In this section, studies that have analysed strategic consensus on manufacturing competitive priorities are examined. These papers are reviewed based on the variables studied (dependent and independent), the methodology utilised and the overall conclusions obtained. Studies that do not include a measure of performance as the resultant variable were excluded from the review (Boyer and McDermott, 1999). Particularly, we are interested in analysing the methodology used to measure and assess the consensus on strategic manufacturing priorities. These studies are summarised in Table I.
The first and obvious observation from the review of the literature is the lack of studies that examine strategic consensus on manufacturing competitive priorities and its effect on performance. This becomes more evident when compared to similar studies in the business strategy field. For example, the study by Lindman et al. (2001) is preceded by at least 15 years by similar papers in the business strategy field (Bourgeois, 1985). A number of literature review studies regarding strategic consensus on competitive priorities have been already published in the business strategy field (Dess and Priem, 1995; Kellermanns et al., 2006). Clearly, this topic has been under-researched in the field of operations management.
Given the absence of previous evidence, it is not surprising that studies in the field of operations management have relied mainly on previous empirical research by authors in the business strategy field. For example, the literature reviews by the authors of the four papers in Table I include a number of strategic consensus studies in the field of business strategy as the antecedents of their research. Likewise, the methodologies utilised in those four papers mirror the methodologies used in business strategy models. While this is a valuable and necessary first step, we think that those methodologies may not be best suited to model current and mainstream manufacturing strategy/operations management theory into the study of strategic consensus on manufacturing competitive priorities.
We find that in particular, the methodologies used in order to calculate the level of consensus and agreement amongst several levels of management are questionable. Three papers (Joshi et al., 2003; Tarigan, 2005; Rusjan, 2006) utilise summated scores of the disagreements between two management levels regarding the strategic importance of manufacturing competitive priorities. This approach is based on Venkatraman's (1989) theoretical work in which he proposes a methodology to determine fit/misfit in organisations. On the other hand, Lindman et al. (2001) measure consensus by summating the standard deviations of scale items responses from the participants in their study.
An analysis of these methodologies shows that they do not take into account the trade-offs – compatibilities that can exist between two manufacturing competitive priorities. They solely measure disagreement levels. From operations management theory, we know that disagreement regarding the importance on one competitive priority can affect not only the competitive priority in question. Such disagreement can also potentially affect another performance area that is in a trade-off situation with the said competitive priority. For example, if competitive priorities “X” and “Y” are in a trade-off situation, overemphasis on X (i.e. placing more importance and hence more resources and/or time/effort than originally planned) does not only mean that X will probably attain a performance level that is not planned for or intended. Since X is traded-off with Y, such overemphasis on X will likely result in a diminished performance on Y. A typical real life example would be the trade-off existent between customer demand responsiveness (e.g. keeping safety stock of materials to respond to unplanned customer demand) and lean inventories. If overemphasis is placed on keeping low levels of materials inventory, demand responsiveness would be clearly affected. Lack of awareness of this trade-off could potentially result in diminished performance levels in a key strategic priority (e.g. customer demand responsiveness). Therefore, it is evident that the methodologies used in previous studies would fail to model this situation. A more comprehensive approach is needed.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.