The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0140-9174.htm

MRN
32,5
Exploratory case studies on
manufacturing agility in the
furniture industry
424 Riadh Azouzi and Robert Beauregard
Forest and Wood Sciences, Laval University, Quebec, Canada, and
Sophie D’Amours
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Laval University, Quebec, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the agility of advanced manufacturing
technologies (AMTs) in furniture enterprises, and explores the appropriateness of a typology
framework that correlates the technology infrastructure of the enterprise with its manufacturing
strategy.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses a clear and rigorous case study design and
protocol. Empirical data are collected using structured surveys of two strategically selected furniture
enterprises. The collected data are used to analyze the fit between the technology infrastructure of the
enterprise and its strategic goals, and how this fit correlates with the theoretical categories stated by
the typology.
Findings – The case studies suggest that enterprise performance could be maximized if the
competitive priorities and the customization strategy put in practice are in conformity with the
available technology.
Research limitations/implications – The findings of the case studies corroborate the all inclusive
hypothesis suggested by the typology. The lack of triangulation of multiple data sources for more
confidence about the results or the typology framework itself remains a limitation in this study. The
two cases were representative to a certain extent of two out of the three theoretical ideal types stated
by the typology.
Practical implications – The explored typology can serve as a supporting tool for managers when
making strategic investment decisions in their pursuit of a mass customization strategy within a
specific market.
Originality/value – The originality comes from the way the properties that should be displayed by
the technologies used in furniture manufacturing enterprises to develop agility are drawn together.
Keywords Advanced manufacturing technologies, Mass customization, Furniture industry,
Agile production, Canada
Paper type Case study

Management Research News
Vol. 32 No. 5, 2009
pp. 424-439
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0140-9174
DOI 10.1108/01409170910952930
Introduction
The Canadian furniture manufacturing sector has been facing major challenges as it
undergoes the effects of the rising Canadian dollar combined with the increasing
export from low labor cost countries, such as China, to North America (Bryson et al.,
2003; Schuler and Buehlmann, 2003; Grushecky et al., 2006). In order to contend with
these challenges and thrive, most manufacturers believe that the adoption of advanced
manufacturing technologies (AMTs) is fundamental (Hoff et al., 1997). Meredith and
Francis (2000) discuss how technology can be a key element in agile manufacturing.
The objective behind agile manufacturing is to create a sustainable competitive
advantage, mainly through customer integration in the process of designing,
manufacturing, marketing and supporting products. Through agile manufacturing, it
becomes possible to produce customized products tailored to meet customer’s needs at
mass production costs and speed. This practice is also known as mass customization,
a business strategy introduced by Pine (1993) which has been recently associated with Manufacturing
the future of the furniture industry in North America (Lihra et al., 2005; Schuler and
Buehlmann, 2003).
agility
Azouzi et al. (2007a) proposed a typology framework that integrates the AMTs with
the different customization strategies of furniture. At the heart of this typology
framework, the agility reference model reflects the capabilities needed by every process
involved in the mass customization of furniture, and identifies the key properties that
should characterize the technologies used to develop each capability. In this paper,
425
therefore, we extend the work of Azouzi et al. (2007a) by exploring the appropriateness
of their typology framework. We carried out exploratory research work, based on a
case study methodology, by analyzing the context in terms of competitive priorities
and customization strategies and investigating the agility attributes of the
technologies/processes in use in two furniture enterprises in Québec, Canada.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: section 2 provides a
background on manufacturing typologies and introduces the typology framework and
the agility referenced model proposed by Azouzi et al. (2007a, b). Section 3 presents the
research methodology used. Section 4 discusses the main results and provides
explanations of the deviations from the ideal types set by the typology. Conclusions
and directions for future research follow.

Background
Manufacturing typology framework
Various frameworks have been suggested and presented as being typologies applied
for different aspects of the manufacturing enterprises. Some authors proposed
typologies that were centered on the competitive priorities in manufacturing (e.g.
flexibility), and attempted to ground them with their strategic context (e.g. Slack, 1988;
Corrêa and Slack, 1996; Sackett et al., 1997). Whether these ‘‘typology’’ frameworks
were derived empirically or conceptually, they barely addressed the links between
the technologies, the product design, and the competitive environment facing the
enterprise. Furthermore, most of the frameworks encountered in the literature resemble
more simplistic classifications and taxonomies rather than truly operational
typologies. One of the early attempts in this direction was made by Boyer et al. (1996).
They utilized cluster analysis to classify companies based on their approaches towards
investments in AMTs and investigated the possible links with the performance of the
classified companies. Four distinct groups of companies (traditionalists/generalists/
investors/designers) were identified based on their commitment to each of three AMTs
types (design-based/manufacturing-based/administrative-based). The data, Boyer et al.
had, could not enable them to see differences in performance among companies
following radically different technological structures. This can be attributed to the fact
that they could hardly consider the strategic implications of the capabilities resulting
from the adopted technologies. Also, their data contained no projection in the future
with regards to the expected competitive environment and the strategic objectives.
A more explicit taxonomy scheme about the competitive environment and strategic
considerations was proposed by Narain et al. (2000). These authors regarded flexibility
as the key capability for the strategic positioning of any manufacturing enterprise, and
suggested a categorization into three groups: ‘‘necessary’’, ‘‘sufficient’’ and ‘‘competitive’’
flexibility. They relied mainly on the work done by Sethi and Sethi (1990) and Suarez
et al. (1995). The former identified several types of flexibilities, while the latter
proposed several factors which affect the need for flexibility such as product strategy,
MRN consumer demand and competitor behavior. Even if this classification scheme indicated
for each flexibility category the constituent elements in terms of flexibility types (such
32,5 as machine, product or volume flexibility), the types of problems addressed by
manufacturing firms (e.g. product quality, cost, delivery time or the frequent
introduction of new designs), and the focus (operational, tactic or strategic), it did not
deal with the technology attributes and their strategic implications. As it will be
discussed later, manufacturing flexibility remains one among other capabilities that are
426 believed to be the drivers towards enterprise agility.
Doty and Glick (1994) argue that ‘‘typologies are complex theoretical statements
developed to predict variance in dependent variables’’ (Doty and Glick, 1994, p. 243).
They emphasized the role of typologies in translating complex conditions into a
parsimonious description that can explain outcomes and form the basis for action.
They determined the constructs that should be comprised by a properly developed
typology. A properly developed typology is intuitively sensitive, comprehensive,
clearly defined and conceptually elegant (Scott, 1981).
The typology framework proposed by Azouzi et al. (2007a) appears to be in
compliance with the theoretical concepts emphasized by Doty and Glick. It is presented
as the foundation of an operational framework that can be used by managers to
correlate their technological needs with their strategic goals considering their
competitive environment. It emphasizes the taxonomy of the market interaction
strategies (MISs) for furniture products, and the competitive priorities that should be
targeted by furniture enterprises pretending to be agile (Figure 1 and Table I). Lead

Figure 1.
Derivation of the
typology

Strategy Description

Lead-time The time required to process a customer request for a product,

from customer preferences elicitation to product deliver going
through order taking
Quality The quality or performance standards of the delivered product
Table I. Variety The number of products or product configurations that can be delivered
Competitive priorities for Innovativeness The ability to introduce new products and processes
furniture enterprises Profit margin The ability to make a gain out of the delivered product unit
time, quality, variety, innovativeness and profit margin have been identified as the Manufacturing
main priorities. Table II depicts the MISs taxonomy adopted by the typology agility
framework. The latter was originally proposed by Montreuil and Poulin (2002) then
adapted for the furniture sector by Lihra et al. (2005). The primary differentiator
between these MISs is the design process. The existence of three product design modes
(standard, modular or custom design) suggests the existence of three corresponding
agility levels; necessary, sufficient and competitive agility. Each agility level
corresponds to unique patterns of process capabilities, and thus, to unique patterns of
427
agility properties pointing towards a set of technologies needed throughout the
enterprise. Figure 1 does not explicitly show every pattern of agility properties. It is
hypothesized however that this role can be fulfilled through the agility reference model
presented later.
It is assumed that the agility requirements for the design process are translated into
demand on other processes for agility (such as order taking, order fulfillment
realization, order fulfillment management processes). This assumption implies that all
the processes in the enterprise should be characterized with more or less equivalent
capabilities. A direct consequence of this capability equivalence is that, in an ideal
world, all the processes in a ‘‘necessarily agile’’ enterprise should be configured

Strategy Description Design

Popularizing A limited number of products match a wide variety of Standard

customer needs, for those who want off-the-shelf
products. Focus on evolving the popular product mix in
line with evolving customer needs
Adjusting Product adjusted to customer needs after usage. Modular
Distributed information systems capture customer
feedback
Varietizing Extensive mix of products to satisfy all customer needs. Modular
Retailers pick those they want to offer off-the-shelf and
rely on quick delivery from distribution network for fast
delivery
Accessorizing A limited set of core products matched with a wide array Modular
of accessories. Final assembly of accessorized products
performed to order either by the customer, the retailer, or
the manufacturer
Configuring Customers define the desired product through the setting Modular
of parameters and the selection of options. He is guided
through the specification process by the retailer or the
manufacturer
Monitoring Product is replaced by more adequate product as the Modular
customer needs evolve, ensuring continually a best-fit
product. This involves regular and interactive customer
feedback
Tailoring Product designed/engineered to customer needs. The Custom
customer is closely involved in the product realization
process
Collaboration Customer is viewed as a collaborator with an open Custom
dialogue. Expert field systems interact with customers, Table II.
seeking to continually optimize customer return MISs for mass
customization of
Source: Adapted from Lihra et al. (2005) furniture products
MRN technologically so that the resulting capabilities are as low as for the design process of
32,5 standard products. The latter should be flexible enough to allow a small number of
different models to be designed. The autonomy level is delimited by the designer’s
market knowledge (trends and new fashions). Since the introduction of new products or
styles comes at a relatively low pace, the design process can needs the necessary time
where responsiveness could be rated as low. Thereby, the capabilities of the processes in
a ‘‘sufficiently agile’’ enterprise should be at a substantial step above the levels required
428 from the processes of a ‘‘necessarily agile’’ enterprise. Here, the designer is constrained
to develop standardized and interchangeable modules while observing a complex
design layout and maximum reusability. The user can configure a range of possible
variants of the pre-designed modules (Hermansky and Seelmann-Eggebert, 2003).
Variants can take the form of different colors, surface materials, lengths, widths, depths,
etc. The finished product will be unique and can be delivered in short period. Finally, in
a ‘‘competitively agile’’ enterprise, the customer should be directly involved in the design
phase therefore all the processes should be ideally highly flexible, highly responsive and
highly autonomous (the capabilities of the processes should be ideally high).

Agility reference model

In (2007b), Azouzi et al. proposed a framework for the development of consistent
standards supporting agility from a technology perspective. This framework (Figure 2)
provides a unifying conceptual representation of agility in terms of the required agility
properties of the technologies needed by the agile process. The purpose behind this
model is to establish a ‘‘simplified and focused’’ vision of agility and its links to
technology; agility is described using three capabilities which are believed to be the
sources of competitive advantages in the furniture industry:
. flexibility. a process is flexible if it is able to out live the products for which it was
originally built;
. responsiveness. a process is responsive if it operates effectively and efficiently in
a timely manner; and
. autonomy. a process is autonomous if it is self-sufficient and able to operate by
its own rules with no need for on-line assistance or direct control by an operator
or manager.

Figure 2.
An agility reference
model
Each capability addresses a specific issue and can only be thoroughly developed if the Manufacturing
technologies used are characterized with some specific attributes or properties. The agility
larger the environmental uncertainty in terms of products, parts or services variability,
the more the enterprise needs to improve the flexibility of its processes. Variability and
uncertainty have been identified as the factors generating the need for flexibility in
manufacturing (Correa et al., 1996; Kara and Kayis, 2004). New prospects for enterprise
flexibility can result from the integration of highly computerized and information rich 429
processes. Standardization and lead time compression were identified as fundamental
for the responsiveness of any manufacturing process (Anderson, 2004). In particular,
standardization reduces complexity. In practice, this simplification can be linked to the
adoption of a modular design approach, standardized raw material, and/or uniform
information and knowledge management. A flexible and responsive system cannot
maintain high centralization; the circuits of information and decision-making are
required to be very short. This is where the notion of autonomy intervenes.
Autonomy may include critical interdependencies between the different processes
or between the different technologies used in the same process. In fact, the
implementation of flexibility (using computerized technologies and technologies for
increasing information content) and responsiveness (using standardizing and lead time
compressing technologies) drives production processes towards more tightly coupled
systems where processes are more and more interdependent. This integration leads to
a greater need for coordination in decision-making. Such coordination is impossible
without awareness capabilities (Klein, 1991). Awareness is the process knowledge and
recognition of the stimuli that occur or may occur and the preparation and responses
necessary to address them, whether they emanate from customer needs, environmental
uncertainties, competitors or market conditions (Kritchanchai and MacCarthy, 1999).
The stimuli could be any internal or external changes that can be perceived by the
process as relevant to its operation. If these stimuli can be identified by the process
more time is needed to gather data or information and react accordingly to the problem
or opportunity. This process requires means for knowledge engineering (KE) and
management. Management refers to the tools for storing and communicating
information or data and the tools oriented towards knowledge, supporting activities
such as knowledge creation, mapping, retrieval and use activities (Shadbolt and
Milton, 1999).

Methodology
The case study methodology is used for this research. Hypotheses for quantitative
studies and aid in testing theory (Patton and Appelbaum, 2003). ‘‘If you have a good
descriptive or analytic language by means of which you can truly grasp the interaction
between various parts of a system and the important parts of a system, the
possibilities to generalize from very few cases, or even one single case, may be
reasonably good.’’ (Patton and Appelbaum, 2003, p. 65). The typology explored in this
work, in conjunction with the agility reference model, leads to such a descriptive
method. The subjective nature of this language, added to the complexity prevailing on
the investigated links, calls for clear and rigorous case study design and protocol. A
well-designed case study ensures that there is a clear view of what is to be achieved
(Rowley, 2002), while the primary objective behind a case study protocol is to facilitate
data collection.
MRN Case study design
32,5 We used the case study design methodology proposed by Yin (1994). This methodology
stipulates that the design of the case study research should include the following five
main components:
Questions of the study. These are a clear formulation of the subject under
investigation by the study. The questions of the present case study research have been
introduced through discussion in the earlier sections of this paper. Figure 3 illustrates a
430 schematic representation of the research process and relationships on which the
questions are based.
Research propositions. The typology and the reference model presented in section 2
were based on literature and on conceptual reasoning. This typology hypothesizes that
the fit between technology and strategy should result in higher performance. Figure 3 can
be viewed as a path model, each path representing a hypothesis. The validation of every
single hypothesis might require significant amounts of empirical data and relatively
complex. It is believed however that this could be avoided through the inductive
approach of studying one or a limited number of cases (Patton and Appelbaum, 2003).
Units of analysis. Two enterprises were selected for the case studies, with the
expectation that each enterprise was contrasting. Beyond these considerations, there is
also the constraint of accessibility; the data that we needed to collect was strategic thus
there was some difficulty in recruiting case study organizations.
Linking data to propositions. This represents the data analysis step in the research
design. As the data collected in this research is primarily composed of qualitative
measurements obtained from the units of analysis, then it was easy to plot them on
‘‘spider’’ graphs. In the results section, it is shown how these graphs were used to
portray the deviations between the agility properties of the technologies used in the

Figure 3.
A schematic
representation of research
process and propositions
furniture enterprise, and the predefined ideal ones stated by the typology through its Manufacturing
descriptive language. agility
Case study protocol and data collection
The case study protocol consisted of three main phases. The initial phase in the
protocol concentrated on the exchange of general information between the investigator
and the enterprise targeted by the case study. The enterprise is informed about the case
study and its goals. General information about the enterprise, such as the product
431
types manufactured, the number of employees, and the year in which the enterprise
started its first product customization initiative is gathered. The second phase collected
data using a structured questionnaire that contained three sections including (1) the
design mode(s) and the MISs in place; (2) the competitive priorities of the enterprise; the
respondent was requested to rate their importance levels and their levels of
achievement, respectively, A ten-point scale (with 0 ¼ not at all important, to
3 ¼ ideal level of importance for a manufacturer of standard products, to 6 ¼ ideal
level of importance for a manufacturer of modular products, to 9 ¼ ideal level of
importance for a manufacturer of custom products) was used; and (3) clarifications
about the processes capabilities and the agility properties of the technologies, then he
was asked to rate the development level of (1) the capabilities of the core processes in
the enterprise; and (2) the agility properties of the technologies employed in each of
these processes. A ten-point scale (with 0 ¼ not at all developed, to 3 ¼ ideal level of
development for a manufacturer of standard products, to 6 ¼ ideal level of development
for a manufacturer of modular products, to 9 ¼ ideal level of development for a
manufacturer of custom products) was used. Flexibility on gathering additional
information through open ended questioning was also involved.
The study’s scope covered the core processes in the furniture enterprises shown in
Figure 4. Design and engineering are the first processes taking place during the
development of a new piece of furniture. The two processes are treated as one in this
study. The retailing and order taking process manages all the dialogue that a
manufacturer can have with the retailer or the end user. Order fulfillment management
refers to the process of planning when the orders are released to the production floor,
and when the orders for purchased materials and materials distributed across the
supply chain are issued to the suppliers. This process is also directly involved in
resource-related decisions, such as capacity allocation and operators assignment.
Finally, the order fulfillment realization process encompasses all the activities executed
in the manufacture of products (from component manufacturing, through assembling
and finishing, to packaging and distribution). It is probably most demanding in terms
of technological infrastructure and human operators interventions.

Figure 4.
Core processes for
furniture manufacturing
MRN Results
32,5 Two furniture enterprises are studied in this exploratory research. They are located in
a province of Quebec, Eastern Canada. A summary of the main characteristics of each
enterprise is presented in Table III. The results are depicted in Figures 5-7. The names
of the enterprises are fictitious to preserve confidentiality.
Case 1: A contemporary furniture manufacturer
432 The first case enterprise, referred to here as ‘‘HouseCo’’ manufactures household
furniture mostly made of solid wood. It is a family owned enterprise, which includes
two sites; a manufacturing site and a rough mill. Due to significant reduction in last
year’s sales, the enterprise had incurred, within the last eight months, nearly 50 per
cent reduction in work force, passing from 250 people down to 120 people, 80 of which
are machine operators and craftsmen. A team of four people is responsible for
designing and prototyping new products. HouseCo foregrounds the quality and the
styling of its hardwood and veneered wood constructed furniture. During the last ten
years, the company invested heavily in advanced technologies, including sophisticated
computer-assisted equipment. The enterprise uses advanced technologies to control its
machining and sanding processes, but relies on traditional cabinet-making techniques

HouseCo OfficeCo

Main characteristics
Main products Solid wood household furniture Office furniture systems
Number of employees 120 927
Year when started interest Since 20 years Since more than 35 years
in customization
Design mode(s)
Products of standard design 100% 0%
Products of modular design 0% 90%
Products of custom design 0% 10%
MISs
Strategies in place Varietizing Configuring
Table III. Accessorizing Monitoring
Case studies results Tailoring Tailoring

Figure 5.
Comparison of target,
achieved and ideal
competitive priorities for
each case study enterprise
 Manufacturing
agility

433

Figure 6.
Actual vs ideal agility
properties of the
technologies

Figure 7.
Estimated actual
capacities of the processes

for furniture assembly and finishing. The key respondent was the vice-president of
operations; a shareholder who has been overseeing production for more than 15 years.
Since its beginning, HouseCo has been producing standard products only. Early in
the 1980s, HouseCo started to offer more variety with a more design-oriented approach
and world-class outlook. Currently, its catalogue features a number of product lines or
collections including over 300 different products that can be offered in five different
MRN colors. Also, accessories such as knobs and hinges can be varied in compliance with the
client preferences. While its promotional strategies (via advertisement and
32,5 participation in major tradeshows) targets both potential retail distributors and
potential consumers, HouseCo does not have channels for direct sales. The customer
could buy products only through pre-approved retail distributors (including
conventional furniture retailers, specialty stores and mass merchants). Large retail
distributors are involved in the development of a new product.
434 As shown in Figure 5(a), the five competitive priorities appeared to be very
important for HouseCo with special emphasis on the lead-time, profit margin and
innovativeness. While the priorities of innovativeness, quality and variety appeared to
be fairly well achieved, concern about the profit margin and lead-time was an issue. In
fact, the situation became alarming when the sales of the enterprise went down by
nearly 50 per cent during the previous year before this study. The enterprise used to
have a strong distribution network enabling it to reach high-end markets higher profit
margins. However, the increasing value of the Canadian dollar weakened the
distribution network of HouseCo, which was accentuated by the bankruptcy of some of
its important distributors. Significant market share, mainly in Canada and the USA,
was lost to competitors from low labor cost countries such as China making similar
styles or even products imitation. On the other hand, HouseCo had established for itself
competitive priorities that, according to the typology, are astonishingly close to the
competitive priorities that should be targeted by the ‘‘ideal’’ enterprise making
modularized products but certainly not standard products. Under such ambitious
manufacturing strategy, each of the manufacturing processes at HouseCo was
expected to present an agility level higher than that typically found for such processes
at an enterprise manufacturing only standard products.
The deviations between the agility properties of the technologies at HouseCo and
their ideal counterparts are depicted in Figure 6. It can be easily seen that the
technological infrastructure at HouseCo could not support its ambitious strategic
goals. The best technologies are employed in the design and engineering processes as
well as the order management process. The agility attributes of computerization and
information content of these technologies exceed the ideal levels for standard products.
This situation is in relative agreement with the established strategic goals. Despite the
fact the computerization and information content levels for the technologies employed
in the order fulfillment process nearly match the ideal levels for standard products they
remain unsuitable for the competitive priorities targeted by HouseCo (see Figure 6(d)).
Figure 6(c) shows that the technologies used for the retailing and order taking
processes are almost not computerized, and their information content levels are very
limited. These results are corroborated by the results shown in Figure 7(a). From this
figure, it is obvious that the targeted competitive priorities were not matched with the
necessary processes capabilities of flexibility, responsiveness and autonomy. The
capabilities of the design and engineering processes appear to go beyond the ideal
levels for a manufacturer of standard products, yet the capabilities of the other
processes could barely go with the ideal capabilities for such a company, as established
theoretically by the typology. More about the translation of these capabilities in terms
of the agility properties of the technologies is given below.
The two properties, according to the agility reference model, that are directly linked
to the responsiveness of the processes (standardization and lead time compression)
appear to be more developed than the properties that have been identified as critical for
the autonomy of the processes (awareness and KE and management). It is important to
keep in mind that the implementation of flexibility (using computerized technologies Manufacturing
and technologies for increasing information content) and responsiveness (using agility
standardizing and lead compressing technologies) drives production processes
towards more tightly coupled systems where processes are more and more
interdependent. This situation is where the autonomy capability intervenes (Azouzi
et al., 2007b). According to the agility reference model, the autonomy capability of a
process depends development of the properties of awareness, KE and management for
the technologies employed in this process. In the case of HouseCo, there is no doubt that
435
the focus has been more on the technologies that enhance flexibility than any other
capability. This could explain why, in Figure 6, the standardization, lead-time
compression, KE and management and awareness attributes for all the technologies
employed at HouseCo rated poorly in general.
In conclusion, it appears as if HouseCo was rooted in the ‘‘Necessary agility’’ type
(since it produces exclusively standard products and had a technological infrastructure
that hardly enables agility in most of its processes), it was competing more with
enterprises making ‘‘styled modular furniture’’ than with enterprises making furniture
of standard design.
Case 2: An office systems furniture manufacturer
The enterprise, referred to here as ‘‘OfficeCo’’ manufactures office furniture systems,
mostly made of composite wood-based panels. Although it is part of a larger
corporation for eight years, OfficeCo is still operating as a single strategic business unit
with its own competitors and a manager accountable for operations. It currently
employs over 900 people distributed over five sites (four factories and one
consolidation center) located within 70 Km from each other. OfficeCo promotes itself as
an enterprise that is willing to take the extra step to provide the highest quality service
and complete customer satisfaction. In order to gain a competitive edge over
competition, OfficeCo had during the last six years made important investments in new
manufacturing equipment and software systems. It created a central group for new
products developments which employs more than 40 staff. The head of this group, an
engineer, was designated to be the case individual. He has been with OfficeCo for the
last nine years and started as a factory director.
On being asked when his enterprise started to take interest in mass customization,
the respondent swiftly answered ‘‘more than 35 years!’’ In fact, he wanted to stress the
fact that office furniture is of modular-design by nature, with its movable and
reconfigurable components, and very often tailored to specific customer needs. Within
ten days lead-time, OfficeCo can deliver a wide variety of products including desks,
panel systems, filing and storage systems, etc. Its on-line catalog featured some
planning tools that provide customers with access to a wide variety of layouts by
solution, price, size and product. Similar to the previous case, OfficeCo did not have
channels for direct sales. In fact, its merger with the large corporation gave OfficeCo
access to showrooms located all over the word, and to a large distribution network. The
name of this corporation was strongly promoted. The distributor could be closely
involved with the customer in configuring and/or tailoring the product solution to the
customer’s needs.
Figure 5(b) shows that the five competitive priorities appeared to be very important
for OfficeCo, with the quality and innovativeness priorities even exceeding the levels
set up for the ‘‘ideal’’ enterprise making modularized products. All the priorities
appeared to be achieved quite well. In particular, the resulting variety and quality
MRN surpass the goals of the enterprise, which themselves surpass the ideal levels for a
company making modular products. This result is in agreement with the image that
32,5 the enterprise was trying to uphold and promote. And it was succeeding. Indeed,
OfficeCo has known growth rates in the order of 20 per cent per year during he past
five years. During this same period of time, the number of employees more than
doubled, not to mention all the investment the enterprise did in its technology
infrastructure and in research and development. The enterprise was indeed very active
436 in its partnership programe with universities and other research institutions.
The performance reported above can be explained to some extent using the
processes capabilities portrayed by Figure 7(b). This figure reveals that the capability
disparities among the processes were not considerable. The design and engineering,
and the order fulfillment realization processes were particularly flexible. This situation
may result from the focus at OfficeCo on the competitive priorities of variety and
quality. This is clearly corroborated by the particularly high level technology
attributes of computerization and information content at each of the two processes
(Figure 6(a) and (d)). According to Figure 6(b) and (c), the other two processes (order
fulfilment management and retailing and order taking) should also be sufficiently
flexible (as their technologies appear to have computerization and information content
levels equal or even exceeding the ideal levels needed by an enterprise producing
modular products). However, Figure 7(b) does not confirm this presumption. In fact,
according to the respondent, the flexibility of each of these two processes was much
lower that the ideal level (IModular). This inconsistency could be attributed to the fact
that the measures were exclusively perceptual. The authors tried to control this bias by
ensuring that the respondent is involved in decision-making regarding technological
and strategic issues in the enterprise. In fact, there was a constraint of accessibility due
to the strategic nature of the collected data. At this point, it is important to mention that
the interview of a single person is a limitation in this study.

Discussions
The main goal behind the two case studies presented in this paper was to explore the
appropriateness of a typology framework linking the manufacturing strategy of the
enterprise with its technology usage. In order to replicate the theoretical ideal types
stated by the typology, it would have been preferable to carry out a third case study.
Yet, through the cases studied, we can confidently assert that it was possible to
corroborate the main lines of the conceptual reasoning embodied in the typology
framework. The results suggest that performance could be maximized if the
customization strategy put in practice is in conformity with the available technology.
It was not necessary to have the process capabilities estimated by the case
individuals. These capabilities could have been deduced from the estimates provided
for the technologies attributes depicted in Figure 6. The two sets of estimates (direct
and indirect) were used for cross-validation purposes. The two sources of data were
concurrent thus improving the expected fit with the agility reference model.
When asked about the possible actions their enterprises are willing to undertake as
far as technology is concerned, the respondents from the cases gave answers that were
verifiable using the spider graphs in Figure 6. Both individuals stressed the same issue:
compressing the throughput time, however their expectations were slightly different.
While OfficeCo was expecting better service to customers, HouseCo, on its part, was
expecting to see its profit margins raised. Typically, throughput time corresponds to
the period of time required to perform all the operations necessary to complete an
order, including the transport, queue, setup and processing times. The most efficient Manufacturing
way to compress throughput time consists in improving the standardization, agility
integration and control of the complete process of bringing a product to market.
The OfficeCo respondent wanted to improve the flexibility in its information
technology links and connections (software and hardware), and intends to offer a wider
variety of information to end users (e.g. multimedia and order tracking). OfficeCo was
looking to invest in information technology, especially, downstream in its supply chain. 437
HouseCo was not clear about the specific actions their company intended to undertake,
yet they recognized that the standardization of their activities is a major concern. With
the results shown in Figures 6 and 7, it was possible to corroborate these future actions
or investment directions. Information technology, with all its ramifications, is known to
be directly linked to the autonomy of the processes which appeared to be a significant
drawback with almost all the processes in the two enterprises. On the other hand, the
standardization of the technologies in place especially at HouseCo rated very low.
Both respondents had very positive and encouraging comments with regards to the
typology framework. We acknowledge that the lack of triangulation of multiple data
sources for more confidence about the results or the typology framework itself remains
a limitation in this study.

Conclusion
This paper has presented case studies conducted in two furniture enterprises. The goal
behind these case studies was to explore the appropriateness of a typology framework
linking the manufacturing strategy of the enterprise with its technology usage. This
typology framework focused on the strategic and technological characteristics for
enterprise competitiveness and did not explicitly include performance measures and
methods in the model. The two cases replicated two out of the three theoretical ideal
types stated by the typology. However, future work is being undertaken to provide
further confirmation of the theory based on a broader sample of studied enterprises.

References
Anderson, D.M. (2004), Build-to-Order & Mass Customization, the Ultimate Supply Chain and
Lean Manufacturing Strategy for Low-Cost on-Demand Production Without Forecasts or
Inventory, CIM Press, Cambria, CA, p. 520.
Azouzi, R., Beauregard, R. and D’Amours, S. (2007a), ‘‘A typology integrating advanced
manufacturing technologies and customization strategies in furniture manufacturing’’, in
Blecker, T., Edwards, K., Friedrich, G., Hvam, L. and Salvador, F. (Eds), Innovative
Processes and Products for Mass Customization: Proceedings of the Joint Conference
IMCM’07 & PETO’07, Gito Verlag, Berlin, pp. 23-38.
Azouzi, R., Beauregard, R. and D’Amours, S. (2007b), ‘‘An agility reference model for the
furniture enterprise of the future’’, Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on
Industrial Engineering, Trois-Rivières, Quebec.
Boyer, K.K., Ward, P.T. and Leong, G.K. (1996), ‘‘Approaches to the factory of the future: an
empirical taxonomy’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 297-313.
Bryson, V., Lanzillotti, G., Myerberg, J., Miller, E. and Tian., F. (2003), ‘‘The furniture industry
(case goods): the future of the industry United States versus China’’, paper prepared for
UNC Kenan-Flagler professor Bob Connolly’s Industry Economics class, available at:
www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/assets/documents/furn_paper.pdf
MRN Corrêa, H.L. and Slack, N. (1996), ‘‘Framework to analyse flexibility and unplanned change
in manufacturing systems’’, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9 No. 1,
32,5 pp. 57-64.
Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1994), ‘‘Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward
improved understanding and modeling’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 230-51.
Grushecky, T.S., Buehlmann, U., Schuler, Al, Luppold, W. and Cesa, E. (2006), ‘‘Decline in the US
438 furniture industry: a case study of the impacts to the hardwood lumber supply chain’’,
Wood and Fiber Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 365-76.
Hermansky, J. and Seelmann-Eggebert, R. (2003), ‘‘Manufacturing postponed [logistics enablers]’’,
Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 38-41.
Hoff, K., Fisher, N., Miller, S. and Webb, A. (1997), ‘‘Sources of competitiveness for secondary
wood products firms: a review of literature and research issues’’, Forest Products Journal,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 31-7.
Kara, S. and Kayis, B. (2004), ‘‘Manufacturing flexibility and variability: an overview’’, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 466-78.
Klein, J.A. (1991), ‘‘A re-examination of autonomy in light of new manufacturing practices’’,
Human Relations, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Kritchanchai, D. and MacCarthy, B.L. (1999), ‘‘Responsiveness of the order fulfilment process’’
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 812-33.
Lihra, T., Buehlmann, U. and Beauregard, R. (2005), ‘‘Mass customization of wood furniture:
literature review and application potential’’, Proceedings of the 3rd Interdisciplinary World
Congress on Mass Customization and Personalization, Hong Kong.
Meredith, S. and Francis, D. (2000), ‘‘Journey towards agility: the agile wheel explored’’, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 2. pp. 137-43.
Montreuil, B. and Poulin, M. (2002), ‘‘Demand and supply network design scope for personalized
manufacturing’’, International Journal of Production Planning and Control, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 454-69.
Narain, R., Yadav, R.C., Sarkis, J. and Cordeiro, J.J. (2000), ‘‘The strategic implications of flexibility
in manufacturing systems’’, International Journal of Agile Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 202-13.
Patton, E. and Appelbaum, S.H. (2003), ‘‘The case for case studies in management research’’,
Management Research News, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 60-71.
Pine II, B.J. (1993), Mass Customization: the New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Rowley, J. (2002), ‘‘Using case studies in research’’, Management Research News, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 16-27.
Sackett, P.J., Maxwell, D.J. and Lowenthal, P.A. (1997), ‘‘Customizing manufacturing strategy’’,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 59-364.
Schuler, A. and Buehlmann, U. (2003), ‘‘Identifying future competitive business strategies for the
US residential wood furniture industry: benchmarking and paradigm shifts’’, USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-NE-30415, p. 17.
Scott, W.R. (1981), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 1st ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sethi, A.K. and Sethi, S.P. (1990), ‘‘Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey’’, International Journal
of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 4-13.
Shadbolt, N. and Milton, N. (1999), ‘‘From knowledge engineering to knowledge management’’,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 309-22.
Slack, N. (1988), ‘‘Manufacturing systems flexibility – an assessment procedure’’, Computer- Manufacturing
integrated manufacturing systems, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 25-31.
Suarez, F.F., Cusumano, M.A. and Fine, C.H. (1995), ‘‘An empirical study of flexibility in
agility
manufacturing’’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.

About the authors

439
Riadh Azouzi (PhD, Université Laval, Canada) is a research associate at the Université Laval
affiliated with the Industrial research chair on engineered wood products for structural and
appearance applications (CIBISA) and the Research consortium in e-business in the forest
products industry (FOR@C). In 1997-2005, he worked for Baan, Invensys plc then SSA Global,
leaders in the provision of manufacturing solutions. He was developing smart solution
techniques that allow complete control of manufacturing systems through the integration of
aspects of design, planning manufacturing, distribution, and management. His research interests
include enterprise agility and the enterprise of the future. Riadh Azouzi is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: riadh.azouzi@sbf.ulaval.ca
Robert Beauregard (PhD Université Laval, Canada) is senior chair holder of the Industrial
Research Chair on Engineered Wood Products for Structural and Appearance applications, and
the director of the Canadian Institute of Forestry. In 1997-2000, he has been at the Eastern
Laboratory of Forintek Canada Corp. where he was instrumental in the creation of the
Department for Value Added Wood Products. His area of expertise is the modeling of
manufacturing systems for the forest industries. He develops comprehensive approaches to the
design of business models taking into account the interactions between the wood resource, and
innovative processes and products for better business performance.
Sophie D’Amours (PhD École Polytechnique de Montréal, MBA Université Lava, Canada) is a
professor at the mechanical engineering department of Université Laval. She holds a Canada
Research Chair in planning value creating network. She is also the general director of the
FOR@C Research Consortium dedicated to supply chain issues within the forest product
industry. She has been intensively involved in many applied research projects studying agent-
based advanced planning and scheduling, integrating simulation with operational research, as
well as studying emerging information technologies and business models.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints