IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iso/wpaper/0110.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Aligning manufacturing strategy content with heterogeneous requirements

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Deflorin

    (Institute for Strategy and Business Economics, University of Zurich)

  • Maike Scherrer-Rathje

    (Institute for Technology Management, University of St. Gallen)

Abstract

This article expands the existing body of knowledge of manufacturing strategy research as it highlights the influence of context factors on manufacturing strategy content. A sound theoretical foundation is given for the proposition that context factors not only influence competitive priorities but as well the second dimension, the action programs. Whereas various studies showed that companies are in need to compete on multiple competitive priorities simultaneously, research is needed in order to understand how these requirements can be successfully implemented. We find that while the competition on multiple competitive priorities can lead to trade-offs, concerted actions help to minimize the negative effects and can lead to a strong market position. However, the concerted actions have to be aligned to context factors as this influence the success of the action program. Therefore, context factors not only influence the requirement to compete on multiple competitive priorities but define as well which actions are needed in order to gain a strong market position.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Deflorin & Maike Scherrer-Rathje, 2009. "Aligning manufacturing strategy content with heterogeneous requirements," Working Papers 0110, University of Zurich, Institute for Strategy and Business Economics (ISU).
    • Handle: RePEc:iso:wpaper:0110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.business.uzh.ch/RePEc/iso/ISU_WPS/110_ISU_full.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kendall Roth & Allen J Morrison, 1992. "Implementing Global Strategy: Characteristics of Global Subsidiary Mandates," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 23(4), pages 715-735, December.
    2. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    3. Bonney, M. C. & Zhang, Zongmao & Head, M. A. & Tien, C. C. & Barson, R. J., 1999. "Are push and pull systems really so different?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1-3), pages 53-64, March.
    4. Donald Gerwin, 1993. "Manufacturing Flexibility: A Strategic Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 395-410, April.
    5. Roth, Aleda V. & Miller, Jeffrey G., 1992. "Success factors in manufacturing," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 73-81.
    6. Schroeder, Roger G. & Pesch, Michael J., 1994. "Focusing the factory: Eight lessons," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 76-81.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Patricia Deflorin & Peter T. Ward, 2009. "Developing and Sustaining Capabilities – A Look into the Black Box," Working Papers 0109, University of Zurich, Institute for Strategy and Business Economics (ISU).
    2. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    3. Muhammad Shahid Qureshi & Saadat Saeed & Syed Waleed Mehmood Wasti, 2016. "The impact of various entrepreneurial interventions during the business plan competition on the entrepreneur identity aspirations of participants," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    5. Mammassis, Constantinos S. & Kostopoulos, Konstantinos C., 2019. "CEO goal orientations, environmental dynamism and organizational ambidexterity: An investigation in SMEs," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 577-588.
    6. Majcen, Boris & Radosevic, Slavo & Rojec, Matija, 2009. "Nature and determinants of productivity growth of foreign subsidiaries in Central and East European countries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 168-184, June.
    7. Pino G. Audia & Jack A. Goncalo, 2007. "Past Success and Creativity over Time: A Study of Inventors in the Hard Disk Drive Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Malen, Joel, 2015. "Motivating And Enabling Firm Innovation Effort: Integrating Penrosian And Behavioral Theory Perspectives On Slack Resources," Hitotsubashi Journal of commerce and management, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 49(1), pages 37-54, October.
    9. Yang, L. & Ng, C.T. & Cheng, T.C.E., 2011. "Optimal production strategy under demand fluctuations: Technology versus capacity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(2), pages 393-402, October.
    10. Astrid Jung, 2001. "Are Product Innovation and Flexible Technology Complements?," CIG Working Papers FS IV 01-07, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG), revised Feb 2003.
    11. Huigang Liang & Nianxin Wang & Yajiong Xue & Shilun Ge, 2017. "Unraveling the Alignment Paradox: How Does Business—IT Alignment Shape Organizational Agility?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 863-879, December.
    12. Gayoung Kim & Woo Jin Lee, 2021. "The Venture Firm’s Ambidexterity: Do Transformational Leaders Boost Organizational Learning for Venture Growth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Enrico Teich & Thorsten Claus, 2017. "Measurement of Load and Capacity Flexibility in Manufacturing," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 18(4), pages 291-302, December.
    14. M. M. Sulphey, 2019. "Could the Adoption of Organizational Ambidexterity Have Changed the History of Nokia?," South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, , vol. 8(2), pages 167-181, August.
    15. Aleksandras Vytautas Rutkauskas & Aleksandr Ostapenko, 2016. "Return, reliability and risk as a proactive set of concepts in developing an efficient integration strategy of companies," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 201-214, April.
    16. Ulusoy, Gunduz, 2003. "An assessment of supply chain and innovation management practices in the manufacturing industries in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 251-270, December.
    17. Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto & Esposito, Emilio & Shashi,, 2019. "Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 172-194.
    18. Flemming Sørensen & Jan Mattsson, 2016. "Speeding Up Innovation: Building Network Structures For Parallel Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-30, February.
    19. Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz & J. Alberto Aragon-Correa & Andrew G. Earle, 2022. "Innovating for Good in Opportunistic Contexts: The Case for Firms’ Environmental Divergence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 705-721, April.
    20. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 303-314.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Manufacturing Strategy; Practices; Context;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iso:wpaper:0110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isuzhch.html .

    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: IBW IT (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isuzhch.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.