See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321493122

International Journal of Operations & Production Management Advanced

manufacturing technologies: Determinants of implementation success Article
information: For Authors Advanced ma...

Article  in  International Journal of Operations & Production Management · January 1996

CITATIONS READS

0 120

2 authors:

Godwin Udo Ike C. Ehie

University of Texas at El Paso Kansas State University
114 PUBLICATIONS   1,919 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   812 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human Resources Related Projects View project

Information Systems Sourcing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Godwin Udo on 04 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Advanced manufacturing technologies: Determinants of implementation success
Godwin J. Udo, Ike C. Ehie,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Godwin J. Udo, Ike C. Ehie, (1996) "Advanced manufacturing technologies: Determinants of implementation
success", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 Issue: 12, pp.6-26, https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443579610151733
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579610151733
Downloaded on: 04 December 2017, At: 11:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 49 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1431 times since 2006*
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1995),"Selection and implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies: classification and literature review of
issues", International Journal of Operations &amp; Production Management, Vol. 15 Iss 10 pp. 43-62 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443579510098310">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510098310</a>
(2005),"Advanced manufacturing technology implementation: Evidence from Indian small and medium enterprises
(SMEs)", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 Iss 5 pp. 483-496 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/17410380510600473">https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510600473</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:459066 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 IJOPM
16,12
6
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)
International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 16
No. 12, 1996, pp. 6-26. © MCB
University Press, 0144-3577
Advanced manufacturing
technologies
Determinants of implementation
success
Godwin J. Udo
Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee, USA, and
Ike C. Ehie
Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA
Introduction
The quest for lower operating costs and improved manufacturing efficiency has
forced a large number of manufacturing firms to embark on advanced
manufacturing technologies (AMTs) projects of various types. The dramatic
developments in AMT at various organizational levels can be attributed to
numerous benefits that improve the competitive position of the adopting
companies. AMT impact not just manufacturing, but the whole business
operations, giving new challenges to a firm’s ability to manage both
manufacturing and information technologies. AMT include a group of
integrated hardware-based and software-based technologies which, when
properly implemented, monitored and evaluated, can improve the operating
efficiency and effectiveness of the adopting firms. They encompass a broad
range of computer-based technological innovations which include numerical
control (NC) machine tools, cellular manufacturing, machining centres,
industrial robots, computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM)
systems, and automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS). These “islands
of automation” are integrated through advanced computing technology called
computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM). AMT has the potential to improve
operating performance dramatically and create vital business opportunities for
companies which are capable of successfully implementing and managing
them[1-4].
AMT can also provide distinctive competitive advantages in cost and
process leadership[5]. Events of the last decade, such as the US productivity
problems, Japanese manufacturing success stories and the competitive global
economy, have moved manufacturing strategy and process technology issues
from the bottom to the top of the firm’s priority list. The issues surrounding
manufacturing technologies and their implementations have assumed greater
importance in the manufacturing strategy debate[6]. Practitioners and
researchers have developed strong interest in how AMT can be used as a
competitive tool in the global economy. A growing number of organizations are
 now adopting AMT to cope with recent phenomena in today’s competitive Implementation
environment such as fragmented mass markets, shorter product life cycle and success in
increased demand for customization[7]. Although AMT can help AMT
manufacturers compete under these challenging circumstances, they often
serve as a double-edged sword, imposing organizational challenges while
providing distinct competitive advantage when successfully implemented[8-10].
The benefits of AMT have been widely reported in the literature and can be 7
classified as tangible and intangible[11-14]. The tangible benefits, which are easily
quantifiable, include: inventory savings, less floor space, improved return on
equity (ROE) and reduced unit cost of production. The intangible benefits, which
are difficult to quantify, include: an enhanced competitive advantage, increased
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

flexibility, improved product quality and quick response to customer demand. A

list of these benefits, along with their literature sources, is presented in Table I.
Although the benefits of AMT are numerous and have been found to be indicators
of best practices in manufacturing, only a small proportion of companies adopting
AMT have taken full advantage of these benefits. The rate at which these benefits
are derived varies to a large extent from one company to another. Companies at-
large fall short of achieving those benefits that were perceived as being important
in AMT adoption. Beatty[16] concludes that only half of those companies adopting
AMT ever attain successful implementation. Among the reasons given for the lack
of success include: technology mania, lack of top management’s continued
support, poor commitment to shopfloor employees and inadequate managerial
training for AMT projects[1,8,16,22]. Success in AMT implementation becomes a
reality when the set of goals and objectives stipulated by the adoption strategy are
fully realized. There have been discussions centred on AMT being introduced at a
rate faster than that at which they can be adequately and realistically
implemented. This has been attributed to lack of appreciation of the degree of
complexity and challenge that such implementation might entail. Mize[22]
strongly argued that AMT can be viewed as a strategy for enhancing and
achieving the set goals and objectives of an organization; however, he cautioned
that AMT adoption should be the means to an end and not vice versa.
Furthermore, AMT should not be viewed as the panacea to all manufacturing
problems.
Based on the literature, the critical success determinants for AMT
implementation were classified into four broad categories as follows: triple “C”
factors, self-interest factors, housekeeping factors and literacy factors. These
factors are presented in Table II. Among the reasons cited for AMT failures are:
lack of developing an effective support system, lack of planning for a high level
of system integration, lack of experience with modern technologies, inadequate
understanding of new technologies and lack of top-management knowledge and
support of AMT[16,43-45]. Total system integration rather than stand-alone
technologies should be the key requirement in AMT success.
The opportunities offered by AMT to deal with the emerging realities of the
1990s competitive environment are widely recognized, but concerns have also
been expressed about the ability of firms to exploit them to their full advantage.
 IJOPM Benefits
16,12
Tangible benefits
Improved return on equity
Reduced inventory costs
8 Redmond[14]; Ahmed et al.[17]
Reduced set-up times
Reduced throughput times
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)
Lower fixtures and jig costs
Reduced scrap rate
Reduced floor space
Reduced labour costs
Reduced tooling costs
Reduced amount of rework
Intangible benefits
Enhanced competitive
advantage
Adjust to shorter product
life cycle
Developed engineering/
management expertise
Lower exposure to labour unrest
Viewed as leader in the use
of new technology
Increased flexibility
Improved manufacturing
control
Improved working
conditions
Quick response to design or
process changeover
Ability to introduce new
product faster
Better data management
Quicker response to machine
breakdown
Improved response time to
demand variations
Improved product quality
Table I.
Benefits derived from
AMT and their sources Better control of parts
Literature sources
Gupta and Somer[15]; Choobineh[12]; Wemmerlov and Hyer[4]
Kaplan[11]; King and Ramamurthy[1]; Beatty[16];
Sum and Yang[17]; Choobineh[12]; Wemmerlov and Hyer[4];
Beatty[16]; Gupta and Somer[15]; Choobineh[12];
Wemmerlov and Hyer[4]; Redmond[14]
Kaplan[11]; Sum and Yang[18]; Choobineh[12];
Wemmerlov and Hyer[4]
Primrose and Leonard[13]; Choobineh[12]; Wemmerlov and
Hyer[4]; Ahmed et al.[17]
Kaplan[11]; Choobineh[12]; Ramamurthy and King[8];
Redmond[14]
Kaplan[11]; Choobineh[12]; Wemmerlov and Hyer[4];
Ramamurthy and King[8]
Beatty[16]; Choobineh[12]; Redmond[14]; Wemmerlov and Hyer[4];
Polakoff[19]; Ramamurthy and King[8]
Primrose and Leonard[13]; Choobineh[12]
Kaplan[11]; Choobineh[12]
Sum and Yang[18]; Gupta and Somer[15]; Choobineh[12];
Ramasesh and Jayakumav[20]
Choobineh[12]
Choobineh[12]; Ahmed et al.[17]; Gunn[21]; Primrose and
Leonard[13]
Choobineh[12]
Choobineh[12]
Kaplan[11]; King and Ramamurthy[1]; Sum and Yang[18];
Dimnik and Johnston[3]; Ramasesh and Jayakumav[20]
Primrose and Leonard[13]; Choobineh[12];
King and Ramamurthy[1]
Beatty[15]; Choobineh[12]; Wemmerlov and Hyer[4];
Ahmed et al.[17]
Kaplan[11]; Choobineh[12]
Kaplan[11]; Choobineh[12]; Gupta and Somer[15];
Wemmerlov and Hyer[4]
Choobineh[12]
Choobineh[12]; Beatty[16]
Kaplan[11]; Sum and Yang[18]; Primrose and Leonard[13]
Choobineh[12]; Ahmed et al.[17]
Kaplan[11]; Beatty[15]; Primrose and Leonard[13]; Wemmerlov and
Hyer[4]; Ramamurthy and King[8]; Ramasesh and
Jayakumav[20]; Gunn[21]
Primrose and Leonard[13]; Choobineh[12]; Wemmerlov and Hyer[4]
 Determinants Sources
Implementation
success in
Triple “C” factors AMT
Effective communications Badiru[23]; Green[24]; Helmes[25]
Sound co-ordination Badiru[23]; Helms[25]
Strong co-operation from everyone Badiru[23]; Eckerson[26]
Strong commitment Farhooman et al.[27] 9
Self-interest factors
Employees’ morale Alter[28]; Brown et al.[29]
Employees’ satisfaction with the project Ramamurthy and King[8]
Belief that the AMT is for general interest Alter[28]
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

