Session Summary

Session Number:706
Session ID:S330
Session Title:Operations strategy and competitive advantage
Short Title:Operations strategy
Session Type:Division Paper
Hotel:Swiss
Floor:3
Room:Engleberg
Time:Tuesday, August 10, 1999 2:00 PM - 3:20 PM

Sponsors

OM  (Robert Klassen)rklassen@ivey.uwo.ca (519) 661-3336 

General People

Chair Parente, Diane H. Pennsylvania State U., Erie [dhp3@psu.edu] [(814)-898-6436] 
Discussant Angell, Linda C. Pennsylvania State U. lca2@psu.edu 814-863-2645 
Discussant Lackey, Charles  U. of Texas, Brownsville clackey@utb1.utb.edu  
Discussant Bates, Kimberly A. U. of Toronto bates@mgmt.utoronto.ca 416-978-0305 

Submissions

Measurement Issues in Empirical Research: Improving Measures of Operations Strategy and Advanced Manufacturing Technology 
 Pagell, Mark  Kansas State U. pagellmd@business.cba.ksu.edu (785) 532-4357 
 Boyer, Kenneth K. DePaul U. kboyer@wppost.depaul.edu (312) 362-8113 
 Our objective in this paper is to examine measures used in survey based research in operations management. Specifically, we examine measures commonly used to assess operations strategy and advanced manufacturing technology in survey-based research. Looking at two measures gives us room to examine common problems for many of the measures used in operations management research. In addition, the two measures are addressing two different levels of analysis, strategy and a specific infrastructural / structural decision that (should) support the strategy. This should give us a broader understanding of the measurement issues we are facing as a field. We argue that it a critical, yet often neglected, component of good research is the critical assessment and refinement of existing measures. This study addresses the need to critically assess measurement issues and analyzes key existing measures with an eye toward improving their validity.
 Keywords: Operations strategy; technology; empirical research methods
Mass Customization Approaches: A Typology and Empirical Validation 
 Duray, Rebecca  U. of Colorado, Colorado Springs rduray@mail.uccs.edu (719)-262-3673 
 Ward, Peter T. Ohio State U. ward.1@osu.edu (614)-292-5294 
 Mass customization is a paradox-breaking manufacturing reality that combines the unique products of craft manufacturing with the cost efficient manufacturing methods of mass production. Although this phenomenon is known to exist in practice, academic research has not adequately investigated this new form of competition. In this research we develop a new conceptual model for classifying mass customizers based on customer involvement in design and product modularity. We validate this model through an empirical analysis and classification of 126 mass customizers. We also suggest and test manufacturing process and performance implications of the various mass customization types.
 Keywords: Mass Customization; Taxonomies; Operations Management
Differentiators Between High and Low Performing Manufacturing Firms: An Empirical Study 
 Terziovski, Mile  Monash U., Caulfield Mile.Terziovski@BusEco.monash.edu.au 61 3 99032674 
 Higher requirements for improved quality of products and services have led to two important changes in international business over the last decade. The first is the growing recognition of the strategic importance of Total Quality Management. The second change is the major push by organisations worldwide to seek certification to the ISO 9000 quality systems standards. Anecdotal evidence and the limited number of empirical studies in the literature suggest considerable variability in the performance of TQM and ISO 9000, ranging from unprecedented successes to abandonment and failure. This paper is based on a doctoral research study that addresses the above issue by analysing a large database consisting of 962 responses from Australian and 379 responses from New Zealand manufacturing firms. Multiple Discriminant Analysis is used to test hypotheses and explore the differences between firms grouped according to their level of organisational performance. The tested hypotheses are further explained by developing five case studies of Australian 'best practice' firms. The most significant differentiators between high and low performing firms were found to be the 'softer' practices such as unity of purpose/breaking down barriers between departments, and continuous improvement.Low performing firms were found to focus on the 'harder' practices such as ISO 9000 certification and benchmarking. The paper concludes that visionary leadership and a continuous improvement approach are critical ingredients for organizational success.
 Keywords: performance; quality; discriminant