Measuring dimensions of manufacturing flexibility

Abstract

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.

The relationship between exploration and exploitation strategies, manufacturing flexibility and organizational learning: An empirical comparison between Non-ISO and ISO certified firms

“…Like many authors who have written on the topic, Sethi and Sethi (1990) suggest measuring this term by establishing a classification of the different dimensions of flexibility that can be developed in the organization. Some authors argue for using the dimensions of manufacturing flexibility to facilitate study (Gerwin, 2005 andKoste et al, 2004). These differences prevent the establishment of a fixed model of measurement.…”

“…modification in the sequence of production tasks, the possibility of manipulating the raw materials, and changing the specific production machinery. D' Souza and Williams (2000) and Koste et al (2004) in turn show us the importance and relevance that these dimensions can have for the firm's adaptation to its competitive environment.…”

“…One of the firm's options for adapting and improving the production process is to search for knowledge, whether through entrepreneurial innovation or through the reorientation of its own abilities. In other words, establishing new production routing in the firm, whether by re-establishing some parts of the firm or by implementing a new process, enables the firm to change production routing, facilitating the firm's strategic behaviour (Koste et al, 2004). According to the foregoing, we formulate the following hypothesis:…”

“…If we examine the practices that justify the relationship between dimensions of manufacturing flexibility and exploration and exploitation strategies, we find a direct correspondence between them and the improved practices in the 2000 version of ISO. This is the case for improved process management in ISO 2000 and improved production processes, which are proposed by Koste et al (2004) to justify the relationship between machine flexibility and exploration and exploitation strategies. The same occurs for the dimension of routing flexibility with human resource management and employee involvement, using employees' knowledge and empowering employees (Corso andPellegrini, 2007 andDixon et al, 2007); as well, material handling flexibility is related to continuous improvement and finding new alternatives to produce (March, 1991) or eliminating redundancies (Levinthal & March, 1993).…”

Should we try out for the major leagues? A call for research in sport operations management

“…In the calculation, more weighting was put on rater differences between a red and a green code than on a difference between a yellow and red or green code. The inter-rater agreement index can range between 0 and 1, with 1 representing perfect agreement (Koste et al 2004). …”