Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present and test a new model for competitive capabilities. Traditionally, a cumulative model has been viewed as having one sequence of building competitive capabilities in a firm in support of market needs, including quality, delivery, cost efficiency and flexibility. Although appealing as a conceptual model, empirical testing has not been able to fully support the cumulative model. This paper acknowledges the need for a hybrid approach to managing capability progression. It brings together the literature on trade‐offs, cumulative capabilities, and order winners and qualifiers.

A new hybrid approach for modelling competitive capabilities is tested empirically using data from the high performance manufacturing (HPM) study, round 3, including three industries and seven countries – a total of 211 plants.

The hybrid model shows significantly better fit with the data from the sample than the cumulative models suggested by previous literature. Empirical support is found for the traditional perception that a high level of quality is a prerequisite for a high level of delivery performance. However, cost efficiency and flexibility do not exhibit a cumulative pattern. Instead, the results show that they are developed in parallel. The findings suggest that a balance between cost efficiency and flexibility is built upon high levels of quality and delivery performance.

Since we limit the empirical investigation to three industries and seven countries, it would be interesting to extend the testing of this model to more industries and countries. This research shows that combining perspectives and insights from different research streams – in this case, trade‐off theory and the concepts of cumulative capabilities, and order winners and qualifiers – can be fruitful.

The results of this paper provides managers with guidelines concerning the configuration of competitive capabilities. First, a qualifying level of quality needs to be attained, followed by a qualifying level of delivery. Then, a balance between potential order winners, i.e. cost efficiency and flexibility, needs to be attained.

This paper presents a new approach to modelling competitive capabilities that synthesises previous research streams and perspectives from cumulative capabilities, contesting capabilities (trade‐offs), and order winners and qualifiers.

Cumulative capability models are dominating frameworks explaining how manufacturing organizations gain their performance capabilities, such as quality, delivery, flexibility and cost. When innovation capabilities are excluded from the framework, the models are incapable of explaining how companies sustain substantive capabilities in a changing environment. Responding to this gap, the purpose of this paper is to propose and test a “sand cone” cumulative capability model that includes the innovation competitive performance alongside the competitive performance of quality, delivery flexibility and cost.

Two competing cumulative models were proposed. The extended cumulative capability model hypothesizes the development of innovation in sequence with other competitive performance dimensions. The affected with innovation cumulative model hypothesizes innovation performance as a predecessor of other performance dimensions. The models were tested using a multimethod approach on a representative sample of 500 manufacturing companies. An analysis of correlations among competitive performance, frequencies of plants following prescribed sequences, fit statistics of covariance-based structural equation modeling and analysis of strength and statistical significance of path coefficients enabled us to select a model that best represents the collected data.

The findings reveal that innovation competitive performance operates as a predecessor of quality, delivery, flexibility and cost and is developed in relation to these performance dimensions. The modified model also provides a theoretical explanation of how innovation performance helps to sustain reliable production systems that can perform consistently over time within a tolerable range of quality, delivery, flexibility and cost performance.

The results are significant for practitioners, especially for companies that are operating in volatile environments because the results provide insight on how to develop innovation competitive performance in relation to quality, delivery, flexibility and cost performance.

This study extends the cumulative capability models with innovation competitive performance. It advances the contingency approach on cumulative capability models.

Extant manufacturing strategy research dichotomizes the trade‐off model and the cumulative model, but fails to explain each strategic result. The purpose of this paper is to propose four key antecedents of a trade‐off versus a cumulative model by manufacturing business units (MBUs), and in turn, their association with business performance.

The authors first review literature pertaining to the history and major themes of manufacturing strategy. Next, the authors present a theoretical model with explanations of the methodology and research design used. The model is empirically tested, and conclusions, managerial implications, and future research opportunities that stem from this research effort are provided.

Strategic time orientation, as well as manufacturing practices of supply chain integration intensity and advanced manufacturing technology, are empirically found to be associated with MBUs' combinative competitive capabilities. More specifically, manufacturers following these practices are more apt to realize higher levels combinative capabilities, as depicted by the cumulative model.

