Search results

This paper seeks to explore how repertory grids can be used to address IT team performance issues. The technique is introduced along with the process of creating and analyzing repertory grid data.

To explore the application of the repertory grid technique to team performance issues. An example focused on eliciting the essential soft skills needed by programmers to effectively interact with IT team members is illustrated.

To researchers, the main benefit of this paper is that it introduces a technique that is easy to use, enables the researcher to easily determine the relationship between constructs, is free from researcher bias, and can be applied to a wide variety of team‐related research studies.

This research presents a means by which human resource managers, hiring personnel, and team leaders can easily determine essential skills needed on the IT teams of the organization, thereby deriving a “wish list” from key IT groups as to the desired non‐technical characteFristics of potential new team members.

Shows how repertory grids can be used to address IT team performance issues.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the best practices managers use to improve manufacturing flexibility and ensure the tools and techniques selected for flexibility improvement are in line with broader organizational and manufacturing goals, such as lean production.

A number of best practices are identified based on a review and synthesis of the conceptual frameworks for improving manufacturing flexibility and are presented to North American manufacturing managers. Results of analyzing the data from 168 managers indicate the best practices, techniques, and major groups involved in improving flexibility.

Results support these best practices, with the most important practices being: incorporating the role of manufacturing flexibility into the manufacturing strategy; identifying the major potential sources of uncertainty faced by the manufacturing department; and identifying the general capability of the manufacturing department to address these potential sources of uncertainty. The results also indicate a growing preference to reducing sources of uncertainty, in addition to responding to it, as demonstrated by the use of lean tools and practices.

This research empirically develops a framework linking manufacturing flexibility and lean decisions; and subsequently addressing an area under examined by the extant literature. In addition, this study empirically tests many of the best flexibility practices identified in the literature and in doing so provides some empirical support for the frameworks developed in previous studies. This research also highlights the practices, which managers should consider when attempting to improve flexibility in their manufacturing facility, while keeping in mind broader organizational strategies such as lean.

This is the second paper in a two‐part discussion of the determinants and performance consequences of concurrent engineering (CE) team usage. In this paper, a model is developed outlining the relationship between the extent of CE team usage and three measures of performance, specifically NPD financial performance, NPD development performance, and communication quality.

To test the model, 2,500 questionnaires were mailed to NPD managers from the machinery, computer product, electrical equipment, and transportation equipment manufacturing industries. Of the 2,500 questionnaires mailed, 189 usable questionnaires were retuned for a usable response rate of 7.5 percent.

Results of performing partial least squares analysis indicate that the frequency of use of CE teams and functional involvement on CE teams influences communication quality, which in turn, influences both NPD financial and development performance.

To researchers of NPD, the major implication of this study is that it highlights possible reasons (e.g. not considering the extent of usage or not including functional involvement or communication quality in their models) why they are obtaining such inconsistent results when examining the relationship between NPD practices and performance. The major limitation of this study is that only CE teams have been selected for investigation or risk the problems associated with developing a very long questionnaire.

To practicing NPD managers, the value of this research is that it highlights that CE teams which do little to improve communication quality will not lead to improvements in NPD performance.

The purpose of this research is to develop a conceptual framework for implementing and managing supply chain flexibility in supply chain organizations. The framework suggests that supply chain flexibility should be implemented and managed using a three‐stage approach: required flexibility identification, implementation and shared responsibility, and feedback and control.

The major components of the proposed framework are based on a review of research in the manufacturing flexibility literature as well as the limited research in supply chain flexibility. The strengths and weaknesses of these frameworks, combined with a published empirical study were analyzed to identify the important issues that must be considered when implementing and managing supply chain flexibility, and those components that need to be incorporated into a new integrated framework.

This framework was constructed by synthesizing the strengths of other conceptual frameworks. As a result, the major components of the framework are supported by the current research on the implementation and management of manufacturing flexibility, as well as the current literature on supply chain management.

Empirical research is needed to examine the nature and level of responsibility sharing among different supply chain partners as suggested in this framework. It is also important to empirically investigate what constitutes flexibility in the supply chain taxonomy in various industries. Another issue of managerial interest concerns the way different supply chain flexibility types relate to one another, and whether supply chain organizations should acquire certain supply chain flexibilities as a pre‐requisite for developing others. Further studies are necessary to further explain the contribution made by key enablers, such as information technology and communication, the internet, process technology, and training and labor skills, towards the acquisition of supply chain flexibility.

The implication of this new conceptual framework for managers is that it is easy to understand and is based on best practices in the research literature on manufacturing flexibility and supply chain management.

To researchers, this framework provides a springboard for conducting exploratory and confirmatory research on the process of implementing and managing supply chain flexibility.

The purpose of this research is to develop a framework and an initial list of best management practices for implementing manufacturing flexibility.

To identify these practices, recent frameworks (i.e. 1988 and onward) for implementing manufacturing flexibility in organizations are reviewed. Based on this review, the major management practices for implementing flexibility are identified and synthesized into a new framework.

