The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM
20,3 An empirical examination of the
best practices to ensure
manufacturing flexibility
348
Lean alignment
Received September 2007
Revised March 2008
Todd A. Boyle
Accepted July 2008 Schwartz School of Business and IS, St Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, Canada, and
Maike Scherrer-Rathje
Institute of Technology Management, University of St Gallen,
St Gallen, Switzerland

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the best practices managers use to improve
manufacturing flexibility and ensure the tools and techniques selected for flexibility improvement are
in line with broader organizational and manufacturing goals, such as lean production.
Design/methodology/approach – A number of best practices are identified based on a review and
synthesis of the conceptual frameworks for improving manufacturing flexibility and are presented to
North American manufacturing managers. Results of analyzing the data from 168 managers indicate
the best practices, techniques, and major groups involved in improving flexibility.
Findings – Results support these best practices, with the most important practices being:
incorporating the role of manufacturing flexibility into the manufacturing strategy; identifying the
major potential sources of uncertainty faced by the manufacturing department; and identifying the
general capability of the manufacturing department to address these potential sources of uncertainty.
The results also indicate a growing preference to reducing sources of uncertainty, in addition to
responding to it, as demonstrated by the use of lean tools and practices.
Originality/value – This research empirically develops a framework linking manufacturing
flexibility and lean decisions; and subsequently addressing an area under examined by the extant
literature. In addition, this study empirically tests many of the best flexibility practices identified in the
literature and in doing so provides some empirical support for the frameworks developed in previous
studies. This research also highlights the practices, which managers should consider when attempting
to improve flexibility in their manufacturing facility, while keeping in mind broader organizational
strategies such as lean.
Keywords Flexible manufacturing systems, Lean production, Best practice
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2009
pp. 348-366
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410380910936792
1. Introduction
The North American nightly business news is full of reports of layoffs by struggling
manufacturers, the negative impact of rising labour costs on manufacturers, the
increasing costs and scarcity of raw materials. Such reports serve as a grim reminder
The authors would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
for supporting this research under its Standard Research Grants program.
that organizations are constantly surrounded by uncertainty from a wide variety of Manufacturing
sources, ranging from demand and supply inconsistencies to machine breakdowns. To flexibility
help adapt to such uncertainties and not be the focus of such bad news, organizations
are investing in practices to improve the flexibility of their manufacturing facility
(Boyle, 2006; Anand and Ward, 2004; Hutchison and Das, 2007) and supply chain
(Stevenson and Spring, 2007). Manufacturing flexibility is the capability of a
manufacturing system or facility to effectively address uncertainty from a wide variety 349
of sources, yet continue to produce efficiently different products or product volumes of
acceptable quality, cost, and timeframe. Investments in manufacturing flexibility
enable organizations to better adapt to uncertainty, redefine or reduce uncertainty and
competitive position, or bank the capability to address a perceived future uncertainty
(Gerwin, 1993; Ketokivi, 2006).
Recently, manufacturing managers have a wide variety of options for improving
manufacturing flexibility, ranging from hard technology solutions, such as robotics
and flexible manufacturing systems, to people focused options, such as cross-training,
to external practices, such as outsourcing (Friedli, 2006). Given the wide variety of
options, managers are faced with the challenge of choosing flexibility tools and
techniques that adequately address uncertainty, yet are aligned with broader
manufacturing goals, organizational strategies, and management philosophies, such as
lean production.
Lean is a management philosophy (Shah and Ward, 2007) focused on identifying
and eliminating waste throughout a product’s entire value stream, extending not only
within the organization, but also along its entire supply chain network. Lean is
achieved through a set of mutually reinforcing practices, including total quality
management, continuous improvement, supplier management, integrative information
systems, and effective human resource management. Lean results in improved output
and quality levels, and achieves this using fewer resources, such as raw materials and
employee effort. With international dominance across a multitude of industries, this
philosophy of production originally developed for the Japanese auto industry, has
proven its value far beyond its original industrial sector and geographic region.
Recently, lean is applied to a wide variety of industries of varying sizes, ranging from
global aerospace companies to small community hospitals.
If the lean philosophy forms a large part of the organizational strategy, traditional
flexibility techniques such as stockpiling parts or idle back-up machines on the shop
floor, albeit excellent for achieving flexibility, are inconsistent with lean thinking. In
such a case, these flexibility techniques may negatively impact other manufacturing
goals such as waste reduction. So how are today’s manufacturing organizations
identifying and achieving the appropriate levels of manufacturing flexibility needed to
face high levels of environmental uncertainty? And are the manufacturing flexibility
practices, tools, and techniques chosen in-line with the broader organizational goal of
lean production? This study examines these important questions through a number of
research objectives. The specific objectives of this study are to identify the best
practices managers use to improve the flexibility of their manufacturing facility and
examine the relationship between these practices to boarder organizational
philosophies such as lean, in order to develop a framework to ensure that flexibility
improvements are in line with lean. To achieve these research objectives, we first
review and synthesize the existing conceptual frameworks in the extant literature
JMTM (Boyle, 2006; Olhager and West, 2002; Narain et al., 2000; Schmenner and Tatikonda,
20,3 2005) in order to identify the commonly cited best practices for improving
manufacturing flexibility. The best practices are then presented to 169 North American
manufacturing managers to gauge their value for improving flexibility and ensuring
alignment with broader organizational strategies, such as lean. Next, the key flexibility
tools and techniques that such managers are using, and the major organizational
350 groups (e.g. functional areas outside of manufacturing, suppliers, customers) involved
in flexibility decision making are identified. We then combine the above objectives to
develop a framework to help managers ensure that the flexibility tools and techniques
selected are better aligned with the goals of lean production.

