Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

Paradigmas alternativas para estratgia de manufatura

Escola de negcios de Londres, Reino Unido

Paradigmas para fabricao estratgia 5

C.A. Voss

Introduo Estratgia de fabricao como um conceito e uma rea de estudo e prtica tem vindo a crescer nos ltimos 30 anos. No entanto, como ele tem crescido a clareza da estratgia de fabricao tem diminudo como diferentes pontos de vista e diferentes abordagens surgiram. Este artigo ir rever brevemente a histria da estratgia de fabricao, em seguida, ir rever o campo de vrios diferentes perspectivas. Ele finalmente ir comparar e avaliar estas diferentes perspectivas e olhar para as ligaes entre eles. Uma perspectiva histrica geralmente aceite que as bases do que hoje conhecido como estratgia de fabricao foram desenvolvidos na Universidade de Harvard em 1940 e 1950. Pesquisadores comearam a olhar em indstrias e comearam a ver que havia muitos diferentes maneiras em que as empresas estavam escolhendo competir dentro particular indstrias. Estes, por sua vez foram acompanhados por diferentes escolhas relativas tecnologia de produo e gesto da produo. Com isso desenvolveu um srie de casebooks baseado na indstria. Estes contidos notas sobre a indstria e suas escolhas tecnolgicas bem como estudos de caso de empresas diferentes na indstria. Sucesso e fracasso poderiam ser explicados em muitos casos pelas escolhas que as empresas feitas e o alinhamento destas opes para competitiva estratgias. Em muitas maneiras estas abordagens de estratgia de fabricao no incio previu o desenvolvimento de abordagens de estratgia baseado na indstria de economistas como Porter [1]. Vital para a ampla disseminao da estratgia como uma chave de fabricao rea de interesse foi a puxar junto das lies aprendidas nesta indstria baseado em estudo e ensino. Isto foi feito por Skinner em seus dois artigos seminais: \"Fabricao missing link em estratgia corporativa\" e \"O concentrado fbrica \"[2,3]. O primeiro artigo que defina a importncia das ligaes explcitas entre as opes de fabricao e ambiente da empresa e Societrio estratgia. O segundo artigo desenvolveu o conceito do foco e do interno como bem como a coerncia externa. O quadro no artigo elo perdido foi trabalho muito exaustivo e muito subseqente centrou-se em partes da quadro, simplificando e explicando, em vez de expandir. Uma forma comum de ver a estratgia de fabrico tenha sido separar o Revista internacional de operaes & Production Management, processo de fabricao de estratgia de desenvolvimento e o seu contedo [4]. O contedo pp. 5-16. Vol. 15 N. 4, 1995, MCB University da estratgia de produo tem sido visto como as escolhas estratgicas no processo de Press, 0144-3577

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

IJOPM 15,4

e infra-estrutura. Neste artigo iremos analisar trs diferentes paradigmas de escolha e contedo em estratgia de produo. Desde os primeiros trabalhos de Skinner, escrita e prtica na indstria transformadora estratgia desenvolveram-se em vrias frentes diferentes. A primeira delas pode ser caracterizado como competindo por meio do recurso. Isto conseguido atravs alinhar os recursos de fabricao com as exigncias competitivas do o marketplace. O segundo a abordagem baseada em internos e externos coerncia entre o contexto empresarial e produto e as escolhas na contedo da estratgia de manufatura. Esta efetivamente uma contingncia-baseado abordagem. Finalmente, existem abordagens baseadas na necessidade de adoptar \"melhor prtica\"; caracterizada por, por exemplo, \"mundo classe Manufacturing\". Ns iremos Explore cada um destes, por sua vez. Competindo at a fabricao e Em sua forma mais simples esta abordagem estratgia de fabricao argumenta que a empresa deve competir com seus recursos de fabricao e deve alinhar-se sua recursos com os fatores chave para o sucesso, sua empresa e estratgias de marketing e as demandas do mercado. Principais fatores de sucesso e os vencedores de ordem O tema de decidir \"como estamos a competir\" se repete vrias vezes em muitos formulrios em literatura de estratgia de produo. Custo, qualidade, confiabilidade e flexibilidade tm tornam-se amplamente utilizados como demonstraes do competidor dimenses de fabricao. Uma das melhores abordagens formuladas o de Hill [5]. Ele argumenta que em cada mercado em que a empresa opera-lo deve identifica os critrios que ganhar ordens contra a concorrncia. Sua ordemvencedoras critrios incluem preo, entrega, qualidade, design de produto e variedade. Conjuntos similares de critrios ou prioridades foram desenvolvidos pela maioria dos escritores em estratgia de manufatura. Hill tambm argumenta que, embora as empresas ganhar ordens com base em critrios especficos, isso no significa que outros critrios no so importante. Ele desenvolve a idia de \"qualificao\" critrios: critrios de desempenho que uma empresa deve atender, se for ser um mercado, mesmo se eles no ganham encomendas. Ele sugere metodologias para a identificao de vencedor de ordem e critrios de qualificao. Novo [6] fala de fatores de \"higiene\" e \"vantagem competitiva\". A abordagem semelhante usada pelo Platts e Gregory [7] em sua fabricao auditoria de estratgia. Eles olham para as exigncias do mercado: prazo de entrega de entrega, confiabilidade, caractersticas, qualidade, flexibilidade de design, volume e preo. Seus processo identifica a diferena entre os requisitos e desempenho. A escolha de prioridades competitivas e as comparaes internacionais de diferentes pases tem sido amplamente estudada [8]. Tais abordagens so consistentes com os conceitos de estratgia de negcios de escritores como Porter. Seu genrico estratgias, liderana, diferenciao e foco, de custo podem ser consideradas como prioridades de negcios dirigindo gesto e escolha de fabricao. Tentativas foram feitas para definir estratgias de fabricao de genricos. Stobaugh e Telesio [9] derivada empiricamente trs grupos: custo, tecnologia e pelo mercado

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

estratgias. Trabalho semelhante tem sido conduzido por Miller e Roth [10], que tm Paradigmas para desenvolveu uma taxonomia de estratgias de fabrico. fabricao Recursos O argumento subjacente deste paradigma que alinhando os recursos do fabricao com os fatores chave para o sucesso ir maximizar a competitividade de uma empresa. Isto poderia envolver, por exemplo, a escolha da tecnologia de fabricao para alcanar recursos especficos desejados [11,12] ou desenvolver capacidades para desenvolver e lanar novos produtos rapidamente. Hayes e Wheelwright, na suas bem conhecidos quatro estgios de fabricao estratgia, argumentam que as empresas deveriam ir alm olhando para alinhar os recursos de com o mercado. Fabricao deve procurar influenciar corporativa estratgias e de desenvolver e explorar a capacidade de fabricao proativamente como um arma competitiva. A Platts e Gregory [7] tambm abordagem centra-se em \"identificar a atual estratgia de manufatura e para avaliar os efeitos que isso tinha sobre a realizao dos objectivos\". Isso movem-se ao desenvolvimento de um novo estratgia que em essncia alinhar recursos com o que o mercado quer. Tem havido grande que vo trabalhar em identificao, desenvolvimento e medio da capacidade de produo. Por exemplo l tem sido muito ateno para a rea de competio baseada no tempo [13] e as tecnologias e recursos para alcan-lo, como a introduo do novo produto [14]. Folga [15] e Upton [16] tm examinado o papel da flexibilidade na fabricao, Jaikumar [17] o uso (e falta de uso) de sistemas de fabrico flexveis e Tidd [18] o uso de robs de montagem flexvel.

