Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
681
The authors thank the comments and suggestions made by two anonymous referees on an
earlier draft of this paper.
IJOPM
25,7
682
1. Introduction
As diversity and uncertainty in the environment increases, companies are responding
by adding flexibility as a dimension to their operation strategies. Flexibility may be
defined as the ability to change or react with little penalty in time, effort, cost or
performance (Upton, 1994). Flexibility can improve the companys competitiveness,
particularly for the decision-making process of implementing technologies (Jaikumar,
1986; Alvarez Gil, 1994). But managers do not have a comprehensive view of flexibility
because they focus more on machine flexibility than on total system flexibility (Slack,
1987; Upton, 1994). Focusing flexibility on the implementation of technology does not
lead necessarily to competitiveness (Gupta and Somers, 1996).
To this regard, some scholars (Brill and Mandelbaum, 1989; Gerwin, 1993) think
that a flexible operations system requires the management and control of different
flexibility dimensions, by analysing the total system flexibility. Enhancing a flexibility
dimension does not necessarily lead to a flexible operations system (Gupta and Somers,
1996). Because flexibility is viewed as a reaction to environmental uncertainty (Riley
and Lockwood, 1997), in a global scenario, not only manufacturing, but also supply
chain logistics and management can be an important source of competitive advantage,
since material flows strongly affect business performance. For example, different
logistic channels of the supply chain can be activated in order to face emergencies such
as demand peaks. Then, the production order assignments to the plants, the
organisation of transports and other decisions are critical factors that can decrease the
performance of a wide range of products. However, contrary to flexibility in
manufacturing systems, which has been widely researched, it seems that research on
supply chain flexibility has been conspicuous by its absence (Barad and Sapir, 2003).
Flexibility in supply chains may well represent a potential source to improve the
companys efficiency and may be a significant measure of supply chain performance
(Vickery et al., 1999). Supply chain flexibility is defined to encompass those flexibility
dimensions that directly impact a firms customers and are the shared responsibility of
two or more functions along the supply chain, whether internal (marketing,
manufacturing) or external (suppliers, channel members) to the firm. There are very
few studies on supply chain flexibility and there are even fewer studies about the
relationship between supply chain flexibility and firm performance, which offers a
research opportunity (Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2001).
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the determinants of supply chain flexibility
and its impact on firm performance in a sample of Spanish automotive suppliers. The
paper is structured in the following way. Section 2 reviews the literature on supply
chain flexibility and proposes the research questions. Section 3 explains the
methodology of the empirical study. Sections 4 and 5 provide results and discussion.
Finally, the paper concludes with the limitations of the study and directions for further
research.
2. Supply chain flexibility: research framework and questions
2.1 Flexibility: concept and types
As commonly shared by the literature on manufacturing systems, flexibility is a
complex and multidimensional concept, difficult to summarise. De Groote (1994)
defined flexibility as an attribute of a system technology for coping with the variety of
its environmental needs. According to Upton (1994), flexibility reflects the ability of a
system to change or react with little penalty in time, effort, cost or performance. In
recent years the literature on flexibility has tremendously increased. Most of the
published articles deal with flexibility of manufacturing systems. Naturally this shows
the complexity of this concept as well as its importance. There has even been a
proliferation of papers that review the flexibility literature (Gupta and Goyal, 1989;
Sethi and Sethi, 1990; Kaighobadi and Venkatesh, 1994; Barad and Nof, 1997; De Toni
and Tonchia, 1998; Parker and Wirth, 1999; DSouza and Williams, 2000). The
published reviews consider different aspects of flexibility such as definitions,
classification and measurement of flexibility, choices, interpretation and requests for
flexibility.
Referring to the several papers which have proposed useful taxonomies, different
aspects of flexibility can be outlined, such as functional aspects (flexibility in
operations, marketing, logistics), hierarchical aspects (flexibility at shop, plant or
company level), measurement aspects (focused on global flexibility measures vs
context specific ones), strategic aspects (centred on the strategic relevance of
flexibility), time horizon aspects (long-term vs short-term flexibility), and object of
change (flexibility of product, mix, volume).
The two most agreed upon dimensions for measuring flexibility of any type are
range and response (Gerwin, 1993; Upton, 1994). The range dimension measures the
variety of available alternatives for the system adaptation, so that it may continue to
operate. This dimension is associated with the system effectiveness and is typically
measured by counting the number of options or by a normalised index. The response
dimension measures the easiness with which the adaptation can be carried out in terms
of the reaction time (or cost) needed to respond to the change that occurred. This
dimension may thus be associated with the system efficiency.
Flexibility types in the manufacturing literature can be reviewed through different
frameworks (Olhager and West, 2002). The classical early approach to flexibility
frameworks has a bottom-up structure related to a manufacturing hierarchy, which is
besides easily adaptable to a bottom-up supply chain oriented hierarchy. According to
this structure the three hierarchical flexibility levels are: basic, system and aggregate
levels.
The basic flexibility types comprise flexibility of the system components. The main
components of a manufacturing system are its machines, the material handling units
and the transporting network. The system flexibility types are composites of the basic
flexibility types at the manufacturing system level. An important type of system
flexibility with implications for the supply chain system is routing flexibility. Finally,
the aggregate flexibility types represent the aggregated attributes of the
manufacturing system technology enabling it to cope with the variety of changes
and needs at the strategic level.
Zhang et al. (2003) divided dimensions of flexibility into those defined internally
defined as flexible competencies and those perceived by the customer defined as
flexible capabilities. Zhang et al. (2003) were able to demonstrate empirically that
internal dimensions of flexibility (like machine or labour) are translated into flexible
capacities (volume and mix), which in turn have a significant positive impact on
customer satisfaction. Their results suggested that firms that considered flexibility
both from an internal and external viewpoint were more likely to specify the flexible
competencies required to achieve the flexible capabilities required for customer
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
683
IJOPM
25,7
684
satisfaction. Jordan and Graves (1995) also demonstrated that flexibility initiatives
carried out over a chain of plants (external flexibility) substantially outperform
flexibility initiatives carried out within a single plant (internal flexibility). Similarly,
Olhager and West (2002) have recognised the importance of extending the notion of
flexibility beyond the factory floor linking it to market requirements and customer
needs. Thus, as supply chain flexibility needs to integrate internal and external
flexibility dimensions, its analysis may be more appropriate to study the influence on
firm performance.
Following the work of Duclos et al. (2003) and Vickery et al. (1999), this paper
develops a framework of supply chain flexibility dimensions that includes both process
flexibility (similar to manufacturing flexibility) and logistics flexibility (not included in
manufacturing flexibility). Figure 1 shows the conceptual model. Based on the
bottom-up classification of flexibility as in manufacturing systems basic, system and
aggregate types it is possible to suggest different types of supply chain flexibility
dimensions, which concern mainly the context of supply/demand relations. According
to Figure 1, the first three flexibility dimensions are shop floor capabilities that impact
on supply chain (basic flexibility); the following three dimensions are hierarchically
located at company level (system flexibility); the top four flexibility dimensions are
linked to the customer-supplier relationships in the supply chain (aggregate flexibility).
Next, each flexibility dimension is briefly defined or explained in order to propose the
papers research hypotheses.
(1) The first of these flexibility dimensions is product flexibility, which is very
frequent in the manufacturing flexibility literature. Vickery et al. (1997) define
product flexibility in a supply chain framework as the ability to handle difficult,
non-standard orders, to meet special customer specifications, and to produce
products characterised by numerous features, options, sizes, and colours. While
product flexibility is a key competitive priority in the operations literature, it
requires the effective collaboration of other functional players, including
marketing, product design and development, and engineering.
(2) A second type of flexibility touted in the operations literature is volume
flexibility, defined as the ability to effectively increase or decrease aggregate
production in response to customer demand (Cleveland et al., 1989). Volume
flexibility may require close coordination between a manufacturer and its
suppliers, especially in the face of increasing demand. Volume flexibility
directly impacts supply chains performance by preventing out-of-stock
conditions for products that are suddenly in high demand or by preventing high
inventory levels (obsolete stock).
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
685
Figure 1.
Supply chain flexibility
dimensions
IJOPM
25,7
686
supply chain characteristics. Figure 2 depicts the theoretical research model, and the
following paragraphs develop the research hypotheses.
A first research issue concerns the relationship between supply chain flexibility and
firm performance. Flexibility the ability to adapt to change is critical to the
long-run survival of an organisation (Upton, 1994). In the short run, flexibility affects
the competitive posture of the firm and may impact its overall profitability. Flexibility
becomes particularly relevant when the whole supply chain is considered consisting of
a network of supply, production and delivering firms. In this case, many sources of
uncertainty have to be handled (Giannoccaro et al., 2003). Flexibility allows switching
production among different plants and suppliers, so that management can cope with
internal external variability (Chen et al., 1994). Emphasis on various dimensions of
supply chain flexibility may be directly linked to overall firm performance.
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
687
Figure 2.
Research model
IJOPM
25,7
688
Supply chain reorganisation processes derived from the mutual understanding and
commitment of members in the automotive supply chain may impact their responses to
environmental uncertainty. Inter-organisational transactions are based on mutual
trust, whereby the parties share a unit bonding. Successful production networks use a
variety of mutual understanding processes that facilitate knowledge transfer among
members in the supply chain or network (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000). These
socio-political processes may contribute to reduced partnership uncertainty. Petroni
and Bevilacqua (2002) found that supplier involvement in new product design
increased the companys manufacturing flexibility. On the other hand, Das and Malek
(2003) state that supply chains are expected to reduce the net risk level in the chain as a
consequence of better coordination and planning. Each entity in the supply chain
should see a reduction in their individual risk level as the commitment increases. Then,
the reduction of risk perception may diminish the need for flexible capabilities.
H3a. Supply chain flexibility is positively related to higher levels of perceived
mutual understanding in the supply chain.
H3b. Supply chain flexibility is negatively related to higher levels of perceived
interdependence between firms in the supply chain.
The degree of technological complexity may also influence the companys need for
flexibility. High technological complexity increases the need for cooperation in the
supply chain in order to share resources and lead times. In the automotive industry,
product innovation technology makes automotive manufacturers involve first-tier
suppliers in new product development. The suppliers also improve their operations
and negotiate supply contracts with cost reduction conditions after efficiency and
quality improvements (Dyer, 1996). As a consequence, customer-supplier relationships
may be enhanced (Bensaou and Venkatraman, 1995; Liker and Wu, 2000), which
requires flexible management practices such as the interchange of technical employees
between companies (Dyer, 1996). Increasing relationships may enhance some
flexibility capabilities like, for example, product flexibility to incorporate technical
features or sourcing flexibility to change suppliers for critical components and
subsystems. Narasimhan and Das (2000) found that delivery and volume flexibilities
benefited from both supplier responsiveness to delivery changes as well as supplier
involvement in product design.
H4. Supply chain flexibility is positively related to higher levels of perceived
technological complexity in the supply chain.
In the automotive industry, there is also a continuous pressure to reduce the supplier
base and increase the market concentration. This has implications for the flexibility in
the supply chain because the remaining suppliers have to adapt to changes with fewer
agents in the supply chain. On the other hand, some first-tier suppliers in the
automotive industry are involved in the design of components, and at the same time
the automotive companies help to improve the manufacturing processes of these
suppliers. Both practices result in greater partner knowledge. A higher level of partner
knowledge may result in higher frequency of channel communication between trading
firms. Thus, the reduction of the number of suppliers and the development of suppliers
with the automotive companies may increase and diversify the flexibility dimensions
in the supply chain.
H5. Supply chain flexibility is positively related to higher levels of perceived
supplier dependence in the supply chain.
Figure 2 also includes some control variables, which may impact on the relationship
between supply chain features and flexibility: information and communication
technologies (ICT) use, firm size, and automotive dependence. Firms that use more
intensively the ICT may enhance their flexibility capabilities like delivery flexibility.
Firm size may also influence flexibility because of the availability of resources in large
firms and the ability to quick adaptation in smaller firms. Finally, the companys
dependence on the automotive manufacturers may increase its need for flexibility to
cope with industry standards.
3. Methodology
The paper analyses the results of a mail survey to Spanish automotive suppliers. The
automotive industry was chosen for several reasons. First, the automotive industry is
of economic significance to many countries and is one of the largest manufacturing
activities in the world. Second, the history of this industry is fairly well disseminated
(Womack et al., 1990), which facilitates a general understanding and knowledge of the
industry. Finally, this industry has experienced the diffusion of innovation like
high-performance workplace practices along the supply chain (MacDuffie and Helper,
1997) and offers the potential to simultaneously examine different dimensions of
flexibility (Koste and Malhotra, 2000).
This study is focused on strategic business units (SBUs), autonomous divisions, and
individual firms. A sample of 356 firms was taken from the Spanish Associations of
Automobile Suppliers SERNAUTO and ODETTE. All companies were chosen to be
suppliers of automotive systems/components to OEMs. A questionnaire was mailed to
the purchasing manager of each firm during the months of September and October
2003. The cover letter requested the manager to either participate him/herself or to
pass the questionnaire to the individual most qualified to participate in the study. Prior
to the actual data collection, a draft version of the questionnaire and cover letter was
examined by five industry experts from three automotive suppliers, in order to
eliminate confusing questions and identify interpretation difficulties. To avoid
confusing interpretations, all items to be measured like supply chain flexibility or firm
performance were defined in the questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is available
from the corresponding author on request.
After a follow-up process and a second mailing, 126 useful questionnaires were
received. The response rate was 35.4 percent, which is high considering the response
rates of mail surveys in Spain, which is around 10 per cent (Grande, 1996). Analysing
the sample by size of business, 24 suppliers (19 percent) have less than 50 employees,
59 suppliers (46.8 percent) have between 50 and 250 employees, and the 43 remaining
suppliers (34.2 percent) have more than 250 employees. The sample encompasses
diverse manufacturers working with different industrial sectors and developing
multiple activities. The electronics, plastic and steel industries are well represented and
most of the companies carry out some assembly processes. Spanish automotive
suppliers are concentrated in the three major industrial areas in Spain Madrid,
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
689
IJOPM
25,7
690
Table I.
Operationalization of
scale variables
Barcelona, and the Basque Country and tend to be located around the five large
manufacturers established in Spain (Ford, GM-Opel, PSA, Renault, and VW).
A telephone call was randomly made to non-respondents, and we found that there was
not any apparent pattern in the type of companies that did not respond, or in the reason
given for not responding.
The questionnaire asked the respondents to rate the companys performance of each
flexibility capability and other environmental and industry variables using a
seven-point Likert scale. Then the variables used in the empirical study to explore the
research questions were operationalized according to the description of Table I which
also shows the reliability of all constructs (Cronbachs alpha over 0.7 according to
Nunnally (1978)). Most variables were measured through managerial perceptions with
seven-point Likert scales (Table I). Environmental uncertainty was assessed using five
items from Vickery et al. (1999): volatility in marketing practices, product obsolescence
rate, unpredictability of competitors, unpredictability of demand and tastes, and
change in production or service modes. The mean of these five items was taken to
represent overall environmental uncertainty. Each item was measured with a
seven-point Likert scale where high numbers indicated high uncertainty. The other
Variable
Items
(Cronbachs a)
Flexibility
10 (a 0.849)
Environmental uncertainty
5 (a 0.789)
Technological complexity
4 (a 0.778)
Mutual understanding
3 (a 0.822)
Interdependence
3 (a 0.889)
Supplier dependence
4 (a 0.764)
Description
Extent to which flexibility dimensions are important
in the company: product, volume, launch, response,
sourcing, access, delivery, transhipment,
postponement, and routing (seven-point scale from
least important to extremely important)
Extent to which there is volatility in marketing
practices, product obsolescence rate, unpredictability
of competitors, unpredictability of demand and
tastes, and change in production or service modes
(seven-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree)
How likely are major changes to occur in the
component in four areas: functionality
improvements, major product innovations, major
manufacturing innovations, price/performance ratio
improvements. It was measured using 7-point
interval scales ranging respectively from very
unlikely to very likely
Extent to which both firm and customers understand
each other goals and priorities, products, and
processes (seven-point scale from strongly disagree
to strongly agree)
Extent to which there is an equal sharing between
the firms of risks, burden, and benefits (seven-point
scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Extent to which a single supplier is very frequent for
the companyCs products, and there few competitors
and the market is highly concentrated (7-point scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree)
supply chain characteristics were measured through scales used by the authors in
other empirical work (Martnez and Perez, 2004).
Similarly, respondents were asked to rate overall firm performance using the
following measures: return on investment (ROI), ROI growth, market share, market
share growth, return on sales (ROS), and ROS growth. The firms performance relative
to its major competitors was assessed with a seven-point Likert scale with endpoints
worst in industry ( 1) and best in industry ( 7). In spite of using managerial
perceptions in our research, past research has found managerial assessments are
consistent with objective internal performance (Dess and Robinson, 1984;
Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986).
Finally, the following variables were used as control variables in the multivariate
analysis: ICT use (percentage of sales and purchases electronically managed with EDI,
Web-based EDI, ERP and Internet), company size (number of employees), and
automotive dependence (percentage of sales to automotive manufacturers). Because
this study is exploratory, the statistical analysis carried out was basically descriptive,
and correlations and regression analysis were used to validate the research hypotheses.
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
691
4. Results
The mean performance ratings, as well as the standard deviations for the ten flexibility
capabilities, are given in the first two columns of Table II. Also, the final column gives
the percentage of the sample that answered 6 or 7 on each of the seven-point Likert
scales. These respondents were considered top performers on each flexibility
dimension. The results show that the most rated flexibility was delivery flexibility
(5.94), followed by volume flexibility (5.64) and routing flexibility (5.60). The least
important dimensions are launch flexibility (4.64) and sourcing flexibility (4.49).
These flexibility dimensions can be summated according to the model depicted in
Figure 1. The results indicate that basic flexibility is the most important in the
surveyed companies (5.51), followed by system flexibility at company level (5.22), and
aggregate flexibility in the supply chain (4.90). On the other hand, the relatively high
value of standard deviation (1.76) for postponement flexibility in comparison to the low
value for routing flexibility (1.12) indicates that there was more divergence in
understanding the connotation for external measures of flexibility than for internal
measures like routing flexibility.
Flexibility dimension
Delivery flexibility
Volume flexibility
Routing flexibility
Response to market flexibility
Product flexibility
Access flexibility
Transshipment flexibility
Postponement flexibility
Launch flexibility
Sourcing flexibility
Mean
SD
Percentage of answering 6 or 7
5.94
5.64
5.60
5.45
5.30
5.04
5.00
4.74
4.64
4.49
1.33
1.14
1.12
1.21
1.40
1.59
1.70
1.76
1.58
1.47
69.9
60.3
54.7
52.8
50.9
41.5
45.2
39.6
41.5
22.6
Notes: Seven-point Likert scale. Higher values indicate better capacities related to competitors
Table II.
Descriptive statistics of
supply chain flexibility
IJOPM
25,7
692
Table III.
Descriptive statistics for
firm performance (mean
and correlation values)
Table III gives the mean and correlation for the six indicators of firm performance. The
mean values indicate a slight greater importance of market share than ROI or ROS.
The correlation values, which range from 0.37 to 0.84, are all statistically significant
( p , 0.01). The wide range of the correlation values supports the use of six different
firm performance measures, as it appears that different aspects of performance are
being enhanced by the flexibility capabilities.
The first research question asked whether performance on each of the ten supply
chain flexibility dimensions affected the firms performance overall. To answer this
question, Table IV shows the correlation of the performance ratings for the flexibility
capabilities versus overall firm performance. The results show that product, access,
launch, and responsiveness flexibility is each one significantly correlated with every
indicator of firm performance. Other flexibility capabilities are significantly correlated
with three or four out of six indicators of firm performance. Nevertheless, the construct
of flexibility (average of ten flexibility dimensions) has a statistically significant
positive relationship to each performance measure. This result supports our H1.
Besides, regarding each category of flexibility dimensions depicted in Figure 1 basic,
system, aggregate Table IV indicates that the aggregate flexibility type (located at
chain level) is the only one significantly related to all performance ratings. The system
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
ROI
ROI growth
Market share
Share growth
ROS
ROS growth
Mean
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
4.79
4.70
4.81
4.81
4.40
4.43
0.428**
0.405**
0.378**
0.437**
0.387**
0.615**
0.731**
0.573**
0.589**
0.836**
0.718**
0.716**
0.684**
0.792**
0.844**
Notes: Seven-point Likert scale from 1 (worst in industry) to 7 (best in industry); and **p , 0.01
Flexibility dimension
Table IV.
The relationship
(correlations) between
supply chain flexibilities
and firm performance
Product flexibility
Volume flexibility
Routing flexibility
Delivery flexibility
Transshipment flexibility
Postponement flexibility
Access flexibility
Sourcing flexibility
Launch flexibility
Response to market flexibility
Flexibility (construct)
Basic flexibility (construct)
System flexibility (construct)
Aggregate flexibility (construct)
ROI
ROI
growth
Market
share
Market share
growth
ROS
ROS
growth
0.494**
0.266**
0.301**
0.211*
0.121
0.055
0.425**
0.125
0.321**
0.352**
0.384**
0.318**
0.215*
0.439**
0.359**
0.151
0.226*
0.266**
0.243*
0.164***
0.322**
0.103
0.360**
0.357**
0.418**
0.301**
0.209*
0.475**
0.390**
0.239*
0.264**
0.134
0.211*
0.270**
0.405**
0.297**
0.585**
0.393**
0.330**
0.434**
0.143
0.336**
0.341**
0.290**
0.274**
0.260**
0.254**
0.187***
0.457**
0.335**
0.597**
0.350**
0.393**
0.300**
0.259**
0.401**
0.259**
0.209*
0.154
0.060
0.045
0.136
0.310**
0.091
0.315**
0.209*
0.195*
0.223*
0.066
0.238*
0.236*
0.226*
0.148
0.150
0.255**
0.154
0.320**
0.140
0.455**
0.192*
0.254**
0.167***
0.175***
0.258**
flexibility type is not significantly related to two firm performance criteria market
share and return on sales whereas the basic flexibility type is not related to each
performance factor at a 0.05 level of significance. This reinforces the importance of
aggregating supply chain flexibility dimensions in order to explain firm performance.
The second research hypotheses focused on whether higher levels of perceived
uncertainty result in greater emphasis on one or more supply chain flexibility
dimensions. To address this issue, first the correlation of the importance ratings on the
ten flexibility dimensions with the uncertainty ratings were determined (Table V).
At the construct level, flexibility and environmental uncertainty are positively related
(r 0.183; p , 0.05), which supports the H2. The results also show that only some
flexibility dimensions are overall correlated with environmental uncertainty: product,
responsiveness, sourcing, postponement, and routing flexibility. Other dimensions of
supply chain flexibility are only correlated with partial dimensions of environmental
uncertainty but not with overall uncertainty. Regarding the categories of flexibility
dimensions basic, system, aggregate the basic and aggregate types are
significantly related to the construct of environmental uncertainty.
Finally, a linear regression was also carried out to test the second and the following
research hypotheses under a multivariate analysis. Table VI shows the results.
The companys supply chain flexibility is positively explained by the environmental
uncertainty, technological complexity, and mutual understanding. Flexibility is also
negatively explained by the commitment in the supply chain. These results validate
the hypotheses H2, H3a, H3b, H4 but not H5. The control variables are also
significant: flexibility capabilities are enhanced at larger suppliers and by more
dependence on the automotive manufacturers.
Table VI also shows the linear regressions for each category of flexibility
dimensions: basic, system, and aggregate. Environmental uncertainty and mutual
understanding significantly explain each category. Other variables only explain one of
them: technological complexity positively explains aggregate flexibility, and
commitment negatively explains basic flexibility.
5. Discussion
This paper has focused on flexibility in the supply chain according to the research
model depicted in Figure 2. The first research hypothesis addressed whether high
performances on supply chain flexibility improves firm performance. Overall, excellent
performers on supply chain flexibility are rewarded at the bottom line. Often, it is
difficult to justify research and development investments to develop flexibility, but the
results of this study suggest that superior performance in flexibility capabilities does
impact a firms bottom line and thus the investment appears justified.