2. Improving manufacturing flexibility

Given the uncertainty faced by today’s manufacturing organizations, it is not
surprising that flexibility has been highlighted by both researchers and managers alike
as a critical component of the manufacturing strategy and a competitive priority for
organizations (Davies and Kochhar, 2002; Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2001; Ketokivi,
2006). Yet, the nightly business news highlights a common theme among many
manufacturing companies; the challenge of achieving and sustaining acceptable levels
of manufacturing flexibility. Reports ranging from fine-paper factories to consumer
electronics have found that efforts at improving flexibility are often considered
unsuccessful or disappointing (Zukin and Dalcol, 2000; Upton, 1995; Slack, 2005). This
is not surprising, as improving and sustaining appropriate levels of manufacturing
flexibility is a very challenging and complex task. This is due in a large part both the
multidimensional nature of manufacturing flexibility (D’Souza and Williams, 2000;
Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly, 2000) and the lack of widely accepted and robust
measurements (Koste et al., 2004). For example, manufacturing flexibility can exist at
the strategic, tactical, and operational levels within the organization (Narain et al.,
2000), is comprised of a wide variety of types, including machine, volume, and product,
which can be measured in terms of potential, actual and required levels (Koste and
Malhotra, 1999).
Despite the multidimensional nature of flexibility and the lack of robust and widely
accepted measures, various conceptual frameworks have been developed to assist
managers with flexibility improvement efforts. With examples including Boyle (2006),
Oke (2005), Schmenner and Tatikonda (2005), Olhager and West (2002), Narain et al.
(2000), Abdel-Malek et al. (2000), Hitt et al. (1998), Nilsson and Nordahl (1995), Gerwin
(1993), Suarez et al. (1991), Slack (1988) and Aaker and Mascarenhas (1984). Yet, none
of these frameworks examine the flexibility – lean relationship in significant detail.
And a review of the extant literature on lean failed to highlight studies addressing the
manufacturing flexibility – lean relationship in significant detail. Despite not
specifically addressing issues surrounding lean, the above-mentioned frameworks
represent an adequate starting point for empirically testing best practices to ensure
flexibility – lean alignment. Specifically, these frameworks highlight a number of
commonalities, which may represents potential best practices for ensuring flexibility –
lean alignment. Table I highlights similarities and differences between the flexibility
implementation frameworks found in the extant literature.
With a few exceptions, the need to examine the environmental dynamics is a key
factor of all the frameworks. According to contingency theory, there has to be a fit
 Methods to achieve
Author Environment Strategy Flexibility flexibility Performance measurements

Aaker and Environmental changes Evaluation of potential Flexibility options for each
Mascarenhas environmental changes identified and screened
(1984) environmental change
Slack (1988) Identification of Manufacturing strategy Definition of required Action programs to narrow
performance levels needed to flexibility to address gap between required
address uncertainty uncertainty by flexibility flexibility and current
audit production capabilities
Suarez et al. Environmental analysis Need of flexibility based on Need of flexibility based on Implementation of flexibility
(1991) external factors internal factors
Gerwin (1993) Environmental uncertainty Corporate strategy Required manufacturing Method for delivering Performance measurements
flexibility flexibility
Nilsson and Market demand, company’s Fit between production Appropriate level of Balance of flexibility with
Nordahl (1995) requirements of its suppliers system, production flexibility other vital aspects of
resources, and strategy company
Appropriate level –
maximum level of flexibility
Hitt et al. (1998) Efficiently use new Build dynamic core
technologies; engage in capabilities; focus and
valuable strategies develop human capital
Abdel-Malek Identify environmental Design a flexible Economic analysis
et al. (2000) changes manufacturing solution
Narain et al. Environmental uncertainty Marketing and Required flexibility Design, evaluate, implement, Audit process and system
(2000) manufacturing strategy and maintain flexibility
business/manufacturing
processes using
organizational and
technological tools
Olhager and Abilities to win customer Flexibility characteristics Relation between abilities to Objective measures to
West (2002) orders compared to (range, response, distension) win customer orders and benchmark company with
competitors flexibility competitors
Schmenner and Internal and external Different flexibility types Flexibility measures Evaluate flexibility types
Tatikonda uncertainties and implementation
(2005) mechanisms
Boyle (2006) Internal and external Organizational and Required flexibility Flexibility tools and Determination of flexibility
environmental analysis; manufacturing strategy techniques fit
uncertainty analysis
Manufacturing

frameworks
flexibility

Flexibility improvement
351

Table I.
JMTM between a company’s structure and its environment (Drazin and van de Ven, 1985).
20,3 This leads directly to the view that in uncertain and fast changing environments,
organizations require the flexibility to make quick changes. In addition to
environmental scanning, Slack (1988), Suarez et al. (1991), Gerwin (1993), Nilsson
and Nordahl (1995), Hitt et al. (1998) and Narain et al. (2000) all highlight the need to
examine various organizational strategies (e.g. competitive, manufacturing and
352 marketing) when determining appropriate levels of flexibility. Many of these
frameworks also suggest that flexibility is an effective means to address uncertainty, is
only one dimension, or component, of a manufacturing strategy, and can improve
business growth and financial performance (Swamidass and Newell, 1987; Upton,
1994; Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly, 2000; Suarez et al., 1991; Slack, 1988).
Regardless of the driving forces for flexibility improvements, the majority of
frameworks highlight the need to identify required levels of flexibility for each
flexibility type (e.g. volume, product and process). Methods to improve flexibility are
usually linked to the goal of obtaining the required level of flexibility, thereby
narrowing the gap between actual and required flexibility levels. Researchers state that
action programs have to be put into place to overcome this flexibility gap, while
Gerwin (1993), Abdel-Malek et al. (2000), Narain et al. (2000), Olhager and West (2002)
and Schmenner and Tatikonda (2005) identify the need to periodically monitor this
relationship to ensure that overtime the flexibility changes implemented continue to
adequately address uncertainty.
Various frameworks also cite the multidimensional nature of flexibility by
suggesting that organizations need to consider actual and required levels of flexibility
in terms of their range (i.e. ability to accommodate a large range on the dimension of
change), mobility (i.e. transition penalties for moving within the range), and uniformity
(i.e. extent that performance measures, such as quality, is invariant with the position
occupied within the range) (Upton, 1994; Koste and Malhotra, 2000; Slack, 1987, 2005)
and understand that manufacturing flexibility can occur at different organizational
levels (i.e. strategic, tactical, and operational). Therefore, managers will need to
prioritize the required manufacturing flexibility types; as sufficient resources may not
exist to implement all the needed flexibility types at the required levels of range,
uniformity, and mobility (Gerwin, 1993; Upton, 1994; Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly,
2000; Narain et al., 2000). Examining the frameworks in Table I in further detail
highlights a number of common practices which may also represent potential best
practices to ensure manufacturing flexibility – lean alignment. These practices are
presented in Table II.

