Int. J.

Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169

Working towards agile manufacturing in the UK industry

J.M. Sharp , Z. Irani
*, S. Desai
Centre for Marketing and Communication, TIME Research Institute, University of Salford, Salford, UK

Centre for Living Information Systems Thinking, Department of Information Systems and Computing, University of Brunel, Uxbridge,
Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK

Abstract
The business environment is one which is ever more demanding on companies, due to its sheer dynamism, which
means that they are constantly having to improve their manufacturing performance. Organisations are continuously
having to cope with changing markets that are unpredictable and more diversi"ed, increasing global competition and
ever changing customer demands. Companies now have to be able to not only predict variations and changes within the
market and socio-economic and political environments but must also be able to adapt and change in accordance with
these environments. As a result, this demands that an organisation develops and sustains an inherent ability to
continuously change. Such a demand can be met by adopting the management philosophy of agile manufacturing. In
embracing such an approach, there are a lot of key concepts and enabling technologies that are required to be able to
implement agile manufacturing and many companies do not know how far down the path they are towards becoming
agile manufacturing organisations. Hence, in providing a deeper understanding, this paper proposes a conceptual model,
based on joint research, which has been developed to identify where UK's best practice companies are in their quest to
become agile manufacturing organisations. In support of this, a questionnaire has been developed and completed by best
practitioners of manufacturing, to assess the model, and establish whether they are making progress to becoming agile
manufacturing organisations.  1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Manufacturing; Agility; Conceptual model

1. Introduction leading to intense and increasingly global competi-

In today's competitive environment businesses
are undergoing profound changes. There is
a world-wide spread of education and technology,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #44 1895 274000;2133; fax:
#44 1895 251 686; e-mail: zahir.irani@brunel.ac.uk.
tion and accelerating rate of marketplace change.
There is a continuing fragmentation of mass mar-
kets into niche markets as customers are becoming
more demanding with increasing expectations.
Also, there is a spread of collaborative product
manufacture with suppliers and customers, joining
together to add value within the supply chain.
In order to cope with these changes, companies are
striving to improve their manufacturing performance.

0925-5273/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 2 2 8 - X
156 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
Halberstam [1] and Lamming [2] discuss the
problems encountered by companies applying mass
production techniques as they try to keep pace with
the changing market requirements. Monden [3]
discusses how the Toyoto Production System gave
Japanese companies a manufacturing advantage
whilst Womack et al. [4] introduced the term
`Lean Manufacturinga which was introduced to
improve manufacturing companies' competitive-
ness. Also, Deming [5], Juran [6] and Oakland [7]
identi"ed how total quality management, long re-
garded as a partner to just-in-time (JIT) [8] was
maturing as a successful management philosophy.
Clearly, there appears to be many manufacturing
panaceas, with much description about their phil-
osophy. Although, there is no one de"nition of lean
manufacturing, with most agreeing that lean enter-
prise includes external activities such as supply
chain management, distribution and design [9].
The manufacturing trilogy of JIT, total quality and
team involvement should be at the core of every
lean enterprise according to Bicheno [10]. To be
a world class factory requires all three; they are
mutually supportive. However, in looking beyond
the factory #oor, a lean enterprise also requires
supplier involvement, distribution logistics, IT/IS,
e!ective design and attention to service. Therefore,
JIT [11] can be thought of as largely within the
plant whereas lean manufacturing extends the
boundaries.
2. Agile manufacturing
Since Goldman et al. [12] at Lehigh University
in the USA introduced the term &&agile manufactur-
ing'' organisations have striven to gain competitive
advantage from such a philosophy. In 1991 Gold-
man and Priess [13] established the agility forum
with signi"cant US government funding, together
with additional balancing funds from US industry,
which had the support of 35 sta! and consultants
[14]. A lean company may be thought of as a very
productive and cost e$cient producer of goods or
services, whereas, an agile company is primarily
characterised as a very fast and e$cient learning
organisation. At "rst, agile manufacturing may
seem as simply being an alternative way of describ-
ing the lean/#exible approach to running a manu-
facturing business. While there are similarities,
Booth and Hammer [15] point to the fundamental
di!erences. These are:
E Lean production is regarded by many as simply
an enhancement of mass production methods,
whereas agility implies breaking out of the
mass-production mould and producing much
more highly customised products } where the
customer wants them in any quantity.
E In a product line context, it amounts to striving
for economies of scope, rather than economies of
scale } ideally serving ever-smaller niche mar-
kets, even quantities of one, without the high cost
traditionally associated with customisation.
E Agile manufacturing further requires an all en-
compassing view, whereas lean production is
typically associated only with the factory #oor.
E Agility further embodies such concepts as rapid
formation of multi-company alliances or virtual
companies to introduce new products to the
market.
E A lean company may be thought of as a very
productive and cost e$cient producer of goods
or services.
E An agile company is primarily characterised as
a very fast and e$cient learning organisation if it
was not "rst productive and cost e$cient.
Table 1 shows the key di!erentiators between
mass, lean and agile. It appears that there is a grow-
ing shift way from the concept of lean manufactur-
ing, and one which is moving towards the new
management philosophy of agile production. This
trend has arisen because lean production methods,
which originated in Japan, are not suitable for the
competitive environment that will face manufac-
turers during the 21st century.
Table 2 shows the conceptual di!erences and
relationships of the di!erent industrial eras as dis-
cussed by Nelson and Harvey [16]. Customers,
markets and competitors are becoming increas-
ingly unpredictable, and this does not suit lean
production methods such as JIT. By contrast, agile
manufacturing aims to perform well, both opera-
tionally and strategically, in turbulent environ-
ments [17]. Maskwell [18] identi"es that lean or
World Class Manufacturing is being very good at
 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169 157