estratgia 7

Viso compartilhada Um outro elemento deste paradigma o argumento de que, por meio de limpar articulao das misses corporativas e estratgias de que viso da empresa ser compartilhados por seus gerentes e outros funcionrios. Na rea de manufatura, isto abordagem freqentemente defendida na literatura de qualidade. Por exemplo a Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award e o prmio Europeu da qualidade ambos enfatizam o papel de liderana na criao de uma viso compartilhada e a conceito de \"implantao de diretiva\" usado para descrever esse processo. Uma viso compartilhada no se limita qualidade, mas pode abranger uma ampla variedade de capacidades e dimenses de mercado. Para resumir, esse paradigma pode ser considerado em termos de fabrico como uma arma competitiva. Para explorar esta ns deve identificar como estamos a competir em um mercado e concentrar-se na excelncia de fabricao capacidade no que rea em particular. Falha para fazer isso pode levar falta de foco externo, inconsistncia entre direo interna e necessidades externas e\/ou falta de explorar a capacidade da produo como uma arma competitiva. Implantao de polticas em toda a empresa e desenvolver uma viso compartilhada ou misso podem ajudar concentrar os funcionrios de uma empresa e contribuir para a realizao de estratgica gols.

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

IJOPM 15,4

Strategic choices in manufacturing strategy The second paradigm is based on the need for internal and external consistency between choices in manufacturing strategy. Skinner[19] proposed that the key choice areas in manufacturing strategy consisted of plant and equipment, production planning and control, labour and staffing, product design and engineering, and organization and management. Hayes and Wheelwright[20] expanded this list, and Hill[5] compresses these into just two areas process and infrastructure. These are in effect contingency-based approaches as they argue that choices made are contingent on context and strategy. Many other authors have followed this approach (see for example New[6]). Choice of process In much of the literature, the main focus of this approach has been the choice of manufacturing process. Its origins can be traced back to the work of Woodward[21], but the first main exponents in manufacturing strategy were Hayes and Wheelwright[20] in their product process matrix. They viewed process both in a static and in a dynamic mode. In a static mode they argued that the choice of process was contingent on the context of manufacture, in particular the volume and variety of the production task. They showed how misalignment could lead to poor manufacturing and business performance. They also argued that as markets evolved and changed, so too did the required process. Finally, they also related this to more complex environments such as multi-process, multi-product environments where there was a need for focused plants. The process choice concept has been taken and developed by many authors. Kim and Lee[22] have developed a taxonomy of process based on technical flexibility and technical complexity. They relate the newer manufacturing technologies such as FMC and FMS to the traditional processes used by Hayes and Wheelwright. Pine et al.[23] add to this the concept of mass customization, arguing that process is not only a choice but that there is also an optimal route from one process to another. Voss and Winch[24] argue that the traditional choices are too narrow, and must be extended to include choices of processes and infrastructure in engineering. Contingent approaches The strategic choice paradigm is essentially a contingent approach, many authors using terms such as internal and external consistency. Hills approach in particular has a strong contingent basis. He argues that choice of process is dependent on both the market strategy (expressed in similar terms to Hayes and Wheelwrights volume and variety) and on the order-winning criteria. The categorization of production systems used by Wild is another example of a contingent approach.

