product–process matrix
competitive characteristics and to indicate the
Nigel Slack
The product–process matrix is a model that
is used to demonstrate the combination of a
product’s (or product group’s) VOLUME and
VARIETY characteristics and the nature of the
processes that makes it. It was originally devised
by Hayes and Wheelwright (1979), who saw
it as “one way in which the interaction of the
product life cycle and process life cycle can
be represented.” In its original form, the two
dimensions of the matrix were seen in life
cycle terms, one of the authors’ intentions
being to show that processes progress through
a predictable life cycle that corresponds to the
better known concept of the product life cycle.
Since then the model has been used primarily
to show the different operations needs of
Low volume
High variety
Jobbing
process
Batch
process
Th
e
Mass
process
Not
Continuous feasible
process
Figure 1 The product–process matrix.
Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, edited by Professor Sir Cary L Cooper.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
products (or product groups) that have different
consequences of failing to match product and
process characteristics.
The product–process matrix is an array whose
horizontal dimension represents points on the
volume–variety continuum from low-volume,
one-off products through to high-volume, high-
standardization products. Its vertical dimension
represents manufacturing processes from
jobbing through batch and mass to continuous
(see Figure 1).
Product–process combinations can occupy
most parts of the matrix, although the two ext-
reme areas of the bottom left and upper right
portions of matrix can be taken as repre-
senting combinations which are, for all practical
purposes, unfeasible. It would be difficult to ima-
gine the circumstances under which any oper-
ation would wish to manufacture one-offs on a
continuous basis or high-volume, standardized
High volume
Low variety
Not
feasible
“n
at
ur
al”
dia
go
na
l
2 product–process matrix
products on a jobbing basis. However, the other
parts of the matrix represent the choices open to
operations managers.
Hayes and Wheelwright use the matrix to
make three important points. The first is that
for all points on the volume–variety continuum,
there is a corresponding position on the process
continuum. This is represented by the “natural”
diagonal of the matrix. So companies that supply
customized products in low volume will find
the flexibility of jobbing process particularly
appropriate for their type of business. Compa-
nies that supply high volumes of standardized
products will see that the low-cost production
possible with mass or continuous processes
enables them to compete effectively. Likewise,
all points on the volume–variety continuum
will correspond to an appropriate process
type.
The second important point made by Hayes
and Wheelwright is that companies might move
away from the “natural” diagonal, perhaps
deliberately in order to achieve some kind of
competitive advantage, or because they “drift”
into using inappropriate processes. Either way,
there are predictable consequences of moving
off the diagonal. Moving from the diagonal in
the upper right direction means that the process
used to manufacture a product group is more
flexible (in terms of being able to cope with a
higher variety of product types) than is strictly
necessary. The “excess” flexibility might mean
that the cost of manufacture is higher than if the
manufacturing process was positioned “on the
diagonal.” Moving from the diagonal toward the
bottom left of the matrix results in less flexibility
than would seem to be necessary for the product
group’s variety. Such an inappropriately rigid
process could incur extra costs, either of lost
market opportunities or through the effort and
lost capacity needed to change over the process
between products.
The third point to be drawn from the matrix is
that companies can define their product groups
using the model in order to focus their manu-
facturing resources more effectively. The matrix
encourages companies to analyze their products
in such a way as to distinguish between the
different product groups that require different
processes. In this way, it encourages companies
to explore alternative product classification
boundaries and the consequences of segmenting
their manufacturing operations to concentrate
on their individual competitive priorities.
Developments of the product–process matrix
include substituting other dimensions for the
vertical process dimension. For example, a
similar argument can be made for a matrix that
incorporates scales representing the various
dimensions of PROCESS TECHNOLOGY such as
the scale (capacity increment) of technology,
the degree of automation, or the extent of its
integration. The matrix can also be adapted
for use with SERVICE OPERATIONS, either by
using the same manufacturing process types
(which Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) do) or by
substituting SERVICE PROCESSES for the original
manufacturing processes.
See also manufacturing strategy; process types
Bibliography
Ahmad, S. and Schroeder, R.G. (2002) Refining the pro-
duct–process matrix. International Journal of Opera-
tions and Production Management, 22 (1), 103–124.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1979) Linking
manufacturing process and product life cycles. Har-
vard Business Review January/February, 133–140.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1984) Restoring Our
Competitive Edge: Competing through Manufacturing,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Johansson, P. and Olhager, J. (2003) Linking Product–
Process Matrices for Manufacturing and Service
Operations. Proceedings of the EurOMA Conference,
Como, Italy, 927–936.
Slack, N. and Lewis, M.A. (2002) Operations Strategy,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Spencer, M.S. and Cox, J.F. (1995) An analysis of
the product–process matrix and repetitive manufac-
turing. International Journal of Production Research,
33 (5), 1275–1294.