You are on page 1of 17

Theory and Methodology

A review of manufacturing exibility


R. Beach
a
, A.P. Muhlemann
a
, D.H.R. Price
a,
*
, A. Paterson
b
, J.A. Sharp
b
a
University of Bradford Management Centre, Emm Lane, Bradford BD9 4JL, West Yorkshire, UK
b
Canterbury Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7PE, UK
Received 1 February 1997; accepted 1 November 1998
Abstract
In the eld of operations management, manufacturing exibility has been the subject of much academic enquiry.
Moreover, the need for this fundamental characteristic has never been more urgent. However, a comprehensive un-
derstanding of the subject remains elusive.
An extensive review of the literature is used to examine the issues surrounding the concept of manufacturing ex-
ibility. Specically: the use of manufacturing exibility as a strategic objective, the relationship exibility has with
environmental uncertainty, the use of taxonomies as a vehicle for furthering understanding of the types of exibility, the
nature of exibility, and its measurement.
Through this process of synthesis, the paper attempts to establish the extent to which knowledge of manufacturing
exibility has now progressed. Suggestions for future research topics in exibility are also presented. 2000 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Manufacturing; Flexibility; Management; Research; Survey
1. Introduction
Whether possessing the capability to cope with
uncertainty will necessarily provide competitive
advantage is not clear. Much of the success of
manufacturers in countries such as Japan and
Korea has been attributed to their exibility
and specically the application of advanced tech-
nology. However, in a comparative study of Jap-
anese and US FMS Jaikumar (1986) attributed the
superior performance of Japanese systems, not to
exible technology but rather to their technological
literacy. The acquisition of exible technology as a
direct response to changing markets is not neces-
sarily the panacea it is widely believed to be. In-
deed, in some circumstances, the trade-os that
must be made between dedicated equipment and
exible technology may restrict competitiveness
(Hill and Chambers, 1991). This point is supported
by Kulatilaka and Marks (1988) who conclude,
``the strategic value of exibility can, under some
conditions, be negative'', particularly, when un-
certainty can be limited or constrained by contract.
European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
www.elsevier.com/locate/orms
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1274-234351; fax: +44-
1274-546866.
E-mail address: dhrprice@bradford.ac.uk (D.H.R. Price).
0377-2217/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 4
In short, ``more exibility does not always mean a
more economic solution'' (Lenz, 1992b) particu-
larly when the scale of economies are high (Gupta,
1993). Therefore ``without a clear strategic direc-
tion with regard to manufacturing, the new man-
ufacturing technologies can become an expensive
solution in search of a problem'' (Correa, 1994).
Nonetheless, manufacturing exibility remains a
key strategic objective of many manufacturing
companies. Adamand Swamidass (1989) assert that
``the core content of a manufacturing strategy in-
cludes cost, quality, exibility and technology'',
while Collins andSchemenner (1993) note that when
asked to articulate the manufacturing task the usual
priorities mentioned are: ``product quality; product
cost; delivery dependability, and exibility''. Whilst
the form of exibility cited is unclear, it would ap-
pear that the ability to produce to the least cost is no
longer the dominant factor in remaining competi-
tive. In the past, demand was more stable, there was
less product variety and life cycles and lead times
were longer (Chambers, 1995). Now, the capacity to
absorb uctuations in demand economically, to
develop and introduce new products quicker (Gai-
mon and Singhal, 1992) using existing facilities are
seen as important competitive issues. Such consid-
erations have been a catalyst for the interest now
being shown in manufacturing exibility.
However, in spite of the recognition that man-
ufacturing and engineering management have a
signicant contribution to make to the achieve-
ment of corporate objectives, the use of manufac-
turing exibility, in general, remains in the realms
of operational management and, most closely as-
sociated with process technology. As such its use
has been largely reactive (Gerwin, 1993), providing
the production process with the ability to modify
itself in the face of uncertainty (Kulatilaka and
Marks, 1988), i.e. providing an adaptive response
(Gupta and Goyal, 1989). Clearly, before the full
potential of manufacturing exibility can be real-
ised, its acquisition must be elevated in the deci-
sion making process from the operational to the
strategic. However, a prerequisite of this occurring
is that the concepts of manufacturing exibility
and the implications of its acquisition and man-
agement, are understood by those responsible for
developing the capability.
2. Manufacturing exibility and uncertainty
An early denition of manufacturing exibility
is provided by Gupta and Goyal (1989) who,
quoting Buzacott and Mandelbaum (1985), credit
Mascarenhas (1981) as having dened it as ``the
ability of a manufacturing system to cope with
changing circumstances or instability caused by
the environment''. Cox (1989) denes manufac-
turing exibility as ``the quickness and ease with
which plants can respond to changes in market
conditions''. Adopting an operational view, Na-
garur (1992) denes exibility as ``the ability of the
system to quickly adjust to any change in relevant
factors like product, process, loads and machine
failure''. However, a more comprehensive deni-
tion might be ``the ability to change or react with
little penalty in time, eort, cost or performance''
(Upton, 1994).
Whilst by no means exhaustive or particularly
comprehensive, the above denitions illustrate
three important points. They reect the breadth
and diversity in the understanding of the subject,
they refer to the ability to respond to change, and
they point to the use of exibility to accommodate
uncertainty. The use of exibility for the purpose
of accommodating uncertainty is a notion which
has received broad recognition, but the types of
uncertainty a system can be expected to address
appears to be dependent on the operational level
from which it is viewed, e.g. the process cell, the
function or the manufacturing plant.
A broad range of rationales for acquiring ex-
ibility has been suggested. Frazelle (1986) claims
exibility is required in order to maintain com-
petitiveness in a changing business environment,
and cites current issues such as a rapidly decreas-
ing product half-life, the inux of competitors, an
increasing demand for product changes and the
introduction of new products, materials and pro-
cesses. While Slack (1983) suggests the incentives
to seek exibility are founded in the instability and
unpredictability of the manufacturers' operational
environment, developments in production tech-
nology such as FMS and robotics, and the wid-
ening aims of production to progress beyond cost
and productivity issues to manufacturing system
exibility. An organisational perspective on the
42 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
rationale for acquiring exibility is provided by
Gunnigle and Daly (1992) who cite the necessity
for higher productivity to decrease unit costs; an
organisation's need to adapt production strategy
to accommodate uctuations in energy prices, in-
terest rates and ination; and reduced skill re-
quirements as a consequence of advances in
technology.
It is clear from the above that each type of
uncertainty in its turn requires a dierent and
particular type of exibility to accommodate it.
Perhaps the earliest recognition of this fact was
that of Gerwin (1987) whose attempt at associat-
ing types of uncertainty with types of exibility is
summarised in Table 1.
More recently, Correa (1994) has suggested
that environmental uncertainty and variability in
outputs are the two main reasons that manufac-
turing exibility is sought. These two factors, in
whatever form they may materialise, can be
translated into types of operational change which
can be further categorised according to whether
the need for change is planned or unplanned.
