Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategy

CA. Voss
London Business School, London, UK Introducrion
Manufacturing strategy as a concept and an area of study and practice has been growing for the last 30 years. However, as it has grown the clarity of manufacturing strategy has decreased as different views and different approaches have emerged. This article will briefly review the history of manufacturing strategy, then it will review the field from several different perspectives. It will finally compare and evaluate these different perspectives and look for the linkages between them. A historical perspective It is generally accepted that the foundations of what is now known as manufacturing strategy were developed at Harvard in the 1940s and 1950s. Researchers started looking at industries and began to see that there were many different ways in which companies were choosing to compete within particular industries. These in turn were accompanied by different choices concerning production technology and production management. From this developed a series of industry-based casebooks. These contained notes on the industry and its technological choices as well as case studies of different companies in the industry. Success and failure could be explained in many cases by the choices that the companies made and the alignment of these choices to competitive strategies. In many ways these early manufacturing strategy approaches presaged the development of the industry-based strategy approaches of economists such as Porter[l]. Vital to the widespread dissemination of manufacturing strategy as a key area of concern was the pulling together of the lessons learned in this industrybased study and teaching. This was done by Skinner in his two seminal articles: "Manufacturing - missing link in corporate strategy" and "The focused factory"[2,3]. The first article set out the importance of explicit linkages between manufacturing choices and the firm's environment and corporate strategy. The second article developed the concept of focus and of internal as well as external consistency. The framework in the missing link article was very thorough and much subsequent work has focused on parts of the framework, simplifying and explaining rather than expanding. A common way of viewing manufacturing strategy has been to separate the process of manufacturing strategy development and its content[4]. The content of manufacturing strategy has been viewed as the strategic choices in process

Paradigms for manufacturing strategy

inlemalHjnal Joumal of Operalkins & Productkm Managemeni, Vnl. 1!) No-4.1995.pp.5.16.DMCB Univereity Press. OlM-3577

and infrastructure. In this article we will examine three different paradigms of choice and content in manufacturing strategy. Since the early work of Skinner, writing and practice in manufacturing strategy have developed on several different fronts. The first of these can be characterized as competing through capability. This is achieved through aligning the capabilities of manufacturing with the competitive requirements of 6 the marketplace. The second is the approach based on internal and external ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " ^ ~ ~ consistency between the business and product context and the choices in the content of the manufacturing strategy. This is effectively a contingency-based approach. Finally there are approaches based on the need to adopt "Best practice"; characterized by, for example, "World Class Manufacturing". We will explore each of these in turn. Competing through manufacturing At its simplest this approach to manufacturing strategy argues that the firm should compete through its manufacturing capabilities, and should align its capabilities with the key success factors, its corporate and marketing strategies and the demands of the marketplace.
Key success factors and order mnners

IJOPM 15 4

The theme of deciding "how we are to compete" recurs repeatedly in many forms in manufacturing strategy literature. Cost, quality, dependability and flexibility have become widely used as statements of the competitive dimensions of manufacturing. One of the best formulated approaches is that of Hill[5]. He argues that in each market in which the company operates it should identify those criteria that win orders against the competition. His orderwinning criteria include price, delivery, quality, product design and variety. Similar sets of criteria or priorities have been developed by most writers in manufacturing strategy. Hill also argues that although companies win orders based on particular criteria, this does not mean that other criteria are not important. He develops the idea of "qualifying" criteria: performance criteria which a company must meet if it is to be in a market, even if they do not win orders. He suggests methodologies for identifying order winning and qualifying criteria. New[6] talks of "competitive edge" and "hygiene" factors. A similar approach is used by Platts and Gregory[7] in their manufacturing strategy audit. They look at the market requirements: delivery lead time, reliability, features, quality, flexibility of design, volume and price. Their process identifies the gap between requirements and performance. The choice of competitive priorities and international comparisons of different countries has been widely studied[8]. Such approaches are consistent with the business strategy concepts of writers such as Porter. His generic strategies, cost leadership, differentiation and focus, can be considered as business priorities directing manufacturing choice and management. Attempts have been made to define generic manufacturing strategies. Stobaugh and Telesio[9] derived three groups empirically: cost, technology and market-driven