3. Research method and data analysis

3.1 Tool development
Motivated by the multi-dimensional concept of flexibility, many researchers have
discussed various ways to structure flexibility. Gerwin (1993) states that in defining
flexibility, one has to consider on which level flexibility is being specified. The level
may be as low as an individual machine or as high as the entire factory system. Such
consideration is necessary, since at each level, the concept of flexibility, as well as the
means to reach flexibility, may be different (Narain et al., 2000). Based on a review of
the extant literature, four dominant ways to structure flexibility have emerged. One
common approach to examining manufacturing flexibility is from a hierarchical
 Manufacturing
Acroynm Description
flexibility
COMPSTRAT Examine the competitive strategy to ensure that efforts to improve
flexibility are in line with the strategy of the organization
MKTSTRAT Examine the marketing strategy to ensure that efforts to improve
flexibility are in line with the strategy of the marketing department
UNCERTAIN Identify the major potential sources of uncertainty faced by the 353
manufacturing department, such as potential sources of demand
variety, demand volume, and supplier and customer constraints
GENCAP Identify the general capability of the manufacturing department to
address these potential sources of uncertainty
FLEXROLE Identify the role that manufacturing flexibility will play in addressing
this uncertainty
STRATROLE Incorporate the role of manufacturing flexibility into the
manufacturing strategy
FLEXTYPES Identify potential types of flexibility (e.g. volume, process and product)
that can be used to address the major sources of uncertainty
UNCERT-REDUCE Examine where uncertainty reduction could be used in addition to
possible flexibility types. For example, managers trying to reduce
sources of product uncertainty by promoting design-for-manufacture
in addition to improving product flexibility
FLEXDOCU Document how each flexibility type will be measured. For example, for
volume flexibility stating that this flexibility will be measured by the
average number of different tasks that can be performed by
employees, and the stability of manufacturing costs over widely
varying levels of production
DESIREDOC Document the desired levels of each of these flexibility types. For
example, for volume flexibility the desired maximum and minimum
amounts that can be produced with little change in performance and
setup times and costs
FLEXIMP Document how each flexibility type will be implemented. For example,
with volume flexibility, will such flexibility be achieved by adopting
flexible manufacturing systems and related technology, providing
workers with broad skills, outsourcing, sub-contracting, or a
combination thereof
COMPARE Periodically compare the current flexibility levels to the associated
desired levels until the desired levels of flexibility are achieved
PERFORM Determine if the desired flexibility, now that it has been achieved, is
positively contributing to the manufacturing strategy and improving
business performance Table II.
MEASURE Periodically reexamine the major sources of uncertainty to ensure that Proposed best practices
the current levels of flexibility are still valid for addressing the for ensuring flexibility –
uncertainty faced by manufacturing lean alignment