Unplanned changes, either originating internally
or externally, are referred to as stimuli, i.e. the
cause of the requirement for exibility. The
sources of stimuli, Correa suggests, can be cate-
gorised as either process, labour, suppliers, cus-
tomers, society, corporate and other functions
and competitors. Moreover, unplanned change
has ve main dimensions: size, novelty, frequen-
cy, certainty and rate. In response, management
attempt to impose forms of control and as a
consequence exibility is required to handle those
elements that remain. This is shown diagram-
matically in Fig. 1. The ``exibility box'' shown in
the diagram is expanded into a set of manufac-
turing system exibility types, namely: new
product, mix, volume and delivery exibility
(Slack, 1989) to which a fth exibility type,
system robustness is added.
The framework primarily focuses on the eects
of stimuli (unplanned change) and in particular,
``managerial actions which aim at dealing with the
eects of unplanned change'' and ``the amount of
unplanned change which the organisation has to
handle before the occurrence of the change''
(Correa, 1994). Consequently, manufacturing
exibility is viewed as a reactive capability and
alternative uses of it or requirements for it are not
considered in any detail.
Conversely, Hyun and Ahn (1992) cite four
strategies for using exibility, namely, ``reactive
internal uncertainty'', ``reactive external uncer-
tainty'', ``proactive internal uncertainty'' and
``proactive external uncertainty''. Alternatively,
Gerwin (1993) suggests that the use of exibility
can be represented by the four generic strategies:
``adaptive'', e.g. the defensive or reactive use of
exibility to accommodate unknown uncertainty;
``redenition'', e.g. the proactive use of exibility
to raise customer expectations, increase uncer-
tainty for its rivals and gain competitive edge;
``banking'', e.g. the defensive use of exibility to
accommodate known types of uncertainty such as
surges in demand or alternatively the proactive use
of surplus exibility to redene competitive con-
ditions; and ``reduction'', e.g. the use of long term
contracts with customers and suppliers, preventive
maintenance and total quality control pro-
grammes and designing for manufacture to limit
the need for manufacturing exibility.
Table 1
Association of exibility types and uncertainty, Gerwin (1987)
Flexibility type Uncertainty
Mix Uncertainty as to which products will be accepted by customers created a need for mix exibility
Changeover Uncertainty as to the length of product life cycles leads to changeover exibility
Modication Uncertainty as to which particular attributes customers want . . . leads to modication exibility
Rerouting Uncertainty with respect to machine downtime makes for rerouting exibility
Volume Uncertainty with regard to the amount of customer demand for the products oered leads to volume exibility
Material Uncertainty as to whether the material inputs to a manufacturing process meet standards gives rise to the need for
material exibility
Sequence Sequence exibility . . . arises from the need to deal with uncertain delivery times of raw materials
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 43
Support for this last approach is provided by
Upton (1994) who suggests that modular design,
inventory and focusing plants are all ways of re-
ducing the need for exibility. Newman et al.
(1993) suggests that the method used to reduce the
eects of both external and internal uncertainty
can be related to product and process character-
istics. Companies mass producing a narrow range
of products may reduce internal uncertainty and
limit the amount of external uncertainty they need
to accommodate by using dedicated technology,
centralised infrastructures and buers before and
after the process. Conversely, companies process-
ing a wide range of products and volumes can use
exible technology and a decentralised infrastruc-
ture to accommodate the eects of external un-
certainty and internal buers to limit internal
uncertainty.
Interestingly, Correa's research provides em-
pirical evidence to support this view, categorising
the controlling techniques used by management to
limit the amount of uncertainty the system expe-
riences as: monitoring and forecasting, co-ordina-
ting and integrating, focusing and conning,
delegating and subcontracting, hedging and sub-
stituting, negotiating, advertising and promoting,
maintaining, updating and training. These tech-
niques can be applied, either to the source of the
stimuli or to the way the system is aected and as a
consequence reduce the need for, or the magnitude
of, the exibility required. An observation with
important implications for those seeking to de-
velop exible manufacturing capabilities is that of
Ettlie and Penner-Hahn (1994) who speculate that
``if rms knew their markets better they would not
need as much exibility'', e.g. a better knowledge
of the product features required, expected demand,
anticipated product life-cycles and competitor's
strategies, etc. would reduce the magnitude of the
exibility needed.
That exibility and uncertainty are inexorably
linked, there is no doubt, but whether the capa-
bility to be exible is best used reactively, e.g. as an
insurance policy to guard against shortening
product life cycles (Gaimon and Singhal, 1992)
and thereby prolong the service life of the manu-
facturing facility (Chen et al., 1992) or proactively,
e.g. to gain competitive advantage (Zhao and
Steier, 1993) seems to be a matter still open to
debate. Ultimately, this may have more to do with
an enterprise's values and norms and how these
inuence business strategy than any overt decision
on the part of management.
In summary: several important issues have been
raised. A number of authors have suggested that
whilst exibility is frequently used as a foil for
uncertainty, the manifestation of uncertainty is
dependent upon the operational level from which
it is viewed. Further, specic types of exibility are
required to accommodate the eects of each type
of uncertainty. The magnitude of the capability
required is determined by the eectiveness with
which uncertainty can be controlled by established
management techniques. These techniques can be
applied at both a strategic and operational level. In
addition, manufacturing exibility can be used
strategically in a number of ways, which it has
been speculated is dependent, in part, upon issues
Fig. 1. Linkages between dimensions of change and exibility, reproduced from Correa (1994).
44 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
of cultural and ideology. These terms have been
discussed, in an organisational context, by Butler
(1991).
3. Types of exibility
A dominant feature of previous work noted by
both Sethi and Sethi (1990), and Upton (1994) has
been the use of taxonomies to categorise the var-
ious types of exibility. While undeniably con-
tributing to the subject these categorisations have
probably done more to ``underscore the fact that
there are frequently multiple types of exibility
with which a manager is concurrently concerned''
than to advance an overall understanding of the
concept. Indeed, Sethi and Sethi (1990) noted
the existence of at least 50 dierent terms for the
various types of exibility referred to in the liter-
ature; denitions, which ``are not always precise
and are, at times even for identical terms, not in
agreement with one another''. Swamidass (1988)
attributes the diculties of understanding exi-
bility to: the use of exibility terms with scopes
which overlap, the use of exibility terms which
have dierent meanings and, the use of exibility
terms which are aggregates of others. This view
has been endorsed by Chung and Chen (1990) and
Bernardo and Mohamed (1992).
Perhaps as a consequence of this, the literature
survey has become a characteristic of manufac-
turing exibility research. Considered below are
two of the more comprehensive and informative
studies.
The rst, Gupta and Goyal (1989) is concerned
with the classication of the literature based on the
dierent ways in which exibility has been dened
and its measurement approached. The structure of
this survey follows a classication system origi-
nally developed by Kumar (1987) which is based
on methods of measuring exibility, while emp-
hasising the distinction between qualitative (de-
scriptive) and quantitative (computable) measures.
