review of empirical manufacturing strategy studies

7/27/2019 Review of Empirical Manufacturing Strategy Studies

1/21

Empirical

ManufacturingStrategy Studies

5

A Review of EmpiricalManufacturing StrategyStudies

Elliott D. Minor III, Rhonda L. Hensley andD. Robley Wood Jr

School of Business, V ir ginia Commonwealth Universit y, Richmond,

V irginia, USA

Introduction

There has been a growing interest in manufacturing strategy over the years.Although most articles on the topic have been conceptual in nature, thenumber of empirical studies has grown as well. Empirical studies are definedhere as those involving the gathering and analysis of data, and subsequentreporting of findings and conclusions. Adam and Swamidass[1] and othershave noted the critical importance of empirical research to the continuingdevelopment of the discipline.

It is therefore important to examine periodically the state of empiricalmanufacturing strategy research, both to assess the progress to date, and tolook towards the future. Others including Adam and Swamidass[1] andAnderson et al.[2] have presented reviews of the discipline in general. Thisstudy is focused exclusively on empir icalmanufacturing strategy researchwhich has not been the primary emphasis of the previously cited reviews.

In this article, a framework is presented for the classification andcomparison of empirical manufacturing strategy research. This framework isthen used to categorize and compare the empirical manufacturing strategystudies. Suggestions for future research efforts are also presented.

Selection of Empirical StudiesTwenty-seven empirical studies were identified, all of which are published inrefereed journals. They are published in a broad range of journals althoughthe majority (16 out of 27) appear in operations and production management

journals. Four appear in general business or strategy journals. Thedistribution of articles among journals is presented in Table I.

The studies in Table I address process or content issues, or both. Process isbroadly defined as the pattern in which manufacturing strategies aredeveloped. Content issues include product cost, quality, flexibility, and otherissues that are relevant to the manufacturing task. Content-related studies

International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 14

No. 1, 1994, pp. 5-25. MCBUniversity Press, 0144-3577

Received September 1992Revised February 1993

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the lead authors, both for participating inthe classification process, and for bringing other studies to our attention.


2/21

IJOPM

14,1

6

were included if they addressed the relationships among content issues, ortheir relationship to corporate and business performance. For a discussion ofmanufacturing strategy process and content issues, see Ward et al.[3].

Inclusion of empirical studies in our classification framework is limited tothose that have been published in refereed journals. Each has, therefore, beenthrough a rigorous peer-review process. Although there are other importantoutlets for empirical studies, the results of most studies either have been oreventually will be included in the refereed literature. A brief review ofempirical studies which have not been published in refereed journals isincluded later in this article as a service to researchers.

A Framework for Empirical Manufacturing Strategy ResearchFrameworks for the comparison of empirical research have appearedfrequently in the business strategy literature. They have proved to be avaluable means of comparing a large number of studies that are focused on acommon topic. For example, Armstrong[4] classified studies which addressedthe value of formal planning processes according to treatment, conditions,

and results. Armstrong solicited the assistance of the authors of each study aspart of the classification process. Robinson and Pearce[5] reviewed the smallfirm strategic planning literature. Studies were classified according to samplesize, type of business, study focus, methodology, and findings. Pearceet al.[6]reviewed 18 empirical studies which examined the relationship betweenformal planning and financial performance. Studies were first categorized

Name of journal Number of articles

Production journals:International Journal of Operati ons & Production M anagement 6Journal of Operati ons Management 6International Journal of Production Research 4

Management science journals:Interfaces 3Decision Sciences 1Management Science 1OMEGA 1International Journal of Technology Management 1

General business or strategy journals:Strategic Management Journal 1Califor nia Management Review 1Management Internati onal Review 1European Management Journal 1

Table I.Journals in whichEmpirical ArticlesAppeared


3/21

Empirical


7

according to planning formality, source of data, results, contribution, and

other factors.After reviewing the frameworks used in the classification and comparison

of business strategy literature, a framework was developed for empiricalmanufacturing strategy studies. In developing the framework, two criteriawere given priority. First, the framework had to facilitate comparison ofmethodological details such as sample size, data collection method, and typeof industry. Second, it should allow for accurate assessment of predominanttrends, results, and contributions of the studies.

Three categories were then selected which were study design, method andfocus, and results and contributions. Study design describes themethodological details and includes the type of industry, sample size, datacollection method, and whether the study was cross-sectional or longitudinal.Study method identifies whether the study variables were content or processrelated, and whether the analysis was quantitative or qualitative. Theprinciple focus of the study is also described. Finally, the results and thecontribution of the study to the manufacturing strategy literature aresummarized.

T he Classif ication Process

Methodological details such as the type of industry and sample size arereported in most studies, and are therefore easily gathered. The contributionof a study and, to a lesser extent, its most important results and conclusionsare, to some degree, subjective. We therefore asked for the assistance of thelead author of each study in classifying their work.

We first independently classified each study and, after a period of

discussion, arrived at a consensus classification according to the criteriadescribed above.For each study, a copy of the preliminary classification was then sent to the

lead author for comment and review. Classifications of two other studies anda complete bibliography were also included so the lead author would have aframe of reference. The lead author was requested to review the bibliographyto ensure that no published empirical studies in the field of manufacturingstrategy were omitted.

Upon return, the classifications were re-examined and amended, ifnecessary, in accordance with the suggestions of the lead author. The revisedclassifications were then returned to the authors for final review. We arehappy to report that all lead authors co-operated with us in the classificationeffort.

DiscussionThe result of our classification efforts are presented in Tables II, III, and IV.First, we address methodological issues, and then several of the importantpremisses and theories which have been espoused in the literature. Theimportant premisses upon which manufacturing strategy is based have been


4/21

IJOPM

14,1

8

Cross-sectional/

Manufacturing/

Sample

Sample

Datacollection

Investigators

longitudinal(CS/L)

service(

M/S)

size

industry

methoda

Andersone

ta

l.1

991[7]

CS

M

53

Crossindustry

Q

Clevelande

ta

l.1

989[8]

CS

M

6

Crossindustry

I

DeMeyerandFe

rdows1987[9]

CS

M

163

Crossindustry

MFSP(1985)

DeMeyere

ta

l.1989[10]

CS

M

674

Crossindustry

MFSP(1986)

DeMeyerandFe

rdows1991[11]

CS

M

224

Crossindustry

MFSP(1990)

DeMeyerandFe

rdows1991[12]

CS

M

187

Crossindustry

MFSP(1988)

Ferdowse

ta

l.198

6[13]

CS/L

M

510

Crossindustry

MFSP(1983,1984,1985)

FerdowsandLindberg1987[14]

CS

M

163

Crossindustry

MFSP(1985)

FerdowsandDeMeyer1990[15]

CS

M

167

Crossindustry

MFSP(1988)

FineandHax1985[16]

CS

M

1

Electricalsupply

FS

Galbraith1990[17]

L

M

32

Crossindustry

I

HayesandClark

1985[18]

L

M

12

Crossindustry

FS

Hrtee

ta

l.1

987[

19]

CS

M

125

Swedishengineer

ingindustry

Q

Hrtee

ta

l.1

991[

20]

CS/L

M

66

Crossindustry

Q

Lindberge

ta

l.19

88[21]

CS

M

1

Manufacturing

I

Lindberg1990[22

]

CS/L

M

125

Crossindustry

Q

LindbergandTrygg1991[23]

CS

M

126

Crossindustry

Q

Maruchecke

tal.1990[24]

CS

M

6

Crossindustry

FS

ReitspergerandDaniel1990[25]

CS

M

446

US/Japaneseprecision

Q

Electronics

Richardsone

tal.1985[26]

CS

M

64

Electronics

Q

Schmenner1982[27]

CS

M

300

Crossindustry

Q,I

Schroedere

ta

l.1

986[28]

CS

M

39

Crossindustry

Q

Schroedere

ta

l.1

989[29]

CS

M

65

Crossindustry

I

Swamidass1986

[30]

CS

M

35

Machineryandm

achinetools

I,M

SwamidassandNewell1987[31]

CS

M

35

Machineryandm

achinetools

I,M

Tunlv1990[32]

CS

M

125

Swedishengineer

ingindustry

Q

UtterbackandAbernathy1975[33]CS

M

120

Crossindustry

Q

aDatacollectionmethod:Q=Questionnaire;I=Interviews;

FS=Fieldstudy;MFSP=Manufacturing

FuturesSurveyProjectdata(projectyear(s)

isalsoshown)

Table II.Study Design


5/21

Empirical


9

Qualitative/

Content/

quantitative

process

Investigators

(Qual/Quant)

(C/P)

Focusofstudy

Andersone

tal.1991[7]

Quant

P

Manufacturingstrategyprocessand

itsrelationshiptobusinessstrategyprocess

Clevelande

tal.1989[8]

Quant

C/P

Productioncompetenceanditsrelationshiptostrategy,process,andperforman

ce

DeMeyerandF

erdows1987[9]

Quant

C

Dimensions(factors)thatdefineand

categorizestrategiesformanufacturing

DeMeyere

tal.1989[10]

Quant

C

Manufacturingstrategyconcern

samongEuropean,Japanese,andU

S

manufacturers

DeMeyerandF

erdows1991[11]

Quant

C

ThestateofEuropeanmanufacturin

gontheeveofEurope1992andtheopening

ofEastEuropean

markets

DeMeyerandF

erdows1991[12]

Quant

C

Thecurrentstateofmanufacturings

trategyamongEuropeanmanufacturers

Ferdowse

ta

l.1

986[13]

Quant

C

AssessmentandcomparisonofstrategicprioritiesamongEuropean,Japanese,

andUS.manufacturers


Quant

C

Comparisonofflexiblemanufacturingsystems(FMS)firmstonon-FMSfirm

s,

andthebroaderimpactofFMSonst

rategiesformanufacturing

FerdowsandDeMeyer1990[15]

Quant

C

Thenatureoftrade-offsamongquality,dependability,flexibility,andcost-related

manufacturingcapabilities

FineandHax1

985[16]

Qual

C/P

Co-ordinationofmanufacturingst

rategywithfunctionalandbusiness-lev

el

strategies

Galbraith1990[17]

Quant

C

Roleofintra-firmtechnologytransfersinattainmentofflexibilityandplantfocus

HayesandClark1985[18]

Quant

C

Factorsthataffectproductivityatthefactorylevel

Hrtee

ta

l.1

987[19]

Quant

C

Examinationofcompetitivepriorit

ies,programmesandconcernsofSwedish

manufacturers

Hrtee

ta

l.199

1[20]

Quant

C

Assessmentofstrategicdirections,competitivemeans,concerns,andfutu

re

plansamongSwedishmanufacturer

s

Lindberge

tal.1

988[21]

Qual

C

Effectsofvendordeliveryperforman

ceonmanufacturingflexibility

Table III.Study Method and

Focus


6/21

IJOPM

14,1

10

Table III.(Continued)

Qualitative/

Content/

quantitative

process

Investigators

(Qual/Quant)

(C/P)

Focusofstudy

Lindberg1990[

22]

Quant

C

Relationshipofthedegreeofintegrationoftechnology,workorganization,and

Productionand

InventoryControlSystems(PICS)planstothestrateg

ic

capabilitiesofmanufacturing

LindbergandT

rygg1991[23]

Quant

C

Consistencybetweensuppliersmanufacturingstrategiesandperceived

weaknessesinSwedishsupplier-manufacturerrelationships

Maruchecketa

l.1

990[24]

Qual

P

Experiencesoffirmsimplementingm

anufacturingstrategy

Reitspergerand

Daniel1990[25]

Quant

C

Comparisonoftopmanagerialphilosophytowardsmanufacturingstrategy

in

JapaneseandUSfirms

Richardsoneta

l.1

985[26]

Quant

C

Effectsofdegreeofcongruencebetweencorporateandplantmissions,and

degreeofcorporate/plantfocusonco

rporateperformance

Schmenner198

2[27]

Quant

C

Multiple-plantmanufacturingstrategiesamongFor

tune500manufacturers

Schroedere

tal.1986[28]

