Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INPUTS
Transformation inputs:
Capital, Technology,
Energy, and Know-how
Transformation of
inputs adding value
throughout the entire
process from basic
inputs to finished
goods and services
OUTPUT
Dalam Operations:
Value = f (Benefits Sacrifices) x Long-Term Mutual Relationship
the new
normal
Volatile
Uncertain
Complex
Ambiguous
Vision
Understanding
Clarity
Agility
Management of value
Capacity management
Location decisions - the range and locations of facilities
Process management - technology investment to support
process and product developments
Managing technology
Human resources management
Formation of strategic buyer-supplier relationships as part of
the organizations extended enterprise
The rate of new product or service introduction
Manufacturing
operations
Service
Operations
The Combined
Manufacturing and service
operations provide and
overall offer to the cutomers
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
input
Processes
Transformation
inputs: Capital,
Technology,
Energy,
and
Know-how
Transformation of
Inputs,
adding
value throughout
the entire process
from basic inputs
to finished goods
and services
Feedback
outputs
The Transition from Craft to Strategic Operations
The final, completed
product/service offering
for
the
customer.
Tangible and intangible
elements,
combining
physical & psychological
effects & benefits for
the customer are in
place for in the final
transaction. Services &
production operations
have become linked
Flexibility Importance
Quality Importance
Product mix
Volume
Changeover
Modification
Performance
Features
Reliability
Conformance
Durability
Service Ability
Cost Importance
Production Cost
Productivity
Capacity Utilization
Inventory reduction
Methods
A sample of 400 companies was selected from the Harris Industrial and Manufacturing Directory. Of these
companies, 200 were contacted by phone to solicit their participation in the study. Of the 200 contacted, 175
firms agreed to participate in the study and 110 firms actually responded (55% response rate). A questionnaire
was also mailed to the remaining 200 companies in the sample without any telephone contact and 34
responded (17% response rate).
Result
If the raters responses are completely interchangeable, the degree of interrater agreement will equal
1.0. At the other extreme, if raters responses are completely random with respect to each other, the
degree of interrater agreement will be 0.0. The interrater agreement values for the four constructs are
.94 for cost, .84 for quality, .85 for delivery time, and 89 for flexibility. The results indicate that the 27
pairs of managers exhibited a high level of agreement about the competitive priorities for their
businesses.
Management Implications
Predictive Validity of
Competitive Priorities
Predictive validity, is established by using data
collected from an instrument to explain or predict
current or future performance.
The importance of cost as a competitive priority
increases as process choice moves from the job
shop setting to the flow shop setting. Conversely,
the importance of flexibility as a strategic
capability is lower for plants that have flow-type
process designs as opposed to discOntinuous flow
process designs
Conclusion
The results suggest that researchers in operations strategy use multiple respondents
from individual firms, particularly when the instrument is unproven. Multiple
respondents allow researchers to better gauge the reliability of the instrument and
also to identify and discard unreliable measures
Operational measures of key decision variables such as competitive priorities are useful to both decision makers and researchers. Measures of competitive priorities are particularly important because these
variables are thought to guide decisions made on process choice, technology, capacity, manufacturing plan.
This research also shows that the expected relationship between process choice and competitive priorities that is central to much of the conceptual work in manufacturing strategy can be demonstrated
empiricallynning and control systems, and quality.
Because competitive priorities continue to be important variables in operations strategy research, it is important for researchers to build on each others work, using scales that have proved to be reliable and
valid, and searching for new measures for variables not well measured to date.
Methods
A sample of 400 companies was selected from the Harris Industrial and Manufacturing Directory. Of these companies, 200
were contacted by phone to solicit their participation in the study. Of the 200 contacted, 175 firms agreed to participate in the
Predictive Validity of
study and 110 firms actually responded (55% response rate). A questionnaire was also mailed to theResult
remaining 200 companies
Competitive Priorities
in the sample without any telephone contact and 34 responded (17% response rate).
Table 1 shows the varimax rotated factor loadings for a four-factor solution. In addition to the obvious
Respondents titles included president, vice president of manufacturing, vice president of operations, director of
conceptual basis for four dimensions, a four-factor solution is supported empirically
by analysis
of isa established
scree
Predictive
validity,
by using data collected from a
manufacturing, director of operations, plant manager, production manager, manufacturing manager, controller, and strategic
plot, which indicates a clear elbow between four and five factors.
predict current or future performance. To demonstrate criterio
planning manager. Having respondents at this level helped assure adequate knowledge of the array of strategic and operational
If the raters responses are completely interchangeable, the degree of interrater
agreementpriorities
will equalinstrument
1.0. At in question, it is necessary to
competitive
practices at the plant.
the other extreme, if raters responses are completely random with respect to each
other,
degree predict
of
priorities
sothe
measured
other behavior
interrater agreement will be 0.0. The interrater agreement values for the four
are .94offor
cost,
constructs
The importance
cost
as a.84
competitive priority increases as pr
for quality, .85 for delivery time, and 89 for flexibility. The results indicate that the
27 pairs
of managers
job shop
setting
to the flow shop setting. Conversely, the impor
exhibited a high level of agreement about the competitive priorities for their businesses.
strategic capability is lower for plants that have flow-type proce
discOntinuous flow process designs. Because these results are a
literature, the findings suggest that the measures of competitiv
of manufacturing strategy theory.
Conclusion
The results suggest that researchers in operations strategy use multiple respondents from ind
firms, particularly when the instrument is unproven. Multiple respondents allow researchers to
gauge the reliability of the instrument and also to identify and discard unreliable measures
Management Implications
Operational measures of key decision variables such as competitive priorities are useful to both
decision makers and researchers. Measures of competitive priorities are particularly important
because these variables are thought to guide decisions made on process choice, technology, capacity,
manufacturing plan.
This research also shows that the expected relationship between process choice and competitive
priorities that is central to much of the conceptual work in manufacturing strategy can be
demonstrated empiricallynning and control systems, and quality.
Because competitive priorities continue to be important variables in operations strategy research, it is
important for researchers to build on each others work, using scales that have proved to be reliable
Abstract