Quality management practices in a Flexible Manufacturing Systems ...

0 downloads 0 Views 154KB Size Report
abstract The use of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, hereafter FMS, and quality management practices cannot be separated. However, most of the studies by ...
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 13, NO. 6, 2002, 877 - 890

Quality management practices in a Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) environment Mohamed A. Youssef1 & Bassam Al-Ahmady2 1 2

Department of Management and Decision Sciences, Norfolk State University, Vermont, USA & Faculty of Commerce, University of Ain Shams, Cairo, Egypt

abstract The use of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, hereafter FMS, and quality management practices cannot be separated. However, most of the studies by academics and practitioners in this area of inquiry, fail to examine this relationship empirically and comprehensively. This paper ® lls this void by examining how the use of FMS aþ ects quality management practices in manufacturing ® rms. The uniqueness of our study is that it overcomes the shortcomings of previous studies by broadly examining a number of quality management practices that range from the importance of quality to the use of quality tools and techniques. The Human Resource Management (HRM) aspect of quality management practices was also examined in terms of employee involvement and participation. The data used in this exploratory study were collected from 102 companies in the following US industries: aerospace, electronics, industrial and farm equipment, metal product, and motor vehicle and parts. Our analysis reveals signi® cant diþ erences between FMS users and non-users. First, the users of FMS diþ er in most of their quality management practices from the non-users. Second, although both groups emphasize quality as a strategic objective, signi® cant diþ erences in the cost of quality as well as in the use of quality management tools and techniques were found between the two groups. Finally, the FMS users place heavy emphasis on the HRM aspects of managing quality. The implications of these results are useful for both academics and practitioners. Introduction The turbulent and ever-changing business environment, especially in the past two decades, has caused a major shift in the way companies respond to their customers’ needs. In the early 1980s, quality was the major dimension on which a manufacturing company might compete. From the early 1990s, and with the emergence of Time-Based Competition (TBC), many companies have come to realize the strategic importance of time to their survival in the business world (Youssef, 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995). Quality and time, as performance metrics, therefore, are interrelated. Competing on the basis of time while ful® lling the needs and expectations of the internal and external customers not only requires a certain level of quality, but also requires speed and agility in all that manufacturing companies do. YoYe and Kwak (2001) refer to the need for a `judo strategy’ in which organizations may compete and succeed against larger, stronger competitors through the use of speed, agility and creative thinking. It is our conviction that the use of ¯ exible manuCorrespondence: Mohamed A. Youssef, Department of Management and Decision Sciences, Norfolk State University, Virginia, USA. E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 0954-4127 print/ISSN 1360-0613 online/02/060877-14 DOI: 10.1080/0954412022000010217

© 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

878

M. A. YOUSSEF & B. AL-AHMADY

facturing systems (FMS) can help attain these competitive tools as well as foster enterprise integration. FMS makes the transition to agility faster and easier (Youssef, 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995). In addition, FMS can impact almost every process at the operational level. Based on our examination of the literature that is relevant to quality management practices and the use of FMS, we believe that this linkage is not fully addressed, at least empirically and that this study is an important contribution to the existing body of knowledge on FMS and quality management practices. There is a strong positive relationship between the use of Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) and quality improvement (Chen & Adam, 1991). Chen & Adam (1991) recommended that further studies should address the impact of FMS on quality to provide a critical input into a company’ s strategic decision-making process. This paper is a step in this direction. In the next section, the relevant literature on ¯ exible manufacturing systems and quality is brie¯ y reviewed in order to justify the need for this study. Relevant literature FMS started in the mid to late 1960s as a logical growth of numerical control (NC) applications (Chen & Adam, 1991). Ouellette et al. (1983) reported that manufacturers started to integrate NC and Computer Numerical Control (CNC) by linking them to a computer that provided a greater computation power as well as greater control and communication capability between the operator and machine tools. In an FMS environment, machine centres are linked together such that a piece being worked on can travel from one machining centre to another in direct sequence, under the control of one or more computers. Western manufacturers starting using FMS as standalone technologies, with little attention to their integration (Crosby, 1989; Juran, 1990; Ouellette et al., 1983). However, by early 1980s, these manufacturers started to integrate some of the technologies to form what has been referred to in the production and operation management (POM) literature as `Islands of Automation’ . Through the past two decades, including recently, few Western manufacturers have realized that full integration of FMS technologies is essential to foster agility and quick response to customer needs. The POM literature speaks of the importance of full integration as a necessary condition for competing in global markets (Youssef, 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995). Kaighobadi & Venkatesh (1994) note that most de® nitions of FMS emphasize ¯ exibility albeit in diþ erent aspects of the manufacturing process (i.e. material-handling, precision parts, computer control, etc). Indeed, responsiveness is dependent on the adaptation of processes to work¯ ow conditions (Basu & Blanning, 2000), but focusing on manufacturing processes alone is not suYcient. Agility in responding to customer needs is a function of supplier collaboration, internal capabilities, the way customers are treated, and leaders who create a culture of participation and collaboration among all these functions (Crocitto & Youssef, 2001). We propose that the human aspect of ¯ exibility and quality is often overlooked. For example, one reason some information technology and current manufacturing tools such as FMS are not used may be attributed to their omission in the way managers are evaluated (Kaighobadi & Venkatesh, 1994). Flexible manufacturing systems de® ned There has been a plethora of de® nitions of the term FMS. Sander (1986) de® ned an FMS as `an automated production system for the manufacture of families of work pieces at

FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

879

mid-volume output rates.’ Chen & Adam (1991), consider FMS as a computer-control con® guration of semi-independent work stations and material handling system designed to manufacture eYciently more than one part type at low to medium volumes. Obviously, these de® nitions are computer-based and their focus is on FMS components such as: ¯ exible machines or work stations, automated material handling systems, and computerized networks that direct and link all the related processes. Naylor et al. (1999) caution us against viewing lean thinking and manufacturing agility as separate. They refer to the decoupling point where knowledge of market conditions associated with agility and eYciencies in using material and time is separated from planning. A recent, comprehensive, conceptual view is that of `strategically ¯ exible production’ with capabilities in managing eþ ectively and eYciently, recognition of continuous improvement of process and products/services, and awareness of the wide reach of change to production, organizational, markets and partnering. These capabilities allow an organization to adapt to environmental changes, which requires speed, novelty in that previous responses cannot be relied upon, and the ability to handle greater complexity requiring a greater number of skills.

Bene® ts of FMS If properly implemented, FMS can result in tangible as well as intangible bene® ts. Buþ a (1985) reported that 75% of machined parts in the US are produced in lots of 50 or less. Typical assembly-line techniques are not applicable to small-batch production. In FMS, NC machines on the line are controlled by a computer, robots handle the parts, and automatically guided carts carry ® nished products to their next locations. Automatic tool-changing systems are incorporated and product changeover is included in the computer program. Thus, a wide variety of parts can be produced on the same ¯ exible equipment. Canada and Sullivan (1989) showed that FMS allows for the continuous manufacture of diþ erent items within a family of parts in small batches within a dedicated machining facility. FMS allows for a steady and greater ¯ ow of material through a facility, reducing throughput time and oþ ering a competitive advantage, as revealed in an empirical study by Jonsson (2000). Jonsson (2000) divided companies into groups of `traditionalists’ which had little investment in advanced manufacturing technologies, `hard integrators’ which used technology integration between computerized activities between organizational sub-units, and `high investors’ with the greatest investment and use of technology. His results revealed that ® rms with investments in manufacturing technologies are better able to compete and also included worker and organizational issues in their infrastructure. FMS allows additional models to be added to the company’s product range at only marginal cost. In the apparel industry, FMS has become a viable option and an excellent choice (Weintraub, 1988). The implementation of FMS in this industry has led to minimization of con¯ icts in areas such as rates and quotes, good work and bad work, favouritism, and quality. FMS can also be a valuable quality tool if the product and process are designed concurrently (Yost, 1987). Based on an empirical study, Tombak and DeMeyer (1988) found that ® rms that plan to implement an FMS were concerned more about vendor quality and lead times. Nemetz and Fry (1988) argued that FMS ® rms synthesize unit and batch production, mass production, and continuous process production, thus allowing them to exploit the advantages of each. Hill (1985) compared the advantages of FMS and conventional production systems on criteria such as time-based performance, costs, inventory, capacity utilization, market share, pro® t, quality, and responsiveness. His results indicated the superior performance of FMS.

880

M. A. YOUSSEF & B. AL-AHMADY

It is evident from the FMS literature that an FMS can impact not only activities at the operational level, but also the ability of a manufacturing company to sustain multiple competitive advantages in global markets. These ® ndings motivated us to carry out this empirical study. Quality and FMS For the past two decades or so, many academics and practitioners have been writing about quality and its impact on the success of operations. With the increase in global competition, companies hailed quality as a panacea to improve productivity and maintain a customer base. In the 1970s, quality took on a decidedly humanistic approach with an emphasis on quality of work life, quality circles but also material resource planning. In the 1980s and 1990s, various approaches, such as FMS, robotics, computer-assisted manufacturing, just in time production, or even a more operations approach, were taken. The diYculty in using quality as a competitive advantage lies in the mind-set of mass-production that remained in many manufacturers (Duguay et al., 1997). The quality management literature is replete with a number of arguments that consider product quality and cost as parsimonious objectives. This view became more apparent in the 1990s, in which research on manufacturing strategy supported the proposition that it is possible to achieve multiple competitive advantages in terms of quality, cost, ¯ exibility and responsiveness. In fact, doing things right the ® rst time is less costly than something that has to be reworked or corrected (Robertson, 1991). The ® rst step in understanding how quality can be applied to industrial companies is to de® ne and operationalize quality (Robertson, 1991). According to Juran (1988), the word quality has multiple meanings. Quality consists of those product features that meet the needs of customers and provide satisfaction and freedom from de® ciencies. Garvin (1984) discussed ® ve approaches to de® ning quality. These are: (1) the transcendent approach of philosophy, (2) the product-based approach of economics, (3) the user-based approach of economics, marketing and operations management, (4) the manufacturing-based and (5) value-based approaches of operations management. He considers performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived quality as the main dimensions of quality. Freund (1985) considers activities such as product or process design, production and service operations, and maintenance as major activities that interact and in¯ uence the degree of satisfaction with quality. Mayo (1986) analysed the quality impact on eYciency, attitude, cost control, and customer satisfaction. He reported that the major point about the real meaning of quality is the customer’s de® nition, which is much more encompassing than the traditional supplier’s de® nition. Akers (1991), Donnelly (1991), Dumas (1989), Diminnie (1989), and Ebrahimpour & Schonberger (1984) agree that customer expectations are major elements in any quality de® nition. Some, such as Crosby (1989) and Bognossian (1988), took a statistical approach to de® ning quality. They believe that the reduction of variation is the foundation of the philosophy of quality. Supporting this approach, Anderson (1990) de® ned quality as a total acceptable variation divided by total actual variation. Clearly, this is a statistically based de® nition of quality that focuses on the use variation theory. In the service area, while the bene® ts of quality are obvious, it is not easy to de® ne or operationalize what quality is, especially for a business that provides a service. The metrics of service, quality, cost, and lead-time as performance metrics of a supply chain focus on customers (Naylor et al., 1999) and lend themselves to a service-based business. Manufacturing systems are more successfully integrated and contribute to the competitiveness of ® rms

FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

881

when they are supported by strategies such as virtual enterprise and partnering with external entities; technologies such as NC, CAD, the internet, information technology and FMS; product design, production planning and control systems, data management systems; and, knowledgeable people supported with training and appropriate reward systems who are from diverse backgrounds (Gunasekaran, 1999). Research methodology Problem statement and research objective This study investigates diþ erences in quality management practices among the users and non-users of FMS. The bene® ts of FMS and its integration into quality management practices are recognized in the more recent past and are supported by some empirical work ( Jonsson, 2000). Therefore, we expect users of FMS to integrate quality management practices in their workplace, as well as show more eYcient and eþ ective use of advanced manufacturing tools as indicated by lower costs. To address this research problem, a questionnaire was designed, pilot tested, and revised to meet acceptable reliabilit y and validity coeYcients. The revised version was sent to the Vice Presidents of manufacturing in ® ve industries in the USA. Among the questions asked are: How long has FMS been in use in your facility? What percentage of your facility has been using FMS? To what extent has the use of FMS aþ ected the following quality management practices: the emphasis on quality as a strategic objective, marketing and customerrelated quality management practices, cost of quality, employee involvement in quality management practices, and the use of quality tools and techniques. · · ·

In total, 155 questions related to quality as a strategic objective, quality tools and techniques, and quality costs were included to assess how the use of FMS aþ ects these quality management practices. Research hypotheses Based on our literature review on quality management practices and Flexible Manufacturing Systems, we identi® ed and developed the following constructs: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Quality as a strategic objective. Marketing and customer-related quality variables. Quality costs. Total employee involvement. Quality techniques and tools.

For each of these constructs, we developed a number of hypotheses. Please note that the subscripts of (X) pertain to the section of the questionnaire. For example, (X3) denotes questions and hypotheses related to the third segment of the questionnaire and (X9) denotes questions and hypotheses related to the ninth section and so on. Quality as a strategic objective (X3) The ® rst hypothesis examines the relationship between the use of FMS and the relative importance of quality as a strategic objective. We conclude that FMS users are more likely

882

M. A. YOUSSEF & B. AL-AHMADY

to emphasize the importance of quality as a strategic objective than non-users. Therefore, we hypothesize that there is: No signi® cant diþ erence in the emphasis on quality, as a strategic objective, between the users and non-users of FMS. ·

Marketing and consumer related quality (X9) Consumer and marketing issues are critical aspects of quality management practices. Through quality improvements, and the use of advanced manufacturing and information technologies, FMS users can increase market share, consumer satisfaction, and product safety. In addition, FMS users are more likely to achieve higher levels of ¯ exibility and quality, two of the main competitive priorities that are necessary for competing in domestic and multinational markets. Therefore, we hypothesize that there are: No statistically signi® cant diþ erences in attaining and maintaining higher market shares in either Domestic (X91) or multinational (X92) markets between the users and non-users of FMS. No statistically signi® cant diþ erences in the number of complaints (X93), number of returns (X94), and warranty periods (X95) between the users and non-users of FMS. No statistically signi® cant diþ erences in the ability to meet delivery targets between the users and non-users of FMS (X96). No statistically signi® cant diþ erences in the loss of customers between users and nonusers of FMS (X97). No statistically signi® cant diþ erences in the levels of product safety between users and non-users of FMS (X98). No statistically signi® cant diþ erences in the level of maintainability between users and non-users of FMS (X99). ·

· · · · ·

Quality costs (X10) Flexible manufacturing systems are associated with cost reductions via quality. Common costs associated with quality are: preventive costs, appraisal costs, internal failure costs, and external failure costs (Naylor et al., 1999). Quality costs may be reduced by identifying and avoiding hidden quality costs such as product redesign and changing the production process due to quality demands. We hypothesize that there are: ·

No statistically signi® cant diþ erences in rework costs (X101 ), scrap costs (X102 ), extra inventory costs (X103), warranty costs (X104 ), down time costs (X105 ), lost order costs (X106), research and development expenditures (X107 ), inspection costs (X108 ) and quality training costs (X109 ) between the users and non-users of FMS.

Employee involvement (human resources) (X12) As manufacturing products become more complex and interdependent, employee competence, commitment and involvement have become increasingly important. Hence, training and maintaining the skill base of employees permits their adaptation to, and modi® cation of, the FMS. The literature review discloses that FMSs are enhanced by the shifting of employees from the skill of feeding to the skills of adjustment, communication and problem solving.

FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

883

FMS can create a motivational environment, which plays a major role improving quality through empowering and commitment, rather than control and command. We were guided by the components of the Job Characteristics Model of job enrichment, i.e. skill variety, task identity, task signi® cance, autonomy and feedback (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), in developing our hypothesis and measures. We also investigated whether the presence of these job characteristics as well as loyalty and participation in the work environment were related to quality in the following hypothesis: No statistically signi® cant diþ erences exist in worker responsibility (X121), worker participation (X122), worker loyalty (X123), skill variety (X124 ), worker autonomy (X125), and feedback between users and non-users of FMS (X126 ). ·

Quality tools (X15) The following hypotheses examine whether there are signi® cant diþ erences in quality tools and techniques among users and non-users of FMS, namely: No statistically signi® cant diþ erences exist in the degree of use and utilization of quality tools such as: Pareto analysis (X151), statistical process control (X152), statistical quality (X153), taguchi’s approach (X154), P charts (X155), and C charts (X156 ) between users and non-users of FMS. ·

Sample The sample was randomly drawn from private and public ® rms in the following US industries: · · · · ·

Aerospace Electronics Industrial and Farm Equipment Metal products Motor Vehicles and Parts

Table 1 shows that about 60% of the respondents are in the electronics and automotive industry, while the remaining 40% of the companies are in aerospace, industrial equipment, and metal product industries respectively. Data collection instrument The data were collected through a mailed questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into two main parts. The ® rst part was designed to collect data pertinent to the existence and Table 1. Type of industry Industry Electronics Aerospace Industrial Equipment Metal product Automotive

Frequency 31 13 15 12 31 102

Percent 30.4 12.7 14.7 11.8 30.4 100

Cumulative percent 30.4 43.1 57.8 69.6 100

884

M. A. YOUSSEF & B. AL-AHMADY

utilization of FMS in participating business units. The second part of the questionnaire was designed to assess: A company’s emphasis on quality and other strategic objectives (X3), Marketing and customer related quality management practices (X9), Cost of quality (X10), Total employee involvement (X12), and Quality tools and techniques (X15). · · · · ·

The questionnaire was addressed to the vice president of manufacturing in each ® rm. Each vice president was asked to ® ll it out or direct it to the appropriate personnel in the company. Returned questionnaires were ® led and signed by individuals holding the titles of : · · · · · · ·

Vice president of operations Senior manufacturing engineer Quality control manager General director of quality assurance Director of quality improvement and statistical methods Quality assurance and Manufacturing engineering manager Quality manager

Of the 490 questionnaires mailed, 116 questionnaires were received, representing a 23% response rate. Fourteen incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the analysis. The remaining 102 questionnaires were used throughout the analysis. Operationalization of variables Independent variables In this study, the independent variable is the use or non-use of FMS. Respondents were asked about the use of FMS in their manufacturing facilities. The independent variable was operationalized as a zero-one variable, where one signi® es the existence of a Flexible Manufacturing System, and zero indicates the lack of a FMS. Dependent variables The variables below were measured by questions developed by us as either ® ll-in or Likerttype three- or ® ve-point choices. A list of the dependent variables and indications of the internal consistency of their constructs are included below: The company’s emphasis on quality and other strategic objectives (X3) · Quality as a strategic objective (X31): (Cronbach Alpha CoeYcient 0.7114) Marketing and customer related quality aspects (X9) · Domestic market share (X91) · International market share (X92) · Number of complaints (X93) · Number of returns (X94) · Warranty period (X95) · Ability to meet deliveries (X96)

FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

Loss of customers Product safety · Degree of maintainability (Cronbach Alpha CoeYcient 0.9803) · ·

Cost of quality (X10) · Cost of rework · Cost of scrap · Cost of excess inventory · Cost of warranty · Down time · Lost orders · R&D expenditures · Inspection · Training (Cronbach Alpha CoeYcient 0.9567)

885

(X97) (X98) (X99)

(X101 ) (X102 ) (X103 ) (X104 ) (X105 ) (X106 ) (X107 ) (X108 ) (X109 )

Employee involvement (human resources) (X12) · Responsibility (X121 ) · Worker participation (X122 ) · Loyalty (X123 ) · Skill variety (X124 ) · Autonomy (X125 ) · Feedback (X126 ) (Cronbach Alpha CoeYcient 0.9514) Items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) were used to measure skill variety, autonomy and feedback. The ® ve-point Likert-type single items we developed were used to measure employee participation and loyalty.

Quality tools (X15) · The use of SPC · The use of SQC · The use of Taguchi methods · The use of P-charts · The use of C-charts (Cronbach Alpha CoeYcient 0.9449)

(X151 ) (X152 ) (X153 ) (X154 ) (X155 )

Analysis First, we used simple descriptive statistics to examine the pro® les of the respondents. Second, we computed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine whether there are diþ erences in quality aspects between the users and non-users of a FMS. The two steps are explained below.

886

M. A. YOUSSEF & B. AL-AHMADY

Table 2. Users and non-users of FMS Value

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

52 50

51 49

51 49

51 100

0: Non-users 1: FMS users

Table 3. Length of time in which FMS has been used Time since FMS implementation Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

52 13 18 19

51 12.7 17.6 18.6

63.7 81.4 100

Non-users Users with less than 2 years Users with between 2 and 5 years Users with more than 5 years

Table 4. Percentage of FMS use (users and non-users) Percent of utilization Non-users Users with Users with Users with Users with Users with

Frequency

less than 25% 25- 50% utilization 51- 75% utilization 76- 90% more than 90%

52 23 14 7 4 2

Percent 51 22.5 13.7 6.9 3.9 2

Cumulative Percent 73.5 87.3 94.1 98 100

Descriptive statistics Users or non-users of FMS Table 2 shows that 51% (n 5 52) of the sample do not use a FMS in their manufacturing facilities, while 49% of the respondents (n 5 50) do.

Length of time in which the company has used a Flexible Manufacturing System Table 3 shows that of the 50 users of FMS, 26% (13 respondents) have used FMS for less than 2 years, 36% (18 respondents) have used it between two and four years, while 38% (19 respondents) have used it for more than four years.

Percentage of manufacturing facility using FMS Table 4 shows that 37% of the sample of FMS users converted less than 50% of their facilities to using FMS. On the other hand, only 5.9% of the sample converted more than 75% of their facility to using a FMS. It is obvious that, in this sample, the use of FMS has not matured in the ® ve industries we studied.

FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

887

Table 5. ANOVA results Variable

Notation

F-Ratio

(1) Importance of quality as strategic objective: X3

X31

5.2749*

(2) Marketing & consumer related quality: X9 Market Share Multinational markets Number of Complaints Number of Returns Warranty Period Ability to meet Delivery Loss of Customers Product Safety Maintainability degree

X91 X92 X93 X94 X95 X96 X97 X98 X99

15.5655*** 19.3435*** 23.3790** 13.3709*** 11.2959** 14.8286*** 22.3031*** 16.6606** 17.3331**

(3) Cost of quality: X10 Cost of Rework Cost of Scrape Cost of Extra Inventory Cost of Warranty Down Time Lost Orders R&D Expenditure Inspection Quality Training

X101 X102 X103 X104 X105 X106 X107 X108 X109

13.5990*** 14.8186*** 14.8118*** 5.4790* 6.9502** 12.0033*** 23.3112*** 15.4318*** 10.1894**

(4) Total employee involvement: X12 Responsibility Worker Participation Worker Loyalty Skill Variety Autonomy Feed back

X121 X122 X123 X124 X125 X126

13.4795*** 19.9771*** 19.3705*** 17.2394*** 20.1915*** 16.3649***

(5) Quality tools: X15 The Use SPC The Use of SQC The use of Taguchi Method The use of P-Charts The Use of C-Charts

X159 X1510 X1511 X1512 X1513

17.2754*** 24.6150*** 14.4828*** 11.1355*** 18.8861*

***Signi® cant at P < 0.001. **Signi® cant at P < 0.01. *Signi® cant at P < 0.05.

Results A series of one-way Analysis of Variance tests (ANOVA) was used to examine the diþ erences in quality management practices among users and non-users of FMS. Table 5 of the ANOVA results indicates that signi® cant diþ erences in all aspects of quality management practices do, in fact, exist among the users and non-users of FMS.

Discussion and conclusions The advent of recent manufacturing technologies such as FMS has caused manufacturing ® rms to rethink their production strategies. On one hand, many manufacturers have come to realize that automation is the solution to the ¯ exibility problem. On the other hand, the management of these manufacturing companies also realizes that the quality of their products

888

M. A. YOUSSEF & B. AL-AHMADY

is no longer a choice, but a necessity if they are to survive and succeed in the contemporary business environment. Customers have become more sophisticated and demanding. Increasingly, operations scholars and practitioners realize that, in order to cope with the customers’ demands and be ¯ exible in responding to changes in the environments surrounding them, an integration between FMS and quality is necessary. Flexible Manufacturing Systems can aþ ect not only how companies perceive the importance of quality as a strategic objective, but also the way quality tools and techniques are productively deployed when employees and management have a perspective of change and continuous improvement. It has been shown that a FMS can help a company minimize quality costs, increase ¯ exibility, improve product quality, and increase responsiveness. More importantly, the use of FMS enables manufacturers to be agile competitors and fosters companies’ eþ orts toward enterprise integration. In sum, this paper shows that FMS users are more aggressive in their adoption and implementation of quality management practices than non-users. Users are also more likely to involve human resources in developing a culture of quality and capability in using quality-related production tools. These results have many implications for practitioners and academics. For practitioners, it is important to realize that ¯ exible automation, when aþ ordable, can enhance the company’s competitive position in both domestic and global markets. However, much attention must be paid to the way in which this technology is implemented. It will be very diYcult to reap the bene® ts of a FMS without creating the proper environment for this technology. Management support and the willingness of the employees to adapt to change will play a vital role in the implementation process. Creating a participative management style and changing jobs to meet individual employee needs through job enrichment, allow for the human and operational ¯ exibility necessary for the successful implementation of FMS. For academics, the link between ¯ exible automation and quality management practice deserves more empirical investigation. This study is but one small step in that direction. This study can be expanded to include other industrial and service sectors. We should also consider how FMS aþ ects ¯ exibility and quality in various industrial divisions within the same companies (for example, in large companies with multiple, non-related SIC codes). Although collecting data on an organizational level is painstaking, it is necessary if we are to contribute to the developing conceptual work on manufacturing technologies and human interaction with empirically based conclusions. In addition, a longitudinal study of the impact of FMS on quality management will broaden our understanding of how ¯ exible automation can enhance companies’ opportunities to compete in global markets and how some managers `make it happen’ .

Limitations of this study and suggestions for future research This study is based on data collected from only ® ve industries. Thus, generalizability to other industries is questionable. Even though the sample is relatively large, we intend to collect additional data from these and other industries and replicate this study to con® rm or refute the ® ndings advanced in this exploratory study. As most researchers are aware, collecting data on the organizational level often creates a problem with sample size, which may also preclude a detailed analysis of sub-samples. This was the case with this data set. With approximately 50 companies in each of the two categories (FMS users and non-users), further categorization (such as that of size and intensity of FMS) compromises the sample size necessary for more advanced statistical analysis. Nonetheless, it is necessary for us to

FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

889

move towards a more empirical view of the impact of FMS and quality on production and organizational processes as well as customer and employee satisfaction. As was suggested by the varying percentages of the utilization of FMS (in Table 4), the concept of developing an intensity index (Youssef, 1994a- c) can be utilized to measure the FMS intensity and its impact on other manufacturing variables. One recent empirical study of advanced manufacturing technology on non-US ® rms found a signi® cant impact on the adoption of such technology and ® nancial performance ( Jonsson, 2000). Future research could be extended to study the chain of in¯ uence of levels of FMS and other managerial choices on organizational performance on a variety of ® nancial, market and human outcomes and how these may vary across countries. To put it succinctly, we have our work cut out for us. References Akers, J.F. (1991) World class quality: nothing less will do, Quality Progress, October, pp. 26- 27. Anderson , L.H. (1990) Controlling process variation is key to manufacturing success, Quality Progress, August, pp. 91- 93. Basu, A. & Blanning, R.W. (2000) A formal approach to work¯ ow analysis, Information Systems Research, 11(1), pp. 17- 36 Bognossian, H. (1988) Build quality in: don’t inspect it, Advanced Management Journal, 53(4), 44- 47. Buffa, E. (1985) Meeting the competitive challenge with manufacturing strategy, National Productivity Review, pp. 155- 169. Canada, J.R. & Sullivan , W.G. (1989) Economic and Multiattribute Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing Systems (New Jersey, Prentice Hall). Chen, F.F. & Adam, E.E. (1991) The impact of ¯ exible manufacturing systems on productivity and quality, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(1), pp. 33- 45. Crocitto, M. & Youssef, M. (2001) People and organizational context: the neglected dimensions of organizational agility. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Crosby, P. (1989) How goes the quality revolution? Journal for Quality & Participation, 12(1), pp. 28- 31. Diminnie, C.B. (1989) What is really going on in quality control? A student survey, Production and Inventor y Management, 30(4), 16- 18. Donnelly, J.H. (1991) Customers can not be satis® ed until after they are not dissatis® ed, Bank Marketing, 23(1), pp. 40- 41. Duguay, C.R., Landry, S. & Pasin, F. (1997) From mass production to ¯ exible/agile production, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(12), pp. 1183- 1195. Dumas, R.A. (1989) Organization wide quality: how to avoid common pitfalls, Quality Progress, 22(5), pp. 41- 44. Ebrahimpour, M. & Schonberger, R. (1984) The Japanese just-in-time/total quality control production systems: potential for developing countries, International Journal of Production Research, 22(3), pp. 421- 430. Freund, R. (1985) De® nitions and basic quality concepts, Journal of Quality Technology, 17(1), pp. 50- 56. Garvin, D.A. (1984) What does product quality really mean? Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 25- 43. Gunasekaran, A. (1999) Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development, International Journal of Production Economics, 62, pp. 87- 105. Hackman, J.F. & Oldham, G.R. (1980) Work Design (Reading, MA, Addison Wesley). Hill, M.R. (1985) FMS managementÐ the scope for further research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 5(2), pp. 5- 20. Jonsson , P. (2000) An empirical taxonomy of advanced manufacturing technology, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(12), pp. 1446- 1474. Juran, M. (1988) Quality Control Handbook, 4th edn (New York, McGraw-Hill). Juran, M. (1990) Catching up: how is the West doing? Quality Progress, November, pp. 18- 22. Kaighobadi, M., & Venkatesh, K. (1994) Flexible manufacturing systems: an overview, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(4), pp. 26- 40. Mayo, J.S. (1986) AT&T management questions for leadership in a quality environment, Quality Progress, April, pp. 34- 39. Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. & Berry, D. (1999) Leagility: Integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain, International Journal of Production Economics, 62, pp. 107- 118.

890

M. A. YOUSSEF & B. AL-AHMADY

Nemetz, P.L. & Fry, L.W. (1988) Flexible manufacturing organizations: implications for strategy, Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 627- 638. Ouellette , P., Thomas, W., Mangold, C. & Cheremisinoff, N. (1983) Automation Impacts on Industry (Michigan, Ann Arbor Science). Robertson , E. (1991) Doing things right, Communication World, 8(9), pp. 32- 35. Sander, K.R. (1986) FMS: an industry overview, Production and Inventor y Management, Fourth Quarter, pp. 1- 19. Tombak, M. & Demeyer, A. (1988) Flexibility and FMS: an empirical analysis, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 35(2), pp. 101- 107. Weintraub, E. (1988) A new method for a new age, Bobbin, 30(1), pp. 30- 38. Yoffie, D.B. & Kwak, M. (2001) Mastering strategic movement at Palm, MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(1), pp. 55- 63. Yost, L. (1987) Manufacturing’s competitive advantage, Quality, 26(12), pp. 52- 55. Youssef, M.A. (1992) Agile manufacturing: a necessary condition for competing in global markets, Industrial Engineering , 24(12), pp. 18- 21. Youssef, M.A. (1993) The impact of computer-based technologies on ¯ exibility, International Journal of Technology Management, 8(3- 5), pp. 355- 370. Youssef, M.A. (1994a) The impact of the intensity level of computer-based technologies on quality, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14(4), pp. 5- 27. Youssef, M.A. (1994b) Measuring the intensity of JIT and its impact on quality, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 11(5), pp. 55- 77. Youssef, M.A. (1994c) Design for manufacturability and time-to-market, Part 1: theoretical foundations, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14(12), pp. 6- 21. Youssef, M.A. (1995) Design for manufacturability and time-to-market, Part 2: an empirical analysis, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(1), pp. 6- 24.