Manufacturing Strategy on the “S” Curve

Abstract

The concept and techniques of “manufacturing strategy” offer managers the opportunity to use their production function as a strategic weapon in competition, an apparently attractive objective. Yet after about 25 years, the use of manufacturing in corporate strategy (MCS) as a management practice is not widespread. In contrast, however, in academic literature it appears to be flourishing and rapidly growing in popularity. This paper seeks to answer this apparent paradox, beginning with the history of MCS as it was developed as a theory of design to enable a manufacturing system to be focused on a key competitive task. Common criticisms of MCS, such as “tradeoffs,” “focus” and “undynamic,” are examined and refuted as valid reasons for its only modest usage. Instead, three “new” problems in the MCS concept and its techniques are suggested as genuine needs for the completion of the theory and for its becoming more universally understood and used by industrial managers.

Zero-sum and frontier trade-offs: an investigation on compromises and compatibilities amongst manufacturing capabilities

“…On the other hand, the frontier type of trade-off is characterised by a differential in performance between two capabilities after some level of compatibility is achieved, something that is consistent with the concepts and ideas advanced by various authors (e.g. ; Skinner, 1992Skinner, , 1996Schmenner and Swink,1998). It is noted that frontier trade-offs are difficult (if not impossible) to identify with probabilistic and overall associative approaches to the analysis of a F o r P e e r R e v i e w O n l y 2 sample of subjects (e.g.…”

“…; level "4"). This differential in achievement clearly would be in accord with the definition of trade-offs advanced by Skinner (1992Skinner ( , 1996. The problem, nevertheless, resides in the fact that an overall methodology such as linear regression/correlation analysis would "mask" or "hide" the (frontier) trade-off caused by the asset frontier and that is expected to take place at the higher levels of performance.…”

“…The type of compromised relationship described in those studies is consistent with the zero-sum trade-off introduced in section 1. New, 1992;Skinner, 1992Skinner, , 1996Schmenner and Swink, 1998;Porter, 1996) have suggested that while there may be instances in which different criteria can observe mutual improvements and parallel trajectories along their development, strategic trade-offs and compromises are still existent, relevant, and should not be overlooked.…”

“…The scale includes varying levels of performance: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. In order to maintain consistency with Skinner (1996), a "5" represents an "outstanding enough to create competitive advantage" level of performance, while the rest of the scales represent lesser levels of achievement. (e.g.…”

“…Also, when authors have acknowledged and/or provided evidence that some trade-offs can be improved but not eliminated (e.g. ; New, 1992;Skinner, 1992Skinner, , 1996da Silveira and Slack, 2001), they have arguably made an implicit reference to a frontier trade-off that governs the relationships between different criteria. The potential presence of frontier trade-offs implies a change in the way compromises and compatibilities amongst manufacturing capabilities are understood.…”