Using a small but representative sample of the
literature Gupta and Goyal (1989) illustrate the
``multitude of opinions'' and the variety of exi-
bility types dened in the literature by comparing
them against those dened by Browne et al. (1984).
In the opinion of the authors and others (Lim,
1986; Yilmaz and Davis, 1987) the original eight
categories of Browne et al. represent ``the most
comprehensive'' classication and are reproduced
in Table 2.
The result of the analysis completed by Gupta
and Goyal (1989) is a matrix in which each column
represents a type of exibility as dened by
Browne et al. and each row represents the terms
used by a particular author. The heading under
which each term has been placed in the matrix has
been determined by the degree of similarity be-
tween the term's denition and that of Browne et
al. As a consequence, not all the terms have been
included in the table, which is described as being
``based on a subjective view'' (Table 3). (Note also
the use of the term ``process sequence exibility''
rather than the ``operation exibility'' term used by
Browne et al. (1984).
A characteristic of these taxonomies is that they
tend to be hierarchical in construction and related
to a specic operational level (contrast Slack,
1983; Barad and Sipper, 1988; Mandelbaum,
1978). Table 3 lends support to the approach
adopted by Chung and Chen (1990) who noted
that despite the numerous attempts at dening
exibility, the term remained unclear. A ``exibil-
ity map'' rather than a hierarchical model is sub-
sequently developed which, attempts to clarify the
relationships between exibility types. Gerwin
(1993) exploits the notion that hierarchical tax-
onomies may encourage the proliferation of exi-
bility types, to argue for the development of a
taxonomy that can be applied at dierent hierar-
chical levels. By virtue of its universality, he
speculates, a taxonomy that can be applied at the
machine level, the cell level, the plant level, etc.
may reduce the need for context specic exibility
types. The proposed taxonomy, mix, changeover,
modication, volume, rerouting and material
exibility is derived from the identication of
the strategies used to accommodate specic un-
certainties.
However, while high levels of aggregation can
facilitate understanding by removing unnecessary
levels of detail, general categories of exibility
which subsume lower order exibility types run the
risk of needing interpretation and thereby being of
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 45
reduced value. Therefore, ``a basic issue that must
be resolved in dening manufacturing exibility is
the level at which it is to be considered'' (Gerwin,
1987).
A further issue, which has proved dicult to
quantify, is the interrelationships that exist be-
tween the exibility types. However, these rela-
tionships are a major inuence on an enterprise's
overall capability. This view is underscored by
various examples in the literature e.g. Gupta and
Goyal (1989) suggest that a knowledge of the
``trade-os'' which exist between the various types
of exibility could help with the formulation of
strategy, and Newman et al. (1993) consider a
thorough understanding of the manufacturing
options and their interactions as being integral to
the formulation of an eective manufacturing
strategy. The absence of a suitable means of
modelling complex hierarchical interrelationships
may be a contributing factor to the diculties
being experienced in this area.
In the second study, as well as documenting the
evolution of the concept of manufacturing exi-
bility Sethi and Sethi (1990) also attempt to ``fa-
cilitate an overview of the various types of
exibility and their interrelationships''. A set of
exibility types is subsequently developed which,
like Gupta and Goyal (1989) follows that provided
by Browne et al. (1984). The original eight exi-
bility types are expanded to eleven, which in the
Table 2
Browne's original taxonomy of exibility types (Browne et al., 1984)
Flexibility type Denition
Machine the ease of making the changes required to produce a given set of part types
Process the ability to produce a given set of part types, each possibly using dierent materials, in several ways
Product the ability to changeover to produce a new (set of) product(s) very economically and quickly
Routing the ability to handle breakdowns and to continue producing the given set of part types
Volume the ability to operate an FMS protably at dierent production volumes
Expansion the capability of building a system and expanding it as needed, easily and modularly
Operation the ability to interchange the ordering of several operations for each part type
Production the universe of part types that the FMS can produce
Table 3
Classication of exibility literature according to Browne et al. (1984) taxonomy, reproduced from Gupta and Goyal (1989)
Author(s) Machine Process Product Routing Volume Expan-
sion
Process
sequence
Production
Mandelbaum (1978) Action State
Buzacott (1982) Machine Job
Son and Park (1987) Process Equip-
ment
Demand Product
Zelenovic (1982) Adapta-
tion
Application
Gerwin (1982) Design Parts Routing Volume Mix
Frazelle (1986) Design Parts Routing Volume Mix
Carter (1986) Machine Mix Mix
Change
Routing Expan-
sion
Production
Azzone and Bertele (1987) Process Product Routing Production
Barad and Sipper (1988) Machine
Setup
Process Routing Opera-
tions
Chatterjee et al. (1984) Part
Specic
Part Mix Routing
Gustavsson (1984) Product Demand Machine
Slack (1983) Quality New
Product
Volume Product
Mix
46 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
authors' words ``deviate from their view occa-
sionally''. Suggested methods of measurement are
also developed for specic types of exibilities and
their interrelationships.
The eleven types of exibility are: machine,
material handling, operation, process, product,
routing, volume, expansion, program, production
and market exibility. Of these, material handling,
program and market exibility are wholly
new additions to the taxonomy of Browne et al.
(Table 4).
The rst three of the eleven, are considered as
basic system components, whilst the remaining
eight apply to the manufacturing system as a
whole. The interrelationships of these eleven ex-
ibilities are shown diagrammatically in Fig. 2.
The framework depicted in the diagram can be
viewed from two perspectives. First, the compo-
nent exibilities contribute to those of the system,
which in turn inuence the aggregate exibilities.
Alternatively, the manufacturing strategy dictates
the extent of the system exibilities that in their
turn dictate the component exibilities required.
The work of Sethi and Sethi places manufac-
turing exibility rmly in the wider context of the
organisation and the business environment and
therefore the strategic exibility arena, emphasi-
sing the role these broader issues play in the pur-
suance of exibility. It also acknowledges that
``sophisticated computer and information tech-
nology and a exible organisational structure un-
derlie'' each of the exibility types.
In summary: manufacturing exibility can be
viewed as a multidimensional concept rather than
as an independent variable that can be dened and
measured in isolation. It is a product of a number
of important enablers such as corporate culture,
management structure, process technology, facility
layout, and information systems. The development
of a generic taxonomy is likely to remain elusive as
manufacturing exibility clearly possesses both a
strategic and an operational dimension; it can
Table 4
Flexibility types additional to Browne's original taxonomy (Sethi and Sethi, 1990)
Flexibility type Denition
Material exibility of a material handling system is its ability to move dierent part types eciently for proper
positioning and processing through the manufacturing facility it serves
Program the ability of the system to run virtually unattended for a long enough period
Market the ease with which the manufacturing system can adapt to a changing market environment
Fig. 2. Linkages between the various exibilities, reproduced from Sethi and Sethi (1990).
