Search results

While the concept of supply chain responsiveness (SCR) has received considerable attention in the operations management literature, mostly under the auspices of concepts such as build‐to‐order, mass customisation, lean and agility, so far there is a lack of comprehensive definition of SCR, as well as a defined relationship between “responsiveness” and “flexibility”. Also, the frameworks at hand tend to consider only a subset of factors previously identified in the literature, and thus do not comprehensively portray the cause‐and‐effect relationships involved. This paper aims to address these gaps.

The paper synthesises the existing contributions to manufacturing and supply chain flexibility and responsiveness, and draws on various related bodies of literature that affect a supply chain's responsiveness such as the discussion of product architecture and modularisation.

Four types of responsiveness are identified: product, volume, mix, and delivery, all of which can relate to different time horizons, and can be present as either potential or demonstrated responsiveness. It is argued that a supply chain can feature different levels of responsiveness at different tiers, depending on the configuration of the individual nodes, as well as the integration thereof. Furthermore, a holistic framework is proposed, distinguishing between requiring and enabling factors for responsiveness, identifying the key relationships within and between these two categories.

The definition and framework proposed provide novel insights into the concept of SCR as well as a clear terminology that will inform future research. The framework developed in this paper is suitable for both qualitative and holistic quantitative studies.

In addition to a detailed review of the factors associated with SCR, a generic definition of responsiveness is developed. The paper proposes a definition of four types of responsiveness which will support further empirical studies into the concept and its application. Furthermore, a holistic framework is developed that allows for cause‐and‐effect relationships to be investigated and dependencies to be identified.

The need for an efficient provision of product variety has been widely established as a means of competing in the marketplace, yet previous studies into the management of product variety have commonly analysed products in isolated developed markets. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how firms manage their product variety in emerging markets. This paper aims to investigate the rationale underlying the restriction of variety in such settings, and define general mechanisms by which firms can adapt their product variety when operating in both emerging and developed markets simultaneously.

The paper uses the case of a global vehicle manufacturer that offers common products across developed and emerging markets to illustrate the difference between them in terms of product variety, and examine the process that underlies its management. The paper utilises a combination of data collection techniques.

The paper shows empirically how product variety (in particular ex factory variety) is restricted in emerging markets, as one would expect, and it identifies the mechanisms by which product variety is managed across different markets. The paper further illustrates how emerging markets have developed secondary coping mechanisms to deliver additional variety through late configuration in the distribution system.

By examining the differential management of product variety in emerging and developed markets, the findings yield several novel aspects by providing both empirical evidence and explanations for the restriction of product variety in emerging markets.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to develop a typology of co‐located supplier clusters, such as logistics centres or supplier parks, and second, to evaluate the theoretical perspectives at hand to investigate the co‐location phenomenon.

The research encompasses 28 semi‐structured interviews with key operations executives from vehicle manufacturers, component suppliers and logistics service providers at nine co‐located supplier clusters, the findings of which are triangulated with secondary sources.

The investigation yields two main findings: first, a typology is proposed based on two key dimensions “spatial integration and infrastructure” and “local value‐added”. From a theoretical perspective, the paper further concludes that transaction cost economics is less suited for studying dedicated co‐location, and suggests that future investigations should focus on consolidating the contributions on the spatial dimension of sourcing configurations into a novel theoretical framework.

The study is based on an exploratory research design, investigating a selected number of co‐located supplier clusters only. While the research does not claim to provide a comprehensive survey of co‐located supplier clusters, it proposes a general categorisation that aims to provide a structure currently lacking further research into this phenomenon.

A structured overview of the phenomenon of co‐located supplier clusters is provided, extending the existing morphological debate. Furthermore, the discussion of their theoretical foundations provides novel insights into this phenomenon as well as into the operational implications of value chain modifications in general, with the intention of guiding further research in this area.

The vast majority of literature relating to operations management originates from studies in developed markets. Emerging markets are increasingly important in global business. With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is to analyze differences in outsourcing strategies between manufacturing firms from emerging markets and from developed markets.

The paper is based on statistical analyses of a large data set of manufacturing firms obtained from the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey (IMSS).

The findings suggest that companies that outsource internationally focus on achieving cost benefits, while companies that outsource domestically focus on achieving capacity flexibility. In addition, the reasons to outsource were found to be independent of the location of firms in both emerging and developed markets. However, within the group of firms from emerging markets, strategies seem to differ according to whether firms are domestically owned or are subsidiaries of companies from developed markets.

The decisions of firms to outsource do not differ much whether the firms are located in developed‐ or in emerging‐market economies. Firms outsource domestically when they want to increase their capacity flexibility; they outsource internationally when looking for cost advantages.

The value of the paper is that it illuminates an important contemporary phenomenon based on analyses on data from a large‐scale international survey encompassing firms both in developed and in emerging markets.