Infrastructure choices Paradigms for Strategic choices also apply to infrastructure. Hill[5] argues that all the other manufacturing (infrastructure) choices are contingent on the choice of process. Berry and strategy Hill[25] illustrate this in the area of manufacturing planning and control systems. The importance of other choices in infrastructure has been stressed by other authors. Skinner[2] discusses the importance of middle management. 9 Misterek et al.[26] have examined the links between organizational culture and manufacturing strategy. Focus These approaches naturally lead to the operationalization of the concept of focus. They define for a given context the dimensions and choices on which a factory should be focused. In summary, the paradigm based on strategic choices is based around the need to attain internal and external consistency, and is a contingency-based approach. Failure to match with external business, product and customer factors can lead to a mismatch with the market. Also emphasized is the importance of internal consistency between all the choices in manufacturing. Failure to achieve this can result in a mismatch between the various choices in manufacturing which will severely impair a companys ability to be competitive. Best practice Best practice is probably the most recent of the three paradigms to become prominent in manufacturing strategy, though it can be argued that concern for best practice has been with mankind ever since the emergence of the first craft in prehistory. Sources of best practice In recent years writing on best practice has been dominated by Japanese manufacturing practice to the extent that it is hard to remember when it was not so. However, best practice has come from many sources: Materials Requirements Planning (MRP) from the USA, Optimized Production Technology (OPT) from Israel, Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) from the UK, group technology from Russia to name but a few. In recent years best practice literature has included just-in-time manufacturing[27], which has evolved into lean production[28]; total quality management[29], and concurrent engineering[30]. Three particular stimuli have brought best practice to greater prominence. The first has been the outstanding performance of Japanese manufacturing industry. This has led to a continuous focus in the West on identifying, adapting and adopting Japanese manufacturing practices. The second is the growth of business process-based approaches and benchmarking. This has led companies to identify their core practices and processes and to seek out best in class practice. Finally there has been the emergence of awards such as the Malcolm

IJOPM 15,4

Baldrige National Quality Award and the European Quality Award. These have brought a high profile to best practice in certain areas. World class manufacturing Much of the best practice school of manufacturing strategy has been brought together in the concept of world class manufacturing. This is commonly taken to be the aggregation of best practice in a wide range of areas of manufacturing. The concept of competing through world class manufacturing was developed by Hayes and Wheelwright[20] and the term was widely adopted after the publication of Schonbergers[27] book. Hanson and Voss[31] see world class manufacturing in terms of practice and performance. They define world class as having best practice in total quality, concurrent engineering, lean production, manufacturing systems, logistics and organization and practice. In addition it is having operational performance equalling or surpassing best international companies. The underlying assumption of this paradigm is that best (world class) practice will lead to superior performance and capability. This in turn will lead to increased competitiveness. To summarize, this paradigm focuses on the continuous development of best practice in all areas within a company. Failure to match industry best practice can remove the competitive edge from manufacturing. Process and measurement The above discussion has focused on the different paradigms of content of manufacturing strategy. As pointed out by Adam and Swamidass[32], process is as important as content. Voss[4] includes six papers on the process of manufacturing strategy formulation. Hill[5] pays particular attention to the process of carrying out his approach, and Platts and Gregory[7] have developed a detailed workbook-based process. Measurement is also a theme that underlies different manufacturing strategy paradigms. Kaplan and Norton[33] have argued that measurement must match the companys strategic needs. They have proposed a balanced scorecard approach. Neely et al.[34] proposed a framework linking performance measurement to manufacturing strategy. Discussion This article has proposed that three distinct, but related, paradigms of manufacturing strategy have emerged. These relate to the content, rather than process of manufacturing strategy. They are summarized in Figure 1. We can observe that each of these paradigms, has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses. Competing through manufacturing This approach can lead to very high visibility for manufacturing strategy in an organization. The visible focus on competing on a limited coherent set of factors

10

Competing through manufacturing Order winners Key success factors Key concepts Capability Generic manufacturing strategies Shared vision

Strategic choices in manufacturing Contingency approaches Internal and external consistency Choice of process Process and infrastructure Focus Process Measurement

Best practice World-class manufacturing Benchmarking Process re-engineering TQM Learning from the Japanese Continuous improvement

