Must firms compete on all dimensions of value simultaneously? Or can managers pick and choose among market segments and deploy a variety of strategies to meet customer needs? Operational systems cannot simultaneously excel on all dimensions of value--cost, lead time, quality, and flexibility. The authors examine three companies similar in product, geographic location, shop floor equipment, employee skills, and customers; all three firms have survived for at least 20 years and are among the top 25 companies in their industry group. Comparing the three in terms of key strategic advantages, disadvantages, fixed costs, lead time, and employee commitment strongly supports the need to make trade-offs in competing dimensions of value in operations (although all three realize they must satisfy certain industry norms, such as quality and on-time delivery). Thus, not only do trade-offs exist, but they have significant competitive implications--trade-offs are strategic in nature. Eventually a firm hits the "productivity frontier," beyond which it cannot continue to improve all dimensions of performance simultaneously.

Organizations have been quick to realize that involving suppliers in new product/process/service development efforts has the potential for significant results. Numerous studies have shown that supplier participation in product development projects can help reduce cost, reduce concept-to-customer development time, improve quality, and provide innovative technologies that can help capture market share. However, not all efforts are successful. Supplier integration is most successful when driven by a formalized process that considers supplier capabilities, level of complexity of the technology, and degree of risk. Leading companies conduct a formal in-depth supplier evaluation and risk assessment prior to supplier involvement on the project team.