Quick response to workers’ concerns Alter[28]

Appropriate reward system Alter[28]; Snell and Dean[30]
Housekeeping factors
Quality plan of action Currie[31]; Sarkis[32]; Beckert[33]
Teamwork Beatty[16]; Muscatello and Green[34]; Green[24]
Quality vendor support Ramamurthy and King[8]; Das and Goyal[32]
Quality technical support Das and Goyal[35]
Detailed cost/benefit report Canada and Sullivan[36]; Grant et al.[9]; Attaran[37]
AMT cost justification Grant et al.[9]; Coulthurst[38]
Business functions integration Liker et al.[39]; Gupta and Somers[15]; Attaran[37]
Effective facilitator Beatty[16]; Adair-Heeley[40]
Literacy factors
Clear understanding of AMT Bowman[41]; Beckert[33]
capabilities
Clear understanding of the business Bowman[41]; Beckert[33]
principles
Understanding of the business system Beckert[33]; Attaran[37]
Effective training Snell and Dean[30]; Udoka and Nazemetaz[42]
Bowman[41] Table II.
Clarity of AMT goals and objectives Attaran[37] Literature source of
Appropriate level of expectations of Attaran[37] determinants of AMT
the AMT success

The literature is replete with conceptual studies in support of the critical

success factors as requirements for successful AMT implementation. However,
to our knowledge, no studies have empirically examined the extent to which the
critical success factors result to benefits accrued from AMT implementation.
This study therefore proposes to investigate the extent to which the identified
factors have effects on the benefits of AMT which ultimately lead to successful
AMT implementation. The factors and potential benefits were identified
through an extensive review of past studies.

Proposed model
One of the pioneering frameworks for the general evaluation of manufacturing
and information technologies consists of objective measurement, expert
observation and subjective judgement[45]. Given the use of a relatively large
 IJOPM field test, subjective judgement was selected for this research because it
16,12 requires fewer resources and is less time-consuming than the other methods.
Subjective judgement requires AMT users to score their experiences by
responding to a list of questions. Adelman and Donnell[45] also identified three
phases of information technology evaluation: technical, subjective and
empirical phases. The technical evaluation phase addresses the algorithms and
10 input/output procedures in order to identify potential problems prior to actual
use. The subjective evaluation phase focuses on evaluating AMT from the
users’ perspective with the goals of assessing the effectiveness of the system
and determining its strengths and weaknesses. The empirical evaluation phase
focuses on measuring AMT performance. The present study represents a
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

combination of the subjective and empirical evaluations phases. It assesses the

perceptions of AMT users who are mostly plant or manufacturing managers.
There have been conflicting opinions on the degree to which AMT benefits
are being achieved by adopting firms. While some companies have been very
successful at AMT implementation and therefore realized full benefits from
AMT, others have reported less favourable results. It has been reported that as
many as 70 per cent of AMT adopters fail in their quest to implement
AMT[16,43]. King and Ramamurthy[1] found in their empirical study, involving
222 manufacturing companies, that a considerable gap exists between the
firms’ expectations and their actual achievement of AMT benefits. This study
proposes a predictive model that seeks to predict the success of AMT
implementation by analysing the relationships between the determinants of
AMT and the benefits realized from AMT. The proposed model is presented as
Figure 1. It comprises 26 variables classified into six broad categories:
(1) triple “C” factors;
(2) self-interest factors;
(3) housekeeping factors;
(4) literacy factors;
(5) tangible benefits; and
(6) intangible benefits.

AMT benefits
The list of potential AMT benefits shown in Table I leads one to believe that
successful AMT implementation can provide a business organization with a
distinct competitive edge. In the strategic management area, manufacturing
firms have widely accepted the fact that AMT may be useful in implementing
leading edge corporate strategy. AMT have become a key part of
competitiveness in the marketplace[12,15,18]. Based on the literature sources,
there were ten tangible and 15 intangible benefits. Respondents were asked to
rate the extent to which these benefits were acheived when implementing AMT
using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagreed to strongly
agreed. The benefits were combined into three tangible benefits – return on
 Implementation
Self-interest:
success in
Triple C:
• Communication
• Employee morale AMT
• Satisfaction
• Commitment • Belief in AMT
• Co-ordination • Appropriate award Tangible benefits:
• Improved return on equity
• Reduced throughput time 11
• Reduced production cost
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

Intangible benefits:
• Improved quality
• Better control
• Quick response time
• Improved work conditions
Literacy: • Competitive advantage
Housekeeping:
• Action plan • Understanding of AMT
• Effective team • Understanding of firm
• Vendor support business
• Cost justification • Training
• Functions integration • Clear goals/objectives
• Effective facilitator of AMT
• Expectations about AMT Figure 1.
AMT implementation
predictive model

equity, reduced throughput time and reduced production costs, and five
intangible benefits – improved quality, better operation control, quick response
time, improved work conditions and competitive advantage. The coefficient of
internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for this construct was 0.96, which
indicates a high level of validity construct.

AMT determinants
The AMT determinants were classified under four broad factors based on their
characteristics. These are the triple “C” factors, self-interest factors,
housekeeping factors and literacy factors.
The triple “C” factors relate to the impact of effective communication, co-
ordination and commitment on AMT implementation. Badiru et al.[23] reaffirm
a widely-held view that effective communication, sound co-ordination and
strong commitment from all chains of command within the organization are
highly critical to successful implementation of an AMT project. This position
was further supported by Green[24], Helms[25], Eckerson[26] and
Adair-Heeley[40]. Beatty[16], in examining the “rule of the road” in AMT
implementation, identified three factors that lead to AMT success, namely:
effective project champion, system planning and integration, and
organizational integration techniques. It was found that effective
communication can have a major influence on AMT implementation. Helms[25]
 IJOPM identifies communication as a key element in successful implementation of JIT.
16,12 It was further discovered that companies which have long-term perspectives of
adopting AMT have better chances of success than companies which embark
on AMT on the short term. A variety of environmental, structural and
technological factors in a firm can facilitate or inhibit adoption, implementation
and successful management of AMT[1]. Bessant[44] concluded that total
12 system integration rather than stand-alone technologies is a key requirement in
AMT success. The triple “C” factors were investigated by asking the
respondents to indicate the extent to which the factors affect AMT
implementation. These factors include: effective communication at the
individual, inter-group and intra-group levels; commitment by top
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

management, other managers and other workers; and co-ordination by the

AMT project team and co-operation by everyone concerned in the project.
The self-interest factors are those which personally affect the employees and
relate to the degree to which employees have personal interests in AMT
implementation. The factors considered include general employees’ morale,
satisfaction levels, personal belief that AMT can lead to personal reward or
benefits to the individual and equitable reward structures. Ramamurthy and
King[1] maintained that no matter how attractive the benefits or the
sophistication of technology, if personnel-related aspects (such as motivation,
participation, reward schemes, etc.) are not adequately planned for, the end
result of the AMT effort is bound to fail. People-oriented problems could prove
to be more difficult to resolve than technical problems and could have serious
consequences for AMT implementation. All facets of integrated manufacturing
systems are positively related to both external and individual equitable
rewards[30]. The economic impact of personal-related issues is higher under
AMT than is found in traditional manufacturing systems. Employees’ morale
problems can sabotage the effectiveness of AMT[29]. The cause of failure in
CIM, an aspect of AMT, can be attributed to the fear and anxiety created in the
workers. Alter[28] identified inertia, fear, self-interest and lack of enthusiasm as
the four common traits leading to CIM failures. In general, those employees who
view CIM as enhancing their individual interests and physical rewards tend to
be more co-operative and will work to support and not thwart the efforts of
AMT projects. Although AMT involves a great deal of automation, top
management needs to provide support to shopfloor employees. These supports
may be in the form of boosting the morale of the employees and convincing the
workers that AMT can offer personal benefits and equitable rewards.
Appropriate supervision and full commitment from all parties involved are also
crucial. The self-interest factors include: high employee morale, employee
satisfaction with the project, belief that AMT are in the general interest, an
appropriate incentive and reward system, and belief that the AMT are timely
and relevant.
The housekeeping factors are the basic or “hygiene” conditions that must
serve as a prelude to successful AMT implementation. Having them may not
guarantee AMT success; however, not having these factors will certainly
 thwart the efforts of AMT implementation. They involve managerial and Implementation
technical support mechanisms that must be available to AMT implementors for success in
successful AMT implementation. A major cause of the slow adoption of AMT AMT
and the disappointing performance gains by most companies is the failure to
adapt to the organizational and work practices required by new
technologies[16,46]. New manufacturing technologies have different
implications for work design and organizational structures that are likely to 13
necessitate alignment of the entire organization. Most AMT adopters have
failed to realize this critical organizational issue[8,47]. Some of the adopters
have become near-sighted in their decision making regarding AMT. One
example is the traditional financial justification of AMT that is very limiting
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

and restrictive because it has a short-term focus and completely ignores all
subjective considerations[11,32,40]. The effectiveness of AMT implementation
requires a detailed plan of action that would be based on teamwork and a
participative rather than an authoritative style of management. The directed
team should be moderated by an effective facilitator who should have the
following characteristics: team-coaching abilities; working well through other
people; and encouraging participation[16,44]. Liker et al.[39] found that lack of
business integration was a major cause of problems in achieving the potential
benefits of computer-aided design (CAD). The more the business functional
units are integrated, the more the firm can realize the benefits of CAD.
The literacy factors pertain to those educational efforts which make the
employees become more familiar with AMT and their goals and objectives. The
need for training has been greatly emphasized in the AMT literature. AMT
success has been found to be correlated positively with comprehensive training
and equitable rewards[30]. Bowman[41] investigated the causes of failure in JIT
and found that lack of understanding of JIT and its goals and inappropriate
expectations were major contributory factors to JIT failures. For AMT
implementation to succeed, the employees must have a clear understanding of
its principles, capabilities, goals and objectives. This understanding will make
it possible for the expectations of AMT to be communicated appropriately to all
the employees. Attaran[37] listed clarity of goals and appropriate expectations
as prerequisites to the successful implementation of flexible manufacturing
technology.

Research method
The survey instrument was developed based on an extensive review of the
literature on AMT determinants and benefits. The instrument was designed to
investigate which of the determinants have significant effects on the benefits
realized. To improve on the relevance and readability, the instrument was
pretested on a group of AMT users and managers located in the Mid-western
region of the USA. Each participant in the pretest study demonstrated
significant knowledge on AMT. The feedback obtained from the pretest study
was used to refine the instrument significantly and make it more relevant to the
objective and scope of the study. The survey instrument was subsequently
 IJOPM mailed, along with a return postage envelope, to manufacturing firms in the
16,12 USA. Firms were selected from the following three sources: Moody’s Industrial
Manual[48], American Association of Manufacturing Technology (AAMT)
and, 1993 Harris Directory on manufacturing companies[49]. The
questionnaire was addressed to the plant/manufacturing manager of each firm.
To ensure that the respondents have appropriate and adequate knowledge on
14 AMT, each respondent was expected to meet the following conditions: to have
been with the company for at least one year; and have at least six months’
experience of AMT implementation. Those respondents who did not meet these
criteria were asked to indicate so and kindly return the questionnaire. This
measure ensured that each respondent was familiar with AMT adoption in
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

their organization and would provide a well-informed evaluation of the system

in question. In a cover letter accompanying the questionnaire, the broad areas
encompassing AMT were identified in order to place the definition of AMT in
proper context. The respondents were assured anonymity to increase the
objectivity of their responses.

Demographic data
Of the 400 questionnaires mailed out within continental USA, 117 responses
were received for a response rate of 29 per cent. Twenty-seven questionnaires
were discarded because the respondents either failed to complete the
questionnaire in its entirety or they did not have sufficient experience and
background in AMT. The remaining 90 (22.5 per cent) usable responses were
included in the analysis.
About 38 per cent of the respondents worked in a process-manufacturing
environment while about 30 per cent operated in a repetitive-manufacturing
environment. Almost 80 per cent of the respondents reported that AMT
projects were initiated mostly by management rather than workers or vendors
and, in almost all cases, AMT projects were directed by management rather
than a steering committee or appointed individuals. Of the respondents, forty
percent were top management, 38 per cent were middle management, and about
19 per cent belonged to ranks other than the senior/top management. Table III
shows the descriptive information for the respondents.

Data analysis
A stepwise regression analysis was used to determine which of the individual
variables (in each of the four categories) were significant in explaining each of
the benefit measures. Table IV shows the Pearson correlation coefficients for the
eight benefits (dependent variables), and each of the 18 factors thought to affect
them (independent variables). Table V shows the regression coefficients and the
corresponding R2 of the significant ( p < 0.05) factors, which represents the
percentage of the variance in each dependent variable explained by the
particular independent variable in the presence of other significant variables.
For each of the eight benefit measures, the R2 represents the percentage of
the variance in the ratings for a particular benefit which is explained by the
 Value Percentage
Implementation
success in
Manufacturing environment AMT
Process 34 37.7
Discrete 8 8.9
Repetitive 27 30.0
Job shop 17 18.9 15
Other 4 4.4
AMT project initiator
Top management 44 48.9
Other levels of management 28 0.1
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

Worker(s) 1 1.1
Vendor(s) 2 2.2
Borrowed idea from a competitor 2 2.2
Other 6 6.7
Do not know 7 7.8
Project director
Top management 36 40.0
Other levels of management 36 40.0
Steering committee 6 6.7
Individual, self-appointed workers 2 2.2
Do not know 10 11.1
Number of years in business
0-9 17 18.7
10-19 15 16.5
20-29 19 20.9
30-39 5 5.5
40-49 5 5.5
50-59 5 5.5
60-69 6 6.6
70-over 18 19.8
Percentage of business automation
0-9 13 14.4
10-19 15 16.7
20-29 11 12.2
30-39 10 11.1
40-49 6 6.6
50-59 14 15.4
60-69 8 8.8
70 and over 13 14.4
Previous year’s revenue ($)
Less than 5 million 6 6.7
5-20 million 15 16.7
21-50 million 17 18.9
51-100 million 15 16.7
101-200 million 11 12.2 Table III.
Over 200 million 26 28.9 The characteristics
of the respondents
(Continued) ( N =90)
 IJOPM Value Percentage
16,12
Number of full-time employees
200 or less 24 26.6
201-400 15 16.7
401-600 16 17.8
16 601-800 7 7.8
801-1,000 3 3.3
More than 1,000 25 27.8
Respondent’s employment with the firm
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

Less than one year 6 6.7

1-5 years 19 21.1
5-10 years 23 25.5
10-20 years 23 25.5
Over 20 years 19 21.1
Respondent’s rank
Top management 36 40.0
Middle management 34 37.8
Lower management 5 5.5
Staff/professional 12 13.3
Table III. Other 3 3.3

ratings of a particular predictor variable. The regression model for predicting

the benefit of return on equity has an R 2 factor of 57.57 per cent. The
determinants (and their regression coefficients) of this benefit are
communication (beta = 0.3732), faith in AMT (beta = 0.2474), action plan (beta
= 0.1868), cost justification (beta = 0.1919) and AMT understanding (beta =
0.5093). The regression model for reduced throughput time was the weakest of
all the eight models with an R2 factor of 35.01 per cent. The determinants of the
benefits are commitment (beta = 0.2614), employee morale (beta = 0.2001),
teamwork (beta = 0.1819) and clear goals and objectives (beta = 0.1777). The R2
factor for reduced cost is 54.97 per cent and the determinants include employee
morale (beta = 0.3245), faith in AMT (beta = 0.2979), appropriate reward (beta
= 0.1783), cost justification (beta = 0.2099), effective facilitator (beta = 0.3353)
and business understanding (beta = 0.1983). The improved quality regression
model has an R 2 factor of 54.12 per cent with the following determinants:
employee morale (beta = 0.4081), appropriate reward (beta = 0.1623), support
(beta = 0.1934), AMT understanding (beta = 0.3403) and training (beta =
0.2099). The enhanced competitiveness model has an R2 of 61.74 per cent with
the following determinants: commitment (beta = 0.3562), faith in AMT (beta =
0.3722), cost justification (beta = 0.1845), function integration (beta = 0.3105)
and business understanding (beta = 0.2190).
The R2 factor for improved working conditions is 66.49 per cent and the
determinants include commitment (beta = 0.2292), satisfaction (beta = 0.2153),
appropriate reward (beta = 0.5803), cost justification (beta = 0.3143), functions
integration (beta = 0.1899), effective facilitator (beta = 0.1823), clear goals and
 Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

ROE Throughput Cost Quality Competitiveness Work conditions Control Quick response

Triple “C” factors

Communication 0.2430 0.1544 0.1877 0.1827 0.4027 –0.0738 –0.0035 0.2469
Commitment 0.2315 0.2869 0.1762 0.1525 0.3766 0.0726 0.0560 0.1041
Co-ordination 0.0580 0.1249 0.2343 0.2633 0.1775 –0.0999 –0.0954 0.0217

Self-interest factors
Employee morale 0.1427 0.1625 0.3715 0.0145 0.2785 0.0695 0.2324 0.0106
Satisfaction 0.1024 0.1619 0.1652 0.1141 0.3779 0.1671 0.0269 0.0096
Faith in AMT 0.1611 0.1809 0.3899 0.2559 0.4198 0.4057 0.3699 0.1488
Appropriate reward 0.1675 0.1316 0.3943 0.1712 0.0461 0.0555 0.1300 0.1428

Housekeeping factors
Action plan 0.1684 0.0627 –0.0746 0.1033 0.1968 –0.1639 –0.1231 0.0329
Teamwork 0.1721 0.1206 0.0759 –0.0691 0.2187 –0.1479 0.0630 0.1676
Support –0.0428 0.0278 –0.0100 –0.1092 0.0309 –0.1976 –0.1171 –0.1931
Cost justification 0.1198 0.0762 0.1810 –0.2058 –0.0085 –0.1492 –0.0822 –0.0539
Functions integration 0.1314 0.3091 0.1406 –0.0669 0.0801 –0.1555 –0.0647 –0.0685
Effective facilitator –0.0947 –0.0717 –0.6031 0.1697 0.3561 0.0785 0.0329 0.0264

Literacy factors
AMT understanding –0.0802 0.2284 0.2316 –0.0023 0.2502 0.0434 0.1616 0.0048
Business understanding 0.2274 0.2148 0.1505 0.0427 0.2017 0.0434 0.2205 0.0709
Training –0.0156 0.0370 0.1185 –0.0330 0.1410 –0.1635 –0.0375 –0.0392
Clear goals/objectives –0.0404 0.1211 0.1992 0.0755 0.2542 0.0957 0.1564 0.0575
AMT expectations –0.0417 0.0606 0.2530 –0.0147 1.8200 –0.1035 0.1522 –0.2598

Correlations ≥ 0.1990 are significant at p ≤ 0.05

(N = 90)
AMT
success in

coefficients of benefit
17
Implementation

predictor variables
indicators with
Pearson correlation
Table IV.
 Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

18
16,12

Table V.
IJOPM

( p < 0.05)
Regression
coefficients of the
significant variables
Better Reduced Reduced Improved Enhanced Improved work Better Quick
ROE throughput cost quality competitiveness conditions control response

Triple “C ” factors
Communication 0.3732 0.1674
Commitment 0.2614 0.3562 0.2292
Co-ordination 0.2181 0.1425
Self-interest factors
Employee morale 0.2001 0.3245 0.4081
Satisfaction 0.2153 0.2660
Faith in AMT 0.2474 0.2979 0.3722 0.5803 0.1986
Appropriate reward 0.1783 0.1623
Housekeeping factors
Action plan 0.1868
Teamwork 0.1819 0.1716 0.4034
Support 0.1934 0.1593
Cost justification 0.1919 0.2099 0.1845 0.3143
Functions integration 0.3105 0.1899
Effective facilitator 0.1823
Literacy factors
AMT understanding 0.5093 0.3403 0.2103
Business understanding 0.1983 0.2190 0.3404
Training 0.2099 0.4065 0.2429
Clear goals/objectives 0.1777 0.3141
AMT expectations 0.6737

Multiple R2 0.5757 0.3501 0.4797 0.5412 0.6174 0.6649 0.5171 0.6569

R2 0.3314 0.2110 0.3021 0.2929 0.3812 0.4421 0.2674 0.4315

Regression constant 2.1110 1.7610 2.0140 2.6290 1.9031 2.6570 2.6580 3.2080
 objectives (beta = 0.3141) and expectations about AMT (beta = 0.6737). This Implementation
regression model has the most prediction power. This implies that improvement success in
in work conditions could be the most significant benefit of AMT. It is important AMT
for management to commit resources to making the work environment more
friendly for the worker. It is also interesting to note that the most important
determinants of this benefit are expectations about AMT and appropriate
reward structures for performances, both of which are employee-oriented 19
variables. The implication for management is that ensuring a favourable
people-oriented work environment can lead to greater benefits in a technology-
oriented AMT environment. In this study, the firms that ensured good
employees’ perception of the reward system and appropriate expectations about
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

AMT stood to gain more than those firms that were lacking in these areas.
The results in Table V also show that the variables included in this study
explain 51.71 per cent of variance for better control of the system. These
include: co-ordination (beta = 0.2181), faith in AMT (beta = 01986), teamwork
(beta = 0.1716), AMT understanding (beta = 0.2103), business understanding
(beta = 0.3404) and training (beta = 0.4065). Finally, the quick response model
has an R 2 factor of 65.59 per cent and the following determinants:
communication (beta = 0.1674), co-ordination (beta = 0.1425), satisfaction (beta
= 0.260), teamwork (beta = 0.4034), support (beta = 0.1593) and training (beta =
0.2429). A summary of these factors and their benefits is presented in Table VI.

Discussion of results
The basic premiss of this study is to determine the predictive abilities of the
AMT factors identified in the study in achieving success in AMT
implementation as measured by both tangible and intangible benefits. A
detailed account of which factors determine which benefits is given under the
various factor categories.

Triple “C” factors

Communication plays a significant role in determining the benefits of improved
return-on-equity (ROE) and quick response to customer demand. The more
effective the communication during the implementation stages of AMT, the
greater the ROE and the quicker the response to customer demand and
manufacturing changes. Commitment significantly and positively affected the
benefits of reduced throughput time, enhanced competitiveness and improved
working conditions. Co-ordination also positively and significantly affected the
benefits of better control and quick response. The results indicate that the more
co-ordinated the activities are in AMT implementation, the better the
manufacturing control, and the quicker the system response to ever-changing
customer demands. These results confirm the fact that the triple “C” factors are
critical to the successful implementation of AMT. However, it was also noted
that the triple “C” factors did not indicate any significant effects on cost
reduction.
 IJOPM
Benefit/factor R2 β
16,12
Returning equity (ROE) 0.576
Communication 0.373
Faith in AMT 0.247
Action plan 0.187
Cost justification 0.192
20 AMT understanding 0.509
Reduced throughput times 0.350
Commitment 0.261
Employee morale 0.200
Teamwork 0.182
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

Clear goals/objectives 0.178

Reduced cost 0.550
Employee morale 0.325
Faith in AMT 0.298
Appropriate reward 0.178
Cost justification 0.210
Effective facilitator 0.335
Business understanding 0.198
Improved quality 0.541
Employee morale 0.408
Appropriate reward 0.162
Support 0.193
AMT understanding 0.340
Training 0.210
Enhanced competitiveness 0.617
Commitment 0.356
Faith in AMT 0.372
Cost justification 0.184
Function integration 0.310
Business understanding 0.220
Improved working conditions 0.665
Commitment 0.229
Satisfaction 0.215
Appropriate reward 0.580
Cost justification 0.314
Functions integration 0.190
Effective facilitator 0.182
Clear goals/objectives 0.314
Expectations about AMT 0.634
Better control system 0.517
Co-ordination 0.218
Faith in AMT 0.199
Teamwork 0.172
AMT understanding 0.210
Business understanding 0.340
Training 0.406
Quick response to customer demands 0.656
Communication 0.167
Table VI. Co-ordination 0.142
Variances of the AMT Satisfaction 0.266
benefit measures and Teamwork 0.403
regression coefficient Support 0.159
of determinants Training 0.243
 Self-interest factors Implementation
All of the self-interest factors were related to some if not all of the benefits. Four success in
of the self-interest factors (employee morale, satisfaction, faith in AMT and
appropriate reward) were related positively to all the benefit measures at the
AMT
0.05 level of significance. Employee morale related to reduced throughput time,
reduced cost and improved quality. When employees’ morale is high, products
will get through the manufacturing system faster and with higher quality. 21
Brown et al.[29] observed that employees’ morale problems can sabotage the
effectiveness of J IT implementation. Firms that reported high satisfaction with
AMT implementation are the same ones that reported improvement in working
conditions and quicker response to customer demands. Strong faith in AMT
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

affected more benefits than any other factor in this category, namely: improved
ROE, reduced cost, enhanced competitiveness, improved working conditions
and better control. The implication of this result is that, before implementing
AMT, the firm should spend time and resources to earn the commitment of the
employees through positive belief and trust in AMT. Once employees have
strong faith in AMT and perceive it to be in their best personal interest, many
of the potential benefits can easily be realized. Equity reward structure
positively affected the benefits of reduced cost and improved quality. In effect, if
the workers perceive the reward system to be equitable and appropriate, their
work habits will result in reduced production cost and increased product
quality. Alter[28] mentioned that employees who believe CIM can enhance their
interest and personal reward will work to aid rather than thwart its
implementation.

Housekeeping factors
All six housekeeping variables were directly related (at the 0.05 level of
significance) to every AMT benefit reported. The results clearly show that the
housekeeping factors addressed in this study are important determinants of
AMT benefits which subsequently would lead to successful implementation.
For example, an action plan had a direct effect on improved ROE, while
teamwork directly affected reduced throughput time, better control and quick
response to the customer. An effective action plan can lead to improved ROE,
more organized teamwork, reduced cycle time and quicker response to
customer demand. Vendor and technical support directly affected the benefits of
improved quality and quick response to customer. There was a general
agreement among the respondents that the more robust and clearer the cost
justification process, the more the AMT benefits of improved ROE, reduced
cost, enhanced competitiveness and improved working conditions can be
achieved[11,38]. If the benefits and cost of investment of AMT are properly
discussed among all parties involved, the whole picture would be clearer,
thereby reducing the odds for failure. The results in Table VI also shows that
business functions integration can directly affect the benefits of enhanced
competitiveness and improve working conditions. Where the business units
work together to achieve the goals of the firm, the competitive position of the
firm is likely to be stronger than if no integration and synergy exist among the
 IJOPM business units. These results confirm those of Liker et al.[39] which indicated
16,12 that lack of business integration is a major source of problems in achieving the
potential benefits of computer-aided design (CAD) and that the more business
functions are integrated, the more the firm can realize the benefits of CAD.
Effective facilitator, which is the sixth factor in the housekeeping category,
positively affected the benefits of reduced cost and improved working
22 conditions. The respondents who perceived effective leadership or project
champion also reported a reduction in production cost and positive changes in
working conditions. This result is in agreement with the findings of other
studies[10,20]. The logical conclusion here is that housekeeping factors are
significant determinants of AMT benefits which serve as a precursor to AMT
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

implementation success and, as such, top management needs to pay closer

attention to these factors.

Literacy factors
Each of the five variables of the literacy group was found to be statistically
significant to at least one of the eight AMT benefits. AMT understanding,
which is a measure of how much of the AMT principles and purposes are
understood by the respondents, significantly improved ROE. Business
understanding played an important role in determining the benefits of reduced
cost, enhanced competitiveness and better control. The greater the business
understanding by the respondent, the more these benefits are realized. Training
directly affected improved quality, better control and quick response to the
customer. The implication here is that quality and effective training on AMT
leads to increased knowledge in the areas of product quality, production control
and quick response to customer demands and design changes. Furthermore,
quality training can lead to mastery of the system and an increased sense of
ownership and accomplishment on the part of the users. The results also
indicated that those respondents who were made to understand clearly the
goals and objectives of AMT were able to achieve reduced throughput time and
improved working conditions during AMT implementation. The reasoning for
these results could be that, since they had better understanding of the goals and
objectives of AMT, the respondents used the system effectively to reduce
throughput time while, at the same time, creating a more comfortable work
environment for themselves. The last factor in this category, AMT
expectations, directly affected the benefit of improved working conditions. In
effect, the work environment can be improved if the employees have the correct
level of expectations for AMT. Unfavourable working conditions could exist
where the expectations of AMT are either overestimated or unclear. Brown et
al.[29] came to the same conclusion when they found that one of the main causes
of AMT failures was lack of appropriate expectations regarding AMT.

Conclusions
The objective of this study is to assess the determinants and benefits of AMT
and to investigate the extent to which the determinants (identified through an
extensive literature review) affect successful AMT implementation. This study
 has some limitations common to survey studies. It is based on the subjective Implementation
perception of the respondents; therefore, one should be careful when success in
generalizing the results. Every attempt was made in the study to ensure that the
respondents had an appropriate and adequate knowledge of AMT
AMT
implementation. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide some
insights to the growing body of knowledge on AMT implementation. The AMT
determinants identified in this study were found to affect significantly AMT 23
implementation measured through AMT benefits. AMT refer to a family of
manufacturing technologies such as CAD/CAM, AS/RS, FMS, etc. Further
work is needed to study the critical success factors in stand-alone technologies
at the plant floor to determine how comparable the results would be with those
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

presented in this study.

Several practical implications can be drawn from the results of the study.
Under triple “C” factors, commitment seemed to have a stronger impact than
either communication or co-ordination. A likely interpretation is that, even with
sound communication and effective co-ordination, without commitment on the
part of management and workers to the course of AMT, the full benefit may not
be achieved. Commitment is an inward state of mind that could be affected by
external forces such as persuasion, involvement and realization of the necessity
of the AMT project.
The self-interest factor stands out in this study as the most critical
determinant of AMT success. Employees’ morale affects the benefits of reduced
throughput time, reduced cost and improved quality. Faith in AMT affects five
of the eight benefits – namely improved ROE, reduced cost, enhanced
competitiveness, work conditions and better control. The lesson for
management from these results is that workers should be made to perceive
AMT as a system that can yield personal gains to them rather than another
technological “white elephant”. It is a mistake for management to assume that
workers will find out on their own that AMT serve an individual’s interest as
well as the firm’s interest. In firms where workers see reward systems as being
equitable and satisfactory, AMT benefits can be achieved more easily and
faster than in firms where workers have reasons to doubt the intentions of
AMT.
The importance of the housekeeping factor for the organization to derive
AMT benefits calls for several things: a good action plan, an effective work
team, vendor and technical support, robust, clear and believable cost
justification, integration of business units and a dynamic facilitator. To achieve
the benefits of reduced cost and improved working conditions, management has
to appoint carefully a project leader who is capable of adopting a participative
management style to create a sense of ownership among employees. Cost
justification was found to be the most important predictor of benefit in this
category. This is in agreement with Kaplan[11] when he correctly argued
whether the benefits of CIM can be justified by faith alone. This factor directly
affected four benefits measures: improved ROE, reduced cost, enhanced
competitiveness and improved working conditions. A realistic cost-benefit
analysis can challenge the workers to cut cost or alert them to the need to use
 IJOPM the system in such a way as to recover the investment in AMT. A believable cost
16,12 justification enables workers to become conscious of profit and loss issues and,
as a result, the firm’s competitive position in the industry may be enhanced.
However, this desirable mind-set can only be possible where integration exists
among different units of the firm. The lesson for management, based on these
results, is that for full realization of AMT benefits the house must be kept in
24 order (basic hygiene factors must be in place) in terms of availability of work
teams, cost justification and integrated business units.
Every literacy factor considered in this study was found to be a significant
predictor of one or more AMT benefits. This result suggests that educational
activities should take place prior to, during and after AMT implementation.
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

Employees with either direct or indirect involvement in the manufacturing

system have to be educated on the principles, goals, purposes and capabilities
of AMT. The workers should be assisted in setting their expectations about
AMT by explaining to them what its capabilities and limitations are.
Furthermore, management must raise user expectations of AMT in general and
induce a positive attitude about AMT. Contrary to the opinion that AMT
technology may be oversold, these results show that higher user explanations
are directly related to many AMT benefits. The AMT environment demands
that everyone should have a good knowledge of the entire business since all the
units are now completely interdependent. The importance of training cannot be
overemphasized because an advanced manufacturing factory requires a more
educated and skilled workforce than the traditional factory. Investment in
training pays off in terms of improved quality and better control. Updating the
knowledge of the worker yields dividends in terms of increased ROE, reduced
cost and quick response to customer demands. Educational activities must be
an ongoing endeavour since AMT represents a dynamic system whose
technology will continue to change. The winning firms will be those that keep
pace with the changes by updating their workers’ knowledge through in-service
and external training.

References
1. King, W.R. and Ramamurthy, D., “Do organizations achieve their objectives from computer-
based manufacturing technologies?”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 39 No. 2, 1992, pp. 129-41.
2. Youssef, M.A, “Getting to know advanced manufacturing technologies”, Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 2, 1992, pp. 40-42.
3. Dimnik, T.P. and Johnston, D.A., “Manufacturing managers and the adoption of advanced
manufacturing technologies”, OMEGA, Vol. 21 No. 2, 1993, pp. 155-62.
4. Wemmerlov, U. and Hyer, N.L., “Cellular manufacturing in the US industry: a survey of
users”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 27 No. 9, 1989, pp. 1511-30.
5. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C., Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through
Manufacturing, Wiley, New York, NY, 1984.
6. Voss, C., “Implementation of manufacturing technologies: a manufacturing strategy
approach”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 6 No. 4,
1986, pp. 17-26.
 7. Zammuto, R.F. and O’Connor, E.J., “Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies’ Implementation
benefits: the role of organization design culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17
No. 4, 1992, pp. 701-28. success in
8. Ramamurthy, K. and King, W.R., “Computer integrated manufacturing: an exploratory AMT
study of key organizational barriers”, OMEGA, Vol. 20 No. 4, 1992, pp. 475-91.
9. Grant, R.M., Krishnan, R., Shani, A.B. and Baker, R., “Appropriate manufacturing
technology: a strategic approach”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, 1991, pp. 43-54.
10. Zairi, M., “Measuring success in AMT implementation using customer-supplier interaction 25
criteria”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 10,
1992, pp. 34-55.
11. Kaplan, R.S., “Must CIM be justified by faith alone?”, Harvard Business Review, March-
April 1986, pp. 87-95.
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

12. Choobineh, F., “Justification of flexible manufacturing systems”, in Choobineh, F. and Suri,
R. (Eds), Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Current Issues and Models, IIE Press, Atlanta,
GA, 1986, pp. 269-91.
13. Primrose, P.L. and Leonard, R., “Evaluating the ‘intangible’ benefits of flexible
manufacturing systems by use of discounted cash flow algorithm within a comprehensive
computer program”, in Choobineh, F. and Suri, R. (Eds), Flexible Manufacturing Systems:
Current Issues and Models, IIE Press Atlanta, GA, 1986, pp. 289-98.
14. Redmond, G.R., “The evaluation of a flexible manufacturing system – a case study”, in
Choobineh, F. and Suri, R. (Eds), Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Current Issues and
Models, IIE Press, Atlanta, GA, 1986, pp. 346-51.
15. Gupta, Y.P. and Somers, T.M., “Factory automation and integration of business functions”,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, 1992, pp. 15-23.
16. Beatty, C.A., “Implementing advanced manufacturing technologies: rules of the road”,
Sloan Management Review, Summer 1992, pp. 49-60.
17. Ahmed, M.U., Nandkeolyar, U. and Mahmood, S.Z., “Planning design and implementation
of group technology/cellular manufacturing systems: an empirical investigation”, in
Proceedings of the Annual DSI National Meeting, November 1992, Decision Sciences
Institute, San Francisco, CA, 1992.
18. Sum, C.C. and Yang, K.K., “A study on manufacturing resource planning (MRP II) practices
in Singapore”, OMEGA, Vol. 21 No. 2, 1993, pp. 187-97.
19. Polakoff, J.C., “Computer integrated manufacturing: a new look at cost justification”,
Journal of Accountancy, March 1990, pp. 24-9.
20. Ramasesh, R.V. and Jayakumar, M.D., “Economic justification of advanced manufacturing
technology”, OMEGA, Vol. 21 No. 3, 1993, pp. 289-306.
21. Gunn, T.G., Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York, NY, 1987,
p. 171.
22. Mize, J.H., “Success factors for advanced manufacturing systems”, Proceedings of the
Institute of Industrial Engineers, Spring Conference, 1987, IIE Press, Atlanta, GA, 1987.
23. Badiru, A.B., Foote, B.L. and Chetupuzha, J., “A multiattribute spreadsheet model for
manufacturing technology justification”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 21
No. 1-4, 1991, pp. 29-33.
24. Green, F.E., “When just-in-time breaks down on the line”, Industrial Management, Vol. 31
No. 1, 1989, pp. 26-9.
25. Helms, M.M., “Communications: the keys to JIT success”, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, 1990, pp. 18-21.
26. Eckerson, W., “CIM success requires winning over exec”, Network World, Vol. 8 No. 3, 1991,
pp. 23-6.
27. Farhooman, A.F., Kira, D. and Williams, J., “Managers’ perceptions towards automation in
manufacturing”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, 1990,
pp. 228-32.
 IJOPM 28. Alter, A.E., “CIM: the human element – anxiety attacks”, CIO, Vol. 2 No. 4, 1989, pp. 28-33.
29. Brown, K.A., Karen, A. and Mitchell, T.R., “A comparison of just-in-time and batch
16,12 manufacturing: the role of performance obstacles”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 34 No. 4, 1991, pp. 906-17.
30. Snell, S.A. and Dean, J.W., “Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a
human capital perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, 1992, pp. 67-504.
31. Currie, W., “The strategic management of AMT in Japan, the USA, the UK and West
26 Germany: part 1: developing a performance measurement system for CAD in a US
manufacturing company”, Management Accounting, Vol. 71 No. 10, 1993, pp. 32-33, 36.
32. Sarkis, J., “Production and inventory management control issues in advanced
manufacturing systems”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1,
1991, pp. 76-82.
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

33. Beckert, B.A., “Setting up a system: implementing CAD requires thorough understanding
and careful planning”, CAE, Vol. 7 No. 12, 1988..
34. Muscatello, M. and Green, T.J., “The hurdles of manufacturing systems implementations”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 104, 1990, pp. 136-39.
35. Das, C. and Goyal, S.K., “A vendor’s view of the JIT manufacturing systems”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 9 No. 8, 1989, pp. 106-11.
36. Canada, J.R. and Sullivan, W.G., “Persistent pitfalls and applicable approaches for
justification of advanced manufacturing systems”, Engineering Costs and Production
Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3, 1990, pp. 247-53.
37. Attaran, M., “Flexible manufacturing systems: implementing an automated factory”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1992, pp. 44-7.
38. Coulthurst, N., “Justifying the new factory (part 2)”, Management Accounting, Vol. 67
No. 4, 1989, pp. 26-8.
39. Liker, J.K., Fleischer, M. and Arnsdorf, D., “Fulfilling the promise of CAD”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, 1992, pp. 74-86.
40. Adair-Heeley, C.B., “The development of effective facilitator is key to JIT success”,
Production and Inventory Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 8, 1989, pp. 43-50.
41. Bowman, D.J., “If you don’t understand JIT, how can you implement it?”, Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 2, 1991, pp. 38-9.
42. Udoka, S.J. and Nazemetz, J.W., “Development of a methodology for evaluating computer
integrated manufacturing (CIM) implementation performance”, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 19 Nos. 1-4, 1990, pp. 145-9.
43. Saraph, J.V. and Sebastian, R.J., “Human resource strategies for effective introduction of
advanced manufacturing technologies”, Production & Inventory Management Journal,
Vol. 33 No. 1, 1992, pp. 64-70.
44. Bessant, J., “The lessons of failure: learning to manage new manufacturing technologies”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8 No. 3-5, 1993, pp. 197-215.
45. Adelman, L. and Donnell, M.L., “Evaluating decision support systems: a general
framework”, in Andriole, S.J. (Ed.), Microcomputer Decision Support Systems: Design,
Implementation and Evaluation, QED Information Sciences, Wellesley, MA, 1986,
pp. 285-309.
46. Shani, A.B., Grant, R.M, Krishnan, R. and Thompson, E., “Advanced manufacturing
systems and organizational choice: sociotechnical system approach”, Cal ifornia
Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, 1992, pp. 91-111.
47. Cook, W.D., Johnston, D.A. and McCutcheon, D., “Implementations of robotics: identifying
efficient implementors”, OMEGA, Vol. 20 No. 2, 1992, pp. 227-39.
48. Moody Industrial Manual, Moody Investment Services, New York, NY, 1993.
49. 1993 Harris Directory, Harris Publishing, Twinsbug, OH, 1993.
 This article has been cited by:

1. George Charalambous, Sarah R. Fletcher, Philip Webb. 2017. The development of a Human Factors Readiness Level tool for
implementing industrial human-robot collaboration. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 91:5-8,
2465-2475. [Crossref]
2. Lilian Adriana Borges, Kim Hua Tan. 2017. Incorporating human factors into the AAMT selection: a framework and process.
International Journal of Production Research 55:5, 1459-1470. [Crossref]
3. Omid Maghazei, Torbjörn Netland. 513, 135. [Crossref]
4. Ting Kong, Taiwen Feng, Chunming Ye. 2016. Advanced Manufacturing Technologies and Green Innovation: The Role of
Internal Environmental Collaboration. Sustainability 8:10, 1056. [Crossref]
5. George Charalambous, Sarah Fletcher, Philip Webb. 2015. Identifying the key organisational human factors for introducing
human-robot collaboration in industry: an exploratory study. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
81:9-12, 2143-2155. [Crossref]
6. Alejandro Bello Pintado, Ricardo Kaufmann, Javier Merino Diaz-de-Cerio. 2015. Advanced manufacturing technologies,
quality management practices, and manufacturing performance in the southern cone of Latin America. Management Research:
Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 13:2, 187-210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Stefan Schrettle, Andreas Hinz, Maike Scherrer -Rathje, Thomas Friedli. 2014. Turning sustainability into action: Explaining
firms' sustainability efforts and their impact on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics 147, 73-84.
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

[Crossref]
8. Michael Lewis, Pär Åhlström, Baris Yalabik, Pär Mårtensson. 2013. Implementing advanced service technology in the
public sector: an exploratory study of the relevance and limitations of insights from private sector manufacturing technology
implementation. Production Planning & Control 24:10-11, 916-930. [Crossref]
9. Tobias Fleiter, Simon Hirzel, Ernst Worrell. 2012. The characteristics of energy-efficiency measures – a neglected dimension.
Energy Policy 51, 502-513. [Crossref]
10. Sanjeev Goyal, Sandeep Grover. 2012. Advanced manufacturing technology effectiveness: A review of literature and some
issues. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering 7:3, 256-267. [Crossref]
11. Awkash Modi, Liam Doyle. 2012. Applicability of Lean-Sigma in IT Service Delivery System. IFAC Proceedings Volumes
45:10, 154-159. [Crossref]
12. Dávid Losonci, Krisztina Demeter, István Jenei. 2011. Factors influencing employee perceptions in lean transformations.
International Journal of Production Economics 131:1, 30-43. [Crossref]
13. Louis Raymond, Josée St-Pierre. 2010. Strategic Capabilities for Product Innovation in SMEs. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation 11:3, 209-220. [Crossref]
14. Azmawani Abd Rahman, David Bennett. 2009. Advanced manufacturing technology adoption in developing countries. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management 20:8, 1099-1118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Andrew T. Walters. Towards the development of an advanced manufacturing technology implementation tool for small
companies 1163-1174. [Crossref]
16. Honggeng Zhou, G. Keong Leong, Patrik Jonsson, Chee-Chuong Sum. 2009. A comparative study of advanced manufacturing
technology and manufacturing infrastructure investments in Singapore and Sweden. International Journal of Production
Economics 120:1, 42-53. [Crossref]
17. Azmawani Abd Rahman, Naomi J. Brookes, David J. Bennett. 2009. The Precursors and Impacts of BSR on AMT
Acquisition and Implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 56:2, 285-297. [Crossref]
18. L. A. Borges, K. H. Tan. A strategic analysis of intangible factors in technology investment 440-444. [Crossref]
19. Carlo A. Mora‐Monge, Marvin E. González, Gioconda Quesada, S. Subba Rao. 2008. A study of AMT in North America.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19:7, 812-829. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Andrew T. Walters. Challenges in Managing the Convergence of Information and Product Design Technology in a Small
Company 799-806. [Crossref]
21. Kym Fraser, Howard Harris, Lee Luong. 2007. Team‐based cellular manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 18:6, 714-730. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Srihari Jaganathan, Jinson J. Erinjeri, Jun-ing Ker. 2007. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based group decision support system
to select and evaluate new manufacturing technologies. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
32:11-12, 1253-1262. [Crossref]
23. Louis Raymond, Anne‐Marie Croteau. 2006. Enabling the strategic development of SMEs through advanced manufacturing
systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:7, 1012-1032. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 24. G.S. Dangayach, S.G. Deshmukh. 2006. An exploratory study of manufacturing strategy practices of machinery
manufacturing companies in India. Omega 34:3, 254-273. [Crossref]
25. ANDREW T. WALTERS, HUW MILLWARD, ALAN LEWIS. 2006. CASE STUDIES OF ADVANCED
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION IN SMALL COMPANIES. International Journal of
Innovation and Technology Management 03:02, 149-169. [Crossref]
26. Carlo A. Mora Monge, S. Subba Rao, Marvin E. Gonzalez, Amrik S. Sohal. 2006. Performance measurement of AMT: a
cross‐regional study. Benchmarking: An International Journal 13:1/2, 135-146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Louis Raymond. 2005. Operations management and advanced manufacturing technologies in SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 16:8, 936-955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Louis Raymond, Josée St‐Pierre. 2005. Antecedents and performance outcomes of advanced manufacturing systems
sophistication in SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:6, 514-533. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
29. Bopaya Bidanda, Poonsiri Ariyawongrat, Kim LaScola Needy, Bryan A. Norman, Wipawee Tharmmaphornphilas. 2005.
Human related issues in manufacturing cell design, implementation, and operation: a review and survey. Computers &
Industrial Engineering 48:3, 507-523. [Crossref]
30. J. A. D. Machuca, M. Sacristán Díaz, M. J. Álvarez Gil. 2004. Adopting and implementing advanced manufacturing
technology: new data on key factors from the aeronautical industry. International Journal of Production Research 42:16,
3183-3202. [Crossref]
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 11:24 04 December 2017 (PT)

31. Kathleen E. McKone, Roger G. Schroeder. 2002. A plant’s technology emphasis and approach. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 22:7, 772-792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. G.S. Dangayach, S. G. Deshmukh. 2001. Manufacturing strategy: Experiences from Indian manufacturing companies.
Production Planning & Control 12:8, 775-786. [Crossref]
33. Amrik S. Sohal. 2000. Computer integrated manufacturing in the Australian pharmaceutical industry. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems 11:7, 444-453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Godwin G. Udo, Aniekan A. Ebiefung. 1999. Human factors affecting the success of advanced manufacturing systems.
Computers & Industrial Engineering 37:1-2, 297-300. [Crossref]
35. Peter Burcher, Gloria Lee, Amrik Sohal. 1999. Lessons for implementing AMT. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 19:5/6, 515-527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. G.J. Udo, F.O. Oloruuniwo. Communications: a key issue in advanced manufacturing systems 34-39. [Crossref]

View publication stats