No abstract

Many researchers over time have stressed the importance of incorporating the manufacturing perspective in the formulation of business strategy. Prior work in this area has tended to focus primarily on the involvement of the manufacturing executive in strategic decision making processes, while relatively little attention has been given to the level of influence enjoyed by the manufacturing executives. This study jointly examines the role of both influence and involvement in achieving better business performance, which we posit is expected to occur through alignment between the organizational and manufacturing strategies rather than directly. A research model based on procedural justice and strategic information management literature is proposed to represent this phenomenon. Structural equation modeling is used to empirically test the research model and its related hypothesis on the basis of data collected from 202 senior manufacturing executives representing mid to large sized firms from diverse industry groups across the US. In addition, interviews with a sub‐sample of respondents are used to further explore the contextual nature of these relationships. The results indicate that involvement and influence are indeed two different, but highly related, aspects of the manufacturing executive s role. The interviews revealed numerous differences between the two with respect to achieving each and individual benefits derived from them. As expected, both involvement and influence are important determinants of strategy alignment with influence appearing to play a more substantive role. More importantly, it is this alignment that affects business performance. Implications of our findings for improving manufacturing practice, along with possible avenues for future research directions in this area, are also provided.

Academics and practitioners alike are focusing more attention on manufacturing strategy after having recognized the important role it plays in shaping the success of industrial firms. Even though research in this area has increased in the last decade, the focus of much of that work has been on the content rather than the process of the manufacturing strategy. Consequently, this study attempts to understand the important elements of the strategic manufacturing planning process and its effectiveness. Borrowing from the extant literature in the fields of strategic management and information systems, we propose a research model that relates strategic manufacturing planning system design to planning system success. Using structured questionnaires, empirical data is collected from over 200 manufacturing executives to test the model hypotheses. Planning process in manufacturing was found to be a bottom-up approach from a corporate or business perspective, which differs from the top-down planning process prevalent in strategic information systems planning process. Findings also indicate that greater planning system success in manufacturing is associated with a planning system that combines some "rational" elements (formality, comprehensiveness, control focus, longer horizon) with others that lend adaptability (wider participation and more intense interaction). But the strategic manufacturing planning system is more than just a collection of independent planning characteristics. Instead, it can be viewed as a gestalt planning system whereby planning characteristics move together in affecting overall planning system success.

This study examines how strategic manufacturing planning processes vary systematically with respect to planning characteristics, and how the planning process appears to evolve over time. Through an empirical evaluation of over 200 U.S. manufacturers, we document the existence of four strategic manufacturing planning groups. These groups vary with respect to the degrees of ''rationality'' and ''adaptability'' of planning. In addition, the strategic manufacturing planning history and level of planning maturity differs between these groups, providing evidence that the planning process changes and evolves over time from ''nonrational adaptive'' mode towards a more ''rational adaptive'' approach. Firms between these polar extremes appear to take different paths in their movement toward a ''rational adaptive'' mode, with some ''focusing on rationality'' first and others ''focusing on adaptability'' first. We also show that irrespective of the firm's environment, a greater degree of ''rational adaptivity'' is correlated with better planning outcomes and business performance. As such, it represents a ''best practice'' approach to strategic manufacturing planning. Insights created by this work not only make an important contribution to the manufacturing strategy literature, but can also be used by senior manufacturing managers to facilitate their progress towards more effective planning. # 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.