REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY

REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about spurious results and is one motivation for this study. We examine aspects of the tradeoffs concept, production competence paradigm, and a manufacturing strategy taxonomy framework. In regard to the tradeoffs concept, we found evidence of tradeoffs between some, but certainly not all, manufacturing capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and customization. The relationships get sharper when controlling for process choice. For example, the tradeoff between cost and customization is particularly strong between plants that have different process choices. We find that such tradeoffs can change, or even disappear, however, once the process choice is in place. With respect to the production competence paradigm, our analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between production competence and operations performance in batch shops, but not in plants with other process choices. Finally, using variables similar to those of Miller and Roth, our data produced three similar clusters even though their unit of analysis was much more macro than ours. Controlling for process choice is consistent with the current manufacturing strategy literature that emphasizes dynamic development of capabilities within the context of path dependencies. A major argument of this strand of research is that operations decisions not only affect current capabilities, but also set the framework for development of capabilities in the future. That being the case, controlling for process choice (or other factors such as industry or markets) should contribute to the understanding of capability‐development paths adopted by different manufacturing plants. In short, we found at least partial support for each of the theories examined here, even though the theories seem on the surface to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Controlling for process choice or other measures of dependency goes a long way in uncovering consistency across different theories and empirical studies in operations management. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Production and Operations Management Wiley

REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/revisiting-alternative-theoretical-paradigms-in-manufacturing-strategy-6nlIvqUH7w
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2000 Production and Operations Management Society
ISSN
1059-1478
eISSN
1937-5956
DOI
10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about spurious results and is one motivation for this study. We examine aspects of the tradeoffs concept, production competence paradigm, and a manufacturing strategy taxonomy framework. In regard to the tradeoffs concept, we found evidence of tradeoffs between some, but certainly not all, manufacturing capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and customization. The relationships get sharper when controlling for process choice. For example, the tradeoff between cost and customization is particularly strong between plants that have different process choices. We find that such tradeoffs can change, or even disappear, however, once the process choice is in place. With respect to the production competence paradigm, our analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between production competence and operations performance in batch shops, but not in plants with other process choices. Finally, using variables similar to those of Miller and Roth, our data produced three similar clusters even though their unit of analysis was much more macro than ours. Controlling for process choice is consistent with the current manufacturing strategy literature that emphasizes dynamic development of capabilities within the context of path dependencies. A major argument of this strand of research is that operations decisions not only affect current capabilities, but also set the framework for development of capabilities in the future. That being the case, controlling for process choice (or other factors such as industry or markets) should contribute to the understanding of capability‐development paths adopted by different manufacturing plants. In short, we found at least partial support for each of the theories examined here, even though the theories seem on the surface to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Controlling for process choice or other measures of dependency goes a long way in uncovering consistency across different theories and empirical studies in operations management.

Journal

Production and Operations ManagementWiley

Published: Jun 1, 2000

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month