Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Three
The three dimensions of dimensions of
responsiveness responsiveness
Matthias Holweg
Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 603
Abstract
Purpose – The concept of responsiveness has been widely discussed, yet so far most of this
discussion has remained qualitative in nature. The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual
model identifying the key factors that determine the responsiveness of a supply chain system, which –
once quantified – provide a unique profile of each supply chain setting towards the appropriate
supply chain strategy.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews existing contributions and synthesises these
into a conceptual model of responsiveness. The model is applied using three case studies from the
automotive and electronics industry. The case research is based on value stream mapping,
semi-structured interviews, and site visits.
Findings – Three key findings could be established: first, the concept of responsiveness has a simple
logic that aligns itself to a wide range of manufacturing strategies. However, underlying this remit is a
complex interaction of an array of key variables, and it was found that previous contributions largely
have only addressed a subset of these. Second, these key variables can be grouped into three categories
or dimensions of responsiveness – product, process and volume – to provide a holistic understanding
of responsiveness and its key determinants. Third, due to the large involved, there cannot be one single
“holy grail” concept of how responsiveness can be achieved, neither does one single approach apply to
entire sectors.
Research limitations/implications – A great variety of variables needs to be considered in order
to provide a balanced view of all three dimensions of responsiveness, thus the case analyses remain at
a necessarily high level.
Practical implications – The paper provides guidelines for management on how to align their
supply chain strategy to volume, product and process contingency factors in order to balance
responsiveness to customer demand and supply chain efficiency.
Originality/value – The paper aims to elevate a discussion that previously has been held mostly at
a conceptual level beyond the qualitative description, and thus addresses a key shortcoming in the
current debate.
Keywords Quick response manufacturing, Supply chain management, Productive capacity,
Agile production
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Attempting to give customers what they want within acceptable timeframes sounds
like a sensible business premise. While the grand scale of investment needed to design
and deliver a product at an economically competitive price creates certain constraints,
providing customers with products that meets their exact requirements as timely as
possible has an unmistakable logic. One would imagine that today, when most International Journal of Operations &
companies no longer enjoy the luxury of having customer demand in excess of their Production Management
Vol. 25 No. 7, 2005
ability to supply their products (as it has been in most markets for previous decades), pp. 603-622
responsiveness would be key to their success. Yet many industries, still excessively q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
focused on the easily measured performance of manufacturing plants, are failing to DOI 10.1108/01443570510605063
IJOPM respond to their customers and deliver customised products within a satisfactory
25,7 timeframe. Even today, only every second vehicle is custom-built in Europe, and
customers will have to wait an average seven weeks for these vehicles to be delivered
(Holweg and Pil, 2004).
The debate about the responsiveness of manufacturing operations however has
been going on for more than a decade, with its origins in the concept of “time
604 compression” or “time based competition”, which were initially promoted by Stalk
(1988), Bower and Hout (1988), and Stalk and Hout (1990), and were later adopted by a
range of companies and academic researchers (Harrison, 1996; Suri, 1999). At the same
time, several quick response initiatives have proven successful, namely the quick
response programme (QRM) in the textile sector, and the efficient consumer response
(ECR) Initiative in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector (Hunter, 1990; Kurt
Salmon Associates, 1993; Lowson et al., 1999). Related generic contributions have also
come from such fields as systems dynamics, lean thinking, business process
re-engineering, agility, and mass customisation (Forrester, 1961; Hammer, 1990; Kidd,
1994; Womack and Jones, 1996a; Gilmore and Pine, 1997; Towill, 1999).