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 47
manifest itself in many forms at various and dis-
tinct operational levels in an enterprise. A more
positive contribution to the work in this area is the
emphasis placed on the relationships which exist
between each type of exibility, underscoring the
need to understand the implications of acquiring
and implementing manufacturing exibility from a
strategic, as well as from an operational perspec-
tive.
4. The nature of exibility
In addition to the eorts that have been di-
rected at identifying and dening the components
of exibility, attempts have also been made to
characterise the concept and nature of exibility.
Slack (1983), commenting on work by Wild (1980)
and the notion that production (operations) ob-
jectives ``fall into two groups; those related to
customer service and those related to resource
productivity'', concluded that ``exibility is the
same class of objective as reliability, it is both a
condition to be applied to other objectives and an
inherent characteristic of the system itself ''. Later,
Easton and Rothschild (1988) adopted a comple-
mentary position, thus: ``exibility, unlike most
other organisational variables, is a second order
dimension. It concerns changes in state rather than
the states themselves''. However, perhaps reect-
ing changes in the business environment and
management attitudes, Correa (1994) considers
exibility to have now become an important rst
order competitive criterion. For suppliers working
with customers on concurrent or simultaneous
engineering projects, exibility is no longer re-
garded as just a facilitator of traditional order
wining criteria, e.g. delivery time, reliability, cost,
quality, but an important order winner in its own
right.
Mandelbaum (1978) describes exibility in two
main contexts: action exibility, where outside
intervention is required before the system can re-
spond to change and, state exibility where a
system's capacity to respond to change is con-
tained within the system. Conversely, Frazelle
(1986) approaches the subject from a slightly
broader perspective preferring to categorise exi-
bility in terms of its long and short term strategic
eects. He denes long term exibility as the ``re-
duced eort required to recongure for new pro-
duction tasks and business strategies because of
changes in the production program and business
plan and changes in the quantitative and qualita-
tive capacity requirements of the business'' and
short term exibility as the ``reduced eort neces-
sary to reset between known production tasks
within the scope of an existing production pro-
gram or business plan''. An economist's perspec-
tive is provided by Carlsson (1989), who
categorises exibility as being either Type I or
Type II. The former refers to the exibility which
is inherent in the production process and its ability
to deal with ``foreseeable events'' (internal exi-
bility) and the latter to the ability to respond to
``uninsurable changes in the market'' and ``un-
programmable advances in technology'' (external
exibility). Upton (1994) denes external exibility
as capabilities possessed by the company and used
to accommodate ``sources of variability to which
the rm must respond'' and which are ``seen as
exible by the market'', and internal exibility as
``the operations strategy and set of capabilities a
rm nurtures to respond to its environment''.
A useful attempt at ``clarifying and unifying the
denitions of manufacturing exibility'' is pro-
vided by Hyun and Ahn (1992) who construct a
framework using the various research studies of
manufacturing exibility. In this framework, each
study is classied in one of three groups as either,
system, environment-associated or decision-hier-
archical, according to the perspective of the re-
search.
From the system view, system exibility is the
sum of the exibilities of the system's functions.
Similarly, a functional exibility, such as manu-
facturing, is composed of component level exi-
bilities which are further classied as: (i)
``software'', e.g. control exibility, worker exi-
bility, and (ii) ``hardware'', e.g. machine exibility
and routing exibility. The system view emphasises
the need to co-ordinate the management and de-
velopment of all functional exibilities to achieve
total system exibility. A similar holistic view is
adopted with the management and development of
the function's component exibilities.
48 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
The environment-associated or traditional view
of exibility is characterised by the notion of in-
ternal and external environments and the interac-
tion of the component exibilities with the
environmental uncertainties, i.e. expansion exi-
bility, product, mix, volume and program exi-
bility. These exibilities are further classied as
being either ``static'', usually embodied in process
technology, or ``dynamic'', usually embodied in
the organisational culture.
The third group, decision-hierarchical com-
prises of long term (strategic), mid term (tactical)
and short term (operational) exibility. These are
dened respectively as: (i) the ability of a system
to respond to: market changes, changes in strat-
egy, new product introduction and basic design
changes, (ii) the ability to operate at varying
rates, to handle a variety of parts of known basic
design, to accept random, minor changes and to
convert the plant for alternative use, and (iii) the
ability to reset and readjust between known
production tasks, to permit a high degree of
variation in sequencing and scheduling, etc.
Flexibility types categorised under the groups are
classied as being either dynamic or static in
nature.
At a lower level, Slack (1983) uses a manufac-
turing systems taxonomy of ve exibility types:
product, mix, volume, delivery and quality (later,
Slack, 1987, quality was excluded) to extend the
concept of exibility to consider: the range of
states a system can adopt, the cost of making a
change as distinct from the cost of providing the
capability to change, and the time to make the
change. The latter two ``dimensions'' being de-
scribed as ``the friction elements of the exibility of
a system'' and as ``the manifestation of the di-
culty of making a change''.
Slack's early work on the nature of exibility
appears to have informed the work of a number of
research community members (Gerwin, 1987,
1993; Upton, 1994; Correa, 1994). Notably, Upton
builds on Slack's notion of the nature of exibility
(Fig. 3) introducing the concept of usage, i.e. Time
Horizon, and Uniformity thus:
Dimensions the situation for which exibility
is required; Time Horizon measured in units of
time and categorised as strategic, tactical and op-
erational, it is the period or frequency of change,
e.g. minute-by-minute, days, weeks, or years;
Range element possibly measured as the range of
products produced, etc., it is the number of viable
positions within the range or metric of operating
limits; Uniformity element possibly measured as
yield or quality, it is a performance measure re-
ecting the ability to operate uniformly at any
point in the range; Mobility element possibly
measured as cost or time, it is the ability to move
within the dimension of change.
Correa (1994) introduces system robustness as a
type of exibility, i.e. the ability of the system to
overcome unplanned change whether originating
internally or externally. However, robustness
would seem to be better viewed as a characteristic
of the aggregated manufacturing system exibility
in much the same way as Upton's uniformity is a
characteristic of a particular dimension of exi-
bility.
In summary: it seems clear that manufacturing
exibility can be classied variously according to
Fig. 3. Flexibility framework, reproduced from Upton (1994).
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 49
how it is perceived (internal, external), and over
what time scale it is considered (long term, short
term), etc. However, irrespective of the level or
perspective from which it is viewed, each type or
``dimension'' of exibility can be divided into a
number of smaller elemental characteristics that
describe its bounds. Typical of these dimensions is
the range of states that can be achieved, the ability
to change through the available range and the
uniformity of performance across the range of
available states.
5. Identication and measurement of exibility
A primary objective behind the drive to dene
the character and nature of manufacturing exi-
bility has often been the desire to measure or
quantify the characteristic in some way and as a
consequence, the two issues are invariably closely
linked. However, opinion remains divided as to
whether manufacturing exibility can be measured
(Lenz, 1992a) or, in certain circumstances even
needs to be (De Groote, 1994).
