استراتژی تولید: تجارب از سازمان های منتخب هندی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|10590||2013||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7078 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Volume 19, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 134–148
The manufacturing function can be a formidable weapon to achieve competitive superiority. Through three case studies, this paper observes the manufacturing strategy practices in select Indian organizations. The common aspects and differences between the example organizations are highlighted. A model is proposed linking the manufacturing competitive priorities and the action plan pursued by these firms.
Turbulent and uncertain marketplaces throughout the world are the result of intense competition,changes in manufacturing management,developments in manufacturing technology, environmental changes, rapid advances in information technology, developments in new processes and materials, opening up of economies, shortening of product life cycles, and advances in physical and biological sciences.The transition of production systems to new organizational forms and managerial practices under the pressurc of radical changes in competition, marketplaces,technologies, and socioeconomics has attracted much research attention. It is becoming increasingly important for manufacturing organizations to articulate clear and coherent manufacturing strategies that support their long-term business objectives.Manufacturing strategy in an organization is concerned with key decisions about the specific role to be played by the manufacturing function in achieving competitive advantage. In the past, manufacturing strategy has been a neglected topic of discussion,especially in countries such as India. In fact, manufacturing has frequently been regarded as the poor relation of the other higher profile functions of finance and marketing, j The manufacturing function was regarded merely as a collection of resources and constraints and was expected to fulfill, as cfl'iciently as possible, the production targets generated by the marketing strategy within the capacity and capital expenditure constraints imposed by financial strategy. I Skinner I was the first to observe that a company's manufacturing function could do more than simply produce and ship the products.Assessing manufacturing strengths and weaknesscs is imperative to decide the strategies to compete in the marketplace. To assess the critical success factors in today's competitive environment, a company must formulate a manufacturing strategy aligned with business strategy to achieve superior performance and capability. 2 Numerous eflbrts on manufacturing strategy have been reported in the literature by various researchers in the tbrm of empirical studies, surveys, transnational comparisons, and case studies. 3 Prochno and Corrca ~ developed a model of manufacturing strategy development in an industry in Brazil, where the environment is turbulent and change is not the exception but the rule.They involved five customers and key managers from different functions and used a number of worksheets and interviews during their study. In their study, Rohr and Corrca s addressed the key question of competing in time. They applied semi-structured questionnaires and interviews in seven selected companies in Brazil. Lindbcrg and Trygg" tbcuscd on the interdependence of component suppliers and manufacturers of finished goods in Swedish industry. They collected data from 126 companies to assess these objectives, whereas Hortc, Borjcsson,and Tunalv 7 discussed some aspects of manufacturing strategy developed by Swedish manutacturing companies over a three-year period from 1986-1989. They used survey methodology lbr 184 Swedish firms. Kim and Arnold ~ developed a process model of manufacturing strategy tbr opcrationalizing the fundamental concepts of competitive priorities into more concrete decisions on action programs. Their process model was based on data collected from the 1990 manufacturing futures survey for 182 USbased firms. Kim and Arnold included three major constructs of manufacturing strategy--competitive priorities, manufacturing objectives, and action plans. Similar research has been performed by Neely et ai2 for 344 UK firms. They assessed the status of manufacturing strategy and performance measurement systems in the selected companies.Hitomi t° highlighted industrial strengths and status of manufacturing strategy in Japan. Ardishvili and HilP ~ conducted a study of 49 firms in the former Soviet Union to understand the manufacturing practices and to determine the required changes for a new market-driven economy. Chikan and DemeteP 2 assessed manufacturing strategy practices and Skinner's framework for 75 Hungarian firms.Transnationai comparisons of various countries and continents are also reported in the literature.Bolwjin and Brinkman ~3 compared Western and Japanese work culture, management, and organization practices and highlighted the fundamental differences between them. Pilkington ~4 compared the automobile leaders of USA, UK, Japan, France,and Italy and explored why manufacturing managers have remained embedded in the best-practice mode. Noble 15 tested a cumulative model for the building of manufacturing capabilities by comparing and contrasting the manufacturing strategies of 265 North American, 129 European, and 167 Korean factories by region. A similar study was performed by Ferdows et al. 16 for comparing the trends in implementation of manufacturing strategy in 168 European, 174 North American, and 186 Korean firms, in 1998, Voss and Blackmon 17 gathered data from 600 firms in 20 countries. They examined the cultural differences between Western and Japanese firms for manufacturing practices and performance. According to Voss and Blackmon, there is a perceptible difference about strategic time orientation in manufacturing strategy.They found that the widely accepted belief that Western companies are short-term oriented and that Japanese companies are long-term oriented was wrong. They observed that Japanese companies are simultaneously short-term and long-term in their approach to manufacturing strategy.