Ab Delilah 2018

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Flexibility and agility: evolution and relationship

Bouchra Abdelilah, Akram El Korchi, Mohammed Amine Balambo,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bouchra Abdelilah, Akram El Korchi, Mohammed Amine Balambo, (2018) "Flexibility and
agility: evolution and relationship", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0090
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0090
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 02:11 24 June 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 24 June 2018, At: 02:11 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 122 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:573577 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
Flexibility
Flexibility and agility: evolution and agility
and relationship
Bouchra Abdelilah and Akram El Korchi
National School of Applied Sciences of Agadir, Ibn Zohr University,
Agadir, Morocco, and
Mohammed Amine Balambo Received 23 March 2018
Faculty of Economic and Social Juridical Sciences, Ibn Tofail University, Revised 23 May 2018
Accepted 23 May 2018
Kenitra, Morocco
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to clarify the confusion between flexibility and agility. The paper
traces the evolution of agility and the evolution of flexibility over time, analyses their drivers and different
elements, draws the boundaries between them and defines their relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review of flexibility and agility was developed.
Papers written between 1920 and 2017 were reviewed and analyzed using a structured review technique.
The identified papers focus on flexibility and agility, relating both to manufacturing and the supply chain.
Findings – Agility is the natural evolution of flexibility. Until the 1990s, the term “flexibility” was used to
refer to agility, but, because of market changes, competitiveness and the need for speed, the term “agility” was
coined. While flexibility is considered as an operational ability, agility is a strategic ability that enables a firm
to establish a strategic long-term vision. In fact, flexibility is an agility capability, among other capabilities
such as responsiveness or speed. There are also several types of flexibility that are used as agility
sub-capabilities, or as agility enablers, which further confirms the idea that flexibility is a part of agility.
Research limitations/implications – This research is a systematic review of the existing literature on the
concepts of flexibility and agility. Although it is theoretical, it could provide a set of hypotheses that would
enable an empirical study to be conducted into how firms from different industries perceive flexibility and
agility and how they implement each of them.
Originality/value – Flexibility and agility are two distinct characteristics that enable a firm to gain a
competitive advantage by responding quickly and effectively to changing customer demand. However, there
is confusion between these two concepts in the academic and professional literature, with both terms being
used to refer to the same idea. Our literature review aims to draw the boundaries between flexibility and
agility by analyzing the evolution of the two concepts and detailing their respective drivers and elements, in
order to bring more clarity to the nature of the relationship between flexibility and agility.
Keywords Competitive strategy, Flexibility, Agile manufacturing, Supply chains
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
In the mid-1960s, competitiveness significantly increased, challenging firms to change their
strategies. At that time, cost was at the forefront of firms’ concerns. Years later, quality
became the priority. However, since a firm’s performance depends heavily on customer
satisfaction, delivery speed became as important as cost and quality. As the market became
more and more complex, customization appeared. Firms from this time onward were urged
to adapt to the changing environment and become flexible and agile in order to satisfy
market demand.
Flexibility and agility are two characteristics that enable firms to gain a competitive
advantage and to face variations in demand, and they characterize the current market
(Chiang et al., 2012; Yang, 2014). However, articles and literature reviews on flexibility and
agility often confuse the two concepts and use both “flexibility” and “agility” to refer to the
same thing (Swafford et al., 2008; Bernardes and Hanna, 2009; Yi et al., 2011; Eckstein et al.,
2015; Fayezi et al., 2017; Um, 2017). Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
This confusion comes from the undefined and unclear boundaries between flexibility © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
and agility. While a number of researchers consider that agility is centered on flexibility DOI 10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0090
JMTM (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999; Prater et al., 2001), others argue that agility is an extension of
flexibility (Vokurka and Fliedner, 1998; Backhouse and Burns, 1999). However, as will be
explained in this paper, flexibility is just a component of agility, and agility is a more global
concept that became topical with the rise of market volatility and the trend of firms to
migrate to a more agile supply chain (SC) (Christopher and Towill, 2000).
This paper is a literature review of articles on flexibility and agility, and has a double
purpose: the first is to trace the evolution of agility and flexibility over time, and the second
is to clarify the boundaries between the two concepts. By analyzing papers on flexibility and
agility in both manufacturing and SC studies from 1920 to 2017, we attempt to answer the
following research question:
RQ1. What is the relationship between flexibility and agility?
Our main hypothesis is that agility is the normal evolution of flexibility over time.
Our literature review stands out from the existing literature reviews on flexibility and
agility because of its contributions. The first contribution is to trace the evolution of
flexibility and agility since their emergence, with evolution graphs presented to track this
progress. The second is to address the concepts in the manufacturing field as well as in the
SC field, in order to highlight the differences and similarities in each field. The third is to
present each concept in detail, describing its most important elements and its evolution over
time. Finally, our literature review sets the boundaries between flexibility and agility by
analyzing the relationship between these two often-confused concepts.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 explains the methodology
adopted in this paper. Section 3 presents the emergence and evolution of flexibility and
agility over time, up to their introduction to the SC field. Section 4 describes the drivers of
the two concepts. Section 5 discusses their elements. Section 6 presents their measures.
Section 7 analyses and synthesizes the relationship between the two concepts. Section 8
provides a conclusion, setting out the contributions and perspectives of the paper.
2. Methodology
A comprehensive literature review of research studies on flexibility and agility was
conducted using data collection and analysis based on a systematic literature review, in
order to provide a valid evaluation of the existing literature on flexibility and agility ( Jesson
et al., 2011). Thus, a structured process was adopted to select all the relevant articles, while
taking into consideration the specific steps required to conduct a systematic literature
review within the supply chain management (SCM) domain (Durach et al., 2017).
The literature review was undertaken using different databases such as Google Scholar,
Emerald and ScienceDirect. Key search terms were used to search articles published
between 1920 and 2017. The keywords used were: “flexibility,” “agility,” “manufacturing
flexibility/agility,” “production flexibility/agility,” “supply chain flexibility/agility,”
“flexible/agile manufacturing,” “flexible/agile production” and “flexible/agile supply
chain.” In order to identify the relevant information, a selection process for the literature,
based on data reduction, was followed. The results obtained were reviewed and screened by
considering the title, keywords, abstract and conclusion of each paper.
By the end, a total of 108 peer-reviewed articles on flexibility and agility had been
collected, and these were grouped according to their subject: flexibility in manufacturing/SC
or agility in manufacturing/SC. The methodology used for the first purpose, which was to
trace the evolution of the concepts over time, was the analysis of the selected papers in order
to present the history of flexibility and agility, whereas the methodology used for the second
purpose, which was to clarify the boundaries between the concepts, was the study of the
different elements characterizing the two concepts: the drivers of the concepts, the types and
dimensions of flexibility and the capabilities and enablers of agility.
3. Evolution of flexibility and agility Flexibility
3.1 Flexibility and agility
3.1.1 The emergence of flexibility. Emerging in the 1920s, flexibility is a concept that is present
in different research fields, especially economics, decision theory and production. Flexibility
was introduced for the first time by Lavington (1921) as part of a study of the risks emerging
from the immobility of invested resources. Upton (1994) views flexibility as the capacity to
change the environment or react to uncertainty with minimal cost, time and effort and maximal
performance. Hence, flexibility is a multidimensional concept that redefines market
uncertainties and competitive criteria as it influences customer expectations (Gerwin, 1993).
This aspect of the organization appeared in the manufacturing world in the 1940s. While
the vision of managers was focused on the product, Leaver and Brown (1946) insisted on the
importance of the performance of machines and their operation, which gave rise to the need
to revise their design. The grouping of production machines by adding a control mechanism
was the solution that ensured that equipment ran automatically, but it was only with the
emergence of microprocessor technology that flexibility began to be seen as a concept that
could coexist with efficiency.
3.1.2 The evolution of flexibility from manufacturing to SC. A flexible manufacturing
system (FMS) represents a set of machines that are interconnected via a central control
system and a set of numerically controlled handling tools. These machines can perform
several tasks, and each produces different parts of the product for which they were
originally designed. Such an automated production system has the advantage of producing
batches of small quantities in a flexible way. Developed during the 1960s, an FMS applies in
the context of production automation and is considered as a primary element within a firm’s
competitive strategy (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984).
The literature on FMS shows that the vision of researchers was focused on the
internal organizational aspects of the firm (De Toni and Tonchia, 1998; Vokurka and
O’Leary-Kelly, 2000). However, with the increasing number of changes in the market and
the need for subcontracting, firms today depend heavily on suppliers and their services.
This situation requires the management of the entire value chain, from the supplier of the
raw material to the final customer (Stevenson and Spring, 2007). From this, the concept of
flexibility within the SC appeared.
Unlike the FMS, supply chain flexibility (SCF) is a concept that appeared toward the end
of the 1990s. It needs to be perceived from the point of view of the added value of the total
system, within a customer-oriented perspective, in a way that encompasses the set of
internal and external flexibilities that have a direct impact on customers (Vickery et al., 1999;
Sánchez and Pérez, 2005). In an unstable environment, this aspect represents a strong
competitive advantage (Prater et al., 2001; Tachizawa and Thomsen, 2007).
According to Fisher (1997), there are two types of SC. The first is an efficient SC, suitable
for predictable demand, which aims to minimize cost and therefore does not require
flexibility. This type of SC is called “lean.” The SC of the second type is characterized by its
responsiveness toward the market, since it meets an unpredictable demand and therefore
needs to be flexible. This type of SC is called “agile” (Christopher, 2000).
We consulted the research engine Google Scholar to search for all publications on
flexibility from 1920 to 2017. The keywords for the search were: “flexible manufacturing,”
“flexible production,” “manufacturing flexibility,” “production flexibility,” “flexible supply
chain” and “supply chain flexibility.” The research also traced citations to find additional
works. We used the results we obtained to trace the historical evolution of these terms, as
presented in Figure 1. The first four terms belong to the manufacturing domain while the
latter two belong to the SC domain, and thus we created Figure 2 to show and compare the
evolution of flexibility in the fields of manufacturing and SC.
JMTM 3.2 Agility
3.2.1 The emergence of agility. In the early 1980s, competitive priorities were cost, quality
and reliability (Fliedner and Vokurka, 1997; Grets and Kasarda, 1997). Furthermore,
according to Stalk (1988), a firm’s time management during the development and
introduction of a new product and during sales and distribution was the most powerful
competitive advantage. From there emerged, during the 1980s, the notion of time-based
competition as an indicator of a firm’s competitiveness; this translates the firm’s capacity to
accelerate activities on the critical path (Kumar and Motwani, 1995).
Agility was introduced in 1991 by the Iacocca Institute of Lehigh University (Iacocca
Institute Report, 1991) as a key element of market competition that allows a firm to operate
in a constantly changing environment and in a fragmented market. In 1992, the Iacocca
Institute established a definition of agility as “the capacity to prosper in an unpredictable
and changing environment” (Dove, 1993). Agility is still considered to be a relatively new
concept, since it only appeared in the 1990s (Bernardes and Hanna, 2009).
Agility emerged as the direct result of market changes such as demand variability,
information accessibility and increasing customer requirements. As a direct result, products
were more and more customized and had short lifecycles. On the other hand, production
systems switched from mass production to leanness, a philosophy that aims to ensure
efficiency while minimizing waste (Womack et al., 1990). The evolution of production
systems toward leanness and the increasing instability of the environment led to the
emergence of agility in the manufacturing system, with leanness being the predecessor of
agility (McCullen and Towill, 2001; Narasimhan et al., 2006).
3.2.2 The evolution of agility from manufacturing to SC. Agility began to appear in the
world of manufacturing as firms became more and more interested in world class
manufacturing. An agile manufacturing system describes the firm’s ability to satisfy
customer requirements in terms of quality with minimum cost, short lead times and high
flexibility (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984). On the other hand, flexibility allows the agile firm
450
“Flexible manufacturing”
400
350 “Flexible production”
300
250 “Manufacturing flexibility”
200
“Production flexibility”
150
Figure 1. 100 “Flexible supply chain”
Evolution of the 50
number of articles on “Supply chain flexibility”
0
flexibility over time
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
Total
450
400
350 Articles on manufacturing
300 flexibility
250
Figure 2. 200 Articles on supply chain
Comparison between 150 flexibility
the number of articles 100
on manufacturing 50 Total
flexibility and on 0
SC flexibility
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
to react and respond to changes rapidly, by connecting innovation, communication and Flexibility
technologies to market strategies (Vázquez-Bustelo et al., 2007). and agility
With relationships between firms, suppliers and customers becoming more complex,
firms began to focus on the entire SC. In fact, even if cost reduction is essential for a
business, it remains insufficient in a context in which competition is no longer between firms
but between their SCs (Christopher, 1992). Moreover, progress in technology and computers
in the 1990s (enterprise resource planning (ERP), the internet, etc.) played an essential role in
information exchange between SC network entities (McGaughey, 1999; Sambamurthy et al.,
2003; Liu et al., 2013).
These technologies replaced the traditional methods of balancing demand and
production based on stocks with techniques based on information sharing. Information
systems facilitated inter-organizational and intra-organizational cooperation and
communication. As a result, information became accessible to all SC actors through
electronic data interchange (EDI), ERP and the internet, allowing more responsiveness
toward uncertainties (Agarwal et al., 2007).

