Search results

Seeks to contribute to the empirical database on the progression of thinking with regards to the strategic role of manufacturing by reporting some results of a study on the manufacturing‐strategy thinking and practices amongst practising managers of operations based in a newly industrialized economy (NIE). In particular, highlights the finding that while almost all operations managers in the sample perceive that manufacturing can and should contribute to overall corporate strategy, their view of the role of manufacturing is that it should primarily be reactive vis‐à‐vis other functional areas; such a view is far from strategic. Operations managers in the survey agree that there are many ways to compete besides cost, but their main criterion for evaluating the manufacturing function is still cost and productivity. They seem to fail to recognize the existence of tradeoffs in the production system. They acknowledge the necessity to handle strategic issues, but still perceive infrastructural decisions as mere operational decisions. While the role of managers in NIEs is likely to be more cost focused rather than strategic in orientation, they need to be better and further exposed to the current concepts of manufacturing strategy thinking and development. In particular, a more proactive form of the strategic role of manufacturing could be pursued.

According to researchers and managers, there is a lack of agreement between marketing and manufacturing managers on critical strategic issues. However, most of the literature on the subject is anecdotal and little formal empirical research has been done. Three companies are investigated to study the extent of agreement/disagreement between manufacturing and marketing managers on strategy content and process. A novel method permits the study of agreement between the two different functional managers on the process of developing strategy. The findings consistently show that manufacturing managers operate under a wider range of strategic priorities than marketing managers, and that manufacturing managers participate less than marketing managers in the strategy development process. Further, both marketing and manufacturing managers show higher involvement in the strategy development process in the latter stages of the Hayes and Wheelwright four‐stage model of manufacturing’s strategic role.

Changing manufacturing policy and manufacturing technology has had serious implications for production managers. A survey to identify the nature and extent of the impact of changes in manufacturing technology on the jobs of production or manufacturing managers shows that managers are concerned about the changing nature of their jobs and are increasingly dissatisfied with their roles. Their jobs are diminished but more stressful because they must maintain responsibility over a system over which they have little control. Yet they need a wider range of skills, e.g. people management and a broad knowledge of different subjects, to perform this role. The inevitability of change and the future directions in this area are discussed.

Prior research of the influence of “upper echelon” managers has confirmed the importance of matching the characteristics of senior executives with the requirements of their organizations’ strategies. Firms that achieved higher levels of strategy‐manager alignment at both the corporate and business unit levels were found to have correspondingly higher levels of organizational performance. This study extends prior research of the strategy‐managerial characteristics relationship to the functional level of the organization. Specifically, based on a sample of 196 managers from 98 companies, this study investigates whether manufacturing units pursuing dissimilar strategies are led by manufacturing managers with dissimilar attributes, and whether the strategy‐manager alignment is related to the performance of the manufacturing unit. Results provide evidence to support these hypothesized relationships.

This paper examines how the career development and education of senior manufacturing managers in six electrical/electronics firms equipped them to support the priorities of the Taiwanese national strategy. It reviews the operations management literature, which is subsequently used to evaluate the work experiences and attendance at educational and/or training programmes of the senior managers responsible for manufacturing in the six plants. It shows that these senior managers had limited formal education in manufacturing topics, which was partly compensated for by a number of post‐experience programmes. It also shows that these managers had little prior exposure to manufacturing. This was true in terms of working at more junior levels or in working in related functions such as product development before these senior management appointments. It argues for a cadre of highly skilled manufacturing managers capable of sustaining the ideas built into the national strategy.

Past research on manufacturing has not generally included research on the attributes of outstanding manufacturing managers. This information is important as the success of the manufacturing function depends to an extent on the quality of the manager. This study sought then to identify the attributes of an outstanding manufacturing manager. The methodology adopted included reviewing relevant literature, analysing job advertisements and surveying senior manufacturing managers. The profile of the outstanding manufacturing manager that emerged contained 12 specific attributes. These were classified into three groups i.e. attributes related to the position; attributes related to people management; and attributes related to the individual manager. The profile identified in this study is quite different from the traditional profile of an old‐fashioned autocrat who has risen from the ranks. Today’s manufacturing manager requires a strong academic background to understand and implement leading manufacturing and management techniques, good interpersonal skills and high levels of energy and drive.

A postal survey to manufacturing managers in five different industry sectors was conducted to ascertain how manufacturing managers perceived their quality of working life. Questions asked centred on how motivated, rewarded, valued, empowered, career developed, satisfied with their job and their company the manufacturing managers considered themselves to be. Their views were contrasted with those expressed in the current literature and it was concluded that currently manufacturing managers believe themselves to be adequately valued, remunerated and motivated by their employing organisations. However their levels of esteem and job satisfaction, although satisfactory, could be improved through greater empowerment.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the competitive priorities of manufacturers in India, and examine the level of agreement or strategic consensus between senior executives and manufacturing managers on manufacturing competitive priorities in light of the prevalent culture.

Survey data collected from 156 respondents from 78 manufacturing units based on a national sample in India are used to test the hypotheses using the paired samples t‐tests and multivariate analysis of variance.

A relatively high emphasis by both levels of managers on quality, compared to the other three competitive priorities, is noteworthy and consistent with the global trends. The emphasis on delivery is a close second. Differences in competitive priorities exist across managerial levels in India despite the high power distance and low individualism.

The effect of ownership as private or public company was examined and no significant differences found, but data could not be collected on the ownership structure such as wholly owned domestic firms, foreign subsidiaries, or joint ventures. and whether a firm is a supplier to a multinational company. It may also be noted that a majority of the manufacturing companies in this paper came from three industries – chemicals, fabricated metals, and electronic and electrical equipment – and, hence, the findings of the paper might have been unduly influenced by the prevalent practices in these industries.

The paper informs global managers and firms seeking to outsource to, or invest in, India that the Indian managers place significantly high emphasis on quality and delivery, but not as much on product variety or ability to make frequent changes to product design and production volume. The managers in India need to take note of prevailing differences in managerial priorities and efforts need to be made such that the priorities are aligned and manufacturing strategy may be unified and coordinated.

In the Indian context, this is the first study that deployed multiple respondents to understand the manufacturing competitive priorities, and also the first to examine strategic consensus in operations strategy.

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.

Manufacturing organizations need to develop and maintain competitive advantage in an increasingly turbulent environment. To do this, manufacturing organizations need to rethink the way in which they manage their business. Are they prepared for the challenge? Analyses the role of Australian manufacturing managers at two levels – strategic and operational – and examines their personal characteristics. First presents some of the relevant normative literature followed by the results of survey. Finally, considers the implications for Human Resource managers in terms of their potential contributions to the change in the light of the survey findings.