ARTICLE IN PRESS0166-4972$ - sedoi10.1016j.teC.docx

ARTICLE IN PRESS
0166-4972/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.te
�
Correspond
E-mail addr
[email protected]
Technovation 26 (2006) 1147–1161
www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation
Agile manufacturing: Industrial case studies in Spain
Daniel Vázquez-Bustelo
�
, Lucı́a Avella
Departamento de Administración de Empresas y Contabilidad,
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad
de Oviedo (Spain),
Avda. Cristo s/n, 33071 Oviedo, Spain
Abstract
Changes in the business environment are leading firms to adopt
a new production model termed agile manufacturing. This
moves away
from the traditional mass production paradigm and focuses on

manufacturing highly customised products as and when
customers
require them. In this paper, we present an initial approach to
agile manufacturing based on case studies on four factories in
Spain.
Despite different activities, products and production processes,
similar trends were found in all four in the development of agile
manufacturing. Based on the conclusions of the case studies, an
agile manufacturing conceptual model has been drawn up and a
number
of hypotheses inferred. This work confirms the suitability of
case study methodology in the early stages of research,
especially for
drawing up hypotheses. The study presented here is of an
exploratory nature and the conclusions drawn from it offer
possible routes for
future research in the field of agile manufacturing.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Agile manufacturing; New paradigm; Spain; Case
study research; Hypotheses
1. Introduction
The concept of agile manufacturing was originally
introduced in the report entitled ‘‘21st Century Manufac-
turing Enterprise Strategy’’ and published by the Iacocca
Institute of Lehigh University (Goldman and Nagel, 1991)
as an option for managing firms in a dynamic world. Since
then, it has been adopted by researchers, managers and

consultants as the last stage in the evolution of manufac-
turing models or systems. However, perhaps because the
concept of agile manufacturing is at the developmental
phase, it has been surrounded by considerable confusion.
The term agile manufacturing is sometimes incorrectly
used to refer to concepts such as flexible manufacturing,
lean production or mass customisation. Additionally, while
the interest of agile manufacturing for firms has been
widely disseminated, its relation with performance has not
been empirically validated. This paper therefore attempts
to analyse the drivers, practices and results of agility in
order to offer an initial approach to agile manufacturing.
We carried out exploratory research work based on case
e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
chnovation.2005.11.006
ing author. Tel.: +34 985106216; fax: +34 985103708.
esses: [email protected] (D. Vázquez-Bustelo),
es (L. Avella).
study methodology, analysing the context and degree of
practical application of agile manufacturing in four
factories in Spain. In particular, the main needs for agility
in the production plants were analysed, as well as the
practices and tools being used by them to increase their
responsiveness and, therefore, their competitiveness. The
paper is structured as follows: Section 1 is the introduction;
Section 2 focuses on the theoretical background of agile
manufacturing; Section 3 presents the research methodol-
ogy used; Section 4 discusses the main results of the case
studies; Section 5 proposes a conceptual model for the
analysis of agile manufacturing and several hypotheses.
Finally, the main conclusions of the work are presented.

2. Agile manufacturing: theoretical background
In the last decade the industrial environment has
undergone substantial changes characterised not only by
their breadth and depth but also by their speed. In this
context, firms in general, and those dedicated to manu-
facturing in particular, are finding it difficult to attain a
sustainable competitive advantage or even ensure their
survival due to the high levels of complexity, dynamism
and uncertainty they face (Vázquez-Bustelo and Avella,
www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Vázquez-Bustelo, L. Avella / Technovation 26 (2006) 1147–
11611148
2004). This critical situation has forced firms to review their
competitive priorities, triggering a transition process in
which they are giving up traditional manufacturing models
in favour of new organisational forms, new management
practices and new strategies at all levels (Bartezzaghi,
1999). A transformation has been observed in ‘‘traditional’’
production models leading to a new production paradigm
linked to agility.
With this move towards a new agility-based paradigm,
the term ‘‘agile manufacturing’’ has arisen, a concept that
has been increasingly used in literature on Operations
Management and Business Administration to denominate
a model of flexible manufacturing, capable of rapidly
adapting to changes in the environment and of placing a
large variety of products on the market to satisfy the needs
of increasingly demanding and well-informed customers
(Kidd, 1994; Goldman et al., 1995; Gunasekaran, 1999;
Sharifi and Zhang, 1999; Gunasekaran et al., 2002). This

emerging paradigm, the philosophy of which considers a
new strategic positioning in manufacturing and requires a
global view of the firm (Roth, 1996), breaks with the
guidelines of the traditional mass production model,
placing special emphasis on the proactive adaptation to
change (Yusuf et al., 1999). It highlights the development
of dynamic capabilities, the strategic use of new technol-
ogies, the integration of strategies and operations, custo-
mer satisfaction through new forms of interfirm
cooperation and knowledge management (Gunasekaran
and Yusuf, 2002).
The pioneering work done by the Iacocca Institute
describes agile manufacturing as a new manufacturing
infrastructure, establishing a list of systems and subsystems
enabling agility, all of which are related to continuous
change, responsiveness, quality improvement and social
liability in environmental and working condition terms.
According to Kidd (1994), agile manufacturing is based
on three basic resources: (a) an innovative management
organisation and structure, (b) a worker base consisting of
highly trained, motivated and empowered people and (c)
advanced, flexible and intelligent technologies. Agility is
obtained by integrating these three resources in an
interdependent and coordinated system.
For Goldman et al. (1995), agility is a global response to
changes imposed by a new business environment domi-
nated by a set of forces that attempt to break with mass
production systems and are characterised by change and
uncertainty. These authors identify four dimensions or
foundational elements of agile manufacturing: (a) enriching
the customer, (b) cooperating to enhance competitiveness,
(c) mastering change and uncertainty and (d) leveraging the
impact of people and information. For each of these

dimensions they establish a list of characteristics of the
agile firm that have been considered by many authors as
the starting point in their works on agility.
Despite the fact that agility has been defined in different
ways and from different perspectives and fields of knowl-
edge, a common element to all the definitions is that it is far
removed from mass production. Sheridan (1993) argues
that agility implies breaking with the moulds of mass
production in order to manufacture more customised
products at the time and place required by consumer
demand. Thus, agile manufacturers represent a new form
of industrial competition on a global scale for the 21st
century that generates new operative and management
forms designed to meet the challenges of the new
competitive environment. As a concept, agility in manu-
facturing identifies a production model that is conditioned
by changes in the environment and links innovation in
manufacturing, information and communication technol-
ogies with a radical organisational redesign, new human
resources practices and the application of new marketing
strategies. Implementation of this model, considered the
latest in the stages of evolution of production systems
(Esmail and Saggu, 1996), has been considered a solution
for the problems arising from turbulent business environ-
ments (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999). Therefore, a positive
relation is to be expected between more turbulent environ-
ments, the application of agile manufacturing, the factory
results and the degree of competitiveness.
Following the review of several works (Goldman and
Nagel, 1993; Burgess, 1994; Goldman et al., 1995;
Montgomery and Levine, 1996; Fliedner and Vokurka,
1997; Gunasekaran, 1998, 1999; Goranson, 1999; Meade
and Sarkis, 1999; Sharifi and Zhang, 1999, 2001; Sharp
et al., 1999; Yusuf et al., 1999; Dove, 2001; Coronado

et al., 2002; Gunasekaran and Yusuf, 2002; Gunasekaran
et al., 2001, 2002), three key elements in the implementa-
tion and development of agile manufacturing have been
identified: motivators (or drivers), facilitators (enablers,
providers or pillars) and results.
The business environment, as a source of change and
generator of uncertainty, has been considered the main
motivator or agility driver. In fact, agile manufacturing
describes ‘‘a comprehensive response to a new competitive
environment shaped by forces that have undermined the
dominance of the mass-production system’’ (Gunasekaran
et al., 2001, p. 28). Thus, new forces and changes in the
market’s competitive landscape (changing customer ex-
pectations and escalating requirements to satisfy individual
needs, globalisation, intensification of competition from a
national scale to a global arena, social pressures, fragmen-
tation of mass markets into niche markets, technology and
management innovations, shorter product life cycles,
increasing product variety, strong need for rapid and
dynamic product innovation cycle, etc.) are identified as
precursors of agile manufacturing in that they are forcing
firms to adopt practices linked to the new manufacturing
paradigm. So, agility is reflected in the ‘‘capability to
survive and prosper by reacting quickly and effectively to a
continuously and unpredictably changing, customer-driven
and competitive environment’’ (Jain and Jain, 2001, p. 516).
Agile manufacturing can be considered a production
model that integrates technology, human resources and the
organisation through an information and communication

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1161 1149
infrastructure that provides flexibility, speed, quality,
service and efficiency and enables firms to react deliber-
ately, effectively and in a coordinated manner to changes in
the environment.
In spite of theoretical study and interest in agile
manufacturing amongst research and business circles, there
has been little empirical study on its causes, forms and
results so little is known about how to apply it and what
results can be expected. Research should therefore aim to
answer the following questions. Are companies really
changing their behaviour and systems in order to become
agile manufacturers? What contextual factors or environ-
mental changes are making it necessary to implement agile
manufacturing? What practices and strategies allow
companies to enhance their agility? What results can be
expected from implementing agile manufacturing?
The main objective of this paper is to explore the
application, causes and consequences of agile manufactur-
ing in Spain, through in-depth analysis of four factories.
An attempt has also been made to develop an agile
manufacturing conceptual model from which a series of
hypotheses can be drawn for future empirical testing in
wider samples of firms.
3. Research methodology: case studies
Recent studies have shown the importance of research
based on case studies as a methodological tool for
empirical analysis in Operations Management (Barnes,
2001). Many important advances in the concepts and

theories of Operations Management, from lean production
to manufacturing strategy, have been developed by means
of case studies, and many works have called for further
empirical research based on this methodology (i.e.
Meredith et al., 1989; Ebert, 1991; McCutcheon and
Meredith, 1993; Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Meredith
and Samson, 2001; Stuart et al., 2002).
Case study research focuses on an objective under-
standing of the dynamics of a real process, evaluating it in
its natural context. Researchers use multiple sources of
information and have limited control over events. Case
study methodology is highly appropriate in the early stages
of research of a phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989) or when
the researcher is faced with unfamiliar situations or
situations for which there is no consolidated theoretical
base (Yin, 1989). It may happen that the researcher does
not know which conditions are relevant and/or is faced
with a situation in which there are very few examples to be
studied (especially compared with the number of relevant
conditions). Case study methodology is therefore usually
used in the initial stages of development of a new theory,
although it can also be used to support, extend or broaden
existing theories or to generate questions on these.
Taking into account the aims of this study and the state
of the research on agile manufacturing, we considered it
appropriate to use the case study methodology in order to
describe the implementation of agile manufacturing in
Spain. In particular, we considered it appropriate to make
a detailed analysis—through on-site visits, interviews with
managers and employees (based on a structured ques-
tionnaire) and the analysis of available documents—of the
experience of four production plants, belonging to four
international companies: Opel, 3M, John Deere and
Airbus. The choice of these four factories was based on

the following criteria: (a) they belong to successful
international companies, (b) all of them can be expected
to present a certain level of manufacturing agility based on
the information compiled from press articles and pre-
viously published studies, (c) they cover a wide range of
business environments, products and processes and (d) of
the factories initially selected for the study, the four
analysed showed great interest in participating, which can
be interpreted as an indicator of their concern for moving
towards agility (Vázquez-Bustelo and Avella, 2004).
4. Main characteristics of agile manufacturing in the cases
studied
This section presents the results of the empirical research
performed, analysing the main characteristics of each of
the production plants under study: general characteristics
of the factory, the features of the environment in which it
operates, the agile manufacturing practices adopted and
the results obtained.
4.1. Agile manufacturing in Opel España
Opel España is a subsidiary of General Motors that in
Spain has a production plant in Zaragoza, where the Corsa
and Meriva models are currently manufactured. This
factory gives direct employment to 8,200 people and is a
basic pillar of the economy of the region of Aragón.
The manufacture of cars in this factory follows a flow
line process that takes place in four different areas: presses,
bodywork, painting and assembly and finishing. The first
three phases are highly capital-intensive whereas the
assembly and finishing stage is labour-intensive.
As a subsidiary of General Motors, Opel España has

adopted the same production principles that GM has
applied in all its centres worldwide. These principles are
based on four points: (a) people involvement, (b) contin-
uous improvement, (c) standardisation and (d) quality.
The production plant is currently in a business environ-
ment that is characterised by a medium level of change and
diversity and a high level of competition. Changes such as
higher customer expectations regarding quality, deliveries
and customisation, increasing global competition and more
frequent innovation are forcing the plant to become more
efficient and responsive to the market. Agile manufacturing
is of growing interest to the firm but is inhibited by
efficiency constraints. Despite attempts to simultaneously
achieve various manufacturing objectives related to cost,
quality, service, delivery, flexibility, innovation and natural
environment protection, the firm considers that the first
ARTICLE IN PRESS
11611150
three (cost, quality and service) are its main competitive
objectives.
In response to the above-mentioned changing market
conditions, several initiatives have been undertaken to
increase responsiveness and, consequently, manufacturing
agility:
�
Opel has realised the possibilities of new manufacturing
methods and techniques, giving the same importance to
structural practices (facilities and equipment) as to
infrastructural ones (production norms and procedures)

as possible means of achieving continuous improvement
and a competitive advantage. The firm attempts to
achieve a competitive advantage based on manufactur-
ing, considering that production must be present in the
main marketing and engineering decisions. It also aims
to anticipate the potential of the new manufacturing
practices and technologies that enable it to acquire
production capabilities before competitors.
�
The Opel management considers it fundamental to
eliminate outdated human management practices. In-
creased manufacturing agility has required a change in
the management of people in areas such as worker
selection, work place design, continuous training,
equipment maintenance and trade unionism. Empower-
ment, involvement and motivation are key elements for
agile manufacturing in Opel. The main initiatives in
these areas have crystallised in a teamwork system,
advanced contracting and training practices, an effective
suggestion system and organisational structures that
encourage continuous improvement and knowledge
management. For example, working hour flexibility
enables the production level to adapt to real demand,
enhancing the company’s responsiveness. Teamwork
also increases agility in operations and enables flexible,
fast, high-quality reactions to changes or alterations in
operating conditions within certain limits.
�
The gradual incorporation of flexible manufacturing

systems in the production area has improved process
speed and flexibility, dramatically increasing product
variety without harming efficiency.
�
Strategic outsourcing of some production processes has
enabled the factory to focus on its core competencies.
This has led to purchases from suppliers of complete
assemblies instead of individual small parts. However, it
has necessitated more integrated processes, higher levels
of trust in, and delegation of responsibility to first-level
suppliers. Integration with suppliers has materialised,
for example, in the location of the main suppliers within
Opel facilities, in the incorporation of the suppliers in
the early stages of new product development processes,
and in the interconnection of stocking and management
systems between the two parties. It has also resulted in
higher responsiveness, the solving of operational pro-
blems and the improving of the factory’s just in time
response, considered a critical factor for agile manu-
facturing.
�
Concurrent operations and the grouping of various
physically dispersed resources have proven to be basic in
the reduction of new product development and intro-
duction time. Careful management of these processes
has enabled the Spanish plant to achieve the shortest
lead times in the history of GM Europe for a new vehicle
model.

�
Agile manufacturing requires a market-oriented factory
and tighter links between the manufacturing plant and
end customers. This need reflects the new and important
trend towards customisation, a factor that increasingly
determines purchasing decisions. For the purpose of
customisation, the Opel factory uses a concept of
modularity based on the combination or assembly of
standard components that enable the customer to
choose from a varied set of ‘‘options’’.
�
The formation of temporary alliances (even with
competitors) to share complementary resources or
information is increasingly important to promote
agility. In the case of Opel, such agreements have been
reached in aspects of design and development as well as
manufacturing. Nevertheless, this is a growing area that
requires new management models or tools that have not
yet been developed.
The Opel España factory has thus established a basis for
progressively adopting an agile manufacturing model. The
factory already had its own lean manufacturing practices
which it complemented with an all-embracing vision of the
organisation, new manufacturing and information tech-
nologies and new approaches towards inter-firm coopera-
tion. It has thus attained strengths and competitive
advantages in quality, innovation, service and flexibility
that have led to greater success in the development and

introduction of new products and improvements in labour
productivity.
4.2. Agile manufacturing in 3M España
3M is a global company with a clear vocation for
innovation that has enabled it to become one of the most
diversified firms of our times. In Spain, the firm carries out
both commercial and production activities through several
production facilities. The most important of these, the
Rivas manufacturing complex, has been operating in
Madrid since 1958. Of special interest are the activities
developed by the 3M European Laboratory for Home
Products and the factory for home care and health
products that employs a total of 120 workers.
The home care and health products factory is a multi-
product factory, mainly based on the technology of the
‘‘Scotch Brite’’ abrasive fibre, which operates in a business
environment with a medium-low level of dynamism and a
high level of competition. It makes a wide variety of mostly
standard articles, although customisation is possible
through the incorporation of customer specifications in
the product design phase.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1161 1151
The production process basically comprises two phases.
The first, capital-intensive, manufactures the ‘‘Scotch
Brite’’ fibre. The second, labour-intensive, is made up of
a set of manufacturing cells operated by teams of workers
who are responsible for converting the fibre into the
different end products.

The firm’s manufacturing and research and development
areas play very relevant roles. Nevertheless, management
considers it essential that all the areas work together in an
integrated fashion in order to attain a sustainable
competitive advantage. The business strategy depends, to
a considerable degree, on innovation and manufacturing
capabilities but also on coordination amongst the com-
pany’s different areas.
Innovation is a key strategic factor in 3M and, with the
purchase of small innovative companies, one of the drivers of
3M’s growth. Its success has been identified with its ability to
develop a wide variety of totally new products based on a set
of technological platforms that range from adhesives to the
most recent advances in optic fibre, light manipulation,
pharmacology, cogeneration and nano-technology, including
the traditional abrasives and precision coverings. The 3M
top management has implemented various important in-
itiatives on a worldwide level in order to achieve the
following basic aims: (a) increase the number of innovations,
(b) improve the development of new products and their
introduction into the market and (c) improve rigour in new
product development. These initiatives not only reveal the
need to innovate in order to maintain the market position,
but also highlight the growing importance of competition
based on time as a basic element of agile manufacturing. The
fact that the Rivas plant (Madrid) has a laboratory that
performs research and development activities in house and in
daily contact with manufacturing is a factor that increases
speed, flexibility and efficiency in the design, development
and manufacturing process of new products.
In its Rivas factory in Madrid, 3M España carries out
other practices that increase its responsiveness to customer
needs and demands, including the following:

�
The development of an organisational model based on
process management that, in turn, is evolving into a
system of project management. This initiative aims to
tighten links amongst departments, encouraging coor-
dination in order to give a flexible and prompt response
to changing situations.
�
Initiatives or actions to facilitate and encourage internal
communication: ‘‘open doors’’ practices, training pro-
cedures to promote social skills, periodic meetings at all
levels to encourage the exchange of ideas and knowledge
and facilitate the sharing of best practices and informa-
tion throughout the organisation.
�
Development of a culture based on innovation and
market orientation as a means of satisfying new
customer needs.
�
The creation of various small, flexible, twin production
lines for concurrent and versatile manufacturing.
�
The creation of work cells operated by trained and

flexible employees, with greater responsibility and
control over the management of their own work than
in the past.
�
The location of storage areas near the production areas
that use or produce them together with decentralisation
of storage management to encourage more efficient
management and greater inventory control.
�
The application of a policy for outsourcing all non-core
activities so that the firm can focus on its distinctive
competencies. Outsourcing is increasingly important for
establishing an efficient and effective network of
suppliers and collaborators that are responsible for
non-essential activities, labour-intensive operational
activities or for products using technologies that 3M
either does not possess or does not wish to develop
internally.
�
The establishment of collaboration agreements, even
with direct or potential competitors, in order to gain
access to certain market segments or new market niches
in a quicker, more efficient and effective way than is

possible individually.
All these initiatives show the concern of the 3M España
management to increase the firm’s responsiveness to
changes in competitive conditions. Although from a
strategic perspective 3M España places considerable
emphasis on all the manufacturing objectives simulta-
neously (cost, flexibility, quality, delivery, innovation,
service and natural environment protection), it has
managed to attain greater strengths regarding quality,
innovation, natural environment protection and customer
service. These have enabled the plant to achieve better
financial and market results than the industry average, with
a positive evolution in its multiple performance indicators
over the last two years.
4.3. Agile manufacturing in John Deere Ibérica
John Deere Ibérica is the consolidated subsidiary of
John Deere in Spain and Portugal, belonging to its
agricultural business unit. The firm has a single production
plant in Madrid that manufactures agricultural machinery
components, mainly transmissions, and is the largest
supplier of such equipment in the national market.
The plant’s business environment is characterised by a
medium–high degree of dynamism and marked levels of
hostility and diversity. Of special importance are the high
demand seasonality and the need for product customisa-
tion. These competitive conditions require great manufac-
turing agility, which is an important determining factor for
the plant’s operations.
The production function plays a fundamental role in the
firm’s competitive strategy, in such a way that the
manufacturing capabilities provide it with important

advantages over its competitors. In recent years, the
company has downsized, encouraging the assimilation by
ARTICLE IN PRESS
11611152
manufacturing of functions such as marketing and product
quality control. This integration of manufacturing support
activities in the production area has enabled a greater level
of organisational alignment, reducing the traditional
departmental conflicts and eliminating certain operational
rigidities.
Apart from cost, quality and delivery are the main
manufacturing objectives. Others, such as flexibility,
service, innovation and natural environment protection,
are also considered important and complementary, with
flexibility and natural environment protection gaining in
importance.
The factory has implemented several initiatives to
increase agility including the following:
�
From an operational point of view, the factory has
undergone a process of vertical disintegration, giving up
the complete manufacture of tractors to focus on the
production of certain mechanical components (consid-
ered its core competencies) which, once completed, are
exported to other factories in the group to be
incorporated in end products. The plant currently
produces four different product lines: heavy transmis-
sion boxes, light transmission boxes, three-point con-
nections and axles and gears. Each unit is very much
customer-oriented, and this has not only conditioned

factory layout but has also largely determined product
design.
�
The factory now specialises in a small set of essential
competencies mainly relating to machining, welding and
painting of the mechanical components it manufactures.
This process has been accompanied by re-engineering
processes to eliminate all activities that do not add value
to the product and this has led the plant to become a
centre of manufacturing excellence for certain mechan-
ical components.
�
The new product development process is currently being
perfected to promote simultaneous or concurrent
operations. This has entailed more intensive relations
between the factory and customers and the increasingly
necessary incorporation of suppliers in the development
process. The most important results of this initiative can
be seen in the reduction of development times, better
adaptation of the product to specific customer needs and
improvement of product manufacturability.
�
With the aim of attaining greater levels of flexibility,

efforts are being made to reduce the machine set-up time
and employee versatility. Human resources are consid-
ered a key element of the factory’s agility and, in order
to strengthen their results, emphasis is placed on
training, empowerment and working-hour flexibility or
‘‘flexitime’’. Similarly, teamwork is a necessary element
for improving the firm’s responsiveness to variations in
medium and long-term market conditions, and models
that have already proved their effectiveness in other
plants are being used as a reference. For correct
implementation, it has been considered necessary to:
(a) broaden job responsibilities, (b) increase the versa-
tility, responsibility and decision-making capability of
workers, and (c) encourage self-management processes
amongst the teams and workers. Additionally, the
remuneration system is being perfected and adapted to
the new form of work organisation and, in parallel,
incentives are being created to motivate workers and
stimulate their concern for continuous improvement.
The change in management style from supervision/
control to guidance/motivation has been a critical
factor.
�
The factory has adapted its functional plant layout in
order to implement a cellular manufacturing model.
This change was considered necessary to attain success
in the manufacture of the wide variety of components
that make up its current product portfolio. The new type
of plant layout has facilitated rapid change in the range
of products to be manufactured.
�

A pull system has been implemented, based on a card or
kanban system in order to reduce the level of work in
process. These exist alongside an MRPII system that is
evolving towards more complete and integrating ERP,
which achieves greater control of resources and en-
courages the synchronisation of operations.
�
The continuous improvement in the factory is develop-
ing a culture of quality, and guarantee systems are being
implemented. These are based on the 5S philosophy and
have taken the form of a set of tools such as automatic
faulty part identification, random and surprise quality
audits and poka-joke systems or error analysis.
�
The integration of information systems amongst the
different factory areas and between the factory and the
rest of the company’s centres and their suppliers is an
increasingly necessary element for providing a correct
and prompt response to changing customer needs. New
information and communication technologies (electro-
nic data interchange or EDI, Intranet, WWW, shared
databases, etc.) are facilitating such integration.
�

Advanced design and manufacturing technologies also
play an important role in the factory’s path towards
agility. CAD/CAM, computer-aided planning processes
(CAPP), flexible manufacturing systems (FMS), robots
and computer numerical control (CNC) are important
tools for improving the factory’s responsiveness.
In an attempt to overcome the traditional trade-offs
amongst the different manufacturing objectives, the imple-
mentation of the above practices by the factory has enabled
it to attain advantages over its best competitor in quality,
flexibility and delivery. These advantages have mainly taken
the form of greater customer loyalty and greater success in
the development and introduction of new products.
4.4. Agile manufacturing in Airbus España
The Airbus consortium is a powerful, unified company,
involving the participation of BAE Systems and EADS,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1161 1153
whose customer orientation, technological leadership and
manufacturing efficiency have placed it in the lead of the
aeronautical industry worldwide. With sales of 19.5 billion
euros in 2002, Airbus secured half of all the worldwide
orders for commercial aircraft and is a prime example of
industrial cooperation.
The Airbus product line basically includes four families
of aircraft: the single-aisle A320, the wide-bodied A300/

A310, the long-haul A330/A340 and the new twin-deck
super jumbo A380. Airbus’s modular concept ensures that
all its craft share the greatest possible number of common
elements. This provides key advantages for production
centres and users, while significantly lowering costs.
The total manufacturing process of each model requires
approximately one year. Engineering and manufacturing
are coordinated centrally but are carried out by physically
separated teams in different production centres. Each of
these centres produces a complete section of the plane that
is transported to the Airbus final assembly lines in
Toulouse and Hamburg. Wings are manufactured in Great
Britain, some parts of the body in Hamburg or Bremen
(Germany), the cabin, in Toulouse, Nantes or Saint-
Nazaire (France), and the tail in Spain. The Airbus aircraft
are thus the result of a joint effort by a network of
operational centres in France, Germany, Spain and the
United Kingdom. This unique industrial concept, based on
‘‘centres of competence’’, has proved to be extremely
efficient.
The Airbus España factory in Getafe (Madrid), which
has been operating for 75 years and employs around 3000
workers, is one of these centres of excellence, carrying out
all the tasks related to the manufacture of certain airplane
components—research, development, material selection,
testing, certification and manufacture. This factory is
virtually and operatively integrated with two plants in
other locations in Spain (Illescas and Puerto Real). The
Getafe plant first produces module prototypes that, after
certification, are then produced in a system requiring
highly skilled workers. The Illescas plant manufactures the
same modules as Getafe, but with a greater level of
automation, and the Puerto Real plant carries out final
assembly of the components and functional and fuel tests,

after which the components are sent to Toulouse.
The company’s business environment is very dynamic
with a medium–high level of hostility and diversity. A set of
practices have been adopted to encourage flexible, quick
and efficient reactions to the environment, including the
following:
�
The plant has focused on the manufacture of compo-
nents involving a high level of technological risk that
add significant value to the product and create a
competitive edge. It outsources the production of low-
technology and low-value activities (painting, interior
wiring of some subsets, etc.). This has enabled the
factory to attain greater levels of agility, becoming
consolidated as a centre of excellence with specific
knowledge (especially on composites) and extensive
know-how in aspects of design and development.
�
The factory has established collaboration agreements
with other manufacturers in the aerospace industry for
the supply of special components and has reached
notable levels of operational integration. An example of
this can be seen in the agreement signed with Gamesa
Aeronáutica for the provision of metallic fuselage
structures for the new A380. This covers participation,
from the initial stages of development, by Gamesa
Aeronáutica, which not only contributes its physical
resources and engineering knowledge but also shares
any risks.

�
The high security standards required of aeronautical
components has led the factory to stress quality. It has a
quality control department but, in order to avoid defects
at origin, the workers carry out quality control in all the
processes. Similarly, for solving problems, the plant uses
multi-functional teams made up of workers from
different departments (engineering, production, quality,
materials) coordinated by the production control area.
�
The attempts to improve flexibility have mainly been
applied in two areas—people and manufacturing tools.
Multi-function teamwork has been established as an
integral part of the firm’s culture, allowing highly
trained and qualified workers to take decisions on their
tasks, using advanced technological tools and having
access to extensive information regarding the firm’s
objectives and strategies. Also, specific flexibilisation
programmes are being applied to achieve more versatile
manufacturing tools. Some of these, which formerly
were used for a single part, are now used to manufacture
as many as 18 different parts. At a parallel level,
sophisticated systems such as the Flexible System for
Securing Pieces in Space, have been introduced to allow
all the equipment to work in an integrated fashion,
avoiding the need to design, construct, store and
maintain tools for each piece.
�

Integration and concurrence in design, development and
manufacturing operations are considered particularly
relevant in all the Airbus centres and are important
factors for competitive success, being applied both at the
local level (within each operational centre) and globally
(between centres, customers and suppliers). At the
global level, integration and concurrence are attained
through ACE (Airbus Concurrent Engineering) methods
and procedures. ACE offers on-line collaboration for
development that extends from the customer to the
supply chain. Sharing data on-line leads to more
effective working practices, shorter development times
and verification from a very early stage, ensuring that
the product functions according to plan and can be
manufactured and assembled without difficulty. At the
local level, the Getafe factory applies a simultaneous
working model both for the design phase and the
manufacturing phase in which design, development and
production engineers participate together with suppliers
ARTICLE IN PRESS
11611154
and internal customers. Prototype development activ-
ities have been integrated in the production facilities,
encouraging interaction between design and develop-
ment engineers and production staff. This policy differs
from that followed by competitors such as Boeing,
which has duplicated factories for the development of
prototypes. It encourages speed in producing the
prototype, improving manufacturability, and promoting

knowledge transfer and enrichment.
�
Great importance has been placed on advanced design
technologies (CAD, CAM, CAPP) and integrated
information systems and technologies (MRP II, ERP,
EDI, Internet) to facilitate the coordination of semi-
independent units in a network structure that permits
participation by both customers and suppliers.
The Airbus España factory in Getafe (Madrid) has
followed a strategy that focuses on its essential compe-
tencies. It has therefore adopted outsourcing and colla-
boration agreements and has opted for a work structure in
a highly integrated network based on information tech-
nologies, the application of organisational structures and
management systems that enable organic, concurrent and
virtual work. This has led to an above-average position
within its industry regarding quality and delivery, with
increasingly successful introduction of new products.
5. Comparative analysis of the four plants
Tables 1 and 2 compare the four factories in relation to
(1) their main general characteristics—production activity,
age of the plant, number of workers, trade union activity,
production process and layout, volume of production and
type of product, characteristics of the business environment
and need for agility, organisational structure, manufactur-
ing objectives and priorities and principles of the produc-
tion system and (2) the agility practices implemented—
human resources, design and manufacturing technologies,
administrative systems and technologies, integration and

coordination of the value chain, knowledge and informa-
tion management, cooperation agreements and strategic
alliances and organisation for new product design and
development.
The factories studied present important differences
regarding the production activity performed, the type of
product obtained, the type of production process or
technology used, the number of workers and the business
environment in which they work but they share some
common features in their move towards agility.
Frequently, the decision to implement practices favour-
ing agility is affected by the management vision and
perception regarding new market forces and reveals a
proactive (rather than a reactive) attitude by the manage-
ment.
In all four plants, important efforts are being made to
integrate practices leading to manufacturing agility. The
agile manufacturing model is thus considered viable for
any factory, regardless of its position in the product–pro-
cess matrix.
In the cases studied, great importance is given to the
production area (and consequently to the factory) for
attaining a competitive advantage for the firm. Similarly,
great emphasis is placed on achieving several manufactur-
ing objectives simultaneously.
A large number of principles, practices and techniques
have been implemented in the plants that were traditionally
considered characteristic of so-called lean production, such
as the continuous improvement philosophy, waste elimina-
tion, just in time purchasing or quality function deploy-
ment.

Customer orientation was also observed, with produc-
tion systems that encourage product customisation. This
growing importance of customisation has encouraged the
implementation of advanced design and manufacturing
technologies with a high potential for meeting individual
customer needs.
The factories are all aiming to streamline their organisa-
tional structures by reducing their hierarchical levels,
emphasising the employee training and motivation pro-
cesses and applying teamwork with a trend towards
versatility. Similarly, the factories are equipped with
information and communication technologies and systems
to facilitate and speed up decision-making.
All four plants focus on the activities considered
essential to provide the business with distinctive compe-
tencies, outsourcing non-essential activities or reaching
cooperation agreements with other firms.
6. Development of a conceptual model on agile
manufacturing
Based on the literature review and on the results
obtained from the case studies, a conceptual model has
been drawn up for the implementation of agile manufac-
turing (Fig. 1) and is proposed for future empirical testing
in wide samples of firms. It describes the relations between
the business environment, the agile manufacturing system,
manufacturing strengths and the firm’s performance.
Specific comments on the main elements of the conceptual
model are presented in the following sections.
6.1. Environment

The importance of the environment has been stressed
repeatedly as a determining factor not only for organisa-
tional performance, but also for strategies. Environmental
characteristics have implications for almost all aspects of
organisational management so have become a fundamental
part of organisational theories, including population
ecology, the contingency theory or resource dependency
(Boyd et al., 1993). However, the links between operational
strategy and the environmental factors that affect it have
been studied much less than those between operational
strategy and business performance (Ward et al., 1995).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Comparative analysis of the case studies: general characteristics
OPEL ESPAÑA 3M ESPAÑA JOHN DEERE IBÉRICA AIRBUS
ESPAÑA
Production activity Car manufacture Manufacture of home care
and health products
Manufacture of axles and
gears, transmission boxes
and three-point
connections for agricultural

machinery
Manufacture of aircraft
components (mainly the
tail)
Age of the plant 24 years 45 years 50 years 75 years
No. of workers 8,200 120 700 3,000
Level of trade unionisation and
importance
High Low High High
Type of production process and
layout
Flow line Flow line Batch flow with cellular
layout
Variable flow with
functional layout
Volume and type of product High volume of various
standardised products with
customised options based on

modular components
combined in the assembly
phase
Manufacture of medium-
size batches of a variety of
mainly standardised
products with the
possibility of customisation
by the client in the design
phase
Manufacture of medium-
size batches of a variety of
products totally adapted to
the specifications
established by the customer
in the design stage
Low volume of products
manufactured in small

batches based on totally
customised prototypes
Characteristics of business
environment and need for agility
Medium levels of dynamism
and diversity
Low dynamism, high
hostility and diversity
Medium-high degree of
dynamism and notable
levels of hostility and
diversity
Very high level of
dynamism, hostility and
diversity
High degree of hostility due to
fierce international
competition

Demands for product
customisation require
greater agility
Clear need for agility Clear need for agility
Growing need for agility,
limited by the demands of
productivity
Organisational structure Formally functional Mainly market
focused in
order to improve processes
Mainly functional although
at the factory level there is
notable customer
orientation through
product divisions.
Normally functional but
integrated through
concurrent work systemsOrganic
In process of

reorganisation in order to
lower the number of
hierarchical levels
Manufacturing objectives or
competitive priorities
Main objectives: quality, cost
and service
Innovation is the main
corporative objective
Main objectives: quality,
cost and delivery
Main objectives: quality
and delivery
In manufacturing, quality
and cost are considered
‘‘qualified criteria’’ whereas
delivery and service are
‘‘order-winning criteria’’

Need for improving delivery
and flexibility
Flexibility is increasingly
important and natural
environment protection is
considered necessary
Flexibility is also becoming
a basic aim
Need for cost reduction
Growing importance of the
natural environment
protection
Growing concern for
natural environment
protection aspects
Growing importance of
flexibility
Bases and principles of production

system
Standardisation of activities
and processes
Change from one
production line to various
smaller flexible twin lines
Product-focused multi-
product factory
Production by project
Total quality management Plant distribution based on
U-shaped manufacturing
cells
Focus on distinctive
competencies
Focus on distinctive
competenciesContinuous improvement
1161 1155

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1 (continued )
OPEL ESPAÑA 3M ESPAÑA JOHN DEERE IBÉRICA AIRBUS
ESPAÑA
Importance of the human
factor in a capital-intensive
system. JIT stocking systems
Integrated management
model of the best
manufacturing practices
Change from functional
distribution to a system
based on manufacturing
cells and customer-oriented
plant distribution
Physical and virtual
integration between
engineering, development

and production
Continuous improvement.
JIT system with kanban of
materials
Process reengineering.
Total Quality Management
(5S, error systems, etc.)
11611156
Consideration of environmental factors and their effect on
the manufacturing strategy is fundamental because adapta-
tion between the environment and the firm’s resources and
capabilities is increasingly necessary.
Researchers have defined the environment as a set of
contextual elements beyond management control—at least
in the short term—that present both opportunities and
threats (Emery and Trist, 1965; Bourgeois, 1980, 1985) and
are causally related to the results obtained by the
organisation (Duncan, 1972; Swamidass and Newell,
1987; Ward et al., 1995). In fact, almost three decades of
empirical research support the theory that successful
organisations are the ones that adapt best to their
environment, leading to the conclusion that organisational
results are directly correlated to the organisation’s ability
to adapt to its environment. Agility has been considered as
a key to success in turbulent environments (Goldman et al.,
1995; Cho et al., 1996).

Considerable confusion surrounds environmental turbu-
lence. Some works identify turbulence with dynamism in
the environment, without specifying whether this is due to
changing composition or preferences of players in the
environment. Others, however, consider this to be a multi-
dimensional construct that embraces many elements of the
environment, and sometimes define turbulence in terms of
market growth.
The turbulent environment can be considered almost the
‘‘worst of possible situations’’ for organisational survival.
Firms that operate successfully in turbulent environments
should therefore exhibit high levels of agility because they
need to adapt effectively to: (a) highly populated and
competitive markets with one or more critical and scarce
resource (high hostility or low munificence) and (b)
relatively unpredictable changes in the environment (high
dynamism or uncertainty). Not only must these conditions
exist, but also the management has to perceive them as
such. It can be assumed that firms competing in environ-
ments with the above-mentioned characteristics must
develop greater levels of manufacturing agility in order to
achieve success.
Despite the fact that the adoption of practices linked to
the new manufacturing paradigm is also affected by
proactive decisions taken by the management, the cases
analysed show that, as a source of change and generator of
uncertainty, the business environment can be considered
the main motivator or driver of agile manufacturing. The
following hypothesis is therefore proposed for research:
companies wanting to perform successfully in turbulent
environments—which present high levels of dynamism and

hostility—need to develop an agile manufacturing system.
6.2. Agile manufacturing system
Firms should implement the agility enablers that are
most suitable for their specific situation, reviewing their
strategies, objectives, practices, methods and/or tools.
Integration of three key elements—people, technologies
and processes in the organisation—should be encouraged.
Agility refers to a firm’s ability for quickly linking up its
technology, employees and management through an
information and communication infrastructure to provide
a deliberate, effective and coordinated response to con-
sumer demands in a customer-driven environment of
continuous and unpredictable change (Amos, 1996).
Therefore, agile manufacturing is identified with systematic
integration of a flexible approach to inter-firm cooperation
and the development of creative skills amongst manage-
ment and the workforce based on new advanced technol-
ogies and worker capabilities to generate a highly adapted,
competitive and innovative organisation. It can therefore
be achieved through the integration of practices in the
following fields: (1) human resources, (2) information
technologies and systems, (3) internal organisation and
external relations, including the use of mechanisms for
integrating and coordinating the value chain (4) the
development of new products and/or processes, and (5)
knowledge management and learning. The following
hypothesis is presented to be empirically tested: the
development of an agile manufacturing system is reflected
in the systematic integration of highly trained, motivated and
empowered employees working in teams, advanced design,
manufacturing and administrative technologies, the integra-

tion of the value chain, concurrent engineering and knowl-
edge management.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Comparative analysis of case studies: agility practices
OPEL ESPAÑA 3M ESPAÑA JOHN DEERE
IBÉRICA
AIRBUS ESPAÑA
Human resources practices Teamwork as an integral part
of the company culture
People are the key to the
system and innovation
Adoption of teamwork People are the key to the
system and innovation
Taylorist design of jobs
(short operation cycles,
specialisation and high

repetition)
Training for versatility
Need for irregular
distribution of the working
hours to adapt to demand
fluctuations
Decentralisation of decision-
making (empowerment) and
reduction in number of
professional categories
Wide set of practices for
increasing training,
motivation and
participation of
employees
Increase in training,
motivation and power of
workers

Teamwork as an integral
part of the company
culture
Search for versatility and
flexibility through
repeated use of temporary
staff
Considerable
decentralisation in
decision-making
Work teams with self-
management ability
Considerable
decentralisation of
decision-making
Renovation of staff Broadening of
responsibility and
decision-making

Work teams with ability
for self-management
Widening of
responsibility and
decision-making capacity
Design and manufacturing
technologies
High application: Computer
Aided Design (CAD),
Computer Aided Engineering
(CAE)
Extensive use of advanced
design technologies
Computer Aided Design
and Engineering not
connected to
manufacturing
Critical application of

advanced design
technologies: Computer
Aided Design (CAD),
Computer Aided
Engineering (CAE),
Computer Aided
Planning Processes
(CAPP)
Critical use of flexible
manufacturing cells
Computer Numerical
Control (CNC)
Growing use of Flexible
Manufacturing Systems
(FMS)
Computer Aided Process
Planning (CAPP)
Relatively low use of

advanced manufacturing
technologies (with the
exception of flexible
manufacturing cells)
High intensity of Computer
Aided Manufacturing
(CAM), the use of robots
and Flexible Manufacturing
Systems (FMS) and cells
Plans to incorporate
greater automation
Administrative systems and
technologies
Importance of planning
systems (MRP II, ERP), and
extended use of
communication technologies
(Intranet, extranet, e-mail,

EDI, etc.) both internally
and with suppliers
Moving from a process
management system to a
project management
system based on the six-
sigma methodology
Use of administrative
technologies for the
integration and
coordination of processes
(EDI, www, e-mail, etc.)
Essential for integration
and agility
Importance of planning
systems (MRP II, ERP)
and extended use of
communication

technologies (Intranet,
extranet, e-mail, EDI,
etc.) both internally and
with suppliers and
(internal) customers
1161 1157
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2 (continued )
OPEL ESPAÑA 3M ESPAÑA JOHN DEERE
IBÉRICA
AIRBUS ESPAÑA
Importance of the
planning systems (MRP
II, ERP), and extended
use of communication
technologies (Intranet,

extranet, e-mail, EDI,
etc.) both internally and
with suppliers and
customers
Evolution of MRP II
towards ERP
Costs systems based on
ABC activities
management
Supply chain coordination and
integration
High physical and virtual
integration of the value chain
High integration of value
chain through integrated
management of the
operations of participants
High level of integration

of the value chain
through information
technologies, particularly
with customers
Virtual integration of the
value chain thanks to new
information and
communication
technologies
Physical proximity of key
workers motivated by the JIT
system and integration
within the factory itself for
direct work on the assembly
line
Computerised order
system integrating factory
activities with those of

certain customers
Need for improvement of
interdepartmental
integration
Integration of suppliers
and (internal) customers
High level of
interdepartmental
cooperation
Cooperation and integrated
relations with customers
(dealers)
Knowledge and information
management
Wide recognition of a need
for correct knowledge
management although
without an explicit strategy

Wide recognition of the
need for correct
knowledge management,
with an explicit strategy
and suitable mechanisms
Absence of suitable
systems of knowledge
management
Broad recognition of the
need for correct
knowledge management
Moderate use of knowledge
management systems
Formal use of knowledge
management systems
based on new
technologies and suitable
organisational structuresConsiderable use of

systems. Importance of
for innovative activities
Cooperation agreements and
strategic alliances
Growing formation of
temporary alliances (even
with competitors) to share
resources or information and
to jointly take up specific
market opportunities that
would not be accessible
individually
Growing importance of
outsourcing and the
development of networks
of collaborators

Scarce development at the
factory level limited by
production specialisation
Strategic alliances in
design and manufacture
Extensive use of
temporary alliances (even
with competitors) to share
resources or information
and to jointly take up
specific market
opportunities that would
not be accessible
individually
Advanced or cooperative
subcontracting
(comakership)
Organisation for new product

design and development
Virtual organisation
Simultaneous or concurrent
engineering
Simultaneous or
concurrent engineering
Importance of locating
the R&D laboratory
inside the factory itself
Critical effect of
simultaneous engineering
through EPDP
(Enterprise Product
Delivery Process)
Critical effect of
simultaneous engineering
through ACE (Airbus
Concurrent Engineering)

Virtual Organisation
11611158
6.3. Agility results
A firm’s agility is identified with its ability to survive and
prosper in a competitive environment that undergoes
continuous and unpredictable changes (Cho et al., 1996;
Dove, 2001). It refers not only to flexibility and respon-
siveness, but also the cost and quality of the products and
services required by consumers (Gunasekaran and Yusuf,
2002). As observed in the factories analysed, agile
manufacturing goes beyond flexibility and combines this
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of agile manufacturing.
1161 1159
with quality, costs, reliability and speed of deliveries and
customer service. Therefore, being an agile manufacturer
implies being flexible while offering products of high
quality, at a low cost, with superior service and better
delivery conditions. The following research hypotheses can
be established: (a) the application of an agile manufacturing
system positively affects the development of a manufacturing
strength through the development of abilities in the different
manufacturing objectives or competitive priorities, that is, by
combining strength in costs, flexibility, quality, delivery and

service; and (b) the development of a manufacturing
strength positively affects business performance and there-
fore affords greater competitiveness in turbulent environ-
ments.
7. Conclusions
This study identifies what are considered to be the main
elements of the agile manufacturing model: motivators,
enablers or pillars and results. An in-depth analysis of this
new production model was carried out in four production
plants belonging to multinational companies in Spain:
Opel, 3M, John Deere and Airbus. This analysis identified
the most relevant factors for replacing traditional manu-
facturing systems with agility production practices. All the
attempts at improving agility in the factories focused
on four main areas: strategies, technologies, organisation
and human resources. Correct integration of all of these
reveals the essence of the agile manufacturing model and
becomes the most important challenge for management
this century.
The study also reveals a series of conclusions that are of
great interest for the agility paradigm.
Changes in the business environment have forced the
firms analysed to use certain practices or tools linked to
agile manufacturing in order to maintain their competitive
advantage. Each of them, regardless of the product
manufactured and the production process used, reacted
to the changes following similar patterns for implementing
and integrating the practices necessary for the new business
environments.

Lean production, or at least many of its principles (just in
time purchasing, continuous improvement, application of
the quality function, waste elimination, etc.), forms the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
11611160
basis of agile manufacturing. This appears to reinforce the
idea expressed by some authors (Kidd, 1994; Booth, 1996;
Jin-Hai et al., 2003) that agile manufacturing has arrived as
an evolutionary form of manufacturing system because it
synthesises and incorporates many prior approaches.
Nevertheless, it also presents revolutionary aspects with
the addition of new management practices, organisational
structures and advanced design, manufacturing and
administrative technologies that enable factories to deal
with a competitive environment of continuous and
unpredictable change.
The type of product and production process can limit
certain strategic alternatives for agile manufacturing,
especially those relating to manufacturing technologies.
However, this does not eliminate the possibility of
implementing the agile manufacturing model that, in this
case, would emphasise the infrastructural practices that are
most closely related to the human factor and organisation
and management systems. The agile manufacturing model
thus proves to be viable for firms that use different
production processes.
The search for agility resolves the incompatibilities or
trade-offs among the different manufacturing objectives or
competitive priorities, and establishes a clear strategic

vision of the aims pursued by the organisation. It also
motivates factories to focus on their distinctive or core
competencies, outsourcing any non-essential activities.
Cooperation is seen to offer enormous strategic possibi-
lities.
Agile manufacturing motivates factories to be customer-
oriented, with the adoption of made-to-order production
based on pull systems and process management. These
require concurrent engineering processes, which can
represent the nexus between technology, the organisation
and the desired strategy.
The search for higher levels of agility requires less
hierarchical and more organic organisational structures in
which middle managers play an essential role alongside a
trained and highly motivated workforce organised in
teams.
Advanced design, manufacturing and administrative
technologies may be crucial for attaining agility if used
with strategic aims and accompanied by the development
of suitable human resources practices. Similarly, informa-
tion and communication technologies and systems prove to
be crucial for integrating operations throughout the value
chain, this being another of the essential factors of the agile
manufacturing model.
Finally, the cases selected cannot be considered repre-
sentative of production plants in Spain, so the results of the
research should be treated with caution. Nevertheless,
given its exploratory aim, the study has led to general
conclusions enabling us to establish general hypotheses.
These are proposed as a guide for future research into agile
manufacturing. Case study methodology was seen to be
suitable for exploratory analysis on new production models

in Operations Management.
Acknowledgements
This work was financed by the Spanish Ministerio de
Ciencia y Tecnologı́a (SEC2003-05238).
References
Amos, J.W., 1996. Transformation to agility. Thesis Doctoral,
University
of Texas at Austin, December.
Barnes, D., 2001. Research methods for the empirical
investigation of the
process of formation of operations strategy. International
Journal of
Operations and Production Management 21 (8), 1076–1095.
Bartezzaghi, E., 1999. The evolution of production models: is a
new
paradigm emerging? International Journal of Operations and
Produc-
tion Management 19 (2), 229–250.
Booth, R., 1996. Agile manufacturing. Engineering Management
Journal
6 (2), 105–112.
Bourgeois, L.J., 1980. Strategy and environment: a conceptual
integration.

Academy of Management Review 5 (1), 25–39.
Bourgeois, L.J., 1985. Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty,
and
economic performance in volatile environments. Academy of
Manage-
ment Journal 28 (3), 548–573.
Boyd, B.K., Dess, G.G., Rasheed, A., 1993. Divergence between
archival
and perceptual measures of the environment: causes and
consequences.
Burgess, T.F., 1994. Making the leap of agility: defining and
achieving
agile manufacturing through business process redesign and
business
network redesign. International Journal of Operations and
Production
Management 14 (11), 23–34.
Cho, H., Jung, M., Kim, M., 1996. Enabling technologies of
agile
manufacturing and its related activities in Korea. Computers
and
Industrial Engineering 30 (3), 323–334.

Coronado, A.E., Sarhadi, M., Millar, C., 2002. Defining a
framework for
information systems requirements for agile manufacturing.
Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 75, 57–68.
Dove, R., 2001. Response Ability: The Language, Structure, and
Culture
of the Agile Enterprise. Wiley, New York.
Duncan, R.B., 1972. Characteristics of organizational
environments and
perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science
Quar-
terly 17, 313–327.
Ebert, R., 1991. Statement on empirical/field-based
methodologies in
JOM. Journal of Operations Management 10 (1), 177–179.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study
research.
Emery, F.E., Trist, E.L., 1965. The causal texture of
organizational
environment. Human Relations 18 (1), 21–32.

Esmail, K., Saggu, J., 1996. A changing paradigm.
Manufacturing
Engineer December, 285–288.
Fliedner, G., Vokurka, R.J., 1997. Agility: competitive weapon
of the
1990s and beyond? Production and Inventory Management
Journal
Third quarter, 19–24.
Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N., 1991. 21st Century Manufacturing
Enterprise Strategy: An Industry-Led View. Iacocca Institute,
Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA.
Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N., 1993. Management, technology and
agility:
the emergence of a new era in manufacturing. International
Journal of
Technology Management 8 (1/2), 18–38.
Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N., Preiss, K., 1995. Agile
Competitors and
Virtual Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer.
Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Goranson, H.T., 1999. The Agile Virtual Enterprise. Cases,
Metrics,
Tools, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Gunasekaran, A., 1998. Agile manufacturing: enablers and an
implemen-
tation framework. International Journal of Production Research
36
(5), 1223–1247.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1161 1161
Gunasekaran, A., 1999. Agile manufacturing: a framework for
research
and development. International Journal of Production
Economics 62,
87–105.
Gunasekaran, A., Yusuf, Y., 2002. Agile manufacturing: a
taxonomy of
strategic and technological imperatives. International Journal of
Production Research 40 (6), 1357–1385.
Gunasekaran, A., Mc Gaughey, R., Wolstencroft, V., 2001.
Agile

manufacturing: concepts and framework. In: Gunasekaran, A.
(Ed.),
Agile Manufacturing: The 21st Century Competitive Strategy.
Else-
vier, Oxford, pp. 25–49.
Gunasekaran, A., Tirtiroglu, E., Wolstencroft, V., 2002. An
investigation
into the application of agile manufacturing in an aerospace
company.
Technovation 22, 405–415.
Jain, N.K., Jain, V.K., 2001. Computer aided process planning
form agile
manufacturing environment. In: Gunasekaran, A. (Ed.), Agile
Manufacturing: The 21st Century Competitive Strategy.
Elsevier,
Oxford, pp. 515–534.
Jin-Hai, L., Anderson, A., Harrison, R., 2003. The evolution of
agile
manufacturing. Business Process Management Journal 9 (2),
170–189.
Kidd, P.T., 1994. Agile Manufacturing, Forging New Frontiers.
Addison

Wesley, London.
McCutcheon, D.M., Meredith, J.R., 1993. Conducting case
research in
operations management. Journal of Operations Management 11,
239–256.
Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., 1999. Analyzing organizational project
alter-
natives for agile manufacturing processes: an analytical network
approach. International Journal of Production Research 37 (2),
241–261.
Meredith, J., Samson, D., 2001. Call for papers: special issue of
journal of
operations management on case study and field research.
Journal of
Operations Management 19 (1), 117–118.
Meredith, J., Raturi, A., Kaplan, B., Amoako-Gyampah, K.,
1989.
Alternative research paradigms for operations. Journal of
Operations
Management 8 (4), 297–326.
Montgomery, J.C., Levine, L.O., 1996. The Transition to Agile

Manufacturing: Staying Flexible for Competitive Advantage.
ASQC
Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Roth, A.V., 1996. Neo-operations strategy. Linking capabilities-
based
competition to technology. In: Gaynor, G.H. (Ed.), Handbook of
Technology Management. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 38.1–
38.44.
Samson, D., Terziovski, M., 1999. The relationship between
total quality
management practices and operational performance. Journal of
Operations Management 17 (4), 393–410.
Sharifi, H., Zhang, Z., 1999. A methodology for achieving
agility in
manufacturing organisations: an introduction. International
Journal
of Production Economics 62, 7–22.
Sharifi, H., Zhang, Z., 2001. Agile manufacturing in practice:
application
of a methodology. International Journal of Operations and
Production
Management 21 (5/6), 722–794.

Sharp, J.M., Irani, Z., Desai, S., 1999. Working towards agile
manufacturing in the UK industry. International Journal of
Produc-
tion Economics 62, 155–169.
Sheridan, J.H., 1993. Agile manufacturing: stepping beyond
lean
production. Industry Week 242 (8), 30–46.
Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R.,
Samson, D.,
2002. Effective case research in operations management: a
process
perspective. Journal of Operations Management 20, 419–433.
Swamidass, P.M., Newell, W.T., 1987. Manufacturing strategy,
environ-
mental uncertainty and performance: a path analytic model.
Manage-
ment Science 33 (4), 509–524.
Vázquez-Bustelo, D., Avella, L., 2004. Agile manufacturing: a
case study
in Spanish industry. 2004 Euroma Conference Proceedings.
Fontaine-
bleau, Paris, 27–30 June.
Ward, P.T., Duray, R., Leong, G.K., Sum, C., 1995. Business

environ-
ment, operations strategy and performance: an empirical study
of
Singapore manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management
13,
99–115.
Yin, R.K., 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Sage,
London.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Sahardi, M., Gunasekaran, A., 1999. Agile
manufacturing:
the drivers, concepts and attributes. International Journal of
Produc-
tion Economics 62, 33–43.
Daniel Vázquez-Bustelo is Assistant
Professor of Business Administration/
Operations Management in the Depart-
ment of Business Administration at the
University of Oviedo (Spain). He has a
Ph.D. in Business Administration from
the University of Oviedo and teaches

courses in Operations Management and
Organisational Design and Analysis.
His research interests are in areas of
manufacturing strategy, organisational design, new product
development and supply chain management. Current research
activities include projects on agile manufacturing, concurrent
engineering and mass customisation.
Lucı́a Avella is Associate Professor of
Business Administration at the Univer-
sity of Oviedo (Spain). Her research is
mainly focused on the area of opera-
tions strategy: just in time production,
agile manufacturing, new product devel-
opment, supply chain management and
teamwork. She has co-authored a book
(Estrategia de Producción, McGraw-
Hill, Madrid, 2003) and several articles
in refereed journals, including International Journal of
Production

Research, Omega. International Journal of Management Science,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Journal of Production Economics, European Journal of
Innovation
Management and International Journal of Manufacturing Tech-
nology and Management.
Agile manufacturing: Industrial case studies in
SpainIntroductionAgile manufacturing: theoretical
backgroundResearch methodology: case studiesMain
characteristics of agile manufacturing in the cases studiedAgile
manufacturing in Opel EspañaAgile manufacturing in 3M
EspañaAgile manufacturing in John Deere IbéricaAgile
manufacturing in Airbus EspañaComparative analysis of the
four plantsDevelopment of a conceptual model on agile
manufacturingEnvironmentAgile manufacturing systemAgility
resultsConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences

ARTICLE IN PRESS0166-4972$ - sedoi10.1016j.teC.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ARTICLE IN PRESS0166-4972$ - sedoi10.1016j.teC.docx

Similar to ARTICLE IN PRESS0166-4972$ - sedoi10.1016j.teC.docx (20)

More from festockton

More from festockton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ARTICLE IN PRESS0166-4972$ - sedoi10.1016j.teC.docx