Premium
Measuring dimensions of manufacturing flexibility
Author(s) -
Koste Lori L,
Malhotra Manoj K,
Sharma Subhash
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of operations management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.649
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1873-1317
pISSN - 0272-6963
DOI - 10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.001
Subject(s) - flexibility (engineering) , scope (computer science) , construct (python library) , dimension (graph theory) , computer science , measure (data warehouse) , scale (ratio) , product (mathematics) , key (lock) , economies of scope , reliability (semiconductor) , industrial engineering , risk analysis (engineering) , industrial organization , process management , marketing , business , economies of scale , engineering , mathematics , data mining , statistics , power (physics) , physics , geometry , computer security , quantum mechanics , pure mathematics , programming language
Even though many managers and academics have cited flexibility as a key competitive capability, efforts to measure and understand this complex construct continue. Consequently in this paper, we address the issue of manufacturing flexibility measurement, and then use these measures to better understand flexibility. Churchill’s [J. Market. Res. 16 (1979) 64] paradigm is used to develop psychometrically sound measures for six oft‐used dimensions of manufacturing flexibility: machine, labor, material handling, mix, new product, and modification. Previous research shows that each of these dimensions, in turn, is comprised of four elements. The resulting 24 scales (6 dimensions×4 elements) demonstrate the desired properties of unidimensionality, reliability, and validity. We show further that the four elements of any given manufacturing flexibility dimension can be grouped into two conceptually separate factors representing “Scope” and “Achievability” of flexible responses. Scope and achievability factor scores can be used to compare a subset of firms with respect to their flexibility choices, and observe the trade‐offs firms make both within and across flexibility dimensions. Along with scale development, establishing scope versus achievability relationships between flexibility elements provides a better basis for measuring and creating a holistic understanding of this complex concept.