Table 1
Key di!erentiators

Mass Lean Agile

Drivers E Price E Market E Customer

E Economy of scales E Economy of waste E Economy of diversity
E Stable markets E Predictable markets E Unpredictable markets
E Demand led E Make to forecast E Make to order

Focus E Equipment and Facilities E Technology and Systems E People and Information

Suppliers E Many E Fewer E Selection from many

E Low level of trust E High level of trust E High level of trust
E Adversarial E (long-term) E (short-term)
E Relationship E Co-operative E Shared risk/reward

Organisation E Division of labour E Teaming E Multi skilling

E Hierarchical E Flatter organisation E Empowerment

Product E Few options E Many options E Customised

E Inconsistent quality E High quality E Fitness for purpose

Process E Rigid E Flexible E Adaptive

E Hands on labour E Automated E Knowledge based

Philosophy E Authoritative E Administrative E Leadership

Table 2
Conceptual di!erences and relationships of the di!erent industrial eras

Mass, Lean and Agile Manufacturing

Mass manufacturing Lean manufacturing Agile manufacturing

Invest in equipment and facilities Invest in technology Invest in people information systems
High touch labour Removed layers Multi-skilled work force
Specialisation Reduced waste Robust, recon"gurable teams, equipment,
infrastructure
Little worker input Worker input Partnering in all stages of manufacturing
Many layers Established teams Self-directed work teams, management
break barriers
Slow decision making Greater dependence on suppliers E!ective Technology and information in-
tegration
Workers could buy products they made Stable process
Product development time in years Product development time in months Development time in weeks
Inconsistent quality High quality at point of sale High quality across product life

doing the things you can control, whilst agile
manufacturing deals with the things you cannot
control.
Goldman [19] de"nes `Agility is a comprehens-
ive strategic response to fundamental and irrevers-
ible changes that are taking place in the dominant
system of commercial competition in &First World'
economicsa. Fig. 1 shows how Goldman [19]
points out that industry is changing from competi-
tion based on mass-market products and services,
158 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
Fig. 1. Evolution of agility.
to competition based on niche market products
and services.
Kidd [20] identi"ed that companies are con-
cerned about change, uncertainty and unpredicta-
bility within their business environments.
Therefore, the important properties of an agile en-
terprise, required to deal with change, uncertainty
and unpredictability are evidently that the organ-
isation be fast, adaptable and robust. Everything is
changing quickly and unpredictably. The market
requires low volume, high quality, custom and
speci"c products. These products have very short
life-cycles, therefore, short development and pro-
duction lead times are required. Mass production
is moribund. Customers want to be treated as
individuals. This leads to a people intensive,
relationship driven operation. Perfect quality
and very high levels of service are expected and
required. Products and services become informa-
tion-rich, [21].
The swift trend towards a multiplicity of "nished
products with short development and production
lead times has led many companies into problems
with inventories, overheads, and e$ciencies. They
are trying to apply the traditional mass-production
approach without realising that the whole environ-
ment has changed. Mass production does not apply
to products where the customers require small
quantities of highly custom, design-to-order prod-
ucts, where additional services and value-added
bene"ts like product upgrades and future recon-
"gurations are as important as the product itself
[16].
Whilst it is di$cult for many people to accept
that mass production must be replaced with new
approaches, there are many telling signs. The pro-
liferation of "nished products; the rapidly increas-
ing introduction of new products; short product life
cycles; the customer demand for products that spe-
ci"cally address their needs [22]. All these trends
negate the fundamental ideas of mass production
that have served the western industry so well for
decades. Even world class manufacturing and best
practice approaches are based upon the time-
honored concepts of mass production [23].
The famed toyota production system (TPS)
has two kinds of products; type A and type B. Type
A is a standard product and type B is a custom
product. Practitioners of TPS strive hard to elimin-
ate type B parts and products as they do not "t the
concepts of one piece part #ow and rate-based
schedules [3]. An agile approach to manufacturing
 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
faces the reality that customers must be served with
small quantities of custom designed parts of per-
fect quality, 100% on-time delivery, and at very
low cost.
To strive towards agile manufacturing, requires
that the company already be World Class, and
using lean manufacturing methods. This is the
starting point, agility can only be built on a "rm
foundation. These changes are more apparent in
some industries than others. In the consumer elec-
tronics and automotive industries the need for agil-
ity is more apparent. New products are introduced
rapidly and the range of products is increasing at
an astonishing level. The customers and the mar-
kets are becoming continuously more fragmented
and specialised. Only the innovative and agile com-
panies will survive. Agility for an organisation is
a paradox, in that an agile manufacturer has to be
lean, #exible and able to respond rapidly to chang-
ing situations; yet it is recognised that no one com-
pany will have all the necessary resources to meet
every opportunity. This means that companies will
have to rely increasingly on partners and suppliers.
In agile manufacturing the roles of partnerships are
well de"ned by Berry et al. [24] and Meade et al.
[25].
3. UK manufacturing and agility
Many reports have demonstrated that the only
way to achieve a positive balance of trade is
through manufacturing [26]. UK manufacturing
has been under tremendous pressures in recent
years, and its state has been an emotive subject.
According to Hamel and Parahalad [27], between
1975 and 1991 UK manufacturing's output went up
by only 10% in real terms, and during the early and
mid 1980s British companies demonstrated a scant
ability to create new markets at home or abroad. In
e!ect, they surrendered global market share.
`Made in Britaina, a report published by
London Business School, o!ers the results of
a comprehensive benchmark of the practices and
performance in relation to UK manufacturing in-
dustry [28]. A summary of the results are outlined
as follows:
159
E 73% of the manufacturers believe that, either
fully or mostly, they match up to the standards of
their best international competitors.
E Only 2% of the manufacturers can be said
to be truly world class, but 42% have most of
the practices in place to become world class.
21% are signi"cantly lagging on both practices
and performance criteria and 7% are `punch
bagsa.
E The best overall practice/performance typically
came from manufacturing sites between 50 and
200 employees.
E The adoption of BS5750 (now ISO9000) does not
itself guarantee any improvement in quality per-
formance.
E Manufacturers are encouragingly customer-fo-
cused with customers and clients being the most
important source of advice.
E There are no `quick "xesa } the leading com-
panies are better than those lagging behind be-
cause they adopted practices and improved their
performance at every level.
E The biggest inhibitor to achieving business
objectives is not lack of funding, government
policies or interest-rate stability but the ability to
implement change quickly.
The above research highlights that British manu-
facturers are not as far down the route to becoming
world class organisations as they had originally
thought. In view of the fact that lean manufacturing
and world class manufacturing are traditionally
positions in an organisation's migration towards
the ultimate goal of agile manufacturing [16,22], it
is clear that there is a need for a model that details
all the key enablers, that are required for a company,
to become an agile manufacturing organisation.
4. A conceptual model to work towards agile
manufacturing
Goldman et al. [12] identi"ed the key drivers of
the transformation to becoming an agile manufac-
turing enterprise. They conceptualised a manufac-
turing enterprise capable of competing e!ectively in
such an environment, reaching a plateau with the
following accomplishments:
160 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
E The articulation of a vision of mature agile
manufacturing enterprises as the inevitable suc-
cessor to mass production enterprises for many
kinds of products.
E The identi"cation of the structural parameters of
an agile manufacturing enterprise and of a set of
generic infrastructure requirements of agility.
E The formulation of an action agenda for indus-
try, government, and academia in order to accel-
erate, guide, and reinforce the transition to
agility.
This created a consensus in the manufacturing
industry that the vision it contained of an emerging
new system of manufacturing was generally valid.
At the same time, it created a demand to identify in
greater detail, the menu of agility-enhancing activ-
ities from which corporate leaders could select
those items appropriate to their own companies
and strategies.
The National Academy of Engineering has de-
"ned what are known as the foundations of world
class practice of manufacturing systems [29]. It is
argued that these foundations are as interrelated
and overlapping as are the elements of the manu-
facturing system they are intended to improve. The
foundations are, however, a system of action orien-
tated principles whose collective application
can produce important improvement in the
manufacturing enterprise. The foundations are
ideally suited to agile manufacturing. Eleven
foundations have been proposed by Heim and
Compton [29].
Kidd [30], suggests agile manufacturing can be
considered as a structure within which every com-
pany can develop its own business strategies and
products. The structure is supported by three pri-
mary resources, innovative management structures
and organisation, a skills base of knowledgeable
and empowered people, and #exible and intelligent
technologies. Underpinning these three primary
resources is a methodology of integration. Agility is
achieved through the integration of these three
resources, into a coordinated, interdependent
system. These must be taken into account if an
organisation is to carry out agile manufacturing.
Hence, from a review of the normative literature,
the authors have developed the conceptual model
through culminating many research propositions.
The proposed model is shown in Fig. 2.
The foundations have been identi"ed by Kidd
[30] and Dove [31] whilst many of the key en-
ablers are discussed by Goldman et al. [12]. The
resultant output (roof of the model) comes from
Gunasekaran [32]. The key enablers/pillars at the
genesis of the model are presented in more detail as
follows:
E Core competencies are de"ned by Prahalad and
Hamel [33] to be collective learning processes
focused on developing and co-ordinating a di-
verse range of skills and capabilities. These are
like the hidden roots of a tree, giving corpora-
tions their strength. Enterprises should use them
to form core products, for use in a diverse range
of business operations.
E A virtual enterprise is where companies can
form temporary alliances to make a speci"c
product for a speci"c period of time, and
then dissolve these alliances as the participants
move on to other projects [34]. A virtual com-
pany carries out all the functions necessary to
exploit a particular set of business opportunities
[19].
E Rapid prototyping is a technique that allows
the concurrent engineering team to produce an
actual physical model of a design within days
or even hours as opposed to months, as with
traditional prototyping methods. This is one of
the major enablers for agile manufacturing
[35,36].
E Concurrent engineering is a systematic approach
to the integrated concurrent design of products
and their related processes, including manufac-
ture and support. The full bene"ts can be
achieved only when a signi"cant number of
changes at all levels within an organisation have
been made [37].
E Multi skilled and #exible people are a result of
training programs to ensure everyone has the
knowledge, skills and competence to be able to
carry out their jobs and have the #exibility to
rapidly be able to be carry out other tasks
[38,39].
E Continuous improvement is the reiterative pro-
cess of planning, changing, evaluating and
 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
Fig. 2. Theoretical model for agile manufacturing.
improving elements within the organisational
structure. This process may also take place in
conjunction with external suppliers and cus-
tomers [40}42].
E Team work is carried out by groups of em-
ployees who are allowed to function as a unit
with very little and sometimes no supervision
[43]. Barkman [44] discusses increased em-
ployee participation, at many organisational
levels through the use of team work.
E Change and risk management is the process of
de-initiating an organisational culture from tra-
ditional values and practices, changing these to
re#ect new ideas and beliefs, to `seta these as the
new norm for the organisation [45,46].
E Information technology (I.T.) applications
allows agile manufacturing to achieve reductions
in product development [13]. Designs are
developed and managed through information
media. For example, manufacturing resource
161
planning MRPII applications, and product
data management applications [47,48]. Alter-
native designs are evaluated and design
issues addressed through simulation analyses
[49,50].
E Empowerment involves people forming informal
networks, as and when needed. To be able to do
this e!ectively, managers should provide an in-
frastructure to support employee empowerment
[51,52].
5. Measuring agility
Organisations may ask what precisely is agility
and how can it be measured. Most are unsure as to
how they will know when they have it, as there are
no simple metrics or indices currently available.
Therefore, organisations may well ask how
they can develop both analytical and intuitive
162 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
understandings of `agilenessa in their particular
operating environments. Dove [31] outlines how
the investigation of these questions continues in
various forums, with some answers and tools begin-
ning to take shape. The journey to agility is a never-
ending quest to do better than the competition,
even as the competitive environment constantly
changes. Currently companies should not be asking
whether they are agile, but rather are they making
progress in the right direction, how fast are they
progressing, and how they are relative to the
competition? Indeed, it is this stance that forms
much of the research presented in this paper.
To answer these questions requires a knowledge
of what to measure, how to measure and how to
evaluate the results. The answers to these questions
will not be available for every industry, govern-
ment, and service sector for several more years. At
present researchers are searching for the answers to
the measurement questions. Goldman et al. [53]
point out that the best anyone can do to measure
progress to agility is to use the limited measure-
ment knowledge currently available, follow the
development of this knowledge by means of profes-
sional contacts of all kinds and by measuring hands
on, using the limited knowledge.
Agility will be built on the "rm foundation of
world class or lean manufacturing methods,
coupled with an organisation that is physically,
technologically, and managerially established for
rapid and unpredictable change. In order to vali-
date the conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, it was
decided to use a questionnaire which would be
completed by leading UK manufacturing com-
panies, identi"ed by the Department of Trade and
Industry, as practitioners of best practice. In doing
so, assessing the model and establishing whether
they are making progress to becoming agile manu-
facturing organisations. With this in mind a ques-
tionnaire was developed.
6. Research methodology: Development of
questionnaire
The questions were formulated using the key
principles of questionnaire design as discussed by
Jankowicz [54]. Sections from the books by Gold-
man et al. [23] and Goldman et al. [55] provided
the direction for constructing the questions, whilst
Dove [56] and Kidd, [57] gave advice with the
content for the questions. Fifty questions were con-
structed in the form of a statement related to the
agile manufacturing philosophy. Each answer had
a "ve point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree, which respondents could
complete in the minimum of time. The "rst six
questions asked how the company assessed their
market environment, the next six asked about com-
pany strengths with the following six asking about
company strategic objectives. The remaining 32
questions asked about the key enablers, listed
above. The completed questionnaire which was
used in the survey is discussed in detail by Desai
[58].
Prototypes of the questionnaire were tested out
with local companies to try and minimise the ambi-
guity of the questions. The questionnaire was
designed to be mailed to the respondents which has
the disadvantage that any doubts the respondents
might have cannot be clari"ed. Another disadvan-
tage of questionnaires is the return rates are typi-
cally not as high as might be desired. To improve
the rates of response each questionnaire had a
personalised cover letter, the respondents were
provided with stamped, self-addressed return envel-
opes, and the questionnaire had a high presenta-
tional standard.
One hundred and ten companies were identi"ed,
of which all carried out manufacturing activities,
from the `Inside UK Enterprise (Managing In The
90s)a booklet produced by the DTI and discussed
by Wheatley [59]. The booklet contains many of
Britain's best companies. They have been chosen
from over 1000 entries to demonstrate best practice
in a wide range of areas such as cellular production,
automation, JIT, MRPII and continuous improve-
ments [59].
The companies were contacted by telephone
to establish named individuals at director or
manager level with responsibilities for manufactur-
ing, technical and/or quality. The questionnaire
had been designed to measure if the best practice
companies were moving in the direction of agility
or fragility?
 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
7. Data analysis
Questionnaires were sent to 110 leading UK
manufacturing companies. Correspondence was re-
ceived from 48 di!erent organisations, of which 42
had completed the questionnaires. Data from the
questionnaires (all the responses to 50 questions
per questionnaire) was fed into a spreadsheet,
which tabulated the results. The detailed results of
the survey are presented by Desai [58]. Key results
have been extracted from the data in order to
evaluate the ten enablers identi"ed in the concep-
tual model presented in Table 2. For brevity sev-
eral of the enablers have been grouped together for
presenting the results in this paper.
7.1. Core competencies, multi-skilled and -exible
people
An agile manufacturing environment will de-
mand an agile workforce, capable of shifting job
descriptions and skills as the various situations
warrant. Not only will the worker be familiar with
the company's product line but in the partnering
atmosphere of tomorrow's corporations, people
may be called upon to provide expertise in skills
that vary substantially from those to which he has
been accustomed. Agile companies are committed
to continuous workforce training and education
and see it as an investment rather than a cost [60].
92% of the respondents agreed that continuous
training was seen by the management as an invest-
ment, whilst 82% agreed that their company was
committed to continuous training and education of
the workforce. Also 71% agreed that active steps
were being taken to increase the education of the
employees with 7% disagreeing. Additionally, 76%
agreed that personal development needs are identi"ed
to help develop career paths although only 51%
agreed that the company had identi"ed the core skills
and competencies of all its employees. When asked if
the core skills and competencies are constantly
benchmarked, only 13% agreed with 34% disagree-
ing and the remaining 49% being undecided.
Comparisons between Japanese and Western
manufacturing enterprises often show that the
Japanese regard people as assets. In the west, com-
163
panies regard people as a cost to be minimised. In
traditional plants, shop #oor people are often ex-
pected to think about only those issues that they
are told to think about. In Japanese companies, it is
claimed, tap into the creativity of their shop #oor
people [30]. From the respondents 76% agreed
that the employees' skills and knowledge are treated
as assets and 64% agreed that their companies were
investing in the core skills and competencies.
7.2. Empowerment, teamwork and continuous
improvement
For an agile company the organisational struc-
ture must be as `#ata as possible, to be dynamic,
routinely recon"gurable in response to constantly
changing circumstances, and e!ective in meeting
constantly changing goals and performance objec-
tives. From the respondents 60% agreed that their
company had a #at organisational structure, with
only 17% disagreeing. By contrast traditional com-
panies have a tall organisational structure and from
the "ndings only 10% agreed to having a tall hier-
archy with 73% disagreeing. In an agile company,
personnel at all levels must be empowered to seek
out the information they need in order to make the
best decisions. Therefore, they must be empowered
to make decisions that continuous improvement of
processes can be achieved. From the responses
41% agreed that employees were allowed to make
their own decisions regarding their work, however,
in contrast to that, 46% respondents replied as
undecided. 34% of respondents agreed that the
number of suggestions per employee per year has
increased considerably whilst 36% disagreed, with
26% being undecided. One assumption is that these
two questions may have been ambiguous, and
therefore, the respondents may not be sure exactly
what was meant. By contrast, traditional com-
panies practice centralised decision making.
In an agile company management practice `mac-
ro-managementa, that is, management by coaching,
supporting, and leading; by challenging the work-
force with bold goals, providing the resources
required, and leaving to them the precise means of
accomplishing those goals. The DTI companies re-
sponded by 63% agreeing that the management have
164 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
moved away from the command and control ap-
proach to coach and coordinate, with 22% undecided
and only 5% disagreeing. By contrast, traditional
companies practice centralised decision-making,
managers are autocratic and directive [47,48].
7.3. Information technology and communication
Agility is gained by reducing hierarchic manage-
rial control, setting up workers in teams and em-
powering them to make decisions. In a large
organisation these teams will need access to rapid
and reliable communication and information sys-
tems to communicate and do their work. Of the
respondents, 32% perceived information to be the
bottleneck in their company, 20% perceived it to be
plant and equipment whilst 46% perceived it to be
an assortment of others. Not to be able to respond
to customer opportunities within the enterprise and
between enterprises through information #ow is
recognised as the bottleneck. By contrast, tradi-
tional companies consider plant and equipment as
the critical bottleneck to be overcome.
Respondents were asked `if the companies have
a highly integrated #ow of quality information
across the various departments and divisions of the
companya. Of the companies 41% agreed to having
an integrated #ow of quality information across
their company which signi"es decision making tak-
ing shorter time. Highly intense joint venturing will
succeed only if the members of an intra-corpora-
tion team have rapid access to information, and
that means giving employees of other corporations
access to information. However, 34% responded in
contrast to the above which could indicate decision
making taking longer.
Twenty-two percent agreed that `information is
readily available to those who need it through an
enterprise information systema, whilst 29% were
undecided and 27% disagreed. With so many
respondents being undecided, the authors presume
that the question may have been misunderstood.
7.4. Concurrent engineering and rapid prototyping
The agile company, responding quickly to the
opportunity to succeed with a quality product, will
require that all the parts of the enterprise work
simultaneously to seize an opportunity. This in-
cludes all the functions, not only engineering and
manufacturing but marketing, "nance, human re-
source management and all other departments.
Sixty six percent of respondents agreed that people
in their company can very quickly identify mem-
bers, with competencies, in other departments and
work with them to solve problems. Similarly, 61%
agreed that employees can create e!ective teams of
people with appropriate skills and knowledge to
solve problems regardless of departmental or
divisional associations.
Information technology is one of the key en-
ablers of concurrent engineering. Information tech-
nology provides automation of such processes as
design, drafting and analysis, for example, com-
puter-aided design (CAD) and simulation. Informa-
tion technology also plays a major role in enabling
the communication of information between mem-
bers and beyond, via tools such as e-mail. Many
companies are now becoming electronically con-
nected to their suppliers and customers, which
allows for much faster and more e$cient placing,
receiving and modi"cation of orders.
Regarding the e!ective use of electronic com-
merce (EC), 49% of the respondents reported that
they were using EC with suppliers, 37% with cus-
tomers and 22% with partners although 34% did
respond as having no electronic commerce. To-
gether with order placing, electronic connection to
customers and suppliers also allows other activities
such as market analysis and design improvements.
It also enhances the development of a better cus-
tomer/supplier relationship due to the collab-
orative approach to product development. Of the
respondents 68% agreed that they involve their
suppliers in new product design and development,
whilst 64% agreed that they involve their cus-
tomers in new product design and development.
7.5. Virtual enterprises and change management
The agile company uses virtual enterprise to
form temporary alliances in order to make a speci-
"c product for a speci"c period of time, and then
dissolve these alliances as the participants move on
 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
to other projects [34]. This requires that virtual
companies handle change and risk management
issues when carrying out all the functions necessary
to exploit a particular set of business opportunities.
The respondents answered six questions related to
their competitive strengths, all related to handling
changes within the business. For all six questions
the majority agreed that handling rapid change was
achieved in their organisations. It is interesting to
note that between 6% and 15% of the respondents
felt that their organisations had a low achievement
rate when handling rapid change, for the six ques-
tions.
Fig. 3 shows that regarding forming temporary
alliances with other companies with complement-
ary resources and expertise, 82% of the respon-
dents agreed, and none disagreed, that it can reduce
risks and costs. Fig. 4 shows that 59% agreed that
their company has recognised bene"ts from form-
ing temporary alliances with other companies.
When asked speci"cally if it would be relatively
easy for their companies to enter into a temporary
alliance, Fig. 5 shows that 57% agreed whilst 18%
disagreed. However, when asked if their company
has formed an alliance with a company to capture
a niche market 57% agreed with 5% disagreeing
and a further 13% strongly disagreeing, which is
shown in Fig. 6. It is interesting to note that the
Fig. 3. Forming alliances with other companies with complementary resources and expertise can reduce costs and risks.
165
majority of companies surveyed acknowledged the
bene"ts of virtual enterprises, as shown in Fig. 3,
although a signi"cant number of them, as shown in
Fig. 6, had not actually formed such an alliance.
8. Conclusions
The research reported in this paper has o!ered
yet more of an insight into the management philos-
ophy, or as others would prefer, manufacturing
paradigm of agile manufacturing. In doing so,
quantitative data has been gathered to assess the
positioning of a selection of department of trade
and industry identi"ed practitioners of best prac-
tice, in their pursuit of agile manufacturing. In
establishing their position, a number of constructs
have been identi"ed as enablers of agile manufac-
turing. In turn, these enablers form the constructs
of the proposed model and include:
E core competencies, multi-skilled and #exible
people;
E empowerment, teamwork and continuous im-
provement;
E information technology and communication;
E concurrent engineering and rapid prototyping;
E virtual enterprises and change management.
166 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169