According to Naylor et al. (1999), an SC is agile when it exhibits the ability to change
production lines and product variety, and to support change occurring in the market, while
providing a product of good quality to the customer. The concept of SC agility (SCA) was
popularized by Christopher (2000), who proposed four dimensions of an agile SC: process
integration, network integration, market sensitivity and virtual SC. These dimensions will
be explained in Section 5.2.
To trace the evolution of agility, we followed the same approach and steps as we did for
flexibility. This time, the keywords we searched for were: “agile manufacturing,” “agile
production,” “manufacturing agility,” “production agility,” “agile supply chain” and “supply
chain agility.” We used the results we obtained to trace the historical evolution of these
terms, as presented in Figure 3. The first four terms belong to the manufacturing field
while the latter two belong to the SC field, and thus we created Figure 4 to show and
compare the evolution of agility in the manufacturing and SC domains.
4. Flexibility and agility drivers

4.1 Flexibility drivers
Flexibility drivers are the factors that encourage firms to become flexible. One of the
advantages of being flexible is that it gives the ability to face uncertainty, which,
according to Slack (1983), is one of the three reasons behind the importance of flexibility.
Indeed, a lack of environmental stability leads firms to reorganize their production and to
evaluate the ease with which they can do so, in this way questioning their own flexibility.
The second reason is progress and development in production techniques that emphasize
the importance of flexibility as a major production attribute. Finally, the third reason is the
160
“Agile manufacturing”
140
120 “Agile production”
100 “Manufacturing agility”
80 “Production agility”
60 “Agile supply chain”
40
“Supply chain agility” Figure 3.
20 Evolution of the
Total
0 number of articles on
agility over time
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
JMTM interest created by production management objectives, in their perspective of progressing
beyond cost and productivity and including other dimensions such as the flexibility of the
production system.
In addition to the impact of the environment on manufacturing flexibility (MF),
Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000) identified organizational aspects as a flexibility driver.
Organizational attributes include the firm’s characteristics, its behavioral aspects and its
people. Another driver is the firm’s strategy, and thus the choice of strategy in terms of
product volume and variety has an impact on the firm’s flexibility types. Finally, the
authors add a fourth driver, which is technology. In his study of the evaluation of SCF,
Pujawan (2004) detected seven drivers of flexibility: product life cycle, product variety,
disparity in relation to customers’ requirements, order stability, component commonality,
process similarity and supply uncertainty. In another study, conducted by D’Souza and
Williams (2000), the authors classified flexibility drivers into two categories: external and
internal. The first category is related to the market and its uncertainty, while the second is
related to manufacturing characteristics and operational activities. In a similar approach,

Tang and Tomlin (2008) identified three types of variability related to the SC: sourcing,
process and demand.
4.2 Agility drivers

One of the main drivers of agility is change. Some firms perceive change as negative, while
for others it constitutes an opportunity. Sharifi and Zhang (1999) identified five domains of
change: market, competitive criteria, customers’ requirements, technology and social
factors. From the same perspective, Yusuf et al. (1999) considered that the change undergone
by the manufacturing system to react to uncertainties shows the current needs of
manufacturing. The authors identified five drivers of agility: automation and price/cost
considerations, widening customer choice, changes in competing priorities, integration and
proactivity and achieving manufacturing requirements in synergy. Moreover, Sharp et al.
(1999) added four drivers that distinguish agility from other production systems: customer,
economy of diversity, unpredictable markets and make to order.
These changes constitute sources of uncertainty, pushing firms to operate in a turbulent
environment. According to Vázquez-Bustelo et al. (2007), firms operating in a turbulent
environment have to be agile in order to adapt to the rising dynamism and competition of
markets that become hostile because of the critical nature of resources (Wu et al., 2017).
Firms also need to adapt to the complexity of the relationship between firms, suppliers,
distributors, competitors and customers, as well as being aware of the impact of product
variety and diversity on different customers. Other important agility drivers were added by
Tseng and Lin (2011) and include market volatility, competition, changes in customers’
requirements, technological innovations and changes in social factors.
160
140
120 Articles on manufacturing
agility
100
80
Figure 4. Articles on supply chain
60 agility
Comparison between
40
the number of articles
on manufacturing 20 Total
agility and on 0
SC agility
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
The way the SC responds to uncertainty determines the firm’s performance (Rimienė, 2011). Flexibility
According to Yi et al. (2011), studies of the relationship between SC and environment and agility
uncertainty can be divided into two groups. The first group addresses the way uncertainty
can be reduced or even eliminated through coordination between SC partners and the use of
information technology (IT). By contrast, the second group proposes methods for accepting
uncertainty and adjusting to it. Indeed, firms that have an SC compatible with environment
uncertainty perform better than firms that do not have this compatibility (Merschmann and
Thonemann, 2011; Gligor et al., 2015).
5. Flexibility and agility elements

5.1 Flexibility types and dimensions
Flexibility types are sets of situations for which flexibility is required, while flexibility
dimensions are the axes according to which types can evolve (Slack, 1983). In the context of
MF, flexibility can be hierarchically divided into three parts: strategic, tactical and
operational (Hyun and Ahn, 1992). Strategic flexibility is the ability of a system to respond
to market changes, strategy, new product introduction and design change. Tactical
flexibility is the ability of a system to operate at different levels and to accept minor and
random changes. Finally, operational flexibility is the ability of a system to adjust to the
different production tasks.
Slack (1983) was one of the first researchers to define flexibility types, and described
precisely five types: new product, mix, quality, volume and delivery. Each of these types
evolves according to three dimensions: range, cost and time. Slack’s work was enriched by
the article of Browne et al. (1984), in which eight flexibility types were cited: machine,
process, routing, operation, product, volume, production and expansion. Moreover,
Sethi and Sethi (1990) added three new flexibility types: material handling, program and
market. Koste and Malhotra (1999) noted that the flexibility related to the product could be
assessed according to two types of flexibility: new product flexibility and modification
flexibility. In addition to the 11 flexibility types proposed by Sethi and Sethi (1990), several
other flexibility types have been identified by a number of researchers (D’Souza and
Williams, 2000; Golden and Powell, 2000; Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly, 2000; Chang et al.,
2001; Naim et al., 2006).
SCF is placed at a hierarchically higher level than MF. SCF includes internal production
plant issues as well as external services such as sourcing, logistics and delivery. Because it is
related to the entire network, SCF represents the relationships between the different actors in
the network. To reinforce this idea, MF is cited as a dimension of SCF in the classification
created by Swafford et al. (2000) in order to identify flexibility types that have an impact
on SCA. Furthermore, these authors proposed three other flexibility types: product
development, sourcing and logistics. Each type evolves according to two dimensions: range
and adaptability. Similarly, other different types of SC flexibility were added by various
researchers (Duclos et al., 2003; Lummus et al., 2003; Stevenson and Spring, 2007).
In their analysis of flexibility types, Giachetti et al. (2003) identified a set of flexibility
measures that are also flexibility types. The authors classified these flexibility
measures into two categories: the first category contains a set of structural measures that
represent the system’s intrinsic properties, independent of the environment. The second
category is a set of operational measures that fall within the system’s operational
decisions. Another classification by Sánchez and Pérez (2005) as part of an empirical study
of the automotive industry showed three categories of flexibility types: shop floor,
enterprise and SC.
In addition to these categories, Gosling et al. (2010) proposed two flexibility types: vendor
and sourcing. The first type encompasses flexibility types related to production, stock and
logistics, while the second types are related to the firm’s capacity to reconfigure its SC,
JMTM to adapt to market requirements, to increase its responsiveness toward suppliers and to
achieve an integrated SC (Purvis et al., 2014). In the same way, many other conceptual
models have been elaborated based on flexibility types (Pujawan, 2004; Lummus et al., 2005;
Kumar et al., 2006; Gong, 2008; Chuu, 2011; Singh and Acharya, 2013).
Because of the important number of flexibility types and dimensions, we gathered the
totality of these elements with their respective definitions into tables: flexibility types
in Table I and flexibility dimensions in Table II. We also gathered together, in another table,
flexibility types that were categorized by their authors, in order to show their evolution from
2000 to 2013, a period when flexibility types evolved rapidly (Table III).
5.2 Agility capabilities and enablers

Agility encompasses several internal aspects of the firm, such as people, product and
strategies, as well as external aspects, such as environment and technology. Responsiveness
is the ability to identify change and respond to it rapidly (Sharp et al., 1999; Holweg, 2005).
It is viewed as one of the agility capabilities, which are essential capacities that enable the
firm to take advantage of changes (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999). Moreover, Kidd (1994)
identified flexibility and speed as two elements of agility. According to this author the
concept of agility is wide and also includes quality, product customization, new technologies
and manufacturing methods. Youssef (1994) agreed with this idea, since agility imposes
structural and infrastructural changes.
In order to establish an agile system, a firm should incorporate different aspects, such as
people, organization and technology. This is achieved with the dimensions or enablers, the
means by which it is possible to become agile. Since the terms “dimension” and “enabler” are
used interchangeably in agility literature, we will use the term “enabler.” Goldman et al. (1995)
identified four agility enablers: enriching the customer by providing solutions rather than just
products, inter-enterprises cooperating to enhance competitiveness, organizing to master
change and uncertainty and leveraging the impact of people and information. In the same
perspective and in order to implement agility, Sharifi and Zhang (1999) elaborated a conceptual
model highlighting agile capabilities, such as responsiveness, competency, flexibility and
speed, as well as agile enablers such as organization, technology, people and innovation.
Over more than a decade, researchers studied agility within the SC, recognizing that
manufacturing is only a part of a larger and more complex network that also contains other
entities like suppliers and customers. Accordingly, Prater et al. (2001) proposed a conceptual
model than details different aspects related to SCA: sourcing, manufacturing and delivery.
Each of these enablers is linked to two inherent notions of agility: flexibility and speed.
As flexibility and speed increase, the SC becomes more agile. Similarly, Gunasekaran and
Yusuf (2002) created a model that highlights the aspects and capabilities of agility.
According to these authors, flexibility, responsiveness, quality and cost are key elements to
a competitive strategy based on agility.
Christopher (2000) considered that SCA is the combination of four factors: process
integration, network integration, market sensitivity and virtual SC. Process integration is
represented by collaboration and sharing of information with suppliers. Network
integration refers to the network in which the firm manages its relationships with
suppliers and structures its organization. Market sensitivity or customer sensitivity appears
when agility replaces the traditional approach, which aims to create a centralized logistics
system based on waste elimination, with a customer-oriented approach. This characteristic
enables the firm to always be aware of customer needs. Finally, the author argued that IT
contributes greatly to the creation of virtual SCs that rely on information instead of the
physical stocks that were classically used to calculate the optimal quantity. IT allows the
firm to have a clear vision of customer demand, especially with an EDI (Nath and Standing,
2010; García-Alcaraz et al., 2017).
Flexibility types Definitions Authors
Flexibility
and agility
Machine The universe of possible uses of the Browne et al. (1984), Carter (1986), Sethi
machine and the ease of converting from and Sethi (1990), Koste and Malhotra
one use to another (Carter, 1986) (1999), Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly
(2000), Giachetti et al. (2003), Naim et al.
(2006), Stevenson and Spring (2007),
Gong (2008), Singh and
Acharya (2013)
Material handling The ability of the material handling Chatterjee et al. (1987), Sethi and Sethi
system in terms of physical location of (1990), Koste and Malhotra (1999),
each group of machines and the times D’Souza and Williams (2000), Vokurka
for every possible move between and O’Leary-Kelly (2000), Giachetti et al.
machines (Chatterjee et al., 1987) (2003), Stevenson and Spring (2007),
Singh and Acharya (2013)
Process The set of part types that the system can Browne et al. (1984), Sethi and Sethi
produce without major setups (Sethi and (1990), D’Souza and Williams (2000),
Sethi, 1990) Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000),
Giachetti et al. (2003), Naim et al. (2006),
Stevenson and Spring (2007), Singh and
Acharya (2013)
Routing The ability of the system to produce a Browne et al. (1984), Sethi and Sethi (1990),
part by alternate routes through the Koste and Malhotra (1999), Vokurka and
system (Sethi and Sethi, 1990) O’Leary-Kelly (2000), Giachetti et al. (2003),
Sánchez and Pérez (2005), Naim et al. (2006),
Stevenson and Spring (2007), Gong (2008),
Operation The ability of a part to be produced in Browne et al. (1984), Sethi and Sethi
different ways (Sethi and Sethi, 1990) (1990), Koste and Malhotra (1999),
Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000),
Giachetti et al. (2003), Naim et al. (2006),
Stevenson and Spring (2007), Singh and
Acharya (2013)
Program The ability of the system to run virtually Jaikumar (1984), Sethi and Sethi (1990),
untended for a long enough period (Sethi Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000),
and Sethi, 1990) Stevenson and Spring (2007)
Product The ease with which new parts can be Browne et al. (1984), Sethi and Sethi
added or substituted for existing parts (1990), Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly
(Sethi and Sethi, 1990) (2000), Chang et al. (2001), Giachetti et al.
(2003), Sánchez and Pérez (2005), Naim
et al. (2006), Stevenson and Spring (2007),
Volume The ability of the system to be operated Slack (1983), Browne et al. (1984), Sethi and
profitably at different overall output Sethi (1990), Koste and Malhotra (1999),
levels (Sethi and Sethi, 1990) D’Souza and Williams (2000), Vokurka and
O’Leary-Kelly (2000), Chang et al. (2001),
Giachetti et al. (2003), Sánchez and Pérez
(2005), Naim et al. (2006), Stevenson and
Spring (2007), Singh and Acharya (2013)
Mix/variety The ability to manufacture a particular Slack (1983), Koste and Malhotra (1999),
mix of products (Slack, 1983) D’Souza and Williams (2000), Chang et al.
(2001), Naim et al. (2006),
Quality The ability of the system to change the Slack (1983)
quality level of one or more of its
products (Slack, 1983)
Table I.
Flexibility types and
(continued ) their definitions
JMTM Flexibility types Definitions Authors
New product The variety of new products which are Slack (1983), Koste and Malhotra (1999),
introduced into production without Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000),
incurring high transition penalties Stevenson and Spring (2007), Singh and
(Koste and Malhotra, 1999) Acharya (2013)
Labor The variety of tasks/operations a worker Koste and Malhotra (1999), Vokurka and
can execute without incurring high O’Leary-Kelly (2000), Stevenson and
transition penalties (Koste and Malhotra, Spring (2007), Gong (2008), Singh and
1999) Acharya (2013)
Automation/ The extent to which flexibility is housed Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000),
technology in the manufacturing technologies Stevenson and Spring (2007)
(Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly, 2000)
Capacity The ability to easily add to production Naim et al. (2006)
capacity (Naim et al., 2006)
Product development The ability to develop diverse products Swafford et al. (2000), Pujawan (2004)
and/or product enhancements in a timely

and cost-effective manner in response to
customer or market requirement
(Swafford et al., 2000)
Production/ The universe of part types that the Browne et al. (1984), Carter (1986), Sethi
manufacturing manufacturing system can produce and Sethi (1990), Swafford et al. (2000),
without adding major capital equipment Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000),
(Sethi and Sethi, 1990) Pujawan (2004), Stevenson and Spring
(2007), Singh and Acharya (2013)
Expansion The ease with which the capacity and Browne et al. (1984), Sethi and Sethi
capability of the system can be increased (1990), Koste and Malhotra (1999),
when needed (Sethi and Sethi, 1990) Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000),
Giachetti et al. (2003), Stevenson and
Modification The variety of product modifications Koste and Malhotra (1999), Chang et al.
which are accomplished without (2001)
incurring high transition penalties
(Koste and Malhotra, 1999)
Delivery The capability of the company to adapt Slack (1983), Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly
lead times to the customer requirements (2000), Chang et al. (2001), Giachetti et al.
(Sánchez and Pérez, 2005) (2003), Pujawan (2004), Sánchez and Pérez
(2005), Naim et al. (2006), Stevenson and
Service The ability of the firm to adapt the Chang et al. (2001)
service to meet market changing needs
(Chang et al., 2001)
Market The ease with which the manufacturing Sethi and Sethi (1990), Vokurka and
system can adapt to a changing market O’Leary-Kelly (2000), Duclos et al. (2003),
environment (Sethi and Sethi, 1990) Sánchez and Pérez (2005), Stevenson and
Transshipment The movement of stock between Sánchez and Pérez (2005), Singh and
locations at the same echelon level where Acharya (2013)
physical distances between the demand
and supply locations are small (Sánchez
and Pérez, 2005)
Postponement The capability of keeping products in Sánchez and Pérez (2005), Singh and
their generic form as long as possible Acharya (2013)
and incorporate customer’s
requirements in later stages (Sánchez
and Pérez, 2005)
Table I. (continued )
Flexibility types Definitions Authors
Flexibility
and agility
Launch The ability to rapidly introduce many Sánchez and Pérez (2005)
new products and product varieties
(Sánchez and Pérez, 2005)
Response The ability of the company to respond to Sánchez and Pérez (2005)
the needs of its target markets (Sánchez
and Pérez, 2005)
Sourcing The ability of the company to find Swafford et al. (2000), Duclos et al. (2003),
another supplier for each specific Lummus et al. (2003), Pujawan (2004),
component or raw material (Sánchez and Sánchez and Pérez (2005), Gosling et al.
Pérez, 2005) (2010), Chuu (2011), Singh and Acharya
(2013), Purvis et al. (2014)
Access The ability of the company to provide Sánchez and Pérez (2005), Singh and
intensive distribution coverage (Sánchez Acharya (2013)
and Pérez, 2005)
Vendor The specific types of flexibility relating to Gosling et al. (2010), Purvis et al. (2014)
individual vendors that support
manufacturing, warehousing or transport
operations (Gosling et al., 2010)
Logistics The ability to adapt the process of Swafford et al. (2000), Duclos et al. (2003),
controlling the flow and storage of Lummus et al. (2003), Stevenson and
materials, finished goods, services and Spring (2007), Chuu (2011), Singh and
related information response to Acharya (2013)
changing environmental conditions
(Swafford et al., 2000)
Organizational/people The ability to align labor force skills to the Duclos et al. (2003), Lummus et al. (2003),
needs of the supply chain to meet demand Stevenson and Spring (2007), Chuu (2011)
requirements (Duclos et al., 2003)
Information systems The ability to align information system Swafford et al. (2000), Duclos et al. (2003),
(IS) architectures and systems with the Lummus et al. (2003), Stevenson and
changing information needs of the Spring (2007), Gong (2008), Chuu (2011),
organization (Duclos et al., 2003) Singh and Acharya (2013)
Operations systems The ability to configure assets and Duclos et al. (2003), Lummus et al. (2003),
operations to react to emerging customer Chuu (2011)
trends (Duclos et al., 2003)
Robustness The range of events that the existing Stevenson and Spring (2007)
supply chain structure is able to cope
with (Stevenson and Spring, 2007)
Reconfiguration The ease with which the supply chain Stevenson and Spring (2007)
can be re-configured (Stevenson and
Spring, 2007)
Relationship The ability to build collaborative Stevenson and Spring (2007), Chuu
relationships both up and downstream, (2011), Singh and Acharya (2013)
including for new product development
(Stevenson and Spring, 2007)
Physical distribution The ability to change distribution Singh and Acharya (2013)
processes in an efficient or effective way
to adjust to requirements of customers
(Singh and Acharya, 2013)
Demand management The ability of a firm to quickly and Singh and Acharya (2013)
effectively respond to the variety of
customer needs (Singh and Acharya, 2013) Table I.
Preiss et al. (1996) detected four steps that a firm needs to master in order to become agile:
understanding market strengths, recognizing the different levels of the firm’s attributes,
maintaining infrastructures and implementing good business practice. There are several
models for the implementation of agility, where each enabler cited in this section contains
JMTM Flexibility
dimensions Definitions Authors
Range The range of states a system can adopt (Slack, Slack (1983), D’Souza and Williams
1983) (2000), Swafford et al. (2000), Golden
and Powell (2000)
Cost The cost of moving from one state to another Slack (1983)
(Slack, 1983)
Time The time necessary to move from one state to Slack (1983), Golden and Powell (2000)
another (Slack, 1983)
Range—number The number of the existing options (operations, Koste and Malhotra (1999)
tasks, products) (Koste and Malhotra, 1999)
Range— The differences between options (operations, tasks, Koste and Malhotra (1999)
heterogeneity products) (Koste and Malhotra, 1999)
Uniformity The similarity of performance outcomes: quality, Koste and Malhotra (1999)
cost and time (Koste and Malhotra, 1999)

Mobility/ The ease with which the organization moves from Koste and Malhotra (1999), D’Souza and
adaptability one state to another (Koste and Malhotra, 1999) Williams (2000), Swafford et al. (2000)
Intention The degree to which organizations take an Golden and Powell (2000)
offensive or defensive stance toward flexibility
Table II. (Golden and Powell, 2000)
Flexibility dimensions Focus The area in which the flexibility is created, Golden and Powell (2000)
and their definitions internally and externally (Golden and Powell, 2000)
D’Souza and Giachetti et al. Sanchéz and Pérez

Naim et al. (2006) Stevenson and Spring (2007) Singh and Acharya (2013)
Williams (2000) (2003) (2005)
Externally Internally
Structural Operational Shopfloor Company SC Internal External Operational Tactic Strategic SC Inbound In-house Outbound
driven driven
New Demand Physical

Volume Process Expansion Delivery Product Delivery Launch Machine Product Machine Product Robustness Manufacturing
design management distribution
Material Material
Variety Machine Product Volume Transshipment Response Process Mix Volume Expansion Reconfiguration Sourcing Product Market
handling handling
Material
Routing Routing Postponement Sourcing Operation Volume Operation Delivery Market Relationship IS Machine Access
handling
Operation Access Capacity Delivery Automation Production Logistics Coordination Labour Transshipment
Process Routing Labour IS Routing Logistics
Routing Process Volume IS
Volume Routing Process Delivery
Program Operation Coordination
Table III. New

product
Evolution of flexibility IS
Coordination
types between
2000 and 2013 Postponement
Material
handling
different attributes (Vokurka and Fliedner, 1998; Gunasekaran, 1999; Yusuf et al., 1999, 2014;
Jackson and Johansson, 2003; Sherehiy et al., 2007; Vázquez-Bustelo et al., 2007). We gathered
together the main articles on agility capabilities in Table IV, and we also grouped the agility
enablers and attributes in Table V.
6. Flexibility and agility measures

6.1 Flexibility measures
A system can be flexible in one dimension but still rigid in another dimension. Moreover, the
number of states of a system makes it difficult to measure its total flexibility. Hence, the
majority of articles on measuring flexibility propose that the flexibility of the types and
dimensions is evaluated in order to detect those which require improvement and to identify
Agility
Flexibility
capabilities Definition Authors and agility
Flexibility The ability to process different products and Kidd (1994), Vokurka and Fliedner (1998),
achieve different objectives with the same Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Prater et al. (2001),
facilities (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999) Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002), Lin et al. (2006),
Sherehiy et al. (2007), Jain et al. (2008), Seyed
Hosseini et al. (2010), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Speed The ability to carry out tasks and operations Kidd (1994), Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Prater
in the shortest possible time (Sharifi and et al. (2001), Lin et al. (2006), Sherehiy et al.
Zhang, 1999) (2007), Jain et al. (2008), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Responsiveness The ability to identify changes and respond Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Gunasekaran and
fast to them, reactively or proactively, and Yusuf (2002), Lin et al. (2006), Sherehiy et al.
recover from them (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999) (2007), Jain et al. (2008), Seyed Hosseini et al.
(2010), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Quality The ability of a product or service to Vokurka and Fliedner (1998), Gunasekaran
consistently meet or exceed customer and Yusuf (2002), Sherehiy et al. (2007)
expectations (Stevenson and Hojati, 2007)
Dependability The ability to be reliable (Vokurka and Vokurka and Fliedner (1998)
Fliedner, 1998)
Cost The sum of the expenses engaged to produce Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002), Seyed
a good or a service/the total price paid for a Hosseini et al. (2010)
product (Neap and Celik, 1999)
Competency The set of abilities that provide productivity, Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Jackson and
efficiency, and effectiveness of activities Johansson (2003), Lin et al. (2006), Jain et al.
toward the aims and goals of the company (2008), Seyed Hosseini et al. (2010), Tseng Table IV.
(Sharifi and Zhang, 1999) and Lin (2011) Agility capabilities
the most flexible elements (Gupta and Goyal, 1989; Sethi and Sethi, 1990; D’Souza and
Williams, 2000; Renner et al., 2011).
In their literature review, Beach et al. (2000) showed that the approaches used to
measure flexibility can be classified into two categories: qualitative and quantitative.
The qualitative measures have a tendency to focus on general terms and concepts
related to the process or the strategy adopted. This approach is followed in those articles
that identify flexibility types and dimensions and those that propose conceptual
models that are non-operational (Slack, 1983; Browne et al., 1984; Chatterjee et al., 1984;
Carter, 1986). By contrast, quantitative measures are operational and are intended for
problem solving in relation to MF. These measures use different theories and techniques
to assess flexibility.
In order to measure flexibility, authors rely on flexibility types. For example, Gupta and
Somers (1992) identified 21 items related to 11 flexibility types that enabled them to assess the
flexibility of a firm’s manufacturing system. Other authors have chosen quantification—for
example, Dixon (1992) approached the problem via empirical data collection and used factor
analysis. Thomke and Reinertsen (1998) proposed an index called the “flexibility index” in
order to calculate flexibility, which had until that time only been seen as a qualitative concept.
The flexibility index is an operational measure of the system that allows researchers to assess
the extent to which the firm can react to a specific change when developing a product
(Giachetti et al., 2003).
Since flexibility can have different meanings in different contexts, Golden and Powell
(2000) and Chuu (2011) proposed four metrics to evaluate flexibility: efficiency,
responsiveness, versatility and robustness. Efficiency determines the firm’s capacity to
challenge itself when a change occurs and react to the change under time constraints, while
responsiveness measures the time necessary for the firm to adapt to the new circumstances.
JMTM Agility enablers Authors
Strategies
Cooperation Goldman et al. (1995), Gunasekaran (1999), Jackson and Johansson (2003), Yusuf
et al. (2014)
Virtual SC Yusuf et al. (1999), Gunasekaran (1999), Christopher (2000)
Core competencies Yusuf et al. (1999), Gunasekaran (1999), Sherehiy et al. (2007)
Reconfiguration Yusuf et al. (1999), Gunasekaran (1999)
Process integration Gunasekaran (1999), Christopher (2000), Sherehiy et al. (2007), Vázquez-Bustelo
et al. (2007)
Network integration Gunasekaran (1999), Christopher (2000)
Market sensitivity Goldman et al. (1995), Gunasekaran (1999), Christopher (2000), Yusuf et al. (2014)
Concurrent engineering Gunasekaran (1999), Jackson and Johansson (2003), Vázquez-Bustelo et al. (2007)
Systems
Manufacturing Gunasekaran (1999)
information systems
Organization Goldman et al. (1995), Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Gunasekaran (1999)
Change
Innovation Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Yusuf et al. (2014)
Culture of change Sherehiy et al. (2007), Yusuf et al. (2014)
People, knowledge and technology
People Goldman et al. (1995), Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Gunasekaran (1999), Jackson and
Johansson (2003), Vázquez-Bustelo et al. (2007), Vinodh et al. (2010), Yusuf et al. (2014)
Knowledge Yusuf et al. (1999, 2014), Vázquez-Bustelo et al. (2007)
Table V. Technology Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Gunasekaran (1999), Vázquez-Bustelo et al. (2007),
Agility enablers Vinodh et al. (2010), Yusuf et al. (2014)
Versatility measures the firm’s flexibility when faced with predictable situations and
robustness is the firm’s ability to respond to unpredictable changes in the environment.
6.2 Agility measures

In order to measure agility, Kidd (1994) proposed five agility performance measures: cost of
change, time of change, stability of change, extent of change and frequency of change.
These performance measures can be applied to all elements of a firm that need modification
if the firm is to react to environmental turbulence. On the other hand, every firm seeking to
become agile will rely on the four enablers identified by Christopher (2000): process
integration, network integration, market sensitivity and virtual SC. A fifth element, called
measurement, was added by van Hoek et al. (2001) and shows the importance of measuring
the four enablers with metrics such as quality, productivity, service level and delivery speed.
Following a different approach, Giachetti et al. (2003) used relational theory and divided
the measures into two groups: the first group includes structural measures, which are
intrinsic properties of the system and are independent of its environment; and the second
group consists of operational measures from the system’s operational decisions, which thus
change according to the environment. The authors identified two structural agility
measures: distance metric and time delay metric, two metrics proposed by Goranson (2000).
However, Giachetti et al. (2003) argued that these measures assess complexity instead of
agility, and hence belong to the study of change and the mastering of uncertainty (Arteta
and Giachetti, 2004). Moreover, according to these authors, there are two operational
measures for evaluating agility: the agility scorecard and the agility index.
The agility scorecard was elaborated by Metes et al. (1998). It is created in six steps and
encompasses a dashboard that allows agility areas to be evaluated and mapped.
The dashboard is a matrix that could be used to balance agility capabilities within the firm. On Flexibility
the other hand, the agility index is a metric that allows the degree of a firm’s agility to be and agility
calculated. This indicator relies on all organizational aspects to assess the overall performance
of the firm (Dimitropoulos, 2009). Measuring the agility index at regular time intervals helps to
keep track of the progression over time. The agility index is one of the most commonly used
methods to evaluate agility (Kumar and Motwani, 1995; Yang and Li, 2002; Vinodh et al., 2010),
and can be combined with fuzzy logic in order to avoid the problem of data ambiguity (Lin
et al., 2006; Jain et al., 2008; Marhraoui and El Manouar, 2017).
7. Relationship between flexibility and agility

7.1 Comparison between the two concepts
7.1.1 Drivers. We gathered together all the flexibility and agility drivers in Table VI. From
the table, one can see that the two concepts share roughly the same drivers and change
types, except for the emergence of some new agility drivers like competition, dynamism and
proactivity. The change is the same for flexibility and agility but it becomes faster with the
appearance of agility, when the drivers related to change speed emerged.
7.1.2 Capabilities. Many researchers have argued that agility is a combination of many
capabilities, one of which is flexibility, and this finding is clear in Table IV. Since flexibility
is a part of agility, we wanted to investigate the relationship between these two concepts,
and to discover precisely whether any flexibility types are used in agility and, if so, which.
We therefore searched the flexibility types used as sub-capabilities and found some of them.
Flexibility drivers Authors

Unpredictability of the environment Slack (1983), Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000)
Technological development Slack (1983), Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000)
Production management objectives/firm’s strategy Slack (1983), Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000)
Organizational attributes Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly (2000)
Supply variability Pujawan (2004), Tang and Tomlin (2008)
Manufacturing process variability/process D’Souza and Williams (2000), Pujawan (2004), Tang and
similarity Tomlin (2008)
Demand variability Tang and Tomlin (2008)
Product life cycle Pujawan (2004)
Product variety Pujawan (2004)
Customers’ requirements disparity Pujawan (2004)
Order stability Pujawan (2004)
Component commonality Pujawan (2004)
Agility drivers Authors
Market unpredictability/volatility Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Tseng and Lin (2011),
Sharp et al. (1999)
Competition Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Changes in customer requirements/widening Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Yusuf et al. (1999), Tseng and
customer choice Lin (2011), Sharp et al. (1999)
Technological changes/innovations Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Changes in social factor Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Automatization Yusuf et al. (1999)
Changes in competing priorities Yusuf et al. (1999)
Integration and proactivity Yusuf et al. (1999)
Achieving manufacturing requirements Yusuf et al. (1999)
Dynamism Vázquez-Bustelo et al. (2007)
Hostility Vázquez-Bustelo et al. (2007) Table VI.
Economy of diversity Sharp et al. (1999) Flexibility and
Make-to-order strategy Sharp et al. (1999) agility drivers
JMTM We noticed that articles are often restricted to mix and volume flexibilities, at the expense of
other flexibility types (Table VII).
7.1.3 Enablers. Agility enablers are very varied and address different aspects such as
strategies, systems, change, people and technology. Since we wanted to show another link
between flexibility and agility, we also noticed that some flexibility types are used as
agility enablers. These flexibility types are related to manufacturing, people and technology.
Hence, we created a table to show the different types of flexibility that are used as agility
enablers (Table VIII).
7.2 Discussion of the relationship between the two concepts

In the evolution of the concepts of flexibility and agility, we notice that the first precedes the
second. Indeed, it was only some 60 years after the emergence of flexibility that agility
appeared (Christopher et al., 2006), at a time when SCF was a well-known concept. However,
as competitive priorities evolved, and the time-based notion appeared and changes became
more and more unpredictable, flexibility was no longer sufficient (Sharp et al., 1999;
Christopher, 2000; Christopher et al., 2016; Holweg, 2005; Bernardes and Hanna, 2009).
Before the 1990s, researchers used the term “flexibility” to refer to agility too, but, with the
need for external collaboration with suppliers and customers and the emergence of
the concept of SCM, researchers began to use the term “agility” to take into consideration the
new changes in a firm’s environment. While flexibility provides an answer for known
situations with previously established procedures, agility is viewed as an extension of
flexibility, insofar as it allows the firm to respond to unpredictable changes in the market
and in customers’ requirements (Backhouse and Burns, 1999; Wadhawa and Rao, 2003).
Hence, agility allows the detection of market opportunities and the response to changes,
rapidly and in an innovative way.
After the emergence of agility, the boundaries between flexibility and agility gradually
began to take shape. We note that flexibility is viewed as an intrinsic characteristic that
enables a system to adjust to change within pre-established settings, while agility is viewed as
an approach for a rapid reconfiguration of a system when faced with unpredictable changes
(Bernardes and Hanna, 2009). Hence, agility is about the behavior of the entire system, while
flexibility is about the behavior of one component of this system. Furthermore, if we compare
Flexibility types as agility

sub-capabilities Authors
Volume flexibility Vokurka and Fliedner (1998), Naylor et al. (1999), Sharifi and Zhang (1999),
Yusuf and Adeleye (2002), Hallgren and Olhager (2009), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Mix flexibility Naylor et al. (1999), Hallgren and Olhager (2009)
Table VII. Process flexibility Vokurka and Fliedner (1998), Narasimhan et al. (2006)
Flexibility types Sourcing flexibility Seyed Hosseini et al. (2010), Purvis et al. (2014)
used as agility Delivery flexibility Seyed Hosseini et al. (2010), Inman et al. (2011)
sub-capabilities Organizational flexibility Sharifi and Zhang (1999), Tseng and Lin (2011)
Flexibility types as agility enablers Authors
Manufacturing flexibility Sarkis (2001), Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002), Yang and Li (2002),
Table VIII. Narasimhan et al. (2006), Swafford et al. (2006)
Flexibility types used People flexibility Yusuf et al. (1999), Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002), Hormozi (2001)
as agility enablers Technology flexibility Yusuf et al. (1999), Gunasekaran and Yusuf (2002)
the elements of the two concepts, we notice that the elements of flexibility are generally related Flexibility
to manufacturing processes or logistics. By contrast, the elements of agility are more global and agility
and relate to different aspects of the firm, like systems, strategies, organization, information
and people. Therefore, flexibility is located at the operational level whereas agility is located at
the strategic level, incorporating external factors into the internal structure of the firm
(Baker, 2006; Purvis et al., 2014; Fayezi et al., 2017).
According to the articles previously cited in this paper, flexibility is an agility capability
(Kidd, 1994; Youssef, 1994; Sharifi and Zhang, 1999; Prater et al., 2001; Gunasekaran and
Yusuf, 2002; Sherehiy et al., 2007), and therefore flexibility is one element of agility
(Swafford et al., 2008; Chiang et al., 2012; Gligor and Holcomb, 2012; Blome et al., 2013)
alongside other elements such as responsiveness, speed, quality and cost. Purvis et al. (2014)
supported the idea that flexibility is an element of agility, as they viewed agility as a
strategic capacity capable of achieving a competitive advantage. On the other hand,
flexibility makes it possible to distinguish lean, agile and leagile sourcing systems
(Williams, 2017). Purvis et al. (2014) further analyzed two flexibility types, mix and volume,
in order to identify the scenario corresponding to agility, and found that an agile system is
characterized by high volume flexibility, with high or low mix flexibility.
Fayezi et al. (2017) found that the studies on the differences between SCF and SCA are
very limited, and, as a result, the confusion between flexibility and agility still exists,
especially in the SC. However, a quantitative study by Swafford et al. (2008) indicated that
the concepts are distinct. The authors argued that SCF refers to the SC’s set of internal
function capacities, like sourcing, manufacturing and delivery. On the other hand, they
defined SCA as the speed with which internal SC functions can adjust to market changes.
The authors concluded that the difference between these types of SC is indeed clear.
The results of Swafford et al.’s (2008) study show that an improvement in flexibility leads to
an improvement in agility. Finally, the authors concluded that flexibility is a predecessor of
agility in the context of the SC.
7.3 An example of flexibility within agility

We synthesized the relationship between flexibility and agility by using the findings of our
literature review to elaborate a figure representing agility (Figure 5), inspired by the work of
Sharifi and Zhang (1999) and Gunasekaran (1999). This figure highlights agility drivers,
Drivers Capabilities Enablers
Flexibility Strategies
I O
Competition N R
F G
C Speed Systems O A
H R N
I
A M
Dynamism Z
N A A
G Responsiveness Technology T T
E I I
Uncertainty O O
N N
People and Figure 5.
Cost An example of agility
knowledge
drivers, capabilities
and enablers
AGILITY
JMTM capabilities and enablers. The first part is composed of agility drivers: dynamism,
competition and uncertainty, or a combination of the three. Because of the change generated
by these drivers, the firm has to conceive an agile system, in order to face turbulence.
The second part of Figure 5 gathers together four agility capabilities. Since agility
depends essentially on flexibility, flexibility is the first capability we chose. The second
capability is the firm’s speed, and the third is the firm’s responsiveness toward change.
Finally, since a firm cannot seek to be agile without asking questions about the expenses
involved, cost is the fourth agility capability. The third part of the figure highlights agility
enablers, which are the means, practices and tools necessary if a firm is to invest in a
strategy oriented toward becoming agile. Each of these enablers contains a set of attributes.
Since a long-term strategic approach is crucial for improvement, the first enabler is
strategies. This enabler gathers together a set of SC practices related to virtual SC, market
sensitivity, process integration and network integration, in addition to core competencies
management, reconfiguration and concurrent engineering. The second enabler is systems,
and encompasses attributes ensuring MF, such as decision support systems, control
systems and production systems, as well as management and planning software programs
like material requirements planning (MRP), MRP 2 and ERP.
The third enabler is technology, which gathers together the technologies required to
implement agility at the communication level, such as information and data
exchange systems like EDI and the internet, and production facilities such as computer-
aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. The fourth enabler is people and knowledge,
and it groups together the attributes related to these aspects. The motivation and
involvement of employees within a decentralized vision results in greater efficiency, which
is beneficial for the firm. In addition, employees must become familiar with new
technologies for greater productivity. Finally, organization and information are two
fundamental concepts that support all the enablers, and thus we represented them
transversely in the figure.
8. Conclusion and perspectives

Initially, flexibility and agility appear to have the same objectives, which include responding
to change, variation and uncertainty in an effective manner and in a way that satisfies
customers’ demands and gains a competitive advantage. Nonetheless, there are several
areas of difference between the two concepts, and there are factors that show that agility is
the result of the evolution over time of the concept of flexibility.
First, the literature review of the concepts of flexibility and agility shows that there are
an important number of papers on flexibility types, dimensions and enablers. By contrast,
agility is a relatively new concept, which explains why the number of conceptual models
for agility is much lower than the number for flexibility, a concept that emerged long before
agility. All agility models integrate flexibility. In fact, elements of flexibility are found in
agility, along with responsiveness, speed, cost and quality. Agility is a function of multiple
variables, with the most commonly cited being flexibility, responsiveness and speed.
The aim of our literature review was to show the relationship between two concepts that
seem intertwined at first sight, and also to show that agility enriches flexibility by enabling
firms to operate at a more strategic level. Our conclusion was a synthesis of the link between
the two concepts, using a figure highlighting agility drivers, capabilities (with flexibility
being one of these), and enablers.
In addition to the theoretical contributions of this literature review, the clarification of the
relationship between flexibility and agility has some practical implications, as we believe
that firms need to understand the difference between flexibility and agility in order to
improve their performance and become agile. Thus, firms can shift from flexibility, which is
an intrinsic operational property that adjusts the system to change within pre-established
settings, to agility, which is a strategic approach for a rapid reconfiguration of the system to Flexibility
deal with unpredictable changes. and agility
Although our paper details the evolution of flexibility and agility and clarifies the link
between these two concepts, our work has nonetheless some limits that will serve as
perspectives for future work. On the one hand, it would be interesting to know how firms
implement flexibility and agility in their processes. If this work was done, it would be
possible to detect the differences that exist regarding the way firms perceive flexibility and
agility. In this direction, an empirical study that supported our literature review would be
very enriching to our work.
On the other hand, understanding how flexibility and agility are implemented in
different industries would allow a comparative study between industries to be conducted
and would determine the usefulness of each concept in relation to firms in a particular
industry. This would also provide data about the percentage of the firms in each industry
that invest in agility and those that consider that flexibility is enough, in addition to giving
knowledge about the obstacles to the implementation of agility.
References
Agarwal, A., Ravi, S. and Tiwari, M.K. (2007), “Modeling agility of supply chain”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-457.
Arteta, B.M. and Giachetti, R.E. (2004), “A measure of agility as the complexity of the enterprise
system”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 495-503.
Backhouse, C.J. and Burns, N.D. (1999), “Agile value chains for manufacturing-implications for
performance measures”, International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 76-82.
Baker, P. (2006), “Designing distribution centres for agile supply chains”, International Journal of
Logistics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 207-221.
Beach, R., Muhlemann, A.P., Price, D.H.R., Paterson, A. and Sharp, J.A. (2000), “A review of
manufacturing flexibility”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 41-57.
Bernardes, E.S. and Hanna, M.D. (2009), “A theoretical review of flexibility, agility and responsiveness
in the operations management literature: toward a conceptual definition of customer
responsiveness”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 30-53.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T. and Rexhausen, D. (2013), “Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility
and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1295-1318.
Browne, J., Dubois, D., Rathmill, K., Sethi, S.P. and Stecke, K.E. (1984), “Classification of flexible
manufacturing systems”, The FMS Magazine, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 114-117.
Carter, M.F. (1986), “Designing flexibility into automated manufacturing systems”, Proceedings of the
Second ORSA/TIMS Conference on Flexible Manufacturing Systems, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, Elsevier Science Publishers, BV, Amsterdam, August 12-15, pp. 107-118.
Chang, S., Yang, C., Lin, N. and Sheu, C. (2001), “Mapping manufacturing flexibility with business
strategy: an empirical study”, CD ROM Proceedings of the 6th Asia Pacific Decision Science
Conference, Singapore, July 18-21.
Chatterjee, A., Cohen, M.A. and Maxwell, W.L. (1987), A Planning Framework for Flexible
Manufacturing Systems, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Chatterjee, A., Cohen, M.A., Maxwell, W.L. and Miller, L.W. (1984), “Manufacturing flexibility: models
and measurements”, Proceedings of the First ORSA/TIMS Special Interest Conference on FMS,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, August 15-17,
pp. 49-64.
JMTM Chiang, C.Y., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. and Suresh, N. (2012), “An empirical investigation of the impact
of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply chain agility”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 49-78.
Christopher, M. (1992), Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Cost and
Improving Service, Pitman, London.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, Industrial Marketing
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and
customised”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 206-213.
Christopher, M., Harrison, A. and van Hoek, R. (2016), “Creating the agile supply chain: issues and
challenges”, in Pawar, K.S., Rogers, H., Potter, A. and Naim, M. (Eds), Developments in Logistics
and Supply Chain Management, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 61-68.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D.R. (2006), “A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain
strategies”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 277-287.
Chuu, S.J. (2011), “Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating
the flexibility in a supply chain”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 213 No. 1,
pp. 279-289.
D’Souza, D.E. and Williams, F.P. (2000), “Toward a taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility dimensions”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 577-593.
De Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (1998), “Manufacturing flexibility: a literature review”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1587-1617.
Dimitropoulos, G.P. (2009), “Agility index of automatic production systems: reconfigurable logic and
open source as agility enablers”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 248-256.
Dixon, J.R. (1992), “Measuring manufacturing flexibility: an empirical investigation”, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 131-143.
Dove, R. (1993), “Lean and agile: synergy, contrast, and emerging structure”, Proceedings of the Defense
Manufacturing Conference’93, San Francisco, CA, November 29-December 2.
Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J. and Lummus, R.R. (2003), “A conceptual model of supply chain flexibility”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 446-456.
Durach, C.F., Kembro, J. and Wieland, A. (2017), “A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in
supply chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 67-85.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046.
Fayezi, S., Zutshi, A. and O’Loughlin, A. (2017), “Understanding and development of supply chain
agility and flexibility: a structured literature review”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 379-407.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your product?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 105-116.
Fliedner, G. and Vokurka, R.J. (1997), “Agility: competitive weapon of the 1990s and beyond?”,
Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 19-24.
García-Alcaraz, J.L., Maldonado-Macías, A.A., Alor-Hernández, G. and Sánchez-Ramírez, C. (2017), “The
impact of information and communication technologies (ICT) on agility, operating, and
economical performance of supply chain”, Advances in Production Engineering & Management,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 29-40.
Gerwin, D. (1993), “Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective”, Management Science, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 395-410.
Giachetti, R.E., Martinez, L.D., Sáenz, O.A. and Chen, C.S. (2003), “Analysis of the structural measures
of flexibility and agility using a measurement theoretical framework”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2012), “Antecedents and consequences of supply chain agility: Flexibility
establishing the link to firm performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 4, and agility
pp. 295-308.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain agility:
when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vols 33-34, January, pp. 71-82.
Golden, W. and Powell, P. (2000), “Towards a definition of flexibility: in search of the Holy Grail?”,
Omega, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 373-384.
Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N. and Preiss, K. (1995), Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations:
Strategies for Enriching the Customer, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Gong, Z. (2008), “An economic evaluation model of supply chain flexibility”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 184 No. 2, pp. 745-758.
Goranson, H.T. (2000), The Agile Virtual Enterprise: Cases, Metrics, Tools, Quorum Books, West Port, CT.
Gosling, J., Purvis, L. and Naim, M.M. (2010), “Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of supplier
selection”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 11-21.
Grets, N.P. and Kasarda, J.D. (1997), “Enterprise logistics in the information era”, California
Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 55-78.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 87-105.
Gunasekaran, A. and Yusuf, Y.Y. (2002), “Agile manufacturing: a taxonomy of strategic and technological
imperatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1357-1385.
Gupta, Y.P. and Goyal, S. (1989), “Flexibility of manufacturing systems: concepts and measurements”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 119-135.
Gupta, Y.P. and Somers, T.M. (1992), “The measurement of manufacturing flexibility”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 166-182.
Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), “Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and
performance outcomes”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29
No. 10, pp. 976-999.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1984), Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through
Manufacturing, Wiley, New York, NY.
Holweg, M. (2005), “The three dimensions of responsiveness”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 603-622.
Hormozi, A.M. (2001), “Agile manufacturing: the next logical step”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 132-143.
Hyun, J.H. and Ahn, B.H. (1992), “A unifying framework for manufacturing flexibility”, Manufacturing
Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 251-259.
Iacocca Institute Report (1991), 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA.
Inman, R.A., Sale, R.S., Green, K.W. Jr and Whitten, D. (2011), “Agile manufacturing: relation to JIT,
operational performance and firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 343-355.
Jackson, M. and Johansson, C. (2003), “An agility analysis from a production system perspective”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 482-488.
Jaikumar, R. (1984), “Flexible manufacturing systems: a managerial perspective”, Working Paper
No. 1-784-078, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, January.
Jain, V., Benyoucef, L. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “What’s the buzz about moving from ‘lean’ to ‘agile’
integrated supply chains? A fuzzy intelligent agent-based approach”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6649-6677.
Jesson, J., Matheson, L. and Lacey, F.M. (2011), Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and
Systematic Techniques, Sage, London.
JMTM Kidd, P.T. (1994), Agile Manufacturing: Forging New Frontiers, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Koste, L.L. and Malhotra, M.K. (1999), “A theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of
manufacturing flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Kumar, A. and Motwani, J. (1995), “A methodology for assessing time-based competitive advantage of
manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 36-53.
Kumar, V., Fantazy, K.A., Kumar, U. and Boyle, T.A. (2006), “Implementation and management
framework for supply chain flexibility”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 303-319.
Lavington, F. (1921), The English Capital Market, Methuen, London.
Leaver, E.W. and Brown, J.J. (1946), “Machines without men”, Fortune, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 25-28.
Lin, C.T., Chiu, H. and Chu, P.Y. (2006), “Agility index in the supply chain”, International Journal of
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K.K. and Hua, Z. (2013), “The impact of IT capabilities on firm performance: the
mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility”, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 1452-1462.
Lummus, R.R., Duclos, L.K. and Vokurka, R.J. (2003), “Supply chain flexibility: building a new model”,
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1-13.
Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J. and Duclos, L.K. (2005), “Delphi study on supply chain flexibility”,
McCullen, P. and Towill, D. (2001), “Achieving lean supply through agile manufacturing”, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 524-533.
McGaughey, R.E. (1999), “Internet technology: contributing to agility in the twenty-first century”,
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-13.
Marhraoui, M.A. and El Manouar, A. (2017), “Comparative review of the main agility assessment
methods: a context-based selection proposal”, Proceedings of The 10th MAC 2017, Prague
Consulting Ltd, Prague, May 26-27, pp. 172-179.
Merschmann, U. and Thonemann, U.W. (2011), “Supply chain flexibility, uncertainty and firm
performance: an empirical analysis of German manufacturing firms”, International Journal of
Metes, G., Gundry, J. and Bradish, P. (1998), Agile Networking: Competing Through the Internet and
Intranet, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Naim, M.M., Potter, A.T., Mason, R.J. and Bateman, N.A. (2006), “The role of transport flexibility in
logistics provision”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 297-311.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. and Kim, S.W. (2006), “Disentangling leanness and agility: an empirical
investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 440-457.
Nath, T. and Standing, C. (2010), “Drivers of information technology use in the supply chain”, Journal of
Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 70-84.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 107-118.
Neap, H.S. and Celik, T. (1999), “Value of a product: a definition”, International Journal of Value-Based
Prater, E., Biehl, M. and Smith, M.A. (2001), “International supply chain agility—tradeoffs between
flexibility and uncertainty”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 823-839.
Preiss, K., Goldman, S.L. and Nagel, R.N. (1996), Cooperate to Compete: Building Agile Business
Relationships, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Pujawan, I.N. (2004), “Assessing supply chain flexibility: a conceptual framework and case study”, Flexibility
International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 79-97. and agility
Purvis, L., Gosling, J. and Naim, M.M. (2014), “The development of a lean, agile and leagile supply
network taxonomy based on differing types of flexibility”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 151, May, pp. 100-111.
Renner, S., Hockmann, H. and Glauben, T. (2011), “Measuring flexibility of multi-output firms: a primal
and a dual measure”, EAAE 2011 Congress Change and Uncertainty, European Association of
Agricultural Economists, Zurich, August 30-September 2.
Rimienė, K. (2011), “Supply chain agility concept evolution (1990-2010)”, Economics & Management,
Vol. 16, pp. 892-899.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003), “Shaping agility through digital options:
reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 237-263.
Sánchez, A.M. and Pérez, M.P. (2005), “Supply chain flexibility and firm performance:
a conceptual model and empirical study in the automotive industry”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 681-700.
Sarkis, J. (2001), “Benchmarking for agility”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 88-107.
Sethi, A.K. and Sethi, S.P. (1990), “Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey”, International Journal of
Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 289-328.
Seyed Hosseini, S.M., Pilevari, J.J.N. and Didehkhani, H. (2010), “A novel framework for agility
assessment in supply chain considering enablers and capabilities”, Kuwait Journal of Science
and Engineering, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 161-182.
Sharifi, H. and Zhang, Z. (1999), “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations: an introduction”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 7-22.
Sharp, J.M., Irani, Z. and Desai, S. (1999), “Working towards agile manufacturing in the UK industry”,
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. and Layer, J.K. (2007), “A review of enterprise agility: concepts,
frameworks, and attributes”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 445-460.
Singh, R.K. and Acharya, P. (2013), “Supply chain flexibility: a frame work of research dimensions”,
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 157-166.
Slack, N. (1983), “Flexibility as a manufacturing objective”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 4-13.
Stalk, G. (1988), “Time–the next source of competitive advantage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66
No. 6, pp. 41-51.
Stevenson, M. and Spring, M. (2007), “Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition and review”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 685-713.
Stevenson, W.J. and Hojati, M. (2007), “Management of quality”, Operations Management, 9th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, Irwin, CA and Boston, MA, pp. 381-418.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N.N. (2000), “A model of global supply chain agility and its
impact on competitive performance”, Proceedings of the 31st National DSI Meeting, Orlando, FL,
November, pp. 1037-1039.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N.N. (2006), “A framework for assessing value chain agility”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 118-140.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N.N. (2008), “Achieving supply chain agility through IT
integration and flexibility”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116 No. 2,
pp. 288-297.
JMTM Tachizawa, E.M. and Thomsen, C.G. (2007), “Drivers and sources of supply flexibility: an exploratory
study”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 10,
pp. 1115-1136.
Tang, C. and Tomlin, B. (2008), “The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks”,
Thomke, S. and Reinertsen, D. (1998), “Agile product development: managing development
flexibility in uncertain environments”, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 8-30.
Tseng, Y.H. and Lin, C.T. (2011), “Enhancing enterprise agility by deploying agile drivers, capabilities
and providers”, Information Sciences, Vol. 181 No. 17, pp. 3693-3708.
Um, J. (2017), “The impact of supply chain agility on business performance in a high level
customization environment”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 10-19.
Upton, D. (1994), “The management of manufacturing flexibility”, California Management Review,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 72-89.

van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (2001), “Measuring agile capabilities in the supply
chain”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2,
pp. 126-148.
Vázquez-Bustelo, D., Avella, L. and Fernández, E. (2007), “Agility drivers, enablers and outcomes:
empirical test of an integrated agile manufacturing model”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1303-1332.
Vickery, S., Calantone, R. and Dröge, C. (1999), “Supply chain flexibility: an empirical study”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 16-24.
Vinodh, S., Devadasan, S.R., Vasudeva Reddy, B. and Ravichand, K. (2010), “Agility index
measurement using multi-grade fuzzy approach integrated in a 20 criteria agile model”,
Vokurka, R.J. and Fliedner, G. (1998), “The journey toward agility”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 98 No. 4, pp. 165-171.
Vokurka, R.J. and O’Leary-Kelly, S.W. (2000), “A review of empirical research on manufacturing
flexibility”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 485-501.
Wadhawa, S. and Rao, K.S. (2003), “Flexibility and agility for enterprise synchronization: knowledge
and innovation management towards flexagility”, Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 111-128.
Williams, S.J. (2017), “Leanness plus agility ¼ leagility”, in Birkhäuser (Ed.), Improving Healthcare
Operations, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 57-68.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Simon and
Schuster, New York, NY.
Wu, K.J., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S.F. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Achieving competitive advantage through
supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-making structure”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 190, August, pp. 96-107.
Yang, J. (2014), “Supply chain agility: securing performance for Chinese manufacturers”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 150, April, pp. 104-113.
Yang, S.L. and Li, T.F. (2002), “Agility evaluation of mass customization product manufacturing”,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 129 No. 1, pp. 640-644.
Yi, C.Y., Ngai, E.W.T. and Moon, K.L. (2011), “Supply chain flexibility in an uncertain environment:
exploratory findings from five case studies”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 271-283.
Youssef, M.A. (1994), “Design for manufacturability and time-to-market. Part 1: theoretical
foundations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 12,
pp. 6-21.
Yusuf, Y.Y. and Adeleye, E.O. (2002), “A comparative study of lean and agile manufacturing with Flexibility
a related survey of current practices in the UK”, International Journal of Production Research, and agility
Vol. 40 No. 17, pp. 4545-4562.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and
attributes”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Gunasekaran, A., Musa, A., Dauda, M., El-Berishy, N.M. and Cang, S. (2014), “A relational
study of supply chain agility, competitiveness and business performance in the oil and gas
industry”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147 No. Part B, pp. 531-543.
Further reading
Roth, A.V. (1996), “Competitive progression theory: explanation and evidence”, in Voss, C. (Ed.),
Manufacturing Strategy in a Global Context, London, Business School Press, London,
pp. 563-568.
Corresponding author
Bouchra Abdelilah can be contacted at: bouchra.abdelilah@edu.uiz.ac.ma
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Ab Delilah 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ab Delilah 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Flexibility and agility: evolution and relationship

Downloaded on: 24 June 2018, At: 02:11 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

toward uncertainties (Agarwal et al., 2007).

4. Flexibility and agility drivers

related to manufacturing characteristics and operational activities. In a similar approach,

4.2 Agility drivers

5. Flexibility and agility elements

5.2 Agility capabilities and enablers

and/or product enhancements in a timely

cost and time (Koste and Malhotra, 1999)

D’Souza and Giachetti et al. Sanchéz and Pérez

New Demand Physical

Table III. New

6. Flexibility and agility measures

6.2 Agility measures

7. Relationship between flexibility and agility

Flexibility drivers Authors

7.2 Discussion of the relationship between the two concepts

Flexibility types as agility

Flexibility types as agility enablers Authors

7.3 An example of flexibility within agility

Drivers Capabilities Enablers

8. Conclusion and perspectives

knowledge about the obstacles to the implementation of agility.

Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 72-89.

You might also like