Quant

C/P

HowMSisdefinedinpractice,iden

tificationofstrategies,andidentification

of

contentelementsofMS

Schroedere

tal.1989[29]

Qual

C

Definition,measurement,andimprov

ementofmanufacturinginnovation

Swamidass198

6[30]

Qual

P

ComparisonofCEOsandmanufactu

ringmanagers(MMs)viewstowardsMS

SwamidassandNewell1987[31]

Qual

C/P

Theeffectoftheindependentvariableenvironmentalcertaintyonintermedia

te

variablesmanufacturingflexibility

andtheroleofmanufacturingmanagers

in

strategicdecisionmaking(RMMSD

M),andtheeffectofallthreevariableson

businessperformance

Tunlv1990[32

]

Quant

P

RelationshipbetweenthedegreeofdecentralizationandMS;howMSvari

es

accordingtothemannerinwhichdecisionsaremade

UtterbackandAbernathy1975[33]

Quant

C

Therelationshipbetweenproducts

trategy,innovation,andproductionproce

ss

development


7/21

Empirical


11

Investigators

Results

Contributionstoresearch

Andersone

tal.1991[7]

Businessstrategyisbetterdocumentedand

Developmen

tofatheoryandframeworkfor

communicatedthanmanufacturingstrategy;

manufacturingstrategyprocessresearch;identificatio

n

manufacturingstrateg

yprocesscouldbe

ofstrengths

andweaknessesinmanufacturingstrateg

y

improvedbymoremanufacturinginvolvement

processdevelopment

inthebusinessstrateg

yprocess

Clevelande

tal.1989[8]

Productioncompetenceisameasurable

Developmen

tofandempiricalevidenceforatheoryof

functionofproduction

processinrelationto

productioncompetencethatlinksbusinessstrategy

businessstrategy;performanceispositively

andproductionprocess

relatedtocompetence

DeMeyerandFerdows1987[9]

Eightdimensions,includingflexibility,roleof

Identificatio

nofdimensionsthatdistinguishbetween,

workforce,andquality,appeartocaptureand

andcategor

ize,strategiesformanufacturing

explaindifferencesinmanufacturing

strategies

DeMeyere

ta

l.1989[10]

EuropeanandUSfirm

shavenearlyidentical

Identificatio

nofcompetitiveprioritiesamong

competitivepriorities(

quality,deliveryreliability)

manufacturersworldwide,anddegreeofconsistency

althoughtheUSbetter

alignsitsactionplans

betweenpri

oritiesandmanufacturingactionplans

withpriorities;Japan,havingachievedhigh

quality,focusesoncos

tandflexibility


Europeanmanufacturerseffortsarereflected

Analysisof

currentstateofEuropeanmanufacturing,

inimprovementsinprofits,quality,anddelivery;

evidenceof

manufacturersconcernforintegrationof

integrationofmanufac

turingwithbusinessand

manufactur

ingwithbusinessandenvironment

environmentisgivenh

ighpriority


Productqualityremain

sthecompetitivepriority

Identificatio

nofcompetitiveemphasisofEuropean

ofEuropeanfirmsand

ispositivelyrelatedto

firms;evide

nceofpositiveimpactofquality

improvementsinmanu

facturingperformance;

improvementprogrammes,andinterrelationships

lessemphasisontechn

ologyasacurefor

betweenpro

grammesandperformance

manufacturingproblem

s

Table IV.Study Results and

Contributions


8/21

IJOPM

14,1

12

Investigators

Results

Contributions

toresearch

Ferdowse

ta

l.1986[13]

CompetitiveprioritiesofEuropeanandUS

Identification

ofcompetitiveprioritiesamong

manufacturersareorie

ntedtowardsquality

European,Japanese,andUSmanufacturers;

improvementwhileJap

aneseseeklowercostand

evidencethat

qualityimprovementisthefoundation

moreflexibilitythroug

hprocessimprovements

forlong-term

improvementinflexibilityandcost


FMSfirmsappearmoreattentivetoallaspects

Identification

ofpositiveroleofFMSinencouraging

ofoperationsrelativetonon-FMSfirms;this

developmentofmanufacturingstrategy(MS);

identification

ofmanufacturing

attentionfostersamor

esignificantandstrategic

strategy

roleformanufacturing

inFMSfirmsrelative

tonon-FMSfirms

FerdowsandDe

Meyer1990[15]

Long-termmanufacturingimprovementismost

Development

ofandempiricalevidenceforacumulative

likelyifattentionisdevotedfirsttoquality,and

sandconem

odelthathelpstoredefinethenatureof

thentodependability,speed,andcost,inthat

tradeoffsamo

ngmanufacturingcapabilities

order;thenatureands

everityoftrade-offsvaries

accordingtotheorder

inwhichimprovements

aresought

FineandHax1985[16]

Detailedexaminationo

fcontentelements

Development

offrameworkfordesignofMSandits

relevanttoMS(cost,quality,deliveryand

synthesiswiththeformalcorporatestrategicplanning

flexibility);importance

ofco-ordinationofMS

process

withfunctionalandcorporate-levelstrategies

Galbraith1990[17]

Successofcoremanufacturingtechnology

Identification

ofCMTTasacomponentofMS;roleof

transfers(CMTT)variesaccordingtothe

CMTTinach

ievementofflexibilityandfocus

complexityandstageo

fdevelopmentofthe

technology,anddegreeofpriorexperiencewith

CMTT

HayesandClark

1985[18]

Totalfactorproductivity(TFP)isrelatedpositivelyValidationof

TFPaseffectivemeasureofmanufacturing

toincreasesinquality,andnegativelytoincreases

performancemeasurement

inwork-in-processinventoryandconfusion

(instabilitycausedbymanagerialactions)

Table IV.(Continued)


9/21

Empirical


13

Investigators

Results

Contributions

toresearch

Hrtee

ta

l.1

987

[19]

Respondentspursuea

product-oriented

Identification

ofcompetitivepriorities,concernsand

strategysupportedby

focusonquality,product

programmesforalargesampleofSwedish

performance,anddeliv

eryreliability;

manufacturer

s

relationshipbetweenp

roductstandardization

andproductionprocessappearstobelow

Hrtee

ta

l.1

991

[20]