The paper shows that these manufacturing practices may extend the time within which the MBU reaches its capability frontiers, and therefore, increase the odds that it can exploit its current resources. Moreover, MBU size negatively moderates the relationship between advanced manufacturing technology and the cumulative model.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the digitalization of operational processes and activities in lean manufacturing firms and explore the associated learning implications through the lens of cumulative capability theory.

Adopting a multiple-case design, we examine four cases of digitalization initiatives within lean manufacturing firms. We collected data through semi-structured interviews and direct observations during site visits.

The study uncovers the development of learning capabilities as a result of integrating lean and digitalization. We find that digitalization in lean manufacturing firms contributes to the development of both routinized and evolutionary learning capabilities in a cumulative fashion.

The study adds nuance to the limited theoretical understanding of the integration of lean and digitalization by showing how it cumulatively develops the learning capabilities of lean manufacturing firms. As such, the study supports the robustness of cumulative capability theory. We further contribute to research by offering empirical support for the cumulative nature of learning.

The purpose of this paper is to test the cumulative capabilities theory of manufacturing strategy against the capabilities tradeoffs theory in a less‐developed economy. It also aims to test whether the sequential development of capabilities follows the same order prescribed in the sand cone model.

Specific hypotheses on the relationships among the four manufacturing strategy components of cost, delivery, flexibility, and quality were stated. Data were collected from 126 manufacturing firms in Ghana. Statistical analyses included correlation, factor analysis, and multiple regression analysis.

As with previous studies, the evidence here supports the cumulative capabilities theory. However, tradeoffs between the capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and flexibility were not found. In addition, the sequence of capability development was found to be different from that in developed economies, with cost being second in importance after quality. This is postulated to be due to the substantially different economic conditions in Ghana.

The findings of this research provide guidelines to managers, particularly in developing economies, on the sequence of manufacturing capability development that is most likely to occur as they seek lasting improvements in manufacturing performance.

This paper provides findings from a less‐developed economic environment that is typically not included in manufacturing strategy research – Ghana. The consistency of the results with those obtained in more advanced economies provides additional evidence for the cumulative capability model.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight issues with current methodologies and rationales used to model the achievement of high business performance in operations management studies, particularly those dealing with the trade‐offs – cumulative capabilities concepts. The paper also attempts to provide solutions to these problems.

A conceptual approach and critique of previous methodologies and rationales is utilised. In particular, use is made of a “thought experiment” in order to illustrate the issues that need to be addressed.

Widely accepted approaches and rationales used to model the achievement of high levels of performance are limited. This is particularly true when more recent theoretical developments in the field are considered. Thus, more comprehensive methodologies, rationales and terminologies that resolve the identified difficulties are necessary. To address this issue, this paper offers a more holistic way to examine the relationships between two or more competitive criteria.

The main implications are related to research methodologies, rationales and approaches.

The paper makes two important and novel contributions to this area of research: it brings the attention to problems that have been largely ignored, and it provides solutions to these issues. The results should be of interest to researchers in the area of strategic/operations management, especially those interested in the modelling of high levels of firm performance, as represented by the trade‐offs and cumulative capabilities concepts.

The purpose of this paper is to test the integrated model of operations strategy as proposed by Schmenner and Swink to explain whether firms trade‐off or accumulate capabilities, taking into account their positions relative to their asset and operating frontiers.

The four major airlines based in Australia were studied. The paper is based on longitudinal data obtained from secondary sources. The four operations capabilities cost, quality, delivery and flexibility, and asset and operating frontiers, were all measured with proxy variables.

The study provides some support for the integrated model. Firms do appear to trade‐off capabilities when their asset and operating frontiers are close to each other. Firms show signs of accumulation when the asset frontiers are expanding significantly over time. There is indirect evidence that firms could be accumulating capabilities when the gap between the two frontiers is large.

