تغییر درایور در هزاره جدید:مفاهیم برای تحقیقات استراتژی تولید

Drawing on multiple sources, we identify technological, global and workforce trends that will affect the formulation and implementation of manufacturing strategy in the next decade. We then describe several theories from economics, sociology, and psychology and show how they can be used to enrich our interpretations of the effects of these trends. Throughout, we offer suggestions for future research in manufacturing strategy.

At the dawn of the new millennium, several emerging and continuing trends point to a variety of fundamental changes central to manufacturing strategy. Many of these changes are technologically driven, and in some cases today’s firms are already grappling with their effects. The rush to embrace and exploit supply chain management, for example, reflects both the increased penetration of inter-organizational information technology and the increased competitive pressure of today’s markets. Other changes, such as shifts toward collaborative, knowledge-based work environments, have only just begun to take root in firms worldwide and may not reach their full impact until well into the next decade. And, we should note, some of the changes promised by the new millennium may remain just that — promises. Realized or not, however, these developments likely will result in order-of-magnitude increases in the uncertainty and complexity of manufacturing strategy formulation and implementation. The new millennium promises more demanding customers, greater competitive intensity, and increased complexity in production technology and coordination. What are the implications of these changes for the development of manufacturing strategy? In this paper, we explore the predicted changes from several perspectives, using selected theories from economics, sociology, and psychology. In doing so, we hope to expand our understanding of the implications of these trends, and to identify research directions for manufacturing strategy researchers. The paper is organized as follows. In the first section, we synthesize predictions about trends that are affecting manufacturing firms. Second, we describe several theories from economics, sociology, and psychology that have been used only sparingly in manufacturing strategy research, then use the theories to provide a richer interpretation of the emerging trends in operations. We then conclude with some suggested research questions for manufacturing strategy researchers.

In prefacing a special Journal of Operations Management forum on theory-driven research, Melnyk and Handfield point out that “the class of problems facing operations managers today is often less well-defined” than ever before (Melnyk and Handfield, 1998, p. 312). In this paper, we have attempted to interpret the drivers of change in manufacturing using multiple theoretical perspectives — all in an attempt to better define the issues and problems that manufacturing managers, and manufacturing strategy researchers, will encounter in the future. In our interpretations in this article, several themes emerged that frame interesting research questions for manufacturing strategy scholars. 5.1. Manufacturing scope and advantage As we have discussed, the lower cost and widespread availability of communication, design, and production technologies will decrease demand uncertainty and simultaneously lower entry barriers to new competitors. These trends suggest several research questions about the effect of these industry characteristics on manufacturing firms. One compelling set of questions pertains to manufacturing scope. A lowering of entry barriers will make entry by new firms likely, but it will also make movement into new areas easier for incumbent firms. To what degree will incumbent manufacturing firms be compelled to take advantage of lower entry barriers and easy-to-access new technologies to diversify into different products and markets, thus enlarging scope? What will be the trade-off between the ease of entry and the increasing complexity, and accompanying increase in uncertainty, associated with these moves? What will be the implications of these likely scope-enlarging moves on facility design, incoming and outgoing logistics, and internal coordination? Is it possible that the manufacturing advantages derived from more certain markets and advanced technologies will be compromised by corporate and business-level strategies that increase scope, complexity and uncertainty? Or, will there be opportunities to derive competitive advantage through superior coordination of complex manufacturing environments? A second compelling set of questions relates to manufacturing advantage. In an environment of increasing imitation and low entry barriers, how will firms develop and then protect sources of competitive advantage within manufacturing? What potential sources of advantage will they choose to protect? As described, it is likely that technology and structural elements will not provide a source of advantage. However, the research theories that were discussed earlier suggest potentially contradictory strategic postures. The need to develop and protect difficult-to-imitate knowledge and routines, from the resource-based view, will work against the desire to gain access to an efficient market of manufacturers, consistent with transaction cost theory. How will firms weigh these contradictory priorities? Cognitive and institutional theories may shed light on why firms will likely differ in their responses to this concern. Cognitive theory suggests that cognitive schema or mental models will play a significant role in how managers interpret these various environmental trends. For example, will managers who see manufacturing primarily as a collection of technologies be more likely to outsource manufacturing processes? Will managers who value manufacturing as a repository of complex routines, accumulated knowledge, and a source of causal ambiguity, be more likely to preserve and protect their production cores? If so, what are the predictors (education, background, experience) of those different strategic postures? Research into the links between competitive advantage in manufacturing and the background, education, and beliefs of manufacturing management will be a fruitful avenue for research in the future. 5.2. Dissipating or accumulating knowledge Throughout this article, we have noted the arguments that firm-specific knowledge and complex routines are more likely to provide manufacturing-based competitive advantages in the future than technologies. However, in our discussion of inter-organizational integration we have highlighted concerns about knowledge spillovers, forces that encourage isomorphism, and the potential for erosion of firm-specific knowledge. These concerns provoke interesting research questions. With more extensive use of supply chain management practices and a more mobile workforce, how will firms prevent the dissipation of firm-specific knowledge about unique processes and routines, cost structures, quality practices, proprietary arrangements, and future plans? How will manufacturing firms balance institutional pressures for homogeneity with the organizational need to maintain a proprietary difference? In counterpoint, however, there may be opportunities to accumulate knowledge across the networks of constituents, in unique and proprietary ways. For example, through effective management of partnering relationships, a manufacturing firm might be able to learn from suppliers, customers, or subcontractors. Application of absorptive capacity concepts (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990 and Leonard, 1995), which are generally applied to technology transfer issues across technology alliances, has potential for directing research inquiry into the vertical knowledge accumulation that is possible through supply chain management practices. 5.3. Manufacturing management Several research issues pertaining to the manufacturing workforce and manufacturing management team surfaced in our interpretation of trends. In what ways will mobility of knowledge workers influence manufacturing? Will mobility serve as a force for further isomorphism, or will it work to break-up rigid mental models about “the way things are done around here”? What background, education, and values best equip individuals to manage across cultures in an environment of rapid technology change? What actions will firms take to reduce their vulnerability to potential scarcities in skilled/knowledge workers? These questions about manufacturing scope, advantage, integration, and management are just a sampling of the kinds of issues that will continue to surface in the next decade. They represent rich opportunities to explore application of multiple theoretical perspectives to conceptual and empirical studies.