Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Operations Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Agile manufacturing: Relation to JIT, operational performance and rm

performance
R. Anthony Inman a, , R. Samuel Sale b , Kenneth W. Green Jr. c,1 , Dwayne Whitten d,2
a

College of Business, Louisiana Tech University, Box 10318, Ruston, LA 71272, United States
Department of Management and Marketing, PO Box 10025, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX 77710, United States
c
Department of Management, Marketing, and MIS, College of Business, Southern Arkansas University, P.O. Box 9410, Magnolia, AR 71754, United States
d
Texas A&M University - Mays Business School, Information and Operations Management Department, Mailstop 4217, College Station, TX 77843, United States
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 January 2007
Received in revised form 1 June 2010
Accepted 5 June 2010
Available online 18 June 2010
Keywords:
Agile manufacturing
JIT systems
Organizational performance
Structural equation modeling

a b s t r a c t
A structural model incorporating agile manufacturing as the focal construct is theorized and tested.
The model includes the primary components of JIT (JIT-purchasing and JIT-production) as antecedents
and operational performance and rm performance as consequences to agile manufacturing. Using data
collected from production and operations managers working for large U.S. manufacturers, the model is
assessed following a structural equation modeling methodology. The results indicate that JIT-purchasing
has a direct positive relationship with agile manufacturing while the positive relationship between JITproduction and agile manufacturing is mediated by JIT-purchasing. The results also indicate that agile
manufacturing has a direct positive relationship with the operational performance of the rm, that the
operational performance of the rm has a direct positive relationship with the marketing performance
of the rm, and that the positive relationship between the operational performance of the rm and the
nancial performance of the rm is mediated by the marketing performance of the rm.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Competitive pressures force manufacturers to continuously
improve the provision of products and associated services desired
by customers. Manufacturers have adopted lean practices such as
JIT and TQM to reduce costs and improve quality. As many competitors adopted these practices, some competitive advantage was
lost. Many manufacturers now have begun adopting practices that
increase their ability to rapidly respond to changes in customer
demand. For these, superior responsiveness has become a key to
competitive advantage. In short, many manufacturing rms are
becoming relatively more agile.
We propose that an element of lean manufacturing, Just-in-Time
(JIT), is related to agile manufacturing. Specically, we propose that
the primary elements of JIT, i.e., JIT-production and JIT-purchasing,
are related to agility. Further we investigate the relationship
between manufacturing agility and operational and rm performance.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 318 257 3568; fax: +1 318 257 4253.
E-mail addresses: inman@latech.edu (R.A. Inman), sam.sale@lamar.edu
(R.S. Sale), kwgreen@saumag.edu (K.W. Green Jr.), dwhitten@mays.tamu.edu
(D. Whitten).
1
Tel.: +1 870 235 4317 (O).
2
Tel.: +1 979 845 2919 (O).
0272-6963/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.001

We conducted a national survey of production and operations

managers working for large U.S. manufacturing concerns to collect data necessary to assess the model using a structural equation
methodology. A review of the literature and discussion of the study
hypotheses follow in the next section. A discussion of the specic
methodology employed is followed by a description of the results of
the scale assessment and the structural equation modeling results.
Finally, a conclusions section, which incorporates discussions of the
contributions of the study, limitations of the study, suggestions for
future related research, and implications for practicing managers,
is provided.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
Shah and Ward (2003) identify JIT as one of four bundles that
make up lean manufacturing. Given that JIT is an element of lean
manufacturing, discussion of the literature relating lean manufacturing to agile manufacturing is relevant even though the current
study focuses on the relationship between JIT and agile manufacturing. Hence, the following section provides a review of the literature
for both the JIT/agile relationship and the lean/agile relationship.
2.1. JIT and agile manufacturing
Specic to our research is the relationship between agile
manufacturing and the Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing strategy.

344

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Countless research regarding JIT and its individual elements has

been generated in the last three decades. Claycomb et al. (1999b)
state that in its ideal form, JIT integrates the entire supply chains
marketing, distribution, customer service, purchasing, and production functions into one controlled process. In an early work
regarding JIT implementation, Mehra and Inman (1992) identied
four elements of JIT: JIT-production strategy, JIT vendor strategy
(purchasing), JIT education strategy and management commitment. Only JIT-production and JIT vendor strategies were found
to have a signicant impact on JIT implementation success. Since
that time a number of published articles have at least partially supported these ndings. In more recent work Shah and Ward (2003)
identify four bundles of lean production: Just-In-time (JIT), Total
Quality Management (TQM), Total Preventive Maintenance (TPM)
and Human Resource Management (HRM). In a 2007 paper Shah
and Ward propose and test 10 dimensions that can be used to
measure these four bundles of lean production. Six of the 10
dimensions are elements of JIT with three pertaining to supplier
aspects of JIT (purchasing) and three related to aspects of JITproduction. Therefore, while a number of JIT elements have been
identied, two, JIT-production and JIT-purchasing, seem to garner
the most support for their criticality to organization success. As a
result, we limit our work here to these two primary elements of JIT.
We dene JIT as a comprehensive strategy that combines the
primary tactical elements of JIT-production and JIT-purchasing, to
eliminate waste and optimally utilize resources throughout the
supply chain (Claycomb et al., 1999b). JIT-production focuses on
the identication and elimination of all forms of waste, including
excess inventories, material movements, production steps, scrap
losses, rejects and rework, within the production function (Wisner
et al., 2005; Brox and Fader, 2002). JIT-purchasing is operationalized by Freeland (1991) as a set of techniques and concepts for
eliminating waste and inefciency in the purchasing process.
Techniques and concepts associated with JIT-purchasing include
daily delivery of small lot sizes from nearby vendors, shared information, supplier education, reduced inspection and early supplier
involvement in product/process design. The techniques utilized
by JIT-production and JIT-purchasing allow rms to translate the
resulting capabilities into a JIT strategy that provides organizational
capabilities to deliver near zero defect quality, near zero variance
quantity and precise on-time delivery (Green and Inman, 2005).
The key word applicable to the denition of both primary
elements of JIT is waste. This is consistent with Shah and
Wards (2007) denition of lean production as an integrated sociotechnical system with the main objective of reducing or eliminating
internal, customer, and supplier waste. Since JIT is a subset (bundle)
of lean, we narrow our denition to the following: JIT is that subset
of lean associated primarily with the elimination of waste through
planning, scheduling and sequencing of operations. This denition
of JIT subsumes both primary elements of JIT, JIT-purchasing and
JIT-production, as elements of itself that are distinguishable from
each other by where they occur in the system or supply chain.
2.2. Lean manufacturing and agile manufacturing
There has been a tendency to view the development of lean
manufacturing and agile manufacturing either in a progression
or in isolation (Gunasekaran, 1999a). From an isolation standpoint, Harrison (1997) notes that companies with a lean mindset
would nd the agile manufacturing concept difcult to follow.
Krishnamurthy and Yauch (2007) state that there are three general
positions with respect to lean and agile: those who believe that they
are mutually exclusive or distinct concepts that cannot co-exist, those
who believe that they are mutually supportive strategies, and those
who believe that leanness must be a precursor to agility. Table 1
summarizes the literature supporting each of the three views.

2.2.1. Lean and agile as mutually exclusive concepts

Early concerns that the two concepts cannot co-exist were
expressed by Richards (1996), who noted that some agile proponents claimed that exibility would suffer under lean production
and from Harrison (1997) who expressed doubts that lean and
agile were compatible while emphasizing that agile implied more
resources, not fewer. More recently, Goldsby et al. (2006) note that
lean and agile are often pitted as opposing paradigms.
Agility has been recognized as a manufacturing strategy consisting of manufacturing tasks and choices (Gunasekaran et al., 2008).
The word choices implies that tradeoffs are necessary between
lean and agile (Harrison, 1997) or that they cannot completely coexist. While both strategies address the same competitive priorities
(cost, quality, service, exibility), they each emphasize different
elements (Narasimhan et al., 2006) such that clear dividing lines
can be drawn between the two (Gunasekaran et al., 2008). Some
would state that lean manufacturing subordinates responsiveness
(service) to efciency and productivity (cost) (Vazquez-Bustelo et
al., 2007) while agile manufacturing focuses on speed and exibility and not cost (Gunasekaran et al., 2008). One may consider leans
market winner as cost (Christopher and Towill, 2001) and agiles
market winners as speed, exibility and responsiveness to changes
(Zhang and Shari, 2007), i.e., service level (Mason-Jones et al.,
2000). This is consistent with Narasimhans et al. (2006) empirical
study that found agile plants to meet/exceed lean plants and other
plants in all measured performance dimensions with the exception
of cost efciency. Hence, tradeoffs that would prevent lean/agile
co-existence can be easily envisioned. Larger lot sizes and higher
inventory levels could be necessary to maintain the higher service level required by agile rms while smaller lot sizes and lower
inventory levels could be required by cost-efcient lean rms.
It should be noted that there is a stream of thought that
advocates the simultaneous use of lean manufacturing and agile
manufacturing. Termed leagile, proponents believe that manufacturing systems can consist of both lean and agile, acting
together to exploit market opportunities in a cost-efcient manner (Krishnamurthy and Yauch, 2007). However, this appears to
be appropriate only for supply chains, not individual manufacturing rms unless the rm is a multi-unit enterprise that functions
as a supply chain. Leagile models created thus far contain a decoupling point that separates the lean and agile portions of the system
(Krishnamurthy and Yauch, 2007) with the lean portion on the
upstream side of the point and the agile portion of the system on the
downstream side (Mason-Jones et al., 2000). Krishnamurthy and
Yauch (2007) state that this decoupling point ensures that lean and
agile do not co-exist, lending credence to the idea that the two are
mutually exclusive within a single manufacturing entity, although
both may exist within a supply chain.
From the literature, one can glean that both lean and agile have
obtained desired results in isolation and that neither is better nor
worse than the other (Naylor et al., 1999). This would imply that
either could be used successfully depending upon the individual
rms environment. Specically, lean manufacturing is appropriate when market conditions are basically stable, demand is smooth
and standard products are produced and agile manufacturing is
appropriate when the environment is more turbulent and more
product variety is present (Vazquez-Bustelo et al., 2007; Naylor
et al., 1999). The degree of turbulence in the environment determines the degree of agility needed (Vazquez-Bustelo et al., 2007;
Shari and Zhang, 2001; Zhang and Shari, 2000). Though not
stated within the literature, the same could hold true for lean. The
degree of stability dictates the degree of leanness required to effectively compete. Consistent with the above, Goldsby et al. (2006)
found, via simulation, that a lean strategy resulted in the lowest
cost/highest service when demand was smooth and predicted with
a high degree of accuracy coupled with low-value nished goods

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

345

Table 1
Three views of the relationship between lean (JIT) and agile manufacturing.
Lean and agile as mutually exclusive concepts
Harrison (1997)
Goldsby et al. (2006)
Narasimhan et al. (2006)
Gunasekaran et al. (2008)
Vazquez-Bustelo et al. (2007)
Christopher and Towill (2001)
Zhang and Shari (2007); Mason-Jones et al. (2000)
Vazquez-Bustelo et al. (2007); Naylor et al. (1999)

Lean and agile as mutually supportive concepts

Katayama and Bennett (1999)
Katayama and Bennett (1999); Krishnamurthy and Yauch
(2007)
Krishnamurthy and Yauch (2007)
Kidd (1994)
Naylor et al. (1999)
Gunasekaran et al. (2008); Ramesh and Devadasan (2007);
Goldsby et al. (2006): McCullen and Towill (2001)
Lean as antecedent to agility
Narasimhan et al. (2006)
Jin-Hai et al. (2003); Hormozi (2001)
Goldman and Nagel (1993)
Gunasekaran et al. (2008); Vazquez-Bustelo et al. (2007);
Shari and Zhang (2001); Zhang and Shari (2000)
Sarkis (2001)
McCullen and Towill (2001)
Gunasekaran et al. (2008); Hormozi (2001); Maskell
(2001); Gunasekaran (1999b); Robertson and Jones
(1999); Booth (1996)

Expressed doubts that lean and agile were compatible while emphasizing that agile implied more
resources, not fewer
Note that lean and agile are often pitted as opposing paradigms
They each emphasize different elements
Clear dividing lines can be drawn between the two; agile manufacturing focuses on speed and
exibility and not cost
Lean manufacturing subordinates responsiveness (service) to efciency and productivity (cost)
Leans market winner is cost
Agiles market winners are speed, exibility and responsiveness to changes, i.e., service level
Lean manufacturing is appropriate when market conditions are basically stable, demand is smooth
and standard products are produced and agile manufacturing is appropriate when the
environment is more turbulent and more product variety is present
Leanness is an overarching concept that is compatible with any production system
Mutually supportive concepts
Results in benets not accessible when the concepts are used in isolation
Compatible concepts
Complementary concepts
Elements cited as necessary for agile performance include elements of lean manufacturing,
specically Just-in-Time manufacturing
The predominant view in the literature is that lean manufacturing is a performance/practice state
that is antecedent to agile manufacturing
Agile is the latest step in the evolution from mass production, to Just-in-Time to lean to agile
Agile manufacturing assimilates the full range of exible production technologies, along with the
lessons learned from TQM, JIT, and lean production
Agile manufacturing can be achieved by utilizing and integrating elements of existing systems and
methods that are already developed and in use
Agile manufacturing = exible manufacturing system + lean manufacturing
Agile manufacturing can subsume the paradigm of lean production
Agile manufacturing is the next logical step or a natural development from the concept of lean
manufacturing

and low carrying costs. Results of a study by Narasimhan et al.

