appear to go beyond ``flexibility'' or ``agility'' to the provision of customized goods and services for the mass market. This means not merely making operational ...
IJOPM 19,3
262
Implications of mass customization for operations management An exploratory survey Ê hlstroÈm PaÈr A
Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden, and
Roy Westbrook
London Business School, London, UK Keywords Flexibility, Mass customization, Operations management, Surveys Abstract This paper reports the results of a survey conducted to explore issues surrounding mass customization and in particular its implications for operations management. The findings cover the market changes driving customization, the methods used to provide customized goods, the positive and negative effects of customization, and the difficulties of implementation. There are shown to be important implications for operations management in a strategy of mass customization, and thus substantial scope for further research by operations management academics.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, 1999, pp. 262-275, # MCB University Press, 0144-3577
Introduction Mass customization is a term first coined to describe a trend towards the production and distribution of individually customized goods and services for a mass market (Davis, 1987). As such, mass customization is related to the term ``flexible production'', as used by Dertouzos et al. (1989). The concept of mass customization was first fully expounded by Pine (1993a), based on a survey of US firms, and elaborated by him and by others in a series of articles in the Harvard Business Review (Gilmour and Pine, 1997; Pine et al., 1993; 1995). These papers all imply a view of mass customization as in some sense a historically inevitable successor to mass production, the principal way in which to compete in the future. An alternative view, which saw mass customization and mass production as co-existing in the same firm and the benefits derived from the synergy between them, was put forward by Kotha (1995) based on the experience of a Matsushita division, Panasonic Bicycle. The same company, and other Japanese examples, were reported by Westbrook and Williamson (1993). Only two cases in the UK have been reported (Beaty, 1996; Ross, 1996). All of these articles appeared in the strategic and general management literature and are mainly concerned with the strategic impact of mass customization. Despite the common use of case examples and some reportage of operational details, there has been little research into the operations management issues raised by mass customization. Furthermore, mass customization is barely mentioned in recent editions of important textbooks (e.g. Slack et al., 1995) or operations management journals (an exception is
Duguay et al., 1997). This may be because mass customization is seen purely as a strategic theme or because there is a healthy scepticism about fads or panaceas among operations management academics. Yet there is surely a prima facie case for considerable interest by operations management researchers in the topic. For as reported hitherto mass customization would appear to go beyond ``flexibility'' or ``agility'' to the provision of customized goods and services for the mass market. This means not merely making operational adjustments for specific orders but developing a process which can supply very numerous customer-chosen variations on every order with little lead time or cost penalty. This challenges the traditional trade-offs in which the operations management community has long had a close interest. Thus we set out to do some exploratory research in UK firms into the implications for operations management of mass customization. We were interested, given the paucity of operations management literature thus far, to ask broad, scene-setting questions which may serve to pave the way for future research. We wished to discover: .
. . .
What market conditions were encountered by companies interested in mass customization? What methods were used to provide mass customization? What were the benefits and downsides of mass customization? What were the issues in implementing and extending mass customization initiatives ?
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. We start by outlining the research methodology used, followed by a display of the results of our survey, focusing on the implications of mass customization for operations management. The findings of the survey are then discussed in relation to existing literature on mass customization. Conclusions and suggestions for further research ends the paper. Research method The choice of research design is contingent on both the problems and the questions being investigated and the state of knowledge development in the field (Pettigrew, 1990). As explained earlier, the lack of research on the implications of mass customization for operations management led us to choose an exploratory survey methodology. The survey on which the paper is based was conducted by the researchers in collaboration with IBM Consulting (UK) Ltd at the end of 1996. The survey was mailed to manufacturing companies within the UK which had previously participated in a workshop on mass customization, and had therefore in some sense identified themselves as interested or involved in such initiatives. Attendance at the workshop also meant the respondents were likely to have a shared understanding of the concept, or at least more so than non-attendees.
Implications of mass customization 263
IJOPM 19,3
264
The companies that returned the survey correctly filled out were from a range of different industries. However, the main part of the companies (80 percent) came from one of the following three industries: fabrication and assembly, electrical and electronic, and chemical/pharmaceutical. Typical respondents were the managing director or production director. Around 200 surveys were sent out of which 40 usable ones were returned, a response rate of 20 percent. Being exploratory, the survey was kept relatively short. Most items asked the respondents to rank issues surrounding their mass customization endeavour. Issues included benefits and drawbacks of customization, the methods that were used for customization, and difficulties that were experienced with the mass customization endeavour. The survey also included a section on market conditions and customer requirements. The alternatives the respondents could choose from were predetermined by the researchers and generated using the existing literature (most importantly Pine, 1993a) and the researchers' own experience of the topic. The choice of ranking scales was due to a desire to simplify for respondents. Ranking scales have the benefit of being easy to understand and therefore suitable for selfadministered questionnaires (Kinnear and Taylor, 1991). One limitation of ranking scales is that a ranking of objects takes place regardless of the attitudinal position taken by the respondents (Kinnear and Taylor, 1991). To address this limitation, most questions included the opportunity for respondents to choose the category ``other'' and specify their choice. Ranking scales generate only ordinal data, which are not analysable by ordinary parametric statistics. The manner in which the data are summarised is to some extent left to the discretion of the researcher, since no standard methods exist (Emory and Cooper, 1991). In the present study, the summarised ranking has been calculated through multiplying the frequency by the rank and summarising the result (Zikmund, 1991). Although the use of Likert scales would have permitted more rigorous analysis, we chose to stay with ranking scales. Since the survey was exploratory, ranking scales were preferred over the development of more precise scales. For the same reason, rigour in analysis was not seen as an important criterion at this stage. Therefore, only the summarised results are presented and a non-parametric statistical technique, Spearman's Rho, was used (Daniel, 1990). As with most research designs, the one utilised here has its limitations. First, there is the small number of companies (40) that responded to the survey. Second, the sample was not random, which may bias the results, although it is unclear in which way. Third, ranking scales were used to simplify matters for the respondents, but at the same time these make analysis less exact than the use of Likert scales would have done. However, these limitations should be seen against the background of the current state of the knowledge in the area, which is scarce, at best. What literature does exist on mass customization is rather prescriptive, unless
reporting results from single case studies. Therefore, an attempt at more systematic data gathering should be welcome at this stage, and this survey is such an attempt.
Implications of mass customization
Survey results This section contains the distribution of responses to questions in the survey addressing the links between mass customization and the operations function. The implications for operations management that can be gleaned from the results will later be discussed in relation to existing literature.
265
Increasing need for variety and customized products The survey asked a number of questions in an attempt to ascertain whether or not companies found their markets demanded increasing variety and customized products. The responses to the questions can be found in Table I. The table illustrates that respondents perceived that their customers are demanding an increased variety of products. For instance, 72 percent of the companies indicated the market lifetime of their products was less now than five years ago. On average, these companies estimated the lifetime had shrunk by 25 percent. As seen from Table I, 55 percent of companies indicated they planned to increase their customization in the future (there were 12 non-respondents to this question). To ascertain the extent to which companies were responding to the current changes in market conditions with increased product customization, the following question was asked: ``What percentage of your product range is customized to order (volume/value)?'' The answers indicate that of those companies considering themselves to be providing customized products, the proportion by volume and value of products that were customized was relatively high; approaching 50 percent. Methods used to provide product customization: implications for operations The next set of questions on the survey concerned the methods companies used for providing product customization. Companies were asked to mark the method or methods they used from a predetermined list, with the option to fill in other methods. The list and corresponding responses are found in Table II. Companies were asked to indicate both the methods they were currently using and the methods they were planning to use in the future. As can be seen from Table II, around 60 percent of the answers marked the three first methods listed, which in one way or another concern the operations
Are customer needs changing faster than five years ago? Increasing demand on non-standard products? Is the market lifetime of your products less than it was five years ago? Do you plan to increase the degree of customization?
Yes
No
39 34 29 22
1 6 11 6
Table I. Customer requirements and market conditions
IJOPM 19,3
266
function. Material processing is perhaps the most apparent. However, if a company does not have a production system which can respond quickly enough to customer demand, it is forced to rely on an increased range of stock to meet demands on product customization. Assembly of core modules, finally, is also related to the operations function, although it is also an important design issue. Thus, although a wide range of methods were used to provide product customization within the companies, there seems to be an emphasis on methods which in one way or another affect the operations function. That is, the operations function has an important role to play as an enabler of a mass customization strategy. Benefits of customization To assess the positive outcomes companies experienced from increased product customization, respondents were asked to rank a number of outcomes on a predetermined list. In Table III the benefits have been ranked in order of importance. The table indicates that benefits seem to be related to the customer and the market impact more than to costs and profit. The responses to the question on benefits were also analysed by different categories. The first category concerns the methods used for customization. Our intuitive Method
Table II. Methods used for current and future product customization
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Assembly of core modules (AC) Material processing (MP) Increase range of stock (IS) Make products self-customizing (PS) Information content modification (IC) Another company provides services around product (AS) Retailer provides services around product (RS) Other
Customization benefits (in order of importance)
Table III. Customization benefits by method used
Increased customer satisfaction Increased market share Increased customer knowledge Reduced order response time Reduced manufacturing cost Increased profit Other
Currently (n = 27)
Future (n = 19)
16 15 12 11 8 6 4 ±
10 5 1 4 5 ± 1 4
AC
MP
IS
PS
IC
AS
RS
1 2
1 2
1 3
2 1
2 1
1 2
3 1
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
5
2
5
4
4
4
5 6 7
4 7 6
5 6 7
6 4 7
6 5 7
5 7 5
4 4 1
assumption was that different methods of providing customized goods would provide different benefits. The customization methods concerned here are the same as those in Table II. The result of the comparison is found in Table III. Spearman's Rho was used to test for similarities in ranking between companies using different methods for mass customization. The test was whether there was correlation between the overall ranking of customization benefits and the ranking made by companies using different methods. A cut-off point of a = 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. This form of test is used for such analyses throughout the paper. Tests indicated that only companies using retailers to provide services around the product (RS) deviated from the overall ranking. Our interpretation of this result is that it is mainly due to the low number of companies (n = 4) which used the retailer customization method. Second, the benefits of customization data were further analysed in terms of improvement initiatives the company had gone through to improve operations. To this end, a simple question was asked: ``Have you implemented any of the following in your business in a major way in the past ten years?'' Respondents were then asked to indicate any number of initiatives from the following alternatives: total quality management, just-in-time, cellular manufacturing, business process reengineering, and benchmarking. In general, more than half of the companies had implemented all the initiatives on the list. The responses indicate that the companies that responded to the survey were relatively sophisticated, in terms of improvement initiatives. However, the Spearman's Rho tests indicated that there was no difference between companies' ranking of customization benefits based on the type of improvement initiative they had undergone. Customization negatives To assess the negative outcomes companies experienced from increased product customization, respondents were asked to rank a number of outcomes on a predetermined list. In Table IV the negatives have been ranked in order of importance. The table indicates that the negatives associated with product customization have most to do with increased cost. One reason why this occurs may be that the production system incurs a premium cost for the increased flexibility, perhaps because the process has not evolved into a full masscustomizing one, but continues also to produce batches of standard products. That is, there seems to be scope to improve operations to achieve a higher degree of mass customization and/or to reduce costs. A perhaps surprising finding is that companies ranked ``increased order response time'' towards the end of the list. One may have expected increased response time from a mass customization endeavour. The finding indicates the responding companies are skilled at managing high variety with short lead times. As with the benefits of customization, the responses to the question concerning negatives were also analysed according to the methods used for customization. The results of this analysis are also found in Table IV.
Implications of mass customization 267
IJOPM 19,3
268 Table IV. Customization negatives by method used
Customization negatives (in order of importance) Increased material costs Increased manufacturing costs Poorer on-time deliveries Supplier delivery performance Increased order response time Other Reduction in product quality
AC
MP
IS
PS
IC
AS
RS
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1 5
1 5
2 3
3 2
2 3
2 3
1 1
3
4
4
6
6
5
1
5 5
7 3
5 5
4 4
5 4
4 7
4 4
3
6
7
7
7
6
4
Spearman's Rho was again used to test for similarities in ranking between companies using different methods for mass customization. Tests indicated that companies using assembly of core modules (AC), companies using material processing (MP), and companies using retailers to provide services around the product (RS) deviated from the overall ranking. Our interpretation of the test is that the result for companies using retailers to provide services (RS) around the product is again mainly due to the low number of companies (n = 4) which used the customization method. The main difference for companies that assembled core modules (AC) as a means of increasing product customization is that they rank ``supplier delivery performance'' and ``reduction in product quality'' higher than the overall ranking. On the other hand, the companies rank ``poorer on-time deliveries'' lower than the overall ranking. The main difference for companies that used material processing (MP) as a means of increasing product customization is that they rank ``other'' higher than the overall ranking and ``poorer on-time deliveries'' lower than the overall ranking. Of course, we would expect those increasing stock (IS) to facilitate customization to suffer increased material cost. Using Spearman's Rho, the material was also analysed according to the type of initiatives the company had gone through to improve operations. The tests indicated no statistically significant differences in ranking. Difficulties in implementing customization extend to external networks Related to the negatives of product customization was a question regarding the major difficulties companies experienced in implementing customization. Respondents were again asked to rank the implementation difficulties on a predetermined list. In Table V the customization difficulties have been ranked in order of importance. As can be seen in Table V, the top two difficulties: ``understanding customer wants'' and ``supply chain management'' are both related to how the company manages its external networks. The third highest ranked difficulty is the rather common problem of organizational change.
Customization difficulties (in order of importance) Understanding customer wants Supply chain management Culture and organisation change Changing business processes Information technology Distribution channels Other
AC
MP
IS
PS
IC
AS
RS
1 2
1 2
2 1
3 2
1 3
1 2
2 1
4
3
3
1
2
4
4
5 3 6 7
4 6 5 7
4 6 6 5
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
3 6 5 7
4 4 2 7
To examine whether there was a difference between companies, the same two categories as above were used to discriminate between responses: customization method and the type of initiatives the company had gone through to improve operations. The differentiation based on customization method is also found in Table V. Spearman's Rho was used to test for similarities in ranking between companies using different methods for mass customization. Tests indicated that only companies using retailers to provide services around the product (RS) deviated from the overall ranking. Our interpretation is that the result is mainly due to the low number of companies (n = 4) which used the customization method. The material was also analysed based on the type of initiatives the company had gone through to improve operations, but there were no statistically significant differences from the overall ranking. Barriers to increased customization are found in the operation Finally, the survey contained a question on the main barriers companies perceived for continued customization. The respondents were asked to rank alternatives from a predetermined list. In Table VI the customization difficulties have been ranked in order of importance. Several interesting observations can be made in Table VI. First, the top two barriers; ``inflexible factories'' and ``products would be too costly'' are highly related to the performance of the operations function. Second, item three indicates the need for integrating information systems to achieve product customization. Third, the results lend support for the notion that customization is something that is perceived as important, since the item ``customer's don't want it'' is ranked near the bottom of the list. Spearman's Rho was used to test for similarities in ranking between companies using different methods for mass customization (see Table VI). Tests indicated that companies that made products self-customizing (PS) and companies using retailers to provide services around the product (RS) deviated
Implications of mass customization 269 Table V. Customization difficulties by method used
IJOPM 19,3
270
Table VI. Customization barriers by method used
Customization barriers (in order of importance) Inflexible factories Products would be too costly Information technology Change management Management skills and abilities Understanding customer wants Supply from stock Products not customizable Design for customization Workforce skills and attitudes Suppliers Customers do not want it Distributors/retailers Other
AC
MP
IS
PS
IC
AS
RS
6
2
1
3
9
1
3
3 4 1
1 6 4
5 3 6
1 6 8
2 6 3
4 2 9
1 6 8
8
3
7
10
6
3
10
2 10
10 11
2 4
9 4
1 4
11 13
9 4
9 5
5 7
9 10
13 2
4 8
6 10
13 2
7 9 10 10 9
8 9 13 13 12
7 11 11 11 11
10 6 13 13 6
9 9 9 9 9
5 7 13 13 7
10 6 13 13 6
from the overall ranking. For companies making products self-customizing the main difference appears to be that they have ranked the item ``design for customization'' higher than other companies. As previously, the results for companies using retailers to provide services around the product are mainly due to the low number of companies (n = 4) which used the customization method. Using Spearman's Rho, the material was also analysed according to the type of initiatives the company had gone through to improve operations. The tests indicated no statistically significant differences in ranking. Discussion of findings in relation to existing literature What do these results say about the implications of mass customization for operations management? This section synthesises the results and considers them in relation to the existing literature. The first assumption of that literature is that customers are demanding increased variety (Pine, 1993a). Our results lend some support to this belief. Literature in the area seems to assume that it is personal consumers who have the highest desire for customized products. Cases of consumer goods are frequently featured in the literature, for example bicycles (Kotha, 1995; Westbrook and Williamson, 1993), personal computers (Feitzinger and Lee, 1997), and insurance (Martin, 1993). The survey results indicate that mass customization is not necessarily linked exclusively with consumer goods. Our respondents came from a variety of different industries. Although this is likely to be a reflection of the way in which the sample was chosen, it does indicate
that mass customization is not a reality only for companies selling to personal consumers. A majority of companies in our sample sold their products to other businesses. Consistent with other literature the survey results indicate there is no dominant way of achieving mass customization (Gilmour and Pine, 1997; Pine, 1993a). Table II indicates there is a wide variety of methods used for achieving customization. The most used method is the assembly of core modules, which has been suggested is the most effective/best method for achieving full mass customization (Pine, 1993b). However, a clear conclusion that can be drawn when examining Table II is that the operations function has an important role to play in the most frequently used methods for mass customization. Similarly, the results on the question of barriers to increased customization indicate that there is important work to be done within the manufacturing function to achieve further internal flexibility. The item ``inflexible factories'' is ranked at the top (see Table VI). This supports the observation of other authors that advances in the manufacturing function are perhaps of greatest importance in achieving mass customization (Spira and Pine, 1993). Considering the role the manufacturing function plays in the development of the customization offering, the need for dialogue between manufacturing and marketing will be crucial, especially given the often conflicting perspectives taken by these two functions (St John, 1991). The need for dialogue will perhaps be even greater in a mass customization setting than has been argued by manufacturing strategy scholars (see particularly Hill (1995) and Skinner (1985). The need for improved dialogue between marketing and manufacturing stems from the fact that what can be done (or potentially can be done) must be an input to what marketing can offer. The link between internal and external flexibility (Upton, 1995) needs to be strong; otherwise the mass customization offering is likely to be inadequate in market terms or too costly in operational terms. This conclusion is supported by the results in Table IV, which indicate that the main disbenefits of customization relate to the operations function. The importance of the operations function for mass customization can also be compared with the ideas on the ``service factory'' (Chase and Garvin, 1989). Therein, the factory is the heart of the business; working together with other functions to bundle services with products to anticipate and respond to a wide range of customer needs. The experiences of a UK bicycle manufacturer during their mass customization endeavour are telling in this respect. In this company it was the manufacturing function which drove the mass customization project, not marketing. Manufacturing realised the capabilities that had been built up in one part of the company could be exploited in the direction of offering the customer an increased degree of variety on various critical dimensions of the bicycle. Marketing was initially sceptical about the proposition, but was converted to become an enthusiastic proponent of the new strategy. More difficult to convert, however, was the data processing department (Ross, 1996). Apart from illustrating the role of operations, the case also illustrates the need for changes in information processing to support mass customization and
Implications of mass customization 271
IJOPM 19,3
272
the difficulties associated with this change. The survey further supports this need, with ``information technology'' ranked as the third most inhibiting factor to future customization (see Table VI). The need for information system support is a theme that has been proposed by other authors (Boynton and Victor, 1991; Boynton et al., 1993). One particular change that is needed in the manufacturing-oriented information systems is to remove the distinction between a customer order and a production order. Turning to the difficulties companies in this study experienced in implementing customization (see Table V), the second most highly ranked difficulty related to supply chain management. This indicates that there are opportunities for improvements in in-bound logistics if mass customization is to succeed. There are also opportunities for customization in the other end of the logistics chain ± distribution. It is possible to customize products at the point of reception. This mode of customization has been referred to as ``adaptive customization'' (Gilmour and Pine, 1997). In the survey, this option is reflected in Table II, where the manufacture of self-customizing products is the fourth most used method for achieving mass customization. Products which are self-customizing do not necessarily have to be customized by the end-users themselves. Who will undertake the role of customizing the product will of course vary with the industrial structure and technology. In an industrial setting it is possible that the vendor can provide the service. An example here could be industrial air-conditioning equipment, where the vendor will configure the equipment at the purchaser's site. In other industries, self-customizing products might point to a role for the retailer to provide the service (which is reflected in Table II). The discussion so far indicates that when developing the mass customization offering, the firm must think about several aspects, including logistics, operations, distribution and marketing. It is the interactions and interrelationships among various functional aspects of the firm that enable the successful exploitation of the mass customization strategy (Kotha, 1996). Particularly important is manufacturing, which needs to be a core component of the mass customization offering. Therefore, the operational requirements of a mass customization strategy need to be given explicit consideration. Conclusion and suggestions for further research This paper set out to examine the issues arising from mass customization for operations management. The background was the increase in interest in the topic, an interest which so far has not quite spread to the domain of operations management. Furthermore, what has been written on the topic is mostly conceptual work, based on reported case data. Therefore, an exploratory survey of UK manufacturing companies was conducted. In concluding on the results of the survey, it is important to keep in mind the limitations of the chosen research design. Particularly important is the rather limited number of respondents. Second, the sample was not random. Third, ranking scales were used to simplify matters for the respondents, but at the
same time these make analysis less exact than the use of Likert scales would have done. However, we have stressed that these limitations should be seen against the background of the current state of the knowledge in the area. Given that we have established relatively little firm knowledge on this theme, there is ample scope for further research. The results of the survey indicate that mass customization has several implications for operations management. Certainly operations management researchers cannot leave this theme to marketing or strategy academics to pursue since the operations perspective is a, perhaps the, critical viewpoint. Important areas of investigation suggested by this study will include: . design of efficient mass-customizing processes, including administrative processes; . alternative methods of providing customized goods, and the relevance of those methods to different sectors; . role of suppliers, distributors and retailers; . .
implementation of mass customization, including barriers to change; role of technology, including information technology.
Mass customization calls for a change in the view on product variety and manufacturing flexibility. Historically, both variety and flexibility have been seen as ``problems'' that have impacted on the production system's ability to perform efficiently. Therefore, a number of means through which this problem could be handled have been developed. However, for mass customization, variety is not a problem but an opportunity. The ability cost-effectively to treat customers individually is perceived as a competitive advantage. Perceiving variety as an opportunity instead of a threat is not sector specific, but company specific. That is, mass customization seems at this stage to be a strategic choice, as opposed to a competitive necessity. This means that there will be a distinction between those companies within a given industry which do mass customization and those which do not. Finally, as the survey has indicated, companies perceive mass customization not only as something which is currently happening but also as something which will be even more important in the future. This is likely to provide researchers from operations management with bountiful opportunities to research some of the issues involved in offering high levels of customization with competitive costs and easy availability. References Beaty, R.T. (1996), ``Mass customisation'', Manufacturing Engineer, October, pp. 217-20. Boynton, A.C. and Victor, B. (1991), ``Beyond flexibility: building and managing the dynamically stable organization'', California Management Review, Fall, pp. 53-66. Boynton, A.C., Victor, B. and Pine, B.J. II (1993), ``New competitive strategies: challenges to organisations and information technology'', IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 40-64.
Implications of mass customization 273
IJOPM 19,3
274
Chase, R.B. and Garvin, D.A. (1989), ``The service factory'', Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 61-9. Daniel, W.W. (1990), Applied Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd ed., PWS-KENT, Boston, MA. Davis, S. (1987), Future Perfect, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Dertouzos, M.L. et al. (1989), Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Duguay, C.R., Landry, S. and Pasin, F. (1997), ``From mass production to flexible/agile production'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1183-95. Emory, C.W. and Cooper, D.R. (1991), Business Research Methods, 4th ed., Irwin, Homewood, IL. Feitzinger, E. and Lee, H.L. (1997), ``Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: the power of postponement'', Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 116-21. Gilmour, J.H. and Pine, B.J. II (1997), ``The four faces of mass customization'', Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 91-101. Hill, T.J. (1995), Manufacturing Strategy ± Text and Cases, Macmillan, London. Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor, J.R. (1991), Marketing Research ± An Applied Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Kotha, S. (1995), ``Mass customization: implementing the emerging paradigm for competitive advantage'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 21-42. Kotha, S. (1996), ``Mass customization: a strategy for knowledge creation and organizational learning'', International Journal of Technology Management, Special Issue on Unlearning and Learning for Technological Innovation, Vol. 11 Nos 7/8, pp. 846-58. Martin, H.F. (1993), ``Mass customization at Personal Lines Insurance Center'', Planning Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 27, 56. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990), ``Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice'', Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 267-92. Pine, B.J. II (1993a), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Pine, B.J. II (1993b), ``Mass customizing products and services'', Planning Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 6-13, 55. Pine, B.J. II, Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (1995), ``Do you want to keep your customers forever?'', Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 103-14. Pine, B.J. II, Victor, B. and Boynton, A.C. (1993), ``Making mass customization work'', Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 108-19. Ross, A. (1996), ``Selling uniqueness'', Manufacturing Engineer, December, pp. 260-63. St John, C.H. (1991), ``Marketing and manufacturing agreement on goals and planned actions'', Human Relations, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 211-29. Skinner, W. (1985), Manufacturing: The Formidable Competitive Weapon, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A. and Johnston, R. (1995), Operations Management, Pitman Publishing, London. Spira, J.S. and Pine, B.J. II (1993), ``Mass customization'', Chief Executive, March, pp. 26-9. Upton, D.M. (1995), ``Flexibility as process mobility: the management of plant capabilities for quick response manufacturing'', Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 12 Nos 3/4, pp. 205-24. Westbrook, R. and Williamson, P. (1993), ``Mass-customisation: Japan's new frontier'', European Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 38-45. Zikmund, W.G. (1991), Exploring Marketing Research, Dryden, Chicago, IL.
Implications of mass customization 275
