This work presents an exploratory empirical study of the process of formulating and implementing manufacturing strategy within the framework of overall corporate strategy, as practiced by a cross‐sectional representation of leading‐edge firms. A conference was held where executives representing six firms in the following industries—computer equipment, pharmaceuticals, valves, telecommunications, furniture, and electrical submersible pumps—described the process of manufacturing strategy formulation and implementation as practiced within their firms. Although the firms represented a diversity in terms of sales volume, longevity, and geographic location, they shared several commonalities including Class A use of MRP, excellent customer service records, and maintenance of accurate manufacturing data bases. In addition, despite increasingly competitive conditions within their respective industries, none of the firms considered itself to be the low cost producer in the industry. Competitive strength was sustained through innovation, quality, and service. The process of strategy formulation varied among the firms in terms of participants, complexity, and degree of formalization. Several findings emerged from the conference. First, all firms followed a traditional hierarchical top‐down approach in formulating manufacturing strategy under the umbrella of corporate strategy. In general, the process was reactive to corporate strategy although the executives reported greater involvement on the part of manufacturing in corporate strategic planning through the identification of competitive strengths and weaknesses. Manufacturing strategy was also viewed as reactive to marketing strategy with marketing playing the role of boundary spanner in assessing competitors and customers to support the manufacturing strategy effort. Finally, some of the executives stated that several of the traditional manufacturing resource decision categories were constrained by corporate philosophy. Examples of constraining policies included facilities, capacity, vertical integration, and organization. On the other hand, all the firms were able to develop strategies for process choice/technology, quality, manufacturing planning and control, and people. The executives described the implementation process as one of gaining employee acceptance of the strategy through lower level involvement and teamwork. Although communication was a major concern in implementing the strategy, the executives all stated that the most difficult task was changing corporate culture, which was often entrenched in obsolete cost accounting systems, to make it supportive of the new strategy. Other problems confronted by the firms included maintaining consistency among managers across all levels in the organization, gaining top management support, and developing appropriate styles of leadership. The study shows that these firms' processes of formulating manufacturing strategy seem to follow the general conceptual models developed in the academic literature. However, the ex...

No abstract

Two distinct models of delivery reliability versus delivery speed are tested. On the basis of data from a survey of 193 manufacturing firms, factors associated with the “planning” systems of firms, such as production‐plan goals achieved, inventory goals achieved, and master schedule performance, were found to have a significant effect on delivery reliability. In follow‐up interviews with 13 plant managers; it was found that “process”‐related factors were associated with delivery speed capabilities. Specifically, the biggest inroads to be made into delivery speed are first on the design/manufacturing interface, secondly on the subsequent “translation” of these designs to supplier requirements, and lastly on the production floor in terms of process layout.

The manager who moves from manufacturing to services or the professor who wishes to research and teach service operations must recognise the key differences for developing an appropriate operations management strategy in a service business. For this process to be successful, the operations manager must participate assertively in the strategy debate. In manufacturing it is important that the functional strategy supports the corporate strategy in the marketplace and is co‐ordinated with other functional strategies. There is sufficient buffering between the manufacturing system and the customer that functional strategies can be developed within corporate strategies and then be co‐ordinated. In services, however, there are many issues where co‐ordination is not an adequate response. Virtually all strategic issues involving customer contact and front‐office operations must be the result of joint decision making involving marketing, operations, finance, and human resources. What little buffering there is occurs between the front office and the back room. This interface then becomes the locus for interfunctional co‐ordination on strategic issues. Consequently, planning for the front‐office operation differs in many ways from the manufacturing strategy development, while the back‐room strategy differs little from the manufacturing strategy model. This article outlines and contrasts the processes for both manufacturing and services, paralleling the models of Wheelwright and Hayes and Hill. The observed process differences have major implications for both teaching and research in service operations. The new and interesting issues are predominantly interfunctional and, given the intellectual backgrounds of the various functional areas, interdisciplinary.

The existence of product life cycles is a well‐known concept. In certain industries, however, there is evidence to suggest that these product life cycles do not fully capture the dynamics occurring at an individual component level. Moreover, the authors have observed through discussions with suppliers and purchasing managers in high‐tech industries that a series of smaller life cycles exist within the total product life cycle; these smaller cycles are called “component life cycles.” The implications for supply chain management in dealing with these component life cycles in terms of “best practices” are presented to provide a contingency planning framework for materials managers.