Search results

Many of the new pressures from today's manufacturing environment are turning manufacturing managers' attention to the virtues of developing a flexible manufacturing function. Flexibility, however, has different meanings for different managers and several perfectly legitimate alternative paths exist towards flexible manufacturing. How managers in ten companies view manufacturing flexibility in terms of how they see the contribution of manufacturing flexibility to overall company performance; what types of flexibility they regard as important; and what their desired degree of flexibility is. The results of the investigations in these ten companies are summarised in the form of ten empirical “observations”. Based on these “observations” a check‐list of prescriptions is presented and a hierarchical framework developed into which the various issues raised by the “observations” can be incorporated.

This paper investigates managerial practices that are conducive to the management of flexibility. Using data from manufacturing plants in the USA, this paper identifies managerial practices that manufacturing managers strongly demonstrate in plants that place a high emphasis on flexibility. The results indicate that managers who pursue flexibility, emphatically engage in team building, employee empowerment, and other relationship oriented practices that generate enthusiasm among employees. These practices seemingly motivate workers to deal with the uncertainty and changes, in the form of product mix, customer delivery schedule, capacity adjustments, etc., that characterize manufacturing flexibility. Furthermore, workers are entrusted with the traditional responsibilities of manufacturing managers, such as monitoring and problem solving.

Existing empirical studies emphasize the role of customer preference measurement accuracy (CPMA) on customized product quality while neglecting the role of manufacturing flexibility. However, the rise of web-based technology has highlighted consumer-manufacturer interaction in mass customization (MC). This paper explores the relationships between CPMA, manufacturing flexibility, customer participation and customized product quality, inspired by module decomposition and integration theory.

The study carried out a questionnaire survey of 241 directors who are specifically responsible for MC in the apparel industry in China and tested hypotheses with structural equation modeling (SEM).

CPMA has a direct positive influence on customized product quality and an indirect positive effect through manufacturing flexibility. Also, customer participation after placing an order (CPAPO) has a negative moderating effect on the linkage between CPMA and manufacturing flexibility.

A more dynamic relationship between CPMA and MF can be explored in the future, and the findings can be tested in other industries with more abundant data.

Manufacturing flexibility should be improved along with CPMA in MC. Also, disruptions caused by customer participation in the post-design stage should be noticed. In this context, better consumer service in the early design stage may be one possible solution.

First, the essential but unexplored mediating role of manufacturing flexibility is identified, adding knowledge to the consumer–manufacturer interaction literature in MC production. Second, module decomposition and integration are applied to unify consumers and manufacturers into one empirical model, enriched theoretical research on modular theory. Third, this study opens new discussions on the moderating role of customer participation.

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.

Most of previous research on manufacturing flexibility has been conceptual by nature and finalized to build analytical models and only a small percentage of the studies have focused on empirical observations of actual industrial practice. In this study, we applied a DEA‐based methodology to identify small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) that operate on the frontier of manufacturing flexibility practice. Data were obtained via a questionnaire survey that considered seven basic dimensions of manufacturing flexibility. Subsequently, discriminant analysis was carried out to delineate which contextual factors and managerial aspects characterize the firms that have reached the “best practice” status. Finally, on‐site investigation was carried out with the “excellent” firms to better delineate their organizational and strategic profile.

This paper seeks to present the formulation of relationships involving different manufacturing flexibility elements related to the total chain of acquisition, processing and distribution in order to assess the level of flexibility practiced by Australian manufacturing industries.

A range of published works and a detailed data gathered from a wide range of Australian manufacturing industry through questionnaires are evaluated to determine how customer‐supplier relationships could have an impact on manufacturing flexibility and enhance the total chain of manufacturing. The main analysis tool used is logistic regression. The knowledge and analysis obtained are linked to evaluate the level of each type of flexibility as well as the impact of customer‐supplier flexibility on the total chain of manufacturing. Finally, a performance assessment framework is developed to connect the interlinking factors and contribution regarding customer, supplier, and manufacturing flexibility of Australian industries.

The relationships and correlation of data displayed would enhance the available body of knowledge on the total chain of manufacturing. Consequently, the relationships found in this paper can be used to support the overall flexibility assessment of manufacturing industries. In the paper, the current flexibility practices of Australian industries are assessed and a framework is suggested based on several elements taken into consideration. As the different elements under flexibility have suggested, the manufacturing flexibility of Australian industries as affected by customer‐supplier participation is found as medium. Suggestions for pursuing improvements are recommended.

The main outcome of the research is to reveal that customer‐supplier relationship could significantly affect the flexibility level within the industries under different functional areas. As a result, to achieve the “real” flexibility of the system, flexibility has to be built into the total chain of acquisition‐processing‐distribution stages, not just focusing on the manufacturing aspects only. The flexibility framework developed in this paper would better assess the impact of customer‐supplier flexibility on the total chain of manufacturing and give more insights for analyzing the flexibility level of customers, suppliers, and manufacturers with data gathered across the globe.

The originality of the paper lies in its detailed analysis of the effect of supplier and customer contribution on manufacturing problems as well as developing a flexibility assessment framework to discuss its impact on the total chain of manufacturing. Its value to both body of knowledge and practitioners are emphasized in the paper.