Paradigms for manufacturing strategy 11

Figure 1. Three paradigms of manufacturing strategy

can be a uniting force within an organization. It can lead to employees and managers sharing a common vision and has the potential of creating a debate between manufacturing, marketing and corporate strategists. The focus on capability can lead to management attention being paid to the development and exploitation of competitive capabilities in manufacturing, potentially leading to Hayes and Wheelwrights stage four. There are, however, questions and limitations. If not carried out properly, this approach can lead to just a bland mission statement. If not backed up by consistent decisions and action, it risks leading to little more than management by rhetoric. It is also clearly not sufficient for development of a complete manufacturing strategy. No matter how good the focus and commitment of the company to meet a particular goal is, it will fail if there are inappropriate processes, or a misaligned infrastructure. Unbounded choice has also been questioned by several authors. In particular Ferdows and de Meyer[35] propose that there is a natural sequence of priorities. They describe this in their sand-cone model. They argue that there is a need to build a strong foundation of quality before proceeding to focus on other priorities. This is consistent with the often stated argument that key to Japanese companies success is their ability to be both high quality and low cost producers. Failure to build the foundations makes it difficult to compete on other criteria. Strategic choice This is potentially the most powerful of the manufacturing strategy approaches. It can provide a clear view of a wide number of choices that a company has. Its contingency-based approaches can lead to matching the whole of the operations strategy to the market positioning. This can result in

IJOPM 15,4

12

strong internal as well as external consistency. To succeed it requires an effective process of manufacturing strategy development, which can be difficult to install. However, once developed it can not only put manufacturing on the top management agenda, but also embed strategic approaches to manufacturing within a company. The correct choices can lead to focused manufacturing, from which superior performance will be derived. However, it can be argued that it is possible to have internal and external consistency in manufacturing without having good practice. Consistency of approaches do not in themselves lead to the adoption of new and different practices. As a result, step changes resulting from this may be missed. The example of the Western automotive industry in the 1980s can be quoted. In terms of conventional strategic choice the process choice at the level of that proposed in Hill, or Hayes and Wheelwright, would be correct. However the detailed manufacturing practices that companies used within that process were obsolete. It has only been through a period of lengthy and painful learning that Western auto manufacturers are becoming competitive again. The choice-based paradigms would have seemed to have failed to achieve the step changes required. Best practice This approach is supported by research that shows strong linkages between adoption of best practice and operating performance[14,31,36,37]. Companies with best practice perform better than those without. This research is leading many companies to seek best practice as the basis of their manufacturing strategies. However the evidence is that this can cause major problems, particularly in companies which are far from best practice. First, best practice usually comes in small isolated pieces such as just-in-time, MRP II, FMS, TQM, concurrent engineering and business process re-engineering. These approaches are often used in an equally isolated manner by companies. In addition, they are often treated as the means of solving all a companys problems: If only we had this we would become competitive. There is often a lack of perspective. Questions such as is this appropriate for us? and would adoption support our key competitive needs? often fail to be asked. The problem is probably sharply different between companies and countries. Hanson and Voss[31] found a wide variability between UK firms, some having most good practice in place, and others with relatively little. For those already with substantial good practice, searching for and incrementally adopting best practice becomes a routine task. They compared leading companies, those already with high levels of practice and performance, with laggard companies, those without good practice and performance. The leaders were six times more likely to search for best practice through benchmarking than the laggards. However, for those far from best practice, the problems are compounded by difficulty in knowing where to start. A firm will have limited capability to adopt new practices. The question of what shall we do first? will dominate. It is for