Fig. 4. The company has recognised bene"ts from forming alliances with other companies.

Fig. 5. It would be relatively easy for our company to enter into a temporary alliance.

In testing this model, 48 replies to a question-
naire were returned, which signi"ed a response rate
of over 40%. Although very high for a postal sur-
vey, is not statistically signi"cant. The survey,
therefore, needs to be repeated with a larger sample
of companies in order to get a larger response, and
draw representative generalisable empirical con-
clusions. The authors also note that the question-
naire would have bene"ted from more questions on
speci"c enablers.
From the results obtained, it can be concluded
that the leading UK manufacturing companies
value the ten key enablers identi"ed in the pro-
posed conceptual model and that these companies
are taking steps to become agile manufacturing
organisations. They are progressing at di!ering
 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
Fig. 6. The company has formed an alliance with a company to capture a niche market.
rates but they are all laying down the foundations
in order to gain a competitive edge in their respect-
ive markets. It is also quite clear that the model
developed by the authors will allow organisations
to be able to assess their progress towards becom-
ing agile manufacturing organisations.
References
[1] D. Halberstam, The Reckoning Morrow, New York, 1986,
p. 67.
[2] R. Lamming, Beyond Partnership, Strategies for Innova-
tion and Lean Supply, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s,
NJ, 1993.
[3] Y. Monden, Toyota Production System, 2nd ed. Indus-
trial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross,
GA, 1993.
[4] J.P. Womack, D.T. Jones, D. Roos, The Machine
that Changed the World, Maxwell Macmillan, Oxford,
1990.
[5] W.E. Deming, Out of the Crisis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.,
USA, 1986.
[6] J.M. Juran, Juran on Leadership for Quality, Free Press,
New York, 1989.
[7] S.J. Oakland, Total Quality Management, Butterworths,
London, 1992.
[8] J. Browne, J. Harhem, J. Shivnam, Production Manage-
ment Systems: A CIM Perspective, Addison-Wesley,
London, 1988.
167
[9] J.P Womack, D.T. Jones, From Lean Manufacturing to
the Lean Enterprise, Harvard Business Review,
March}April, 1994, pp. 93}104.
[10] J. Bicheno, Cause and E!ect JIT: The Essentials of Lean
Manufacturing, 2nd Ed., Moreton Press, Buckingham,
1994.
[11] T.C.E. Cheng, S. Podolsky, Just In Time Manufacturing:
An Introduction, Chapman and Hall, London, 1996.
[12] S.L. Goldman, R.N. Nagel, K. Preiss, R. Dove, Iacocca
Institute: 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy,
An Industry Led View, vols. 1 & 2. Iacocca Institute,
Bethlehem, PA, 1991.
[13] S.L. Goldman, K. Preiss, 21st century manufacturing
enterprise strategy, Infrastructure. Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA, 1991.
[14] M. Harvey, Agile Manufacturing (A Scoping Study). Pre-
pared for Prospective Technological Studies European
Commission } JRC, Technical Report, 1997.
[15] C. Booth, M. Hammer, Agile manufacturing concepts and
opportnities in ceramics, Ceramic Transactions 50 (1995)
67}76.
[16] A. Nelson, F.A. Harvey, Technologies for training and
supporting your agile workforce. In: Creating the Agile
Organisation: Models, Metrics and Pilots. Proceedings
4th Agility Forum Annual Conference. Agility Forum,
Bethlehem, PA, 1995.
[17] J. Baker, Less lean but considerably more agile, The
Financial Times, May 10 (1996) 17.
[18] B. Maskwell, An Introduction To Agile Manufacturing.
Internet: Http://www Maskwell.com/agile/htm, 1997.
[19] S.L. Goldman, An Agility Primer, Agility Report, Agile
Manufacturing Enterprise Forum, November, 1994, 1}4.
168 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169
[20] T.P. Kidd, Agile Manufacturing: A Strategy for the 21st
Century. IEE Colloquium (Digest). 1996 No. 74, p. 6.
[21] T.P. Kidd, Agile Corporations: Business Enterprise in the
21st Century } An Executive Guide, Cheshire Henbury,
1995.
[22] R. Dove, The Meaning of Life and the Meaning of Agile,
Production Magazine. November 1994.
[23] S.L. Goldman, R.N. Nagel, K. Preiss, Agile Competitors
and Virtual Organisations, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, 1995.
[24] W.L. Berry, T.J. Hill, J.E. Klompmaker, Customer-driven
manufacturing, International Journal of Operation and
Production Management 15 (3) (1995) 4}15.
[25] L.M. Meade, D.H. Liles, J. Sarkis, Justifying strategic
alliance and partnering: a prerequisite for virtual enterpris-
ing, OMEGA International Journal of Management
Science 25 (1) (1997) 29}42.
[26] Anonymous. UK Manufacturing Facing International
Change, Institute of Electrical Engineers, IEE publica-
tions, London, UK, 1994.
[27] G. Hamel, C.K. Parahalad, Computing for the Future,
Harvard Business Review July (1994), 122}128.
[28] Anonymous, Made in Britain: The True State of Britain's
Manufacturing Industry, London Business School Report,
LBS publications, London, UK, 1993.