The study provides insights into when firms trade‐off or accumulate capabilities. A good understanding of asset and operating frontiers is important in this regard. Managers need to better identify, establish and combine their firms' capabilities in response to varying internal and external contingencies.

The paper provides an original and detailed empirical validation of Schmenner and Swink's integrated model. In doing so, this study contributes to informing and clarifying the debate in the operations strategy area relating to the circumstances in which firms trade‐off and/or accumulate capabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the operational capabilities in an emerging country, and to analyze the trade-off effect between the quality capability and the cost capability.

The empirical data were drawn from 160 firms in Brazil. Scales were validated using the Q-sort method and confirmatory factor analysis. Different techniques were adopted to reduce common method variance. Data were analyzed using multiple line regression.

The results showed that quality has a positive relationship with delivery, flexibility, innovation and sustainability capabilities. However, it was not possible to observe a positive relationship between quality and cost that confirmed the presence of a trade-off between these two capabilities.

An important practical contribution of this study is that it brings a new perspective to the relationship between quality and cost. Although quality is an important capability for the firm, emerging country managers need to understand that its implementation will take time and money; quality does not indicate an immediate reduction in cost.

This study helps expand research into operational capabilities in lesser-developed countries, such as Brazil. Most of the research on operational capabilities is conducted in industrialized countries. The paper also discusses the trade-off between the quality capability and cost capability. The results show that quality does not always lead to a reduction in cost.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate if the organization competitive orientation can really make firms emphasize different internal capability. This paper aims to revisit and extend the study proposed by Fleury and Fleury (2003).

The survey instrument was employed to collect the sample composed by 163 companies from different sectors of Brazilian market. Additionally, several statistic techniques were applied such as cluster analysis, ANOVA test and hierarchical regression analysis to investigate the phenomenon.

It was observed that three possible clusters can be built based on cumulative capabilities perspective and the Operation oriented group has no emphasis on production, logistic nether R & D capability, while other two clusters have a distinctive attentions on their internal capabilities.

The limitation of this research lies in using perceptual scale for performance and few constructs with one item for measuring. On the other hand, this research has revisited the taxonomy topic based on cumulative capability perspective and discussed the trade-off concepts assumed in past studies.

This study has demonstrated the absence of systematic strategy implementation of those that are considered Operational oriented. Additionally, the authors have demonstrated that market share and customer satisfaction performance are impacted by different competitive priority as well as internal capability.

The authors reviewed the work proposed by Fleury and Fleury (2003), and went further in proposing a taxonomy complementation suggested by them. Additionally the authors discussed the assumptions of the taxonomies that have been adopted up today and explored this issue using cumulative capabilities concept. This work is based on competitive orientations, internal capability and cumulative capabilities suggested by seminar papers.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the productivity performance at the firm level from the perspective of manufacturing capability development at the process level. Moreover, it reveals how alignment of manufacturing capabilities with market requirements has influenced a firm’s productivity over a period that includes the 2008 global recession.

A conceptual framework was derived from established theories and employed as part of a case study design encompassing a multiple methods research approach. The case of a UK SME was selected to reflect some of the issues associated with the wider productivity stagnation experienced by the UK economy in recent years.

The firm’s manufacturing strategy had become incrementally misaligned with market requirements due to external changes in its business environment. The complex relationships between capabilities such as quality, speed and cost were characterised. Realigning the firm’s manufacturing strategy to regain productivity performance required a range of prioritised actions including capital investment and changes in management practices concerning bottom-up process improvement and regular, top-down strategy review.

The findings of the case study cannot be generalised and the outcomes are specific to just one firm. However, the approach lends itself to replication, particularly within SMEs.

Prior studies have focussed on capability development at higher levels of abstraction. The study operationalized established theoretical perspectives at the firm level to derive context-based outcomes that can be used to improve manufacturing strategy alignment and productivity. Furthermore, the study contributes empirical evidence from the SME sector to the ongoing debate regarding the UK’s productivity puzzle.