these companies that linking programmes of adoption of best practice to Paradigms for competitive needs becomes crucial. manufacturing Another crucial agenda in best practice approaches becomes implementation. strategy Best practice will not by itself guarantee improved performance. All reports of best practice, whether TQM, MRP II, JIT, FMS, etc., show that there is substantial failure rate in the implementation of each practice. Partial 13 implementation, failure to achieve desired performance change and abandoned programmes are commonplace. Clearly the three different paradigms should not be treated in isolation, and indeed many authors and experts bring at least two of them together. There are clear links between competing through manufacturing and strategic choices approaches. Hill directly links priorities (order-winning criteria) to contingency approaches (choice of process), and sees them as a single linked framework. For example, competing on cost leads to a particular process choice and, in turn, infrastructure. Writers on flexibility and mass customization also stress the link between process choice and competitive priorities. Similarly there is also a clear link between competing through manufacturing and best practice. De Meyer and Ferdows, in their international studies on manufacturing strategies, have focused on the consistency (or lack of it) between competitive priorities and programmes of improvement in practice. Hill implicitly argues that best practice programmes should be matched to order-winning criteria. However, the implicit assumption that priorities and hence manufacturing tasks are orthogonal has been questioned. The relationship between quality and costs is a good example. Increasingly, quality is now recognized as a major contributor to cost reduction. Thus, in a cost competitive environment, quality programmes may be the most appropriate response rather than cost reduction programmes. As discussed earlier, Ferdows and de Meyer[35] propose that there is a natural sequence of priorities. Foundations have to be built in order to compete on other criteria. Empirical evidence from Japanese companies[36] suggests that the best companies have very high productivity and high quality. Clark and Fujimoto[14] show that these companies also have fast product development times. The link between best practice programmes and strategic choice is less clear. First, there is the issue of whether some best practices are universal, and as such are independent of context. Proponents of total quality management would strongly argue against this. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award framework, which is very widely used as a benchmark, has been found equally applicable in a very wide range of companies. On the other hand some best practices such as kanban or MRP II are clearly not applicable in certain contexts. The phrase best in class, frequently used in benchmarking, may reflect the need to link best practice to context or class. For example, the best practices identified in the Japanese car industry are not universally applicable in other industries. Some very different approaches are used in the Japanese consumer electronics industry. New[6] has examined the relationship of best practice as embodied in world class manufacturing and trade-offs in

IJOPM 15,4

Competing through manufacturing

Best practice

14
Strategic choices in manufacturing

Figure 2. The overlap between different paradigms

manufacturing strategy. He concludes that, on the one hand, the traditional trade-offs such as cost versus quality are no longer valid. On the other, he argues that the answer to can you be the best in the world at all seven criteria simultaneously from the same manufacturing mix? is still no. We can conclude that all three paradigms of manufacturing strategy have their strengths and weaknesses and each partially overlaps the other (Figure 2). A company cannot ignore any of these completely, for it would risk losing its competitive strength in manufacturing. It is possible to propose a continuous loop. Any company needs a strategic vision, since without one the other actions may fail. This is the logical starting point and needs to be revisited at regular intervals. The strategy for competing through manufacturing will lead to the need to make key strategic choices. These in turn will require the development of world class performance in the areas chosen and by necessity the development of best in class practices. The choice and focus of these will be guided in part by the previous approaches. The continuous improvement and