perspective (Slack, 2005, 1987; Koste and Malhotra, 1999; Benjaafar and
Ramakrishnan, 1996; Narain et al., 2000; Upton, 1994; Suarez and Cusumano, 1996;
Oke, 2005), where a flexibility type from one level (e.g. operational) can be aggregated
to a higher level flexibility type (e.g. tactical). An alternative approach is to examine
flexibility from a supply chain perspective. This approach, with the three elements
“source,” “make” and “deliver” (Supply-Chain-Council, 2008), can be categorized as
examining flexibility from an internal and external point of view (Narain et al., 2000;
JMTM Gupta and Goyal, 1989; Gerwin, 1993). A number of researchers have also sorted
20,3 flexibility types as hard vs soft flexibility. Slack (1983), for example, states that
hard flexibilities are those directly measurable whereas soft flexibilities are those who
are far less directly assessable although they also have a strong influence over how a
system behaves. The final approach commonly found in the literature is to sort
flexibility based on a long- or short-time frame (Slack, 2005; Bernardo and Mohamed,
354 1992; Teece et al., 2000; Hutchison and Das, 2007), whereas short-term flexibility is on
the operational level and contains, for example, product or adaptation flexibility.
Long-term flexibility, on the other hand, is associated with strategic decisions and
includes flexibility types such as process, volume, or production flexibility.
As no common or dominant understanding on how to structure the different
flexibility types exists, significant challenges are presented to researchers interested in
examining a small number or subset of the complete list of flexibility type.
Subsequently, the flexibility types used in this research are selected based on their
importance stated in literature, rather than being based on one of the many hierarchical
levels found in pervious studies. Based on a review of 50 studies that classify flexibility
types or discuss their relationship in significant detail, we identified the most
commonly cited flexibility types as volume (i.e. 66 per cent of the studies), machine
(i.e. 42 per cent), routing (i.e. 36 per cent), process (i.e. 34 per cent), and product
(i.e. 34 per cent). From this list of commonly cited flexibility types, this research will
examine product, process, and volume flexibility. In addition to popularity, we sought
types that were somewhat different from one another, so they could be easily
differentiated by manufacturing managers. The three flexibility types selected meet
this criterion. In addition, these flexibility types are at a level in the organization that
manufacturing managers could accurately report on their current levels, which we feel
is not the case for machine and routing flexibility. Our selection of flexibility types is
confirmed by authors such as Cox (1989), Hutchison and Das (2007), Oke (2003, 2005)
and Zhang et al. (2003) who state that volume flexibility is one of the two most
important manufacturing flexibility types. In addition, Athey and Schmutzler (1995)
states that process and product flexibility are the most important forms of flexibility to
satisfy the customer and stay competitive. Hutchison and Das (2007), Slack (2005) and
Teece et al. (2000) attach great importance to process and volume flexibility, as these
types of flexibility are correlated to strategic decisions.
To empirically test the 14 practices and their effectiveness for improving levels of
product, process, and volume flexibility, a survey questionnaire is used. The
questionnaire is divided into five sections with various portions adapted from Braglia
and Petroni (2000). The first section of the questionnaire captures, using a nine-point
Likert type scale, general organizational data, such as the competitive environment,
and frequency of new product and process introductions. The second section captures,
also using a nine-point Likert type scale, the importance and degree of various
flexibility types commonly used by manufacturing organizations to address
uncertainty. The flexibility types captured by this research include process, product,
and volume. The third section asks manufacturing managers (i.e. using a nine-point
Likert type scale) to comment on the importance of the 14 major practices presented in
Table II for improving flexibility in their facility. In addition, this section also allows
managers to list additional activities used to implement manufacturing flexibility in
their facility. The fourth section is again open-ended and asks managers to describe
their experiences with implementing manufacturing flexibility. Managers were asked Manufacturing
to describe a major uncertainty to which the manufacturing facility was required to flexibility
respond/adapt to. Possible examples include consumer demand increased/decreased,
quality of material was not consistent, need to manufacture different types of parts,
need to maintain the quality of the product, and the need to reduce cycle time (Braglia
and Petroni, 2000). In addition to describing the uncertainty, managers were asked to
comment on the responses (e.g. tools and techniques) that where put into place 355
(e.g. increased volume, employed more work force, cross-trained employees, more
inspection, etc.) to address the respective uncertainty, the process or steps used to
decide upon the responses, the major groups involved in determining what responses
to put into place, as well as the impact the responses had on various measures of
performance. The final section of the questionnaire is open-ended and presents
managers with the opportunity to give additional insight into the process of
implementing and managing manufacturing flexibility.

3.2 Research method

The questionnaire along with a cover letter as well as a self-addressed and stamped
envelope was sent during the Spring and Summer of 2006-1600 North American
manufacturing managers possessing a primary North American Industrial
Classification System – NAICS code (former SIC code) of 314 (i.e. textile products),
316 (i.e. leather and allied products), 326 (i.e. plastics and rubber products), 327
(i.e. nonmetallic mineral product), 332 (i.e. fabricated metal products), 333
(i.e. machinery manufacturing), or 337 (i.e. furniture and related products). Within
the questionnaire, a glossary with the explanations and definitions of product, process
and volume flexibility was provided, and should yield a higher degree of common
understanding of the terms used. Of the 1,600 surveys sent, 168 were returned useable,
while 59 were return to sender (i.e. individual left the company, company no longer in
business, incorrect address), resulting in a usable response rate of 11 per cent
(i.e. 168/(1,600-59)). Of the responding companies, 9 per cent (i.e. n ¼ 15) are from
textile, 17 per cent (i.e. n ¼ 28) from plastic and rubber products, 9 per cent (i.e. n ¼ 15)
from nonmetallic mineral products, 17 per cent (i.e. n ¼ 29) from fabricated metal
products, 37 per cent (i.e. n ¼ 62) from machinery manufacturing, and 11 per cent (i.e.
n ¼ 19) from furniture manufacturing.

3.3 Data analysis

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is used to determine any industry
differences in the importance and use of the three flexibility types selected for this
study (i.e. product, process, and volume). Results of performing MANOVA indicates no
significant differences (i.e. Wilks’ L ¼ 0.838, F(30, 630) ¼ 0.947, p ¼ 0.549). As a
result, the data from all industries are combined and analyzed collectively. Examining
the data collectively indicates that the need for process (i.e. mean ¼ 7.3), product
(i.e. mean ¼ 6.5), and volume (i.e. mean ¼ 7.61) flexibility are fairly high; yet the
current levels of these flexibility types in the organization are considerably less
(i.e. process flexibility ¼ 5.82; product flexibility ¼ 5.6; volume flexibility ¼ 5.99).
As with the flexibility types, MANOVA is applied to identify if any differences exist
in the importance of the 14 practices across the industries selected for this study.
Results of performing MANOVA indicates no such differences (i.e. Wilks’ L ¼ 0.603,
JMTM F(70, 699) ¼ 1.121, p ¼ 0.241). As a result, the data from the industries are again
20,3 combined and analyzed collectively. Table III indicates the importance of each of the 14
practices suggested in the literature for improving manufacturing flexibility.
Given the hundreds of possible tools and techniques that managers could be using
to improve flexibility, it was not practicable to capture them as individual Likert type
questions. Instead, open-ended questions captured managers’ perceptions of the most
356 important tools and techniques they were using to improve levels of flexibility in their
organization. Analysing this data using content analysis, Table IV highlights the
common tools and techniques, sorted to the flexibility strategies defined by Gerwin
(1993), used by managers to improve levels of flexibility.

4. Discussion
It is very clear that manufacturing managers realize the importance of flexibility in
their manufacturing operations. Organizations are investing in product, process, and
volume flexibility for a variety of reasons; with representative examples from
manufacturing managers including:
Need to be able to react quickly to market changes. In our case it was driven by changing
technology in the market. We were left in a bad situation when the product line profitability
and volume went away and we did not have any new products in the pipeline to take its place.
Domestic manufacturing can continue if quality, production selection and service are
increased while order lead times and decreased. Changes to our manufacturing process are
vital to ensure a successful and profitable company. At a time when profits are being
squeezed we must invest in improvement in employee skills as well as manufacturing
systems to remain competitive. Flexibility will be a key ingredient.
High volume traditional manufacturing is moving toward more flexibility, all major
players in this market are designing their newest equipment to stress flexibility over
productivity.
Global competition (low cost manufacturing) is forcing us to look for “lower volume” “high
margin” opportunities in the market. These opportunities require more flexibility and better
utilization of the innovation process to bring new products to market quickly and cost
effectively.

