Infrastructure and flexible manufacturing technology: Theory development

• Author: Jack Meredith,Mary Jo Maffei
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(95)00034-8
• Published date: 01 December 1995
• Date: 01 December 1995

ELSEVIER

Journal of Operations Management 13 (1995) 273-298

JOURNAL OF

OPERATIONS

MANAGEMENT

Infrastructure and flexible manufacturing technology: Theory

development 1

Mary Jo Maffei ~'*, Jack Meredith b

a MQ Associates, 6646 Hamilton Road, Rural Route 3, Middletown OH 45044, USA

b Wake Forest University, Babcock Graduate School of Management, P.O. Box 7659, Winston Salem, NC 27109-7659, USA

Received 1 November 1993; accepted 1 October 1995

Abstract

Many firms have installed flexible manufacturing technologies but have not achieved the expected benefits. While

considerable research has been conducted on the difficulty of implementing advanced forms of technology, this study

investigated the operational infrastructure required to benefit from the routine use of such technology. Six in-depth case

studies were conducted to ascertain the performance impact of three areas of the operational infrastructure: the operator's

role, the production planning systems and the integration of technology with the organization. Performance was evaluated in

terms of quality, marketing, responsiveness, cost/productivity, inventory and on-time delivery. Based on the insights from

the case studies, eleven propositions and three conceptual models identifying the impact of specific infrastructure elements

on the benefits attained from the use of'flexible manufacturing technology were developed.

1. Introduction

Many manufacturers today face the problem of

how to successfully use and benefit from advanced

manufacturing technologies in their companies. Many

have installed advanced process technology, but have

not gained the expected benefits. A number of

prominent authors in the field of operations manage-

ment (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984; Skinner, 1985;

Meredith, 1986; Hayes and Jaikumar, 1988; Hill,

1989; Majchrzak, 1988; Gerwin, 1988) have intro-

duced and advocated that the proper infrastructure or

organizational support systems are necessary to

achieve significant benefits from advanced process

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 513-398-5554.

This paper was processed by Consulting Editor Thomas

Hoffmann.

technologies. Without the proper infrastructure, a

technology may be a technical success, but provide

little competitive benefits for a firm (Voss, 1988).

Little research has focused on what type of infra-

structure is needed to utilize advanced technologies

to their full potential. The research presented here

focuses on this issue by studying in-depth six instal-

lations of one type of advanced technology, flexible

manufacturing cells (FMC). A flexible manufactur-

ing cell is one or more machine tools controlled

through a central computer and linked by an auto-

mated material handling system. (Flexible Manufac-

turing Systems (FMS) have historically referred to

larger cells, however recently vendors have been

using FMC to refer to systems of all sizes.) While

considerable research has been done on how to

implement new technologies, little study has focused

on what is necessary to benefit from the routine use

0272-6963/95//$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI

0272-6963(95)00034-8

274

M.J. Maffei, J. Meredith/Journal of Operations Management 13 (1995)273-298

of these technologies. The routinization phase, where

the technology is working without major difficulties

as a regular ongoing component of the company's

operations, is important because this is when an

organization achieves the benefits from the new

technology. Thus, the research described here fo-

cuses on what makes flexible manufacturing cells

successful during routine use.

The next section describes the background litera-

ture and pilot study that contributed to the case

study. Section 3 then provides a description of the

case research method used in the study and a brief

overview of each of the six companies investigated.

Following this, Section 4 develops eleven proposi-

tions identifying the relationship between FMC ben-

efits and specific elements of the infrastructure. Three

conceptual models relating infrastructure to FMC

benefits and performance are included. Conclusions

are presented in the final section.

2. Background

The organizational aspects of technology is not a

new topic; it has been discussed from a number of

different perspectives over the years using varied

terminology. Woodward (1965), in a watershed study

of one hundred firms in South Essex, identified the

relationship between "technology" and structural

variables such as span of control and ratio of man-

agers to total personnel. Her research found that

certain structures may be incongruent with certain

technologies. Another early study conducted by the

British Tavistock Institute (Trist and Bamforth, 1951;

Emery and Trist, 1965) identified the importance of

organization to technology. They studied coal mines

before and after the introduction of mechanization

and found that the introduction of mechanization

required new forms of organization and communica-

tion. From this beginning, the term "sociotechnical

system" was developed to identify the interaction

between social and technical systems in the work

environment.

2.1. Infrastructure

While the term "sociotechnical systems" has been

used to explain technical and social changes of firms,

"infrastructure" (see (Skinner, 1985)) has been used

in the operations management literature to describe

the organizational support systems surrounding auto-

mated technology. Hayes and Wheelwright (1984)

provide a useful distinction between the two areas.

Building on sociotechnicai theory, they see infra-

structure issues as operating at a more tactical level

of the organization with a lower level of abstraction

and more detail. However, their cumulative impact

can be critical not only to the implementation and

use of advanced technology, but to the manufactur-

ing and corporate strategy as well, and to the ulti-

mate success of the firm.

Skinner (1985) suggests that the potential benefits

of technology are largely being neutralized by fail-

ings or inconsistencies in factories' infrastructures.

He defines manufacturing infrastructure as "... the

policies, procedures, and organization by which

manufacturing accomplishes its work, specifically

production and inventory control systems, cost and

quality control systems, work-force management

policies and organizational structure." He suggests

that factory systems are often outdated because the

infrastructure is incongruent with the requirements of

the technology. Meredith (1986) and Hayes and

Jaikumar (1988) believe that the mismatch between

new technologies and obsolete infrastructures is

causing a crisis in American organizations.

In order to help focus the research and understand

infrastructural issues associated with advanced tech-

nology, a pilot study which included open-ended

interviews with thirteen vendors, users and consul-

tants of advanced manufacturing technology and a

survey of fourteen leading academic researchers in

this field were conducted. While specific questions

were asked, the preliminary interviews were largely

open-ended and were designed to permit the knowl-

edgeable interviewee to identify and frame the im-

portant issues (Dexter, 1970). Initially in this pilot

study, questions were asked about the four stages of

the innovation process: adoption, preparation, imple-

mentation and routinization (Hage, 1980). While all

stages appeared important, the routinization stage

appeared particularly intriguing. During routinization

the innovation becomes "part of daily practice"

(Gerwin, 1988) and the institutionalization of the

technology occurs. Routinization is the only stage of

the innovation process where the technology is being