The various research approaches which have
been employed to identify and measure exibility
can be broadly categorised as either qualitative or
quantitative (Brill and Mandelbaum, 1989; Sarker
et al., 1994). This categorisation is not mutually
exclusive. Van Maanen (1979) suggests the dier-
ence is one of ``overall form, focus and emphasis of
study''. He also notes that the term ``covers an
array of interpretative techniques'' and describes
``doing description'', e.g. case studies and personal
interviews, as a ``fundamental act of data collec-
tion in a qualitative study''.
Qualitative research in the eld of exibility
tends to deal with issues in general terms, focusing
on concepts such as those related to process tech-
nology andbusiness strategy. Examples of this work
include Buzacott (1982), Browne et al. (1984) and
Slack (1983, 1987) who attempted to identify types
of exibility, Gustavsson (1984) and Buzacott and
Mandelbaum (1985) who investigated the relation-
ship between exibility and productivity, Chatterjee
et al. (1984) who presented various production
frameworks, and Carter (1986) who presented dif-
ferent strategies for increased exibilities.
Conversely, quantitative research tends to ad-
dress specic manufacturing issues and is usually
of an operational nature. Examples of this work
are Son and Park (1987) and Nagarur (1992) who
developed mathematical models and measures of
exibility for many lower order exibility types. In
particular, routing exibility and machine exi-
bility, which are referred to by Chandra and
Tombak (1992) as ``two of the most fundamental
types of exibility''. A notable exception to the
predominantly operational focus of quantitative
research is the earlier work of Mandelbaum
(1978). This work uses decision theoretic formu-
lation to explore the notion of exibility in
the decision making process, thus emphasising
``the role of strategic considerations or attributes
in the evaluation of exibility''.
A wide range of techniques has been employed
developing quantitative measures of exibility.
Many of these are theoretical and typically focus
on only two or three types of exibility. These
include, path analytic modelling (Swamidass and
Newell, 1987), petri net modelling (Kochikar and
Narendran, 1992), information theoretic (Yao,
1985), decision theoretic (Mandelbaum, 1978;
Mandelbaum and Buzacott, 1990), nancial anal-
ysis (Chandra and Tombak, 1992; Gupta, 1993),
value based (Ramasesh and Jayakumar, 1991),
measure theoretic, contingency theoretic (Ger-
main, 1989), and empirical data analysis (Dixon,
1992). In their treatise on this subject, Gupta and
Goyal (1989) provide numerous examples of both
approaches, attributing the apparent diversity to
the ``wide array of dimensions, which constitute
modern, advanced manufacturing systems''.
However, later Gupta (1993) speculates that
the cause of ``so many dierent measurement
schemes'' and ``lack of universal acceptance of any
one scheme'' is the fact that any measurement of
exibility must, because of its nature, be user or
situation specic.
Considering manufacturing exibility at the
system level, a further and possibly more useful
classication of approaches to research in this area
is introduced by Sarker et al. (1994), namely: ag-
gregate and attribute. Focussing on the treatment
of the subject rather than the techniques used, the
two approaches are broadly dened:
50 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
Aggregate the unication or integration of
exibility measures of individual subsystems into a
quantication of the manufacturing systems exi-
bility; and Attribute the construction of a mea-
sure of manufacturing exibility based on
parameters selected from a cross section of those
functions of the manufacturing system which
contribute to exibility.
Cited examples of the aggregated approach are:
Ramasesh and Jayakumar (1991) (from whom the
term is borrowed and whose approach is discussed
later), Son and Park (1987) who integrate a num-
ber of individual measures of exibility to produce
an integrated measure which is expressed in mon-
etary terms, and Abdel-Malek and Wolf (1991)
whose method of component integration involves
the construction of a parameterised average exi-
bility which, expressed in non-monetary terms,
represents an index of manufacturing exibility.
Similarly, Hutchinson and Sinha (1989) are cited
as an example of the attribute approach. Focusing
on the relationship between uncertainty and exi-
bility, the authors use a ``decision theoretic mea-
sure'' to arrive at an economic value of exibility,
representing uncertainty as the standard deviation
of product demand.
Several observations can be made from Sarker's
evaluation of these two approaches. Concerning
the aggregated approach, it is noted that a fun-
damental prerequisite is the identication of the
relationships between the exibility types; the dif-
culty of achieving this has been previously dis-
cussed. Measuring exibility in monetary terms as
proposed in the integrated measures of Son and
Park (1987) and (Ramasesh and Jayakumar, 1991)
has an immediate appeal with management and
hence has a practical value. Conversely, the at-
tribute approach is dependent on the identication
of parameters and factors other than exibility
types. A variety of approaches, which have been
used for identifying these factors, are cited. How-
ever, many are of a theoretical nature and hence of
questionable value in real world applications.
Exceptions are: Lim (1987) whose use of an or-
ganisational survey attempted to identify how
management dened exibility; Gerwin (1987)
who proposed the use of a methodology for sys-
tematically identifying factors based on their use
to counter uncertainty; and, the factor analysis
approach adopted by Gupta and Somers (1992).
In the attempt by Gupta and Somers to develop
an ``instrument for measuring and analysing
manufacturing exibility'', 34 items aecting
manufacturing exibility were identied from the
literature and a preliminary instrument created to
measure them, e.g. ``Time required to introduce
new products'', ``Time required to add a unit of
production capacity'', ``Number of new parts
introduced per year'', etc. The results of a survey
of 269 companies were manipulated using factor-
analysis techniques to create a construct of 9
principal types of exibility based on 21 lower
order items: volume, programming, process,
product and production, market, machine, rout-
ing, material handling, expansion and market. The
construct, which is built on the taxonomy pro-
posed by Sethi and Sethi (1990), was tested on a
further 113 companies and was found to exhibit
``adequate reliability and validity''.
Ramasesh and Jayakumar (1991) refer to the
notion of aggregated exibility as ``the joint eect
of all types of exibilities that exist in the manu-
facturing system under consideration''. The ratio-
nale for considering the measurement of exibility
at this level is the unsuitability of lower order
measurements of exibility in the strategic decision
making process. The lower order measures are
seen as ``on the whole non-nancial'', ``local
measures which look at one or a few dimensions
and ignore possible interactions and trade-os
which may exist between the dierent exibility
types'', and ``the measurements are isolated in that
they are derived independently of the manufac-
turing environment''.
The quantitative model which is subsequently
developed is constructed around the view that a
value of exibility could be used as a surrogate
measure (Gupta and Buzacott, 1989) and that a
stochastic mathematical programming model
could be used to measure objects of managerial
control (Jaikumar, 1984). The resulting model uses
machine, material, labour and volume exibility to
construct an aggregated exibility. The resulting
measure, involving the distribution of the net
revenues of the exibility measure is said, ``pre-
sents performance-related benets of decisions
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 51
concerning the exibility aspects of a manufac-
turing system''.