[29] J.A. Heim, W.D. Compton, 1992. Manufacturing Systems:
Foundations of World Class Practices, National Ac-
cademy, Washington DC, USA.
[30] T.P. Kidd, Agile Manufacturing Forging New Frontiers,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994.
[31] R. Dove, Building agility improvement strategies, Auto-
motive Production 108 (7) (1996) 16.
[32] A. Gunasekaran, 1997. Agile manufacturing: A strategy for
improving competitiveness. International Journal of Pro-
duction Research, forthcoming.
[33] C.K. Prahalad, G. Hamel, The core competence of the
corporation, Harved Business Review May}June, 1990,
pp. 79}91.
[34] C. Handley, Agile Manufacturing, Compressed Air. July
3rd, 1997.
[35] P.W. Balsmeier, W.J. Voisin, Rapid prototyping: State-of-
the-art manufacturing, Industrial Management 39 (1)
(1997) 1}4.
[36] M. Kagioglou, Z. Irani, J.M. Sharp, Information system
models for new product development processes: speed and
#exibility Vs focus and control, International Journal of
Technology Management, 1999, Forthcoming.
[37] B. Miles, K. Swift, Development in computer aided
concurrent engineering tools, Proceedings of Design for
Competitive Advantage Conference, IMechE, UK, 1994.
[38] J. Coyle, Aligning human resourse processes with
total quality, Employment Relations Today 18 (1991)
273}278.
[39] Z. Irani, J.M. Sharp, M. Kagioglou, Communicating
through self-directed work teams in a manufacturing envi-
ronment, Journal of Workplace Learning 9 (6) (1997)
199}205.
[40] T. Choi, Conceptualising continuous improvement:
Implications for organisational change, Omega, Interna-
tional Journal of Management Science 23 (6) (1995)
607}624.
[41] K. Mertins, P. Heisig, O. Krause, Integrating business-
process re-engineering with human resource development
for continuous improvement, International Journal of
Technical Management 14 (1) (1997) 39}49.
[42] Z. Irani, J.M. Sharp, Integrating continuous improvement
and innovation into a corporate culture: A case study, The
International Journal of Technological Innovation, Entre-
preneurship and Technology 1997.
[43] Z. Irani, J.M. Sharp, P. Race, A case experience of new
product introduction within a once traditional subcon-
tract manufacturing environment, Production and Inven-
tory Management Journal 38 (2) (1997) 47}51.
[44] F.D. Barkman, Team discipline: Put performance on line,
Personal Journal, March (1987) 58}63.
[45] K. Lewins, Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method,
and reality in social science: Social equilibria and social
change, Human Relations No. 1 (1947) 5}41.
[46] L. Clarke, The Essence of Change, Essence of Manage-
ment Series, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ, USA,
1994.
[47] Z. Irani, J.-N. Ezingeard, R.J. Grieve, P. Race, Investment
justi"cation of information technology in manufacturing,
International Journal of Computer Applications in Tech-
nology, 1998, forthcoming.
[48] Z. Irani, J.-N. Ezingeard, R.J. Grieve, 1999. A conceptual
framework for the evaluation of manufacturing invest-
ments in IT/IS: A focus on MRPII, International Journal
of Technology Management, 1999 Forthcoming.
[49] C. Forsythe, M.R. Ashby, Human factors in agile manufac-
turing, Ergonomics in Designing Januaray (1996) 15}21.
[50] V. Hlupic, Z. Irani, 1999 Evaluating the feasibility of
Business Process Modelling (BPM) using simulation,
Journal of Logistics and Information Management, forth-
coming.
[51] T. Redman, B.P. Mathews, Personnel review: Do corpo-
rate turkeys vote for Christmas? managers attitudes to-
wards upward appraisal, Appraisal 24 (7) (1995) 13.
[52] Z. Irani, J.M. Sharp, M. Kagioglou, Improving business
performance through developing a corporate culture. The
TQM Magazine: The International Bi-Monthly for Total
Quality Management 9(3) (1997) 206}216.
[53] S.L. Goldman, R.N. Nagel, K. Preiss, Agile Competitors
and Virtual Organisations, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, 1994.
[54] A.D. Jankowicz, Business Research Projects, Chapman
& Hall, London, 1995.
[55] S.L. Goldman, R.N. Nagel, K. Priess, Cooperate to
Compete, Building Agile Business Relationships, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1996.
[56] R. Dove, Personal communication regarding question-
naire content, July, 1997.
[57] T.P. Kidd, Personal communication regarding question-
naire content, June 1997.
 J.M. Sharp et al./Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 155}169 169

[58] S. Desai, Agile Manufacturing. M.Sc. Dissertation, Dept.
of Aeronautical, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engin-
eering, University of Salford, UK, 1997.
[59] M. Wheatly, Inside UK Enterprise (Managing into the
1990's), Management Today's guide to Britain's best facto-
ries, DTI publications, London, UK, 1997.
[60] Z. Irani, J.-M. Ezingeard, R.J. Grieve, Integrating the costs
of an IT/IS infrastructure into the ivestment decision mak-
ing process. The International Journal of Technological
Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Manage-
ment (Technovation) 17(11/12) (1997) 695}706.