(2006) indicated that lean performers had made-to-stock operations while agile performers had a signicantly greater proportion
of to-order operations.
2.2.2. Lean and agile as mutually supportive concepts
Alternately, leanness has been described as an overarching concept that is compatible with any production system (Katayama and
Bennett, 1999) and as such should be compatible (Krishnamurthy
and Yauch, 2007; Kidd, 1994), complementary (Naylor et al.,
1999), and mutually supportive (Krishnamurthy and Yauch, 2007;
Katayama and Bennett, 1999) with agile manufacturing, resulting in benets not accessible when the concepts are used in
isolation (Krishnamurthy and Yauch, 2007). Elements cited as necessary for agile performance include: the ability to produce large
or small batches with minimum setups (and setup time) and a
cross-trained exible workforce (Goldsby et al., 2006); reduced
process lead times and costs (Gunasekaran et al., 2008); relationships with suppliers and JIT-production (McCullen and Towill,
2001); fully empowered employees, JIT-purchasing, and exible
setups (Ramesh and Devadasan, 2007). Interestingly, these are all
elements of lean manufacturing, specically Just-in-Time manufacturing. Based on the above logic, it seems that the two concepts
could indeed be mutually supportive.
2.2.3. Lean as antecedent to agility
A number of researchers feel that agile manufacturing can be
achieved by utilizing and integrating elements of existing systems
and methods that are already developed and in use (Gunasekaran
et al., 2008; Vazquez-Bustelo et al., 2007; Shari and Zhang, 2001;
Zhang and Shari, 2000). More specically, there are those that feel
that agile manufacturing is the next logical step or a natural devel-

opment from the concept of lean manufacturing (Gunasekaran

et al., 2008; Hormozi, 2001; Maskell, 2001; Gunasekaran, 1999b;
Robertson and Jones, 1999; Booth, 1996). Sarkis (2001) offers
the formula: agile manufacturing = exible manufacturing system + lean manufacturing. McCullen and Towill (2001) argue that
agile manufacturing can subsume the paradigm of lean production. Specic, to our research, Narasimhan et al. (2006) report
that the predominant view in the literature is that lean manufacturing is a performance/practice state that is antecedent to
agile manufacturing, with results of their study suggesting that
leanness is a precursor to agility. One may summarize this part
of the literature review with Goldman and Nagels (1993) statement that agile manufacturing assimilates the full range of exible
production technologies, along with the lessons learned from TotalQuality-Management [an element of lean, Shah and Ward, 2003],
Just-in-Time production [an element of lean, Shah and Ward, 2003]
and lean production.
Perusing the literature review also begs the question, when is
lean manufacturing assimilated into the agile system? Does it have
to be established before moving on to agile manufacturing, can a
lean system be established at the same time and as a part of an agile
system, or does it really matter? A number of researchers state that
agile is the latest step in the evolution from mass production, to
Just-in-Time to lean to agile (Jin-Hai et al., 2003; Hormozi, 2001). If
this is the case, then most agile rms probably adopted lean at some
point and then later moved on to agile, making lean a precursor to
agile. Simply stated by Narasimhan et al. (2006), results indicate
that while the pursuit of agility might presume leanness, pursuit of
leanness might not presume agility.
Since most of the evidence put forth by the precursor literature would just as well justify a mutually supportive stance, we
make the assumption that if lean is antecedent to agile, as proposed,

346

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

mutual support will also be present. This leaves us with two options
(1) lean manufacturing (JIT) is antecedent to agile manufacturing
(with mutual support assumed), i.e., higher levels of JIT will result
in higher levels of agility, or (2) they are distinct concepts that cannot co-exist, that is, the increased effectiveness in one area results
in a decrease in effectiveness in the other.
2.3. Hypotheses
As stated earlier, Shah and Ward (2003) identied JIT as one of
the four bundles that make up lean manufacturing so the preceding
discussion involving lean manufacturing is assumed to apply also
to the specic lean bundle, JIT. This assumption is supported by
Vazquez-Bustelo et al. (2007) who state that experience suggests a
JIT-production system is required for agility and Narasimhan et al.
(2006) who found that supplier management and JIT ow and layout received a signicantly higher emphasis in agile rms than in
lean rms. Also, as previously noted, many elements cited as necessary for agile performance are previously established elements
of JIT. Hence, our research question becomes Is JIT antecedent to
agile manufacturing (thus, the two are mutually supportive) or are
JIT and agile manufacturing two distinct concepts that cannot coexist? Using the two primary elements of JIT, we propose two
hypotheses to dene our research objective.
H1. Higher levels of adoption of a JIT-purchasing strategy will lead
to higher levels of a rms manufacturing agility, i.e., JIT-purchasing
is antecedent to agility.
H2. Higher levels of adoption of a JIT-production strategy will lead
to higher levels of a rms manufacturing agility, i.e., JIT-production
is antecedent to agility.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 are conceptually pictured in Fig. 1. If test
results indicate a signicant negative relationship between the JIT
strategies and agile manufacturing, a mutually exclusive relationship between the two will be supported.
Manufacturers become more agile with the expectation of
improving performance (Yusuf and Adeleye, 2002; Mason-Jones et
al., 2000). Organizational performance encompasses both nancial
and marketing performance at the rm level (Green and Inman,
2005; Green et al., 2004). Financial performance focuses on a rms

return on investment, return on sales and protability as compared

to its competition. The marketing performance component compares the rms sales volume, sales growth, and market share to
that of its competition.
Yusuf and Adeleye (2002) surveyed 109 manufacturers and
found a signicant link between agility and business performance
(sales turnover, market share, customer loyalty, performance relative to competitors, and aggregate performance). Vazquez-Bustelo
et al. (2007) surveyed rms in Spain and found that agile manufacturing positively impacted manufacturing strength which led to
improved operational, nancial and market performance. Results
of a survey by Narasimhan et al. (2006) revealed that agile plants
met or exceeded lean and other plants in all measured performance
dimensions except cost efciency, giving agility the appearance of
a higher state of plant performance and capability.
We propose that rms adopting agile manufacturing practices
will experience improved operational and rm performance. The
following hypotheses were fashioned based upon this proposition:
H3. Higher levels of manufacturing agility will have a positive
impact on a rms nancial performance.
H4. Higher levels of manufacturing agility will have a positive
impact on a rms marketing performance.
H5. Higher levels of manufacturing agility will have a positive
impact on a rms operational performance.
Hypotheses 35 are also conceptually pictured in Fig. 1.
3. Methodology
A listing of 1350 plant and operations managers was extracted
from the 2004 Manufacturers News, incorporated database of
U.S. manufacturers with more than 250 employees. Plant and
operations managers were targeted because of their particular
knowledge related to the manufacturing processes within their
organizations. It was assumed that plant and operations managers,
as a group, would be interested in participating in the survey and
would readily understand the survey items. The survey instrument
was moderately long, lling the front and back of two legal-size
pages.

Fig. 1. Agile manufacturing model with hypotheses.

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Each of the manufacturers was mailed an initial request to participate that included a cover letter, a non-participating form,
the survey instrument, and a postage-paid return envelope. The
cover letter requested participation and stated an assurance that
all responses would be anonymous. The non-participating form
allowed plant managers who did not wish to participate in the study
to have their names and addresses removed from the database. A
follow-up mailing that included a revised cover letter, another survey instrument, and return envelope was completed 2 weeks after
the initial mailing. This second mailing did not include managers
who lled out the non-participating form.
A descriptive prole of respondents was prepared, and early and
late responders were compared to assess for non-response bias.
Conrmatory factor analysis was used to assess the dimensionality
of the study scales, and all scales were further assessed for reliability
and validity. Summary values were computed for each study variable. Descriptive statistics for each of the variables were computed
and a correlation matrix prepared. A structural equation modeling
methodology was used to determine how well the agile manufacturing model t the data and to identify support for each of the
incorporated hypotheses.
3.1. Measurement of constructs
The theorized model incorporates constructs related to
JIT-production, JIT-purchasing, agile manufacturing, operational
performance, and rm performance. The scales selected to measure
the constructs are displayed in Appendix A.
Agile manufacturers must exhibit capabilities of responsiveness,
exibility, and quickness in responding to changes in customer
demand (Shari and Zhang, 2001). The agile manufacturing scale
was developed based on a prioritized listing of 20 capabilities necessary for organizations to achieve agility developed by Shari
and Zhang (2001). A scale item was fashioned for each of Shari and Zhangs top 10 items. Respondents were asked to indicate
their degree of agreement with each statement. Seven-point Likert
scales were used with strongly disagree and strongly agree as
anchors.
JIT-production and JIT-purchasing focus on the elimination
of waste and optimal utilization of resources in production and
purchasing processes. JIT-production was measured using the
multi-item scale developed by Brox and Fader (2002). Respondents
were asked to indicate which of 13 JIT-production related practices
had been implemented by their organizations. JIT-purchasing was
measured with the 7-item scale developed by Germain and Drge
(1997). Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each statement. Seven-point Likert scales were used
with strongly disagree and strongly agree as anchors.
Operational performance was measured using a 13-item performance metrics scale developed by Bowersox et al. (2000).
The items incorporate customer service, cost management, quality, productivity and asset management performance metrics.
Respondents were asked to rate their organizations performance
compared to that of their competitors on the operational performance metrics. The items were measured using 7-point Likert
scales anchored with much worse than competition and much
better than competition. Although Bowersox et al. (2000) used
5-point scales, the 7-point scales were adopted for consistency
purposes.
The scales for measuring the nancial and marketing performance of the rm were previously used by Green and Inman (2005)
and Green et al. (2004). The nancial performance items were taken
directly from Claycomb et al. (1999a). The marketing performance
items were developed by Green and Inman (2005) based on measures of marketing performance (sales volume, market share and
sales growth) identied by Kohli and Jaworski (1990). The items

347

in these scales were measured with 7-point Likert scales anchored

with strongly disagree and strongly agree.
4. Results
4.1. Survey effectiveness
A total of 1350 packets were mailed of which 18 were returned
due to incorrect addresses. Further, 121 non-participating forms
were returned. Ninety-six manufacturers responded with completed instruments for a response rate of 7.9%. This response rate
is low but not atypical for industrial research. Other published
works in similar circumstances yielded response rates as low as
7.5% (Nahm et al., 2003a,b), 6.7% (Tan et al., 2002), and 6.3% (Dwyer
and Welsh, 1985). While Patterson et al. (2004) did not specically
identify their response rate, they found it necessary to survey three
different databases (one of higher-level managers and two of logistics managers) to gather only 107 responses. While manufacturing
managers are the prime source for supply chain management
related data, they are often under severe time and resource constraints making it difcult to achieve high response rates to surveys.
Lambert and Harrington (1990, p. 21) describe a common
approach to assessment as comparing the rst and second waves
of responses and assuming that non-response bias is nonexistent if no differences exist on the survey variables. Following this
common approach, respondents were categorized as responding
to either the initial or follow-up requests sent approximately 2
weeks later. Those responding to the initial requests were classied
as early responders; those responding to the follow-up requests
were classied as late responders. Fifty-four percent (52) of the
respondents were categorized as early respondents and 46% (44)
were categorized as late respondents. A comparison of the means
of the descriptive variables and the scale items for the two groups
was conducted using one-way ANOVA. The comparisons resulted
in statistically non-signicant differences at the .01 level. Because
non-respondents have been found to descriptively resemble late
respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977), this nding of general equality between early and late respondents indicates that
non-response bias has not negatively impacted the assembled data
set.
When data for the independent and dependent variables are
collected from single informants, common method bias may lead
to inated estimates of the relationships between the variables
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). As Podsakoff and Organ (1986) recommended, Harmans one-factor test was used post hoc to examine
the extent of the potential bias. As prescribed by Harmans test, all
variables were entered into a principal components factor analysis. According to Podsakoff and Organ (1986), substantial common
method variance is signaled by the emergence of either a single
factor or one general factor that explains a majority of the total
variance. Results of the factor analysis revealed seven factors with
eigenvalues greater than one, which combined to account for 70%
of the total variance. While the rst factor accounted for 30% of the
total variance, it did not account for a majority of the variance.
Based upon these results of Harmans one-factor test, problems
associated with common method bias are not considered signicant (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
4.2. Sample description
All of the respondents indicated that they worked for manufacturing organizations. Seventy-two percent of the respondents
identied themselves specically as plant or operations managers.
The remaining 28% held management positions related to manufacturing, purchasing and distribution. Respondents averaged 5.5

348

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Table 2
Scale assessment.
Reliability coefcients
Scale

GFI

RMSEA

Agile manufacturing
JIT-production
JIT-purchasing
Operational performance
Marketing performance
Financial performance

.937
.982
.971

.079
.087
.029

NNFI

CFI

.973
.974
.991

.982
.991
.995

.996

.000

1.000

1.000

Alpha

Construct-reliability

Variance-extracted

NFI

.85
.78
.79
.80
.91
.92

.89
.82
.53
.80
.95
.93

.51
.54
.42
.58
.86
.77

.956
.979
.966
*
*

.998

Values not available for scales containing only 3 items.

years in their current positions. Mean sales revenues for the rms
included in the sample were $7.7 billion, and the mean number of
employees per rm was 21,211. Seventeen specic manufacturing
SIC codes were identied. The most frequently identied SIC codes
were: 34-fabricated metal products at 15.6%, 36-electronic and
other electrical equipment at 7.3%, and 20-food and kindred products at 7.3%. Respondents represented 30 different states. The most
frequently identied states were Ohio (10.4%), Michigan (9.4%), and
Illinois (7.3%).

4.3. Scale assessment process

Quality measurement scales must exhibit content validity, unidimensionality, reliability, discriminant validity, and convergent
validity. Since all scales were taken directly from prior research
(Shari and Zhang, 2001; Claycomb et al., 1999a,b; Brox and Fader,
2002; Green and Inman, 2005; Bowersox et al., 2000), content validity is assumed. Survey results used to assess all scales are found in
Table 2.
With the exception of operational performance and JITproduction, all scales were treated as rst-order factors (Garver
and Mentzer, 1999). Bowersox et al. (2000) described operational
performance as comprised of ve distinct factors: customer service,
cost management, quality, productivity and asset management. To
assess unidimensionality, operational performance was, therefore,
treated as a second-order construct. Values for each of the ve factors were calculated by averaging across factor items, and the factor
values were used in the unidimensionality assessment.
Because responses to the JIT-production scale items were categorical (either implemented or not implemented), it was
necessary to compute four composite measures by summing across
the individual items in a manner similar to that recommended
by Garver and Mentzer (1999). The original scale includes 17
items. KR20 reliability analysis indicated that the removal of item
7 (Preventive Maintenance Programs) would improve the overall
reliability of the scale. The remaining 16 items were segmented into
four groups to facilitate computation of the composites.
Unidimensionality is indicated by goodness-of-t index (GFI)
values greater than .90 (Ahire et al., 1996), non-normed-t index
(NNFI) and comparative-t index (CFI) values greater than .90
(Garver and Mentzer, 1999), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) below .08 (Garver and Mentzer, 1999).
In order to achieve unidimensionality, it was necessary to
remove items 6, 8 and 10 from the agile manufacturing scale and
item 7 from the JIT-purchasing scale, and the cost management and
asset management factors from the operational performance scale.
After re-specication the agile manufacturing, JIT-production, JITpurchasing, and nancial performance scales all met the GFI, NNFI,
and CFI minimums indicating unidimensionality. Because the operational performance and nancial performance scales contain only
three items, it is not possible to compute GFI, NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA
values. Principal components analysis, however, indicated that
each scale measured only one dimension. The parameter estimates

