The competitive environment of today has generated an increased interest in flexibility as a response mechanism. While the potential benefits of flexibility are familiar, the concept of flexibility itself is not well-understood. Neither practitioners nor academics agree upon, or know, how flexibility can be gauged or measured in its totality. Consequently, this study seeks to provide a framework for understanding this complex concept and to create a theoretical foundation for the development of generalizable measures for manufacturing flexibility. With this objective in mind, we first critically examine diverse streams Ž. Ž. Ž . of literature to define four constituent elements of flexibility: range-number R-N , range-heterogeneity R-H , mobility M , Ž. and uniformity U . The R-H element is new, and has not been proposed before in prior literature. These four elements can be applied to consistently define different types or dimensions of flexibility. Definitions for 10 flexibility dimensions pertaining to manufacturing are thus obtained. These definitions serve a dual purpose. First, they capture the domain of flexibility. Second, we show in this study how these definitions can be used to generate scale items, thereby facilitating the development of generalizable manufacturing flexibility measures. Several research avenues that can be explored once such measures are developed are also highlighted. q duction of a few standardized products, are no longer sufficient competitive weapons by themselves. Customers are demanding a greater variety of high qual-Ž. ity, low-cost goods and services Pine, 1993 . Organizations must consequently develop new methods and perspectives to meet these market needs in a timely and cost effective fashion.Creating flexible organizations is one response to dealing with such challenges. A firm that is flexible and possesses a set of different strategic options can respond effectively to dynamic environments Ž. Sanchez, 1995 . The competitive potential of flexi-0272-6963r99r$ -see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Ž. PII: S 0 2 7 2 -6 9 6 3 9 9 0 0 0 1 0 -8 () L.L.

Even though many managers and academics have cited flexibility as a key competitive capability, efforts to measure and understand this complex construct continue. Consequently in this paper, we address the issue of manufacturing flexibility measurement, and then use these measures to better understand flexibility. Churchill's [J. Market. Res. 16 (1979) 64] paradigm is used to develop psychometrically sound measures for six oft-used dimensions of manufacturing flexibility: machine, labor, material handling, mix, new product, and modification. Previous research shows that each of these dimensions, in turn, is comprised of four elements. The resulting 24 scales (6 dimensions × 4 elements) demonstrate the desired properties of unidimensionality, reliability, and validity. We show further that the four elements of any given manufacturing flexibility dimension can be grouped into two conceptually separate factors representing "Scope" and "Achievability" of flexible responses. Scope and achievability factor scores can be used to compare a subset of firms with respect to their flexibility choices, and observe the trade-offs firms make both within and across flexibility dimensions. Along with scale development, establishing scope versus achievability relationships between flexibility elements provides a better basis for measuring and creating a holistic understanding of this complex concept.

No abstract