Competing through manufacturing

Best practice

Figure 3. The cycles of manufacturing strategy

Strategic choices in manufacturing

development of process and practice will lead to developing the companys Paradigms for capabilities. These in turn may enhance or change the way it chooses to manufacturing compete through manufacturing. strategy This is not an evolutionary cycle as in Hayes and Wheelwrights four steps. It is a continuous iterative process that will lead to both continuous incremental improvement and occasional step change. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is 15 consistent with the Deming plan, do, check, action cycle. To conclude, the content of manufacturing strategy has developed into several distinct paradigms. None by itself is sufficient for effective development of manufacturing strategy over the long term. Together they contain all that is required for an effective strategy. They in turn require a process of development and suitable measurement. This paper has argued that there is a logical cycle connecting the three.
References 1. Porter, M., Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY, 1980. 2. Skinner, W., Missing the links in manufacturing strategy in Voss, C.A. (Ed.), Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content, Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 3. Skinner, W., The focused factory, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1994. 4. Voss, C.A. (Ed.), Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content, Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 5. Hill, T.J., Manufacturing Strategy, The Strategic Management of the Manufacturing Function, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London, 1993. 6. New, C.C., World class manufacturing versus strategic trade-offs, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, 1992, pp. 19-31. 7. Platts, K.W. and Gregory, M.J., A manufacturing audit approach to strategy formulation, in Voss, C.A. (Ed.), Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content, Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 8. de Meyer, A., An empirical investigation of manufacturing strategies in European Industry, in Voss, C.A. (Ed.), Manufacturing Process and Content, Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 9. Stobaugh, R. and Telesio, P., Match manufacturing strategies and product policies, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1983. 10. Miller, J.G. and Roth, A.V., A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies,Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, 1994, pp. 285-304. 11. Voss, C.A., Managing New Manufacturing Technologies, Operations Management Association, Monograph No. 1, 1986. 12. Voss, C.A., Managing advanced manufacturing technology, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, 1986, pp. 4-7. 13. Stalk, G. Jr and Hout, T.M., Competing against Time, Free Press, New York, NY, 1990. 14. Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T., Product Development Performance, HBS Press, Boston, MA, 1991. 15. Slack, N., Flexibility as a manufacturing objective, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, 1983, pp. 4-13. 16. Upton, D.M., The management of manufacturing flexibility,California Management Review, 1994, forthcoming. 17. Jaikumar, R., Postindustrial manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, November/December 1986. 18. Tidd, J., Flexible Manufacturing Technologies and International Competitiveness, Frances Pinter, London, 1991.

IJOPM 15,4

16

19. Skinner, W., Manufacturing the missing link in corporate strategy, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1969. 20. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C., Restoring Our Competitive Edge, Collier Macmillan, New York, NY, 1984. 21. Woodward, J., Industrial Organization, Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, London, 1965. 22. Kim, Y. and Lee, J., Manufacturing strategy and production systems: an integrated framework, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11, 1993, pp. 3-15. 23. Pine, B.J., Victor, B. and Boynton, A.C., Making mass customization work, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1993, pp. 108-19. 24. Voss, C.A. and Winch, G., Incorporating engineering in manufacturing strategy, London Business School working paper, 1995. 25. Berry, W.L. and Hill, T., Linking systems to strategy, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 10, 1992, pp. 3-15. 26. Misterek, S.D., Schorder, R. and Bates, K.A., The nature of the link between manufacturing strategy and organizational culture, in Voss, C.A. (Ed),Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content, Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 27. Schonberger, R.J., World Class Manufacturing, Free Press, New York, NY, 1986. 28. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D., The Machine that Changed the World, Macmillan, London, 1990. 29. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 1992 Award Criteria, United States Department of Commerce, 1992. 30. Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K., Revolutionising Product Development, Free Press, New York, NY, 1992. 31. Hanson, P. and Voss, C.A., Made in Britain, The True State of Britains Manufacturing Industry, IBM Ltd/London Business School, Warwick, 1993. 32. Adam, E.E. Jr and Swamidass, P.M., Assessing operations management from a strategic perspective, Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1989. 33. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., Putting the balanced scorecard to work, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1992, pp. 114-47. 34. Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M. and Richards, H., Realising strategy through measurement, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, 1994, pp. 143-55. 35. Ferdows, K. and de Meyer, A., Lasting improvement in manufacturing,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1990, pp. 168-84. 36. Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., Jones, D. and Lowe, J., World class manufacturing: further evidence in the lean production debate, paper presented to BAM conference, Milton Keynes, 20-22 September 1993. 37. Voss, C.A. and Blackmon, K., Practice performance relationships in UK manufacturing industry, paper presented at European Operations Management Association conference, Cambridge, June 1994. Further reading Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K., Dynamic Manufacturing, Collier Macmillan, New York, NY, 1988. Jelinek, R. and Goldhar, J., The strategic implications of the factory of the future,Harvard Business Review, Summer 1984, pp. 24-37. Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G., The core competence of the corporation,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, 1990, pp. 79-91. Voss, C.A., Implementation, a key issue in manufacturing technology; the need for a field of study, Research Policy, Vol. 17, 1988, pp. 55-63.