Nevertheless, our results also indicate that not every flexibility dimension is equally
related to every firm performance measure. As a consequence, logistic and production
managers should plan the effects of each flexibility dimension to highlight the
outperforming dimensions for the companys competitive advantage. It is therefore
advantageous to tailor a flexibility strategy precisely to the characteristics of a given
supply chain. A frequent handicap common to firms developing a flexibility strategy is
to increase in flexibility in a way that is not necessary for a given environment, and/or
to miss out on opportunities to enter an area of the market requiring greater
responsiveness (Venderhaeghe and Treville, 2003).
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
693
Table V.
The relationship
(correlation) between
supply chain flexibility
and environmental
uncertainty
Competitors
0.270**
20.008
0.216*
0.071
0.182***
0.210*
0.087
0.100
0.212*
0.261**
0.103
0.098
0.130
0.149
Product
0.097
20.025
0.252**
0.081
20.085
0.220*
0.188***
0.439**
0.291**
0.118
0.236*
0.051
0.098
0.337**
Demand/tastes
0.140
0.316**
0.277**
0.086
20.027
0.335**
0.038
0.260**
20.101
0.163***
0.139
0.232*
0.138
0.105
Production
0.514**
0.172***
0.095
20.052
20.041
0.247*
0.056
20.013
0.014
0.227*
0.100
0.368**
0.084
0.066
Marketing
0.235*
0.041
0.162***
0.032
0.147
0.216*
0.190*
0.102
0.082
0.138
0.112
0.101
0.154
0.106
694
Product flexibility
Volume flexibility
Routing flexibility
Delivery flexibility
Transshipment flexibility
Postponement flexibility
Access flexibility
Sourcing flexibility
Launch flexibility
Response to market flexibility
Flexibility (construct)
Basic flexibility (construct)
System flexibility (construct)
Aggregate flexibility (construct)
Environmental uncertainty
Overall
0.395**
0.158
0.319**
0.070
0.052
0.390**
0.177***
0.286**
0.158
0.286**
0.183*
0.257**
0.149
0.202*
IJOPM
25,7
Variable
Environmental uncertainty
Technological complexity
Mutual understanding
Interdependence
Supplier dependence
ICT use
Company size
Automotive dependence
Model results
R2
R 2 adjusted
F
p
N
Basic flexibility
System
flexibility
Aggregate
flexibility
0.313** (4.043)
0.164* (1.824)
0.419** (4.849)
2 0.205* (2.452)
0.048 (0.536)
20.163*** (1.966)
0.265** (3.004)
0.215* (2.613)
0.322** (3.696)
0.129 (1.276)
0.459** (4.728)
20.289** (3.079)
0.117 (1.164)
2 0.168*** (1.801)
0.173*** (1.744)
0.008 (0.087)
0.244** (3.229)
0.058 (0.662)
0.413** (4.888)
20.109 (1.334)
0.105 (1.199)
20.211* 2.610)
0.191* (2.209)
0.412** (5.210)
0.242* (2.570)
0.205* (1.878)
0.239* (2.274)
20.151 (1.493)
20.056 (0.519)
20.059 (0.587)
0.277* (2.583)
0.100 (1.004)
0.542
0.505
14.376
0.000
126
0.422
0.374
8.848
0.000
126
0.563
0.527
15.638
0.000
126
0.326
0.270
5.854
0.000
126
Notes: Standardised beta coefficient; t-student values between parenthesis; and ***p , 0.1;
**p , 0.01; *p , 0.05
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
695
Table VI.
Regression of supply
chain flexibility
IJOPM
25,7
696
related to firm performance than basic flexibility capabilities. Thus, companies might
miss opportunities to improve competitiveness by underestimating customer-supplier
flexibility capabilities.
The second objective was to quantitatively analyse the impact of some supply chain
characteristics on flexibility performance. The results indicate that flexibility
capabilities are enhanced in supply chain with higher environmental uncertainty,
technological complexity, and mutual understanding, but with lower interdependence
between the agents involved in the supply chain. The results contribute to a better
understanding of the forces and constraints that companies face with flexibility
capabilities.
