Managing for flexibility: a manufacturing perspective
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Pages | 246-252 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/02635579810236715 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Author | Ravi Kathuria |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
[ 246 ]
Industrial Management &
Data Systems
98/6 [1998] 246–252
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0263-5577]
Managing for flexibility: a manufacturing perspective
Ravi Kathuria
Saint Joseph’s University, Haub School of Business, Department of
Management, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
This paper investigates man-
agerial practices that are
conducive to the management
of flexibility. Using data from
manufacturing plants in the
USA, this paper identifies
managerial practices that
manufacturing managers
strongly demonstrate in
plants that place a high
emphasis on flexibility. The
results indicate that man-
agers who pursue flexibility,
emphatically engage in team
building, employee empower-
ment, and other relationship
oriented practices that gener-
ate enthusiasm among
employees. These practices
seemingly motivate workers
to deal with the uncertainty
and changes, in the form of
product mix, customer deliv-
ery schedule, capacity adjust-
ments, etc., that characterize
manufacturing flexibility.
Furthermore, workers are
entrusted with the traditional
responsibilities of manufac-
turing managers, such as
monitoring and problem
solving.
Introduction
Manufacturing flexibility can be a critical
source of competitive advantage, yet it is one
of the most difficult goals to achieve (Gupta
and Somers, 1996; Upton, 1994). Gustavsson
(1988) recognized the difficulty in achieving
manufacturing flexibility early on and sug-
gested that it should not be treated as a com-
modity that could be bought off-the-shelf and
put directly to use; it should rather be planned
and managed carefully. Realizing the impor-
tance of management of flexibility, companies
are becoming increasingly anxious to build
supporting infrastructure at the plant level
that would help them accomplish flexibility
(Upton, 1995). Manufacturing flexibility may
manifest in the ability of a manufacturing
plant to introduce new designs or new prod-
ucts into production quickly, adjust capacity
rapidly, customize products, handle changes
in the product mix quickly, and handle varia-
tions in customer delivery schedule (Boyer et
al., 1997; Nemetz, 1990; Suarez et al., 1996;
Woodet al., 1990).
The difficulty in accomplishing flexibility
may, in part, be due to a lack of “applied focus”
on the managerial aspects of flexibility (Ger-
win, 1993). Despite the shifting emphasis of
competition toward flexibility (Beckman,
1990; Ferdows and De Meyer, 1990), there are
hardly any guidelines as to what kind of infra-
structure facilitates the management of flexi-
bility. Lack of research on the administrative
aspects of flexibility leads us to the following
question: should manufacturing managers
still manage work as they did when the manu-
facturing priorities were to improve labor
productivity and to run plant at peak effi-
ciency? Or should they be more flexible in
their approach as companies increasingly
emphasize manufacturing flexibility? This
paper attempts to answer the above question
by investigating managerial practices that
manufacturing managers strongly demon-
strate in the wake of a high emphasis on flexi-
bility.
Background and the research
question
Manufacturing flexibility has long been rec-
ognized as a competitive priority (Fine and
Hax, 1985; Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984; Skin-
ner, 1978, 1985). Despite an upsurge in the
research focusing on flexibility (see Gupta
and Somers, 1996; and Suarez et al., 1996 for
recent literature reviews), few studies have
investigated specific managerial practices
that could facilitate accomplishment of the so-
called “difficult” goal of achieving flexibility
at the plant level. Some studies do address
issues such as worker training and delega-
tion. For example, Fisheret al. (1994) observe
the reason why organizations fail to achieve
flexibility is not because they do not have the
right technology but because they either fail
to impart worker training or do not under-
stand its importance. Gupta and Somers (1996)
reached the same conclusion in that the best
way to increase flexibility is to invest in
worker training in addition to technology and
organizational systems.
In a study of 31 plants in the printed circuit
board industry, Suarezet al. (1996) confir med
the need for better and broader skills for
achieving “mix” flexibility. They found that
increasing workers’ authority and coordina-
tion would help increase flexibility in the
form of “mix”, “new-product”, and “volume”
flexibility. Elango and Meinhart (1994), and
Levary (1992) argued to promote team work
for manufacturing organizations vying to be
flexible. Walton and Susman (1987) noted that
employees made decisions after consultation
with one another in the plants that imple-
mented advanced manufacturing technolo-
gies (AMTs). Levary (1992) also observed that
manufacturing workers who try to be respon-
sive to changes (emphasizing flexibility), are
increasingly involved in the decision-making
process.
Upton (1995), in a study involving 52
uncoated paper plants, observed that work-
force management was a strong determinant
of flexibility. Examining the impact of man-
agement on achieving flexibility, Upton
observed: “One clear conclusion ... is that
managerial emphasis on a number of factors is
strongly related to flexibility. This implies that
the capabilities necessary for competitive
performance can wither or never be built
through not recognizing and underlining
their importance. However, the
capabilities that support flexibility can also
To continue reading
Request your trial