That the perspective of the research conducted
to date has had a signicant bearing on the de-
velopment of so many disparate measures of ex-
ibility there can be little doubt. However, an
equally signicant factor must be the absence of an
agreement on the purpose of measuring exibility,
e.g. to compare the eectiveness of alternative
types of technology, to measure the operational
performance of a cell or manufacturing facility, or
to assess the feasibility of developing particular
business strategies. Another reason perhaps, is the
absence of any agreement on the constituent types
of exibility. This situation is exacerbated by the
fact that several important facilitators/enablers of
manufacturing exibility have been consistently
ignored in the manufacturing literature specical-
ly, labour (Chen et al., 1992) and information
technology. (Ramasesh and Jayakumar (1991)
provide a review of exibility types and suggested
measures. However, in spite of listing four types of
labour exibility, variously attributed to Atkinson
(1985) and Kozan (1982) no measurements are
proposed. Furthermore, the preoccupation of
earlier surveys with the taxonomy of Browne et al.
(1984) has meant that labour exibility and its
measurement has been ignored in key papers such
as Gupta and Goyal (1989) and Sethi and Sethi
(1990). Information technology, whilst acknowl-
edged as an important facilitator of manufacturing
exibility by Sethi and Sethi (1990) is similarly
ignored. A possible reason for this is that facili-
tators, like machine tools, labour and information
technology, are thought to contribute to a system's
exibility by performing their function properly
and are therefore seen as enablers of exibility
rather than types.
In summary: without an agreement on issues
such as what the constituent elements of manu-
facturing exibility are, the eects of the interre-
lationships which exist between them and the
extent of the role of the enablers in achieving
exibility, research into the measurement of exi-
bility, when viewed at the system level, is likely to
continue to appear inconsistent and confusing.
Nonetheless, the importance of being able to ac-
count for existing degrees of exibility when
making strategic and operational decisions is
clearly evident.
6. Consolidation framework
The use of frameworks to illustrate complex
management constructs and assist with the devel-
opment of theoretical concepts, that would
otherwise be dicult to visualise, is a technique
that will be familiar to operations management
researchers.
The framework proposed by Correa (1994),
shown in Fig. 1 and discussed earlier, illustrates
the inuence of the unplanned component of en-
vironmental uncertainty or stimulus on the man-
ufacturing system. Of particular interest is the
concept that stimuli can be translated, at the sys-
tem level, into types of change which can be fur-
ther dened in terms of lower order ``dimensions''
or attributes, each requiring a particular manage-
rial response.
As previously noted, because of the focus of
Correa's work, i.e. on managerial activities, man-
ufacturing exibility is presented in this framework
from a largely operational perspective. As a con-
sequence, it only represents a partial view of
manufacturing exibility, i.e. it ignores the use of
exibility as an integral element of a proactive
manufacturing strategy. Manufacturing exibility
can not only be used to inuence the sources of
environmental uncertainty, and thereby reduce the
eects which must be accommodated, it can be
used to create competitive advantage, e.g. by in-
creasing the competitor's level of uncertainty
(Hyun and Ahn, 1992; Gerwin, 1993).
The use of manufacturing exibility as a com-
ponent in a proactive or reactive manufacturing
strategy is illustrated in Gerwin's conceptual
framework (Fig. 4). Within the context of this
framework, the work of Correa can be clearly
positioned within the Manufacturing Strategy and
Required Manufacturing Flexibility entities.
However, in view of the observations made in
preceding sections regarding the diering mani-
festations of uncertainty when viewed strategically
or operationally, two additional entities would be
necessary if the framework was to represent both
52 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
perspectives. The rst, Operational Management
Control, to reect the controlling inuence of
management on the magnitude of the exibility
requirement, the second, Business Strategy, to re-
ect the acknowledged relationship between the
business environment, business strategy formula-
tion, and the manufacturing strategy.
A number of taxonomies of exibility types
have been examined which, on the whole, are do-
main specic. Foremost amongst these is the work
of Sethi and Sethi (1990) whose taxonomy builds
on the earlier work of Browne et al. (1984) and
organises the exibility types in a hierarchical
structure which reects the dierent operational
levels of the manufacturing system. In addition,
the taxonomy attempts to dene the linkages be-
tween the exibility types at each operational level.
Intuitively, the framework of Sethi and Sethi
(Fig. 2) can be seen to be represented in the Re-
quired Manufacturing Flexibility entity of Gerwin's
conceptual framework (Fig. 4) whilst the facilita-
tors of exibility, labour, information technology,
process technology and organisational structures,
etc. can be seen to be represented by the Methods
for Delivering Flexibility entity.
Clearly, if a framework could be constructed
using these conceptual building blocks, each il-
lustrating a particular aspect of manufacturing
exibility, this assembled framework would pro-
vide a superstructure around which the observa-
tions from preceding sections could be
incorporated. Such a framework could also be
viewed as a consolidation of contemporary man-
ufacturing exibility research and hence a means
of identifying additional research priorities. Fig. 5
is an attempt at one such representation.
Given the current lack of agreement concerning
the constituent elements of manufacturing exi-
bility, a consolidation framework could incorpo-
rate a number of taxonomies. However, in
practice, the exact construct is less important than
the ability of management to articulate require-
ments, clearly and rationally. Therefore, the point
of special interest in the framework proposed by
Sethi and Sethi, and the reason for its inclusion
here, is the emphasis placed on the linkages be-
tween the exibility types at each operational level.
However, in order that this is given appropriate
prominence in the consolidation framework, Ger-
win's broadly named, Required Manufacturing
Flexibility entity would have to be deconstructed
into its system and operational components. A
Required System Flexibility entity is thus intro-
duced immediately after the Manufacturing Strat-
egy entity to reect the strategic focus and content
of this entity's output. Similarly, a Required Op-
erational Flexibility entity is introduced between
the Operational Management Control and the
Methods for Delivering Flexibility entities to reect
the management action and control focus of this
element of the framework.
Both Slack (1983, 1987) and Upton (1994)
provide an informative perspective on the ele-
mental attributes of exibility types. Upton's
framework (Fig. 3) is selected for special treatment
here because it appears to have successfully ac-
Fig. 4. Conceptual framework, reproduced from Gerwin (1993).
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 53
counted for both Slack's range and response at-
tributes, and in addition incorporated a later ob-
servation that managers view response as short
term, and range as long term exibility issues.
Upton's time horizons are dened as operational,
tactical and strategic, and can therefore be applied
to exibility types represented at both strategic
and operational levels in the consolidation frame-
work, i.e. the Required System Flexibility and Re-
quired Operational Flexibility entities of Fig. 5.