Practice N Mean SD

COMPSTRAT 167 7.04 1.609

MKTSTRAT 167 6.57 1.812
UNCERTAIN 168 7.55 1.285
GENCAP 168 7.50 1.267
FLEXROLE 168 7.29 1.336
STRATROLE 168 7.64 1.305
FLEXTYPES 167 7.26 1.354
UNCERTREDUCE 168 6.96 1.639
FLEXDOCU 168 6.40 1.772
DESIREDOC 168 6.83 1.642
Table III. FLEXIMP 168 6.98 1.538
Best practices for COMPARE 168 6.88 1.581
ensuring flexibility – PERFORM 168 7.45 1.471
lean alignment MEASURE 167 7.21 1.379
 Manufacturing
Flexibility strategy Tools and practices to achieve flexibility strategy
flexibility
Adaptation Basic lean practices
Six sigma quality
Visual display
Defect prevention
One-piece flow 357
Pull system
Kanban
Work cells
Single-minute exchange die (SMED)
Quality at source (JIDOKA)
Just-in-time (JIT) supply
Efficiency of motion and workplace practices
Value stream mapping
Total quality management (TQM)
Total preventive maintenance (TPM)
Kaizen (continuous improvement)
Poka-yoke
5S
Design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA)
Supplier management
Quality function deployment (QFD)
Cross-training
Automation/robotics
Reduction Long-term relationships with customers
Increase customer communication
Customer integration in development process
Long-term relationships with suppliers
Shared development products with suppliers
Vertical integration through strategic alliances
Strategic supplier management
Banking Safety stock building
Building inventory
Increase capacity
Increase workforce
Increase capability of employees to conduct more
than one task
Working over time
Safety stock building
Redefinition New product design
Modified processes Table IV.
Design innovation Common flexibility tools
Implementation of new technologies and techniques

Flexibility in today’s market is a must. People do not buy the black model T any more. The
task is to push all options as far down the process as possible.
When we are in a sold out market and are making acceptable profit, the need for
manufacturing flexibility in our process that is product focused – high volume and few
products – is low. However, when profit margins slip and we are not at full capacity, the
customer wants whatever it is we are not presently manufacturing and the need is
higher.
JMTM Although manufacturing managers realize the importance of manufacturing
20,3 flexibility, the extent to which such flexibility is being achieved lags, highlighting
the importance of identifying steps and practices to better narrow this gap. Current
levels of product, process, and volume flexibility are only moderate. Subsequently,
there is a gap between the importance of these three flexibility types and the extent
that they are being achieved in North American manufacturing organizations. The
358 greatest mismatch (i.e. difference) between the need of flexibility for the organization
and the extent it is being achieved is between volume flexibility (i.e. difference ¼ 1.62
on a nine-point scale), followed by process (i.e. difference ¼ 1.48) and product
flexibility (i.e. difference ¼ 0.9).
Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data, and a review of the
existing frameworks found in the literature (Table I), a framework is developed
outlining the use of best practices for ensuring manufacturing flexibility – lean
alignment, which are summarized in three stages, as shown in Figure 1.
The framework starts in stage one, by suggesting that through the involvement of
different members of the supply chain, such as key customers, suppliers, and the
various functional areas outside of manufacturing, the lean strategy, potential sources
of uncertainty, and the general capability of manufacturing to address these
uncertainties are examined in detailed (Suarez et al., 1991; Nilsson and Nordahl, 1995;
Narain et al., 2000). As part of this analysis, the role of manufacturing flexibility in
addressing the uncertainty faced by the organization is clearly stated and based on the
extant literature (Boyle, 2006; Gerwin, 1993) may include adapting to uncertainty,
reducing uncertainty, and/or redefining uncertainty. From this holistic examination of
flexibility, the flexibility types such as volume, product, and processes needed to
address uncertainty are identified. To ensure that lean and flexibility practices
complement one another, it is also critical for manufacturing managers to determine
how to reduce potential sources of uncertainties through the application of lean, in
addition to responding to uncertainty by improving levels of flexibility. Once the
relationship between flexibility types and lean is understood, the organizational
practices (e.g. cross-trained employees) and technological tools (e.g. flexible
manufacturing systems and versatile machine tools) needed to achieve the required
manufacturing flexibility types are identified and prioritized. As a result of the above
steps, the needed flexibility to address uncertainty, while keeping in mind the goals of
lean, are documented in terms of required flexibility types, lean changes need to reduce
uncertainty, flexibility tools and techniques needed to achieve the required flexibility
types, and required flexibility measurements and levels (Boyle, 2006).
In stage two, through the commonly cited gap analysis approach, the required
flexibility types are implemented using various tools and techniques. Based on the data
analysis common tools and techniques selected for flexibility improvements include,
for example, multi-functional teams and employees, focused factory; reduced setup
times, Kanban, and improved supplier relations. After implementing the required tools
and techniques, actual and required flexibility levels for each flexibility type are
compared in order determine any gaps. If no gaps exist between the actual and
required flexibility, then business performance is expected to improve (Boyle, 2006;
Swamidass and Newell, 1987; Upton, 1994; Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly, 2000;
Suarez et al., 1991).
 Manufacturing
Supply chain stakeholders: customers, suppliers, functional areas
flexibility
Organizational General
Marketing Potential sources capability to
strategy (e.g.,
strategy of uncertainty address
lean)
(MKTSTRAT) (UNCERTAIN) uncertainty
(COMPSTRAT) (GENCAP)

