Given the recent dynamics of the automotive industry in the UK, the ability for a firm to be flexible has often taken priority over other performance indicators. Using the notion of distinct business models and trade-offs as our theoretical lens, the purpose of this study was to: (1) Distinguish lean and agile firms based upon production methods; and (2) Compare lean and agile levels of external flexibility (EF) and supply chain flexibility (SCF). Data was obtained from 140 automotive firms in the Midlands (UK) via a survey which was sent by emails. Findings supported the theoretical notion of trade-offs, as firms implementing agile production methods were found to be more flexible in comparison with firms implementing lean production methods. More importantly, the agile firms that possessed high EF levels and SCF levels were predominantly positioned at the lower end of the automotive supply chain, whereas the lean firms were largely found to be operating at the top of the supply chain. First, we provide an innovative way in which lean and agile firms can be conceptualised. Second, as flexibility levels were assessed on actual numerical values, as opposed to using opinion based Likert Scale questions, a methodological contribution is made. Third, as flexibility is in its infancy stage of theoretical development we make an empirical contribution by developing a taxonomy that distinguishes each production concept. Finally, given the supply chain position to where lean and agile firms were found, we invoked a power perspective better understand this phenomenon.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to robustly establish whether firms are implementing Lean or Agile production in the automotive supply chain (SC) and, by drawing on contingency theory (CT) as our theoretical lens, independently determine whether Lean and Agile firms can be distinguished based upon contextual factors. Design/methodology/approach Primary quantitative data from 140 firms in the West Midlands (UK) automotive industry were obtained via a constructed survey. Analysis incorporated the use of logistic regressions to calculate the probability of Lean and Agile organisations belonging to different groups amongst the contextual factors investigated. Findings Lean and Agile firms co-exist in the automotive SC and Lean firms were found to be at higher tiers of the SC, while Agile firms were found to be at lower tiers. Originality/value The originality of this study lies within the novel methodological attempt used to distinguish Lean and Agile production, based upon the contextual factors investigated. Not only is the importance of CT theoretically approved, but “received wisdom” within SC management is also contested. Extant literature propagates that the automotive SC is comprised of organisations that predominantly adopt Lean production methods, and that in SCs comprised of both Lean and Agile organisations, the firms closer to the customer will adopt more flexible (Agile) practices, while those that operate upstream will adopt more efficient (Lean) practices. The findings from this study have implications for theory and practice, as Lean and Agile firms can be found in the automotive SC without any relationship to the value-adding process. To speculate as to why the findings contest existing views, resource dependence theory and, more specifically, a power perspective, was invoked. The authors provide readers with a new way of thinking concerning complicated SCs and urge that the discipline of SC management adopts a “fourth” SC model, depicting a new Lean and Agile SC configuration.

Firms operating in the automotive industry have traditionally been ascribed with efficiency and high levels of quality, as lean production has been extensively applied within this context, but given the recent dynamics in the automotive sector, there is also a need for high levels of flexibility, widening our attention to agile production. However, when lean and agile production have been explored simultaneously, the quality and flexibility trade-offs have been mixed and unclear. In order to dispel the lean-agile ambiguity, and given that both high levels of flexibility and quality are required within the automotive industry, the purpose of this study was to: a) Identify the relationship between flexibility and quality; and b) Explore the quality and flexibility differences between lean and agile production. Primary quantitative data was obtained via a survey and a total of 140 automotive manufacturing firms within the UK returned the survey. Logistic regressions were utilised as the main mode of analysis. Not only was an inverse relationship found between quality and flexibility, but our findings depict two distinctive Business Models (BMs) existing in the automotive industry, one lean and one agile. We advance the lean-agile debate by asserting that lean and agile firms acquire quality (efficiency) and flexibility strengths respectively, and not vice-versa. Given this, we theoretically side with the notion of performance 'trade-offs' and contend the idea that capabilities are cumulatively gained. By incorporating an argument built on the strategy literature on BMs and Dynamic Capabilities, we assert that lean and agile firms have evolved to underpin different kinds of competitive advantage within the same industry, but these advantages are placed at different tiers in the automotive supply chain.

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Home-owned versus foreign-owned firms in the UK automotive industry: exploring the microfoundations of ambidextrous production and supply chain positioning', International Business Review.