Although the model is highly significant due to the values of R 2, there are other
factors not included in the model that could impact the relationship between flexibility,
supply chain characteristics and firm performance. The paper has not included other
operations objectives like quality or efficiency which also impact on firm
performance. On the other hand, the research has used cross-sectional data, which are
limited in order to explain causal relationships. A longitudinal study would be more
suitable to confirm the exploratory results obtained in the paper. Another limitation of
the research is that we did not use any secondary data (such as financial reports) to
crosscheck firm performance.
In spite of the limitations of this study, it provides a framework of supply chain
flexibility dimensions which may be used as a test base for further research. For
example, it would be useful to analyse which flexibility dimensions are the most
critical responses (if any) to environmental uncertainty across industries. Besides, this
paper focuses on supply chain flexibility and did not include basic flexibility
dimensions at the shop floor level, such as machine or labour that can also impact on
firm performance. Future research might also develop objective measures of supply
chain flexibility since a possible limitation of the current study is its reliance on
perceptual data.
References
Adler, P., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. (1999), Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of the
model changeovers in the Toyota Production System, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 43-116.
Alvarez-Gil, M.J. (1994), Capital budgeting and flexible manufacturing, International Journal of
Production Economics, No. 36, pp. 109-28.
Barad, M. and Nof, S. (1997), CIM flexibility measures: a review and framework for analysis and
applicability assessment, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing,
Vol. 10 Nos 1/4, pp. 296-308.
Barad, M. and Sapir, D. (2003), Flexibility in logistic systems-modeling and performance
evaluation, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 155-70.
Bensaou, M. and Venkatraman, N. (1995), Configurations of interorganizational relationships: a
comparison between U.S. and Japanese automakers, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 9,
pp. 1471-92.
Brill, D. and Mandelbaum, M. (1989), On measures of flexibility in manufacturing systems,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 747-56.
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
697
IJOPM
25,7
698
Chen, C.F., Egbelu, P.J. and Wu, C.T. (1994), Production planning models for a central factory
with multiple satellite factories, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 32
No. 6, pp. 1431-50.
Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R. and Anderson, J. (1989), A theory of production competence,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 655-68.
Dangayach, G. and Deshmukh, S. (2001), Manufacturing strategy: literature review and some
issues, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 7,
pp. 884-932.
Das, S. and Malek, L. (2003), Modeling the flexibility of order quantities and lead-times in supply
chains, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 171-81.
Das, S. and Nagendra, P. (1997), Selection of routes in a flexible manufacturing facility,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 237-47.
Das, S. and Patel, P. (2002), An audit tool for determining flexibility requirements in a
manufacturing facility, Journal of Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 264-74.
De Groote, X. (1994), The flexibility of production processes: a general framework,
Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 933-45.
De Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (1998), Manufacturing flexibility: a literature review, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1587-617.
Dess, G. and Robinson, R. (1984), Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 265-73.
Duclos, L., Vokurka, R. and Lummus, R. (2003), A conceptual model of supply chain flexibility,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 446-56.
Dyer, J. (1996), How Chrysler created an American keiretsu, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74
No. 4, pp. 42-56.
Dyer, J. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing
network: The Toyota case, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 345-67.
DSouza, D. and Williams, F. (2000), Towards a taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility
dimensions, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 577-93.
Garavelli, A. (2003), Flexibility configurations for the supply chain management, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 141-53.
Gerwin, D. (1993), Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective, Management Science,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 395-410.
Giannoccaro, I., Pontrandolfo, P. and Scozzi, B. (2003), Uncertainty in supply chain inventory
management: a fuzzy approach, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 149,
pp. 185-96.
Grande, I. (1996), Fundamentos y Tecnicas de Investigacion Comercial, ESIC Editorial, Madrid.
Gupta, Y. and Buzacott, J.A. (1989), A framework for understanding flexibility in manufacturing
systems, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 89-97.
Gupta, Y. and Goyal, S. (1989), Flexibility of the manufacturing system: concepts and
measurement, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 43, pp. 119-35.
Gupta, Y. and Somers, T. (1996), Business strategy, manufacturing flexibility, and
organizational performance relationships: a path analysis approach, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 204-31.
Jaikumar, R. (1986), Postindustrial manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 64 No. 6,
pp. 69-76.
Supply chain
flexibility and
firm performance
699
IJOPM
25,7
700