for all scales were signicant and greater than .60 also indicating unidimensionality. The RMSEA values for the JIT-purchasing,
agile manufacturing, and nancial performance were below the
recommended .08 level. The RMSEA for JIT-production only slightly
exceeded the .08 level at .087.
Garver and Mentzer (1999) recommend computing Cronbachs
coefcient alpha and the SEM construct-reliability and varianceextracted measures to assess scale reliability. They indicate that
alpha and construct-reliability values greater than or equal to .70
and a variance-extracted measure of .50 or greater indicate sufcient reliability. Two of the three reliability coefcients for the
JIT-purchasing scale exceed the recommended minimums (at .42,
the variance-extracted measure was slightly below the desired .5).
All other scales exceed the minimum reliability requirements on
all three measures.
Ahire et al. (1996) recommend assessing convergent validity
using the normed-t index (NFI) coefcient with values greater
than .9 indicating strong validity. Garver and Mentzer (1999) recommend reviewing the magnitude of the parameter estimates for
the individual measurement items to assess convergent validity.
A strong condition of validity is indicated when the estimates are
statistically signicant and greater than or equal to .70. A weak
condition of validity is indicated when estimates are statistically
signicant but have values less than .70.
While the NFI was not available for the operational performance and marketing performance scales, signicant parameter
estimates greater than .70 indicate convergent validity for both.
An NFI exceeding .95 and statistical signicance of the parameter estimates indicates sufcient convergent validity for all other
scales.
Gerbing and Anderson (1988) recommend that scales be tested
for discriminant validity using a chi-square difference test for each
pair of scales under consideration. A statistically signicant difference in chi-squares indicates discriminant validity (Garver and
Mentzer, 1999; Ahire et al., 1996; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).
The Chi-square difference tests for pairings of each scale with other
study scales returned signicant differences at the .01 level, indicating discriminant validity for all scales.

4.4. Measurement model

Fig. 2 displays the measurement model that incorporates the
scales described and assessed in the preceding section. As Koufteros
(1999) recommends, the scales are further assessed within the context of the full measurement model using a conrmatory factor
analysis methodology. The measurement model ts the data relatively well with a relative chi-square value of .95, an RMSEA value
of 0.00, a CFI value of .99, and an NNFI value of 0.99. A review of the
standardized residual matrix identied only four pairs with absolute values greater than 2.58 (OPA and MP5, JITPRB and FP4, JITPRB
and MP6, and JITPRB and MP7). Looking at the individual items, we
chose not to re-specify based on the importance of each item to the
affected scales.

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Fig. 2. Measurement model with standardized estimates and (t-values).

349

Relative chi-square = .95; Chi-square P-value = 0.72; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI = 0.99; NNFI = 0.99.

4.5. Structural equation modeling results

Summary values for the study variables were computed by averaging across the items in the re-specied scales with the exception
of the JIT-production scale for which items were summed. Descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix for the summary variables
are presented in Table 3. Correlation coefcients are positive and
signicant at the .05 level for all of the hypothesized relationships in the agile manufacturing model with the exception of the
coefcients for JIT-purchasing and nancial performance, and JITproduction and operational performance.
Fig. 1 depicts the theorized agile manufacturing performance
model as structurally assessed. Fig. 3 illustrates the model with the

structural equation modeling results specied in the LISREL 8.7 output. Results relating to t of the model generally support a claim
of good t. The relative chi-square (chi-square/degrees of freedom)
value of 1.08 is less than the 3.00 maximum recommended by Kline
(1998) and the root mean square error of approximation (.03) is
below the recommended maximum of .08 (Schumacker and Lomax,
1996). The P-value associated with the chi-square is .17, above
the recommended minimum of.05 (Byrne, 1998). Results associated with the t indices are somewhat mixed. The GFI (.79) and
NFI (.88) are below the .90 level recommended by Byrne (1998).
These indices are more heavily impacted by a relatively small sample size and, as Byrne (1998) points out, the Comparative-Fit Index
(CFI) and Incremental-Fit Index (IFI) are more appropriate when

350

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Summary variable

Mean

Standard deviation

A. Descriptive statistics (n = 96)

Agilemanufacturing(AM)
JIT-purchasing (JITPU)
JIT-production (JITPR)
Operational performance (OP)
Financial performance (FP)
Marketing performance (MP)

4.89
4.61
9.42
5.26
4.69
4.51

.92
1.14
3.79
.69
1.20
1.23

B. Correlation matrix (n = 96)

JITPU
JITPR
OP
FP
MP
*
**

AM

JITPU

JITPR

OP

FP

.484**
.322**
.477**
.421**
.377**

.531**
.316**
.134
.224*

.145
.206*
.251*

.321**
.386**

.640**

Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

the sample size is small. The CFI (.98) and IFI (.98) both exceed the
recommended .90 level (Byrne, 1998).
Of the ve study hypotheses, only the relationship between JITproduction and agile manufacturing is not supported by the results.
The JIT-purchasing to agile manufacturing link (H1) is positive and
signicant with an estimate of .65 and t-value of 3.17. The estimate of .10 for the link from JIT-production to agile manufacturing
(H2) is non-signicant with a t-value of .56. The link from agile
manufacturing to nancial performance (H3) is positive and significant with a standardized estimate of .49 and an associated t-value
of 3.72. The agile manufacturing to marketing performance link
(H4) is positive and signicant with a standardized estimate of .46
and associated t-value of 3.67. Finally, the agile manufacturing to
operational performance link (H5) is positive and signicant with
a standardized estimate of 0.58 and t-value of 4.13.
The lack of support for the hypothesized link between JITproduction and agile-manufacturing is surprising and troubling.
This result, combined with the modication indices, led us to
rethink the model. This change in thought, coupled with Hair
et al. (1998) recommendation for a competing models approach

to structural equation modeling when alternative formulations

are suggested by underlying theory, prompted us to remove the
path between JIT-production and agile manufacturing, making JITproduction antecedent to JIT-purchasing, thereby, indicating an
indirect (mediation), rather than direct, link to agile manufacturing.
While material purchase obviously must occur before production, most purchasing is based on production plans that anticipate
scheduling and sequencing activities.
Additionally, a review of the modication indices, resulting from
assessment of the theorized model, suggests that an additional path
from marketing performance to nancial performance be added.
Inclusion of the additional path is supported by the results of a
study by Green et al. (2006) which reported a positive relationship between marketing performance and nancial performance.
Vazquez-Bustelo et al. (2007) found that the adoption of agile manufacturing positively impacts manufacturing strength thus leading
to improved business performance, hence operational performance
was treated as an antecedent to rm performance, i.e., marketing
and nancial, performance. This alternative model and associated
structural equation modeling results are illustrated in Fig. 4.