The inclusion of a Performance Measurement
entity, between the Methods for Delivering Flexi-
bility and the Operational Management Control
entities, is an acknowledgement of the role of
performance measurements in monitoring and
maintaining eective policies with regard to the
deployment of an organisation's operational ex-
ibility. Similarly, a second such entity between the
Manufacturing Strategy and Business Strategy
entities emphasises the dierent requirements of
the strategic and operational perspectives repre-
sented in the consolidation framework; a point not
always made clear in the literature and which is
frequently the causes of some confusion.
7. Concluding remarks
Historically, research into manufacturing exi-
bility has been fragmented, each work focusing on
a specic aspect of this complex subject. As a
consequence, understanding of the implications of
Fig. 5. Consolidation framework.
54 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
acquiring and using manufacturing exibility has
also been evolutionary and fragmented. However,
sucient pieces of the jigsaw are now in place to
construction a framework that draws together and
encapsulates the many strands of this multifarious
subject. The framework illustrated in Fig. 5 is an
attempt at constructing a consolidation frame-
work that, in addition to emphasising the extent of
contemporary understanding of the subject, also
highlights those areas requiring further work.
There is a growing body of literature on the
strategic uses of manufacturing exibility to
achieve competitive advantage. However, more
research is required before this work can be fully
integrated in a conceptual framework that extends
beyond the boundaries of the manufacturing
strategy. Specically, whilst the relationship be-
tween business and manufacturing strategy for-
mulation is fairly well understood, more needs to
be known about a number of issues including the
inuence of corporate culture on the choice of
strategy adopted and which manifestation of
manufacturing exibility best suits a particular
business environment.
Considerable eort has been directed at the
operational aspects of exibility without much
attention being given to the methods of delivery.
Much more needs to be known about the contri-
bution key enablers, such as information technol-
ogy, process technology and labour/skills and
competencies, make towards the acquisition of
manufacturing exibility.
A large research eort has been expended de-
veloping measurements of exibility, and whilst
this has made a signicant contribution to the
understanding of the subject, like the work di-
rected at developing a taxonomy of exibility
types, it is discordant and in part, largely theo-
retical. A practical performance measure is un-
likely to emerge unless the purpose of the
measurement is rst agreed. Referring to the con-
solidation framework illustrated in Fig. 5, this
might best be achieved by considering the needs of
the user at both the strategic and operational level.
Little is known about the interrelationship
which exists between the various exibility types
and the trade-os which will be necessary if an
enterprise's manufacturing exibility is to be
aligned with the environmental conditions in
which it operates. Historically, an obstacle to the
assimilation of this knowledge has been the ab-
sence of a universally acceptable taxonomy of
exibility types capable of supporting the various
research perspectives while achieving a useful level
of aggregation. It has been speculated that the
form of the construct is less important than the
ability of management to articulate requirements,
clearly and rationally. The practicalities of
adopting such an approach requires further in-
vestigation.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the
Control Design and Production group of the En-
gineering and Physical Science and Research
Council in funding this work.
References
Abdel-Malek, L., Wolf, C., 1991. Evaluating exibility of
alternative FMS designs a comparative measure. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 23, 310.
Adam Jr., E.E., Swamidass, P.M., 1989. Assessing operations
management from a strategic perspective. Journal of Man-
agement 15 (2), 181203.
Atkinson, J., 1985. Flexibility planning for an uncertain future.
Manpower Policy and Practice, Summer, 1.
Azzone, G., Bertele, U., 1987. Comparing manufacturing
systems with dierent exibility: A new approach. In:
Proceedings of the Decision Sciencies Institute, Boston,
pp. 690693.
Barad, M., Sipper, D., 1988. Flexibility in manufacturing
systems: Denitions and Petri net modeling. International
Journal of Production Research 26 (2), 237248.
Bernardo, J.J., Mohamed, Z., 1992. The measurement and use
of operational exibility in the loading of exible manufac-
turing systems. European Journal of Operational Research
60, 144155.
Brill, P.H., Mandelbaum, M., 1989. On measures of exibility
in manufacturing systems. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 27 (5), 747756.
Browne, J., Dubois, D., Rathmill, K., Sethi, S.P., Stecke, K.E.,
1984. Classication of exible manufacturing systems. The
FMS Magazine 2 (2), 114117.
Butler, R.J., 1991. Designing Organisations: A Decision Mak-
ing Perspective, Routledge, London.
Buzacott, J.A., 1982. The fundamental principles of exibility
in manufacturing systems. In: Proceedings of the First
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 55
International Conference on Flexible Manufacturing Sys-
tems, Brighton, pp. 1322.
Buzacott, J.A., Mandelbaum, M., 1985. Flexibility and pro-
ductivity in manufacturing systems. In: Proceedings of the
Annual IIE Conference, Los Angeles and Chicago, pp. 404
413.
Carlsson, B., 1989. Flexibility and the theory of the rm.
International Journal of Industrial Organisation 7, 179203.
Carter, M.F., 1986. Designing exibility into automated man-
ufacturing systems. In: Stecke, K.E., Suri, R. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2nd ORSA/TIMS Conference on Flex-
ible Manufacturing Systems: Operations Research Models
and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 107118.
Chambers, S., 1995. Flexibility in the Context of Manufactur-
ing Strategy. In: Voss, C.A. (Ed.), Manufacturing Strategy
Process and Content. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 283
295.
Chandra, P., Tombak, M.M., 1992. Models for the evaluation
of routing and machine exibility. European Journal of
Operational Research 60, 156165.
Chatterjee, A., Cohen, M., Maxwell, W., Miller, L., 1984.
Manufacturing Flexibility: Models and Measurements. In:
Proceedings of the 1st ORSA/TIMS Special Interest Con-
ference on FMS, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 4964.
Chen, I.J., Calantone, R.J., Chung, C.H., 1992. The marketing
manufacturing interface and manufacturing exibility.
OMEGA International Journal of Management Science 20
(4), 431443.
Chung, C., Chen, I., 1990. Managing the exibility of exible
manufacturing systems for competitive edge. In: Liberatore,
M.J. (Ed.), Selection and Evaluation of Advanced Manu-
facturing Technologies. Springer, New York, pp. 280303.
Collins, R.S., Schemenner, R., 1993. Achieving rigid exibility:
Factory focus for the 1990s. European Management Jour-
nal 11 (4), 443447.
Correa, H.L., 1994. Linking Flexibility, Uncertainty and
Variability in Manufacturing Systems: Managing Un-
planned Change in the Automative Industry, Avebury,
Aldershot.
Cox, Jr., T., 1989. Towards the measurement of manufacturing
exibility. Production and Inventory Management Journal,
First Quarter, pp. 6872.
De Groote, X., 1994. The exibility of production processes: A
general framework. Management Science 40 (7), 945
993.
Dixon, R., 1992. Measuring manufacturing exibility: An
empirical investigation. European Journal of Operational
Research 60, 131143.
Easton, G., Rothschild, R., 1988. The inuence of product and
production exibility on marketing strategy. In: Pettigrew,
A.M. (Ed.), The Management of Strategic Change. Basil
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 300326.
