REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY

Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Production and operations management 2000-06, Vol.9 (2), p.111-126
Hauptverfasser: Safizadeh, M. H., Ritzman, Larry P., Mallick, Debasish
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 126
container_issue 2
container_start_page 111
container_title Production and operations management
container_volume 9
creator Safizadeh, M. H.
Ritzman, Larry P.
Mallick, Debasish
description Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about spurious results and is one motivation for this study. We examine aspects of the tradeoffs concept, production competence paradigm, and a manufacturing strategy taxonomy framework. In regard to the tradeoffs concept, we found evidence of tradeoffs between some, but certainly not all, manufacturing capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and customization. The relationships get sharper when controlling for process choice. For example, the tradeoff between cost and customization is particularly strong between plants that have different process choices. We find that such tradeoffs can change, or even disappear, however, once the process choice is in place. With respect to the production competence paradigm, our analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between production competence and operations performance in batch shops, but not in plants with other process choices. Finally, using variables similar to those of Miller and Roth, our data produced three similar clusters even though their unit of analysis was much more macro than ours. Controlling for process choice is consistent with the current manufacturing strategy literature that emphasizes dynamic development of capabilities within the context of path dependencies. A major argument of this strand of research is that operations decisions not only affect current capabilities, but also set the framework for development of capabilities in the future. That being the case, controlling for process choice (or other factors such as industry or markets) should contribute to the understanding of capability‐development paths adopted by different manufacturing plants. In short, we found at least partial support for each of the theories examined here, even though the theories seem on the surface to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Controlling for process choice or other measures of dependency goes a long way in uncovering consistency across different theories and empirical studies in operations management.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_228752202</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1111_j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x</sage_id><sourcerecordid>69233406</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5481-3618c1992c702b2bc92d6949cda23ae3ea3a4fd755ba6fc18938ec594e0c96513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkF1vgjAUhsmyJXNu_4F4D-sHpXQ3C1FAEkED1WVXTall0bnpQDP994Ng3O12bnqSvh8nj2EMILBhM49rGzJMLcKIayMAgL0vAMDIs49XRu_ydd3sgDALOtS7Ne7qet1IKUagZ4RZsIjzmMdpZPoTHmSpz-NFYPJxMM0CHg_9iTnzM38UR0luxqmZ-Ok89Id8nrWWnGc-D6LXe-OmlJtaP5zfvjEPAz4cW5Np1GZYijgetLALPQUZQ4oCVKBCMbR0mcPUUiIsNdYSS6dcUkIK6ZYKegx7WhHmaKCYSyDuG4Mud1dtvw663ov19lB9NpUCIY8ShABqRE-dSFXbuq50KXbV6kNWJwGBaLGJtWjZiJaNaLGJMzZxbMzPnfl7tdGnfzjFbJrkjaRJoF1CLd_0731_6rY656re6-OlW1bvwqWYEvGSRoKFIBzlyUgg_AMLDY3z</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>228752202</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Safizadeh, M. H. ; Ritzman, Larry P. ; Mallick, Debasish</creator><creatorcontrib>Safizadeh, M. H. ; Ritzman, Larry P. ; Mallick, Debasish</creatorcontrib><description>Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about spurious results and is one motivation for this study. We examine aspects of the tradeoffs concept, production competence paradigm, and a manufacturing strategy taxonomy framework. In regard to the tradeoffs concept, we found evidence of tradeoffs between some, but certainly not all, manufacturing capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and customization. The relationships get sharper when controlling for process choice. For example, the tradeoff between cost and customization is particularly strong between plants that have different process choices. We find that such tradeoffs can change, or even disappear, however, once the process choice is in place. With respect to the production competence paradigm, our analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between production competence and operations performance in batch shops, but not in plants with other process choices. Finally, using variables similar to those of Miller and Roth, our data produced three similar clusters even though their unit of analysis was much more macro than ours. Controlling for process choice is consistent with the current manufacturing strategy literature that emphasizes dynamic development of capabilities within the context of path dependencies. A major argument of this strand of research is that operations decisions not only affect current capabilities, but also set the framework for development of capabilities in the future. That being the case, controlling for process choice (or other factors such as industry or markets) should contribute to the understanding of capability‐development paths adopted by different manufacturing plants. In short, we found at least partial support for each of the theories examined here, even though the theories seem on the surface to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Controlling for process choice or other measures of dependency goes a long way in uncovering consistency across different theories and empirical studies in operations management.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1059-1478</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-5956</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: POMAEN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Correlation analysis ; Industrial plants ; Manufacturing ; MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES ; MANUFACTURING STRATEGY ; Operations research ; PATH DEPENDENCIES ; PROCESS CHOICE ; Process controls ; Production management ; Studies ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Production and operations management, 2000-06, Vol.9 (2), p.111-126</ispartof><rights>2000 The Authors</rights><rights>2000 Production and Operations Management Society</rights><rights>Copyright Production and Operations Management Society Summer 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5481-3618c1992c702b2bc92d6949cda23ae3ea3a4fd755ba6fc18938ec594e0c96513</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5481-3618c1992c702b2bc92d6949cda23ae3ea3a4fd755ba6fc18938ec594e0c96513</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,21820,27925,27926,43622,43623,45575,45576</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Safizadeh, M. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritzman, Larry P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mallick, Debasish</creatorcontrib><title>REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY</title><title>Production and operations management</title><description>Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about spurious results and is one motivation for this study. We examine aspects of the tradeoffs concept, production competence paradigm, and a manufacturing strategy taxonomy framework. In regard to the tradeoffs concept, we found evidence of tradeoffs between some, but certainly not all, manufacturing capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and customization. The relationships get sharper when controlling for process choice. For example, the tradeoff between cost and customization is particularly strong between plants that have different process choices. We find that such tradeoffs can change, or even disappear, however, once the process choice is in place. With respect to the production competence paradigm, our analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between production competence and operations performance in batch shops, but not in plants with other process choices. Finally, using variables similar to those of Miller and Roth, our data produced three similar clusters even though their unit of analysis was much more macro than ours. Controlling for process choice is consistent with the current manufacturing strategy literature that emphasizes dynamic development of capabilities within the context of path dependencies. A major argument of this strand of research is that operations decisions not only affect current capabilities, but also set the framework for development of capabilities in the future. That being the case, controlling for process choice (or other factors such as industry or markets) should contribute to the understanding of capability‐development paths adopted by different manufacturing plants. In short, we found at least partial support for each of the theories examined here, even though the theories seem on the surface to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Controlling for process choice or other measures of dependency goes a long way in uncovering consistency across different theories and empirical studies in operations management.</description><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Industrial plants</subject><subject>Manufacturing</subject><subject>MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES</subject><subject>MANUFACTURING STRATEGY</subject><subject>Operations research</subject><subject>PATH DEPENDENCIES</subject><subject>PROCESS CHOICE</subject><subject>Process controls</subject><subject>Production management</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>1059-1478</issn><issn>1937-5956</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkF1vgjAUhsmyJXNu_4F4D-sHpXQ3C1FAEkED1WVXTall0bnpQDP994Ng3O12bnqSvh8nj2EMILBhM49rGzJMLcKIayMAgL0vAMDIs49XRu_ydd3sgDALOtS7Ne7qet1IKUagZ4RZsIjzmMdpZPoTHmSpz-NFYPJxMM0CHg_9iTnzM38UR0luxqmZ-Ok89Id8nrWWnGc-D6LXe-OmlJtaP5zfvjEPAz4cW5Np1GZYijgetLALPQUZQ4oCVKBCMbR0mcPUUiIsNdYSS6dcUkIK6ZYKegx7WhHmaKCYSyDuG4Mud1dtvw663ov19lB9NpUCIY8ShABqRE-dSFXbuq50KXbV6kNWJwGBaLGJtWjZiJaNaLGJMzZxbMzPnfl7tdGnfzjFbJrkjaRJoF1CLd_0731_6rY656re6-OlW1bvwqWYEvGSRoKFIBzlyUgg_AMLDY3z</recordid><startdate>200006</startdate><enddate>200006</enddate><creator>Safizadeh, M. H.</creator><creator>Ritzman, Larry P.</creator><creator>Mallick, Debasish</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Blackwell Publishers Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200006</creationdate><title>REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY</title><author>Safizadeh, M. H. ; Ritzman, Larry P. ; Mallick, Debasish</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5481-3618c1992c702b2bc92d6949cda23ae3ea3a4fd755ba6fc18938ec594e0c96513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Industrial plants</topic><topic>Manufacturing</topic><topic>MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES</topic><topic>MANUFACTURING STRATEGY</topic><topic>Operations research</topic><topic>PATH DEPENDENCIES</topic><topic>PROCESS CHOICE</topic><topic>Process controls</topic><topic>Production management</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Safizadeh, M. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritzman, Larry P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mallick, Debasish</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Production and operations management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Safizadeh, M. H.</au><au>Ritzman, Larry P.</au><au>Mallick, Debasish</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY</atitle><jtitle>Production and operations management</jtitle><date>2000-06</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>111</spage><epage>126</epage><pages>111-126</pages><issn>1059-1478</issn><eissn>1937-5956</eissn><coden>POMAEN</coden><abstract>Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about spurious results and is one motivation for this study. We examine aspects of the tradeoffs concept, production competence paradigm, and a manufacturing strategy taxonomy framework. In regard to the tradeoffs concept, we found evidence of tradeoffs between some, but certainly not all, manufacturing capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and customization. The relationships get sharper when controlling for process choice. For example, the tradeoff between cost and customization is particularly strong between plants that have different process choices. We find that such tradeoffs can change, or even disappear, however, once the process choice is in place. With respect to the production competence paradigm, our analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between production competence and operations performance in batch shops, but not in plants with other process choices. Finally, using variables similar to those of Miller and Roth, our data produced three similar clusters even though their unit of analysis was much more macro than ours. Controlling for process choice is consistent with the current manufacturing strategy literature that emphasizes dynamic development of capabilities within the context of path dependencies. A major argument of this strand of research is that operations decisions not only affect current capabilities, but also set the framework for development of capabilities in the future. That being the case, controlling for process choice (or other factors such as industry or markets) should contribute to the understanding of capability‐development paths adopted by different manufacturing plants. In short, we found at least partial support for each of the theories examined here, even though the theories seem on the surface to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Controlling for process choice or other measures of dependency goes a long way in uncovering consistency across different theories and empirical studies in operations management.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1059-1478
ispartof Production and operations management, 2000-06, Vol.9 (2), p.111-126
issn 1059-1478
1937-5956
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_228752202
source Access via SAGE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Correlation analysis
Industrial plants
Manufacturing
MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES
MANUFACTURING STRATEGY
Operations research
PATH DEPENDENCIES
PROCESS CHOICE
Process controls
Production management
Studies
Theory
title REVISITING ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL PARADIGMS IN MANUFACTURING STRATEGY
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T14%3A55%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=REVISITING%20ALTERNATIVE%20THEORETICAL%20PARADIGMS%20IN%20MANUFACTURING%20STRATEGY&rft.jtitle=Production%20and%20operations%20management&rft.au=Safizadeh,%20M.%20H.&rft.date=2000-06&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=111&rft.epage=126&rft.pages=111-126&rft.issn=1059-1478&rft.eissn=1937-5956&rft.coden=POMAEN&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69233406%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=228752202&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1111_j.1937-5956.2000.tb00328.x&rfr_iscdi=true