Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mass customization research: trends, directions, diffusion intensity, and taxonomic frameworks

  • Published:
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mass customization (MC) as a business strategy is designed to simultaneously compete on two rival competitive priorities—the price and customization level of a product. MC academics and experts have gone a step further. They suggest that MC is a unique strategy whose implementation promises across-the-board improvement in all four of the competitive priorities (price, quality, flexibility, and speed) simultaneously. Its growing adoption by businesses in recent years, the steep rise in success stories associated with MC, and the voluminous body of publications in a short period of its existence have created a need to study the directions, trends, application potential, and research strategies embedded in these publications. Accordingly, this paper studies and analyzes the trends and directions of the research published in 1,124 MC publications that have appeared in journals and magazines since the inception of the term mass customization in 1987 by Stan Davis in his classic book Future Perfect. Statistical trend analyses are conducted to study the vitality and health of the field of MC using number of publications and number of publication outlets and their respective trends. The publication outlet data conform to an S curve, establishing maturity of the MC field. The publication data show that the MC field has passed through four stages of growth: incubation or slow (1987–1992), exponential (1993–2003), stable and matured (2003–2005). There is a slight dip in 2006 in terms of publication outlets; there are, however, confirmatory factors that indicate that the dip in 2006 may be an outlier. This paper also suggests developing a clear understanding of the value and type of research embodied in MC publications through three types of taxonomic analyses. The frameworks for all three taxonomies are set forth, two of which have been previously employed in other areas of OR/MS (Reisman and Kirschnik, Oper Res 42(4):577–588, 1994; Oper Res 43(5):731–740, 1995): The first taxonomic framework first classifies the paper as a theory paper or an application paper. At the second stage, the application content of the publication is determined based on a five-point scale ranging from simple modeling of the real world to bona fide real-world application. The second taxonomic framework suggests usage of a taxonomy comprised of seven distinct types of research strategies. The former analysis provides important information about the application worthiness of the MC publications and hence their usefulness to the real world. The second analysis provides information about the type of research strategies used by MC researchers, which, in turn, allows drawing conclusions about the quality and rigor of such research. The third taxonomic framework suggested recommends classification of all publications among multi-level containers based on the disciplines that intersect with MC and their branches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott A (1988) The system of professions: an essay on the expert division of labor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff R (1987) OR: a post mortem. Oper Res 35:471–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Alptekinoglu A (2004) Mass customization vs. mass production: variety and price competition. Manuf Serv Oper Manage 6(1):98–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan PV, Jacob VS (1996) Genetic algorithms for product design. Manage Sci 42(8):1105–1117

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S, Tseng MM (2007) Aligning demand and supply flexibilities in custom product co-design. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 19(4). doi:10.1007/s10696-008-9033-0

  • Cooper CM (1984) The Integrative research review: a systematic approach. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper CM (1988) Organizing Knowledge Syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl Soc 1:104–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper H (1998) Synthesizing research: a guide for literature reviews. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett CJ, Van Wassenhove LN (1993) The natural drift: what happened to operations research? Oper Res 41:625–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Silveira G, Borenstein D, Fogliatto FS (2001) Mass customization literature review and research directions. Int J Prod Econ 72(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis SM (1987) Future perfect. Adison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert BGC, Stremersch S (2005) Marketing mass-customized products: striking a balance between utility and complexity. J Mark Res 42(2):219–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmeules R (2002) The impact of variety on consumer happiness: marketing and the tyranny of freedom. Acad Mark Sci Rev 12:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Duray R, Ward PT, Milligan GW, Berry WL (2000) Approaches to mass customization: configurations and empirical validation. J Oper Manage 18:605–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood MA (1996) Implementing mass customization. Comput Ind 30(3):171–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppen G (1979) Note-effects of centralization on expected costs in a multi-location newsboy problem. Manage Sci 25(5):498–501

