Exploratory case studies on manufacturing agility in the furniture industry

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the agility of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) in furniture enterprises, and explores the appropriateness of a typology framework that correlates the technology infrastructure of the enterprise with its manufacturing strategy.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses a clear and rigorous case study design and protocol. Empirical data are collected using structured surveys of two strategically selected furniture enterprises. The collected data are used to analyze the fit between the technology infrastructure of the enterprise and its strategic goals, and how this fit correlates with the theoretical categories stated by the typology.FindingsThe case studies suggest that enterprise performance could be maximized if the competitive priorities and the customization strategy put in practice are in conformity with the available technology.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings of the case studies corroborate the all inclusive hypothesis suggested by the typology. The lack of triangulation of multiple data sources for more confidence about the results or the typology framework itself remains a limitation in this study. The two cases were representative to a certain extent of two out of the three theoretical ideal types stated by the typology.Practical implicationsThe explored typology can serve as a supporting tool for managers when making strategic investment decisions in their pursuit of a mass customization strategy within a specific market.Originality/valueThe originality comes from the way the properties that should be displayed by the technologies used in furniture manufacturing enterprises to develop agility are drawn together.

Challenges and Opportunities for North American Hardwood Manufacturers to Adopt Customization Strategies in an Era of Increased Competition

“…Similarly, Dugan [12] has called for several "new rules" for the U.S. furniture industry, including agility, niche marketing, supply chain development, and lean production. Azouzi et al [13] claim that competitive priorities for the furniture enterprise of the future are short lead times, high product quality, product variety and innovativeness, and a focus on profit margin. A key component of a paradigm shift is the desire of consumers for customized products [14].…”

“…Mass customization has been defined as production of individually customized products using flexible and responsive manufacturing systems at a cost and speed near that of mass-produced items [8,13]. The potential advantage lies in realizing price premiums for products customized to customers' specific demands, while at the same time maintaining the cost associated with large-scale production [9].…”

“…Agility has been said to be enabled by the introduction of new technology, which is driven by market interaction and product design [13,20]. To these authors, a given process best contributes to the agility of a manufacturing enterprise when it possesses several capabilities, including flexibility, responsiveness, and autonomy.…”

“…A note should be made on the distinction between flexibility and agility, even though these terms often are used interchangeably in the literature to refer to responsiveness to changes in the business environment. For example, Azouzi et al [13] claim that flexibility is a subset of agility, referring specifically to the ability for a process to outlive the products for which it was originally built. Regardless of the definitional refinement, agility and flexibility are important in light of an increasingly global and customized economy, and the plurality of research on flexibility has focused on its relationship to environmental uncertainty [16].…”

The Strategic Relevance of Technology-Related Variables to the Competitiveness of Small - To Medium-Sized Furniture Manufacturers

“…Table 1 illustrates the three phases and various components of the framework, as well as the relevant authors whose research contributed to its development. Main authors [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] …”