英语论文网

might be important to understand both, we add that agile manufacturing andmass customisation are not mutually exclusive paradigms. Instead, we argue thatmass customisation is best viewed as a powerful example of a firm’s ability to beagile. A starting point in possible distinctions between agile manufacturing andmass customisation has to do with the firm’s existing core processes and size ofthe firm. Aspects of agility (which do not necessary include high volumemanufacturing) can take place within SMEs (Bessant et al., 2001). However, giventhe size of investment needed for mass production processes (from which masscustomisation has emanated) it is perhaps not surprising to find that it is largefirms, rather than SMEs, that tend to form the greatest parentage of firms
pursuing mass customisation. Moreover, the considerable additional investmentin process technologies, together with investment in a range of“non-technological” factors in human resource requirements including training,required for mass customisation means that firms pursuing customisation tend tobe large, rather than SMEs (A° hlstro¨m and Westbrook, 1999).
In this paper evidence is provided from research based on plants within sixlarge firms, three in the computing industry and three in automobiles. In thispaper we suggest that the role of manufacturing strategy is an important
precursor to achieving agility, including mass customisation, because the rangeof capabilities needed do not come about by “good fortune” or chance, in spiteof learning and operations competencies that the firm may accumulate overtime (Brown, 1996). Rather, the ability to become agile and to manufacturemass customised products can only be achieved by combining skills,technologies, know-how, processes and alliances with other players, broughtabout by strategies being in place. The need for manufacturing strategy mayseem axiomatic for some academics. However, as we shall see, devising andimplementing manufacturing strategies – in particular as a precursor topursuing mass customisation – is difficult for some firms. In our paper weshall explore the reasons for this by using a mapping process which focuses onfour key aspects. These are:
(1) strategy formulation;
(2) internal processes;
(3) external linkages; and
(4) human resource issues.
IJOPM
23,7
708
The paper takes the following form. First, we discuss how manufacturingstrategy has changed over time; we then discuss the emergence of agilemanufacturing and mass customisation; following this we present our primaryresearch and findings; finally we discuss conclusions and ideas for futureresearch.
The changing eras of manufacturing and the impact on strategicplanning
The new competitive landscape in many industries is one of ongoing andheightened levels of competition, which demands flexibility, delivery speed,and innovation. D’Aveni (1994) used the term “hypercompetition” to describethe condition of rapidly escalating competition characterizing many industries.
We might assume then, that such change would result in a strategicreconfiguration within firms in how they manage the strategy process.However, firms remain stuck in past paradigms of strategy – most notably onthe over dependence of an e´lite strategy-making group at the top of theorganisation’s hierarchy (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984; Brown, 1998a). As aresult of this, a state of strategic dissonance (Brown, 2000) occurs not onlybetween the firm an