• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications
 

Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications

on

  • 1,262 views

This article presents a case for the construction of a formal classification of manufacturing systems using cladistics, a technique from the biological school of classification. A seven-stage ...

This article presents a case for the construction of a formal classification of manufacturing systems using cladistics, a technique from the biological school of classification. A seven-stage framework for roducing a manufacturing cladogram is presented, along with a pilot case study example. This article describes the role that classification plays in the pure and applied sciences, the social sciences and reviews the status of existing manufacturing classifications. If organisational diversity and organisational change processes are governed by evolutionary mechanisms, studies of organisations based on an evolutionary approach such as cladistics could have potential, because as March [March JG. The evolution of evolution. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV, editors. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. Oxford University Press, 1994. p. 39±52], page 45, states ``there is natural speculation that organisations, like species can be engineered by understanding the evolutionary processes well enough to intervene and produce competitive organisational effects''. It is suggested that a cladistic study could provide organisations with a ``knowledge map'' of the ecosystem in which they exist and by using this phylogenetic and situational analysis, they could determine coherent and appropriate action for the specification of change.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,262
Views on SlideShare
1,258
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://www.slashdocs.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications Document Transcript

    • Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 www.elsevier.com/locate/orms Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classi®cations Ian McCarthy a,*, Keith Ridgway a, Michel Leseure a, Nick Fieller b a Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheeld, Mappin Street, Sheeld S1 3JD, UK b School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheeld, Houns®eld Road, Sheeld S3 RH, UK Received 1 December 1996; accepted 1 March 1998Abstract This article presents a case for the construction of a formal classi®cation of manufacturing systems usingcladistics, a technique from the biological school of classi®cation. A seven-stage framework for producing amanufacturing cladogram is presented, along with a pilot case study example. This article describes the role thatclassi®cation plays in the pure and applied sciences, the social sciences and reviews the status of existingmanufacturing classi®cations. If organisational diversity and organisational change processes are governed byevolutionary mechanisms, studies of organisations based on an evolutionary approach such as cladistics could havepotential, because as March [March JG. The evolution of evolution. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV, editors. Evolutionarydynamics of organizations. Oxford University Press, 1994. p. 39±52], page 45, states ``there is natural speculationthat organisations, like species can be engineered by understanding the evolutionary processes well enough tointervene and produce competitive organisational e€ects. It is suggested that a cladistic study could provideorganisations with a ``knowledge map of the ecosystem in which they exist and by using this phylogenetic andsituational analysis, they could determine coherent and appropriate action for the speci®cation of change. # 2000Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords: Cladistics; Manufacturing; Management; Evolution; Classi®cation1. Introduction systems. Carper and Snizek [1, p. 65], in their review of organisational classi®cations concluded that ``the Why construct a classi®cation? This question needs most important step in conducting any form of scienti-to be addressed in order to understand the bene®ts ®c enquiry involves the ordering, classi®cation, orand applications that any classi®cation could o€er, let other grouping of the objects or phenomena under in-alone a cladistic classi®cation. The desire to classify vestigation.transcends all disciplinary boundaries whether the enti- In an amusing categorisation of classi®cations,ties under study are biological organisms, chemical el- Good [2], a noted mathematician, provided a listements or as in the case of this paper, manufacturing which suggested ®ve purposes for performing classi®- cation: (1) for mental clari®cation and communication; (2) for discovering new ®elds of research; (3) for plan- * Corresponding author. Tel. +44-114-222-7745; fax: +44- ning an organisational structure or machine, (4) as a114-222-7890. check list and (5) for fun. Cormack [3] used this categ- E-mail address: i.p.mccarthy@sheeld.ac.uk (I. McCarthy) orisation in his lecture to the Royal Statistical Society0305-0483/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 3 0 5 - 0 4 8 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 0 - 4
    • 78 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95to illustrate the role and bene®ts that classi®cation manufacturing companies, but with no reference to, oro€ers research. Cormack summarised the bene®ts of a application of the science of taxonomy. This wouldhierarchical classi®cation, stating that ``the information appear to be a major shortcoming, which reduces theabout the entities is represented in such a way that it usefulness, stability and accuracy of the classi®cations.will suggest fruitful hypotheses which cannot be true Lessons should be drawn from biological taxonomy inor false, probable or improbable, only pro®table or an attempt to stimulate further investigations into thisunpro®table [3, p. 346]. established problem based on the disciplines and rules Haas, Hall and Johnson [4] discussed four advan- regularly used by the biological scientist. Supportingtages of having a realistic classi®cation. Such a classi®- the need for an organisational classi®cation iscation could (1) be strategically helpful for re®ning Romanelli [28, p. 82], who states ``despite the ease withhypotheses; (2) aid in the investigation of the validity which we may identify meaningful groupings of organ-and utility of existing typologies based on logical and isations, no commonly accepted classi®cation schemeintuitive considerations; (3) serve as a basis for predict- has been developed.ing organisational decisions or change and (4) permit With this stimulus, a project funded by thethe researchers to readily specify the universe from Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council (Grantwhich their samples of organisations could be drawn. No. GR/K97974) was initiated to investigate the feasi-McKelvey [5] went further by arguing that the formu- bility of constructing cladistic classi®cations of manu-lation of a classi®cation is a necessary prerequisite for facturing systems. The remainder of this paper detailsthe maturation of organisation science and that, if a the methodology, ®ndings and conclusions of thatformal and scienti®c classi®cation existed, there would study.be no need for contingency theory. Biologists do notneed contingency theory because their classi®cationsmake it clear that one does not apply ®ndings aboutreptiles to mammals when working at a speci®c level 2. Introduction to the biological schools of classi®cationof the classi®cation. The argument for creating a classi®cation is to some There are two main principles of classi®cation withinextent demonstrated by the large number of typologies the biological sciences: the phenetic and the phyloge-and classi®cations that have been produced by netic principles. From these two underlying principlesresearchers from the social sciences and applied emerge three approaches to classi®cation, or schools ofsciences and that many academic disciplines teach with classi®cation: phenetic, evolutionary and cladistic (referreference to some form of classi®cation. It should be to Fig. 1). The three schools of classi®cation are di€er-noted that a typology is a description of groups, whose entiated on the basis of how closely they adhere to adi€erences are identi®ed solely accordingly to the purely phylogenetic principle. That is, the species areresearch focus of the investigator. Existing schemes classi®ed according to how recently they share a com-which embrace the subject of organisations include: or- mon ancestor. Phenetic classi®cations are non-evol-ganisational strategies [6], voluntary associations [7], utionary and are thus at one end of the evolutionarycanning ®rms and farmers unions [8], general organis- focus scale, whilst cladistics is a purist approach to theational classi®cations [9±11] and manufacturing-based phylogenetic principle. Evolutionary classi®cations areclassi®cations [12±25]. For a review of the above or- a synthesis of the phenetic and phylogenetic principles.ganisational typologies, the reader is referred to Refs. Phylogenetic classi®cations have become known as[1,26,27]. cladistic classi®cations, because the phylogenetic prin- The authors of this article sought a classi®cation ciple was defended by the German entomologist Williwhich would facilitate the storage, alignment and Hennig [29] and supporters of his ideas called the prin-development of structural models of manufacturing ciple phylogenetic systematics, which has now evolvedsystems. It was intended that this classi®cation of into the term cladism (from the Greek `klados formodels would provide researchers and consultants with branch).a generic library of structural solutions for enabling The cladistic schools approach to classi®cationmanufacturing systems to maximise their operating involves studying the evolutionary relationshipse€ectiveness. The de®ciencies of existing classi®cations between entities with reference to the common ancestryof manufacturing systems, prohibited the realisation of of the group. Constructing a classi®cation using evol-the intended bene®ts of combining a library of ideal utionary relationships is considered bene®cial, becausemodels (solutions) with a workable classi®cation of the classi®cation will be unique and unambiguous.manufacturing systems. This issue was discussed by This is because evolution is actual and mankind is cur-McCarthy [27, p. 46], who concluded that ``previous rently unable to change evolutionary history, thus pro-research into developing manufacturing classi®cations viding the classi®cation with an external referencehas been based on a comprehensive understanding of point. With phenetic classi®cations there is no such
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 79 Fig. 1. Biological schools of classi®cation.reference point and thus in the words of Ridley [29, p. and typifying the emergence of new manufacturing sys-367], ``Cladism is theoretically the best justi®ed system tems. This would help clarify the confusion on whetherof classi®cation. It has a deep philosophic justi®cation fractal, virtual and holonic manufacturing systemswhich phenetic and evolutionary classi®cations lack actually exist or are simply buzz words. This was anReviews of the three schools of classi®cation [29±31] issue raised by the Engineering Physical Sciencesassess the schools on their ability to produce natural Research Council [32]. A cladistic classi®cation ofand objective classi®cations, rather than arti®cial and manufacturing systems could provide knowledge andsubjective classi®cations. Cladistics satis®es both these observations on the patterns of distributed character-criteria, as the entities within a cladistic classi®cation istics exhibited by the manufacturing systems overwill resemble each other in terms of the de®ning char- their evolutionary development. This knowledge couldacters and the non-de®ning characters (characters not lead to pro®table hypotheses about the macro- andused to represent the phylogenetic relationships). micro-evolutionary mechanisms which in¯uence manu-Cladistics conforms to the criteria of objectivity facturing competitiveness and survival. Finally, manybecause it represents a real unambiguous and natural organisations live their lives looking forward, but toproperty of the entity (evolutionary relationships) and comprehend themselves they must look backwards.thus di€erent rational people, working independently The resultant comprehension cannot be used to extrap-should be able to agree on a classi®cation. There could olate the future, but it does inform them of where theybe valid disagreements between independent investi- are and how they got there, and this information isgators, but these will be down to assumptions and dis- vital for any organisation intending to embark on aagreements on the character data and not the journey of change.underlying philosophy. One of the greatest strengths ofthe cladistic approach is that the representation of theclassi®cation (the cladogram), illustrates the data, 3. Cladisticsassumptions and results, making all decisions transpar-ent. This not the case with existing organisational The application of cladistics to manufacturing sys-classi®cations. Section 5 of this paper presents a dis- tems implies certain assumptions about organisationalcussion on the confusion which exists between the forms, their existence and diversity. Cladistic classi®-types of manufacturing system which are believed to cations are produced according to how recently theyexist. share a common ancestor. This means that two manu- In summary, a cladistic classi®cation of manufactur- facturing species that share a recent and commoning systems would provide a system for conducting, ancestor will be placed in the same group and twodocumenting and coordinating comparative studies of manufacturing species sharing a more distant commonmanufacturing organisations. Such a system could pro- ancestor might be placed in di€erent groups, but theyvide the consensus for formally approving, validating would be in the same family. As the common ancestor
    • 80 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95of two manufacturing species becomes more and more inheritance is controlled by the organisationaldistant, they are grouped further and further apart in equivalent of genes (knowledge transfer or memesthe classi®cation. Eventually all organisations could be [38] or competence elements (comps) [36]), whichplaced in a classi®cation possibly known as the `king- are passed on to o€spring by chromosomesdom of organisations. For this principle of classi®- (people, communication, society) in the same formcation to apply to manufacturing organisations and as they were inherited from the previous gener-their systems, investigators must agree that organis- ation [39]. If heredity were perfect, the principle ofations evolve and that as new organisational forms variation would not exist. The principle of naturalemerge, it is possible to identify the distinguishing selection suggests that manufacturing systems withcharacteristics from the old organisational forms. a superior adaptation generate similar manufactur-Supporting this assumption are organisational theorists ing systems (o€spring) and as long as the o€springwho have not produced a complete theory of organis- resemble their parent, the characters of manufac-ational evolution, but have proposed some key con- turing systems that generate more o€spring thancepts which include: organisational ecology [33,34], average will increase in frequency over time. Thisorganisational systematics [35,36], the evolution of new concept is supported by Hannan and Freeman [34]organisational forms [28] and the dynamics of organis- who believe that selection pressures, force organis-ational speciation [37]. These concepts and the assump- ations to imitate the successful organisations, thetions that accompany them attempt to understand the result being a reduction in organisational diversityforces which determine which organisational form is and a net increase of a particular type of organis-viable for a certain environment; the mechanisms ational form. The fourth principle, the principle ofwhich exist to preserve organisational forms and the adaptation, refers to the variations in manufactur-mechanisms which are passed from one generation of ing systems which provide an advantage for sur-organisations to another. viving and existing. This is when manufacturing In summary, the assumptions which govern the con- systems change so as to maintain existence.struction of a manufacturing cladogram are listedbelow:. Manufacturing systems evolve and have ancestors. 3.1. The cladogram This is evident by the way historians portray the advancement of manufacturing companies from pre- A cladogram is a tree structure capable of represent- historic man with his tools, to ancient workshops, to ing the evolutionary history of a group of manufactur- the guild of craftsman, to the cottage industries and ing systems. The tree structure illustrates the to factories which eventually became mechanised relationships between the di€erent members of the and automated. group under study, according to the acquisition and. Manufacturing systems speciate. The Ford Motor polarity of characters. Company is described today as a lean producer, but Fig. 2 shows a group of manufacturing species con- its history demonstrates that it once was a craft sisting of Ancient craft systems, standardised craft sys- shop which developed into an intensive mass produ- tems, modern craft systems, neocraft systems and skilled cer. This suggests that the Ford manufacturing large scale producers. This ®gure is a section from the plants have gone through at least two speciation master cladogram of automotive assembly plants (Fig. events to produce new `breeds of organisation. 3 and Table 1). This pilot study was undertaken to. Manufacturing systems are subject to the theory of provide a worked example which would introduce the natural selection. This theory consists of four basic reader to cladistics and the various types of cladistic principles: the principle of variation, the principle of grouping that exist. The construction of this cladogram heredity, the principle of natural selection and the is reported in Section 4. It is important to note that principle of adaptation [29]. The principle of vari- this was a pioneering study and that many of the types ation states that there has to be variation within a of manufacturing system proposed in Figs. 2 and 3 population of manufacturing systems. These vari- will not be known to the reader. This is not because ations need to occur and happen at random. The they are newly formed types of manufacturing systems, principle of heredity states that some manufactur- but rather that the automobile industry has not been ing o€spring, on average have to resemble their studied using the cladistic approach. The labels given parents more than resemble other members of to the species shown in Figs. 2 and 3 do not conform their species. This is found when new organis- to any codes of nomenclature for organisations, ations are born within an industry. They are more because none exist. Constructing a classi®cation is a similar to organisations within that industry, than taxonomic process and thus by the de®nition of taxon- they are to organisations in other industries. This omy, groups (taxa ) are formed and are then allocated
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 81 Fig. 2. Five taxa cladogram. Fig. 3. Automotive cladogram.
    • 82 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95Table 1Automotive cladistic characters1 Standardisation of parts2 assembly time standards3 assembly line layout4 reduction of craft skills5 automation (machine paced shops)6 pull production system7 reduction of lot size8 pull procurement planning9 operator based machine maintenance10 quality circles11 employee innovation prizes12 job rotation13 large volume production14 suppliers selected primarily by price.15 exchange of workers with suppliers16 socialisation training (master/apprentice learning)17 proactive training programs18 product range reduction19 automation20 multiple subcontracting21 quality systems (procedures, tools, ISO 9000)22 quality philosophy (culture, way of working, TQM)23 open book policy with suppliers; sharing of cost data and pro®ts24 ¯exible, multifunctional workforce25 set-up time reduction26 Kaizen change management27 TQM sourcing; suppliers selected on the basis of quality28 100% inspection/sampling29 U-shape layout30 preventive maintenance31 individual error correction; products are not rerouted to a special ®xing station32 sequential dependency of workers33 line balancing34 team policy (team motivation, pay and autonomy)35 Toyota veri®cation of assembly line (TVAL)36 groups vs. teams37 job enrichment38 manufacturing cells39 concurrent engineering40 ABC costing41 excess capacity42 ¯exible automation for product versions43 agile automation for di€erent products44 insourcing45 Immigrant workforce46 dedicated automation47 division of labour48 employees are system tools and simply operate m/cs49 employees are system developers; if motivated and managed they can solve problems and create value50 product focus51 parallel processing (in equipment)52 dependence on written rules; unwillingness to challenge rules such as the economic order quantity53 further intensi®cation of labour; employees are consider part of the machine and will be replaced by a machine if possiblea name (nomy = naming). Every e€ort has been made such as craft, mass, agile and lean have been used.to assign labels which describe the de®ning character- Thus, the labels given to the species are simply for theistics of the system and where possible existing terms purpose of di€erentiation and communication. The in-
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 83formation content provided by the labels is considered 3. Code characters.to be a level higher than simply referring to each 4. Establish character polarity.species, as species 1, species 2, species 3, etc. 5. Construct conceptual cladogram. The cladograms illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 are both 6. Construct factual cladogram.clades, as they contain a set of species including the 7. Taxa nomenclature.most recent common ancestor of all the members con- In order to demonstrate how a cladogram is pro-tained within that set. It is important to understand duced, the cladogram in Fig. 3 is referred to. The cla-that Fig. 2 is a portion or segment of Fig. 3 and that dogram is a classi®cation of automotive assemblyboth Figs. are clades, despite the fact that Fig. 2 is a plants. It was produced to the conceptual level andsubset of Fig. 3. This is due to research focus (establish was compiled using data from several studies of theevolutionary boundaries) and the information pre- automotive industry. These studies include the evol-sented. That is, Fig. 2 in its entirety and in isolation, is ution, population density and mortality in the automo-by de®nition a clade, despite the fact that Fig. 2 can tive industry; [44±48]; historical accounts of thebe expanded to Fig. 3. If we assume that a manufac- industry, sometimes focusing on speci®c geographicturing researcher is only interested in the clade shown regions; [49,50], to speci®c studies which examined thein Fig. 2 and that his speci®c interest is devising manu- change in manufacturing techniques used within thefacturing strategies for modern craft systems, neocraft industry [51±53]. Technical, business and ®nancialsystems and skilled large scale producers. Then this reports produced by the automobile industry were alsogroup of manufacturing species is known as the obtained. These documents detailed events and issuesingroup (the study group or the group of interest). which were in¯uencing how the industry was evolving.Observations and hypotheses are made about the The most signi®cant of these documents are listed asingroup by comparing it with the various outgroups references [54±78].and most importantly with the sister group (the out-group that is genealogically the most closely relatedgroup to the ingroup). It should be noted that the 4.1. Select the manufacturing cladeancestor of the ingroup is not the sister group, becausethe ancestor by de®nition will always be a member of The starting point is to de®ne the clade to be stu-the ingroup. died. Such a step requires a decision which in itself is a The numbers shown on the branches of Figs. 2 and form of classi®cation, as the investigator must select a3 denote the acquisition of characters. Character `1 group of manufacturing systems which satisfy certain(standardisation of parts) has a speci®c location on the research objectives or interests. For example, a manu-tree that indicates that ancient craft systems do not facturing clade could be di€erentiated on the basis ofpossess character `1 and that standardised craft sys- the market industry into which it was born to survive,tems, modern craft systems, neocraft systems and skilled e.g. the automotive industry, electronic componentlarge scale producers do possess character `1. Thus, manufacturers, cutting tool manufacturers, etc.ancient craft systems are the ancestor of a new gener- Classi®cations based on industry di€erentiation areation of manufacturing systems that are based on the widely used and accepted and are dicult to ignore. Inacquisition of character `1. Similarly, modern craft sys- the United Kingdom, the basic framework for analys-tems are a descendant of standardised craft systems as ing industrial activities is the standard industrial classi-it later acquired character `2 (production time stan- ®cation (SIC) [79]. The SIC is described by Price anddards) and character `47 (division of labour). The Mueller [80] as an empirical classi®cation which is notcharacters `13, `48 and `50 resulted in the formation derived in any way from theoretical ideas on how ac-of neocraft systems, whilst the characters `3, `16 and tivities should be grouped. However, it does group`32 result in the emergence of skilled large scale produ- together organisational entities that are involved incers. resource exchange and transformation of a similar nature. This description of organisational activity equates to the de®nition of an organisational ecosys- tem as proposed by Baum and Singh [81]. A clade by4. Building a manufacturing cladogram de®nition can be equivalent to di€erent levels in the hierarchy. This is illustrated by Fig. 4, which shows The proposed framework for constructing a cladistic how the ecological and systematic hierarchies of organ-classi®cation of manufacturing systems has been ident- isational evolution relate to each other (this ®gure hasi®ed and adapted from classic biological approaches to been adapted from [81] to include the clade level).cladism [40±43]. The seven stages are listed below: For the purposes of this study, the automobile1. Select the manufacturing clade. assembly industry (the clade) was selected, because it2. Determine the characters. exists as a population of manufacturing organisations
    • 84 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 4.2. Determine the characters Once the clade has been selected, a number of di€er- ent types of manufacturing system would appear to be a member of that clade (mass, lean, agile, craft, job, etc.). The complete membership of this particular clade is not yet known, because no formal or validated clades for manufacturing systems exist. It is common practice to work on existing clades within the biologi- cal sciences, because the majority of the taxonomic based research, is concerned with validating, enhancing and expanding the knowledge contained within existing cladograms. As this was a new study, a primary objec- tive of the research was to examine the evolutionary development of the entity and to identify the members of the clade. This is a process of `mining for species and during this historical excavation, evidence is sought which will suggest the possible existence of a particular type of manufacturing system. This evidence tends to be in the form of published material orFig. 4. Hierarchies of organisational evolution, adapted from archives, which detail the existence of the manufactur-[81]. ing system, along with a description of its operations and de®ning characteristics, the location where it exists/existed and a date/period when it was ®rst dis-(species) that make and sell a closely related set of well covered or developed.de®ned products. It is an industry which is widely This mining process uncovers the characters whichknown and studied and this provides bene®ts in terms will be used to build the cladogram. Whilst undertak-of communicating, disseminating and validating the ing this exploration there are a number of steps whichresearch. It is also a relatively young industry which can be followed to help identify the ®nal set of charac-has been extensively documented and this makes the ters which will be used to construct the cladogram.investigation into phylogenetic relationships relatively The process of determining the characters for the auto-easy, when compared to an industry such as the hand motive cladogram consisted of two steps: charactertool manufacturing industry, which can be traced back search and character selection. Character search is theto prehistoric man. This is an important point, because task of building the initial set of characters, by simplythere were no existing cladistic classi®cations of organ- listing known attributes possessed by automotiveisations which could be used as a reference or starting assembly plants. Determining which characters frompoint, so it was important to select a study group this initial set should be used to construct a classi®-which would satisfy and assist the research objectives cation is the task of character selection.in terms of information collection and results dissemi-nation. Also, the decision to study the automobile 4.2.1. Character searchassembly industry would enable both the dissemination When searching for the manufacturing systems thatand exploitation of any bene®ts to be related to the constitute the clade and the characters that distinguishstandard industrial classi®cation (SIC). the species phylogenetically, it is helpful to know what Identifying the ancestor of a clade is a process of to look for and what to avoid. Whereas, an attribute ishistorical investigation where evidence is accumulated a descriptive property or feature, a taxonomic charac-to determine the origins of a certain manufacturing ter is a feature which is used in a classi®cation. It istype. For example, the origins of car manufacturing also important to di€erentiate between the characterstem back to Karl Benz and his three-wheel auto- (the actual feature) and the character states which aremobile. In terms of manufacturing systems, this would a condition that this feature exhibits. For example, thebe regarded as a craft system which evolved into an character `plant layout has numerous character states:early factory system and then into a mass type organis- job shop, ¯ow line, functional layout, manufacturingation. The process of identifying an ancestor is initially cells, etc.ambiguous and dicult, both for biologists and manu- The school of classi®cation used will contain theoriesfacturing researchers, but the process of constructing which determine what is an acceptable taxonomic char-the cladogram con®rms or refutes this initial assump- acter. For instance, in cladistics, a taxonomic charactertion. has to point to a homology between two organisations,
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 85whereas in phenetic classi®cations, a taxonomic charac- are found as they come to complement the informationter contributes to the mathematical tightness of a clus- content of the classi®cation. This last point appliester. speci®cally to cladistics, because cladists tend to To avoid searching for and selecting characters quickly eliminate characters which have no evolution-which are inappropriate Sneath and Sokal [43] describe ary signi®cance in their data sets and therefore producecertain kinds of characters which should be clearly dis- classi®cations objectively and eciently.quali®ed from a taxonomic study. These are listed as In addition to searching for characters by studyinginadmissible characters and include: the entity, the use of reference characters was con-. Meaningless characters. A character must re¯ect the sidered. That is, does an exhaustive list of manufactur- internal nature of the entity, therefore, the name of ing or organisational characteristics exist and would a manufacturing company would not be included as this list help the search and selection process. To build a character to represent the activities of a manufac- such a list has been a common objective for many tax- turing system. onomists, but there are several problems associated. Logically correlated characters. Those characters with the management and use of such a list. The cost which are a logical consequence of another, should of building an exhaustive list would be high and there be excluded. For example, if we assume that cell- is no evidence that building such a list is feasible. based team working, requires a cellular layout, then There are many issues to manage: duplication of data, there is a logical correlation between these two char- partial redundancy between characters, correlation and acters, i.e. if one character state exists, another will dependency patterns between characters. Even if such automatically. a list was available, using it might not be cost-ecient,. Partially logical correlations. The degree of indepen- because the cost of selecting characters from all poss- dence is the subject of this kind of character, as a ible characters could be prohibitive. greater number of cases exist where the dependence The primary bene®t of a reference list of characters, of one character upon another is only partial. For is that it provides a feel good factor and a con®dent instance the size of a workforce will be to a degree, starting point for researchers producing a classi®- relate to the number of machines that a manufactur- cation. However, total reliance on a so-called exhaus- ing company has. After further investigation it could tive reference list, would be foolish and misguided, be found that the degree of dependency is small, because all classi®cations are undertaken in situations because other factors, such as the type of technology where the complete character set is not known. To and the type of product also in¯uence this character. assist the search for automotive characters and to Therefore, very few partially logical correlations are understand the signi®cance of the characters with regarded as inadmissible. Hull [82] provides an regards to the entity and its evolution, several categor- empirical correlation to estimate the degree of inde- isations of characters were identi®ed and referred to: pendence between two characters. [4,36,83±85]. It is important that the categories do not. Invariant characters. If a character which is normally dictate, but suggest, because the ultimate decision gov- variable, is invariable for the sample of entities erning character selection within a cladistic study is the under study, then it should be removed from the existence of a synapomorphy which results in an hom- analysis. Such characters o€er no bene®ts in terms ology. Synapomorphies are characters which have a of assessing similarity. An example is the absence or derived state and are shared by two or more taxa and presence of manufacturing technology. When con- thus indicate common ancestry for the manufacturing sidering all forms of organisation, this character systems within this group. would vary from organisation to organisation. The distinction between homology and analogy is a However, as the presence of manufacturing technol- fundamental concept of cladistics. A homology rep- ogy is a conforming de®nition for a manufacturing resents `true similarity, whilst analogy is considered system, this character would not change for a popu- super®cial similarity which generates noise or mislead- lation containing only manufacturing systems. ing observations. An analogy is a structural grouping The search for automotive assembly characters con- where a character is shared by a set of species and issisted of investigating the historical development of the derived from a common ancestor. Thus, choosing acar making industry by analysing the work and data character which is an analogy should be avoided. Theof the studies cited in Section 3. The characters ident- relationship between analogy and homology is clearlyi®ed, although well known, were treated as arbitrary demonstrated in Fig. 5 [29]. It is important to note theor capricious characters, as their identi®cation for cla- three groupings, as only monophyletic groups aredistic purposes must be con®rmed. Taxonomists dis- included in a cladistic classi®cation. The monophyleticcover characters whilst studying the entity and groups are the groups which result in an unambiguousconstructing the classi®cation, thus many characters hierarchic arrangement, because the group contains a
    • 86 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 Fig. 5. Homologies and analogies.common ancestor and all its descendants and there is age to the extent that it would not emerge in speciesno con¯icting character data. which do not already exhibit character `14 (mass sub- Consider Fig. 3, and the characters `8 (pull procure- contracting by price bidding).ment planning) and `20 (multiple subcontracting).Character `8 appears in the Toyota production system 4.2.2. Character selectionfamily, which includes: lean producers and agile produ- This is a screening process and in the case of cladis-cers, whereas character `20 appears in the mass produ- tics, a character is validated if it is a synapomorphy.cers family, which includes: pseudo lean producers, Thus, the selection phase in cladistics is equivalent to amodern mass producers, European mass producers and test of homology. Two methods were used on theintensive mass producers. If characters `8 and `20 are automotive study to screen characters: (1) direct test ofreplaced with one character, say character `Z (procure- homologies and (2) resolving character con¯icts. Itment policy), the structure of the cladogram would should be noted that prior to building a cladogram thechange. This is because homologies have been created organisational systematist may only have a generalbetween taxa which are in fact evolutionarily remote. knowledge of the ancestral links between species.Thus, character `Z is an example of an analogous Therefore, it is not obvious that a character is an ana-character because pull procurement is constrained by logous character at the beginning of the analysis, it ischaracter `6 (pull production) and would not naturally only con®rmed during the construction and analysis ofemerge in mass producers. Similarly, it is postulated the cladogram.that character `20 is associated or dependent with The direct test method is based on the argumentsome or maybe all of the characters on the same line- that homologies and analogies tend to exist on a conti-
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 87nuum of resemblance, where the homologies are at the homologies after a preliminary cladogram has beenhigh extreme resemblance end, whilst the analogies constructed is that the validity of a character is ques-tend to exhibit only moderate resemblance [43]. Thus, tioned only if it generates a con¯ict with the otherseven if a complete and valid historical account (`fossil characters which are consistent and congruent withrecord) for automotive manufacturing systems existed, each other. Most classi®cations will have a consistentthe investigator would still be dependent on resem- core, which can be identi®ed in cladistics by running ablance based similarity. From a purist point of view, clique analysis [86]. Any character which does notcladists argue that resemblance is not a de®nitive test belong to the clique set should go through a thoroughof homology, but there is a strong case to suggest that test of homology. It should be stressed that it is oftenit is a good indicator, because there are external, com- at this stage that many characters are usually discov-positional and structural measures which relate phenetic ered and re®ned, as the phylogeny of the clade issimilarity with homology. Thus, the direct test consists gradually revealed and understood by the taxonomist.of the external method, compositional method and thestructural method. 4.3. Code characters The external method can be applied without study-ing or knowing the internal structure of the feature. Once a set of characters has been identi®ed, alongAny external characteristic of the feature is used to with the set of automobile assembly species which areidentify the existence of some fundamental diversity a consequence of these characters, the relationshipwithin the feature. For example, the procurement sys- between the characters and the species are examined intems that typically exist in lean manufacturing produ- order to allow the construction of the cladogram. Acers tend to have subcontractors/suppliers which are cladogram can be constructed from the character data,located within a short distance of the assembly plant. because a cladistic character has three properties:It was common for subcontractors/suppliers in direction, order and polarity [87]. The coding of aWestern manufacturers to be located almost anywhere character facilitates the processing of the character set.on the planet. Thus, from an external perspective only, Ordering is that property of a character which refersthere is a signi®cant di€erence and the location of sub- to the possible character change sequences that cancontractors relative to the main assembly plant, could occur. The character property, direction, refers to thebe a potential character, because no evidence of ana- transition between the character states. When an inves-logy has yet materialised. The compositional method tigator determines the actual direction of transform-requires the investigator to list the parts which consti- ation the character is said have a `polarised state.tute the considered character. This internal breakdownis then used in a comparison with other organisationalspecies. For example, a reduction in the number of tier 4.4. Establish character polaritylevels in a supply chain might be evident in service or-ganisations and retail organisations and this circum- To assess character polarity, an outgroup comparisonstantial evidence could be used to guide the selection is undertaken. This is based on the recognition thatof characters for manufacturing systems. With the once the characteristics of the closest relative havestructural method, the focus is on how the di€erent el- been discovered, the information for determiningements of the character interact with each other and if which characters are primitive and which are derived isthere is a case for splitting a potential character into revealed. Hence, this comparison is based on the ruletwo or more characters. This decision is made purely that for a given character with two or more stateson the basis of how the elements exist and their depen- within a group, the state occurring in related groups isdence with one another. assumed to be primitive [88]. Any character state Identifying and resolving character con¯icts occurs found only in the ingroup is considered to be derivedcontinually during stages 2±6 of the cladogram frame- [30]. Decisions governing the character polarity foundwork, but the ®nal validation is a postcladogram con- at the outgroup node can be either decisive, with thestruction exercise (stages 5 and 6). Once a preliminary node labelled as primitive (0) or derived (1), or equiv-cladogram has been constructed, it usually exhibits cer- ocal, with the node labelled primitive/derived (0, 1).tain character con¯icts. These con¯icts can be natural If this method is applied to the cladogram shown inoccurrences, such as parallelism or coevolution. They Fig. 3, the outcome would be inconclusive, becausecan also result from analogous characters, or improper this tree has already been resolved and there are nocoding of characters. Improper coding can be the inconsistencies in the character data. Therefore, inresult of analogous or imprecise de®nition of charac- order to demonstrate this method, a cladogram con-ters states, or using the wrong polarity (i.e. confusing sisting of taxa and characters from the automobilethe derived and the primitive state), or using characters study is used, but the data and structure of the treewhich are too general. The advantage of validating have not been resolved. This unresolved data (Table 2)
    • 88 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95Table 2Data matrix for Figs. 6±9 Character 1 Character 2 Character 3 Character 4Ancient craft (AC) 1 1 0 0Standardised craft (SC) 0 1 1 0/1Modern craft (MC) 0 0 1 0Neo craft (NC) 1 1 1 1Skilled large scale (SLS) 1 1 1 1Large scale (LS) 0 0 0 0Mass (M) 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1is used to demonstrate the process of determining char-acter polarity (Figs. 6±10). Fig. 6 is a possible cladogram structure for the datacontained in Table 2. The nodes are labelled 1±6,whilst the species are labelled using letters (AC, SC,MC, NC, SLS, LS and M). Beginning with the charac-ter 1 from Table 2, each branch end of the cladogramis labelled with the corresponding character state (Fig.7). Next, starting from the furthest branches (branchesAC and SC) a polarity decision for node 2 is made.The nodes of the cladogram are labelled `0 if thelower node and adjacent branch are both `0, or `0 Fig. 7. First polarity decision using character data 1.and `0, 1. The nodes will be labelled `1 if the lowernode and adjacent branch are both `1 or `1 and `0,1.If the branches/nodes have di€erent labels, one `0 and using the same process, but by beginning at the lowestthe other `1, then the node is labelled `0, 1. The root node on the branching structure (node 4). Thus, nodenode (node 1) is not considered, because in order to 4 is labelled `1, because NC is `1 and SLS is `1 (Fig.analyse this branch another outgroup is needed. Thus, 8). Continuing towards the ingroup (M) the remainingnode 2 is labelled `0, 1, because the ®rst branch (AC) nodes (nodes 3 and 5) are labelled, until only the out-is `1 and the second branch (SC) is `0. group node (node 6) remains. Node 5 is labelled `0/1 The next stage is to identify what is termed the near- because LS is `0 and node 4 is `1 and node 3 isest branching structure, which occurs at node 6 (Fig. labelled `0, because MC is `0 and node 2 is `0/1 (Fig.7). The nodes of the branching structure are labelled 9). The analysis for character 1 is complete when node 6 is labelled. Node 6 is found to be decisive (`0),Fig. 6. Determining the character polarity for mass producersand its corresponding outgroups. Fig. 8. Second polarity decision using character data 1.
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 89 state will be decisive for the outgroup node. If the last outgroup has a di€erent character state, then the char- acter state decision will be equivocal. 4.5. Construct conceptual cladogram Various tools exist to construct cladograms which provide a `best estimate of the evolutionary relation- ships contained within the data matrix. These tools have one of two approaches: 1. Construct the best cladogram using a speci®c algor- ithm. 2. Apply a criterion for choosing between alternativeFig. 9. Third and fourth polarity decision using character cladograms.data 1. The ®rst approach is faster, but does not rank the trees which are considered suboptimal. The secondbecause node 3 is `0 and node 5 is `0/1 (Fig. 10). approach provides ranking for all the trees under com-Thus, by using the outgroup comparison a best esti- parison, but it is not able to generate exact results formate of the polarity was made and `0 was found to be matrices with more than 12 taxa, owing to compu-primitive and `1 is derived for character 1. tational diculties [12]. This process of assessing character polarity is made From these two approaches four methods for estimat-for each character. It should be noted that although ing phylogeny have developed: (1) methods based onthis procedure plays a signi®cant role in identifying pairwise data, (2) parsimony methods, (3) Lakescharacter polarity and resolving any con¯icts that may method of invariants and (4) maximum likelihood phy-exist in the cladogram, the ®nal validation of character logenies. The parsimony method selects the shorteststates is subject to the rule of parsimony (Section 4.5). tree, i.e. the tree requiring the least evolutionary charac- In summary, two rules of analysis are used to con- ter changes. This method is the most popular because itduct an outgroup comparison: the doublet rule and the has a simple rule of application which is; the longer thealternating sister group rule [88]. With the doublet tree length, the worse the ®t; the shorter the tree lengthrule, if the sister group and the ®rst two consecutive the better the ®t. The other methods vary between parsi-outgroups have the same character state, then that monious and phenetic, but were developed to comparecharacter state is decisive for the outgroup node. Any nucleotide specimens, DNA and molecular sequences.two consecutive outgroups with the same character Thus, a parsimonious approach is adopted as it aims tostate are called a doublet. With the alternating sister select a best tree on an evolutionary basis rather than agroup rule, if the character states are alternating down phenetic basis. Also, the method is based on the treethe cladogram, and if the last outgroup has the same structure rather than elements of the entity (DNA,character state as the sister group, then the character nucleotides, molecular distances, etc.) and thus there would appear to be no limitations when applying it to a manufacturing cladogram. For a detailed account of parsimony methods, see [89]. The testing of a cladogram is essentially based on its ability to explain the phylogeny of the clade. With this aim there are two sets of problems: 1. The proposed relationships are not acceptable or not historically coherent. 2. Several con¯icting cladograms of the same length are obtained. Refusing a cladogram because it does not ®t with historical evidence is a dangerous exercise as there are no general rules linking the number of characters acquired by a species and its period of existence. Very evolved species might become un®t in a later period.Fig. 10. Polarity decision for node 6 (outgroup node) using Once a cladogram has been produced, the ®rst stepcharacter data 1. is to map the character changes onto the tree in order
    • 90 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95to have a global view of the proposed phylogeny. It is cess results in the organisation acquiring and reversingcommon practice to shape test the cladogram by add- the necessary character states which will lead to theing additional species and characters. It is important new organisational form. This reversal is similar toto note that adding characters and species at this stage Sagastis model of adaptive behaviour [91], whichof the framework is easier and more reliable than at occurs due to selective pressures. Reactive reversals arethe clade building stage. not part of the phylogeny of a clade, they are a When examining the top section of the cladogram, measure of a systems lack of strategic focus.the investigator should question if the acquisition Biological organisms tend to evolve according to thecould have led to a speciation, or if it is just a case of rule of parsimony (smallest number of evolutionaryanagenesis. If a character could have potentially cre- changes), but organisations which to some extent in¯u-ated a viable species, and if historical evidence of the ence evolutionary destiny, do not always take the mostexistence of this species can be gathered, then the parsimonious route.species should be added. The automotive cladogram was constructed using 4.7. Taxa nomenclatureMacClade Version 3 [90]. MacClade provides an inter-action environment for exploring phylogeny and resol- The name given to a taxa of manufacturing systemsving character con¯icts. MacClade allows the user to is more than a word which simply acts as a means ofmanipulate cladogram structures and character data reference. The name given to a taxa must act as a ve-and to visualise the characters on each branch. Finally, hicle for communication, be unambiguous and univer-MacClade provides tools for moving branches, rerout- sal. It should also indicate its position within theing clades and automatically searching for the most classi®cation hierarchy. Je€rey [40] describes the codesparsimonious tree. of nomenclature used for plants (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature), for bacteria (International4.6. Construct factual cladogram Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria) and for animals (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). This stage involves studying real and existing manu- Each code di€ers in detail but certain basic featuresfacturing organisations in order to observe the manu- are common. For a summary of the relevant codes,facturing systems which they operate. This typically discussed in an organisational context, the reader isconsists of plant inspections, discussions with employ- referred to [92].ees, assessment of planning and control proceduresand assessment of documentation (annual reports,business plans and surveys, etc.). The study aims to 5. Applicationsvalidate the existence of the characters identi®edduring the previous stages. It will test the validity of This article began by discussing the reasons forany proposed tree structure by ensuring that the char- undertaking a classi®cation study using cladistics.acter data matrix is complete (i.e. no important histori- Although many of the reasons presented might appearcal events which relate to characters have been to be common sense, this does not dilute their import-omitted) and that the assigned polarity is correct. This ance and contribution to any serious and scienti®c in-stage is to an extent, validation by dissemination, vestigation into organisations. The followingbecause the factual data will be used to verify the con- discussion presents possible academic and practical ap-ceptual data. The validity of any proposed tree struc- plications of cladistics.ture will also be tested by allocating existingorganisations a position on the cladogram. 5.1. Understanding organisational diversity The factual stage is undertaken because character (organisational systematics)reversal (the dropping of a character) is a possible pro-cess with manufacturing systems. This paper suggests There is common agreement on the de®nition of thethat two forms of character reversal could occur within attributes of a just-in-time manufacturing system, seeorganisations: phylogenetic reversal and reactive rever- for instance [93, 94], but these de®nitions are su-sal. Phylogenetic reversal is illustrated in Fig. 2(a) by ciently vague to cause confusion with the terms ¯exiblecharacter `(20±) where by the character has been manufacturing systems, agile manufacturing systems,reversed naturally by the circumstances of evolution world class manufacturing systems and lean manufac-and thus is illustrated on the cladogram. Reactive turing systems. This problem has been identi®ed bycharacter reversal occurs, because organisations realise many researchers and is summarised by the followingthat their current position is at the end of an inap- quote: ``( F F F) the diversity involved in the manufactur-propriate evolutionary path and take the decision to ing industry is such that it is unlikely that all industryacquire a new organisational form. This change pro- types should be aiming for the same procedures, pol-
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 91icies and culture. Yet there has been very little research turing terms, examples of stress are unreliable sourcingwhich tries to identify what the term world class (WC) mechanisms, lack of skilled labour, lack of ®nance,means for certain industry types. This leaves the cur- machine breakdowns, etc. Disturbance is a serious en-rent apparently poor performers with inadequate infor- vironmental event which happens occasionally.mation to decide whether they are really not of WC Examples of disturbances in biology are ®re, frost,standard, and, if not, insucient appropriate guidance earthquakes, etc. In manufacturing, disturbances areto determine how to achieve the WC goals to which strikes, ®re, the loss of a market. If several organis-most would agree to aspire. [95, p. 43]. ations exist in a perfect environment with no stress Despite the need for knowledge on the evolution of and no disturbance, they tend to be competitors (C).new organisational forms, as described in Section 1 of Competitors are merciless and compete to be the tal-this paper, no theoretical consensus exists for organis- lest, biggest, etc. If stress appears in the environment,ing and supporting the vast number of empirical stu- stress tolerators (S) tend to take the lead over competi-dies which examine industrial and organisational tors, whose strategy for survival is not appropriate. Ifdiversity. Using a systematic and comparative method disturbance is high, ruderals (R) are better adaptedsuch as cladistics, permits an assessment of the general- and dominate the environment. Competition is theity of the attributes of complex systems [96]. Cladistic dominate functional type studied and documented inclassi®cations and the desire to develop a theory of or- business studies and in manufacturing management,ganisational di€erences could play a signi®cant role in but it would be interesting and possibly bene®cial toexplaining the processes by which the practices and develop policies for creating manufacturing systemsstructures of organisations and organisational forms which are tolerators or ruderals.persist and exist over time.5.2. Understanding organisational ecology 5.3. Understanding and achieving organisational change Where as the ®rst application was concerned withcreating a systematic system of organisational diver- ( F F F ) an attempt was made to identify a general im-sity, this discussion suggests that cladistic classi®- plementation sequence. However, similar to the ob-cations could provide the comparative index which servation made by Im and Lee [99], a generalmight assist the creation of theories which focus on or- implementation pattern for the JIT practices couldganisational processes (e.g. replication, mutation, not be established [94, p. 8].recombination, learning, entrepreneurship, competitionand natural selection) and organisational events (e.g.birth, death, transformation, speciation and extinc- The ®rst two applications were academic in nature,tion). Cladistics could be coupled with functional stu- but the deliverables from such applications could pro-dies which seek to ascertain an overall measure for vide organisations with new tools and knowledgecomplexity, stress resistance, mortality index etc. in an which could help them to be proactive in the manipu-ecosystem. A functional study of organisations would lation of their evolution. Since cladistics is a classi®-aim to forecast environmental/market changes (the cation method which ties its de®nition of similarity torate of new product introduction, service mechanisms, naturally occurring change processes, the result is thatsupply relationships, etc.) and forecasts on which man- the information contained within a cladogram is usefulufacturing species will dominate, compete and survive for identifying standard change sequences. A clado-such market and economic conditions. Functional stu- gram could also provide a framework or index fordies and cladistics are viewed as complementary disci- positioning and benchmarking studies [100].plines by many biologists and philosophers [97], since The analysis of a cladogram goes further than atheir results describe di€erent properties of species (re- simple speci®cation of a change sequence. It indicates:spectively, their identity and their strategy for survi- the sequence of steps required to transform an organis-val). The goal of functionalists is to develop a ation to a certain state, along with the characteristicscatalogue of knowledge, related to a classi®cation, for which must be dropped (the `unlearning steps). Ifidentifying strategies for survival. An example of such there is agreement that the cladogram has been con-a classi®cation is the CSR model of Philip Grime from structed according to the rules of parsimony, the physi-the NERC unit of the University of Sheeld [98]. The cal and ®nancial cost of the identi®ed change routeCSR model, models the environment along two dimen- would be minimised.sions: stress and disturbance. Stress is a limitation put The tree-like nature of a cladogram could be com-on the resources necessary for the organisations to sur- pared to a map, which once constructed provides or-vive. In biological terms, stress is the lack of nutrients, ganisations with an unambiguous and precisethe lack of light, cold temperatures, etc. In manufac- de®nition of the starting point of the change journey.
    • 92 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95If the journey is a mimetic process then it will also Cladistics, as with all classi®cations, is a method forprovide a de®nition of the destination. systematically organising knowledge about a popu- lation of entities. It is a process for studying diversity5.4. Strategy and attempting to identify and understand laws and re- lationships which explain the evolution and existence Despite the popularity of ¯exible manufacturing of the variety groups. Its intellectual and practical systems, managers su€er from inadequate frame- value is derived from this ability to explain. works to help incorporate ¯exibility into their stra- This article suggests that cladistics is a novel and tegic planning [101, p. 7]. appropriate approach for producing an organisational classi®cation, because unlike the best phenetic classi®- A cladogram provides a snapshot of the evolution- cations and the multitude of subjective classi®cations,ary history of a company. Thus, it can be used by cladistics has an underlying philosophy (evolution) andmanagers to check that their vision for the future is accompanying rules and procedures. Cladistics usesconsistent with their understanding of the past. evolutionary relationships to identify and form groups,Cladistics also provides an interesting measure of stra- because evolution is the process which accompaniestegic excellence, through the principle of parsimony. the changes which materialise to produce di€erent or-Strategic management is a discipline which was under ganisational forms. The resulting classi®cation and theclose scrutiny in the eighties and many researchers knowledge contained within, provide insights into or-questioned if a correlation could be found between the ganisational diversity. These insights include: observingpractice of strategic management and organisational the patterns and events which accompany the organis-performance, usually de®ned as pro®tability. Although ational change and observing the most parsimonioussome researchers con®rmed the existence of such a cor- route between di€erent organisational forms.relation [102±104], many others found no correlations This fundamental, but important insight could resultwhatsoever, [105±109]. Strategic management is con- in organisational cladograms being used as a toolcerned with the long term sustainability of pro®ts and within a change framework, for achieving successfulthus strategic excellence can be dicult to de®ne, organisational design and change. Thus, regardless ofbecause assessments may need to view a decade of the industrial sector, organisations could use clado-®nancial loss before capturing the bene®ts of a well- grams as an evolutionary analysis technique for deter-articulated strategy. mining `where they have been and where they are If there is agreement with the statements that ``( F F F ) now. This evolutionary analysis could be used to for-successful ®rms have followed more than one route to mulate coherent and appropriate action for managerssuccessful redesign., ``Too often, (F F F), pieces are who are organisational architects and planners.missing from the strategies and structures ®rms createin the process of redesign [110, p. 129], then the prin-ciple of parsimony could o€er a legitimate de®nition ofstrategic excellence. Researchers can easily question, a Referencesposterior, how parsimonious the strategy of a ®rm was.The Toyota Motor Company demonstrates a remark- [1] Carper WB, Snizek WE. The nature and types of or-able record of excellent strategic practices, with the ganisational taxonomies: an overview. Acad Managehighly focused introduction of the Toyota production Rev 1980;5(1):66±75.system [111] and its subsequent evolution toward lean [2] Good IJ. Categorisation of classi®cation. In:production. Cladistics could be used to develop a set Mathematics and computer science in medicine and bi-of performance measures which would govern the stra- ology. London: H.M.S.O, 1965. p. 115±28.tegic decision making process within companies. [3] Cormack RM. A review of classi®cation. Proceedings of the Royal Statistical Society 1971;3:321±67. [4] Haas J, Hall R, Johnson N. Toward an empirically de- rived taxonomy of organisations. In: Bovers R, editor.6. Summary Studies on behaviour in organisations. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1966. p. 157±80. Although classi®cation is an habitual process which [5] McKelvey B, Guidelines for the empirical classi®cationall humans do, the use of classi®cations in organis- of organisations. Adm Sci Q. 1975;20:509±25. [6] Chrisman J, Hofer C, Boulton W. Toward a system forational science has not reached the same status as the classifying business strategies. Acad Manage Revclassi®cations which exist in physics, chemistry and bi- 1988;13(3):413±28.ology. This paper has sought to describe and justify [7] Gordon CW, Babchuk N. A typology of voluntary or-the bene®ts of organisational classi®cations and in par- ganisations. Am Sociol Rev 1958;24:22±3.ticular cladistic classi®cations of manufacturing sys- [8] Emery FE, Trist EL. The casual texture of organis-tems. ational environments. Human Relat 1965;18:21±32.
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 93 [9] Thompson JD. Organisations in action. New York: cedures. In: Special Publications No 19. The University McGraw-Hill, 1967. of Kansas Museum of Natural History, 1991.[10] Perrow C. Organisational analysis: a sociological [31] De Queiroz K. Systematics and the Darwinian revolu- review. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1970. tion. Philos Sci 1988;55:238±59.[11] Van Ripper PP. Organisations: basic issues and pro- [32] EPSRC (1996), Blueprint Ð The control design and posed typology. In: Bowers RV, editor. Studies on production newsletter of EPSRC, Issue No. 9, July behaviour in organisations. Athens: University of 1996. Georgia Press, 1966. [33] Hannan MT, Freeman J. The population ecology of or-[12] Constable CJ, New CC. Operations management, a sys- ganisations. Am Sociol Rev 1977;83:929±84. tems approach through text and cases. John Wiley & [34] Hannan MT, Freeman J. Organisational Ecology. Sons, 1976. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.[13] Wild R. The techniques of production management. [35] Baum JAC. A population perspective organizations: a London: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1971. study of diversity and transformation in child care ser-[14] Johnson LA, Montgomery DC. Operation research in vice organisations. Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of production planning, scheduling and inventory control. Management, University of Toronto, 1989. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974. [36] McKelvey B. Organisational systematics: taxonomy,[15] De Toni A, Panizzolo R. Repetitive and intermittent evolution, classi®cation. Berkeley: University of manufacturing: comparison of characteristics. In: California Press, 1982. Integrated manufacturing systems, vol. 3. MCB [37] Lumsden CJ, Singh JV. The dynamics of organizational University Press, 1992. p. 23±37 (No. 4). speciation. In: Singh JV, editor. Organizational evol-[16] Schmitt TG, Klastorin T, Shtub A. Production classi®- ution: new directions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. cation system: concepts, models and strategies. Int J p. 145±63. Prod Res 1985;23(3):563±78. [38] Brodie R. The virus of the mind: the new science of the[17] Ingham H. Balancing sales and production: models of meme. Integral Press, 1995. typical business policies. Management Publication, 1971 [39] McCarthy IP. The development of a manufacturing [ch 1±2]. classi®cation using concepts from organisational sys-[18] Wild R. Production and operations management. tematics and biological taxonomy. Ph.D. dissertation, Cassel Ed, 1989 [ch 1]. University of Sheeld, UK, 1995.[19] Aneke NAG, Carrie AS. A comprehensive ¯owline [40] Je€rey C. Biological nomenclature, 3rd ed. Systematics classi®cation scheme. Int J Prod Res 1984;22(2):282±97. Association, Chapman and Hall, 1977.[20] Burbidge JL. International Seminar On Group [41] Forey PL, Humphries CJ, Kitching IJ, Scotland RW, Technology, Final report. Turin International Centre, Siebert DJ, Williams DM. Cladistics: a practical course Turin, Italy, 1970. in systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.[21] Frizelle GDM. OPT in perspective. In: Advanced man- [42] Minelli A. Biological systematics the state of the art. ufacturing engineering, 1. Butterworth and Co, 1989. Chapman & Hall, 1994.[22] Barber KD, Hollier RH. The use of numerical analysis [43] Sneath P, Sokal R. Numerical taxonomy, the principles to classify companies according to production control and practices of numerical classi®cation. Freeman, complexity. Int J Prod Res 1986;24(1):203±22. 1973.[23] Woodward J. In: Industrial organisation, theory and [44] Rao HV, Reddy M. University manuscript. Density practice. Oxford University Press, 1980. p. 22±49. and organizational mortality in technologically hetero-[24] Burbidge JL. The principles of production control, 4th geneous industries. Emory University, GA, USA, 1992. ed. Plymouth, UK: MacDonald & Evans, 1962. [45] Hannan MT, Freeman J. Organizations in industry:[25] Hitomi K. Manufacturing systems engineering (a uni- strategy, structure and selection. Oxford University ®ed approach to manufacturing technology and pro- Press, 1995. duction management), 2nd ed. London: Taylor and [46] Scott WR. Organizations: rational, natural and open Francis, 1996. systems, 3rd ed. Englewood Cli€s, NJ: Prentice Hall,[26] Spencer MS, Cox JF. An analysis of the product±pro- 1992. cess matrix and repetitive manufacturing. Int J Prod [47] Hannan, Carroll, Dundon, Torres. Organizational evol- Res 1995;33(5):1275±94. ution in multinational context: automobile manufac-[27] McCarthy IP. Manufacturing classi®cations: lessons turers in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. from organizational systematics and biological taxon- Am Sociol Rev 1995;88:234±53. omy. Int J Manuf Technol Manage Ð Integrated [48] Cusumano MA. The Japanese automobile industry. Manuf Sys 1995;6(6):47±8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.[28] Romanelli E. The evolution of new organizational [49] Flink JJ. The automobile age. Cambridge, MA: MIT forms. In: Annual review of sociology, 17. Annual Press, 1988. Reviews, 1991. p. 79±103. [50] Laux JM. The European automobile industry. New[29] Ridley M. Evolution. Blackwell Scienti®c Publications, York: Twayne, 1992. 1993. [51] Rae JB. The American automobile manufacturers: the[30] Wiley EO, Siegel-Causey D, Brooks DR, Funk VA. ®rst forty years. Philadelphia: Chiltern, 1959. The compleat cladist Ð a primer of phylogenetic pro- [52] Hounshell DA. From the American system to mass
    • 94 I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 production. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, [86] Quicke DLJ. Principles and techniques of contemporary 1984. taxonomy. Chapman and Hall, 1993. [53] Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D. The machine that [87] Swo€ord DL, Maddison WP. Reconstructing ancestral changed the world. New York: Macmillan Publishing, states under Wagner parsimony. Math Biosci 1990. 1987;87:199±299. [54] Fiat Group. Financial overview, January 30, 1998. [88] Watrous LE, Wheeler QD. The out-group comparison [55] Fiat Group. Annual report, 1996. method. Syst Zool 1981;30:1±11. [56] Fiat Group. Report of the Board of Directors on oper- [89] Felsenstein J. Parsimony in systematics: biological and ations in the ®rst half of 1997. statistical issues. Ann Rev Ecol System 1983;14:313±33. [57] Ford Motor Company. Annual report, 1965. [90] Maddison WP, Maddison DR. MacClade Version 3. [58] Ford Motor Company. Annual report, 1975. Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. MA, [59] Ford Motor Company. Annual report, 1985. USA: Sinauer Associates, 1992. [60] Ford Motor Company. Annual report, 1995. [91] Sagasti F. A conceptual and taxonomic framework for [61] General Motors. A look at General Motors today, the analysis of adaptive behaviour. General systems, 1996. vol. XV, 1970. p. 151±60. [62] General Motors. What drives General Motors. Annual [92] McCarthy IP, Leseure M, Ridgway K, Fieller N. report, 1996. Building manufacturing cladograms. International [63] General Motors. The EV1 electric vehicle, teamwork in Journal of Technology Management 1997;13(3):269±86. action. Annual report, 1995. [93] Stevenson W. Production/operations management, 4th [64] Honda. Annual report, 1995. ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1993. [65] Mercedes-Benz. Annual report, 1995. [94] Hum S, Ng Y. A study on just-in-time practices in [66] Mitsubishi Corporation. The principles that de®ne Singapore. Int J Oper Prod Manage 1995;15(6):5±24. Mitsubishi Corporation. Annual report, 1996. [95] Hendry LC. World class in the make-to-order sector. [67] Mitsubishi Corporation. Annual report, 1995. MESELA 97 Conference, 22±24 July, 1997, [68] Nissan. Even higher customer satisfaction. Annual Loughborough, ISBN 1 86058 0661, 1997. p. 41±6. report, 1995. [96] de Pinna M. Concepts and tests of homology in the cla- [69] Peugeot Motor Company Plc. Annual review, 1995. distics paradox. Cladistics 1991;7:367±94. [70] Peugeot Motor Company Plc. Statement of accounts [97] Griths P. Cladistics and functional explanation. Philo and annual report, 1995. Sci 1994;61:206±27. [71] Peugeot Motor Company Plc. Annual review, 1996. [98] Grime P. The C±S±R model of primary plant strategies: [72] Peugeot Motor Company Plc. Statement of accounts origins, implications and tests ch 14. In: Gottlieb LD, and annual report, 1996. Kain SK, editors. Plant evolutionary biology. London: [73] Renault SA. Annual report, 1995. Chapman and Hall, 1988. [74] Toyota. Heres how we are getting better and even bet- [99] Im J, Lee S. Implementation of just-in-time systems in ter. Annual report, 1996. US manufacturing ®rms. Int J Prod Res 1989;28(6):5± [75] Toyota. You aint seen nuthin yet! Annual report, 14. 1995. [100] Camp R. Benchmarking, the search for industry best [76] Volkswagen AG. Annual report, 1996. [77] Volkswagen, AG. Annual report, 1995. practices that lead to superior performance. Milwaukee, [78] Volvo. Annual report, 1996. WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1989. [79] Gibson JL, Ivancevich JM, Donnelly JR. [101] Suarez F, Cusumano M, Fine C. An empirical study of Organizations: behaviour, structure, processes, 7th ed. ¯exibility in manufacturing. In: Sloan management Homewood IL: Irwin, 1991. review, 1995. p. 25±32. [80] Price JL, Mueller CW. Handbook of organisational [102] Armstrong J. Strategic planning improves manufactur- measurement. Marsh®eld, MA: Pitman, 1986. ing performance. In: Long-range planning, 1991. p. [81] Baum JAC, Singh JV. Evolutionary dynamics of organ- 127±9. izations. Oxford University Press, 1994. [103] Powell T. Strategic planning as competitive advantage. [82] Hull DL. The natural system and the species problem. In: Strategic Manage J, 1992. p. 551±8. In: Sibley CG, editor. Systematic biology. Proceedings [104] Waalevwijn P, Segaar P. Strategic management: the key of an International Conference Conducted At The to pro®tability in small companies. In: Long-range University of Michigan, June 14±16, 1967. p. 56±61. planning, 1993. p. 24±30. [83] Pugh D, Hickson D, Hinings C, Turner C. Dimensions [105] Grinyer P, Norburn D. Planning for existing markets: or organizational structure. Adm Sci Q 1968;13:65±105. perceptions of executives and ®nancial performance (pt. [84] Sells S. Toward a taxonomy of organizations. In: 1). J R Stat Soc A 1975;138:70±81. Cooper W, Leavitt H, Shelly M, editors. New perspec- [106] Kallman E, Shapiro H. The motor freight industry: a tives in organizational research. New York: Wiley, case against planning. In: Long-range planning, 1978. 1964. p. 515±32. p. 81±95. [85] Warriner C, editor. Empirical taxonomy of organiz- [107] Kudla J. The e€ects of strategic planning on common ations: problematics in their development. Presented at stock returns. In: Acad Manage J, 1980. p. 5±32. the Roundtable Discussion, Annual Meeting of the [108] Leontiades M, Tezel A. Planning perceptions and plan- American Sociological Association, Boston, 1979. ning results. In: Strategic Manage J, 1980. p. 65±79.
    • I. McCarthy et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 77±95 95[109] Rue L, Fulmer R. Is long-range planning pro®table? In: [111] Monden Y. Toyota production system: practical Academy of Management Proceedings, 1973. p. 66±89. approach to production management. Industrial[110] Miles R, Coleman H, Douglas C. Keys to success in Engineering and Management Press, Institute of corporate redesign. Calif Manage Rev 1995;37(3):128± Industrial Engineers, 1983. 45.