strategies. Similar work has been conducted by Miller and Roth[10], who have developed a taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Capabilities The underlying argument of this paradigm is that aligning the capabilities of manufacturing with the key success factors will maximize the competitiveness of a firm. This could involve, for example, choosing manufacturing technology to achieve particular desired capabilities[ll,12], or developing capabilities to develop and launch new products rapidly. Hayes and Wheelwright, in their well-known four stages of manufacturing strategy, argue that companies should go beyond looking to align capabilities with the marketplace. Manufacturing should seek to influence corporate strategies and to develop and exploit manufacturing capability proactively as a competitive weapon. The Platts and Gregory[7] approach also focuses on "identifying the current manufacturing strategy and to assess what effects this had on the achievement of objectives". From this they move to developing a new strategy which is in essence aligning capabilities with what the market wants. There has been wide ranging work on identification, development and measurement of manufacturing capability. For example there has been much attention to the area of time-based competition[13], and the technologies and capabilities to achieve it, such as new product introduction[14]. Slack[15] and Upton[16] have examined the role of flexibility in manufacturing, Jaikumar[17] the use {and lack of use) of flexible manufacturing systems, and Tidd[18] the use of flexible assembly robots. Shared vision A further element of this paradigm is the argument that through clear articulation of corporate missions and strategies a company's vision will be shared by its managers and other employees. In the manufacturing area, this approach is frequently espoused in the quality literature. For example the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and the European Quality Award both emphasize the role of leadership in creating a shared vision, and the concept of "policy deployment" is used to describe this process. A shared vision is not confined to quality, but can encompass a wide range of capability and market dimensions. To summarize, this paradigm can be considered in terms of manufacturing as a competitive weapon. To exploit this we must identify how we are to compete in a market and to focus on excellence of manufacturing capability in that particular area. Failure to do this can lead to lack of external focus, inconsistency between internal direction and external needs and/or failure to exploit manufacturing's capability as a competitive weapon. Deploying policies throughout the company and developing a shared vision or mission can help focus the employees of a company and support the achievement of strategic goals.

Paradigms for manufacturing strategy

IJOPM 15,4

^^^_^^^_^^^

Strategic choices in manufacturing strategy The second paradigm is based on the need for internal and external consistency between choices in manufacturing strategy. Skinner[19] proposed that the key choice areas in manufacturing strategy consisted of plant and equipment, production planning and control, labour and staffing, product design and engineering, and organization and management. Hayes and WheelwHght[20] expanded this list, and Hill[5] compresses these into just two areas - process and infrastructure. These are in effect contingency-based approaches as they argue that choices made are contingent on context and strategy Many other authors have followed this approach (see for example New[6]).
Choice of process

In much of the literature, the main focus of this approach has been the choice of manufacturing process. Its origins can be traced back to the work of Woodward[21], but the first main exponents in manufacturing strategy were Hayes and Wheelwright[20] in their product process matrix. They viewed process both in a static and in a dynamic mode. In a static mode they argued that the choice of process was contingent on the context of manufacture, in particular the volume and variety of the production task. They showed how misalignment could lead to poor manufacturing and business performance. They also argued that as markets evolved and changed, so too did the required process. Finally, they also related this to more complex environments such as multi-process, multi-product environments where there was a need for focused plants. The process choice concept has been taken and developed by many authors. Kim and Lee[22] have developed a taxonomy of process based on technical flexibility and technical complexity. They relate the newer manufacturing technologies such as FMC and FMS to the traditional processes used by Hayes and Wheelwright. Pine et aL[23] add to this the concept of mass customization, arguing that process is not only a choice but that there is also an optimal route from one process to another. Voss and Winch[24] argue that the traditional choices are too narrow, and must be extended to include choices of processes and infrastructure in engineering.
Contingent approaches

The strategic choice paradigm is essentially a contingent approach, many authors using terms such as internal and external consistency Hill's approach in particular has a strong contingent basis. He argues that choice of process is dependent on both the market strategy {expressed in similar terms to Hayes and Wheelwright's volume and variety) and on the order-winning criteria. The categorization of production systems used by Wild is another example of a contingent approach.

