Develops a framework for manufacturing flexibility which illustrates how to obtain consistency from manufacturing strategy to the resource characteristics in the production system. Provides guidance on how to analyse and develop manufacturing flexibility in a corporate decision‐making context. Uses the well‐known input‐transformation‐output (ITO) model as a starting point for building the frame‐work. Makes a clear distinction between internal and external factors impinging on the company, connecting the market demand for flexibility, the characteristics of the production system and the flexibility of the suppliers. Pursues the connection from the strategic level to the individual resource characteristics in the production system.

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.

Managers' perceptions of flexibility in manufacturing were investigated in a research case study conducted at six Swedish companies within the engineering industry. The goal of the study was to establish which factors managers considered to be important for manufacturing flexibility and how companies and managers perceived flexibility. The size of the company, the complexity of the products and the level of technology used in production were factors found to be important for issues concerning manufacturing flexibility. The findings have implications for both managers and researchers. Managers should be aware of the lack of conformity in the perception of flexibility within companies and its possible consequences. Gives researchers suggestions based on this study, for further research in manufacturing flexibility.

No abstract