Search results

In the multilayered capability framework the authors integrate two layers, namely functional level production capabilities and shop floor-level production routines (PRs). The authors examine how these two layers are interlinked, and additionally, they explore how these layers contribute to firm performance.

The authors tested the hypotheses using structural equation modeling (SEM) on a sample of manufacturing firms.

Regarding the capability layers, the authors found that at the functional level, production dynamic capabilities (PDCs) drive the renewal of production ordinary capabilities (POCs), and that at the shop floor level, deployment of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is influenced by lean production. Regarding the direct links between capability layers, the authors showed that PDCs and POCs have different roles in shaping shop floor PRs: PDCs is linked to I4.0, and lean methods is impacted by POCs. Concerning performance implications, only PDC and POC have significant impact on firm performance (the latter is negative), while PRs do not.

Although, contextual factors (e.g. technology intensity, size) do not influence our findings, the potential country-effect and the dominance of medium-sized firms offer future research directions.

If production managers want to contribute to business performance, they should be more susceptible to resource renewal (PDCs) than to their general (POCs) or specific (PRs) exploitation efforts. As they exploit current resource stocks, they face a trade-off: they must consider that beyond their positive impacts on operational performance, their implications on business performance will be controversial.

Scholars usually examine one layer of capabilities, either capabilities or routines, and associate that with one dimension of performance, either financial and market measures or operational indicators. The authors propose a multilayered capability framework with a complex view on performance implications.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how different manufacturing technologies are bundled together and how these bundles influence operations performance and, indirectly, business performance. With the emergence of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies, manufacturing companies can use a wide variety of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT) to build an efficient and effective production system. Nevertheless, the literature offers little guidance on how these technologies, including novel I4.0 technologies, should be combined in practice and how these combinations might have a different impact on performance.

Using a survey study of 165 manufacturing plants from 11 different countries, we use factor analysis to empirically derive three distinct manufacturing technology bundles and structural equation modeling to quantify their relationship with operations and business performance.

Our findings support an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary perspective. I4.0 technologies build on traditional manufacturing technologies and do not constitute a separate direction that would point towards a fundamental digital transformation of companies within our sample. Performance effects are rather weak: out of the three technology bundles identified, only “automation and robotization” have a positive influence on cost efficiency, while “base technologies” and “data-enabled technologies” do not offer a competitive advantage, neither in terms of cost nor in terms of differentiation. Furthermore, while the business performance impact is positive, it is quite weak, suggesting that financial returns on technology investments might require longer time periods.

Relying on a complementarity approach, our research offers a novel perspective on technology implementation in the I4.0 era by investigating novel and traditional manufacturing technologies together.