Respondentsemphasiz

edependabilityand

Identification

ofstrategicdirectionsandcompetitive

flexibilityasmeansof

achievingtheirstrategic

meansofSwe

dishmanufacturers;empiricalevidenceth

at

priority,defenceofcurrentmarketshare;

improvedqu

alityofworkinglifeispositivelyrelated

futureplansfocusone

xpandingworker

todependabilityandflexibility

responsibilityandinvo

lvementimproved

Lindberge

ta

l.1

988[21]

Manufacturingflexibilityissignificantlyaffected

Identification

ofimpactofsuppliersondownstream

bysuppliersdeliveryreliability;suppliers

manufacturin

gflexibility;empiricalevidenceof

performanceisinturn

relatedtoplanning

relationshipo

fplanningandworkforcetomanufacturin

g

inflexibilityandworkforceorganization

flexibility

Lindberg1990[2

2]

Degreeofintegrationoftechnology,work

Recognitiono

finterdependenceamongtechnology,work,

organization,andPICs

plansaffectslevelof

andPICSplans,andrelationshipofplanintegrationto

resultingqualityandw

orkforce-relatedproblems

strategicman

ufacturingcapabilities

(lengthandtimingofp

lansisasurrogatefor

degreeofintegration)

LindbergandTrygg1991[23]

Poormaterialflowand

qualityproblemshinder

Development

ofmanufacturingstrategyframeworkfor

suppliersdeliveryreliability;suppliersstrategiesstudyofsupp

lier-manufacturerrelationships

toimprovedeliveryreliabilityfocusonimproving

materialflowbutlarge

lyignorequality

improvement



10/21

IJOPM

14,1

14

Investigators

Results

Contributions

toresearch

Maruchecke

tal.1990[24]

MSgenerallyfollowsfrom,andisiterativeand

Identification

ofproblemareas,generallyinfrastructura

l,

reactivetobusinessan

dmarketingstrategies;

thatconstrain

implementationofMS;empiricalsupport

corporateculture,typifiedbyobsoletecost

forreactivenatureofMS

accountingprocedures

,appearstobeaserious

impedimenttoimplem

entationofMS

Reitspergerand

Daniel1990[25]

ManagersofbothJapaneseandU.Smanufacturing

EmpiricalvalidationofUSmanagementschanging

shareadynamicevolution(DV)viewtowards

viewstoward

smanufacturing;implicationofprevious

manufacturingcharacterizedbyaphilosophyof

literaturewasthatUSmanagersgenerallyview

continuousimproveme

ntandhighdegreeof

manufacturingasstaticandnon-evolutionary

topmanagementinvolvement

Richardsone

tal.

1985[26]

Degreeofcorporatean

dplantfocus,anddegree

Development

offrameworkforcategorizationofstrategies

ofcorporate/plantmissioncongruenceare

ofmanufacturingfirms

positivelyrelatedtoco

rporateperformance

Schmenner1982

[27]

Identifiesandcharacte

rizesfourdifferent

Identification

ofdistinctmultiple-plantstrategiesand

multiple-plantstrategies(product,marketarea,

theirassociatedcharacteristics

processandgeneralpu

rpose)

Schroedere

tal.

1986[28]

MSfollowsfrom,andisconsistentwithbusiness

OneoftheearlyempiricalstudiesofMS;provides

strategy;manufacturin

gmissionislinkto

evidencethat

MSismoreformallydevelopedthanwas

businessstrategy;consensusamongrespondents

indicatedintheliteratureatthetime

thatmanufacturingstrengthensthebusiness



11/21

Empirical


15

Investigators

Results

Contributions

toresearch

Schroedere

tal.1

989[29]

Factorsimportanttoin

novationandmeasurementDevelopment

ofempirically-based,conceptualframewo

rk

ofinnovationincludee

stablishmentofgoals,typeforexaminationofinnovationanditseffecton

oforganizationalstruc

ture,corporateculture,

manufacturin

gperformance

andavailabilityofreso

urces

Swamidass198

6[30]

CEOsappearmostfocusedonqualityascritical

Identification

ofdifferencesinfocusofCEOsandMMs;

elementofMS,whilem

anagersappearmore

useofmulti-respondent,in-directassessmentmethod

focusedoncostanddeliveryreliability

usefulinevaluatingMS

Swamidassand

Newell1987[31]

Corporateperformanceispositivelyrelatedto

Applicationo

fprovenmethodology(pathanalysis)toM

S;

theroleofmanufacturingmanagersinstrategic

empiricalevidenceofrelationshipamongenvironmental

decisionmaking(RMM

SDM);performance

uncertainty,m

anufacturingflexibility,RMMSDM,and

worsensasenvironmentaluncertaintyincreases

businessperformance

Tunlv1990[32]

Companieswithforma

lizedMStendtohavea

Development

offrameworkformeasurementand

moredecentralizedstructure,effectively

evaluationof

decentralization,anditsrelationshiptoM

S

communicategoalstoalllevelsofthe

organization,andpurs

uelonger-termgoals

relativetoorganization

swithinformalMS

UtterbackandA

bernathy

Degreeandtimingofinnovationisclosely

Identification

ofrelationshipofinnovationtoproductan

d

1975[33]

relatedtothestagesof

productandprocess

productionpr

ocessdevelopment;adaptiveproduction

development;innovationisfocusedonproducts

processesare

necessaryforinnovation

inearlystagesofproductdevelopment,andon

productionprocessesinlatterstages



12/21

IJOPM

14,1

16

important premisses upon which manufacturing strategy is based have been

well documented in the conceptual literature by Andersonet al.[2] and others.

Methodology and Data Collecti on

Samples range from field studies of a single firm to large-scale, cross-industrymail surveys. All studies are based in manufacturing industry, and all butthree are cross-sectional. The populations from which samples are drawn areunique with the exception of those studies based on the ManufacturingFutures Survey Project (MFSP).

The MFSP is a continuing project to develop an ongoing base ofinternational manufacturing data. The project began in 1983 as a co-operativeeffort among Boston University (US), INSEAD (France), and WasedaUniversity (Japan). Annually, researchers survey large manufacturers in theirrespective regions. Data from the MFSP and the closely related SwedishManufacturing Project are the basis for almost half of the empirical studiescited in this article.