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eppen GD, Schrage L (1981) Centralized ordering policies in a multi-warehouse system with lead times and random demands. In: Schwarz LB (ed) Multi-level production/inventory control systems: theory and practice. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 163–193

  • Falkenberg L (1998) Virtually made to order: mass customization approach. Money 1(2):60–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke N, von Hippel E (2003) Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of apache security software. Res Policy 32(7):1199–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg A, Tang CS (1997) On postponement strategies for product families with multiple points of differentiation. IIE Trans 29(8):641–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattoufi S, Oral M, Kumar A, Reisman A (2004a) Content analysis of data envelopment analysis literature and its comparison with that of OR/MS fields. J Oper Res Soc 55(9):911–935

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gattoufi S, Oral M, Reisman A (2004b) A taxonomy for data envelopment analysis. Socioecon Plann Sci 38(2):141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gattoufi S, Oral M, Reisman A (2004c) Epistemology of data envelopment analysis and comparison with other fields of OR/MS for relevance to applications. Socioecon Plann Sci 38(2–3):123–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart CWL (1995) Mass customization: conceptual underpinnings, opportunities and limits. Int J Serv Ind Manag 6(2):36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart CW (1996) Made to order. Mark Manage 5(2):11–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang K, Lee H, Seifert RW (2004) Satisfying customer preferences via mass customization available at http://ctl.mit.edu/public/kai.pdf

  • Jiao RJ, Xu Q, Du J, Zhang Y, Helander M, Khalid HM, Helo P, Ni C (2007) An analytical approach to affective design with ambient intelligence for mass customization and personalization. Int J Manuf Syst 19(4)

  • Kotha S (1995) Mass customization: implementing the emerging paradigm for competitive advantage. Strateg Manage J (Special Issue, Technological Transformation and the New Competitive Landscape) 16:21–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler P (1967) Marketing management: analysis, planning and control. NJ Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler P (1989) From mass marketing to mass customization. Plann Rev 17(5):10

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer KL, Dedrick J, Yamashiro S (2000) Refining and extending the business model with information technology: Dell Computer Corporation. Inform Soc 16(1):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubiak J (1993) A joint venture in mass customization. Plann Rev 21(4):25–26

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A (1995) Risk-pooling along a fixed delivery route using a dynamic inventory allocation policy. Manage Sci 41(2):344–360

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A (2004) Mass customization: metrics and modularity. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 4(16):287–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A (2007) From mass customization to mass personalization: a strategic transformation. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 19(4b)

  • Kumar A, Motwani J (1999) Management of healthcare technology: a multi-dimensional introspection, (1979–1997). IEEE Trans Eng Manage 46(3):247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Piller FT, Williams HJ (2006a) Mass customization: shattering strategic myths, assumptions. Grand Rapids Bus J August 14 Issue:24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Reisman A, Mitchell M (2006b) Meta-research perspectives on mass customization based on life cycle literature survey (1987–2005), In: 43rd Midwest business administration association conference proceedings, Chicago

  • Lee H, Tang C (1997) Modeling the costs and benefits of delayed product differentiation. Manage Sci 43(1):40–53

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman DR (1998) Customer reaction to variety: too much of a good thing? J Acad Mark Sci 26(1):62–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyuan S, Ólafsson S, Qun C (2001) An optimization framework for product design. Manage Sci 47(12):1681–1692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy JE (1960) Basic marketing: a managerial approach. Irwin, Homewood

    Google Scholar 

  • Miser H (1987) Science and professionalism in operations research. Oper Res 35:314–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (1997) An observation on publication habits based on the analysis of MS/OR journals. Omega 25(5):599–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ, Kiossis I (1997) OR/MS publications: extension of an analysis of US flagship journals to the UK. Oper Res 45:179–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland BT (2003) Sequential variety in work processes. Organ Sci 14(5):528–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppers D, Rogers M (1997) Making the transition to one-to-one marketing. Inc Magazine 19(1):63–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Piller FT (2003) What is mass customization? A focused view on the term. Mass Customization News 6(1) 2–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Piller FT (2004) Mass customization: reflections on the state of the concept. IJFMS Focus Issue 16(4):313–444

