IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v28y2000i6p693-710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-offs among the elements of flexibility: a comparison from the automotive industry

Author

Listed:
  • Koste, Lori L.
  • Malhotra, Manoj K.

Abstract

Flexibility has long been recognized as a manufacturing capability that has the potential to impact the competitive position and the business performance of an organization ([1]: Cox Jr, T. Toward the measurement of manufacturing flexibility. Production and Inventory Management Journal 1989; First Quarter:68-72, [2]: De Meyer A, Nakane J, Miller JG, Ferdows K. Flexibility: the next competitive battle. Strategic Management Journal 1989;10:135-144). This recognition, however, has not led to a unanimous approach to flexibility. For example, Japanese manufacturers emphasize flexibility more than North American or European manufacturers ( [2]: De Meyer A, Nakane J, Miller JG, Ferdows K. Flexibility: the next competitive battle. Strategic Management Journal 1989;10:135-144). While this finding provides insight into the strategic choices made by these organizations in these countries, it does not provide an in-depth comparison of specific aspects of flexibility that are leveraged and emphasized differently. Such a comparison is necessary, however, if flexibility is to be more fully understood. This paper takes a step in that direction by first breaking down the concept of flexibility into its constituent elements and dimensions. Then we introduce the notion of looking at flexibility as a capability that must be planned for and built by a firm over a period of time along these constituent elements and dimensions. Questions are subsequently raised regarding whether trade-offs occur among different elements for a given flexibility dimension. We use industry wide as well as firm-specific qualitative data from the automotive industry to answer these questions, and show that several key aspects of manufacturing flexibility have been acquired and leveraged differently by American and Japanese producers. While linkages to business performance are not directly explored, our analysis reveals that even within the same industry, firms from different countries do indeed follow different strategies to developing their flexibility capability. Implications of these results for managerial practice, along with avenues for further research in this area, are also presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Koste, Lori L. & Malhotra, Manoj K., 2000. "Trade-offs among the elements of flexibility: a comparison from the automotive industry," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 693-710, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:6:p:693-710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(00)00027-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    2. Boyer, Kenneth K. & Leong, G. Keong, 1996. "Manufacturing flexibility at the plant level," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 495-510, October.
    3. Dertouzos, James & Corporation, Rand, 1988. "Commercial media in Australia: Economics, ownership, technology and regulation : by Allan Brown (University of Queensland Press, New York) 1986, 210 pages," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 266-268.
    4. Donald Gerwin, 1993. "Manufacturing Flexibility: A Strategic Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 395-410, April.
    5. John Paul MacDuffie & Kannan Sethuraman & Marshall L. Fisher, 1996. "Product Variety and Manufacturing Performance: Evidence from the International Automotive Assembly Plant Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 350-369, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Reay-Chen & Chuu, Shian-Jong, 2004. "Group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a manufacturing system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(3), pages 563-572, May.
    2. Chang, An-Yuan, 2007. "On the measurement of routing flexibility: A multiple attribute approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(1-2), pages 122-136, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chandra, Charu & Everson, Mark & Grabis, Janis, 2005. "Evaluation of enterprise-level benefits of manufacturing flexibility," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 17-31, February.
    2. Hallgren, Mattias & Olhager, Jan, 2009. "Flexibility configurations: Empirical analysis of volume and product mix flexibility," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 746-756, August.
    3. Rachna Shah & George P. Ball & Serguei Netessine, 2017. "Plant Operations and Product Recalls in the Automotive Industry: An Empirical Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(8), pages 2439-2459, August.
    4. Seebacher, Gottfried & Winkler, Herwig, 2014. "Evaluating flexibility in discrete manufacturing based on performance and efficiency," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 340-351.
    5. Jörg Claussen & Christian Essling & Christian Peukert, 2018. "Demand variation, strategic flexibility and market entry: Evidence from the U.S. airline industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(11), pages 2877-2898, November.
    6. Uras, R.B. & Wang, P., 2014. "Techniques Choice, Misallocation and Total Factor Productivity," Other publications TiSEM 5a3d8436-c929-49f3-a990-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Young Won Park & Junjiro Shintaku, 2022. "Sustainable Human–Machine Collaborations in Digital Transformation Technologies Adoption: A Comparative Case Study of Japan and Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    8. P. Kannan & J. Sathya II, 2010. "Feasibility Study of Agile Manufacturing in Automobile Industry," Journal of Commerce and Trade, Society for Advanced Management Studies, vol. 5(2), pages 20-26, October.
    9. Braglia, Marcello & Petroni, Alberto, 2000. "Towards a taxonomy of search patterns of manufacturing flexibility in small and medium-sized firms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 195-213, April.
    10. John G. Wacker & Danny Samson, 2021. "Beyond supply chain management: jointly optimising operations/ supply and the marketing mix," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 451-466, December.
    11. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    12. Francas, David & Kremer, Mirko & Minner, Stefan & Friese, Markus, 2009. "Strategic process flexibility under lifecycle demand," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 427-440, October.
    13. Nahm, Abraham Y. & Vonderembse, Mark A. & Subba Rao, S. & Ragu-Nathan, T.S., 2006. "Time-based manufacturing improves business performance--results from a survey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 213-229, June.
    14. Burak R. Uras & Ping Wang, 2017. "Production Flexibility, Misallocation and Total Factor Productivity," NBER Working Papers 23970, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Gong, Zhejun & Hu, Sun, 2008. "An economic evaluation model of product mix flexibility," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 852-864, October.
    16. Aoki, Katsuki & Staeblein, Thomas, 2018. "Monozukuri capability and dynamic product variety: An analysis of the design-manufacturing interface at Japanese and German automakers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 70, pages 33-45.
    17. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    18. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    19. Knoppen, Desirée & Sáenz, María Jesús, 2017. "Interorganizational teams in low-versus high-dependence contexts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 15-25.
    20. Dirk Crass & Franz Schwiebacher, 2017. "The importance of trademark protection for product differentiation and innovation," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 44(2), pages 199-220, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:6:p:693-710. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.