Previous debates have often attempted to show that one approach is superior to
another and that a new approach answers all previous unanswered questions, but have
we really moved forward? Over the last two decades, we have learnt a lot about
flexibility in a manufacturing context (Slack, 1983; Correa, 1992; Suarez et al., 1995), yet
apart from the conceptual work by Mather (1988) and Fisher et al. (1994) and initial
quantitative assessment on the plant and supplier level by Matson and McFarlane
(1999) and Harrison (1996), respectively, most discussion so far has remained in the
realms of qualitative description, as pointed out by Rohr and Correa (1998), or to quote
Sharifi et al. (2001):
More empirical evidence, alternative solutions for strategising, designing, and aligning the
supply networks . . . are some of the existing gaps in the body of research in the area.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that certain approaches are suitable for entire
industry sectors (Kidd, 1994; Naylor et al., 1999). The overall assumption however that
any one approach can be applied universally throughout one sector will be challenged
in this paper. Synthesising the existing debates on manufacturing flexibility, lean and
agile supply chain configurations and mass customisation strategies, a balanced
generic model based on product, process and volume factors is proposed, which will be
illustrated drawing upon empirical evidence from two European vehicle
manufacturers, and one electronics manufacturer’s supply chain.
607
Figure 1.
Hierarchy of flexibility
Type Definition
Flexibility
Product The ability to introduce novel products or to modify
existing ones
Mix The ability to change the range of products made
within a given time period
Volume The ability to change the level of aggregated output
Delivery The ability to change planned or assumed delivery
dates
Dimension
Range The total envelope of capability which the
production system can achieve
Response The cost and time within which changes can be
made to the capability envelope Table I.
Types and dimensions of
Source: Adapted from Slack (1983, 1991) flexibility
Slack links the four main types of flexibility and the two dimensions – range and
response, and argues that both high levels of variety and uncertainty will most likely
require high levels of all types of flexibility. Mix flexibility has been at the heart of a
side-debate on flexibility, as it is seen as an alternative to focused manufacturing. The
“focused factory” would reduce cost by relying on the benefits of task specialisation
and was initially proposed by Skinner (1974), yet also discussed by Hayes and
Wheelwright (1984). Overall though, in his 1991 framework, Slack (1991) probably
provides what is the most comprehensive explanation of how flexibility and
responsiveness link: responsiveness, or “system flexibility” as he refers to it, is based
on a hierarchy of different types of flexibility, namely that of flexible operations (the
“process” dimension) derived from a matrix of flexible labour, flexible suppliers, and
flexibility derived from technology.
IJOPM 2.2.2 Factors determining flexibility. Reviewing the recent studies and classifications
25,7 of flexibility in manufacturing systems (c.f. Correa, 1992; Gerwin, 1993; de Grote, 1994;
Upton, 1995; Bateman et al., 1999; Lau, 1999) it soon becomes apparent how diverse the
argument has become. Whilst there generally is a common starting point, i.e. the need
to adapt to uncertainty of some kind, there is less agreement on the dimensions of
flexibility. Whilst Slack’s framework is commonly cited, Gerwin (1993) for example
608 uses “mix, changeover, modification, volume, re-routing, material and flexibility
responsiveness” dimensions. In their literature survey Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly
(2000) identify no less than 15 different dimensions discussed in the literature.
Reviewing the contributions made to the flexibility debate, it was not possible to
establish a consistent set of factors determining or measuring flexibility. Vokurka and
O’Leary-Kelly (2000) also argue while that advances have been made in the debate,
further studies are needed to fully explain the complex nature of manufacturing
flexibility. Gerwin (1993) also concludes that little agreement exists on which
dimensions to include. Gerwin proposes that flexibility can be studied on various
hierarchical levels as a reason for this disagreement, and concludes that management
research has devoted too much time to the range aspects of flexibility as compared to
response flexibility.
Upton (1994, 1995) also argues that a great diversity of understanding exists about
what “flexibility” actually means, and of the different ways how this “ability to
change” can be achieved. Upton uses a framework similar to Slack’s, dividing
flexibility into product, process and volume dimensions. Upton further found no
relationship between the different dimensions of flexibility – its mobility (measured by
change-over times), and its range (the breadth of product range), to be more specific.
Overall, a considerable body of literature is at hand discussing the flexibility or
responsiveness of manufacturing systems, yet rarely is the link between these two
concepts clearly stated – a fact criticised in recent contributions (Kritchanchai and
MacCarthy, 1999; Matson and McFarlane, 1999). Essential questions such as whether a
flexible manufacturing system by default is also responsive, or what types of flexibility
are needed to be responsive are still without explicit answer. While the literature might
not offer a clear distinction between “manufacturing flexibility” and “responsiveness”,
or provide a concise definition of responsiveness, but there nevertheless seems to be a
consensus that different organisations will need different types of flexibility in order to
be responsive to market needs. For the purpose of this study, the following definitions
are therefore proposed, largely based on synthesising the above contributions (Slack,
1983, 1991; Holweg and Pil, 2001):
Flexibility is a generic ability to adapt to internal and/or external influences.
