آشنایی با تنظیمات مدیریتی در انتخاب تجهیزات

Industry continues to look for methods of gaining competitive advantage through manufacturing techniques. These techniques, however, can be matched by competitors if used without the guidance of a strategic framework. Similarly, structural capacity choices can be matched by competitors without the infrastructural benefits of a well defined operations strategy. In this study, multiattribute utility (MAU) theory analysis was used in an experiment to quantify the contribution of various structural and infrastructural strategic factors toward sustaining competitive advantage within the context of a capital equipment selection decision. The experimental respondents were manufacturing managers and professionals from the plastics industry. This research provides groundwork for understanding the role of strategic infrastructural factors in sustaining competitive advantage within the structural capacity decision of selecting capital equipment in the plastics industry.

An equipment purchasing decision impacts the capacity levels of a business (Persson, 1991). Oversized equipment selections can be costly in multiple ways including the initial outlay of cash and the subsequent result of having too much capacity (generating excessive inventories, idle equipment, etc.). Alternatively, undersizing equipment can result in greater penalties if lack of capacity constrains meeting customer demands (Markland et al., 1998). Equipment selection also has broader implications. For instance, the strategy adopted in selecting equipment can affect the flexibility of switching between products or ramping up products (Skinner, 1996). Hayes (1985) argued that strategic infrastructural factors are the key to achieving competitive advantage. Skinner (1996) argued more specifically that strategic infrastructural factors in a capacity decision are an important source of competitive advantage. Capital investments have been viewed as strategic decisions (Lindberg et al., 1988 and Persson, 1991). Capital equipment decisions based on engineering cost–benefit analysis considering productivity factors have deep roots in the industrial community (Sage, 1983 and Newnan, 1991). However, if, as is hypothesized by Skinner (1996), the strategic considerations of these capacity decisions do represent sources of competitive advantage, then the acquisition of capital equipment provides an opportunity to gain sustainable competitive advantage.

Based on the ANOVA results, the conclusion that operating strategies affect capacity choices was supported. Under the boundaries of this study, when managers were given a strategic priority, they endeavored to use those capacity choices to meet the strategic goals. Even in the case of the single machine alternative, the experimental factors influenced how this alternative was viewed. Infrastructural factors were valued in using this option with which to compete. This was understandable because a single machine limits the number of degrees of freedom a manager has in operating. Therefore, other intangible factors must be utilized to support the use of this capacity choice. The respondents in this experiment preferred in all eight treatments to operate with multiple machines. The objective assigned to the respondents was to gain and sustain competitive advantage by purchasing one of the equipment choices. The choices were scalable and equal. Therefore, each alternative resulted in an option, which could help them meet the strategic goals of their assigned treatment. In some of the treatments, an a priori expectation would be that the managers and professionals would use big, fast, and productive equipment to gain advantages through such structural factors as reducing costs and increasing productivity. Despite existing theory regarding these structural influences, the respondents chose alternatives that resulted in managerial options for them. Even when cost is a priority, managers appear to consider reliability in making decisions.