MFSP-based studies have relatively large sample sizes, ranging from 125 to674. Continuing development of such a large database will facilitatelongitudinal studies, which are necessary to monitor changes inmanufacturing strategies over time.

Relationship and Congruence with Business Strategy

A basic premiss of the literature is that manufacturing strategy is mosteffective when synchronized with and supportive of business-level strategy.Studies that have addressed this premiss suggest that managers generallyperceive this to be the case[26,28]). The Richardson et al.[26] study further

suggests that the degree of congruence between manufacturing and businessstrategy has a positive effect on corporate performance.Swamidass[30], however, found in his study that high-level management

places emphasis on quality and technology while manufacturing managersstress cost and delivery performance. Such a discrepancy could result in lackof congruence. Further, De Meyer et al.[10] found that the degree ofconsistency between strategic priorities and actual manufacturing plansvaries among geographical regions.

As to whether business strategy is or should be driven by manufacturingstrategy, or vice versa, the consensus to date is that business strategy is thedriving force. Schroeder et al.[28] reported that manufacturing strategyappeared to be driven by marketing strategy, although they note a highdegree of congruence between the two. Marucheck et al.[24] concluded that

manufacturing strategy is perceived to be reactive and subordinate tobusiness strategy.

Relationship to Per formance

Relatively few studies have specifically evaluated the effect of manufacturingstrategy on overall business performance. Richardsonet al.[26] found that the


13/21

Empirical


17

degree of focus as well as the degree of congruence between corporate and

plant-level missions are positively related to corporate performance.Swamidass and Newell[31] noted a positive relationship between

performance and the degree of involvement of manufacturing managers instrategic decision making. Performance was adversely affected asenvironmental uncertainty increased.

Cleveland et al .[8] reported a positive relationship between productioncompetence and performance. Production competence was defined in terms ofnine performance areas that together determine manufacturing strengths andweaknesses.

The link between manufacturing strategy and manufacturing performancehas received somewhat more attention. For example, studies haveinvestigated relationships between quality and manufacturingimprovement[15]), between productivity and quality[18], and betweenmanufacturing flexibility and the delivery reliability of suppliers[21,22].

Formali ty of Manufactur ing Str ategy

The effects of the formality of strategy and planning on businessperformance have received considerable attention in the business strategyliterature. Only two studies were found that specifically addressed this in thecontext of manufacturing strategy. Andersonet al.[7] compared the degree offormality of business with manufacturing strategy. In terms of the degree towhich strategies are communicated and documented, their conclusion wasthat manufacturing strategy is clearly less formalized than business strategy.

Tunlv[32] reported that businesses with more formal manufacturingstrategies tend to be more decentralized, more effective in communicating

strategies among organizational levels, and pursue longer-term goals thanthose having informal strategies.Evidence of the relative informality of manufacturing strategy is reflected

in a lack of clear understanding of the term in the minds of manufacturingmanagers[28]. Swamidass[30] noted that manufacturing strategy is often notexplicitly defined nor recognized, and that CEOs and manufacturingmanagers disagree on a definition.

Manufactur ing Strategy Content

A number of studies have been conducted to identify or categorizemanufacturing strategy content. Fine and Hax[16] examined four principalcontent issues cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility. De Meyer andFerdows[9] used principal component analysis to identify eight dimensions of

manufacturing strategy including quality, flexibility, product-processadjustments, and the role of the workforce. These dimensions correspond tospecific content issues. Flexibility was shown to be the most important to therespondents.

Specific content variables have been addressed in a number of studies,including the role of technology in manufacturing strategy[14,17], and the


14/21

IJOPM

14,1

18

effects of innovation on manufacturing performance[29,33]. Quality and its

relationship to other variables has been investigated by Ferdows et al.[13], DeMeyer and Ferdows[12], and Ferdows and De Meyer[15]. The effect of supplierreliability on manufacturing performance has been investigated by Lindberget al.[21] and Lindberg and Trygg[23]. Finally, the effects of environmentaluncertainty on business performance have been addressed by Swamidass andNewell[31]. A listing of the content issues addressed by each study appears in

Table V.

Competi ti ve Priori ties

Beginning with Ferdows et a l.[13], a stream of research based on theManufacturing Futures Survey Project has focused on the concerns,programmes, and priorities among American, European, and Japanesemanufacturers. These competitive priorities reflect the content elements ofmanufacturing strategy, and the relative importance of each.

On the basis of this series of studies, American and Europeanmanufacturers are most concerned with improving product quality. Their

Japanese competitors, on the other hand, are more concerned with improvingflexibility and reducing costs[10,13,15].

On the basis of their results, Ferdows and De Meyer[15] proposed asandcone model wherein improved quality is the foundation of long-termmanufacturing improvement. According to the sandcone model, long-termimprovement is most likely when pursued in sequential fashion, beginning

Authors Cost Quality Flexibility Dependability

De Meyer and Ferdows 1987[9]

De Meyer et al. 1989[10]



Ferdowset al.1986[13]

Ferdows and Lindberg 1987[14]

Ferdows and De Meyer 1990[15]

Fine and Hax 1985[16]

Galbraith 1990[17]

Hrteet al.1987[19]

Hrteet al. 1991[20]

Lindberget al. 1988[21]

Lindberg 1990[22]

Lindberg and Trygg 1991[23]

Reitsperger and Daniel 1990[25]

Schroeder et al.1989[29]

Utterback and Abernathy 1975[33]

Table V.ManufacturingStrategy ContentStudies


15/21

Empirical


19

with quality, and progressing through dependability, flexibility, and cost

efficiency. The model is consistent with the competitive priorities of Japanesemanufacturers. Having achieved a high level of product quality, the Japaneseare in a position to improve flexibility and reduce costs. The stream ofresearch on which the model is built is evidence of how empirical researchmay be used to develop theory, as well as to evaluate it.

Suggestions for Future Empirical ResearchIn the preceding sections, empirical manufacturing strategy studies havebeen examined. Based on our findings, and comparing the state of empiricalmanufacturing strategy research to disciplines having more experience withthis type of empirical research, the following suggestions are offered:

q Explicit in the definition of empirical research is reproducibility.