Responsiveness is the ability of the manufacturing system or organisation to respond to
customer requests in the marketplace. To achieve responsiveness, certain types of flexibility
are required of the manufacturing system itself, as well as of the supply and logistics
subsystems. The types of flexibility required to achieve such responsiveness in the supply
chain are contingent upon the system’s structure and environment.
612
Table II.
IJOPM
Volume
Customer order-to-delivery 17 per cent of customers are willing to wait up to 7 days, 83 per cent are “Instant gratification”, not more than
lead-time expectations willing to wait up to 30 days 1 week
Demand stability Real demand largely unknown, yet sales registrations are hugely distorted “Hockey-stick” syndrome, with
with peaks in March and September (15 per cent annual volume each), and peaks towards the end of the month,
troughs in July, August, December and February further peak in December
Demand – specification Pareto c.1 per cent of specs account for 50 c.10 per cent of specs account for 75 c.10-20 per cent account for 80 per
analysis per cent of sales per cent of sales volume cent of sales
Product
Variety post configuration 5,843,600 (major volume model) 820 (major volume model) 100,000 þ (average across product
(External) range)
Variety pre configuration Average 2,000 – 4,000 components, relating to 15,000 individual parts 15 key components, 200 parts
(internal)
Point of customisation Body shop, paint shop and vehicle assembly. Limited late configuration at Assembly (hardware), and software
distribution centre and dealership uploading. Customised software for
corporate clients
Product life cycle c.4.5 years c.3 years 4-6 months
Process
Total order-to-delivery lead-time 26 days in UK for custom-built 98 days in UK for custom-built 5-7 days
vehicles (best case) vehicles (best case)
Distribution lead-time to/within the 5 days 7 days 3-5 days
UK
Supply chain response lead-time 1 day for local sourcing, 8 weeks worst case for distant sourcing (Japan) 2 months from key suppliers (Asia &
US)
Decoupling Point(s)in the Supply At dealer level, i.e. at finished At distribution centre level for At component level, through local
Chain product level in the market runner models, in assembly for the component warehouse
remainder
responsiveness
variables
Quantifying the key
Three
Table III.
615
dimensions of
IJOPM As can be seen from Table III, both vehicle manufacturers show similar characteristics
25,7 for most demand-related variables, yet key differences show in terms of product
variety offered and order-to-delivery lead-times. The reason is that vehicle
manufacturer B pursues a strategy of supplying vehicles from distribution centres,
hence has strongly rationalised the product range to less than 1,000 specifications. The
actual order-to-delivery lead-time hence seems less of an issue. In 1999, this vehicle
616 manufacturer sourced 75 per cent of all orders from existing stock, 31 per cent of which
were from dealer inventory, 6 per cent were allocated to customers while in the factory
pipeline, yet still 18 per cent were built to customer order. The latter seems surprisingly
high, as the system is geared to providing low variety products from central stocking
locations, which would be replenished against a long-range forecast.
In comparison, vehicle manufacturer A seems to have a system comprising of the
“worst of the two worlds”, on the one hand high variety products are offered, yet only
15 per cent are built to customer order, and 74 per cent are sourced from stock in the
marketplace. The results are high discounts required to sell these vehicles, and
frequent stock clearing promotions to cope with the consequences of the inevitable
forecast errors. Compared to vehicle manufacturer B, the order-to-delivery lead-time is
far shorter, which could open the opportunity of building more vehicles to order, as the
OTD lead-time largely falls within the customer waiting tolerance.
For both manufacturers the decoupling point rests within the distribution channel,
and hence costly inventory of finished vehicles is inevitable. For vehicle manufacturer
A, the current supply chain settings do not permit moving the de-coupling point any
further in the system. Due to the low external variety however, vehicle manufacturer B
was able to aggregate the “runners”, i.e. the high-volume specifications, from central
distribution centres, to which all regional dealers have access within a 24-hour call-off
lead-time. This enabled both a reduction in overall inventory, as well as a far better
control of this stock. It might be argued that reduction in external variety is
detrimental to overall sales (Lancaster, 1990), yet the operational improvements by
moving the de-coupling point might well outweigh these.
In comparison to the electronics manufacturer however, it can be clearly seen that
the internal product variety inherent in the automotive product does not permit an
emulation of the assemble-to-order approach, as the stock holding costs for the entire
component range (for all specifications!) would be prohibitive. Also, the current
order-to-delivery capability in the auto industry in general, as in these cases, logs an
order of magnitude behind the responsive processes that are in place within the
electronics, grocery and textile supply chains.
4. Discussion
The case evidence reveals several novel insights, which have been alluded to in the
literature review, but so far lack the empirical backing. The most important insight is
the interdependence of the dimensions of responsiveness. A manufacturer might have
a fast order-to-delivery process, well capable of serving an impatient customer base,
yet if the internal product variety is high, the manufacturing operation might struggle
to deliver the products in time. For example, consider the above case of the electronic
manufacturer. If the products were not based on only 15 key components, but instead
showed variety levels comparable to the motor industry, the assemble-to-order
strategy practiced would no longer be economically viable. Holding component
inventory of all of these parts would quickly be cost-prohibitive, and the manufacturer Three
could not capitalise on the flexibility in the manufacturing operation. dimensions of
Equally, consider vehicle manufacturer A, which offers significantly more variety
to its customers than vehicle manufacturer B. However, since most vehicles are sold responsiveness
from existing stock at the dealership, the manufacturer cannot capitalise on its
advantage of high product variety. Choice is offered to the customer, the OTD
lead-time is much shorter than in case of vehicle manufacturer B, yet still that choice 617
does not reach the customer. The misalignment between product variables (i.e. external
variety) and the process variable (i.e. sales sourcing) prohibits this manufacturer from
exploiting his response capability.
Vehicle manufacturer B on the other hand has a well-aligned system, whereby
external variety is aligned to the strategy of matching customer needs with existing
stock in a central distribution centre. The long OTD lead-time is hardly relevant, as the
deliberate decision is not to build products to order, but instead decouple the system at
the distribution centre level. The obvious caveat of this strategy is the reduced levels of
external variety, which cannot be increased without compromising the levels of finding
exact customer-product matches in the distribution centre stock.
The cases clearly illustrate that excelling in either dimension of responsiveness is
likely to be futile, if this capability is not aligned to the other two. Product and process
need to be aligned to customer demand in order to provide the desired competitive
advantage. A misalignment between the “product”, “process” and “volume”
dimensions will inevitably lead to a strategic conflict in the supply chain, and result
in an overall sub-optimal supply chain performance. The automotive industry, with its
enormous product variety and fairly patient customer base, is a classic example of such
misalignment. With billions of theoretical specifications offered to the customer,
effective choice is limited to what is available in the dealer stock (Holweg and Pil, 2004).
One could argue that Henry Ford’s famous quote “Any colour as long as it is black”
should be amended to “Any colour as long as it is on the dealer’s lot” today.
5. Conclusion
A range of seminal contributions have been made to the field of responsiveness, yet as
pointed out above, the current debate so far has been focussed on a limited number of
dimensions only, or remained in the realms of qualitative description – a gap this
paper aims to address. Based on the literature review and the empirical evidence from
the three cases discussed above, the following conclusions could be reached.
First, the concept of responsiveness has a simple logic, which easily aligns itself to a
wide range of manufacturing strategies. Most current manufacturing and supply chain
strategists would agree that the need to capture customers’ need, to provide the right
product within an acceptable timeframe is an essential cornerstone of sustained
competitiveness. However, underlying this remit is a complex interaction of a range of
key variables, yet previous contributions commonly only have addressed a subset of
these.
Second, these key variables can be grouped into three categories or dimensions of
responsiveness, to provide a holistic understanding of responsiveness and its key
determinants (Figure 2). These dimensions are volume, i.e. customer expectations and
the nature of demand, the product dimension, i.e. the impact of product variety and
customisation, and the process dimension, i.e. the production and supply chain
IJOPM
25,7
618
Figure 2.
Conceptual model of a
responsive supply chain
system
lead-times, as well as the positioning of the de-coupling point(s) in the system. Thus,
the proposed model draws upon, yet also significantly extends Mather’s P/D ratio,
which essentially only addressed the process and volume (“demand”) dimensions.
Third, given the multiple contingency factors involved, there cannot be one single
“holy grail” concept of how responsive order fulfilment can be achieved, neither does
one single approach apply to all companies of one sector, as the example of the two
vehicle manufacturers discussed above shows. Most likely, companies of one sector
will show very similar profiles, yet it depends on the key factors – the key
characteristics of the manufacturing and supply system, its products and the market
environment – which approach suits under the particular circumstances. The model
proposed provides an initial step towards a more diversified view of responsive supply
chain strategies, yet is bound by the limitations of this study. Evidence from three case
studies provides the analytical validity for the model, yet it obviously lacks statistical
validity across large populations. Further scholars are encouraged to complement the
proposed model based on further empirical studies with wider scope. Preferably these
studies would be cross-sector comparative analyses, thus providing not only a
balanced view of the factors considered, yet also help to provide a better understanding
as to which of these factors are of particular relevance in the various industries.
In terms of theoretical contributions, a considerable body of knowledge has been
developed explaining the concept of flexible manufacturing over the last two decades.
When it comes to extending this notion to the wider supply chain however, the picture
is bleak. Several key contributors (Bower and Hout, 1988; Stalk, 1988; Fisher et al.,
1994; Fisher, 1997), have discussed the issue, yet as Rohr and Correa (1998) point out,
the literature shows an imbalance between conceptual and empirical work in the area
of time-based competitiveness which could clarify how actual companies are adapting
to this challenge. This paper addresses this gap, and aims to contribute towards a
generic model of responsiveness – capable of considering the multiple contingencies
that arise from the realms of different processes, product structure and configuration
concepts, and volume/demand configurations. One solution clearly does not fit all, but Three
equally, several key factors could be identified in this study that determine which dimensions of
strategy is appropriate, and why.
responsiveness
References
Ackoff, R.L. (1971), “Towards a system of systems concepts”, Management Science, Vol. 17
No. 11, pp. 661-71. 619
Andrews, F. (2000), “Can car-makers emulate dell? Toyota tries”, New York Times, 25 January.
Bateman, N. (1998), “Modelling manufacturing systems flexibility”, unpublished PhD thesis,
De Montfort University.
Bateman, N., Stockton, D.J. and Lawrence, P.R. (1999), “Measuring the mix response flexibility of
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 871-80.
Blumenfeld, D.E., Daganzo, C.F., Frick, M.C. and Gonsalvez, D.J. (1999), “Impact of
manufacturing response time on retailer inventory”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 797-811.
Bower, J.L. and Hout, T.M. (1988), “Fast-cycle capability for competitive power”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 110-88.
Bowersox, D.J. and Closs, D.J. (1996), Logistical Management: The Integrated Supply Chain
Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Browne, J., Dubois, D., Rathmill, K., Sethi, S. and Stecke, K. (1984), “Classification of flexible
manufacturing systems”, The FMS Magazine,, April, pp. 114-7.
Christopher, M. (1999), “Global supply-chain: the role of agility”, Logistics Focus, September,
pp. 28-30.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2001), “An integrated model for the design of agile supply
chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 235-46.
Correa, H.L. (1992), “The links between uncertainty, variability of outputs and flexibility in
manufacturing systems”, unpublished PhD thesis, Warwick Business School, University
of Warwick, Coventry.
Correa, H.L. (1994), Linking Flexibility, Uncertainty and Variability in Manufacturing Systems,
Aylesbury, Aldershot.
de Grote, X. (1994), “The flexibility of production processes: a general framework”, Management
Science, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 933-45.
