|Takefumi MOKUDAI||Last modified date：2019.05.23|
Associate Professor / Department of Business and Technology Management / Faculty of Economics
|Takefumi MOKUDAI||Last modified date：2019.05.23|
|1.||Takefumi MOKUDAI, An Analysis of the Strategic Flexibility of the Toyota Hybrid System from a Real Options Reasoning Approach, The 13th Joint Conference by Kyushu University, Renmin University of China and Nanjing University, 2018.11, Is Toyota, a global leader in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), falling behind its competitors in battery electric vehicles (BEVs)? This study addresses this question through a real options reasoning (ROR) approach. ROR is a heuristic for decision-makers to recognize and exploit options in investments in tangible assets under uncertainty. Using ROR as a lens, I distinguish three option values in Toyota’s hybrid system. First, at a vehicle level, it has an option to switch driving modes between an internal combustion engine and an electric motor, depending on driving conditions. Second, it has an option to expand portfolios of HEV models by equipping existing models with the Toyota Hybrid System II (THS-II). Third, the carmaker has compound options to develop plug-in HEVs, BEVs, or fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) by adding or withdrawing relevant components to/from the THS-II. I also highlight the potential risks that could undermine the option values of the Toyota’s hybrid system. The design rules of Toyota New Global Architecture may restrain conversion from HEVs to BEVs or FCVs. Cognitive as well as behavioral aspects of uncertainties about the alternative powertrains may lead to option traps, that is, under-utilization or over-commitment of particular options, which in turn lower the value of the options. .|
|2.||A Study of Toyota Hybrid System as Real Options.|
|3.||A Preliminary Study of Toyota Hybrid System as Real Options.|
|4.||Takefumi MOKUDAI, Managing Supply Chain Disruptions: Lessons of Japanese Industries, AGSB Forum "The Contingency Plan: Managing the Risk of Business Disruptions" , 2017.08.|
|5.||Zuhara Chavez, 目代 武史, Mapping tools selection towards lean transformation in manufacturing environments, EurOMA 2017, 2016.06, As markets continue changing, companies going for lean manufacturing are presenting a need for further detailed output and a more problem orientated tool. This paper aims to expose existing mapping tools beyond value stream mapping (VSM). Lacks and constrains of existing mapping tools applied in manufacturing environments are analysed through practical testing and real case studies evaluation. An academic contribution to current literature is provided through the presented non existing comparison, which can be a useful guide for practitioners in different stages of a lean transformation but also for academics interested in improvement or application of these tools..|
|6.||目代 武史, Modularity, Commonality and Flexibility in New Vehicle Development: A Comparative Study
of Volkswagen, Renault-Nissan and Mazda, The 2nd East Asian Social Science Symposium, 2015.10, This study examines the movements toward modular vehicle developments by VW, Renault-Nissan and Mazda, and discusses their implications for achieving commonality and product variety.
|7.||目代 武史, Convergence and Divergence of Vehicle Development toward Modularity: A Comparative Study of European and Japanese Carmakers, Innovation in the East-Asian Automotive Industry, 2015.06, Modularization is one of the solutions to address a dilemma between ever-advancing vehicle functionalities and increasing pressures to lower development and production costs. In the automotive industry, a number of carmakers have been paving the way for modularity-in-design. This paper illustrates the movement toward modular vehicle developments by one European and two Japanese carmakers, and discusses their similarities and differences. Through in-depth case studies, this paper identifies the working principles of VW’s Modular Transverse Matrix (MQB), Renault-Nissan’s Common Module Family (CMF), and Mazda’s Common Architecture (CA). Both MQB and CMF build a fine matrix of modules and their variants and develop a variety of models by the mix and match of the modules with standardized interfaces. Meanwhile, CA places priority on design similarity rather than the commonization of physical components. The paper also analyzes underlying factors that lead to differences in the modular approaches. With a large variety of products and a big worldwide volume of sales, VW and Renault-Nissan can justify large-scale investments in their advanced development to build a finer matrix of modules, while a full-scale modular approach would be too risky to employ for a small-size carmaker like Mazda. .|
|8.||目代 武史, Will cars be modularized? New vehicle development approaches of Renault-Nissan and Mazda. , Scientific Forum for Mobility, 2015.07, This study illustrates Renault-Nissan’s Common Module Family (CMF) and Mazda’s Common Architecture (CA), and discusses their differences and implications for modular product development.
Global carmakers face a dilemma of emergent markets. Growing demands in emergent markets have put pressures to develop wider variety of models at lower costs, while tightening requirements on vehicle safety and fuel economy have increased complexity of vehicle engineering. Realization of modularity is one of solutions for the dilemma between cost reduction via commonality and enhancement of vehicle performance and variety.
Renault-Nissan’s CMF is an approach that creates various models by changing combinations of four physical modules and a set of electric/electronic units. The four modules include engine compartment, cockpit, front and rear under bodies. Each has two to three variations, e.g. light, middle, and heavy under bodies. Majority of engineering works will complete by selecting modules from the matrix of the modules and their pre-developed variants.
Mazda takes a different approach. Although it retains traditional platform structure, CA creates various models flexibly by copying the common design rules, e.g. engineering principles and standard structures, to successive models in the same shape but in different size.
The study discusses why the two Japanese carmakers take different approaches to meet the same challenge. With larger product variety, sales volume and more production plants Renault-Nissan can justify heavier investments in its advanced development to build finer matrix of the technological platform, i.e. CMF, while Mazda, with annual sales of only 1.3 million units, prefers a less modularized approach. .
|9.||Chavez Lopez, Zuhara Ivette, 目代 武史, Putting numbers to value: Going simplistic for reaching lean manufacturing, The International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2015, 2015.03, An explanation about the relevance of Lean Accounting, Lean production and Lean thinking working as a whole is provided. A case of study is analyzed showing the problems that organizations nowadays face when Lean alignment is nonexistence. The findings will be useful for organizations experiencing drawbacks in their Lean transformation..|
|10.||目代 武史, Convergence and Divergence of Vehicle Development toward Modularity: A Comparative Study of European and Japanese Carmakers, Research Seminar, Monash University Malaysia, 2015.02, This study analyzes new vehicle development approaches introduced by Volkswagen, Renault-Nissan and Mazda, and discusses theoretical implications for logics and pre-conditions behind modularity. Global carmakers have faced similar challenges: Meeting diverse needs in both advanced and emerging markets as well as lowering costs.
VW’s Modular Transverse Matrix (MQB in German) and Renault-Nissan’s Common Module Family (CMF) take a similar approach. They partition a vehicle system into smaller sub-units (modules), define design rules of interfaces, and create various models by changing combinations of the modules. Mazda’s Common Architecture concept employs a different way. Although it retains traditional platform structure, CA creates various models flexibly by copying the common design rules, e.g. engineering principles and standard structures, to successive models in the same shape but in different size.
The study discusses why the European and Japanese carmakers take different approaches to meet the same challenge. With larger product variety, sales volume and more production plants VW and Renault-Nissan can justify heavier investments in its advanced development to build finer matrix of the technological platform, i.e. MQB and CMF, while Mazda, with annual sales of only 1.3 million units, prefers a less modularized approach. .
|11.||Selection of product architecture in development of complex products: Case of VW MQB, Nissan CMF and Mazda CA.|
|12.||Module strategies of automotive makers: From descriptve study to explanatory analysis.|
|13.||Module strategies of European car makers: A report from 2009 field study.|
|14.||A survey on auto parts suppliers in Tohoku region.|
|15.||Current stuation and challenges of automotive industry in Tohoku region.|
|16.||Module strategies of European car makers: A report from 2009 survey.|
|17.||Capability building of local auto parts supplier.|
|18.||Modularization and Electronics Technologies in Automotive Industry.|
|19.||Achievements and challenges of module production systems: Cross plant comparison of European automakers.|
|20.||Modularization strategies of Japanese automakers and an international comparison with Western automakers: Implications for Japanese automakers' Asian strategies and environmental strategies.|
|21.||Logic and limitations of optimizing product architecture using design structure matrix.|
|22.||Logic and limitations of product development process optimization by design structure matrix.|
|23.||Impact of international division of labor in R&D of automakers to auto parts clusters.|
|24.||Challenges for local auto parts suppliers toward modularization and electronics.|
|25.||Dynamic adaptation of development organization during change in product architecture.|
|26.||Change in product architecture and dynamic adaptation of organizations: A case from auto parts industry.|
|27.||Task Environments and Performance: The case of Telecommunication Industry in Asia Pacific Countries.|
|28.||Reconstruction of value chains of local auto parts suppliers.|
|29.||A study on adaptation of local parts suppliers to rearrangement of global production of cars: Reconstruction of value chains of local suppliers.|
|30.||Experience accumulation and development of technological capabilities in automotive parts industry.|
|31.||An empirical analysis on experience curves in Japanese automotive parts industry.|
|32.||Transaction patterns and experience curves in Japanese automotive parts industry.|
|33.||An empirical analysis of experience curves in automotive parts industry.|
|34.||A survey on business strategies of suppliers in automotive industry.|