Fig. 3. Agile manufacturing hypothesized structural model with standardized estimates (** signicant at 0.01 level).
Relative chi-square = 1.08; Chi-square P-value = 0.17; RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.97.

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

351

Fig. 4. Agile manufacturing good-t structural model with standardized estimates (** signicant at 0.01 level).
Relative chi-square = .96; Chi square P-value = 0.70; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI = 0.99; NNFI = 0.99.

The standardized estimate for the JIT-production to JITpurchasing link is .69 with an associated t-value of 4.88 (signicant
at the .01 level). The link from JIT-purchasing to agile manufacturing remains positive and signicant. Rather than a direct
positive relationship between JIT-production and agile manufacturing, based on this reformulation of the model, it appears that
JIT-purchasing mediates the relationship between JIT-production
and agile-manufacturing. The link from agile-manufacturing to
operational performance remains positive and signicant. The estimate for the marketing to nancial performance link is 0.64 with a
t-value of 4.96. Operational performance directly impacts marketing performance with a standardized estimate of .44 and t-value of
3.49. Operational performance does not directly impact nancial
performance, however, with an estimate of .11 and t-value of 1.01.
The impact of operational performance on nancial performance
is mediated by marketing performance. The overall t improved
with a relative chi-square = .96, a RMSEA of 0.00, a P-value of .70, a
CFI of .99 and an NNFI of .99. The GFI (.81) and NFI (.89), however,
remained below the desired .90 level.
There was concern that environmental uncertainty may moderate the hypothesized relationship between agile manufacturing
and operational performance. Following the general methodology
described by Baron and Kenny (1986), moderation was assessed.
However, the results indicated that environmental uncertainty did
not moderate the relationship between agile manufacturing and
organizational performance. Details of the analysis are found in
Appendix B.
5. Discussion
A broad sample of large U.S. manufacturers provided data for
assessing the agile manufacturing performance model. Although
some re-specication was necessary, all study scales were determined to be unidimensional, reliable, and valid. Results of the
structural equation modeling analysis showed that the overall
model t the data well and specically support all but one of the
study hypotheses.
The resulting support for the idea that JIT-purchasing is
antecedent to agile manufacturing is not surprising. Within the
manufacturing sector increased use of JIT-purchasing practices
lead to improved agile manufacturing capabilities. This partially
supports the theoretical literature that purports that leanness,
specically JIT implementation, is a foundation or a precur-

sor to agility (mutually supportive) and the empirical ndings of

Narasimhan et al. (2006) that when viewed from a performance
[capability] perspective, leanness is a precursor to agility. Surprisingly only one of the two primary elements of JIT was found
to support agility. The relationship between JIT-production and
agile manufacturing was non-signicant. This result would seem
to indicate that, within the context of the model, JIT-purchasing
alone, rather than in combination with JIT-production, explains
a signicant portion of the variation in agile manufacturing. This
is inconsistent with the belief that JIT ow and other production
related activities are precursors to agility. However, Narasimhan
et al. (2006) note that other studies have shown that JIT ow is
less signicant than other elements. Our nding does not support
H2. The results for JIT-production do not support the notion that
JIT-production is antecedent to agile manufacturing nor does it support the notion that the two are mutually exclusive. This may be in
agreement with McCullen and Towills (2001) argument that agile
manufacturing can subsume the paradigm of lean production. Is the
production aspect of JIT so much a part of agility that one may not
distinguish a difference between JIT-production and the production element within an agile manufacturing rm? Narasimhan et al.
(2006) note that agile does imply that many of the principles and
techniques of lean manufacturing are in place. If the JIT-production
element is already in place then increased supplier/customer integration, in the form of high levels of JIT-purchasing, could show
a far greater impact on agility than JIT-production alone. This
is one possible explanation for the lack of support for Hypothesis 2 in the original model. The move from JIT to agile could
involve keeping the JIT-production element of lean constant but
greatly increasing the emphasis on JIT-purchasing. Although no
such move is tested directly, the conceptual argument is consistent with the results of the alternate model in which JIT-production
is assessed as antecedent to JIT-purchasing. The idea that manufacturing excellence may generate a certain level of performance,
but that additional improvement requires the level of supply
chain integration suggested by JIT-purchasing is consistent with
outward-facing rms in Frohlich and Westbrooks (2001) classication of rms based on arcs of integration.
In addition it was found that organizations that become agile
manufacturers can expect improved operational and rm performance. This nding is consistent with Vazquez-Bustelo et al.
(2007) who found that the adoption of agile manufacturing positively impacts manufacturing strength thus leading to improved

352

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

business performance and Narasimhan et al. (2006) who found

that agile rms exceed lean and other rms on most performance measures used. Interestingly, this is consistent with the
proposed relationships among three of the four perspectives in
balanced scorecard logic; customer perspective (marketing performance), internal business perspective (operational performance),
and nancial perspective (nancial performance). In summary, we
offer the following proposal:
In the manufacturing sector, JIT-purchasing combined with JITproduction enhances a rms manufacturing agility. Improved
manufacturing agility leads to the improved operating performance of the rm, which in turn leads to the improved
marketing and nancial performance of the rm.
5.1. Limitations of the study
While the objectives of the study were successfully accomplished, limitations of the study should be noted. The response rate
raised concerns of potential non-response bias. Although the two
waves of responses were compared and no evidence of bias was
noted, a more direct assessment of the potential bias utilizing data
from a third wave and an intensive follow-up on non-respondents
may have strengthened the study. Because responses related to
both the dependent and independent variables were collected from
the same individual, the potential for common method bias was
also a concern. While subsequent testing for the bias relieved the
concern, collection of the strategy and performance data from separate sources would also have strengthened the study. Also, since
all measures were at the organization level, not the individual
plant level, data from multi-plant rms could dilute the data if
some plants were focused on lean and others on agility. However,
this should weaken the results rather than articially strengthen
them.
There is concern that the measurement scales conceptualizing
the JIT-related constructs were borrowed from different research
streams and that the formats and structuring of the scales is
inconsistent. The JIT-purchasing scale is Likert-based, requiring
respondents to indicate degree of agreement. The JIT-production
scale is categorically structured requiring respondents to indicate
whether or not their organizations have adopted a particular JITproduction practice. In future research efforts, we recommend that
the scales be reformulated for consistency.
The study focused on large U.S. manufacturers because we felt
this group is more likely to have adopted JIT and agile practices. As
a result, it may not be appropriate to generalize results to medium
and small manufacturers. Further, the theory as developed and
tested applies only in the manufacturing sector. Caution should be
exercised when generalizing the results to the service and governmental sectors.
5.2. Future research
This study links JIT practices to manufacturing agility and
agility to performance. Additional research aimed at verifying
these results is necessary. Sample frames that focus on small and
medium-sized manufacturers are necessary to facilitate generalization of these results. It may also be advantageous to view the
combination of JIT-purchasing (with JIT-production as antecedent)
and agile manufacturing as an overall supply chain strategy. Also,
further research could incorporate the other elements of lean
manufacturing such as TQM, preventive maintenance and human
resource management. Once the impact of each element has
been evaluated comparisons can be made between the effects
of individual elements compared to the effect of all elements
working synergistically [Shah and Wards (2003) term applied

to the four bundles of lean manufacturing working in concert].

Although uncertainty was not included in our models, concern
that it may moderate the hypothesized relationship between agile
manufacturing and operational performance led to subsequent
testing for moderation external to our models. Results indicated
that environmental uncertainty did not moderate the relationship between agile manufacturing and organizational performance
supporting our original determination not to include it in the
analysis. Details of the assessment for moderation are presented
in Appendix B. While environmental uncertainty did not play a
signicant role in our models (see Appendix B), future studies
could be expanded by including market environment (degree of
turbulence or degree of uncertainty) as a variable. It would be
informative to examine the degree of match between environments (stable/lean vs. turbulent/agile) and determine how degree
of match impacts operational, nancial and marketing performance.
Finally, the study could be strengthened by the inclusion of
items that determine if the home plant of the respondent, usually
a plant manager, is one of multiple plants in an organization. This
knowledge may lead to further interesting analysis of multi-plant
rms where some plants are focused on lean and others on agility.

Appendix A. Measurement scales

Agile manufacturing (alpha = .85)
Note: Items 6, 8 and 10 removed to achieve unidimensionality.
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each
statement. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
1. This organization has the capabilities necessary to sense, perceive and anticipate market changes.
2. The production processes of this organization are exible in
terms of product models and congurations.
3. This organization reacts immediately to incorporate changes
into its manufacturing processes and systems.
4. This organization has the appropriate technology and technological capabilities to quickly respond to changes in customer
demand.
5. This organizations strategic vision emphasizes the need for
exibility and agility to respond to market changes.
6. This organization has formed co-operative relationships with
customers and suppliers.
7. This organizations managers have the knowledge and skills
necessary to manage change.
8. This organization has the capabilities to meet and exceed the
levels of product quality demanded by its customers.
9. This organization has the capabilities to deliver products to customers in a timely manner and to quickly respond to changes
in deliver requirements.
10. This organization can quickly get new products to market.
JIT-Purchasing (alpha = .79)
Note: Item 7 removed to achieve unidimensionality.
Please indicate the extent to which agree or disagree with each
statement (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Orders are placed to suppliers and delivered on a daily basis.

Our suppliers warehouses/factories are located nearby.
Production plans are shared with suppliers.
Small lot size orders are placed with suppliers.
Inspection of incoming materials has been reduced.
Our staff visits suppliers plants on an informal basis.
We involve suppliers in new product/materials design.

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

JIT-Production (KR20 = .818, alpha based on composites = .78)

Item 7 was removed based on KR20 assessment.
Please indicate which of the following JIT practices have been implemented in your organizations production processes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Kanban
Integrated product design
Integrated supplier network
Plan to reduce setup time
Quality circles
Focused factory
Preventive maintenance
Line balancing
Education about JIT
Level schedules
Stable cycle rates
Market-paced nal assembly
Group technology
Program to improve quality (Product)
Program to improve quality (Process)
Fast inventory transportation system
Flexibility of workers skill

353

12. Inventory turn

13. Return on assets
Financial Performance (alpha = .92)
Please rate your organizations performance in each of the following
areas as compared to the industry average. (1 = well below industry
average; 7 = well above industry average)
1.
2.
3.
4.

Average return on investment over the past 3 years.

Average prot over the past 3 years.
Prot growth over the past 3 years.
Average return on sales over the past 3 years.

Marketing Performance (alpha = .91)

Please rate your organizations performance in each of the following
areas as compared to the industry average. (1 = well below industry
average; 7 = well above industry average)
1. Average market share growth over the past 3 years.
2. Average sales volume growth over the past 3 years.
3. Average sales (in dollars) growth over the past 3 years.

Operational performance (alpha = .80)

Note: The cost management and asset management factors were
removed to achieve unidimensionality.
Please rate your companys performance in each of the following
areas as compared to the performance of your competitors. (1 = much
worse than competition, 7 = much better than competition)
Customer service
1. Customer satisfaction
2. Product customization
3. Delivery speed
Cost management
4. Logistics cost
Quality
5. Delivery dependability
6. Responsiveness
7. Order exibility
8. Delivery exibility
Productivity
9. Information systems support
10. Order ll capacity
11. Advance ship notication
Asset management

Appendix B. Moderating impact of environmental

uncertainty
Following the general methodology described by Baron and
Kenny (1986), moderation is assessed. When testing for moderation, it is desirable that the moderator variable (EU) be uncorrelated
with the predictor (AM) and criterion (OP) variables (Baron and
Kenny, 1986). Descriptive statics are displayed in Table B1. The
Table B1
Descriptive statistics.

Agile manufacturing
Operational performance
Environmental uncertainty

Mean

Standard deviation

4.89
5.26
3.61

.92
.69
1.06

Table B2
Correlations.
AM
Agile manufacturing (AM)
Operational performance (OP)
Environmental uncertainty (EU)
**

OP
.477**

1
.477**
.038

1
.105

EU
.038
.105
1

Signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table B3
Coefcients for agile manufacturing, environmental uncertainty, and interaction.
Model

(Constant)
AM
EU
AM EU

Unstandardized coefcients

Standardized coefcients

Std. error

Beta

t-value

Signicant

2.591
.496
.262
.040

1.119
.216
.311
.060

.656
.399
.372

2.315
2.296
.844
.672

.023
.024
.401
.503

t-value

Signicance

Collinearity statistics
Tolerance

VIF

.101
.037
.027

9.871
27.096
37.111

Dependent variable: op.

Table B4
Coefcients for agile manufacturing and interaction.
Model

(Constant)
AM
AM EU

Dependent variable: op.

Unstandardized coefcients

Standardized coefcients

Std. Error

Beta

3.490
.327
.009

.342
.080
.011

.432
.086

10.202
4.065
.812

.000
.000
.419

Collinearity statistics
Tolerance

VIF

.729
.729

1.372
1.372

354

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Table B5
Environmental uncertainty adapted from Miller and Drge (1986).
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
1. This organization must change its marketing practices frequently
2. The actions of this organizations competitors are unpredictable
3. The demands and tastes of this organizations customers are almost
unpredictable
4. It is necessary to frequently make major changes in this organizations
production processes
5. This organizations products become obsolete at a rapid rate

correlations are presented in Table B2 below indicate that EU is not

signicantly correlated with either AM or OP. Moderation is supported if the interaction (XY) is signicant (Baron and Kenny, 1986).
The results of regressing AM, EU, and XY against OP are presented
in Table B3. While the regression coefcient for the interaction
(XY) is not signicant, it should be noted that multicolinearity is
present making the coefcients difcult to interpret. Table B4 displays the results of regressing AM and XY against OP without EU
present in the model. Multicolinearity is not present. The regression coefcient for XY is .009 with an associated t-value of .812 and
a computed signicance level of .419. Based on these results, it is
concluded that EU does not moderate the relationship between AM
and OP. EU is measured using a 5-item scale adapted from Miller
and Drge (1986) displayed in Table B5.
References
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., Waller, M.A., 1996. Development and validation of TQM
implementation constructs. Decision Sciences 27 (1), 2356.
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396402.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 11731182.
Booth, R., 1996. Agile manufacturing. Engineering Management Journal 6 (2),
105112.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B., 2000. How supply chain competency
leads to business success. Supply Chain Management Review 4 (4), 7078.
Brox, J.A., Fader, C., 2002. The set of just-in-time management strategies: an
assessment of their impact on plant-level productivity and input-factor substitutability using variable cost function estimates. International Journal of
Production Research 40 (12), 27052720.
Byrne, B.M., 1998. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Christopher, M., Towill, D., 2001. An integrated model for the design of agile supply
chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
31 (4), 235246.
Claycomb, C., Drge, C., Germain, R., 1999a. The effect of just-in-time with customers
on organizational design and performance. International Journal of Logistics
Management 10 (1), 3758.
Claycomb, C., Germain, R., Drge, C., 1999b. Total system JIT outcomes: inventory,
organization and nancial effects. International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics 29 (10), 612630.
Dwyer, F.R., Welsh, M.A., 1985. Environmental relationships of the internal political
economy of marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research 22 (4), 397414.
Freeland, J.R., 1991. A survey of just-in-time purchasing practices in the United
States. Production and Inventory Management Journal 32 (2), 4349.
Frohlich, M.T., Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of integration: an international study of
supply chain strategies. Journal of Operations Management 19, 185200.
Garver, M.S., Mentzer, J.T., 1999. Logistics research methods: employing structural
equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics 20
(1), 3357.
Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research 25 (2), 186192.
Germain, R., Drge, C., 1997. Effect of just-in-time purchasing relationships on organizational design, purchasing department conguration, and rm performance.
Industrial Marketing Management 26 (2), 115125.
Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N., 1993. Management, technology and agility: the emergence of a new era in manufacturing. International Journal of Technology
Management 8 (12), 1838.
Goldsby, T.J., Grifn, S.E., Roath, A.S., 2006. Modeling lean, agile, and leagile supply
chain strategies. Journal of Business Logistics 27 (1), 5780.
Green Jr., K.W., Inman, R.A., 2005. Using a just-in-time selling strategy to strengthen
supply chain linkages. International Journal of Production Research 43 (16),
34373453.

Green Jr., K.W., McGaughey, R., Casey, K.M., 2006. Does supply chain management
strategy mediate the association between market orientation and organizational performance? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11
(5), 407414.
Green Jr., K.W., Medlin, B., Whitten, D., 2004. Developing optimism to improve performance: an approach for the manufacturing sector. Industrial Management &
Data Systems 104 (2), 106114.
Gunasekaran, A., 1999a. Design and implementation of agile manufacturing systems: editorial. International Journal of Production Economics 62, 16.
Gunasekaran, A., 1999b. Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development. International Journal of Production Economics 62, 87105.
Gunasekaran, A., Lai, K.-H., Cheng, T.C.E., 2008. Responsive supply chain: a competitive strategy in a networked economy. Omega: The International Journal of
Management Science 36, 549564.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Harrison, A., 1997. From leanness to agility. Manufacturing Engineer 76 (6), 257260.
Hormozi, A.M., 2001. Agile manufacturing: the next logical step. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 8 (2), 132143.
Jin-Hai, Li, Anderson, A.R., Harrison, R.T., 2003. The evolution of agile manufacturing.
Business Process Management 2 (9), 170189.
Katayama, H., Bennett, D., 1999. Agility, adaptability and leanness: a comparison of
concepts and a study of practice. International Journal of Production Economics
6061, 4351.
Kidd, P.T., 1994. Agile Manufacturing: Forging New Frontiers. AddisonWesley,
Reading, MA and Workingham.
Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford
Press, New York.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J., 1990. Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54 (2), 118.
Koufteros, X.A., 1999. Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations
Management 17 (4), 467488.
Krishnamurthy, R., Yauch, C.A., 2007. Leagile manufacturing: a proposed corporate
infrastructure. International Journal of Operations and Production Management
27 (6), 588604.
Lambert, D.M., Harrington, T.C., 1990. Measuring nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics 11 (2), 525.
Maskell, B., 2001. The age of agile manufacturing. Supply Chain Management 6 (1),
511.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B., Towill, D.R., 2000. Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your
supply chain to the marketplace. International Journal of Production Research
38 (17), 40614070.
McCullen, P., Towill, D., 2001. Achieving lean supply through agile manufacturing.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12 (7), 524533.
Mehra, S., Inman, R.A., 1992. Determining the critical elements of JIT implementation. Decision Sciences 23 (1), 160174.
Miller, D., Drge, C., 1986. Psychological and traditional determinants of structure.
Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (4), 539560.
Nahm, A.Y., Vonderembse, M.A., Koufteros, X.A., 2003a. The impact of organizational
culture on time-based manufacturing and performance. Decision Sciences 35
(4), 579607.
Nahm, A.Y., Vonderembse, M.A., Koufteros, X.A., 2003b. The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance. Journal
of Operations Management 21 (3), 281306.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., Kim, S.W., 2006. Disentangling leanness and agility: an
empirical investigation. Journal of Operations Management 24, 440457.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M., Berry, D., 1999. Leagility: integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of
Production Economics 62, 107118.
Patterson, K.A., Grimm, C.M., Corsi, T.M., 2004. Diffusion of supply chain technologies. Transportation Journal 43 (3), 523.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems
and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4), 531544.
Ramesh, G., Devadasan, S.R., 2007. Literature review on the agile manufacturing criteria. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 18 (2), 182
201.
Richards, C.W., 1996. Agile manufacturing: beyond lean. Production and Inventory
Management Journal 37 (2), 6064.
Robertson, M., Jones, C., 1999. Application of lean production and agile manufacturing concepts in a telecommunications environment. International Journal of
Agile Manufacturing Systems 1 (1), 1416.
Sarkis, J., 2001. Benchmarking for agility. Benchmarking: An International Journal 8
(2), 88107.
Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G., 1996. A Beginners Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2007. Dening and developing measures of lean production.
Journal of Operations Management 25, 785805.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management 21, 129149.
Shari, H., Zhang, Z., 2001. Agile manufacturing in practice: application of a methodology. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (56),
772794.
Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B., Wisner, J.D., 2002. Supply chain management: a strategic perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 22
(6), 614631.

R.A. Inman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 343355

Vazquez-Bustelo, D., Avella, L., Fernandez, E., 2007. Agility drivers, enablers and
outcomes. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 27
(12), 13031332.
Wisner, J.D., Leong, G.K., Tan, K.-C., 2005. Principles of Supply Chain Management:
A Balanced Approach. Southwestern, United States.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Adeleye, E.O., 2002. A comparative study of lean and agile manufacturing
with a related survey of current practices in the UK. International Journal of
Production Research 40 (17), 45454562.

355

Zhang, Z., Shari, Hossein, 2007. Towards theory building in agile manufacturing
strategy a taxonomical approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (2), 351370.
Zhang, Z., Shari, H., 2000. A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organizations. International Journal of Operations and Production Management
20 (4), 496512.