359
Role of flexibility
in addressing
uncertainty
(FLEXROLE)

Flexibility – Lean Flex – strategy

Identification & incorporation
Reconciliation (STRATROLE)
Common tools for uncertainty
reduction & adaptation

Basic lean – flexibility practices (e.g.,

Flexibility types Just-in-time supply (JIT), Value stream
(FLEXTYPES) mapping, Total quality management
(TQM), Kaizen (Continuous
improvement), Design for manufacturing
and assembly (DFMA)
Flexibility - Lean
reconciliation Cross training
(UNCERT- Automation / Robotics
REDUCE) Long-term relationships with customers
Increase customer communication
Customer integration in development
process
Identify required Long-term relationships with suppliers
flexibility types, Shared development products with
levels and tools suppliers
(DESIREDOC) Vertical integration through strategic
alliances
Implement Compare actual Strategic supplier management
Flexibility Selection flexibility tools and require
& Implementation and techniques flexibility fit
(FLEXIMP) (COMPARE) Common tools for uncertainty
redefinition
Measure and
document actual New product design
& required Modified processes
flexibility levels Design innovation
(FLEXDOC) Implementation of new technologies
Determine if
flexibility levels
are improving
performance
Flexibility (PERFORM)
Assessment
Reexamine Figure 1.
uncertainty to
ensure flex types Best practices for
remain valid
(MEASURE)
flexibility – lean
Stage
Best Tools & alignment
Practices Techniques

Stage three in the framework highlights the need to periodically compare the actual
flexibility to required flexibility to determine if, and why, a gap exists. As highlighted
by Boyle (2006), possible reasons for a gap may include inappropriate technological or
organizational tools selected, problems implementing and using the selected tools and
techniques, change management issues, lack of communication and management
support, and loss of commitment to flexibility improvements. In addition, managers
need to periodically compare current levels of flexibility to organizational,
JMTM manufacturing, and lean goals, to ensure that the flexibility types, and associated
20,3 levels and tools and techniques, chosen are still appropriate.
Stage one of the framework, emphasizes the need to including different groups (e.g.
suppliers, customers, sales and marketing) in flexibility decisions to ensure proper fit
with other organizational and manufacturing goals such as lean (Alukal, 2003; Crute
et al., 2003; Hines et al., 2004; Liker, 2004; Nash and Poling, 2007; Schonberger, 2005).
360 The benefit of such cross-functional involvement is highlighted in both the lean and
flexibility literature. For example, Alukal (2003, p. 33) suggests:
Creativity before capital: In lean, team brainstorming of ideas and solutions is emphasized
instead of spending large sums of money on capital expenditures. People working in the
process are brought together to tap into their experiences, skills, and brainpower to generate a
plan for waste reduction and process improvement.
A wide variety of groups involved in the selection of practices were also identified by
our respondents, yet the vast majority were from within the manufacturing group,
highlighting the reluctance to involve outside groups in how flexibility issues should
be resolved and the still insular view of manufacturing flexibility. Although we do see
some evidence of external involvement in flexibility decisions, there is still significant
room for improvement. Of the groups outside of traditional manufacturing/production,
quality management, suppliers, sales/marketing, and purchasing/procurement are the
most involved in helping manufacturing address flexibility issues.
To construct the framework shown in Figure 1, manufacturing managers were
asked to comment on the importance of the 14 practices for increasing levels of
flexibility in their facility. The major components of the framework is comprised using
the 14 steps highlighted in Table II. Results of the data analysis indicate that all of these
practices range from moderate to high in importance. The data analysis indicates that
the most important practices involved in improving flexibility include:
.
Incorporate the role of manufacturing flexibility into the manufacturing strategy
(STRATROLE).
.
Identify the major potential sources of uncertainty faced by the manufacturing
department, such as potential sources of demand variety, demand volume, and
supplier and customer constraints (UNCERTAIN).
.
Identify the general capability of the manufacturing department to address these
potential sources of uncertainty (GENCAP).
.
Determine if the desired flexibility, now that it has been achieved, is positively
contributing to the manufacturing strategy and improving business performance
(PERFORM).

Examining the written comments from manufacturing managers also highlight the
importance of such activities, with examples including:
Identify the process changes needed, prioritize the changes needed, identify support required to
assist with changes, formulate plan for each change, exercise the change and document results.
The changes require planning and phased implementation. Setting goals and defining each
task to make sure nothing was missed always looking for improvement at each step.
Business strategy – review the needs (gaps). Annually and work through the tactics. Again,
we are in a rapidly changing environment still a work in progress basically; all we have now is a
supplier corrective action program.
 Everything is 1st viewed through a lens of sustainability, how do we eliminate or reduce the Manufacturing
environment and social impacts. Product innovation and market segmentation drive the need
for manufacturing flexibility. flexibility
Although all practices were viewed to be moderate to high in importance, those
practices scoring on the lower end included:
.
document how each flexibility type will be measured (FLEXDOCU); 361
. examine the marketing strategy to ensure that efforts to improve flexibility are in
line with the strategy of the marketing department (MKTSTRAT); and
.
document the desired levels of each of flexibility type needed (DESIREDOC).

