacturers. We find broad support for our hypotheses. In particular, we show that the relational rents (in the form of improved product and project performance) attained from supplier development activities in new product development are not achieved directly, but rather indirectly, via improvements in the supplier's creative and technological capabilities. Our results emphasize the importance of adopting a strategic view of the potential returns available from investing in the NPD capabilities of key suppliers, and provide clues about underlying reasons for the suboptimal experiences of many companies' collaborative NPD projects.     

Don't Trust Trust: A Dynamic Approach to Controlling Supplier Involvement in New Product Development

Prior literature stresses the importance for manufacturers to use formal and informal controls to coordinate collaborative new product development activities with suppliers. In doing so, the existence of trust between manufacturers and suppliers is believed to play a key role because it enables manufacturers to reduce investments in formal controls and rely more on less costly informal controls. Manufacturers and suppliers don't suddenly trust each other though: trust typically grows over time as the partners get to know each other. Trust may also decrease if manufacturers overuse formal controls or if suppliers underperform. These fluctuations in trust over the course of supplier–manufacturer relationships complicate the so‐called trust–control nexus and raise important questions about the impact of trust on the efficiency and effectiveness of formal and informal controls as coordination mechanisms. Therefore, this study examines how manufacturers should balance formal and informal controls over time to reap the full benefits of collaborative product development with suppliers. For that purpose, a conceptual and system dynamics model are developed, which incorporate the links among formal and informal controls, trust, and the supplier's development performance. In an empirical validation in the context of the shipbuilding industry, the results reject the notion that manufacturers must lessen formal controls and increase informal controls with trust. Instead, it is most efficient and effective to invest always in formal controls, particularly process control, to coordinate supplier involvement in new product development. These results have important theoretical and managerial implications: Informal controls are not as profitable as expected.     

Managing Seller–Buyer Relationships during New Product Development*

Ineffective relationship management with potential buyers during new product development (NPD) can be an important contributor to new product failure in technology‐based, industrial markets. However, empirical research on managing these relationships remains underdeveloped. This study addresses this deficiency by developing an empirically based taxonomy of relationship approaches used by sellers to develop technology‐based, industrial innovations, identifying situational characteristics that correlate with the choice of a particular relationship approach, and evaluating sellers' satisfaction with their relationship approach. The study's conceptual model is rooted in transaction cost analysis (TCA) and draws from extant literature on seller–buyer relationships during NPD. It was tested with data from 334 small to mid‐sized firms in a variety of technology‐based industrial markets. The results indicate that sellers use three basic relationship approaches during NPD: a bilateral approach, a buyer‐guided approach, and a seller‐guided approach. While the bilateral approach relies on a mutual exchange of information, the buyer‐guided and seller‐guided approaches do not. Juxtaposed with the high levels of satisfaction experienced by sellers in the sample, the study suggests that no one relationship approach is universally desirable. Therefore, managers may need to engage in a portfolio of relationship approaches with buyers during NPD; further, these approaches should correlate with buyer‐related (i.e., perceived buyer knowledge and prior relationship history) and innovation‐related (i.e., product customization and technological uncertainty) characteristics. Collectively, these results can help sellers optimize their relationships with buyers during NPD.     

产业集聚与空间集聚的协调发展研究

自20世纪90年代以来,中国沿海地区出现了一批别具特色的产业集聚区,有力地推动了当地经济的快速发展。各地政府开始纷纷借鉴沿海地区经验,通过引导部分产业向该地区集聚以实现经济增长,带动城市化建设。探讨产业集聚与城市空间集聚之间是否协调发展,成为当前关注的焦点。文章阐述了产业集聚与空间集聚协调发展的内涵,并从理论上分析了两者间存在的促进机制和反馈机制。以中国制造业为例,实证分析了制造业产业集聚与城市空间集聚的关系,发现自1990年以来我国产业集聚和城市空间集聚之间呈现出一定的协调性,并在此基础上给出了相关政策建议。     

A Model of Supplier Integration into New Product Development*

In many industries, firms are looking for ways to cut concept‐to‐customer development time, to improve quality, and to reduce the cost of new products. One approach shown to be successful in Japanese organizations involves the integration of material suppliers early in the new product development cycle. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. While prior research shows the benefit of using this approach, execution remains a problem. The processes for identifying and integrating suppliers into the new product development (NPD) process in North American organizations are not understood well. This problem is compounded by the fact that design team members often are reluctant to listen to the technology and cost ideas made by suppliers in new product development efforts. We suggest a model of the key activities required for successful supplier integration into NPD projects, based on case studies with 17 Japanese and American manufacturing organizations. The model is validated using data from a survey of purchasing executives in global corporations with at least one successful and one unsuccessful supplier integration experience. The results suggest that (1) increased knowledge of a supplier is more likely to result in greater information sharing and involvement of the supplier in the product development process; (2) sharing of technology information results in higher levels of supplier involvement and improved outcomes; (3) supplier involvement on teams generally results in a higher achievement of NPD team goals; (4) in cases when technology uncertainty is present, suppliers and buyers are more likely to share information on NPD teams; and (5) the problems associated with technology uncertainty can be mitigated by greater use of technology sharing and direct supplier participation on new product development teams. A supplier's participation as a true member of a new product development team seems to result in the highest level of benefits, especially in cases when a technology is in its formative stages.     

Detecting Buyer Preferences to Guide Product Development and Advertising

If you could tell which product characteristics consumers would prefer, product development could be targeted sharply and positioning the product competitively could be done with more confidence. This article describes one approach by which a relatively large set of test products is evaluated by consumers in order to identify the most acceptable combination of product attributes. Identification of this combination provides the product developer with guidelines as to which test product should be selected for subsequent introduction. The focus is on the discovery of discernible attributes of a product in a fragmented category to support the advertising claim.     

Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices*

Most organizations use new product development (NPD) processes that consist of activities and review points. Activities basically solve problems and gather and produce information about the viability of successfully completing the project. Interspersed between the development activities are review points where project information is reviewed and a decision is made to either go on to the next stage of the process, stop it prior to completion, or hold it until more information is gathered and a better decision can be made. The review points are for controlling risk, prioritizing projects, and allocating resources, and the review team typically is cross‐disciplinary, comprising senior managers from marketing, finance, research and development (R&D), or manufacturing. Over the past four decades, research has greatly advanced knowledge with respect to NPD activities; however, much less is known about review practices. For this reason, the present paper reports findings of a study on NPD project review practices from 425 Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) members. The focus is on three decision points in the NPD process common across organizations (i.e., initial screen, prior to development and testing, and prior to commercialization). In this paper, the number of (1) review points used, (2) review criteria, (3) decision makers on review committees and the proficiency with which various evaluation criteria are used are compared across incremental and radical projects and across functional areas (i.e., marketing, technical, financial). Furthermore, the associations between these NPD review practices and new product performance are examined. Selected results show that more review points are used for radical NPD projects than incremental ones, and this is related to a relatively lower rate of survival for radical projects. The findings also show that the number of criteria used to evaluate NPD projects increases as NPD projects progress and that the number of review team members grows over the stages, too. Surprisingly, the results reveal that more criteria are used to evaluate incremental NPD projects than radical ones. As expected, managers appear to more proficiently use evaluation criteria when making project continuation/termination decisions for incremental projects; they use these criteria less proficiently during the development of radical projects, precisely when proficiency is most critical. At each review point, technical criteria were found to be the most frequently used type for incremental projects, and financial criteria were the most commonly used type for radical ones. Importantly, only review proficiency is significantly associated with performance; the number of review points, review team size, and number of review criteria are not associated with new product performance. Furthermore, only the coefficient for proficiently using marketing criteria was significantly related to new product program performance; the proficiency of using financial and technical information has no association with performance. Finally, across the three focal review points of the NPD process in this study, only the coefficient for proficiency at the first review point, (i.e., the initial screen) is significantly greater than zero. The results are discussed with respect to research and managerial practice, and future research directions are offered.     

Cooperation and the Ability to Minimize the Time and Cost of New Product Development within the Spanish Automotive Supplier Industry

New product development (NPD) cycle time has become a strategic competitive weapon for corporations and a focus for research on product development management. Reducing NPD cycle time may create relative advantages in market share, profit, and long‐term competitiveness. This article follows recent research that already has moved beyond anecdotes and case studies to test factors empirically and variables that are associated with the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities. One emerging research area is the impact of comprehensive lists or sets of firm variables (not project variables) on the ability to speed up NPD. At the same time, several authors' findings suggest a contingency approach to speeding up innovation. Contingency theory argues that there is not one “best answer” to a particular problem: Instead, the appropriateness of managerial interventions is dependent on the prevailing conditions that surround that problem. On the issue of NPD, several scholars point out that cooperation accelerates learning and product development: Firms that combine resources can gain a competitive advantage over firms that are unable to do so, and this is viewed as one of the key benefits of interfirm cooperation. A firm's network of cooperations represent a valuable resource that can yield differential returns in the same way as other tangible and intangible assets such as product brands or R&D capabilities. Combining both lines of research, this study seeks to add to the growing literature and further to inform practicing managers in speeding up NPD by analyzing the relationship between cooperation and the use of some NPD firm practices. This article shows the results of a survey of 63 Spanish automotive suppliers to test the moderation effect of cooperation in the relationship between the use of NPD firm practices and the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities. Factor and regression analyses were used to test the article's hypotheses. It was found that high‐cooperation companies used more intensively sets of firm practices than low‐cooperation companies. It also was found that two out of four identified factors of NPD firm practices—Design‐Manufacturing Interface and Cross‐Functional Design—were related positively to the company's NPD time and cost minimization abilities in the subsample of high‐cooperation companies but not in the low‐cooperation companies. These results support late research in the area of speeding up NPD. The article discusses some implications for managers.