Drucker, P. (1946), The Concept of the Corporation, John Day, New York, NY.
Feitzinger, E. and Lee, H.L. (1997), “Mass customization at Hewlett Packard: the power of
postponement”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 116-22.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your product?”, Harvard Business Review,
March-April, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 105-16.
Fisher, M.L., Hammond, J.H., Obermeyer, W.R. and Raman, A. (1994), “Making supply meet
demand in an uncertain world”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, Vol. 71 No. 3,
pp. 83-94.
Forrester, J.W. (1961), Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Frizelle, G. and Efstathiou, J. (2001), Developing Models for the Measurement of Complex Supply
Chains, 5th Manufacturing Complexity Network Meeting: Supply Chains and Q-Analysis,
Milton Keynes.
IJOPM Gardner, J.T. and Cooper, M.C. (2004), “Strategic supply chain mapping approached”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 37-64.
25,7
Gerwin, D. (1993), “Manufacturing flexibility – a strategic perspective”, Management Science,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 395-409.
Gilmore, J.H. and Pine, J. (1997), “The four faces of mass customization”, Harvard Business
Review, January-February, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 91-102.
620 Goldman, S., Nagel, R. and Preiss, K. (1995), Agile Competitors and Virtual Organisations,
van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Gupta, Y.P. and Goyal, S. (1989), “Flexibility of manufacturing systems: concepts and
measurements”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 43, pp. 119-35.
Gustin, C.M., Daugherty, P.J. and Stank, T.P. (1995), “The effects of information availability on
logistics integra”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Hammer, M. (1990), “Re-engineering work: don’t automate obliterate”, Harvard Business Review,
July-August, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-9.
Harrison, A. (1996), “An investigation of the impact of schedule stability on supplier
responsiveness”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 83-91.
Harrison, A. (1999), “The role of agility”, Logistics Focus,, September, pp. 45-7.
Hayes, R. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1984), Restoring Our Competitive Edge, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hill, T. (1985), Manufacturing Strategy, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Hill, T. and Chambers, S. (1991), “Flexibility – a manufacturing conundrum”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11, pp. 5-13.
Hines, P. (1998), “Benchmarking Toyota’s supply chain: Japan vs UK”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 911-8.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve – a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hoekstra, S. and Romme, J. (Eds) (1992), Integral Logistics Structures: Developing
Customer-oriented Goods Flow, McGraw Hill, London.
Holweg, M. and Pil, F.K. (2001), “Successful build-to-order strategies start with the customer”,
Sloan Management Review,, Fall, pp. 74-83.
Holweg, M. and Pil, F.K. (2004), The Second Century: Reconnecting Customer and Value Chain
through Build-to-Order, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hunter, A. (1990), Quick Response in Apparel Manufacturing, The Textile Institute, Manchester.
Katayama, H. and Bennett, D. (1996), “Lean production in a changing competitive world: a
Japanese perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 8-23.
Kehoe, D.F., Boughton, N.J. and Sharifi, H. (2001), “Demand network alignment: an empirical
view”, paper presented at the UK Symposium on Supply Chain Alignment, Liverpool, July.
Kidd, P. (1994), Agile Manufacturing – Forging New Frontiers, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
Kim, C. (1991), “Issues on manufacturing flexibility”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2,
pp. 4-13.
Kramer, N. and De Smit, J. (1977), Systems Thinking – Concepts and Notions, M Nijhoff Social
Sciences Division, Leiden.
Kritchanchai, D. and MacCarthy, B.L. (1999), “Responsiveness of the order fulfilment process”,
International Journal of Production & Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 812-33.
Kurt Salmon Associates (1993), Efficient Consumer Response: Enhancing Customer Value in the Three
Grocery Industry, The Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC.
Lampel, J. and Mintzberg, H. (1993), “Customizing customization”, Sloan Management Review,,
dimensions of
Fall, pp. 21-30. responsiveness
Lancaster, K. (1990), “The economics of product variety: a survey”, Marketing Science, Vol. 9,
Summer, pp. 189-206.
Lau, R.S. (1999), “Critical factors for achieving manufacturing flexibility”, International Journal 621
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 328-41.