This framework suggests that manufacturing flexibility should be implemented using a three‐stage approach, labeled: identifying required flexibility (i.e. identifying and justifying the flexibility types, measurements and tools needed to achieve the required manufacturing flexibility), achieving required flexibility (i.e. acquiring and implementing the organizational and technological tools needed to achieve the required manufacturing flexibility) and managing required flexibility (i.e. monitoring and changing the required flexibility types and levels, in light of changing uncertainty and competitive, manufacturing and marketing strategies). Based on this framework, a number of potential best management practices are identified.

This report is conceptual in nature. Future research will focus on empirically testing the practices presented in order to develop a more complete and rigorous list of best management practices for implementing manufacturing flexibility.

This research provides manufacturing managers with a starting point for developing a formal process for identifying, implementing, and monitoring manufacturing flexibility, thus ensuring that the manufacturing flexibility that exists is continually meeting the manufacturing and competitive strategies of the organization. Various conceptual relationships are identified by the presence of arrows in the framework. As a result, the implications of the conceptual framework for researchers is that it provides a very good starting point for conducting exploratory and confirmatory research on the process of managing manufacturing flexibility.

This research synthesizes existing frameworks for implementing manufacturing flexibility in organizations, and addresses a gap in the research, specifically the need to identify and empirically test best management practices for implementing manufacturing flexibility.

This article is the first in a two‐part discussion of the determinants and performance consequences of concurrent engineering (CE) team usage in organizations. The purpose of this first article is to develop a model of the organizational factors that influence the extent that CE teams are used when developing new products.

To test the model, 2,500 questionnaires were mailed to new product development (NPD) managers from the machinery, computer product, electrical equipment, and transportation equipment manufacturing industries, of which 189 usable questionnaires were returned, for a usable response rate of 7.5 percent. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling with partial least squares.

Results indicate that an innovative organizational climate and complex NPD activities both influence the extent that organizations support functional integration on NPD teams, and this support, in turn, influences the extent that organizations use CE teams. Analyzing the qualitative data using content analysis indicates additional factors influencing CE team usage.

To researchers, this study examines in detail the extent of CE team usage, thus addressing a major gap in the research literature. This study also addresses the concerns of researchers by examining organizational contextual factors.

To NPD managers, this study highlights organizational precursor conditions needed in order for CE teams to be supported in the organizations, specifically complex NPD activities and an innovative organizational climate. By examining these two variables, NPD managers can gauge the likelihood that CE teams will be supported even before they are actually implemented.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of management exposure to external information sources, such as training sessions, plant visits, and conferences, in helping manufacturing organizations achieve lean goals.

A model is proposed highlighting the relationship between various key drivers of lean, external information sources, management commitment to lean, and lean thinking. To empirically test the model, 1,000 surveys were mailed to Canadian manufacturers with 109 usable surveys returned. Analyzing the data using partial least squares, the common sources of management information on lean and their effectiveness for lean improvements are discussed.

The final model confirms that management exposure to external information sources and commitment to lean both influence lean thinking within organizations. However, the direct relationship between external information sources and lean thinking is not supported. Instead, an indirect relationship exists, where increased exposure to sources of lean information, increases management commitment to lean, and ultimately the extent of lean thinking in the organization.

The practical implications of this research are that it will help manufacturing managers identify both organizational and environmental factors that may facilitate or inhibit the extensive use of lean in their organization, and the impact that their own understanding of lean and commitment to lean improvements will have on the overall success of a lean program.

The paper should help improve understanding of the differences in the extent of lean thinking between plants in the same company, organizations in the same industry, and organizations across industries.

Purpose – This research aims to identify various organizational‐level factors influencing support for cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 2,500 questionnaires where mailed in 2003 to managers of product development from Canadian and US manufacturing organizations operating in the machinery, computer, electronic product, electrical equipment, and transportation equipment manufacturing industrial sectors. A total of 269 usable questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 11.1 percent. Findings – Results of performing regression analysis indicate that the quality of communication between the functional disciplines involved in NPD activities, perceived risks and complexity of using cross‐functional NPD teams, and the complexity of the organization's NPD activities all influence organizational support for cross‐functional NPD teams. Based on the qualitative data, additional reasons why cross‐functional NPD teams may not be supported in organizations are identified and discussed. Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of this study is that the respondents are NPD managers. These managers commented on the extent that support for cross‐functional NPD teams exists at the team, departmental, and senior management levels. Future research should focus on gauging organizational support for cross‐functional NPD teams by directly surveying team members, functional managers, and senior managers. Practical implications – This study identifies various organizational‐level factors influencing support for cross‐functional NPD teams. Originality/value – This research is of value to managers using or implementing cross‐functional teams, as it indicates potential organizational‐level factors that may facilitate or hamper the usage of such teams. To researchers, it provides a starting point in studying the determinants of support for cross‐functional NPD teams, and cross‐functional teams in general.