Overall, the data provides empirical support for the framework presented by Boyle
(2006), Olhager and West (2002), Narain et al. (2000), Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly
(2000), Nilsson and Nordahl (1995), Gerwin (1993), Schmenner and Tatikonda (2005),
Suarez et al. (1991), Slack (1988), Aaker and Mascarenhas (1984), Hitt et al. (1998) and
Abdel-Malek et al. (2000).
To gauge the tools and techniques actually used to improve flexibility,
manufacturing managers were asked to identify one major uncertainty faced by the
manufacturing department that they had to respond or adapt to. A wide variety of
uncertainty examples were given by managers with the most common including:
uncertainty surrounding the volume of the product (e.g. significant increases or
decreases in the demand for a key product, significant variations in demand for a key
product); product issues (e.g. addition of new products or product families, reduced
lead times); and process changes (e.g. raw material changes, increase or decrease in raw
materials). To determine the tools and techniques commonly used, managers were
asked to identify the best tools and techniques they put into place to address the
uncertainty they faced, as well as those they would have liked to have used but did not.
Combined, these two questions give a good indication of best tools and techniques
recommended for each type of uncertainty. As with the uncertainties themselves, a
wide variety of tools and techniques were identified. Analyzing the data using content
analysis indicates eighteen major tools and techniques, as presented in Table V.
The data indicate a number of tools and techniques that are commonly used
regardless of the uncertainty faced. The best tools and techniques as identified by
manufacturing managers include: multi-functional teams and employees; focused
factory; reduced setup times; Kanban; and overcapacity. Combining the data indicates
a spectrum of approaches that managers are taking to address flexibility, ranging from
an uncertainty reduction strategy using lean techniques to a banking strategy (Gerwin,
1993) using more traditional flexibility practices such as back-up machinery and
stockpiling parts.
By far, the most common tools and techniques manufacturing mangers use to
improve the flexibility of their manufacturing facility fall under the lean umbrella. By
eliminating waste, a major goal of lean, the impact of changing environmental
(e.g. increasing costs of raw materials) and internal conditions may have a lesser
impact on the manufacturing facility, versus a facility not practicing lean. As a result,
with lean the focus is on eliminating the impact of uncertainly versus adopting or
responding to an uncertainty once it becomes a reality. With the dominance of the lean
 20,3

362

Table V.
JMTM

tools and techniques

Most common flexibility
Gerwin’s strategy Tools and techniques Volume uncertainty Process uncertainty Product uncertainty Sum absolute Sum percentage

Adaptation Multifunctional employees 31 23 5 59 18

Adaptation Focused factory 19 17 5 41 12
Adaptation Reduced setup times 21 8 9 38 11
Adaptation Kanban 12 6 3 21 6
Banking Overcapacity 11 6 2 19 6
Adaptation Group technology 10 6 2 18 5
Adaptation TPM 8 1 3 12 4
Reduction Communication improvement 5 4 3 12 4
Reduction Forecasting 6 2 4 12 4
Adaptation Kaizen 1 7 3 11 3
Banking Capacity variation 6 4 1 11 3
Adaptation One piece flow 6 2 2 10 3
Adaptation Total quality control 3 3 4 10 3
Adaptation Quality circles 5 2 1 8 2
Banking Stock building 5 1 1 7 2
Adaptation Just-in-time purchasing 5 0 1 6 2
Adaptation 5S 3 2 0 5 1
Adaptation Value stream mapping 3 1 1 5 1
Rest 14 9 7 30 9
Sum 174 104 57 335 100
philosophy in today’s manufacturing companies, it seems the preferred approach to Manufacturing
improving flexibility is to reduce or eliminate potential impacts of uncertainty. flexibility
Under the lean umbrella, a wide variety of practices are cited by manufacturing
managers, including improved measures of performance, increased visual displays
(e.g. 5S), and increased data collection and analysis. In addition to these fairly basic
practices, other cited practices are closer to lean thinking and include long-term
relationships with customers and suppliers and increased workforce engagement. Of 363
the top five best practices identified by manufacturing managers (Table V), with
exception of overcapacity, all practices are considered as part of lean. Those companies
not pursuing lean were more focused on a banking flexibility strategy (Gerwin, 1993).
Specifically, these companies focused on building extra capability or capacity that
would be used to address a perceived future uncertainty, such as predictable seasonal
volume increase or decrease. Those companies pursuing a banking strategy were using
three practices, specifically building safety stock, investing in excess production
capacity, and creating overcapacity. Such flexibility banking practices do not align
themselves well with lean. For example, backup machines on the shop floor (e.g. excess
production capacity), great for a banking strategy, is viewed to be a waste from a lean
perspective, and substantial safety stock is not inline with just-in-time inventory
systems, a critical component of lean thinking. Until recently such practices were seen
as common place for improving flexibility, however as more and more companies
pursue lean, such practices are likely to be replaced with those that enable both
flexibility and lean improvements.

5. Conclusion
This research identifies the best practices, tools, and techniques for improving
flexibility in manufacturing organizations, while ensuring that such efforts are inline
with broader organizational goals, such a lean. This research makes a number of
contributions important for researchers and practicing managers alike. For
researchers, this study empirically test the best practices identified in the literature
and in doing so provides empirical support for the frameworks developed in previous
research studies (Olhager and West, 2002; Narain et al., 2000; Schmenner and
Tatikonda, 2005). To practicing managers, this research highlights the practices, as
well as corresponding tools and techniques, they should consider when improving
flexibility in their manufacturing facility. In addition, for those organizations pursuing
lean, this study indicates those practices that managers believe will help achieve both
flexibility improvements and lean goals. Future research should further examine the
relationship between these practices by developing and testing a structural equation
model of these practices, and potential mediating (e.g. management commitment,
organizational culture) and dependent variables (e.g. extent lean thinking, business
performance).
This research is focused on a specific set of industries (e.g. textile, plastics and
machinery) and in a specific geographic area (i.e. North America). As a result, applying
the findings to organizations outside of this industrial or geographic scope must be
approached with caution. Future research is also needed to expand the study to include
additional geographic areas and industries in order to develop a more holistic set of
best practices and a more robust framework.
JMTM References
20,3 Aaker, D.A. and Mascarenhas, B. (1984), “The need for strategic flexibility”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 74-82.
Abdel-Malek, L., Das, S.K. and Wolf, C. (2000), “Design and implementation of flexible
manufacturing solutions in agile enterprises”, International Journal of Agile Management
Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 187-95.
364 Alukal, G. (2003), “Create a lean, mean machine”, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, p. 29.
Anand, G. and Ward, P.T. (2004), “Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: coping with
dynamic environments”, Production Operations Management Society, Vol. 13, pp. 369-85.
Athey, S. and Schmutzler, A. (1995), “Product and process flexibility in an innovative
environment”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 557-74.
Benjaafar, S. and Ramakrishnan, R. (1996), “Modelling, measurement and evaluation of
sequencing flexibility in manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 34, p. 1195.
Bernardo, J.J. and Mohamed, Z. (1992), “The measurement and use of operational flexibility in the
loading of flexible manufacturing systems”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 60, pp. 144-55.
Boyle, T.A. (2006), “Towards best management practices for implementing manufacturing
flexibility”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17, pp. 6-21.
Braglia, M. and Petroni, A. (2000), “Towards a taxonomy of search patterns of manufacturing
flexibility in small and medium-sized firms”, Omega, Vol. 28, p. 195.
Cox, T. (1989), “Toward the measurement of manufacturing flexibility”, Production & Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 68-72.
Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S. and Graves, A. (2003), “Implementing lean in aerospace –
challenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges”, Technovation, Vol. 23,
pp. 917-28.
Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2001), “Manufacturing strategy: literature review and
some issues”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 884-932.
Davies, A. and Kochhar, A. (2002), “Manufacturing best practices and performance studies: a
critique”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22,
pp. 289-306.
Drazin, R. and van de Ven, A.H. (1985), “Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, p. 514.
D’Souza, D.E. and Williams, F.P. (2000), “Toward a taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility
dimensions”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 577-93.
Friedli, T. (2006), Technologiemanagement: Modelle zur Sicherung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit,
Springer, Berlin.
Gerwin, D. (1993), “Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective”, Management Science,
Vol. 39, p. 395.
Gupta, Y.P. and Goyal, S. (1989), “Flexibility of manufacturing systems: concepts and
measurements”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 43, pp. 119-35.
Hines, P., Holwe, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24,
pp. 994-1011.
Hitt, M.A., Keats, B.W. and DeMarie, S.M. (1998), “Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Manufacturing
building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 12, p. 22.
flexibility
Hutchison, J. and Das, S.R. (2007), “Examining a firm’s decisions with a contingency framework
for manufacturing flexibility”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 159-80.
Ketokivi, M. (2006), “Elaborating the contingency theory of organizations: the case of 365
manufacturing flexibility strategies”, Production & Operations Management, Vol. 15,
pp. 215-28.
Koste, L.L. and Malhotra, M.K. (1999), “A theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of
manufacturing flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 75-93.
Koste, L.L. and Malhotra, M.K. (2000), “Trade-offs among the elements of flexibility:
a comparison from the automotive industry”, Omega, Vol. 28, p. 693.
Koste, L.L., Malhotra, M.K. and Sharma, S. (2004), “Measuring dimensions of manufacturing
flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, p. 171.
Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Narain, R., Yadav, R.C., Sarkis, J. and Cordeiro, J.J. (2000), “The strategic implications of
flexibility in manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Agile Management
Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 202-13.
Nash, M.A. and Poling, S.R. (2007), “Improving quality through lean concepts”, Quality, Vol. 46,
pp. 24-5.
Nilsson, C. and Nordahl, H. (1995), “Making manufacturing flexibility operational – Part 1:
a framework”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 5-11.
Oke, A. (2003), “Drivers of volume flexibility requirements in manufacturing plants”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23, pp. 1497-513.
Oke, A. (2005), “A framework for analysing manufacturing flexibility”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25, pp. 973-96.
Olhager, J. and West, B.M. (2002), “The house of flexibility: using the QFD approach to deploy
manufacturing flexibility”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 22, p. 50.
Schmenner, R.W. and Tatikonda, M.V. (2005), “Manufacturing process flexibility revisited”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1183-9.
Schonberger, R.J. (2005), “Lean extended”, Industrial Engineer: IE, Vol. 37, pp. 26-31.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 785-805.
Slack, N. (1983), “Flexibility as a manufacturing objective”, International Journal of Production
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 4-13.
Slack, N. (1987), “The flexibility of manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 7, pp. 35-45.
Slack, N. (1988), “Manufacturing systems flexibility – an assessment procedure”,
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 25-31.
Slack, N. (2005), “The flexibility of manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1190-200.
JMTM Stevenson, M. and Spring, M. (2007), “Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition and
review”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27,
20,3 pp. 685-713.
Suarez, F.F. and Cusumano, M.A. (1996), “An empirical study of manufacturing flexibility in
printed circuit board assembly”, Operations Research, Vol. 44, p. 223.
Suarez, F.F., Cusumano, M.A. and Fine, C.H. (1991), “Flexibility and performance: a literature
366 critique and strategic framework”, working paper.
Supply-Chain-Council (2008), Supply-Chain Operations Reference-model: SCOR Version 8.0
Overview, available at: www.supply-chain.org
Swamidass, P.M. and Newell, W.T. (1987), “Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty
and performance: a path analytic model”, Management Science, Vol. 33, p. 509.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (2000), in Nature and Dynamics of Organizational
Capabilities, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Upton, D.M. (1994), “The management of manufacturing flexibility”, California Management
Review, Vol. 36, p. 72.
Upton, D.M. (1995), “What really makes factories flexible?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73
No. 4, pp. 74-84.
Vokurka, R.J. and O’Leary-Kelly, S.W. (2000), “A review of empirical research on manufacturing
flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 485-501.
Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M.A. and Lim, J-S. (2003), “Manufacturing flexibility: defining and
analyzing relationships among competence, capability, and customer satisfaction”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 21, p. 173.
Zukin, M. and Dalcol, P. (2000), “Manufacturing flexibility: assessing managerial perception and
utilization”, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 5-23.

Corresponding author
Todd A. Boyle can be contacted at: tboyle@stfx.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints