Examining a firm's decisions with a contingency framework for manufacturing flexibility

Abstract

Purpose

To examine and analyze the decision process that a firm undergoes for acquiring an advanced manufacturing system to obtain manufacturing flexibility for its operations.

Design/methodology/approach

A case study approach is used to examine these decision processes. A conceptual contingency‐based framework from the literature is used to guide the analysis. The framework proposes that four exogenous variables – strategy, environmental factors, organizational attributes, and technology – guide a firm's decisions on choice and adoption of manufacturing flexibility, which has an effect on the firm's performance.

Findings

The analysis shows that these decisions are aligned with the various relationships in the framework. The framework therefore helps understand and explain the above decision processes. Further, the paper expands the concept of “fit” between the variables in the framework.

Research limitations/implications

Several research propositions are developed based on the findings of this study. The findings in this paper are limited to this case study only. The paper does not attempt to validate theory but applies it in the context of examining and analyzing a company's decisions.

Practical implications

The suggested relationships in the conceptual framework are found to be applicable in a business setting. Practitioners can use the conceptual framework to guide them in making decisions when acquiring advanced manufacturing systems to obtain manufacturing flexibility.

Originality/value

This case study captures richness and detail in the decision‐making processes of an individual firm that are missed by other types of research studies. It helps both academics and practitioners to gain a better understanding of these processes.

Citation

Hutchison, J. and Das, S.R. (2007), "Examining a firm's decisions with a contingency framework for manufacturing flexibility", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 159-180. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710720603