Methodological details, beginning with those presented in Table II,should be described in sufficient detail to enable future studies to bevalidated against the results of previous studies. The conclusions of aone-time study may be affected by factors that are not clear or knownto the researcher at the time. The finding of similar results over a rangeof studies that cover different time frames and populations is strongevidence for their validity.

q In conjunction with the previous point, a sound research methodologyis the foundation of empirical research. With few exceptions, the effectsof environment and industry, for example, have received little attention.Controlling for as many factors as possible increases the likelihood thatfindings will not be affected by factors other than those specifically

under consideration. For detailed discussions of methodological issues,see Alreck and Settle[34] and Flynn et al.[35].

q Almost all of the studies examined here are cross-sectional. There is aneed for more longitudinal studies in order to examine how strategiesare adapted and modified over time. The Manufacturing FuturesSurvey Project, for example, offers a promising source. With thecontinuing development of such a database, there is a great potentialfor longitudinal studies.

q It is perhaps a statement of the obvious that empirical research ishampered by lack of data. Even the most carefully planned surveys areadversely affected by lack of response and by lack of standards inreporting financial and manufacturing data. Development of databases

for empirical analysis would be a definite contribution to the discipline.For this to happen, manufacturing managers must have an interest inthe research, and something to gain by making the effort to respond.

This might include getting professional organizations such as theAmerican Production and Inventory Control Society (APICS) involvedin the research design and data collection process. It is worth noting


16/21

IJOPM

14,1

20

that only one of the journals listed in Table I, Interfaces, is exclusively

practitioner oriented. If the results of empirical research are to have animpact, they must be communicated to those who stand to gain themost manufacturing managers as well as to fellow researchers.

q With the exception of a progression of articles based on the MFSP,there is little in the way of progressive streams of research as yet. Thenecessity to break new ground notwithstanding, there is a need toexpand and build on current themes and theories proposed to date. Thebusiness strategy literature, for example, has built a solid stream ofresearch to investigate the relationship between formality andperformance. Similar efforts on these and other topics would benefitempirical manufacturing strategy research.

q Manufacturing strategy is ultimately judged according to its impact on

business and corporate performance. Relatively few of the studieslisted in Tables II, III, and IV specifically address the effects ofmanufacturing strategy on business performance. Demonstrating thepositive effects of strategy on performance would represent aconsiderable contribution, and would help to draw the interest ofmanufacturing managers as well.

q Concurrent with the interest in manufacturing strategy has been agrowing interest in how manufacturing relates to other businessfunctions such as marketing and management accounting. Studies ofmanufacturing strategy would benefit by further considering cross-functional relationships. In addition, studies that bridge functionalboundaries reach larger audiences, and encourage cross-functional co-

operation.q Relative to the previous point, consideration should be given to how

manufacturing strategies interrelateamongdifferent manufacturers.For example, are there profiles of manufacturing strategies that wouldtend to mix well together? This could be useful information tomanufacturing managers in choosing suppliers and manufacturingpartners. The work of Lindberg et al.[21] and Lindberg and Trygg[23]is an encouraging step in this direction.

q The economy of the United States is overwhelmingly a serviceeconomy. Our review of the literature indicated that there is a need formore empirical research in service industries.

Other Empirical Manufacturing Strategy ResearchWe would be remiss in our review of empirical manufacturing strategyresearch if we did not include a brief review of writings on this topic whichhave been published in outlets other than refereed journals.

The results of several studies listed in Tables II , II I and IV have beendescribed in similar fashion or expanded upon in other outlets. Studies based


17/21

Empirical


21

on the MFSP are the basis for two studies by Roth et al.[36] and Miller et

al .[37] which were published as chapters in Managing Int er nationalManufacturing. Both addressed differences in competitive priorities amongmajor manufacturing regions. Results from the Hayes and Clark[18] studyhave been extended as chapters in Dynamic Manufactur ing[38] and T heUneasy All iance[39].

Other studies represent extensions of studies of the topics included in ourtables or address totally new issues. Chewet al.[40] provide an interesting lookat intra-firm variation in productivity. De Meyer[41] used Porters[42] genericstrategy framework to identify generic manufacturing strategies based onEuropean Manufacturing Futures Survey Data. De Meyer used clusteranalysis to identify three strategic types a manufacturing innovatorsgroup, a high performance products group, and a marketing-oriented group.De Meyer compares the results to a similar study by Roth and Miller[43] thatuses data from the US, but cautions that generic strategies may differ byregion.

Lindberg[44] published a study measuring the social success of theimplementation of advanced manufacturing technology, in particular theimplementation of a flexible manufacturing system (FMS). Social success isdefined in terms of work satisfaction expectancy and outcomes, and perceivedwork characteristics. Work satisfaction includes measures of influence, workinterest, and skill development, and work characteristics include measures ofcontent stimulation, autonomy, and career estimate. The results indicate apositive relationship between the level of employee involvement in theimplementation process and overall job satisfaction.

Flynn et al.[45] used data collected by the Manufacturing Futures Survey

and found that a complete manufacturing strategy was positively related toperformance. In their study, manufacturing strategy was defined in terms ofthe firms level of involvement in strategic manufacturing, total qualitycontrol, just-in-time, human resources, and process technology. Thesevariables were in turn a proxy for World Class Manufacturing.

Two empirical studies were published in Manufactur ing Str ategy: t heResearch Agenda for the Next Decade[46]. Roth and Miller[47] used data fromthe US section of the 1988 MFSP to identify characteristics of winningbusiness unit performers. These characteristics included higher return onassets and profitability, and superior performance in terms of delivery,flexibility, price, and market scope. Dsouza et al.[46] identified differences inmanufacturing strategy in new ventures classified as either dependent orindependent. Dependent new ventures were those sponsored by a

corporation. They noted significant differences in the manufacturing strategyof the two groups as gauged by variables such as the use of quality asstrategy, the development and use of in-house technology, and the emphasison new product development.

Several of the authors we contacted to verify our classifications forwardedreports of their most current studies. Bates et al .[48] reported a significant


18/21

IJOPM

14,1

22

relationship between organizational culture and manufacturing. Those

companies utilizing manufacturing strategy were found to have differences inorganizational culture relative to those that do not. Organizational culturewas gauged according to measures such as centralization of authority anddegree of involvement in group versus individual work. Companies which didnot utilize manufacturing strategy were found to have relatively stronghierarchies of authority.

Tunlv[49] examined the relationship between the existence and use ofmanufacturing strategies, and business performance. Business units having amanufacturing strategy performed at higher levels than those which did not.Moreover, business units with a manufacturing strategy placed highemphasis on quality, lead times, and flexibility.

Galbraith and De Noble[50] examined the effects of FMS on strategy. Theyfound that product specific systems, those dedicated to a few products,constrained business strategy. The development of FMS allowed greaterscope in the development of strategy, because the systems are less productspecific.

Schroeder et al.[51] developed a theory of the manufacturing strategyprocess. Manufacturing strategy process was defined as the formulation oflong-term manufacturing strategy which is linked to business strategycoupled with extensive communication and use of manufacturing strategy asa guide to decision making. Strategy strength, communication of strategy,co-ordination of decision making, formality of the planning process, and long-range orientation were found to be related to manufacturing performance.

Summary

In conclusion, the empirical research in manufacturing strategy appears to begaining momentum. Manufacturing strategy scholars are learning to use theempirical methods that have been developed in other related academicdisciplines, and are slowly building the foundations for higher-quality theorybuilding. This in turn should lead to more sophisticated empirical researchstudies. It is hoped that this review of the literature will accelerate themomentum that is now present among empirical manufacturing strategyresearchers.

References1. Adam, E.E. and Swamidass, P.M., Assessing Operations Management from a Strategic

Perspective, Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1989, pp. 181-203.

2. Anderson, J.C., Cleveland, G. and Schroeder, R.G., Operations Strategy: A Literature

Review, Journal of Operat ions Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, 1989, pp. 133-58.3. Ward, P.T., Leong, G.K. and Snyder, D.L., Manufacturing Strategy: An Overview ofCurrent Process and Content Models, in Ettlie, J.E., Burstein, M.C. and Fiegenbaum, A.(Eds),Manuf actur in g Str ategy: The Research Agenda for the Next Decade, KluwerAcademic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1990.

4. Armstrong, J.S., The Value of Formal Planning for Strategic Decisions: Review ofEmpirical Research,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3, 1982, pp. 197-211.


19/21

Empirical


23

5. Robinson, R.B., and Pearce, J.A., Research Thrusts in Small Firm Strategic Planning,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, 1984, pp. 128-37.6. Pearce, J.A ., Freeman, E.B. and Robinson, R.B. The Tenuous Link between Formal

Strategic Planning and Financial Performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol.12, 1987, pp. 658-75.

7. Anderson, J.C., Schroeder, R.G. and Cleveland, G., The Process of ManufacturingStrategy: Some Empirical Observations and Conclusions, Int er nati onal Jour nal ofOperat ions & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1991, pp. 86-110.

8. Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R.G. and Anderson, J.C., A Theory of Production Competence,Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, 1989, pp. 655-68.

9. De Meyer, A. and Ferdows, K., Managerial Focal Points in Manufacturing Strategy,In ternat ional Journal of Production Research, Vol. 25 No. 11, 1987, pp. 1551-62.

10. De Meyer, A., Nakane, J., Miller, J.G. and Ferdows, K., Flexibility: The Next CompetitiveBattle The Manufacturing Futures Survey, Strategic Management Jour nal, Vol. 10,1989, pp. 135-44.

11. De Meyer, A. and Ferdows, K., Removing Barriers in Manufacturing: Report on the 1990European Manufacturing Futures Survey,European M anagement Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1,1991, pp. 22-9.

12. De Meyer, A. and Ferdows, K., Quality Up, Technology Down: ManufacturingImprovement Programs in Europe, Int ernati onal Journal of Technology Management:Special Publi cation on the Role of Technology in Corporate Poli cy, 1991, pp. 136-53

13. Ferdows, K., Miller, J.G., Nakane, J. and Vollmann, T.E., Evolving Global ManufacturingStrategies: Projections into the 1990s, Internati onal Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 6 No. 4, 1986, pp. 6-16.

14. Ferdows, K. and Lindberg, P., FMS as Indicator of the Strategic Role of Manufacturing,In ternat ional Journal of Production Research, Vol. 25 No. 11, 1987, pp. 1563-71.

15. Ferdows, K. and De Meyer, A., Lasting Improvements in Manufacturing Performance:In Search of a New Theory, Journal of Operat ions Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1990, pp.

168-84.16. Fine, C.H. and Hax, A.C., Manufacturing Strategy: A Methodology and an Illustration,

Interfaces, Vol. 15 No. 6, 1985, pp. 28-46.

17. Galbraith, C.S., Transferring Core Manufacturing Technologies in High-TechnologyFirms,Califor nia M anagement Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, 1990, pp. 56-70.

18. Hayes, R.H. and Clark, K.B., Explaining Observed Productivity Differentials betweenPlants: Implications for Operations Research, Interfaces, Vol. 15, 1985, pp. 3-14.

19. Hrte, S.A, L indberg, P. and Tunlv, C., Manufacturing Strategies in Sweden,In ternat ional Journal of Production Research, Vol. 25 No. 11, 1987, pp. 1573-1586.

20. Hrte, S.A., Brjesson, S. and Tunlv, C., A Panel Study of Manufacturing Strategies inSweden, Int er nati onal Journal of Operat ions & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 3,1991, pp. 135-44.

21. Lindberg, P., Lindr, J. and Tunlv, C., Strategic Decisions in Manufacturing: On theChoice of Investments in Flexible Production Organizations, Int er national Journal ofProduction Research, Vol. 26 No. 10, 1988, pp. 1695-704.

22. Lindberg, P., Strategic Manufacturing Management: A Proactive Approach,In ternat ional Journal of Operat ions & Production Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, 1990, pp.94-106.

23. Lindberg, P. and Trygg, L., Manufacturing Strategy in the Value System,InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1991, pp. 52-62.