To examine and analyze the decision process that a firm undergoes for acquiring an advanced manufacturing system to obtain manufacturing flexibility for its operations.

A case study approach is used to examine these decision processes. A conceptual contingency‐based framework from the literature is used to guide the analysis. The framework proposes that four exogenous variables – strategy, environmental factors, organizational attributes, and technology – guide a firm's decisions on choice and adoption of manufacturing flexibility, which has an effect on the firm's performance.

The analysis shows that these decisions are aligned with the various relationships in the framework. The framework therefore helps understand and explain the above decision processes. Further, the paper expands the concept of “fit” between the variables in the framework.

Several research propositions are developed based on the findings of this study. The findings in this paper are limited to this case study only. The paper does not attempt to validate theory but applies it in the context of examining and analyzing a company's decisions.

The suggested relationships in the conceptual framework are found to be applicable in a business setting. Practitioners can use the conceptual framework to guide them in making decisions when acquiring advanced manufacturing systems to obtain manufacturing flexibility.

This case study captures richness and detail in the decision‐making processes of an individual firm that are missed by other types of research studies. It helps both academics and practitioners to gain a better understanding of these processes.

We use the methodology from quality function deployment (QFD) for linking manufacturing flexibility to market requirements. This approach creates a framework for modelling the deployment of the need for flexibility from the customers’ viewpoints into manufacturing flexibility at various hierarchical levels. We present an application of the methodology in a real case study at a firm where a manufacturing system was being redesigned for the manufacture of a new and wider range of products than previously, based on a new product platform. Based on the case study we discuss the benefits and limitations of using the QFD approach to deploy manufacturing flexibility. The paper also presents a literature review of the manufacturing flexibility framework arena.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of organizational context on the relationships between outsourcing and manufacturing flexibility. In doing so, the authors study four types of manufacturing flexibility: product, mix, volume, and labor competence flexibility.

Based on transaction cost economics theory and resource-based view of competitive advantage, the authors focus on economies of scale and scope, asset specificity, organizational learning, and dynamic capabilities as contingencies affecting outsourcing-flexibility relationships. Combining theoretically developed propositions with insights from case studies of 11 manufacturing companies that outsourced some portion of their manufacturing, the authors derive grounded hypotheses.

Empirical results show that in some cases the effects of outsourcing on different types of manufacturing flexibility vary based upon some contingency factors.

Due to the qualitative nature and the geographical focus of the empirical examination, applicability of the findings to other contexts may be limited.

The authors point out specific contingencies that managers should consider when targeting manufacturing flexibility through outsourcing.

This paper presents the interrelationships among outsourcing of manufacturing activities, four types of manufacturing flexibilities, and theoretically derived contingencies. Based on evidence from the analyzed cases, the authors find indications that some contingencies moderate outsourcing-flexibility relationships. In addition, this paper introduces a new type of manufacturing flexibility: labor competence flexibility, which is defined as the ability of a company's workforce to deal with technology driven additions to and subtractions from products over time.

Improvement of flexibility is among the top concerns of manufacturing managers, however, managers are advised to choose the appropriate types of flexibility needed in their plants. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of manufacturing proactiveness dimensions (manufacturing involvement, commitment to manufacturing technology advancements and multi‐skilled workforce developments, and manufacturing's integration with marketing and design functions) on three types of manufacturing flexibility (new product, volume, and product mix).

Using the data collected from 108 motherboard manufacturers in Taiwan, this study develops valid and reliable measures of manufacturing proactiveness and flexibility. The study used multiple regression analysis to examine how different proactiveness dimensions link with specific types of manufacturing flexibility.

The study found that manufacturing involvement, multi‐skilled workforce developments, and manufacturing/design integration have significant positive effects on new product flexibility. Statistical results indicated that manufacturing technology advancements, multi‐skilled workforce developments, and manufacturing/design integration lead to better product mix flexibility. In addition, manufacturing involvement, manufacturing technology advancements, and manufacturing/marketing collaboration are determinants of volume flexibility. This research provides deeper insights regarding the impact of manufacturing flexibility upon the proactiveness programs.

This research focuses on the effect of manufacturing proactiveness only on external manufacturing flexibility. It does not address the issue of internal manufacturing flexibility. The use of a single indicator for the manufacturing flexibility measure may limit the generalization of the statistical results.

These findings have two main managerial implications. With rigorous and comprehensive measures of proactiveness, investigations of its impact on competitive priorities (e.g. delivery, cost, and quality) are issues to be addressed in future studies of manufacturing strategy. Outcomes of the research also enable practitioners to implement the appropriate practices of manufacturing proactiveness based on the specific types of manufacturing flexibility which their plants require.

The uniqueness of this paper is twofold. It is the only empirical study to explore the relationship between manufacturing proactiveness and flexibility from the manufacturing strategy process aspect. This may inspire researchers to focus on other related process issues such as the effect of supplier or customer involvement on manufacturing flexibility. The study also generated five dimensions of manufacturing proactiveness that differ from previous empirical works which overlooked the critical factors of manufacturing/design integration and manufacturing/marketing collaboration. Future researchers and practitioners should be able to apply these results to study and assess related issues of manufacturing proactiveness more rigorously and precisely.