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Piller FT (2007) Observations on the present and future of mass customization. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 19(4c). doi:10.1007/s10696-008-9042-z

  • Piller FT, Moeslein K, Stotko CM (2004) Does mass customization pay? An economic approach to evaluate customer design. Prod Plan Control 15(4):435–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Pine BJ (1992) Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition. Harvard Business School Press

  • Pine BJ (1993) Making mass customization happen: strategies for the new competitive realities. Plann Rev 21(5):23

    Google Scholar 

  • Pine BJ, Bart V, Boynton AC (1993) Making mass customization work. Harvard Bus Rev 71(5):108

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter A, Rainer B, Naim M, Vanharanta H (2004) The potential for achieving mass customization in primary production supply chains via a unified taxonomy. Prod Plann Control 15(4):472–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A (1988) Finding researchable topics via taxonomy of a field of knowledge. Oper Res Lett 7(6):295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A (1989) A system approach to identifying knowledge voids in problem solving disciplines and professions: a focus on the management sciences. Knowl Soc: Int J Knowl Transf 14:67–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A (1992) Management science knowledge: ıt’s creation, generalization and consolidation. Quorum Books Publishing Company, Westport, 495 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A, Kirschnick F (1994) The devolution of OR/MS implications from a statistical content analysis of papers in flagship journals. Oper Res 42(4):577–588

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A, Kirschnick F (1995) Research strategies used by OR/MS workers as shown by an analysis of papers in flagship journals. Oper Res 43(5):731–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A, Kumar A, Motwani J (1997a) Flowshop scheduling/sequencing research: a statistical review of the literature 1952–1994. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 44(3):316–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A, Kumar A, Motwani J, Cheng CH (1997b) Cellular manufacturing: a statistical review of the literature (1965–1995). Oper Res 45(4):508–520

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A, Kumar A, Motwani J (2001) A meta review of game theory publications in the flagship OR/MS journals. Manage Decis 39(2):147–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz LB (1989) A model for assessing the value of warehouse risk-pooling: risk-pooling over outside supplier leadtimes. Manage Sci 35(7):828–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz B (2000) Self determination: the tyranny of freedom. Am Psychol 55(1):79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson TW, D’Souza BS (2004) Assessing variable levels of platform commonality within a product family using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. Concurrent Eng 12(2):119–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WR (1956) Product differentiation and marketing segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. J Mark 21:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spira JS (1993) Mass customization through training at Lutron electronics. Plann Rev 22(4):23–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Squire B, Brown S, Readman J, Bessant J (2006) The impact of mass customization on manufacturing tradeoffs. Prod Oper Manage 15(1):10–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Tayur S, Ganeshan R, Magazine M (1999) Quantitative models for supply chain management. Kluwer International Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, MA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Toffler A (1970) Future shock. Bodley Head Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler A (1984) The third wave. Bantam Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng M, Jiao J (2001) In: Salvendy G (ed) Mass customization, handbook of industrial engineering, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 684–709

  • Van Hoek RI, Peelen E, Commandeur HR (1999) Achieving mass customization through postponement: a study of international changes. J Market-Focused Manage 3(3–4):353–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipkin P (1984) On the imbalance of inventories in multi-echelon systems. Math Oper Res 9(3):402–423

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zipkin P (2001) The limits of mass customization. Sloan Manage Rev 42(3):81–87

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

    Ashok Kumar

  2. Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

    Said Gattoufi

  3. Reisman and Associates, Shaker Heights, OH, USA

    Arnold Reisman

Authors
  1. Ashok Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Said Gattoufi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arnold Reisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashok Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, A., Gattoufi, S. & Reisman, A. Mass customization research: trends, directions, diffusion intensity, and taxonomic frameworks. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 19, 637–665 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-008-9051-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-008-9051-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation