23107794

International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 45, No. 1, 1 January 2007, 169–205
Socio-technical perspective on manufacturing system synergies
A. DAS*y and J. JAYARAMz
yDepartment of Management, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, Box B9-240,

55 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA
zDarla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
(Revision received September 2005)
A micro-level perspective using socio-technical theory is used to examine

synergies in advanced manufacturing systems (AMS) and their impact on
manufacturing performance. It is proposed that the system-level interactions
predicated by socio-technical theory extend to the subsystem-level. AMS are
classified into three constituent subsystems – technological, manufacturing
methods and high-involvement work practices – and hypothesize various
‘microsystems’ formed by combinations of the components of these subsystems.
Each ‘microsystem’ is hypothesized to have an impact on particular dimensions
of performance. The hypothesis is tested by employing regression analysis.
The findings isolate synergistic influences among the components of AMSs
on performance. The implications of these findings are discussed in the light
of theory and practice.
Keywords: Socio-technical theory; Advanced manufacturing systems;

Manufacturing synergies; Empirical research
1. Introduction
There is a large body of research that has broadly examined the effects of
manufacturing technologies and systems on performance (Snell and Dean 1992,
Shah and Ward 2003). Yet scant attention has been directed to the issue of
component-level synthesis of advanced manufacturing systems (AMS) and the
effects of such synthesis on performance. The most focused inquiry in this respect is
by Meredith and Camm (1989) who modelled synergy and learning effects within
components of advanced manufacturing technologies. Their research advocated a
match of high-synergy technologies with other ‘high-cost low-learning’ technologies.
Other work in this area is substantively represented by Milgrom and Robert’s (1990,
1995) modelling of intra-organizational complementarities. No other study on this
issue could be found, perhaps because as Meredith and Camm (1989) suggest the
task appears too difficult and ‘too complicated to predict in practice’ (p. 527). Thus,
there appears to be considerable research opportunity to enhance the understanding
of how synergies develop within AMSs, and the effects of such synergies on
performance.
*Corresponding author. Email: ajay_das@baruch.cuny.edu
International Journal of Production Research

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online ß 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207540500381039
170 A. Das and J. Jayaram
It has been argued that systems are built from subsystems that have smaller
subsystems of their own (Boulding 1956). Analogously, an AMS consists of
smaller subsystems, involving elements of manufacturing technologies (computer-
aided manufacturing (CAM)/computer-aided design (CAD), etc.), manufacturing
methods (MM; kanban, preventive maintenance, etc.), and work practices (worker
cross-training, decentralized decision-making, etc.) (McCutheon et al. 1994, Dean
and Snell 1996, Kudpi and Pati 1996, Rosnah et al. 2003, Sower and Abshire
2003). Individual subsystems contain discrete technologies and practices that
must co-exist in mutual harmony and balance to enable coherence and con-
gruence among the subsystems. These component-level balances within and
across subsystems are called ‘microsystems’ that form the building blocks of an
AMS. Socio-technical theory is applied to propose and examine selected
microsystems that are theorized to operate within the subsystems of AMS. For
example, within the technological subsystem of an AMS are individual technology
components such as CAD and CAM. These individual technologies can
form microsystems through internal relationships with one another as well as
interrelationships with components of other subsystems of an AMS. The present
paper hypothesizes and investigates the effects of such interactions on perfor-
mance outcomes.
The study differs from and builds on extant work. It differs from Meredith and
Camm’s (1989) study in scope and method. Synergies among microsystems are
examined on a much broader scale and an empirical rather than mathematical
approach is used. The present study also differs from Milgrom and Robert’s (1990,
1995) work on intra-organizational complementarities in several significant ways.
First, it employs empirical industry data as opposed to the mathematical modelling
approach adopted by the previously mentioned researchers. This particularly
addresses a limitation acknowledged by Milgrom and Roberts (1990) in that
‘empirical work will provide evidence of their mathematical conceptualization’
(p. 527). Second, unlike the present study, Milgrom and Roberts (1990) do not model
interactions between AMS elements directly, but use outcome measures such as
‘order receipt and processing time’, ‘delivery time’ and the ‘number of set-ups per
period’. Third, Milgrom and Roberts look at relations among broad groups of
activities encompassing manufacturing, marketing, finance and engineering. Their
scope is restricted to individual manufacturing system elements, but the present
paper delves deeper to develop and test interaction effects at the individual shop
floor element level.
The study adds to diverse bodies of knowledge. It contributes to the manufac-
turing technology (MT) literature by providing a theoretical understanding of the
rationale and utility of component-level technology interactions for successful
performance. To the complementarity literature, it provides empirical insights on
the existence and effects of synergies within organizational elements. For practi-
tioners this paper provides perhaps the most tangible and meaningful manifesta-
tion of system interactions by explicating the reasons and gains of component-level
intra-AMS relationships, such as that between CAM and CAD. As Meredith
and Camm (1989) noted, the potential synergies emerging from a pair of technologies
or a particular configuration of technology and MM may make an investment
in advanced MT more attractive compared with an investment in a single
technology.
Socio-technical perspective on manufacturing system synergies 171
2. Socio-technical theory
The coal mines of the UK were the focus of research that examined how new
technologies affect organizational structure and social fabric. Studies found that
the introduction of ‘longwall’ technologies in mines necessitated new forms of
organization and communication (Trist and Bamforth 1951, Emery and Trist
1965). The system-wide repercussions of technology interventions led to a perspective
of organizations as ‘socio-technical systems’, with distinct technological, social
and structural cores. Consequently, there was a quest to achieve a state of ‘joint
optimization’ of these different cores that constituted systems within organizations.
The underlying theory came to be known as socio-technical theory. The theory
received early and enthusiastic support, particularly in the ‘scientific’ era of the
1950s and 1960s when mathematicians attempted to optimize technological,
economic and social phenomena (Nassar 1998).
While optimization proved to be an elusive goal for mathematicians, subse-
quent empirical studies strengthened the theory’s roots. Woodward’s (1965) seminal
study of 100 manufacturing firms in the UK drew a strong connection between
organization of technology and design of organizational structure, concluding
that organic forms of structure appear to be most appropriate for unit/batch
production and continuous production types of processes. Susman and Chase’s
(1986) application of socio-technical theory to AMS showed that structural and
social systems adapt to new technologies through increased teamwork, greater
technical skills, more communication and increased integration. Numerous other
studies have since applied socio-technical arguments to examine technology in
various forms, including expert systems (Sharma et al. 1991), knowledge manage-
ment (Pan and Scarborough 1999) and flexible MT (Maffei and Meredith 1995).
Frameworks such as MIT’s ‘state of balance’ model of individual, process, strategy,
structure and information technology (Scott-Morton 1991), and Frohlich and
Dixon’s (1999) conceptualization of mutual adaptation of technology, human
resource, structure and information systems also echo the importance of socio-
technical system perspectives.
Socio-technical theory has its critics. One critique argues that the theory seem
to converge on a singular outcome – developing an organic structure (Pava
1986). Other criticisms identify the inadequacy of socio-technical theory to explain
emerging systems that do not have clear socio-technical demarcations, such as
virtual organizations (Scarborough 1995). In general, though, based on considerable
evidence cited in Van Eijnatten’s (1992) anthology of over 1500 socio-technical
studies, there is broad support for the socio-technical view that organization of
subsystems is as important a source of heterogeneity in performance, as the
subsystems themselves.
3. Advanced manufacturing systems
Recognizing the limitations of a dominantly hardware approach, current definitions

of technology include concepts about knowledge of techniques and created
capability (Astebro 1995, Van Wyk 1995). This understanding is reflected in the
need to define advanced manufacturing technologies within a broader manufactur-
ing systems context (Shani et al. 1992, Kudpi and Pati 1996).
Boyer et al. (1996) empirically organized the elements of AMS into three
distinct dimensions: design, manufacturing and administrative. Design included a
mix of design and process technologies such as CAD, computer-aided engineering
(CAE), CAM, computer-aided process planning (CAPP), and the use of computer
numerically controlled (CNC) equipment. Manufacturing covered technology
elements such as FMS and real-time process control systems and robotics, while
the administrative dimension included MRPII, EDI, ERP, and knowledge and
decision support systems. Subsequently, Swamidass and Kotha (1998) developed
four dimensions of AMS to include information exchange and planning technolo-
gies (MRPII, EDI, etc.), design technology (CAD/CAE), high-volume automation
technologies such as robotics, manufacturing automation, and computer-aided
inspection, and low-volume automation technologies such as CNC, CAD, CAM
and FMS. A careful examination of these various conceptualizations reveals
three clear domains: a design domain that is concerned largely with design
technologies, a manufacturing domain that relates to process technologies, and
an infrastructural domain comprising information and production planning tech-
nologies or practices.
In a related literature base, another key domain, the human element, has been
proposed as a feature of successful AMSs. Plant-wide integration requires workers
to cope with increased technological and operational complexities (Adler 1988,
Cohen and Apte 1997, Upton and McAfee 1998). Increased complexity is associated
with higher operational uncertainties, requiring an organic structure that allows
for more front-line decisions (Burns and Stalker 1961). Researchers have found
that practices such as worker training, empowerment and job-enrichment in combi-
nation with practices such as versatility in worker task capability and flexibility
in staffing have been associated with successful introduction of advanced manufac-
turing technologies (Lim 1987, Ward et al. 1994).
Using the cited literature for support, AMS is defined as manufacturing
systems that use a combination of manufacturing/design technologies, MM and
high-involvement work practices (HIWP). An AMS may include the following:
manufacturing/design technologies such as CNC, CAD and CAM; ‘lean’ manufac-
turing techniques such as group technology and cellular manufacturing, kanban,
and JIT; and ‘best’ work practices such as de-centralized decision-making and
cross-functional training (McCutheon et al. 1994, Dean and Snell 1996, Rosnah
et al. 2003, Sower and Abshire 2003). Guided by this stream of research, the
subsystems of AMS were identified as follows:
. Manufacturing Technology subsystem (MT): use of manufacturing tech-
nologies such as CNC machines, CAM, robotics, automated material-
handling systems, and computer-aided testing (CAT – also used for design
prototype testing).
. Manufacturing Design subsystem (MD): use of design practices and
technologies such as modularization in design and CAD, engineering and
testing.
. Manufacturing Methods subsystem (MM): use of manufacturing prac-
tices such as JIT, group technology, cellular manufacturing, automated
material-handling, kanban, preventive maintenance, process control sys-
tems, accelerated die changes and set-ups, bar coding, and EDI usage in
manufacturing.
. High-involvement Work Practices subsystem (HIWP): use of innovative

human resource management practices and structures in manufacturing,
such as cross-functional teams, decentralized decision-making and worker
cross-training.
Socio-technical theory anticipates that relationships affecting organizational perfor-
mance will evolve among and within these subsystems.
4. Research hypotheses
‘Socio-technical theory’ seeks to explain adaptations among co-existing systems

and it has been applied in several studies to define, interrelate and calibrate AMS
with other organizational systems (Pan and Scarborough 1999, Sharma et al.
1991, Shani et al. 1992). Theoretically, each subsystem of AMS – MT,
manufacturing design (MD), MM and HIWP – could interface with any of the
other subsystems. Validated scales in the literature have accumulated component
items under the rubric of individual AMS subsystems (Ward et al. 1994, Boyer
et al. 1996, Kotha and Swamidas 2000, Sun 2000). Subsystem interactions have
been investigated in earlier work on AMS using broad constructs formed by
bundling individual components into parcels of ‘integrated manufacturing’,
‘advanced manufacturing technologies’ or ‘lean practices’, etc. (Dean et al.
1992, Dean and Snell 1996, Gupta et al. 1997, Shah and Ward 2003, Das and
Jayaram 2004). The conceptual and empirical disentangling of disaggregated
component-level intra- and inter-subsystem interactions remains a complex and
as yet under-researched challenge.
A more modest and interpretable approach is chosen by focusing sharply
on synergies among subsystems that have been highlighted previously in the
literature. To this end, a robust set of components of four subsystems were selected
and anticipated synergies amongst these elements were hypothesized. The set
included CAD, CAT, modularization (components of MD); CAM, CNC, CAT
(components of MT); real-time process control, JIT, kanban, preventive mainte-
nance, group technology, and in-plant EDI (components of MM); and cross-
trained employees, teams in manufacturing, decentralized decision-making for
micro-production scheduling, and decentralized decision-making for distributing
operator tasks for the day (components of HIWP). Table 1 shows the reduced
component-level operationalization of AMS.
The selection is called ‘robust’ because studies have consistently identified these
particular components of AMS subsystems as most frequently encountered across
a variety of industries (Weill et al. 1991, Montagno et al. 1995, Roth and Giffi
1995, Beede and Young 1998, Sun 2000, Sower and Abshire 2003). HIWP
components were drawn from the extensive literature on the subject (Meredith
1987a, b, Dean et al. 1992, Gupta et al. 1997). Worker cross-training, teaming
and decentralization appear as key factors in AMSs (Ward et al. 1994, Swanson
1999, Fawcett and Myers 2001).
As mentioned above, AMS was defined to include four internal subsystems. The
following section uses the extant literature to suggest specific hypotheses about
interactions occurring within and across these subsystems.
Table 1. Subsystems of AMS and underlying items.
Manufacturing design: Manufacturing technology:

Use of computer-aided design Use of CNC technology
Use of computer-aided engineering Use of computer-aided manufacturing
Practice of product modularization Use of robotics
in design Use of automated material-handling systems
Use of computer-aided testing Use of computer-aided testing (also used for design)
Manufacturing methods: High-involvement work practices:
Use of kanban/similar Use of cross-trained employees in manufacturing
manufacturing practices Use of operator teams in manufacturing
Use of in-plant electronic data Use of decentralized decision-making by
interchange systems operators for micro-production scheduling
Use of real-time process controls Use of decentralized decision-making by operators
Use of preventive maintenance for distributing operator tasks for the day
JIT supplier deliveries
Group technology
Sources: Weill et al. (1991), Ward et al. (1994), Montagno et al. (1995), Roth and Giffi (1995), Boyer et al.
(1996), Beede and Young (1998), Sun (2000), Sower and Abshire (2003).
Definitions of manufacturing and design technologies employed in the study. Sources: Meredith (1987a),
US Department of Commerce (1988), Badham (1989):
. Automated material-handling systems pick-and-place robots, conveyors, AGVs, automated

storage and retrieval systems (AS/AR) and similar guided transfer systems that move parts and
products through the plant.
. CAD computerized software package generating drawings used mainly to design new parts or
products or modify existing parts or products.
. CAE computerized software package for examining and testing the geometric shapes drawn by
CAD from a structural or engineering perspective.
. CAM software that generates numerical control manufacturing instructions and loads these
instructions directly onto CNC or similar equipment.
. CAT computerized inspection and testing equipment for prototyping product, and incoming,
in-process and final goods testing.
. CNC machine tools usually equipped with onboard programmable computers.
. Robotics robots handling operational tasks such as welding, painting, and installation with
trajectory control and (limited) programmability.
5.1 Intra-technology subsystem effects

Table 2a describes the justifications and linked literature for anticipated intra-
technology subsystem effects.
CAD, a form of computerized graphic technology, comprising both hardware
and software, finds application in three areas: generation of mechanical or electrical
engineering drawings, design analysis, and communication (Forslin et al. 1989,
Robertson and Allen 1993). CAE, another design technology similar to CAD,
allows the added facility of examining and testing design from a structural and
engineering standpoint. CAM is manufacturing software-based technology that
directs and controls CNC manufacturing machinery (Meredith 1987a, b). MT uses
input from design technology. CAD generates information about the geometric
shape-defining shape and structure and base data for analysis by CAE. CAE
analyses the design data and validates a model of part and stock exported
into CAM system for tool path generation and verification-set-up planning, tool
selection done automatically based on feature shape, feature location, tool access
Table 2a. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Intra-technology (H1).
Key citations:
Meredith and Hill (1987), Beede and Young (1988), Melnyk and Narasimhan (1992),
Twigg et al. (1992), McDermott and Maruchek (1995).
A combination of CAD, CNC and CAM leads to higher productivity.
General conclusions:
CAD facilitates rapid design and analysis of new parts, and creates an accessible database.
CAM interacts with CAD to access designs for production and machine programming.
Manufacturing technology needs input from design technology; the goals of CAD, CAM
and CNC is reduced system throughput time and improved manufacturing productivity.
CAD generates information about the geometric shape-defining shape and structure and
base data for analysis by CAE. CAE analyses the design data and validates a model of
part and stock exported into CAM system for tool-path generation and verification-set-up
planning, tool selection is done automatically based on feature shape, feature location, tool
access directions. Implications for cost, quality, time performance.
Combination of CAD, CNC and CAM leads to higher productivity; manufacturing
technology needs input from design technology.
Goals of CAD, CAM and CNC is reduced system throughput time and improved
manufacturing productivity.
CAD/CAE represent simple-to-implement technologies used by technically sophisticated
groups. Plants configure CAD and CAE with added CAM, CNC, AMHS and robotics
capabilities as they learn and gain knowledge and move towards an integrated system.
Impacts on manufacturing cost, quality, cycle time and customization goals.
Anticipated
Anticipated effects on
interactions performance Rationale
CAD CAE Impacts on cost, quality, new Primary design flexibility systems.
product introduction time. CAD generates information about
the geometric shape-defining shape
and structure and base data for
analysis by CAE. CAE analyses
the design data and validates a
model of part and stock exported
into CAM system for tool-path
generation and verification.
Reduces design time, improves
design quality, and lowers
design costs.
CAD CAM Impacts on product quality, Product flexibility using CAM
cost, customization, new software to connect CAD to
product introduction time. manufacturing. CAD facilitates
rapid design and analysis of
new parts, and creates accessible
database. CAM interacts with
CAD to access designs for
production and machine
programming-set-up planning,
tool selection done automatically
based on feature shape, feature
location, tool access directions.
Continued
Table 2a. Continued.

CAM CNC Impacts on manufacturing Product and production flexibility
cycle time, product quality, using CAM with CNC
cost, delivery, new product manufacturing equipment.
introduction time. Production systems gain agility
and responsiveness, with CAM
software rapid loading of
manufacturing instructions on
on-board CNC programmable
controllers, enabling quick
execution of production and
product design changes.
CNC CAT Impacts on manufacturing cost, Production flexibility using CAT
product quality, new product systems to handle product variety
introduction time, delivery. offered by CNC production.
CAT allows rapid inspection and
testing of prototypes, new products
and design variations, and
new inputs.
CNC CAE Impacts quality, cost, CAE verifies structural and
manufacturing cycle time, compositional features for
delivery, new product design for manufacturability,
introduction time. facilitating manufacture on
CNC machines.
CNC AMHS Impacts on manufacturing cycle Production flexibility using high
time, delivery. May have initial investment automated material-
negative effects on cost due to handling systems to integrate
size of capital investment, CNCs towards a CIM system.
increased system complexity,
production disruption during
implementation and conflict
with legacy systems.
Robotics Impacts on manufacturing Production flexibility using AMHS
AMHS cycle time, delivery. to move material rapidly and
May affect cost adversely at accurately for robotics
first because of increased manufacture.
system complexity, learning/
maintenance demands,
high capital cost and
disruption of established
work routines.

Based on the literature, industry expert opinion, academic expert opinion and personal industry work
experience.
directions (Badham 1989, Miao et al. 2002). CAD and CAE systems can provide
detailed specification input to CNC machine tools through CAM technology,
generating machine tool paths and linking design and manufacture into a seamless
reciprocal system (Adler 1989). Studies have also observed that CAD/CAE
represent simple-to-implement technologies that are configured with added
CAM, CNC, AMHS and robotics capabilities as plants learn and gain knowledge
and move towards an integrated operations (Twigg et al. 1992, McDermott and
Marucheck 1995).
Robotics, another MT, handles operational tasks such as welding, painting, and
installation with trajectory control and (limited) programmability. The remaining
technology, automated material-handling systems (AMHS), includes pick-and-place
robots, conveyors, automated guided vehicles (AGVs), automated storage and
retrieval systems (AS/AR) and similar guided transfer systems that move parts
and products through the plant. Plants targeting production flexibility could use
AMHS to move material rapidly and accurately for robotics manufacture, as well
as to integrate standalone CNCs into a computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM)
system.
CAD/CAE-CAM/CNC combinatorial synergies can offer combined modelling,
design feasibility, manufacturing feasibility, testing, failure analysis and prototyp-
ing capabilities that can reduce design costs and manufacturing cycle times
significantly. A case in point being Motorola, which uses CAD/CAE-CAM
technologies to compress the customized design and manufacture of new cell
phones product generation to as little as 48 h (Lei et al. 1996). The synergies offered
by these design and manufacturing technologies would appear to offer plants
the competitive advantages of time and cost. There is some support for these
relationships. Duimering and Safayeni (1993) identified the goals of CAD, CAM
and CNC as reduced system throughput time and improved manufacturing and
productivity, while Beede and Young (1988) found that a combination of CAD,
CNC and CAM leads to higher productivity.
Based on the above discussion, it is hypothesized that:
H1: Components of the technology subsystems (design and manufacturing)
combine with each other (in the manner set out in table 2a), with positive
synergistic effects on specific aspects of manufacturing performance.
5.2 Intra-manufacturing methods subsystem effects

Table 2b describes the justifications and related literature for anticipated intra-MM
subsystem effects.
Kanban methods are hypothesized to interact with several other facets of the
methods subsystem. Kanban can be facilitated by preventive maintenance, a
manufacturing practice that is synonymous with lean systems. The kanban discipline
of make to demand may allow free intervals of time for workers to engage in
preventive maintenance on their equipment. Idle times in production in kanban
environments can be filled effectively by assigning workers tasks such as machine
maintenance or repair jobs. In effect, kanban and preventive maintenance may
enjoy a symbiotic relationship – the former provides the time for performing the
latter, while the latter ensures that equipment is maintained well to run at speci-
fication and prevent unexpected failures. One immediate benefit is improved quality.
Kanban is also compatible with JIT supply, as the ‘make as needed’ system is
facilitated by the JIT ‘supply as needed’ system. JIT supply could improve
manufacturing cycle times by removing clutter from the workspace, by improving
incoming quality (JIT discourages rejections and returns), and by reducing
purchasing lead times (Taninecz 1997). Kanban systems that focus on quality
could thus benefit from JIT supply arrangements. Kanban also benefits from
another MM initiative – electronic data interchange (EDI). EDI can serve as a back
up and support for kanban communication of demand and requirements. Similarly,
real-time process control provides current machine and process status information
Table 2b. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Intra-manufacturing methods (H2).
Key citations:
Mehra and Inman (1992), Spencer and Guide (1995), Flynn et al. (1999), Lee and Clark
(1999), Lee et al. (2001), Nicolaou (2002), Shah and Ward (2003)
Bundles of lean practices including JIT, TQM, TPM (total preventive maintenance) and
HRM together explained 23% variance in operational performance – synergistic
effects suggested
Combined adoption of lean practices – JIT, TQM, HRM – led to increased performance
across multiple dimensions
JIT and EDI – affect cost management system effectiveness
JIT and EDI – significant reduction in inventory turns and reduced stockouts
JIT and EDI – EDI enables sharing of customs and logistics data – helps JIT supply
JIT requires emphasis on preventive maintenance because of a lack of inventory buffers
and consequently, the need for uninterrupted machine operation
Anticipated Anticipated effects

interactions on performance Rationale
Kanban Preventive Impacts on product quality. Make as the internal customer

maintenance needs may allow free intervals
of time for workers to engage
in preventive maintenance on
their equipment.
Kanban JIT supply Impacts on manufacturing Make as needed system is
cost, delivery, quality, facilitated by supply quality
manufacturing cycle time. parts as needed system.
Kanban In-plant EDI Impacts on cost, delivery. EDI serves as a back-up and
support for Kanban
communication of demand
and requirement.
Kanban Real-time process Impacts on delivery, cost. Real-time process control
control provides current machine
and process status
information for effective
Kanban decisions.
Real-time process control Impact on delivery, cost, EDI facilitates transmission
In-plant EDI quality. of real-time process control
information through plant.
JIT EDI Impact on cost, delivery. EDI enables timely sharing of
production and inventory
information, facilitating
JIT supply.
JIT Preventive Impacts on delivery, cost, JIT supply operations reduce
maintenance quality. inventory buffers thus
accentuating consequences
of machine downtime.
Preventive maintenance Impacts on delivery, quality. Real-time process control
Real-time process control provides real-time
information about machine
health and aids timely
maintenance.

experience.
for effective kanban operations, providing an effective way to monitor, control, and
calibrate the manufacturing process to meet the intermittent nature of kanban
production. EDI, in turn, also facilitates transmission of real-time process control
information throughout the plant. Such interactions would improve delivery, cost
and quality performance in a plant.
Synergies between JIT supply methods and EDI are anticipated. Studies have
found that JIT with EDI enables sharing of customs and logistics data, achieves
significant reduction in inventory turns and reduced stockouts, and affects cost
management system effectiveness (Lee and Clark 1999, Lee et al. 2001, Nicolaou
2002). EDI enables timely dissemination of production and inventory information
to purchasing personnel among others, facilitating JIT supply operations.
JIT also requires emphasis on preventive maintenance because the lack of
inventory buffers creates the need for uninterrupted machine operation (Mehra
and Inman 1992, Spencer and Guide 1995). JIT conditions thus make preventive
maintenance a plant imperative for ensuring machine availability (and thus WIP
availability) at required times. Preventive maintenance in turn, is assisted by the
availability of real-time information on machine and process health afforded by
a real-time process control system.
Based on the above discussions, it is hypothesized that:
H2: Components of the MM subsystem combine with each other in the
manner set out in table 2b, with positive synergistic effects on specific aspects
of manufacturing performance.
5.3 Technology-manufacturing methods subsystems interaction effects

Table 2c elaborates the rationales and connected literature for anticipated inter
technology-MM subsystem effects.
MM and design/MT are complementary in function. MM are variability
reducing, while manufacturing and design technologies are variability coping
mechanisms (Duimering and Safayeni 1993). Synergies between the design/MT
subsystem and various components of the MM subsystem, including EDI, group
technology, real-time process control, kanban, preventive maintenance and JIT
supply, are envisaged. Researchers have found that EDI facilitates sharing of
CAD/CAM database in production operations and facilitates computer integrated
manufacturing by enabling accelerating communication and information flows
(Lankford and Riggs 1996, Naude et al. 2000). In-plant EDI facilitates the
productive use of the technology subsystems by providing conduits for informa-
tion flow, enabling quick dissemination of design, engineering, and manufacturing
information through the plant, and a return flow of market and operational
information to design, engineering, and manufacturing. Information system
integration with MT has strong effects on operational performance (Frolich and
Dixon 1999).
Group technology (GT) is another component of the MM subsystem that
potentially interacts with manufacturing and design technologies. Use of CAD/
CAM alone can result in an explosion of new parts, increased costs, and time. GT
identifies and groups similar parts so that CAD and CAM can exploit similarities,
impacting design costs and new product introduction time (Chevalier 1984).
GT enables both design standardization and manufacturing standardization.
Group technology provides parts bundles for efficient transportation and routing
Table 2c. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Technology Manufacturing methods (H3).
Part I
Key citations:
Chevalier (1984), Gilbert and Finch (1985), Boddy and Buchanan (1986), Collins and Hull
(1986), Wemmerlov and Hyer (1986), Gerwin (1988), Meredith and Camm (1989), Twigg
et al. (1992), Chan and Smith (1993), Duimering and Safayeni (1993), Sanchez and
Mahoney (1994), Lankford and Riggs (1996), Snell and Dean (1996), Boyer (1999),
Frolich and Dixon (1999), Swanson (1999), Heijltjes (2000), Naude et al. (2000),
Soliman et al. (2001), Huang and Xu (2003).
AMT, TQM and JIT supplies combine to create ‘streamlined flows’ and allow simultaneous
pursuit of multiple manufacturing goals. Isolated use of JIT or AMT may not provide
competitive advantages because it becomes standard industry operating procedure.
Concurrent implementation of Design, Manufacturing and Administrative AMTs associated
with superior performance.
Manufacturing technology needs input from administrative technologies.
Information system integration with manufacturing technology has strong effects on
operational performance.
CAD used for simulation to incorporate JIT manufacturing.
Manufacturing methods and manufacturing technology are complementary. Manufacturing

methods are variability reducing, while manufacturing technologies are variability coping
mechanisms.
AMT increases variety and leads to increased discontinuities in production – inventory
reduction and integration actions facilitate cost and quality goals.
CAD facilitates automatic set-up planning – algorithms generate set-ups data and sequence.
CAD/CAM systems interface with electronic information systems for improved performance.
Group technology facilitates CAD/CAM’s impact on costs of design and new product
introduction time, by identifying and grouping similar parts so that CAD and CAM
can exploit similarities. GT enables both design standardization and manufacturing
standardization. Use of CAD/CAM alone can result in an explosion of new parts,
increased costs, and time.
Group technology and modularity facilitate economies of scope (a goal of AMT) –
implications for manufacturing cycle time, cost, new product introduction and product
variety goals.
EDI facilitates sharing of CAD/CAM database in production operations – 89 UK
organizations.
EDI facilitates computer integrated manufacturing by enabling accelerating
communication and information flows.
Technology implementation requires production process control and planning systems.
Technological complexity requires augmented and advanced manufacturing infrastructure.

High investment and integrated AMTs require greater attention to preventive maintenance.
Specifically, use of AMT was positively associated with use of preventive maintenance.
Continued
Table 2c. Continued.

Part II

CAD EDI Impacts on cost, In-plant EDI facilitates the productive use
CAM EDI cycle time, new of these AMTs by providing two-way
CAE EDI product introduction information flows, enabling quick
time, delivery. dissemination of design, engineering and
manufacturing information through the
plant, and a return flow of market and
operational information to design,
engineering, and manufacturing. Enables
sharing of CAD/CAM database.
CAD GT Impacts on cost, Group technology enhances the impact of
CAE GT delivery, cycle time, these AMTs by tempering the tendency
CAM GT new product to over-design, offer a database of similar
introduction time. parts, and exploit design and
manufacturing similarities.
AMHS GT Impacts on cost, Group technology provides parts
Robotics GT delivery, cycle time. bundles for efficient transportation,
routing and manufacture.
Group technology Impacts on Modular design facilitates bundling
Modularization manufacturing for economies of scope and scale.
cost, time.
CAM Real-time Impacts on delivery, Manufacturing technologies benefit from
process control cost, quality, availability to current process information.
CNC Real-time cycle time. Real-time information enables quick
process control manufacturing equipment response
CAT Real-time and reaction to surprises.
process control
CAM Kanban Impacts on Absence of legacy inventory in a Kanban
CNC Kanban cost, new product system would encourage exercising
CAT Kanban introduction time, the variety and economies of scope
customization, and option of manufacturing technologies.
delivery.
CAM Preventive Impacts on Prohibitive cost and system-wide
maintenance delivery, cycle time, consequences of breakdowns of
CNC Preventive quality, cost. tightly integrated production
maintenance technologies and processes demand
CAT Preventive preventive maintenance action.
maintenance
CAD JIT supply Impacts customization, JIT supply reduces stock of parts and thus
CAM JIT supply new product, the need to continue outdated designs in
CNC JIT supply development time. order to use up overstocked parts.
CAT JIT supply JIT supply promotes use of design and
manufacturing technologies by removing
constraints to the adoption of new product
design and manufacture.

experience.
on AMHS and efficient robotic manufacturing. Group technology and modularity

facilitate economies of scope, with positive implications for manufacturing cycle
time, cost, new product introduction and product variety goals (Wemmerlov and
Hyer 1986, Sanchez and Mahoney 1994).
Technological complexity requires augmented and advanced manufacturing
infrastructure, specifically real-time production process control and planning
systems (Boddy and Buchanan 1986, Gerwin 1988). Real-time process control
information enables quick manufacturing equipment response and reaction to
surprises, impacting delivery, cost, quality, cycle time. It is also expected that
manufacturing technologies will benefit from kanban and JIT supply. The use of
manufacturing technologies increases variety and leads to increased discontinuities
in production – inventory reduction and integration actions facilitate cost and
quality goals (Heijltjes 2000). The reduced or absent legacy inventory in a kanban
system would encourage exercising the variety and economies of scope option of
manufacturing technologies. Snell and Dean (1992) observed that advanced manu-
facturing technologies and MM such as JIT supply combine to create ‘streamlined
flows’ and allow simultaneous pursuit of multiple manufacturing goals. JIT
supply promotes use of design and manufacturing technologies by removing
inventory constraints to the adoption of new product design and manufacture.
JIT implementation, in turn, has benefited from the use of technologies such
as CAD, which has been useful in simulating JIT operations (Chan and Smith
1993). Similarly, CAT provides rapid inspection and test facilities, useful for
fast paced JIT-kanban operational environments. Thus, kanban and JIT supply
methods, when employed in tandem with design and manufacturing technologies
can result in leading to cost, new product introduction time, customization, and
delivery gains.
High investments in technology require greater attention to preventive mainte-
nance. Specifically, use of advanced manufacturing technologies was positively
associated with use of preventive maintenance (Gilbert and Finch 1985, Collins and
Hull 1986, Swanson 1999). The prohibitive cost and system-wide consequences of
breakdowns of tightly integrated production technologies and processes demand
preventive maintenance action. The use of preventive maintenance in combination
with the use of manufacturing technologies would impact a range of performance
parameters, including delivery, cycle time, quality, and cost.
Based on the above discussion, it is hypothesized that:
H3: Components of the design/MT subsystem combine with components
of the MM subsystem in the manner set out in table 2c, with positive synergistic
effects on specific aspects of manufacturing performance.
5.4 Technology-work practices subsystems interaction effects

Table 2d elaborates the rationales and supporting literature for anticipated inter
technology-HIWP subsystem effects.
Since the HIWP being considered are manufacturing related – worker cross-
training, operator teams, and decentralized decision-making for production
scheduling – only manufacturing (and not design) technology synergies is suggested.
A potential is found for meaningful interactions between the manufacturing
technologies of CAM, CNC, CAT and robotics, and HIWP.
Table 2d. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Technology High-involvement work

practices (H4).
Part I
Key citations:
Argote et al. (1983), Chao (1986), Kaplan (1986), Meredith and Hill (1987), Ettlie (1988),
Nemetz and Fry (1988), Badham (1989), Tranfield et al. (1991), Beatty (1992),
Dean et al. (1992), Shani et al. (1992), Hitt et al. (1993), Gyan-Baffour (1994),
Maffei and Meredith (1994), Sun and Gertsen (1995), Lei et al. (1996), Gupta
et al. (1997), Boyer (1999), Heijltjes (2000), Liu et al. (2001), Malhotra et al. (2001),
McDermott et al. (2001).
Decentralization facilitates technology–performance relationship.
Cross-training (job rotation) facilitates technology–performance relationship.
Teaming facilitates technology–performance relationship.
Encourage teamwork because correcting one problem somewhere in a technology systems
could create another somewhere else.
Decentralized problem-solving and cross-training in advanced manufacturing technology
systems lead to quicker problem identification and resolution, fewer quality problems,
process improvement, smoother operations and increased job satisfaction.
Operator designs fixtures, specifies tooling, works with programmers and signs off on
technology process – introducing new parts and products without production disruption.
Centralized approach is a distraction because of fast pace and cross-functional nature of
new technologies.
Proactive participation in decision-making associated with increased propensity
to engage AMTs.
Interactions of AMTs and HRM suggested by wide breadth of AMT adoption
by advanced HRM practitioners.
High skills and knowledge required to operate complex technologies.
AMT increases interdependence, necessitating significant changes in organizational structure.
Decentralization and teaming facilitate development of tacit knowledge about dynamic
operational sub-routines of shop floors, facilitating AMT performance.
AMT demands free and real-time information flows, requiring loose coupling mechanisms
like cross-functional teams. Without cross-functional knowledge or teaming, AMT
potential will not be recognized and the option value of AMT will fall.
New specialized technologies such as CAD and CAM may isolate users from organization
unless interfunctional coordination and communication structures are introduced.
Interfunctional integration devices include cross-functional training and teams.
Cross-fertilization is necessary to reduce conflict, facilitate coordination and promote
acceptance among AMT users.
Teams are just as necessary to ensure widespread acceptance and skilful use of AMTs.
Human centered technology systems emphasize decentralized controls, shop floor
delegation of scheduling and tasking, and operator discretion.
CAD requires high skill levels, building off existing knowledge.
CAD creates a common database for design, planning and production, increasing
interdependence in the plant. Multi-skilling and teaming are typical organizational
responses.
Introduction of AMTs accompanied by simultaneous coordinated changes in social systems.
A central feature of introducing flowlines supported by CAM was the move from
individual to group task design, and bureaucratic control to self-regulation, groups
being responsible for individual job allocation and solving internal problems.
Continued
Table 2d. Continued.

Technological integration required matching and complex mix of skills.
Higher wages at firms using advanced technology may be related to higher quality of
workers.
Robotics requires high skill levels and job retraining, increases machine set-up
responsibilities, involves worker programming tasks, and demands more frequent and
intense interactions between different functions and jobs.
Part II

CAM Employee Impacts on delivery, Increases in operational complexity,

cross-training new product variety and integration typically
CNC Employee introduction time, associated with the introduction
cross-training cost, quality and of advanced technologies calls for
CAT Employee cycle time. operator understanding of multiple
cross-training tasks and mastery of complex skills.
Employee cross-training helps exploit
the change potential of advanced
manufacturing technologies.
CAM Operator Impacts on cycle time, Integrated technology systems have
teams delivery, quality, cost. system repercussions from single
CNC Operator point events, requiring team work
teams to spot and resolve issues. Increased
CAT Operator interdependence also requires new
teams coupling mechanisms.
CAM Decentralization Impacts on cycle time, Operational turbulence, rapid changes
CNC Decentralization delivery, quality, cost. in product and pace associated with
CAT Decentralization advanced manufacturing technologies,
require decisions at the point of
intersection of job knowledge and
opportunity. Delegation of authority
and resource availability essential to
quick problem identification and
resolution.
Robotics Employee Impacts on delivery, Robotics use requires operator ability
cross-training cycle time, cost. and authority to handle minor
Robotics stoppages, perform minor
Operator-teaming programming jobs and involves
Robotics worker responsibility for multiple
Decentralization machines.
*Based on the literature, industry expert opinion, academic expert opinion and personal industry work
experience.
þ
The authors did not anticipate any Design technology HIWP microsystems since they looked at
manufacturing and not at design work practices.
Eason’s (1988, 1996, 2001) stream of research on new forms of work organization
in technical initiatives emphasizes the necessity of technology-work practice fit.
Misalignments were seen to cause performance deterioration. A technical solution
for the London Ambulance Service resulted in long waits for patients and had to
be scrapped ultimately. A utility company installed a communication system that

allowed them to leave job messages in service vans. The technology was perfect,
‘but workers found that because new work could arrive at any time, it became
impossible to plan their day’ (p. 406, Eason, 1996). More than a decade ago, Ettlie
(1988) cautioned that new specialized technologies such CAM may isolate users from
their organization unless interfunctional coordination and communication struc-
tures such as cross-functional training and teams are introduced. On the same
theme, cross-fertilization was considered necessary to reduce conflict, facilitate
coordination and promote acceptance among AMT users. Awareness of human
centred technology systems that emphasized decentralized controls, shop floor
delegation of scheduling and tasking, and operator discretion has grown (Badham
1989, Beatty 1992). Research reveals that a central feature of introducing CAM
was the move from individual to group task design, and from bureaucratic con-
trol to self-regulation, with groups being responsible for individual job allocation
and solving internal problems (Shani et al. 1992). Decentralization and teaming
facilitate development of tacit knowledge about dynamic operational sub-routines
of shop floors, in turn facilitating MT performance. AMT demands free and
real-time information flows, requiring loose coupling mechanisms like cross-
functional teams. Without cross-functional knowledge or teaming, AMT’s potential
will not be recognized and the option value of AMT will fall (Nemetz and
Fry 1988, Hitt et al. 1993, Lei et al. 1996). Researchers linked specific work
practices to performance outcomes. Cross-training was associated with improved
technology–performance relationship (Sun and Gertsen 1995). Decentralized
problem-solving and cross-training in advanced MT systems led to quicker problem
identification and resolution, fewer quality problems, process improvement,
smoother operations and increased job satisfaction (Maffei and Meredith 1994).
As also pointed out by Taylor and Felton (1993), socio-technical systems methods
provide employees with greater control over their work, a sense of importance
or relevance of their work in their firms and provides ways of reducing system
variances closer to the source. They argue that such work settings typically
enjoy higher system performance. Robotics required high skill levels and job
retraining, with increased machine set-up responsibilities, added worker program-
ming tasks, and consequently increased demands for more frequent and intense
interactions between different functions and jobs (Argote et al. 1983, Chao and
Kozlowski 1986).
Integrated technology systems have system repercussions from single
point events, requiring teamwork to spot and resolve issues. Correcting one
problem somewhere in a technology system could create another somewhere else.
Increased interdependence also requires new coupling mechanisms like opera-
tor teams. Operational turbulence, rapid changes in product and pace associated
with advanced manufacturing technologies require decisions at the point of
intersection of job knowledge and opportunity. Decentralized decision-making
becomes an imperative. Delegation of decision-making authority to workers is
essential to quick problem identification and resolution. For example, robotics use
requires operator authority to handle minor stoppages, perform minor programming
jobs and handle responsibility for multiple machines. These synergies between
technology and work practice are expected to impact on delivery, new product
introduction time, cost, quality and cycle time performance.
Table 2e. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Manufacturing methods High-involvement

work practices (H5).
Key citations:
Schonberger (1982), Hall (1983), Hay (1988), Duimering and Safyeni (1991), Huq (1992),
Kalagnanam and Lindsay (1998).
JIT needs decentralization – active involvement of workers best acquainted with actual
work processes and operational problems.
JIT associated with increased levels of cross-functional coordination and cooperation.
Minimal inventories in JIT supply associated with increased complexity in production
scheduling, requiring increased delegation of more line-balancing and worker-
reassignment responsibilities.
Organizing group technology and cellular manufacturing in a plant require attention to
the human interface, including cross-training workers and participative processes with
opportunities for decentralized decision-making.

Kanban Impacts on delivery, Kanban engenders tight coupling

Decentralization cycle time, cost. among adjacent processes,
Kanban increases system repercussions
Operator-teaming of single point variability,
Kanban Employee forcing development of rapidly
cross-training adaptive and decentralized
coordination and control
systems.
GT Employee Impacts on cost, new Group technology, exploited
cross-training product introduction, through cellular manufacturing,
GT Decentralization customization, delivery. necessitates cross-trained
employees, empowered to
take own decisions on task
distribution and job scheduling.
JIT supply Impacts on cost, Running a flexible supply system
Operator-teaming delivery, cycle time. requires real-time plant floor
JIT supply Employee information on current input
cross-training requirements and operational
JIT supply Decentralization conditions, cutting across
processes and lines. JIT supply
accentuates speed and reduces
organizational level of
decision-making in problem
situations. Decentralization,
operator-teaming and
cross-training are integrative
liaison mechanisms that
facilitate rapid response
capabilities.
Real-time process Impacts on delivery, Full potential of access to
control Decentralization cycle time, cost, quality. real-time process information
is realized when employees are
empowered to act on it.
Continued
Table 2e. Continued.

Preventive maintenance Impacts on cycle time, Preventive maintenance
Decentralization delivery, cost, quality. scheduling is facilitated if
machine operators are
empowered to organize their
own work schedules to set
aside specific times for
maintenance.
EDI Decentralization Impacts on customization, Rapid and wide information
EDI Operator training cycle time, cost, sharing of emerging
EDI Employee cross-training delivery, quality. operational opportunities
and situations can be
exploited/responded to
most promptly at empowered
and equipped worker level.

experience.
Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H4: Components of the MT subsystem combine with components of the HIWP
subsystem in the manner set out in table 2d, with positive synergistic effects
on specific aspects of manufacturing performance.
5.5 Manufacturing methods–work practices subsystems interaction effects

Table 2e describes the reasons for anticipated inter-MM HIWP subsystem effects.
Literature lacks a strong research stream on MM-individual work practice
interrelationships. Much of the extant research has focused on the work ambience
surrounding broad organizational themes such as TQM (total quality management),
rather than on the work practices suited to particular MM such as group technology,
real-time process control, preventive maintenance and EDI. Huq (1992) concluded
that organizing group technology in a plant requires attention to the human
interface, including cross-training workers and participative processes with oppor-
tunities for decentralized decision-making. Studies have examined the JIT-work
practice relationship in some depth. The central findings are that JIT needs the
decentralized active involvement of workers best acquainted with actual work
processes and operational problems (Hall 1983, Hay 1988, Kalagnanam and Lindsay
1998), that JIT is associated with increased levels of cross-functional coordination
and cooperation (Duimering and Safyeni 1991), and that the minimal inventories in
JIT supply associated with increased complexity in production scheduling, require
increased delegation of more line-balancing and worker-reassignment responsibilities
(Schonberger, 1982).
Running a flexible supply system requires real-time plant floor information on
current input requirements and operational conditions, cutting across processes and
lines. JIT supply accentuates speed and reduces organizational level of decision-
making in problem situations. Decentralization, operator-teaming and cross-training
are integrative liaison mechanisms that facilitate rapid response capabilities. For
these reasons, synergies between JIT supply and the work practices of employee
cross-training, operator teams and decentralized production schedule and task-
distribution decision-making were anticipated.
Kanban, an internal MM that complements externally oriented JIT supply

initiatives, engenders tight coupling among adjacent processes and increases system
repercussions of single point variability. Consequently, it was anticipated that
kanban would require development of rapidly adaptive and decentralized decision-
making coordination structures. Decentralized decision-making is also conducive
to another MM, group technology. Group technology, exploited through cellular
manufacturing, necessitates cross-trained employees, empowered to take decentral-
ized decisions on task distribution and job scheduling. Real-time process control
systems play an instrumental role in obtaining successful outcomes form a
decentralized decision-making structure. Such systems would generate real-time
information about emerging operational opportunities and situations that in-plant
EDI systems would rapidly and extensively diffuse for opportunistic exploitation
in a decentralized system. Decentralized decision-making of production and task
schedules may also promote preventive maintenance Preventive maintenance
scheduling is facilitated if machine operators are empowered to organize their own
work schedules to set aside specific times for maintenance. These anticipated
synergies between MM and work practices are expected to impact customization,
cycle time, cost, delivery and quality outcomes.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H5: Components of the MM subsystem combine with components of the
HIWP subsystem in the manner set out in table 2e, with positive synergistic
effects on specific aspects of manufacturing performance
To summarize, the extant literature and rationales based on logic and expert
opinion were used to hypothesize the anticipated effects of a set of AMS
microsystems on performance. The anticipated effects are not comprehensive given
the near impossibility of enumerating or finding plausible cause for all possible
combinations of AMS elements. Rather, we diligently attempt to reconcile the
current state of knowledge (see the citations in tables 2a–e) to our research question,
and propose justifiable interactions based on previous findings, reasoned analy-
sis, and discussions with industry members. It is also recognized that it is
possible to have three- or four-way interactions, e.g. CAM interacting with
kanban, kanban interacting with teaming, and teaming interacting with CAM.
Limitations of sample size and our current inability to explain higher order
interactions preclude consideration of all anticipated combinations in our analyses.
Intra-HIWP synergies are excluded from the scope of the present
investigation. Synergies among HIWP have been investigated conscientiously
(Thibodeaux and Faden 1994, Seidmann and Sundarajan 1997, Psoinos and
Smithson 2002), so our examination would have likely resulted in little new or
interesting knowledge.
6. Research methods
6.1 Sampling
The hypotheses were tested on manufacturing firms belonging to industries
classified in SIC 34 – Fabricated Metal Products (except Machinery and
Transportation Equipment); SIC 35 – Industrial and Commercial Machinery and

Computing Equipment; SIC 36 – Electronic and other Electrical Equipment
and Components; SIC 37 – Transportation Machinery and Items; and SIC 38 –
Measuring, Analysing and Controlling Instruments, Photographic, Medical and
Optical Goods. Firms in these SICs (together with SIC 39) account for over 40% of
US manufacturing sales, and are established users of AMS in discrete product
manufacturing (US Department of Commerce 1988, Snell and Dean 1992). The
respondent was the Director of Materials/Materials Manager or equivalent senior
executive at the plant or SBU (strategic business unit) level. High-ranking respon-
dents tend to be more reliable sources of information than their subordinate ranks
(Philips 1981). Comparisons of initial interviews with materials and manufacturing
managers did not reveal any significant inconsistencies between their responses. The
survey instrument was not considered overly technical and did not require detailed
technical knowledge of manufacturing processes/equipment in the plant. It was
also found that while manufacturing executives were generally aware of materials
issues, senior materials management was relatively much more conversant with
manufacturing demands and situations. As an additional measure to ensure the
validity of the chosen unit of analysis, triangulation interviews with senior
manufacturing and materials personnel were conducted in several site visits
during item development, with consistent results. Further, as a post-hoc test of
interrater reliability, a random subsample of responding firms was selected
from the responses to obtain manufacturing’s perspective on the manufactur-
ing related items in the questionnaire. Paired comparisons were made between
the materials and manufacturing scores for manufacturing related items, for each
firm in the subsample, resulting in an average interrater reliability of 0.96 (James
et al. 1984). Additionally, 78% of respondents indicated that they had consulted with
their manufacturing/engineering counterparts in responding to the survey.
Collectively, these various verifications indicated a high degree of consistency
between materials and manufacturing perspectives on manufacturing related issues.
Considerable effort was invested on data collection, which included follow-up
mailings, telephone calls and faxes. A reminder post card was mailed to all non-
respondents after a week of mailing. Written follow-ups (with duplicate
questionnaires) were mailed to all non-respondents approximately three weeks
after the initial mailing. Respondents were promised benchmarked feedback on
their plant attributes and performance. Two hundred responses were received in
response to the first mailing of the questionnaire. Another 122 responses were
received after the follow-up letter was sent, making a total of 322 responses.
This figure does not include returns, refusals and unusable responses. The response
rate of 19% compares well with past studies on manufacturing issues (Gupta
and Somers 1996, Germain and Droge 1998). Table 3 shows the key characteristics
of respondents.
The data were examined for non-response bias across the first (n ¼ 200) and
second (n ¼ 122) wave of respondents with satisfactory results. The second wave
was considered equivalent to non-respondents, since responses were obtained
with the use of considerable stimuli (Armstrong and Overton 1977). An ANOVA
test failed to reveal any statistically significant differences among the category
means for company sales, plant sales or number of employees across the different
SIC groups.
Table 3. Respondent characteristics

Number of valid responses: 322
Total number of plants with identifiable SIC codes: 240
Plant US$1
SIC sales # (millions) US$1–10 US$10–50 50–100 100–500 >500
Plant sales distribution:

34 Number 0 3 16 4 4 2
of plants
35 Number 0 8 36 30 23 5
of plants
36 Number 0 6 14 10 18 5
of plants
37 Number 0 1 14 10 5 3
of plants
38 Number 0 3 8 4 6 2
of plants
21 88 58 56 17
Average number of Average number of

SIC employees (data) employees (census)
Number of employees distribution:

34 334 (range 30–2000) 41
35 430 (30–1700) 35
36 400 (31–2000) 93
37 464 (30–2000) 126
38 504 (20–2000) 67

Outliers eliminated – in excess of 90% of responding plants in these SIC classifications reported Number
of employees data.
Figures do not include missing responses.
6.2 Measurement
6.2.1 Advanced manufacturing systems (AMS). The components of AMSs were

adopted from validated scales and items used in previous studies (Ward et al. 1994,
Montagno et al. 1995, Roth and Giffi 1995, Boyer et al. 1996, Beede and Young
1998, Sun 2000, Sower and Abshire 2003). Since data analysis was conducted
at the item level, the data were not aggregated into a construct level (table 1).
6.2.2. Manufacturing performance. Manufacturing performance was operational-

ized to include cost reduction, customization responsiveness, manufacturing cycle
time reduction, delivery speed and reliability, quality improvement (conformance),
and new product introduction time reduction performance. For each item,
respondents were asked to provide a rating of their plant’s manufacturing
performance relative to internal goals, and relative to the performance of key
competitors. A factor analysis resulted in six distinct factors with item loadings
ranging from 0.754 to 0.895. Table 4 shows the item measures for the six
performance dimensions, with associated reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha). Using
individual dimensions it was felt would offer finer insights into the dynamics of the
relationship between AMS and manufacturing performance as opposed to using
Table 4. Item measures of manufacturing performance dimensions.
Cost reduction performance The extent to which the plant has been able to meet its cost reduction goals relative to internal goals
( ¼ 0.783) The extent to which the plant has been able to meet its cost reduction goals relative to primary competition
Quality performance The extent to which the plant has been able to meet its number of defects/product reduction goals relative to
( ¼ 0.826) internal goals
The extent to which the plant has been able to meet its number of defects/product goals relative to primary
competition
Manufacturing cycle time The extent to which the plant has been able to meet its manufacturing cycle time reduction goals relative to
Reduction performance internal goals
( ¼ 0.812) The extent to which the plant has been able to meet its manufacturing cycle time reduction goals relative to
primary competition
New product introduction The extent to which the company has been able to meet its product introduction time goals relative to internal
Time reduction performance goals
( ¼ 0.791) The extent to which the company has been able to meet its product introduction time goals relative to primary
competition
Delivery performance The extent to which the company has been able to meet its delivery goals in terms of delivery speed and
( ¼ 0.896) dependability relative to internal goals
The extent to which the company has been able to meet its delivery goals in terms of delivery speed and
dependability relative to primary competition
Customization responsiveness The extent to which the company has been able to meet its customization responsiveness goals relative
Performance ( ¼ 0.822) to internal goals
The extent to which the company has been able to meet its customisation responsiveness goals relative
to primary competition
191
a broader composite measure of manufacturing performance. Moreover, our

anticipations of microsystem behaviour (tables 2a–e) required individual measures
of performance.
7. Data analysis and results
Moderated regression analysis was used to examine the hypotheses. Separate

stepwise regression runs were conducted to investigate direct and interaction
effects of AMS components (as defined in table 1) on individual measures of plant
performance. Company size (as measured by number of employees) and industry
(process type), were included as control variables. For example, in the first stepwise
regression run, intra-technology microsystems, which included design and technol-
ogy items (main and interaction effects), were selected as independent variables.
The dependent variables were the performance measures of cost, quality, manufac-
turing cycle time, delivery, new product introduction time and customization
performance. For example, to verify the ‘intra-technology’ microsystems proposed
in table 2a, the direct effects of CAD, CAE, CAT, CAM, CNC, Robotics and
AMHS, along with the seven anticipated interaction effects (table 2a), and two
control variables were included in the regression to predict the manufacturing
measure of cost. The exact run would thus employ a total of 16 independent
variables, comprising seven direct terms, seven interaction terms, and two control
variables. (The entry p value was appropriately adjusted using Bonferroni correc-
tions for the number of independent variables in the model.) To illustrate:
Production cost reduction ¼ a þ b1 Processtype þ b2 Employment þ b3 CAD þ b4 CAE
þ b5 CAT þ b6 CAM þ b7 CNC þ b8 Robotics þ b9 MHS þ b10 CAD CAE
þ b11 CAD CAM þ b12 CAM CNC þ b13 CNC CAT þ b14 CNC CAE
þ b15 CNC AMHS þ b16 Robotics AMHS:
Subsequent runs were conducted with relevant sets of independent variables,

anticipated interaction terms and the two control variables, using quality perfor-
mance, manufacturing cycle time reduction performance, new product introduction
time reduction performance, delivery performance and customization responsive-
ness performance, respectively, as the dependent variable. The same procedure was
repeated for identifying ‘intra-MM’, ‘technology-HIWP’ and ‘MM-HIWP’ micro-
systems (tables 2b, c and e). For the more complex ‘technology-MM’ microsystem
(table 2d), with a larger group of independent variables, separate regression runs
were conducted with design technology and MT components. For example,
moderator effects of group technology and EDI were anticipated for the relation-
ships between the design technologies of CAD/CAE/design modularization,
and production cost. In this case, a regression model of direct effects was run
for the three design technology components (CAD, CAE, design modularization)
with the anticipated five interaction terms (CAD EDI, CAE EDI, CAD GT,
CAE GT, GT Modularization), and the two control variables. Similarly, in
another case, direct and moderated effects of the manufacturing technologies were
modelled – CAM, AMHS, Robotics, CNC, and CAT (being used in a manufacturing
context here), and the MM moderators – EDI, GT, real-time process control,
kanban, preventive maintenance – on production cost.
Table 5. Summary results of regression analysis.
Dependent
variable Microsystem source Interaction term Significant microsystem effects
Production Intra-technology CAD CAM R2 ¼ 085, F ¼ 000, ¼ 291, p ¼ 000

cost reduction Intra-manufacturing methods Kanban JIT supply R2 ¼ 153, F ¼ 000, ¼ 391, p ¼ 000
Technology Manufacturing methods CAM Kanban R2 ¼ 117, F ¼ 000, ¼ 342, p ¼ 000
Technology High involvement CAM Employee cross-training R2 ¼ 127, F ¼ 000, ¼ 356, p ¼ 000
work practices
Manufacturing methods High JIT supply Employee cross-training R2 ¼ 137, F ¼ 000, ¼ 370, p ¼ 000
involvement work practices
Manufacturing Intra-technology CNC CAE R2 ¼ 076, F ¼ 001, ¼ 276, p ¼ 000
cycle time Intra-manufacturing methods Kanban JIT supply R2 ¼ 116, F ¼ 000, ¼ 341, p ¼ 000
Technology Manufacturing methods CAE GT R2 ¼ 087, F ¼ 000, ¼ 294, p ¼ 000
Technology High involvement CNC Preventive maintenance R2 ¼ 089, F ¼ 000, ¼ 299, p ¼ 000
work practices
Manufacturing methods High Robotics Decentralized micro-production scheduling R2 ¼ 118, F ¼ 000, ¼ 344, p ¼ 000
involvement work practices Kanban Operator teams R2 ¼ 136, F ¼ 000, ¼ 369, p ¼ 000
Quality Intra-technology CAM CNC R2 ¼ 089, F ¼ 000, ¼ 298, p ¼ 000
improvement Intra-manufacturing methods Kanban Preventive maintenance R2 ¼ 054, F ¼ 001, ¼ 233, p ¼ 001
Technology Manufacturing methods CNC Preventive maintenance R2 ¼ 090, F ¼ 001, ¼ 300, p ¼ 000
Technology High involvement CAM Decentralized micro-production scheduling R2 ¼ 085, F ¼ 000, ¼ 291, p ¼ 000
work practices
Manufacturing methods High Preventive maintenance Decentralized R2 ¼ 077, F ¼ 000, ¼ 278, p ¼ 000
involvement work practices micro-production scheduling
Delivery speed Intra-manufacturing methods Kanban Real-time process control R2 ¼ 056, F ¼ 001, ¼ 237, p ¼ 001
and reliability Technology Manufacturing methods CAE GT R2 ¼ 056, F ¼ 001, ¼ 237, p ¼ 001
Technology High involvement CAT Kanban R2 ¼ 061, F ¼ 000, ¼ 247, p ¼ 000

work practices
Manufacturing methods High CAT Decentralized micro-production scheduling R2 ¼ 079, F ¼ 000, ¼ 281, p ¼ 000
involvement work practices
Kanban Decentralized micro-production scheduling R2 ¼ 075, F ¼ 000, ¼ 275, p ¼ 000
Customization Technology Manufacturing methods CAT JIT supply R2 ¼ 094, F ¼ 000, ¼ 306, p ¼ 000
193
responsiveness
Table 5 shows the summary results of the stepwise regression analysis. Since
our interest is to reveal potential sources of synergies among components of AMS,
we only report interactions that are statistically significant. The results support
the hypotheses in general, and provide substantive support for the specific set of
microsystem anticipations outlined in tables 2a–e. Significant pair-wise synergies
emerged within and between the defined AMS subsystems of technology, MM and
HIWP. These results are discussed in depth in the next section.
8. Discussion
The findings were reviewed with industry experts over several meetings and
previous research was linked to inform the interpretation of the results. The results
were discussed in the order of the hypotheses.
The first hypothesis (H1) proposes that components of the technology sub-
systems (design and manufacturing) combine with each other to form unique
microsystems that benefit manufacturing performance. H1 saw substantive support
from the results. Three significant intra-technology combinations – CAD CAM,
CNC CAE and CAM CNC – tied to positive effects on cost, quality benefit
and manufacturing cycle time performance, respectively. Deployed together,
CAD and CAM provide a powerful design-manufacturing capability that can be
exploited for new product design, customization, design for manufacturability,
platform design, component standardization and inventory simplification, etc.
CAE authenticates structural and compositional features for design for manufac-
turability, facilitating manufacture on CNC machines. CAM and CNC complement
each other as the software and hardware facets of MT systems. The relationships
validate existing perceptions of the inseparability of design and manufacturing
technologies in making the most effective use of advanced technologies (Boyer 1999).
The second hypothesis (H2) proposes that components of the MM subsystem
combine with each other to form unique microsystems that advance manufacturing
performance. The results provide material support for the hypothesis. Cost, quality,
cycle time and delivery performance-enhancing synergies were found between
kanban production and JIT supply, between kanban and preventive maintenance,
and between kanban and real-time process control. Kanban and JIT supply are
complementary, mutually reinforcing practices. Both need diligent preparation
and active monitoring to succeed. And while it is difficult to speculate on the
precedence in the relationship, one industry practitioner did opine that JIT supply
is often adopted earlier, mainly due to the reason that it is the supplier that bears
the brunt of the responsibility. Kanban exploits the momentum and conditions built
by JIT supply programs to extend the just-in-time philosophy and mind-set to
internal production. Kanban also paired with preventive maintenance with positive
effects on quality performance. Kanban requires machine availability at short notice,
which preventive maintenance delivers (Mehra and Inman 1992, Spencer and Guide
1995). Moreover, the intermittent nature of kanban production allows pockets
of free time for the operator that can be used for preventive maintenance jobs.
The organizing principle of kanban production is information exchange, and its
synergy with real-time control systems provides evidence of that. Real-time process
controls gather current information on equipment and production status to feed
the information demands of kanban production. In perspective, the findings of
intra-MM synergies may be seen as a finer-grained explication of earlier research

that found aggregate-level synergistic effects among ‘bundles’ of manufacturing
practices (Flynn et al. 1999, Shah and Ward 2003).
The third hypothesis (H3) anticipates specific component-level microsystems
between the design/MT subsystem and the MM subsystem. The analysis shows
several significant microsystems involving pairs of technology-MM subsystem
components. CAE GT formed a separate microsystem, linked to manufacturing
cycle time and delivery gains. Group technology identifies and groups similar
parts, allowing CAE to work with a more compact, limited set of parts and
designs. Previous research has indicated that the resultant standardization and
variety reduction can provide considerable time and cost savings (Chevalier 1984,
Wemmerlov and Hyer 1986, Sanchez and Mahoney 1994). GT would encourage
CAE to engineer on component and platform-sharing principles, enhancing
product design manufacturability and reducing the time and cost difficulties
suffered by manufacturing by the unrestrained introduction of entirely new parts
and designs. In other combinations, CAM and CAT technologies formed microsys-
tems with the practice of kanban to deliver cost and delivery advantages. CAM
generates numerical control manufacturing instructions and loads these instructions
directly onto CNC or similar equipment. CAT is computerized inspection and
testing technology used for prototype, new product, incoming, in-process and final
goods precision testing. Kanban is a manufacturing practice that is familiarly
associated with tight production control and reduced inventories. Studies suggest
that inventory reductions facilitate cost and quality goals in an advanced technology
manufacturing environment (Heijltjes 2000). Our discussions with manufacturing
experts suggest that plants would better use their CAM and CAT technologies in
a kanban system because (1) kanban production is usually associated with shorter
production runs, a feature that combines well with the short run capabilities of
advanced plant technologies, and (2) kanban does not permit inventory build-ups
of old parts, in turn encouraging the quick product switchovers and improved
delivery times afforded by advanced manufacturing technologies. In addition to
the kanban-technology microsystems, CNC and CAT paired with the MM of
preventive maintenance and JIT supply, respectively. Preventive maintenance has
been observed to increase with the introduction of advanced manufacturing
machinery (Swanson 1999). CNC machinery downtime can have system-wide
repercussions in integrated operations, and it is expected that preventive mainte-
nance would be emphasized in such situations. Industry opinion also suggested
that programmable manufacturing equipment is often operated by skilled workers
who also possess the technological savvy to perform routine preventive maintenance
jobs. CNC manufacturing would also free workers from continuous production
activity, leaving adequate time to attend to machine health. The benefits manifest
in reduced manufacturing cycle times, and improved quality. The microsystem
formed by CAT and JIT supply can be theorized on the premise that the inspection
needs of a fast paced JIT-kanban manufacturing environment would be best
fulfilled by the rapid inspection and test facilities of CAT. Gains of time and cost
were anticipated. The results indicated an increase in customization responsiveness.
Consultation with industry experts provided an explanation. The speed and precision
of CAT offers added mix flexibility options in plants where JIT supply has removed
the temptation to continue with long runs or outdated products in order to consume
existing/excess stock. In such cases, manufacturing’s manoeuvrability to rapidly

customize and modify products is considerably enhanced.
The fourth hypothesis (H4) reasons for various microsystems of individual
manufacturing technologies and discrete HIWP. Again, for the most part, the data
supports our expectations. Significant microsystems were detected between CAM
and employee cross-training, between CAM and decentralized production schedul-
ing, and between robotics and decentralized production scheduling. CAM, used
in tandem with cross-trained workers in decentralized settings, is associated with
advances in quality and cost performance. Cross-training is considered an essential
attribute of successful AMS, because of the increasing complexity of technologies,
and the accompanying demands for integration (Adler 1988, Upton and McAfee
1988, Cohen and Apte 1997). Advanced manufacturing technologies increase
interdependence of operations, and cross-training facilitates the ability to appreciate
different perspectives at different points of a process. The payback is experienced
in reduced conflict levels and improved inter-functional coordination (Beatty 1992).
Cross-trained workers also possess the technical and process expertise to identify
and correct difficulties before they escalate into major quality or cost problems.
Increased technological complexity creates increased operational uncertainties,
requiring a structure that promotes responsive decentralized decision-making
(Burns and Stalker 1961). Operational turbulence and the rapid changes in product
and pace analogous with advanced manufacturing technologies require decision-
making at the intersection of job knowledge and emergent opportunity. Such
intersections are inhabited by the machine operator and process worker, sources
of valuable and tacit process and product knowledge. Lei et al. (1996) referred to
decentralization of work routines as a mechanism for collecting and utilizing tacit
knowledge of operational sub-routines embedded in shop floors. Such knowledge
would be useful in trouble-shooting CAM glitches, as well as for taking advantage
of CAM’s flexibility options for optimizing shop floor production schedules.
A similar logic can be applied in interpreting the microsystem formed by CAT and
decentralized production scheduling. Empowered workers could make production
changes on the fly, with the underlying reassurance of CATs speed and flexibility
capabilities to cope with sudden changes in inspection or testing demands. Robotics
and decentralized production scheduling emerged as another significant technology-
work practices microsystem that showed positive effects on manufacturing cycle
time. Studies have remarked on the increased worker responsibilities experienced
in robotics installations, while pointing out the commensurate requirements for
delegation of decisions at the operational level (Argote et al. 1983, Chao and
Kozlowski 1986). Manufacturing robotics such as the ‘turkey lines’ seen in welding
operations in auto manufacturing plants, reduce manufacturing cycle times by
performing a limited range of operations with superior precision and speed.
However, as our industry experts pointed out, robotic equipment demands close
monitoring for breaks, reprogramming, malfunctions and stoppages. A decentralized
decision structure would empower the operator to accelerate or reschedule pro-
duction run times and lengths to match the availability, condition and current
programming status of the robot line.
The fifth and final hypothesis (H5) proposes that elements of the MM subsystem
combine with elements of the HIWP to manufacturing’s advantage. The data
analysis identified significant microsystems between kanban and operator-teaming
and decentralized production scheduling, between JIT and employee cross-training,
and between preventive maintenance and decentralized production scheduling. Each

microsystem is considered in turn. Being a JIT production practice, kanban functions
with minimal inventories, and engenders tight couplings among adjacent work
centres and processes. Interlinked operations are extraordinarily vulnerable to
failure at any one single point of the process, necessitating the development of quick
response, knowledge based, decentralized coordination and control mechanisms.
Teaming provides a device for collecting and applying both deep and wide tacit
knowledge. Decentralization equips knowledge with authority. Schonberger (1982)
noted that lack of inventory buffers increase operational complexity in production
scheduling, requiring increased delegation of more line balancing and worker task
assignment responsibilities. The findings show that kanban draws on operator-
teaming and decentralized production scheduling for improved cycle time and
delivery performance. The remaining two MM-work practices microsystems
represent combinations of JIT supply and employee cross-training, and of
preventive maintenance and decentralized production scheduling, respectively.
The former impacts on production cost, while the latter impacts on product quality.
The impact of JIT supply on cost is well recognized (Markland et al. 1998). Cross-
training facilitates this relationship. Cross-training provides an integrative liaison
mechanism that meets the increased need for cross-functional coordination and
cooperation in a JIT environment (Duimering and Safyeni 1991). As one industry
manager explained, cross-trained workers have a better understanding of the
dependencies and linkages inherent in a JIT/kanban environment. In situations
of uneven demand, or supply or machine breakdown, their cross-trained familiarity
with other processes, products and parts, enables rapid manufacturing shifts to
different products with different parts. The other microsystem, preventive mainte-
nance and decentralized production scheduling, exercises a positive effect on
product quality. It is our belief, supported by discussions with industry managers,
that workers can best schedule and perform preventive maintenance tasks when they
have the flexibility to organize their own production. Preventive maintenance has
a better chance of being properly performed, when the worker has the freedom to
decide when to do it.
In summary, considerable support was found for the hypothesized microsystems,
and a network of effects among the design, manufacturing, MM and work practice
subsystems of AMS was unravelled. No negative interaction effects among the
hypothesized interactions were found. That is not to say that negative interactions
effects do not exist – it is conceivable that negative effects may be present for
a particular interaction or a performance parameter that has not been modelled in
our paper. A limited set of positive interactions were hypothesized using a robust
set of variables that typify an AMS, with each hypothesized interaction carefully
based on extant literature and meaningful logic. The paper next develops and
discusses the scholarly and managerial implications of the findings.
9. Implications
9.1 Implications for theory

The findings develop and inform several theoretical streams. First, the paper
extended and applied conventional socio-technical theory at a more fundamental
level, addressing criticisms of its lack of connection to ground realities (Pava 1986,
Scarborough 1995). It did so by using the concept of microsystems, in contrast to
previous socio-technical research that has looked at relationships in the aggregate
or collective (Sharma et al. 1991, Frolich and Dixon 1999). The findings provide
socio-technical theory with some fundamental explanations to account for the
presence of higher, system-level adaptations. This paper also fills an identified gap
in the complementarity literature and it provides direct empirical support to
extant research that has been largely confined to mathematical models of intra-
organizational interactions (Meredith and Camm 1989, Milgrom and Roberts 1990).
Second, the present study contributes to the literature on integrated manu-
facturing. Snell and Dean’s (1992) concept of integrated manufacturing systems
is exploded at the most actionable level in a plant – the shop floor – and the
present paper develops strong data-supported insights into the inner workings of
an integrated manufacturing system. For example, analysis indicated that CAM
when used alone does not relate significantly to performance improvement.
However, when coupled with investments in CNC or manufacturing/work practices
such as kanban and decentralized production scheduling, the same technology
had significant effects on cost and quality performance. As the results suggest,
synergies can also be achieved through combinations of non-technology elements.
To illustrate, the use of kanban offered time, quality and cost gains when
implemented together with preventive maintenance and operator-teaming practices.
On a related note, the scope of AMS research was broadened to include MM
and work practices with rich results that better reflect the complexities of a
manufacturing environment.
Third, the study responds to the theoretical question posed by Dean et al. (1992)
in a study of technology and organization structure. They described two opposing
managerial philosophies for using technology: reduce dependency on workers and
achieve tighter control over the production process, or empower and increase
worker knowledge in an organization. The present study suggests that firms that
pursue the latter course will find more success. Human capital-enrichment practices
such as decentralized decision-making and worker cross-training constituted a
full 42% of the 19 performance-enhancing microsystems identified. Equally
importantly, past research notes that planners perform better when presented with
possible alternative forms of work practice when they begin their considerations for
choice of technology. Eason (2001) points out the need to show at an early stage
of technology consideration that there will be organizational outcomes and that
choices have to be made about these outcomes.
Finally, the findings corroborate Woodward’s (1964, 1980) broad thesis
about organizational success being contingent upon the right combination of
technology and structure. It was found that HIWP, akin to an organic structure
(Burns and Stalker 1961), combined well with several manufacturing technologies
and methods in improving manufacturing performance. Interestingly, these posi-
tive interactive effects resulted even though the direct effects of process type on
manufacturing performance in the regression models were controlled. This repre-
sents a notable departure from Woodward’s conclusion that batch and continuous
process technologies are served better by organic work structures, whereas assembly
line-type mass production processes are more suited to mechanistic work structures.
One reason could be the documented shift away from the ‘routine’ manufacturing
environment of Woodward’s era towards a ‘non-routine’ environment of
considerable turbulence and uncertainty, calling for more adaptive and flexible
organizational structures (Tranfield et al. 1991). Increases in team approaches,
increased delegation of decision-making responsibilities to workers and the increased
task scope of operators (set-up, quality checks, preventive maintenance, testing,
changing codes) are well-known observed developments in contemporary manufac-
turing environments. Such changes have occurred in response to the need for
customer responsiveness across industries and cut across different process types. As
such, Woodward’s coupling of a pure mechanistic structure with a mass production
process may have transitioned into combinations of less and more organic forms
of work organization with modern technologies and MM. There is emerging
evidence of this in the literature (Kalagnaman and Lindsay 1998).
9.2 Implications for practice

From a practical point of view, the expense and general irreversibility of AMS
investments have prompted calls for a deeper understanding of the relationship
between AMS and performance. Previous research has suggested that managers
typically fail to recognize or choose to ignore potential synergies among AMT
practices (Snell and Dean 1992). One reason could be the absence of a decision aid
structure that communicates clear and actionable guidelines for AMS investment
patterns. (Boyer et al. 1996). Table 6 reorganizes the statistical results to facilitate
interpretation and provide a performance-oriented template that can guide
managerial decision-making. As shown, performance objectives in cost reduction,
quality improvement, manufacturing cycle time reduction, delivery and customiza-
tion responsiveness can be targeted by carefully matched investments in AMS.
AMS investments and initiatives should be organized and integrated meticulously,
recognizing and accommodating interaction considerations. Indiscriminate, across-
the-board investments in AMS may prove to be counterproductive. As also
suggested by Eason (2001), organizational planning requires a socio-technical
systems orientation as opposed to a purely technical perspective.
10. Conclusions
This paper applies socio-technical theory to identify and discern the operation of
subsystem interactions in AMSs. The research concludes with some important
understandings. First, microsystems representing combinations of different com-
ponents of AMS exist in operations. These microsystems build the foundation
of the larger inter-system adaptations discussed in socio-technical theory. Second,
AMS performance is not just a straightforward matter of investments in AMS
components, but also depends on the specific ways in which these components
are combined to facilitate success in specific areas of manufacturing performance.
Further, the exposition of the complexities of the relationships among individual
AMS technologies, methods, and practices offers evidence and guidance on synergies
that practitioners can pursue gainfully.
There are limitations to the study. Single respondents from the materials’
function and perceptual data were used for data collection, albeit at senior
management levels and cross-validated within practical limits. Additionally, firm
performance was excluded from the scope of inquiry. Due to data and
200
Table 6. Results – significant micro-systems.
Specific Technology/Practice pairs with Specific Technology/Practice to deliver Performance
Technology CAD CAM Reduced cost

micro-systems CAE CNC Reduced manufacturing cycle time
GT þ Delivery speed and reliability
CAM CNC Improved quality
Decentralized production scheduling Improved quality
Employee cross training Reduced cost
Kanban Reduced cost
CNC Preventive maintenance Improved quality
Reduced manufacturing cycle time
CAT Kanban Delivery speed and reliability
Decentralized production scheduling Delivery speed and reliability
JIT supply Customisation responsiveness
Robotics Decentralized production scheduling Reduced manufacturing cycle time
A. Das and J. Jayaram
Non-technology Kanban JIT supply Reduced cost

micro-systems þ Reduced manufacturing cycle time
Preventive maintenance Improved quality
Operator teams Reduced manufacturing cycle time
Real time process controls Delivery speed reliability
Decentralized production scheduling Delivery speed reliability
JIT supply Employee cross-training Reduced cost
Preventive maintenance Decentralized production scheduling Improved quality
interpretation constraints, only a finite number of potential microsystem synergies

could be examined. Some of the anticipated combinations including those involving
popular technologies (e.g. EDI) could not be verified owing to the rigor of the
statistical analysis. There was a set of stringent entry values for variables in the
regression models, resulting in exclusion of variables even at very low p values. It is
also acknowledged that studies dealing with socio-technical theory would be richer
for the presence of personal satisfaction or stress measures. The paper is constrained
by the scope of the study and data limitations, and the authors hope that future
research would include individual stress and satisfaction outcomes in their design.
(The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for the suggestion.)
Future research could examine the behaviour of microsystems at different
levels of investment and could also consider multilevel investigations that include
possible three- or four-way relationships that are typical of the reality of production
operations.
References
Adler, P.S., CAD/CAM: managerial challenges and research issues. IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag., 1989, 36, 202–215.
Adler, P.S., Managing flexible automation. Calif. Manag. Rev., 1988, 30, 34–56.
Argote, L, Goodman, P.S. and Schkade, D., The human side of robotics: how workers
react to a robot. Sloan Manag. Rev., 1983, 24, 31–41.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S., Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Market.
Res., 1977, 14, 396–402.
Astebro, T., Theory of technology: a reply for Rias Van Wyk. Available online at: Usenet
newsgroup Innovation Management Network 2. 1995.
Badham, R., Computer-aided design, work organization, and the integrated factory. IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag., 1989, 36, 216–226.
Beatty, C.A., Implementing advanced manufacturing technologies: rules of the road. Sloan
Manag. Rev., 1992, 33, 49–59.
Beede, D.N. and Young, K.H., Patterns of advanced technology adoption and manufactur-
ing performance. Bus. Econ., 1998, 33, 43–48.
Boddy, D. and Buchanan, D.A., Managing New Technology, 1986 (Basil Blackwell: Oxford).
Boulding, K.E., General systems theory: the skeleton of science. Manag. Sci., 1956, 2,
197–208.
Boyer, K.K., Evolutionary patterns of flexible automation and performance: a longitudinal
study. Manag. Sci., 1999, 45, 824–842.
Boyer, K.K., Ward, P.T. and Leong, K.G., Approaches to the factory of the future: an
empirical taxonomy. J. Oper. Manag., 1996, 14, 297–313.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M., The Management of Innovation, 1961 (Social Science Paperbacks,
London).
Chan, F.T.S. and Smith, A.M., Simulation aids JIT assembly line manufacture: a case study.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 1993, 13, 50–74.
Chao, G.T. and Kozlowski, S.W.J., Employee perceptions on the implementation of robotic
manufacturing technology. J. Appl. Psychol., 1986, 71, 70–76.
Chevalier, P.W., Group technology as a CAD/CAM integrator in batch manufacturing. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag., 1984, 4, 3–12.
Cohen, M.A. and Apte, U.A., Manufacturing Automation, 1997 (Irwin: Chicago, IL).
Collins, P. and Hull, F., Technology and span of control: Woodward revisited. J. Manag.
Stud., 1986, 23, 143–164.
Das, A. and Jayaram, J., The relative importance of contingency variables for advanced
manufacturing technology. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2004, 41, 4429–4452.
Dean Jr, J.W. and Snell, S.A., The strategic use of integrated manufacturing: an empirical
examination. Strateg. Manag. J., 1996, 17, 459–480.
Dean Jr, J.W., Yoon, S.J. and Susman, G., Advanced manufacturing technology and orga-
nization structure: empowerment or subordination? Organiz. Sci., 1992, 3, 203–229.
Duimering, P.R. and Safeyani, F., A study of the organizational impact of the just-in-time
production system, in Just-in-Time Manufacturing Systems: Operational Planning and
Control Issues, edited by A. Satir, pp. 19–32, 1991 (Elsevier: New York, NY).
Eason, K.D., Changing perspectives on the organizational consequences of information
technology. Behav. Informat. Tech., 2001, 20, 323–328.
Eason, K.D., Information Technology and Organizational Change, 1988 (Taylor & Francis:
London).
Eason, K.D., Representing socio-technical systems options in the development of new forms
of work organization. Eur. J. Work Organizat. Psychol., 1996, 5, 399–420.
Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L., The causal texture of organizational environments. Hum. Rel.,
1965, 18, 21–32.
Ettlie, J.E., Taking Charge of Manufacturing, 1988 (Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA).
Fawcett, S.E. and Myers, M.B., Product and employee development in advanced manufac-
turing implementation and impact. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2001, 39, 65–79.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Flynn, J.E., World class manufacturing: an
investigation of Hayes and Wheelwright’s foundation. J. Oper. Manag., 1999, 17,
249–269.
Forslin, J., Thulestedt, B. and Anderson, S., CAD: a case of strategy in implementing new
technology. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 1989, 36, 191–201.
Frolich, M.T. and Dixon, R.J., Information system adaptation and the successful
implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies. Dec. Sci., 1999, 30,
921–957.
Germain, R. and Droge, C., The context, organizational design, and performance of JIT
buying vs. non-JIT buying firms. J. Suppl. Chain Manag., 1998, 34, 12–18.
Gerwin, D., A theory of innovation processes for computer-aided manufacturing technology.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 1988, 35, 90–100.
Gilbert, J. and Finch, B., Maintenance management: keeping up with production’s changing
trends and technologies. J. Oper. Manag., 1985, 6, 1–12.
Gittleman, M., Horrigan, M. and Joyce, M., Flexible workplace practices: evidence from
a nationally representative survey. Ind. Labour Rev., 1998, 52, 99–115.
Gupta, A., Chen, I.J. and Chiang, D., Determining organizational structure choices in
advanced manufacturing technology. Omega, 1997, 25, 511–521.
Gupta, Y.P. and Somers, T.M., Business strategy, manufacturing flexibility, and organizational
performance relationships: a path analysis approach. Prod. Oper. Manag., 1996, 5,
204–233.
Gyan-Baffour, G., Advanced manufacturing technology, employee participation and
economic performance: an empirical analysis. J. Manager. Iss., 1994, 1, 491–505.
Hall, Zero Inventories, 1983 (Dow-Jones Irwin: Homewood, IL).
Hay, E.J., The Just-in-Time Breakthrough: Implementing the New Manufacturing Basics, 1988
(Wiley: New York).
Heijltjes, M.G., Advanced manufacturing technologies and HRM policies. Findings
from chemical and food and drink companies in the Netherlands and Great Britain.
Organizat. Stud., 2000, 21, 775–805.
Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E. and Nixon, R.D., A mid-range theory of inter-
functional integration, its antecedents and outcomes. J. Eng. Tech. Manag., 1993, 10,
161–185.
Huang, S.H. and Xu, N., Automatic set-up planning for metal cutting: an integrative
methodology. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2003, 41, 4339–4356.
Huq, F., Labour issues in the implementation of group technology cellular manufacturing.
Prod. Inv. Manag. J., 1992, 33, 15–23.
James, L.R, Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G., Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability
with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psychol., 1984, 69, 85–98.
Kalagnanam, S.S. and Lindsay, R.M., The use of organic models of control in JIT
firms: generalizing Woodward’s findings to modern manufacturing practices. Account.
Oranizat. Soc., 1998, 24, 1–30.
Kaplan, R.S., Must CIM be justified by faith alone. Harvard Bus. Rev., 1986, 64, 87–95.
Kotha, S. and Swamidass, P.M., Strategy, advanced manufacturing technology and perfor-
mance: empirical evidence from US manufacturing firms. J. Oper. Manag., 2000, 18,
257–277.
Kudpi, V.S. and Pati, N., How advanced manufacturing systems affect marketing channels.
Bus. Forum, 1996, 21, 16–20.
Lankford, W.M. and Riggs, R.E., Electronic data interchange: where are we today? J. Sys.
Manag., 1996, 47, 58–62.
Lee, H.G. and Clark, T., Research Report: Can EDI benefit adopters? Informat. Sys. Res.,
1999, 10, 186–195.
Lee, T.W., Park, N.K., Joint, J.F. and Kim, W.G., A new efficient EDI system for container
cargo logistics. Marit. Pol. Manag., 2001, 27, 133–144.
Lei, D., Hitt, M.A. and Goldhar, J.D., Advanced manufacturing technology: organization
design and strategic flexibility. Organizat. Stud., 1996, 17, 501–523.
Lim, S.H., Flexible manufacturing systems and manufacturing flexibility in the United
Kingdom. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 1987, 7, 44–54.
Liu, J., Tsou, M. and Hammitt, J.K., The impact of advanced technology adoption on wage
structures: evidence from Taiwan manufacturing firms. Economica, 2001, 68, 359–378.
Maffei, M.J. and Meredith, J., Infrastructure and flexible manufacturing technology: theory
development. J. Oper. Manag., 1995, 13, 273–298.
Maffei, M.J. and Meredith, J., The organizational side of flexible manufacturing technology.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 1994, 14, 17–34.
Malhotra, M.J., Heine, M.L. and Grover, V., An evaluation of the relationship between
management practices and computer-aided design technology. J. Oper. Manag., 2001,
19, 307–333.
Markland, R.E., Vickery, S.K. and Davis, R.A., Operations Management: Concepts in
Manufacturing and Services, 1998 (South-Western College: Cincinnati, OH).
McDermott, C.M., Kang, H. and Walsh, S., A framework for technology management in
services. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 2001, 48, 333–341.
McDermott, C.M. and Marucheck, A., Training in CAD: an exploratory study of methods
and benefits. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 1995, 42, 410–418.
Mehra, S. and Inman, R., Determining the critical elements of just-in-time implementation.
Dec. Sci., 1992, 23, 160–174.
Melnyk, S.A., and Narasimhan, R., Computer Integrated Manufacturing: Guidelines and
Applications from Industrial Leaders, 1992 (Business One Irwin: Homewood, IL).
Meredith, J.R., Implementing new manufacturing technologies: managerial lessons over
the FMS life cycle. Interfaces, 1987a, 17, 51–62.
Meredith, J.R., The strategic advantages of the factory of the future. Calif. Manag. Rev.,
1987b, 29, 27–41.
Meredith, J.R. and Camm, J., Modelling synergy and learning under multiple advanced
manufacturing technologies. Dec. Sci., 1989, 20, 258–271.
Meredith, J.R. and Hill, M.M., Justifying new manufacturing systems: a managerial
approach. Sloan Manag. Rev., 1987, 28, 49–61.
Miao, H.K., Sridharan, N. and Shah, J.J., CAD–CAM integration using machining features.
Int. J. Comput.-Integr. Manuf., 2002, 15, 296–318.
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J., The economics of modern manufacturing. Am. Econ. Rev., 1995,
85, 997–999.
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J., The economics of modern manufacturing: technology, strategy
and organization. Am. Econ. Rev., 1990, 80, 511–528.
Montagno, R.V., Ahmed, N.S. and Firenze, R.J., Perceptions of operations strategies and
technologies in US manufacturing firms. Prod. Inv. Manag. J., 1995, 36, 22–27.
Nassar, S., A Beautiful Mind, 1998 (Simon & Schuster: New York, NY).
Naudé, P., Holland, C. and Sudbury, M., The benefits of IT-based supply chains: strategic
or operational. J. Bus.-to-Bus. Market., 2000, 7, 45–69.
Nemetz, P.L. and Fry, L.W., Flexible manufacturing organizations: implications for strategy
formulation and organizational design. Acad. Manag. Rev., 1988, 13, 627–638.
Nicolaou, A.I., Adoption of just-in-time and electronic data interchange systems and
perceptions of cost management systems effectiveness. Int. J. Account. Inform. Sys.,
2002, 3, 35–62.
Pan, S.L. and Scarborough, H., Knowledge management in practice: an exploratory study.
Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag., 1999, 11, 259–274.
Pava, A., Redesigning socio-technical systems design: concepts and methods for the 1990s.
J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1986, 22, 201–221.
Philips, J., Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: a methodological note
on organizational analysis in marketing. J. Market. Res., 1981, 18, 395–415.
Psoinos, A. and Smithson, S., Employee empowerment in manufacturing: a study of
organizations in the U.K. New Tech. Work Employ., 2002, 17, 148.
Robertson, D. and Allen, T.J., CAD system use and engineering performance. IEEE Trans.
Eng. Manag., 1993, 40, 274–282.
Rosnah, M.Y., Ahmad, M.M.H.M. and Sulaiman, S., Increasing competitiveness through
advanced manufacturing technologies. Int. J. Manuf. Manag., 2003, 5, 371–379.
Roth, A.V. and Giffi, C.A., Critical factors for achieving world class manufacturing.
OM Rev., 1995, 10, 1–29.
Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J.T., The Modularity Principle in Product and Organization Design:
Achieving Flexibility in the Fusion of Intended and Emergent Strategies
in Hypercompetitive Markets, 1994, Working Paper (University of Illinois: Urbana-
Champaign).
Scarborough, H., Blackboxes, hostages and prisoners. Organizat. Stud., 1995, 16, 991–1019.
Schonberger, R.J., Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons of Simplicity,
1982 (Free Press: New York, NY).
Scott-Morton, M., The Corporation of the 1990s, Information Technology and Organizational
Transformation, 1991 (Oxford University Press: New York, NY).
Seidmann, A. and Sundarajan, A., Competing on information intensive services: analyzing
the impact of task consolidation and employee empowerment. J. Manag. Inform. Sys.,
1997, 14, 33–56.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T., Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance.
J. Oper. Manag., 2003, 21, 129–149.
Shani, A.B., Grant, R.M., Krishnan, R. and Thompson, E., Advanced manufacturing systems
and organizational choice: sociotechnical systems approach. Calif. Manag. Rev., 1992,
34, 91–111.
Sharma, R.S., Conrath, D.W. and Dilts, D.M., A socio-technical model for deploying
expert systems – Part 1: The general theory. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 1991, 38, 14–23.
Snell, S.A. and Dean Jr, J.W., Integrated manufacturing and human resource management:
a human capital perspective. Acad. Manag. J., 1992, 35, 467–504.
Soliman, F., Clegg, S. and Tantoush, T., Critical success factors for integration of CAD/
CAM systems with ERP systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 2001, 21, 609–629.
Sower, V.E. and Abshire, R.D., Successful implementation of advanced manufacturing
technology: a cross sectional survey. Int. J. Comput. Appl. Tech., 2003, 16, 12–20.
Spencer, M. and Guide, D., An exploration of the components of JIT: case study and
survey results. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 1995, 15, 72–83.
Sun, H., Current and future patterns of using advanced manufacturing technologies.
Technovation, 2000, 20, 631–541.
Sun, H. and Gertsen, F., Organizational changes related to advanced manufacturing
technology in the production area. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 1995, 41, 369–375.
Susman, G. and Chase, R., A socio-technical analysis of the integrated factory. J. Appl. Behav.
Sci., 1986, 22, 257–270.
Swamidass, P.M. and Kotha, S., Explaining manufacturing technology use, firm size
and performance using a multidimensional view of technology. J. Oper. Manag., 1998,
17, 23–37.
Swanson, L., The impact of new production technologies on the maintenance function:
an empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1999, 37, 849–869.
Taninecz, G., Best practices and performances. Ind. Week, 1997, 246(1 December), 28–43.
Thibodeaux, M.S. and Faden, S.K., Organizational design for self-managed teams.
Ind. Manag. Data Sys., 1994, 94, 20–25.
Tranfield, D., Smith, S., Ley, C., Bessant, J. and Levy, P., Changing organizational design
and practices for computer integrated technologies. Int. J. Tech. Manag., 1991, 6,
211–221.
Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W., Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall
method of coal getting. Hum. Rel., 1951, 4, 3–38.
Twigg, D., Voss, C.A. and Winch, G.M., Implementing integrating technologies: developing
managerial integration for CAD/CAM. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 1992, 12, 76–91.
Upton, D.M. and McAfee, A.P., Computer integration and catastrophic process failure.
Prod. Oper. Manag., 1988, 7, 265–281.
US Department of Commerce, Manufacturing Technology, Bureau of Census Report, 1988
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office).
Van Eijnatten, F.M., An Anthology of the Socio-Technical System Design Paradigm, 1992
(Eindhoven University of Technology Press: Eindhoven).
Van Wyk, R., Theory of technology in Usenet newsgroup. Innov. Manag. Network, 1995, 2.
Ward, P.T., Leong, G.K. and Boyer, K.K., Manufacturing proactiveness and performance.
Dec. Sci., 1994, 25, 337–355.
Weill, P., Samson, D. and Sohal, A., Advanced manufacturing technology: an analysis of
practice. Int. J. Tech. Manag., 1991, 6, 335–353.
Wemmerlov, U. and Hyer, N.L., Procedures for the part family, machine group identification
problem in cellular manufacturing. J. Oper. Manag., 1986, 6, 125–147.
Woodward, J., Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, 1965 (Oxford University Press:
Oxford).

23107794

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

23107794

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Production Research,

Vol. 45, No. 1, 1 January 2007, 169–205

Socio-technical perspective on manufacturing system synergies

A. DAS*y and J. JAYARAMz

yDepartment of Management, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, Box B9-240,

(Revision received September 2005)

A micro-level perspective using socio-technical theory is used to examine

Keywords: Socio-technical theory; Advanced manufacturing systems;

*Corresponding author. Email: ajay_das@baruch.cuny.edu

International Journal of Production Research

3. Advanced manufacturing systems

Recognizing the limitations of a dominantly hardware approach, current definitions

. High-involvement Work Practices subsystem (HIWP): use of innovative

‘Socio-technical theory’ seeks to explain adaptations among co-existing systems

Table 1. Subsystems of AMS and underlying items.

Manufacturing design: Manufacturing technology:

. Automated material-handling systems pick-and-place robots, conveyors, AGVs, automated

5.1 Intra-technology subsystem effects

Table 2a. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Intra-technology (H1).

Table 2a. Continued.

5.2 Intra-manufacturing methods subsystem effects

Table 2b. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Intra-manufacturing methods (H2).

Anticipated Anticipated effects

Kanban Preventive Impacts on product quality. Make as the internal customer

5.3 Technology-manufacturing methods subsystems interaction effects

Table 2c. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Technology Manufacturing methods (H3).

Manufacturing methods and manufacturing technology are complementary. Manufacturing

Technological complexity requires augmented and advanced manufacturing infrastructure.

Table 2c. Continued.

Anticipated Anticipated effects

on AMHS and efficient robotic manufacturing. Group technology and modularity

5.4 Technology-work practices subsystems interaction effects

Table 2d. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Technology High-involvement work

Table 2d. Continued.

Anticipated Anticipated effects

CAM Employee Impacts on delivery, Increases in operational complexity,

be scrapped ultimately. A utility company installed a communication system that

Table 2e. Anticipated microsystems in AMS: Manufacturing methods High-involvement

Anticipated Anticipated effects

Kanban Impacts on delivery, Kanban engenders tight coupling

Table 2e. Continued.

Thus, it is hypothesized that:

5.5 Manufacturing methods–work practices subsystems interaction effects

Kanban, an internal MM that complements externally oriented JIT supply

Transportation Equipment); SIC 35 – Industrial and Commercial Machinery and

Table 3. Respondent characteristics

Plant sales distribution:

Average number of Average number of

Number of employees distribution:

6.2.1 Advanced manufacturing systems (AMS). The components of AMSs were

6.2.2. Manufacturing performance. Manufacturing performance was operational-

a broader composite measure of manufacturing performance. Moreover, our

7. Data analysis and results

Moderated regression analysis was used to examine the hypotheses. Separate

Subsequent runs were conducted with relevant sets of independent variables,

Production Intra-technology CAD CAM R2 ¼ 085, F ¼ 000, ¼ 291, p ¼ 000

Technology High involvement CAT Kanban R2 ¼ 061, F ¼ 000, ¼ 247, p ¼ 000

intra-MM synergies may be seen as a finer-grained explication of earlier research

existing/excess stock. In such cases, manufacturing’s manoeuvrability to rapidly

and between preventive maintenance and decentralized production scheduling. Each

9.1 Implications for theory

9.2 Implications for practice

Table 6. Results – significant micro-systems.