Infrastructure choices Strategic choices also apply to infrastructure. Hill[5] argues that all the other (infrastructure) choices are contingent on the choice of process. Berry and Hill[25] illustrate this in the area of manufacturing planning and control systems. The importance of other choices in infrastructure has been stressed by other authors. Skinner[2] discusses the importance of middle management. Misterek et (2/.[26] have examined the links between organizational culture and manufacturing strategy.
Focus

Paradigms o for
manufacturing -- strategy

These approaches naturally lead to the operationalization of the concept of focus. They define for a given context the dimensions and choices on which a factory should be focused. In summary, the paradigm based on strategic choices is based around the need to attain internal and external consistency, and is a contingency-based approach. Failure to match with external business, product and customer factors can lead to a mismatch with the market. Also emphasized is the importance of internal consistency between all the choices in manufacturing. Failure to achieve this can result in a mismatch between the various choices in manufacturing which will severely impair a company's ability to be competitive. Best practice Best practice is probably the most recent of the three paradigms to become prominent in manufacturing strategy, though it can be argued that concern for best practice has been with mankind ever since the emergence of the first craft in prehistory.
Sources of best practice

In recent years writing on best practice has been dominated by Japanese manufacturing practice to the extent that it is hard to remember when it was not so. However, best practice has come from many sources: Materials Requirements Planning (MRP) from the USA, Optimized Production Technology (OPT) from Israel, Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) from the UK, group technology from Russia to name but a few. In recent years best practice literature has included just-in-time manufacturing[27], which has evolved into lean production[28]; total quality management[29], and concurrent engineering[30]. Three particular stimuli have brought best practice to greater prommence. The first has been the outstanding performance of Japanese manufacturing industry. This has led to a continuous focus in the West on identifying, adapting and adopting Japanese manufacturing practices. The second is the growth of business process-based approaches and benchmarking. This has led companies to identify their core practices and processes and to seek out best in class practice. Finally there has been the emergence of awards such as the Malcolm

IJOPM 15,4

Baldrige National Quality Award and the European Quality Award. These have brought a high profile to best practice in certain areas. World class manufacturing Much of the best practice school of manufacturing strategy has been brought together in the concept of "world class manufacturing". This is commonly taken fo be the aggregation of best practice in a wide range of areas of manufacturing. The concept of competing through world class manufacturing was developed by Hayes and WheeIwright[20] and the term was widely adopted after the publication of Schonberger's[27] book. Hanson and Voss[31] see world class manufactunng m terms of practice and performance. They define world class as havmg best practice in total quality, concurrent engineering, lean production, manufactunng systems, logistics and organization and practice. In addition it is havmg operational performance equalling or surpassing best international companies. The underlying assumption of this paradigm is that best (world class) practice will lead to superior performance and capability. This in turn will lead to mcreased competitiveness. To summarize, this paradigm focuses on the continuous development of best practice in all areas within a company. Failure to match industry best practice can remove the competitive edge from manufacturing. Process and measurement The above discussion has focused on the different paradigms of content of manufactunng strategy. As pointed out by Adam and Swamidass[32], process IS as important as content. Voss[4] includes six papers on the process of manufacturing strategy formulation. Hill[5] pays particular attention to the process of carrying out his approach, and Platts and Gregory[7] have developed a detailed workbook-based process. Measurement is also a theme that underlies different manufacturing strategy paradigms. Kaplan and Norton[33] have argued that measurement must match the company's strategic needs. They have proposed a "balanced scorecard" approach. Neely et a/.[34] proposed a framework linking performance measurement to manufacturing strategy. Discussion This article has proposed that three distinct, but related, paradigms of manufactunng strategy have emerged. These relate to the content, rather than process of manufacturing strategy. They are summarized in Figure 1. We can observe that each of these paradigms, has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses. Competing through manufacturing This approach can lead to very high visibility for manufacturing strategy in an organization. The visible focus on competing on a limited coherent set of factors

,^

Competing through manufacturing Order winners Key success factors Key concepts Capability Generic manufacturing strategies Shared vision

Strategic choices in manufacturing Contingency approaches Internal and external consistency Choice of process Process and infrastaicture Focus Process Measurement

Best practice World-class manufacturing Benchmarking Process re-engineering TQM Learning from the Japanese Continuous improvement

Paradigms for manufacturing strategy 11

Figure 1. Three paradigms of manufacturing strategy

can be a uniting force within an organization. It can lead to employees and managers sharing a common vision and has the potential of aeating a debate between manufacturing, marketing and corporate strategists. The focus on capability can lead to management attention being paid to the development and exploitation of competitive capabilities in manufacturing, potentially leading to Hayes and Wheelwright's stage four. There are, however, questions and limitations. If not carried out properly, this approach can lead to just a bland mission statement. If not backed up by consistent decisions and action, it risks leading to little more than management by rhetoric. It is also clearly not sufficient for development of a complete manufacturing strategy. No matter how good the focus and commitment of the company to meet a particular goal is, it will fail if there are inappropriate processes, or a misaligned infrastructure. Unbounded choice has also been questioned by several authors. In particular Ferdows and de Meyer[35] propose that there is a natural sequence of priorities. They describe this in their "sand-cone" model. They argue that there is a need to build a strong foundation of quality before proceeding to focus on other priorities. This is consistent with the often stated argument that key to Japanese companies' success is their ability to be both high quality and low cost producers. Failure to build the foundations makes it difficult to compete on other criteria.
Strategic choice

This is potentially the most powerful of the manufacturing strategy approaches. It can provide a clear view of a wide number of choices that a company has. Its contingency-based approaches can lead to matching the whole of the operations strategy to the market positioning. This can result in

IJOPM 15,4

strong internal as well as external consistency. To succeed it requires an effective process of manufacturing strategy development, which can be difficult to install. However, once developed it can not only put manufacturing on the top management agenda, but also embed strategic approaches to manufacturing within a company. The correct choices can lead to focused manufacturing, from which superior performance will be derived. However, it can be argued that it is possible to have internal and external consistency in manufacturing without having good practice. Consistency of approaches do not in themselves lead to the adoption of new and different practices. As a result, step changes resulting from this may be missed. The example of the Western automotive industry in the 1980s can be quoted. In terms of conventional strategic choice the process choice at the level of that proposed in Hill, or Hayes and Wheelwright, would be correct. However the detailed manufacturing practices that companies used within that process were obsolete. It has only been through a period of lengthy and painful learning that Western auto manufacturers are becoming competitive again. The choice-based paradigms would have seemed to have failed to achieve the step changes required.
Best practice

This approach is supported by research that shows strong linkages between adoption of best practice and operating performance[14,31,36,37]. Companies with best practice perform better than those without. This research is leading many companies to seek best practice as the basis of their manufacturing strategies. However the evidence is that this can cause major problems, particularly in companies which are far from best practice. First, best practice usually comes in small isolated pieces such as just-in-time, MRP II, FMS, TQM, concurrent engineering and business process re-engineering. These approaches are often used in an equally isolated manner by companies. In addition, they are often treated as the means of solving all a company's problems; "If only we had this we would become competitive". There is often a lack of perspective. Questions such as "is this appropriate for us?" and "would adoption support our key competitive needs?" often fail to be asked. The problem is probably sharply different between companies and countries. Hanson and Voss[31] found a wide variability between UK firms, some having most good practice in place, and others with relatively little. For those already with substantial good practice, searching for and incrementally adopting best practice becomes a routine task. They compared leading companies, those already with high levels of practice and performance, with laggard companies, those without good practice and performance. The leaders were six times more hkely to search for best practice through benchmarking than the laggards. However, for those far from best practice, the problems are compounded by difficulty in knowing where to start. A firm will have limited capability to adopt new practices. The question of "what shall we do first?" will dominate. It is for

Paradigms for these companies that linking programmes of adoption of best practice to competitive needs becomes crucial. manufacturing Another crucial agenda in best practice approaches becomes implementation. strategy Best practice will not by itself guarantee improved performance. All reports of best practice, whether TQM, MRP II, JIT, FMS, etc., show that there is substantial failure rate in the implementation of each practice. Partial 13 implementation, failure to achieve desired performance change and abandoned programmes are commonplace. Clearly the three different paradigms should not be treated in isolation, and indeed many authors and experts bring at least two of them together. There are clear links between competing through manufacturing and strategic choices approaches. Hill directly links priorities (order-winning criteria) to contingency approaches (choice of process), and sees them as a single linked framework. For example, competing on cost leads to a particular process choice and, in turn, infrastructure. Writers on flexibility and mass customization also stress the link between process choice and competitive priorities. Similarly there is also a clear link between competing through manufacturing and best practice. De Meyer and Ferdows, in their international studies on manufacturing strategies, have focused on the consistency (or lack of it) between competitive priorities and programmes of improvement in practice. Hill implicitly argues that best practice programmes should be matched to order-winning criteria. However, the implicit assumption that priorities and hence manufacturing tasks are orthogonal has been questioned. The relationship between quality and costs is a good example. Increasingly, quality is now recognized as a major contributor to cost reduction. Thus, in a cost competitive environment, quality programmes may be the most appropriate response rather than cost reduction programmes. As discussed earlier, Ferdows and de Meyer[35] propose that there is a natural sequence of priorities. Foundations have to be built in order to compete on other aiteria. Empirical evidence from Japanese companies[36] suggests that the best companies have very high productivity and high quality. Clark and Fujimoto[14] show that these companies also have fast product development times. The link between best practice programmes and strategic choice is less clear. First, there is the issue of whether some best practices are universal, and as such are independent of context. Proponents of total quality management would strongly argue against this. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award framework, which is very widely used as a benchmark, has been found equally applicable in a very wide range of companies. On the other hand some best practices such as kanban or MRP II are clearly not applicable in certain contexts. The phrase "best in class", frequently used in benchmarking, may reflect the need to link best practice to context or "class". For example, the best practices identified in the Japanese car industry are not universally applicable in other industries. Some very different approaches are used in the Japanese consumer electronics industry. New[6] has examined the relationship of best practice as embodied in world class manufacturing and trade-offs in

IJOPM 15,4

14

Figure 2.
The overlap between different paradigms

manufacturing strategy He concludes that, on the one hand, the traditional trade-offs such as cost versus quality are no longer valid. On the other, he argues that the answer to "can you be the best in the world at all seven criteria simultaneously from the same manufacturing mix?" is still no. We can conclude that all three paradigms of manufacturing strategy have their strengths and weaknesses and each partially overlaps the other (Figure 2). A company cannot ignore any of these completely, for it would risk losing its competitive strength in manufacturing. It is possible to propose a continuous loop. Any company needs a strategic vision, since without one the other actions may fail. This is the logical starting point and needs to be revisited at regular intervals. The strategy for competing through manufacturing will lead to the need to make key strategic choices. These in turn will require the development of world class performance in the areas chosen and by necessity the development of best in class practices. The choice and focus of these will be guided in part by the previous approaches. The continuous improvement and

Figure 3.
The cycles of manufacturing strategy

Paradigms for development of process and practice will lead to developing the company's capabilities. These in turn may enhance or change the way it chooses to manufacturing compete through manufacturing. strategy This is not an evolutionary cycle as in Hayes and Wheelwright's four steps. It is a continuous iterative process that will lead to both continuous incremental improvement and occasional step change. This is illustrated in Figure 3. It is 15 consistent with the Deming "plan, do, check, action" cycle. To conclude, the content of manufacturing strategy has developed into several distinct paradigms. None by itself is sufficient for effective development of manufacturing strategy over the long term. Together they contain all that is required for an effective strategy. They in turn require a process of development and suitable measurement. This paper has argued that there is a logical cycle connecting the three.
References 1. Porter, M., Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY, 1980. 2. Skinner, W., "Missing the links in manufacturing strategy" in Voss, C.A. (Ed.), Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content. Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 3. Skinner, W., "The focused factory", Harvard Business Review, May-June 1994. 4. Voss, C.A. (Ed). Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content. Chapman & Hall, London, 1992. 5. Hill, TJ., Manufacturing Strategy. The Strategic Management of the Manufacturing Function, 2nd ed., Macmillan. London, 1993. 6. New, C.C., "World class manufacturing versus strategic trade-offs". International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol. 12 No. 6,1992, pp. 19-31. 7. Platts, K.W. and Gregory, MJ., "A manufacturing audit approach to strategy formulation", in Voss, C.A. (Ed.), Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content, Chapman & Hall, London. 1992. 8. de Meyer. A., "An empirical investigation of manufacturing strategies in European Industry", in Voss, C.A. (Ed.). Manufacturing Process and Content, Chapman & Hall. London. 1992. 9. Stobaugh. R. and Telesio. P.. "Match manufacturing strategies and product policies". Harvard Business Review, March-April 1983. 10 Miller J G. and Roth, A.V., "A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies". Management Science. Vol. 40 No. 3.1994. pp. 285-304. 11. Voss, C.A.. Managing New Manufacturing Technologies, Operations Management Association, Monograph No. 1,1986. 12. Voss. C.A., "Managing advanced manufacturing technology". International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 6 No. 3,1986, pp. 4-7. 13. Stalk, G. Jr and Hout, TM., Competing against Time, Eree Press. New York, NY. 1990. 14 Clark, K. and Fujimoto. T. Product Development Performance. HBS Press. Boston, MA. 1991. 15. Slack, N., "Flexibility as a manufacturing objective". International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol. 3 No. 3,1983, pp. 4-13. 16. Upton, D.M.. "The management of manufacturing flexibility", California Management Review, 1994, forthcoming. 17. Jaikumar. R., "Postindustrial manufacturing". Harvard Business Review, November/December 1986. 18. Tidd, J.. Flexible Manufacturing Technologies and International Competitiveness, Frances Pinter. London, 1991.

IJOPM 1r ^

1 fy ^^

19- Skinner, W., "Manufacturing - the missing link in corporate strategy", Harvard Business Review, May-June 1%9. 20. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C.. Restoring Our CompetiHve Edge. Collier Macmillan New York, NY, 1984. 21. Woodward, J., Industrial Organization, Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press London, 1%5. 22. Ki^m, Y. and Lee, J., "Manufacturing strategy and production systems: an integrated i^mewovk", Joumal of Operations Management, Vol. 11,1993, pp. 3-15. 23. Pine. B.J., Victor, B. and Boynton. A.C., "Making mass customization work", Harvard Business Review, September-October 1993. pp. 108-19. 24. Voss. CA. and Winch, G., "Incorporating engineering in manufacturing strategy", London Busmess School working paper, 1995. 25. Berry. W.L and Hill, X, "Linking systems to strategy", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 10.1992, pp. 3-15. 26. Misterek. S.D.. Schorder, R. and Bates. K.A.. "The nature of the link between manufacturing strategy and organizational culture", in Voss, CA. (Ed), Manufacturing Strategy, Process and Content, Chapman & Hall, London. 1992. 27. Schonberger. R.J., World Class Manufacturing, Free Press, New York. NY, 1986. 28. Womack, J.P, Jones, D.T. and Roos, D, The Machine that Changed the World Macmillan London, 1990. 29. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award - 1992 Award Criteria, United States Department of Commerce, 1992. 30. Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.. Revotutionising Product Development Free Press New York. NY, 1992. 31. Hanson, P and Voss, CA., Made in Britain, The True State of Britain's Manufacturing Industry, IBM Ltd/London Business School, Warwick, 1993. 32. Adam, E.E. Jr and Swamidass, P.M., "Assessing operations management from a strategic perspective",/ottrwa/ of Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,1989. 33. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P, "Putting the balanced scorecard to work". Harvard Business Review, September-October 1992, pp. 114-47. 34. Neely. A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M. and Richards. H.. "Realising strategy through measurement", International Journal of Operations & Production Management Vol 14 No. 3,1994, pp. 143-55. 35. Ferdows, K. and de Meyer, A., "Lasting improvement in manufacturing" Journal of Operation Management, Vol. 9 No. 2.1990, pp. 168-84. 36. Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., Jones. D. and Lowe, J., "World class manufacturing- further evidence m the lean production debate", paper presented to BAM conference Milton Keynes, 20-22 September 1993. 37. V(KS, CA. and Blackmon, K., "Practice performance relationships in UK manufacturing industry", paper presented at European Operations Management Association conference Cambridge. June 1994. ' Further reading Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright. S.C and Clark, K., Dynamic Manufactiiring, Collier Macmillan New York, NY, 1988. Jelinek, R. and Goldhar. J., "The strategic implications of the factory of the future". Harvard Business Review, Summer 1984, pp. 24-37. Prahalad, CK. and Hamel. G.. "The core competence of the corporation". Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 3,1990. pp. 79-91. Voss, CA.. "Implementation, a key issue in manufacturing technology; the need for a field of study , Research Policy, Vol. 17,1988, pp. 55-63.