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper has reported on the practices of manufacturing strategy in three Indian firms. Highlighted were a number of interesting aspects of manufacturing function and strategy in three companies that were different from each other in nature and product range. A summary of the main features of the firms is given in Table 5. All three firms A, B, and C have definite manufacturing missions. Firm A could bc placed in stage Ill of the H&W model, that is, internally supportive. Its motorbike is quite popular in local markets. Due to excellent mileage per liter, the motorbike has 49% market share in the two-wheeler market segment. Firm B, an automotive component manufacturer, could also be placed in stage [II,internally supportive. Firm B is gradually improving and has increased its market share up to 45% in steering systems and suspension system components.Firm C is a new entrant in the market, starting production in 1995. It is a learning organization and could be placed in stage II. Due to a clear-cut mission and teamwork of employees, it is a fast-growing enterprise. Various manufacturing strategy related attributes of these firms are summarized in Table 6.All of the firms in the study have shown awareness toward manufacturing strategy. They have gradually changed themselves to face fierce competition.Competitive price and quality are the common order qualifiers for the firms. Order winners for the firms are different due to product nature and product range. A comparison of manufacturing strategy practices and action plan for the firms is presented in Figure 5. The following observations are made based on the study: 1. Before the process of liberalization of the Indian economy, most of the Indian managers were occupied with simply selling goods through the process. This scenario was characterized by production schedules in the lace of unreliable machines, uncooperative workers, "'fire fighting"middle-level managers, and shortsighted top management. The short-term orientation was due to the high cost of capital, frequent government policy changes, and a highly protective environment. Today, however, the scenario is different and is driven by competition. 2. The organizations are motivated to think in long-term implications. Manufacturing strategy has thus become imperative. This long-term orientation is reflected in terms of an organization's emphasis on building market share instead of short-term profits (see for example the focus of firrns A and B), making naanufacturing a strategic priority (firms A, B, and ('),deployrnent of continuous improvement strategies (TQM, Kaizen in firm B), closer supplier buyer relationships, total productive maintenance,and so on. 3. The firms have the knowledge of what needs to be done at the top level (firms A and B) and at the operational level. The firms are adopting a strategy to have action plans in placc. These firms have realized the importance of proactivity of the manufacturing fimction. The linkage between manufacturing, marketing, and R&D seems to be in place. 4. The H&W model describing four stages along a "continuum," which represents the evolution of manufacturing's strategic role, is used in this paper as a platform by which proactive involvement of manufacturing in the firm can be calibrated. The three firms A, B, and C are mapped into this model. 5. The study reveals that firms A and B have qualified for quality, and now their competitive priorities are innovation, cost, and flexibility, whereas firm C has quality as its top priority.Similar to firm C. many other Indian firms are still at the quality stage, whereas firms from other developing countries, such as Hungary.Brazil, and so forth, are trying for flexibility.Figure 6 shows a conceptual model of manufacturing strategy based on the three cases reported here. The aim of manufacturing strategy formulation in any organization is to achieve competitive priorities decided by market forces, competition, and external environment. Manufacturing strategy has to resolve two basic issues, structural and infrastructural.Structural issues include capacity, facility,technology, and vertical integration. Various infrastructural issues are related to human resource policies, quality policies, workforcc planning and control, organization measurement, use of information technology, and so on. To achieve the competitive priorities, the role of infrastructural issues is very important. Top management must give its attention to improve on these issues rather than just keeping the equipment running. Infrastructural issues are intangible in nature and are developed over a certain period of time through persistent, day-to-day effort. A coherent infrastructural policy takes time to build, can be difficult to change once in place, and in many cases provides the company's primary source of advantage. An action plan is required to translate the manufacturing mission into reality; such a plan is expected to be market and product specific.