Search results

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the confusion between flexibility and agility. The paper traces the evolution of agility and the evolution of flexibility over time, analyses their drivers and different elements, draws the boundaries between them and defines their relationship.

A systematic literature review of flexibility and agility was developed. Papers written between 1920 and 2017 were reviewed and analyzed using a structured review technique. The identified papers focus on flexibility and agility, relating both to manufacturing and the supply chain.

Agility is the natural evolution of flexibility. Until the 1990s, the term “flexibility” was used to refer to agility, but, because of market changes, competitiveness and the need for speed, the term “agility” was coined. While flexibility is considered as an operational ability, agility is a strategic ability that enables a firm to establish a strategic long-term vision. In fact, flexibility is an agility capability, among other capabilities such as responsiveness or speed. There are also several types of flexibility that are used as agility sub-capabilities, or as agility enablers, which further confirms the idea that flexibility is a part of agility.

This research is a systematic review of the existing literature on the concepts of flexibility and agility. Although it is theoretical, it could provide a set of hypotheses that would enable an empirical study to be conducted into how firms from different industries perceive flexibility and agility and how they implement each of them.

Flexibility and agility are two distinct characteristics that enable a firm to gain a competitive advantage by responding quickly and effectively to changing customer demand. However, there is confusion between these two concepts in the academic and professional literature, with both terms being used to refer to the same idea. Our literature review aims to draw the boundaries between flexibility and agility by analyzing the evolution of the two concepts and detailing their respective drivers and elements, in order to bring more clarity to the nature of the relationship between flexibility and agility.

Tries to clarify and to define more strictly some central connotations of popular concepts in the field of personnel policy: mobility and flexibility. Develops a model connecting these concepts within a single theoretical scheme.

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 concept “flexibility” is ubiquitous as a rationale for organizational change. However, its broad application is accompanied by a general lack of definitional agreement or theoretical cohesion. The purpose of this paper is to propose the merits of an alternative approach – applying a discourse perspective to the use of flexibility as a rationale for organizational change.

This paper first illustrates the broad referencing of flexibility as a desired organizational characteristic. It then discusses the associated lack of theoretical coherence associated with the use of the concept “flexibility” before arguing the merits of a discourse perspective on flexibility as a rationale for organizational change.

This paper identifies a set of questions to frame a discourse perspective on the use of “flexibility” as a rationale for organizational change.

The questions derived in this paper provide a research agenda for an investigation of the use and effects of the concept “flexibility” in the context of organizational change.

The questions derived in this paper provide practice‐based insights into how the concept “flexibility” is and/or could be used in the context of organizational change.

“Flexibility” is a ubiquitous concept as a rationale for organizational change and its use is accompanied by a diversity of definitions and conceptual frameworks. The originality of this paper is that rather than seeking to provide yet another definition – or attempting a resolution of definitional differences – it argues the merits of a discourse perspective on the use and effect of the concept flexibility in the context of organizational change.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse and compare the status of manufacturing flexibility adoption, its barriers and adoption practices in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large firms in India.

Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design, this study employs survey responses from 121 firms, followed by 16 semi-structured interviews to investigate and explain the status of manufacturing flexibility adoption, barriers to adoption and practices adopted to achieve flexibility in SMEs and large firms in India.

The study suggests that awareness of manufacturing flexibility concept in SMEs is considerably low and application of manufacturing flexibility is still at embryonic stage. It was found that both SMEs and large firms employ manufacturing flexibility, but they differ with respect to their emphasis on adoption practices used to achieve flexibility. SMEs emphasize entrepreneurial orientation and flexible human resource practices to achieve flexibility, whereas large firms emphasize practices such as technological capability, sourcing practices and integration practices to achieve flexibility. The study also illustrates barriers that hinder manufacturing flexibility adoption at plant level in India.

The study is cross-sectional in nature and is limited to specific regions of India. The use of subjective measures in survey questionnaire is another limitation of the study.

Practitioners should consider combinations of adoption practices to achieve the desired level of manufacturing flexibility. It is also important to give due consideration to barriers before considering manufacturing flexibility adoption.

The findings contribute to the manufacturing flexibility and SMEs research by providing insights into manufacturing flexibility adoption from the developing economy perspective and by widening the scope of existing research into SMEs.

Structures the concept of flexibility by making clear distinctions in three generic dimensions, describes the use of the framework for manufacturing flexibility by working through a concrete example. The framework was presented in “Making manufacturing flexibility operational – part 1: a framework”, IMS, Vol. 6 No. 2. Makes distinctions between the concept of flexibility in the three generic dimensions: utilized flexibility versus potential flexibility, external flexibility versus internal flexibility, and requested flexibility versus replied flexibility. The framework makes a clear distinction between the internal and the external factors impinging on the company, and brings together the market demand for flexibility, the characteristics of the production system, and the flexibility of the suppliers. Furthermore, pursues the connection from the strategic level to the single resource characteristics in the production system. Using the framework as a systematization for handling flexibility related issues in companies, can be especially useful for managers.

Strategic flexibility is a widely discussed concept. Yet discussions remained of qualitative nature or addressed only specific aspects quantitatively underlying the concept. The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual model identifying key factors determining strategic flexibility. Once quantified, the model provides firms a profile of each strategic option towards the company vision.

The paper reviews existing and synthesises prior contributions into a conceptual model of strategic flexibility. Based on semi-structured interviews and value mapping, the model is applied using three case studies from the automotive industry.

A total of three main findings were made. First, the concept of strategic flexibility has a simple logic that aligns itself to a variety of automotive companies and visions. However, underlying this remit is an interplay of variables. Previous studies remain fragmented and have only addressed a subset of variables. Second, these variables can be grouped into three dimensions of strategic flexibility – product, process and customer – to convey a holistic understanding of strategic flexibility and its key determinants. Third, due to the uncertainty and complexity involved, depending on the firm and industry characteristics, there cannot be a one-fits-all configuration of the strategic flexibility conceptualisation.

A variety of variables requires consideration to offer a balanced view of all three dimensions of strategic flexibility. Hence, the case studies remain at a necessarily high level.

The paper offers guidance for management on how to align their firm strategy to product and process contingency factors to satisfy customer needs in line with their company vision.

The paper aims to elevate a discussion that previously remained fragmented and mainly descriptive.

The purpose of this paper is to address an important question which centres on investigating how do manufacturing businesses perceive and understand the concepts of agility and flexibility in their supply chains (SCs).

A case study approach was utilised and data were gathered from semi-structured interviews with ten organisations in the Australian manufacturing sector. Data analysis was conducted using analytic techniques based on, for example, pattern matching and cross-case synthesis.

Findings confirmed that there is some ambiguity concerning the understanding of the terms agile and flexible, both within and between organisations. The implications are that there is often little consistency in the way the terms are operationalised and then applied. In this regard, and to inform future research, the paper offers empirically grounded definitions for SC agility and flexibility. Moreover, four propositions are developed and discussed which shed light on the dynamics of agility and flexibility in the SC.

This is one of the first empirical studies to address some of the apparent inconsistencies between organisational applications of agility and flexibility, and their impact on SC operations.

The research attempts to evaluate whether services firms form a homogeneous body when applying managerial flexibility as compared to manufacturing firms. The paper examines the differential effects that exist regarding performance when faced with divergences in the levels of fit between the firm's real flexibility and that required by the environment on a strategic, structural and operational level. The hypotheses are tested using data from 417 European firms. The results show that a good fit between real and required operational flexibility has a more positive influence on business performance in service firms than in the manufacturing sector. Service firms, in the day‐to‐day context should have the capacity to change rapidly when successful operational practices in their adjacent environment change.

This paper, originally published in 1987, seeks to outline an agenda for conducting rigorous research into the flexibility of manufacturing processes.

An initial domain for defining flexibility is established, specific measures are suggested, and sampling issues are discussed. There is also a discussion of relevant research problems that can be addressed once valid and reliable operationalisations exist.

Its underlying premise is that current efforts are being impeded by the absence of operational measures for the concept.

A useful historical perspective on manufacturing processes.