The labor–machine dyad and its influence on mix flexibility

Abstract

The joint, mediating, and interactive effects of three elements of labor and machine flexibility on mix flexibility were tested empirically in a PCB assembly plant. Both subjective and objective data were collected. Some elements of labor and machine flexibility mediated the relationship between an emphasis on competitive priorities and mix flexibility. The interactive effects of machine and labor flexibility on mix flexibility confirmed prior findings that the pursuit of total flexibility is not desirable. For low levels of labor flexibility, increasing machine flexibility yields at the most a very moderate improvement in mix flexibility. When labor flexibility is high, increasing machine flexibility proves to be counter-productive. These results may suggest that the traditional forms of labor flexibility need to evolve when technological capabilities are more fully exploited. #

Effects of simplicity and discipline on operational flexibility: An empirical reexamination of the rigid flexibility model

“…Mendelson and Pillai (1999) found a steady decrease (average 9.4% per year) in the duration of product life cycles in several industry segments over the period from 1988 to 1995. Similar trends appear to affect requirements in product mix (Kekre and Srinivasan, 1990; Karuppan and Ganster, 2004), and demand volume (Suarez et al, 1996; Jack and Raturi, 2002).…”

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

“…All variables have been considered as reflective variables as related literature has treated them (see Karuppan andGanster, 2004 andChang et al, 2006 for manufacturing flexibility, Yalcinkaya et al, 2007 andPatel et al, 2012 for exploration and exploitation strategies, or Ruiz, Molina, and Lloréns (2009) for organizational learning).…”

Implementing labor flexibility: A missing link between acquired labor flexibility and plant performance

“…Outside the simulated experiments and anecdotes, systematic empirical examination of the association between labor flexibility and firm performance seems to be scarce (Beltran‐Martin et al, 2008; Bhattacharya et al, 2005; Karuppan and Ganster, 2004) and provide inconsistent results (Arvanitis, 2005). Some studies have found supporting evidence (Beltran‐Martin et al, 2008; Black and Lynch, 2000; Youndt et al, 1996) and others have found evidence negating the association between labor flexibility and plant performance (Godard, 2004; Schultz et al, 2003; Valverde et al, 2000), thus rendering the topic open for further inquiry.…”

“…For example, strategy theorists have examined it in the context of resource based theory, human resource theorists have examined it as numerical versus functional flexibility, economists have examined it in the context of labor market analysis, and operations management researchers have examined it from the process design perspective. Despite its conceptual attractiveness, the empirical research is sparse (Aksin and Karaesmen, 2007; Bhattacharya et al, 2005; Karuppan and Ganster, 2004; Upton, 1995) and the results are conflicting (Arvanitis, 2005; Schultz et al, 2003; Pinker and Shumsky, 2000). These inconsistent results suggest that acquiring labor flexibility does not automatically translate to better plant performance, an observation also made by Upton (1995) in a case study of the paper industry.…”