20/21

IJOPM

14,1

24

24. Marucheck, A., Pannesi, R. and Anderson, C., An Exploratory Study of the

Manufacturing Strategy Process in Practice, Journal of Operat ions Management, Vol. 9No. 1, 1990, pp. 101-23.

25. Reitsperger, W.D. and Daniel, S.J., Dynamic Manufacturing: A Comparison of Attitudesin the USA and Japan,Management Int ernati onal Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, 1990, pp. 203-16.

26. Richardson, P.R., Taylor, A.J. and Gordon, J.R.M., A Strategic Approach to EvaluatingManufacturing Performance, Interfaces, Vol. 15 No. 6, 1985, pp. 15-27.

27. Schmemmer, R.W., Multiplant Manufacturing Strategies Among the Fortune 500,Journal of Operat ions Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1982, pp. 77-86.12. De Meyer, A.and Ferdows, K., Quality Up, Technology Down: Manufacturing ImprovementPrograms in Europe, Int er nati onal Journ al of Technology Management: SpecialPublication on the Role of Technology in Corporate Policy, 1991, pp. 136-53.

28. Schroeder, R.G., Anderson, J.C. and Cleveland, G., The Content of ManufacturingStrategy: An Empirical Study, Journal of Operat ions Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, 1986,pp. 405-15.

29. Schroeder, R.G., Scudder, G.D. and Elm, D.R., Innovation in Manufacturing,Journal ofOperat ions M anagement, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1989, pp. 1-15.

30. Swamidass, P.M., Manufacturing Strategy: Its Assessment and Practice, Jour nal ofOperat ions M anagement, Vol. 6 No. 4, 1986, pp. 471-84.

31. Swamidass, P.M. and Newell, W.T., Manufacturing Strategy, EnvironmentalUncertainty and Performance: A Path Analytic Model,Management Science, Vol. 33 No.4, 1987, pp. 509-24.

32. Tunlv, C., Manufacturing Strategies and Decentralization, Int er nati onal Journal ofOperat ions and Production M anagement, Vol. 10 No. 2, 1990, pp. 107-19.

33. Utterback, J.W. and Abernathy, W.J., A Dynamic Model of Process and ProductInnovation,OMEGA, Vol. 3 No. 6, 1975, pp. 639-56.

34. Alreck, P.L. and Settle, R.B.,T he Sur vey Research Handbook, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1985.

35. Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A. and Flynn, J.B., Empirical

Research Methods in Operations Management,Journal of Operat ions Management, Vol.9, 1990, pp. 250-84.

36. Roth, A., De Meyer, A. and Amano, A., International Manufacturing Strategies AComparative Analysis, in Ferdows, K. (Ed.),Managing International Manufactur ing,Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, NY, 1989.

37. Miller, J.G., Amano, A., De Meyer, A., Ferdows, K., Nakane, J. and Roth, A., Closing theCompetitive Gaps The International Report of the Manufacturing Futures Project, inFerdows, K. (Ed.),Managing Internati onal Manufactur ing. Elsevier Science Publishing,New York, NY, 1989.

38. Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B.,Dynamic Manufactur ing, The Free Press,New York, NY, 1988.

39 Hayes, R.H. and Clark, K.B., Exploring the Sources of Productivity Differences at theFactory Level, in Clark, K.B., Hayes, R.H. and Lorenz, C. (Eds), T he Uneasy All iance,Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1985.

40. Chew, W.B., Bresnahan, T.F., and Clark, K.B., Measurement, Coordination, and Learningin a Multiplant Network, in Kaplan, R.S. (Ed.),Measures for M anufactur ing Excellence,Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1990.

41. De Meyer, A., An Empirical Investigation of Manufacturing Strategies in EuropeanIndustry, in Voss, C. (Ed.),Manufactur ing Strategy, Process and Content, Chapman andHall, London, 1991.

42. Porter, M.E.,Competi tive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1980.


21/21

Empirical


25

43. Roth, A.V. and Miller, J.G., A Taxonomy of Manufacturing Strategies, paper

presentation, Ninth Conference of the Strategic Management Society, San Francisco, CA,October 1989.

44. Lindberg, P., Socially Successful Implementation of A dvanced ManufacturingTechnology: The Case of FMS, in Karwowski, W. and Rahimi, M. (Eds),Ergonomics ofHybr id A utomated Systems II, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, NY, 1990, pp. 43-50.

45 Flynn, B.B., Bates, K.A., Schroeder, R. and Sakakibara, S., World Class Manufacturingin the United States, Proceedings DSI, Vol. 2, 1989, pp. 880-2.

46. Dsouza, D.E., McDougall, P.P. and Deane, R.H., Manufacturing Strategy and NewVenture Origin: An Empirical Analysis, in Ettlie, J.E., Burstein, M.C. and Fiegenbaum,A. (Eds),Manufactur ing Strat egy: T he Research Agenda for the Next Decade, KluwerAcademic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1990.

47. Roth, A.V. and Miller, J.G., Manufacturing Strategy, Manufacturing Strength,Managerial Success, and Economic Outcomes, in Ettlie, J.E., Burstein, M.C. andFiegenbaum, A. (Eds), Manufactur ing Str ategy: T he Research Agenda for t he NextDecade, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1990.

48. Bates, K.A., Misterek, S.D.A., Schroeder, R.G., and Morris, W.T., ManufacturingStrategy and Organizational Culture: A Symbiotic Relationship, Working Paper 90-15,Curtis L. Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 1990.

49. Tunlv, C., Manufacturing Strategy: Plans and Business Performance, CIM WP 90-03,Chalmers University of Technology, 1990.

50. Galbraith, C. and De Noble, A., Flexible Manufacturing and Strategic Scope: ATheoretical and Empirical Study of High Technology Manufacturing Firms, WorkingPaper 91-6-1, Center for the Management of Manufacturing Enterprises, The KrannertSchool of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1991.

51. Schroeder, R.G., Flynn, E.J. and Bates, K.A ., Manufacturing Strategy Process: AProposed Theory and Measurement Instrument, Working Paper 94-4, Curtis L. CarlsonSchool of Management, University of Minnesota, 1991.

review of empirical manufacturing strategy studies

Documents