Ettlie, J.E., Penner-Hahn, J.D., 1994. Flexibility ratios and
manufacturing strategy. Management Science 40 (11), 1444
1454.
Frazelle, E., 1986. Flexibility: A strategic response in changing
times. Industrial Engineering, 1620.
Gaimon, C., Singhal, V., 1992. Flexibility and the choice of
manufacturing facilities under short product life cycles.
European Journal of Operational Research 60, 211223.
Germain, R., 1989. Output standardisation and logical strategy,
structure and performance. International Journal of hysical
Distribution and Material Management 19 (1), 2129.
Gerwin, D., 1982. Do's and Dont's of computerized manufac-
turing. Harvard Business Review 60 (2), 107116.
Gerwin, D., 1987. An agenda for research on the exibility of
manufacturing processes. International Journal of Opera-
tions and Production Management 7 (1), 3949.
Gerwin, D., 1993. Manufacturing exibility: A strategic
perspective. Management Science 39 (4), 395408.
Gunnigle, P., Daly, A., 1992. Craft integration and exible
work practices: Training implications. Industrial and Com-
mercial Training 24 (10), 1017.
Gupta, D., Buzacott, J.A., 1989. A framework for understand-
ing exibility of manufacturing systems. Journal of Manu-
facturing Systems 8 (2), 8997.
Gupta, Y.P., Goyal, S., 1989. Flexibility of manufacturing
systems: Concepts and measurement. European Journal of
Operational Research 43, 119135.
Gupta, Y.P., Somers, T.M., 1992. The measurement of man-
ufacturing exibility. European Journal of Operational
Research 60, 166182.
Gupta, D., 1993. On measurement and valuation of manufac-
turing exibility. International Journal of Production Re-
search 31 (12), 29472958.
Gustavsson, S., 1984. Flexibility and productivity in complex
production processes. International Journal of Production
Research 22 (5), 801808.
Hill, T., Chambers, S., 1991. Flexibility a manufacturing
conundrum. International Journal of Operations and Pro-
duction Management 11 (2), 513.
Hutchinson, G.K., Sinha, D., 1989. A quantication of the
value of exibility. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 8, 47
57.
Hyun, J.H., Ahn, B.H., 1992. A unifying framework for
manufacturing exibility. Manufacturing Review 5 (4), 251
259.
Jaikumar, R., 1984. Flexible manufacturing systems: A man-
agerial perspective, Working Paper 1-784-078, Harvard
Business School, Soldiers Field, MA.
Jaikumar, R., 1986. Postindustrial manufacturing, Harvard
Business Review, NovemberDecember, pp. 6976.
Kochikar, V.P., Narendran, T.T., 1992. A framework for
assessing the exibility of manufacturing systems. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 30 (12), 28732895.
Kozan, K., 1982. Work group exibility development and
construct validation of a measure. Human Relations 35 (3),
239258.
Kulatilaka, N., Marks, S.G., 1988. The strategic value of
exibility: Reducing the ability to compromise. The Amer-
ican Economic Review 78 (3), 574580.
Kumar, V., 1987. Some approaches in measuring manufactur-
ing exibility, Proceedings of the ASAC Conference,
Toronto, ON, pp. 2839.
56 R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157
Lenz, J.E., 1992a. How well can exibility be measured.
Industrial Engineering, 1415.
Lenz, J.E., 1992b. The need for both labor and machine
exibility in manufacturing. Industrial Engineering, 12223.
Lim, S.H., 1986. Flexibility in exible manufacturing systems
a comparative study of three systems. In: Voss, C.A. (Ed.),
Managing Advanced Manufacturing Technology, IFS (Pub-
lications) Ltd. Springer, Berlin, pp. 125147.
Lim, S.H., 1987. Flexible manufacturing systems and manu-
facturing exibility in the United Kingdom. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 7 (6),
4454.
Mandelbaum, M., 1978. Flexibility in decision theory: An
exploration and unication, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of To-
ronto, Canada.
Mandelbaum, M., Buzacott, J., 1990. Flexibility and decision
making. European Journal of Operational Research 44, 17
27.
Mascarenhas, B., 1981. Planning for exibility, Long Range
Planning 14 (5), 7882.
Nagarur, N., 1992. Some performance measures of exible
manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production
Research 30 (4), 799809.
Newman, W.R., Hanna, M., Maei, M.J., 1993. Dealing with
the uncertainties of manufacturing: Flexibility, buers and
integration. International Journal Of Operations and Pro-
duction Management 13 (1), 1934.
Ramasesh, R.V., Jayakumar, M.D., 1991. Measurement of
manufacturing exibility: A value based approach. Journal
of Operations Management 10 (4), 446467.
Sarker, B.R., Krishnamurthy, S., Kuthethur, S.G., 1994. A
survey and critical review of exibility measures in manu-
facturing systems. Production Planning and Control 5 (6),
512523.
Sethi, A.K., Sethi, P.S., 1990. Flexibility in manufacturing: A
survey. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing
Systems 2, 289328.
Slack, N., 1983. Flexibility as a manufacturing objective.
International Journal of Operations and Production Man-
agement 3 (3), 513.
Slack, N., 1987. The exibility of manufacturing systems.
International Journal of Operations and Production Man-
agement 7 (4), 3545.
Slack, N., 1989. Focus on exibility. In: Wild, R. (Ed.),
International Handbook of Production and Operations
Management, Cassell, London, pp. 5073.
Son, Y.K., Park, C.S., 1987. Economic measure of produc-
tivity, quality and exibility in advanced manufacturing
systems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 6 (3), 193206.
Swamidass, P.M., Newell, W.T., 1987. Manufacturing strategy,
environmental uncertainty and performance: A path ana-
lytic model. Management Science 33 (4), 509524.
Swamidass, P.M., 1988. Manufacturing Flexibility, Monograph
No. 2, Operations Management Association, Norman and
Schneider Group, Waco, TX.
Upton, D., 1994. The management of manufacturing exibility,
California Management Review, Winter, pp. 7289.
Van Maanen, J., 1979. Reclaiming qualitative methods for
organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science
Quarterly, December 24, 520526.
Wild, R., 1980. Operations Management. . . A Policy Frame-
work. Pergamon Press, New York.
Yao, D.D., 1985. Material and information ows in exible
manufacturing systems. Material Flow 2, 143149.
Yilmaz, O.S., Davis, R.P., 1987. Flexible manufacturing
systems: Characteristics and assessments. Engineering Man-
agement International 4 (3), 209212.
Zelenovic, D.M., 1982. Flexibility a condition for eective
production systems. International Journal of Production
Research 20 (3), 319337.
Zhao, B., Steier, F., 1993. Eective CIM implementation using
socio-technical principles. Computer Integrated Manufac-
ture, 2729.
R. Beach et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 4157 57

You might also like