Levy, D. (1994), “Chaos theory and strategy: theory, application and managerial implications”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 167-78.
Lowson, B., King, R. and Hunter, A. (1999), Quick Response: Managing the Supply Chain to Meet
Customer Demand, Wiley, Chichester.
McCutcheon, D.M., Raturi, A.S. and Meredith, J.R. (1994), “The customization-responsiveness
Squeeze”, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 89-99.
MacDuffie, J.P., Sethuraman, K. and Fisher, M.L. (1996), “Product variety and manufacturing
performance: evidence from the international automotive assembly plant study”,
Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 350-69.
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1999), “Using the information de-coupling point to improve
supply chain performance”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 13-26.
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Coping with uncertainty: reducing “Bullwhip”
behaviour in global supply chains”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 1,
pp. 40-5.
Mather, H. (1988), Competitive Manufacturing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Matson, J.B. and McFarlane, D.C. (1999), “Assessing the responsiveness of existing production
operations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 8,
pp. 765-84.
Monden, Y. (1983), The Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Naylor, B.J., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility – integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 62, pp. 107-18.
Pagh, J.D. and Cooper, M. (1998), “Supply chain postponement and speculation strategy: how to
choose the right strategy”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 13-33.
Pil, F.K. and Holweg, M. (2004), “Linking product variety to order fulfilment strategies”,
Interfaces, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 394-403.
Pine, J.B. (1993), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Rohr, S.S. and Correa, H.L. (1998), “Time-based competitiveness in Brazil: whys and hows”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 233-45.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1998), Learning to See: Value Streem Mapping to Add Value and
Eliminate Muda, The Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.
Sharifi, H., Kehoe, D.F. and Lyons, A.C. (2001), “Market/brand alignment of automotive demand
networks”, paper presented at EurOMA Conference, Bath, June.
Shingo, S. (1981), Study of the Toyota Production Systems, Japan Management Association,
Tokyo.
Skinner, W. (1974), “The focused factory”, Harvard Business Review, May-June.
IJOPM Slack, N. (1983), “The flexibility of manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 35-45.
25,7 Slack, N. (1991), The Manufacturing Advantage, Mercury Books, London.
Spring, M. and Dalrymple J.F. (2000), “Product customisation and manufacturing strategy”,
International Journal of Production & Operations Management 20 No. 4, pp.441-67.
Stalk, G. (1988), “Time – the next source of competitive advantage”, Harvard Business Review,
622 Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 41-51.
Stalk, G. and Hout, T. (1990), Competing Against Time: How Time-based Competition is
Reshaping Global Markets, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Starr, M.K. (1965), “Modular production – a new concept”, Harvard Business Review,,
November-December, pp. 131-42.
Suarez, F.F., Cusumano, M.A. and Fine, C.H. (1995), “An empirical study of flexibility in
manufacturing”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Suri, R. (1999), Quick Response Manufacturing, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Towill, D.R. (1999), “Simplicity wins – twelve rules for designing effective supply chains”,
Control, March, pp. 9-13.
Ulrich, K. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research Policy,
Vol. 24, pp. 419-40.
Upton, D. (1994), “The management of manufacturing flexibility”, California Management
Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, p. 72.
Upton, D. (1995), “What really makes factories flexible?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 4,
pp. 74-84.
Vokurka, R.J. and O’Leary-Kelly, S.W. (2000), “A review of empirical research on manufacturing
flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 485-501.
Williams, G. (1999), “Customer aspects of vehicle supply”, paper presented at ICDP Annual
Conference, St Paul de Vence, October.
Williams, G. (2000), “Progress towards customer pull distribution”, Solihull, Research Paper
4/2000, The International Car Distribution Programme.
Womack, J. and Jones, D.T. (1994), “From lean production to the lean enterprise”, Harvard
Business Review, March-April, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 93-104.
Womack, J. and Jones, D.T. (1996a), “Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and pursue
perfection”, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 140-58.
Womack, J. and Jones, D.T. (1996b), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth for Your
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Zelenovich, D. and Dragutin, M. (1982), “Flexibility – a condition for effective production
systems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 20, pp. 319-37.