Int. J.

Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing

organisations:
An introduction
H. Shari"*, Z. Zhang
Manufacturing Engineering and Industrial Management, Department of Engineering, The University of Liverpool, P.O. Box 147,
Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

Abstract
As we are approaching the 21st century, manufacturing success and survival are becoming more and more di$cult to
ensure. This fact is rooted in the emergence of a new business era that has `changea as one of its major characteristics.
This critical situation has led to a major revision in the business priorities, strategic vision, and viability of conventional
and even relatively contemporary models and methods developed so far. The emphasis is now on adaptability to change
in the business environment and a proactive way of approaching to market and customer needs through newly evolved
cooperation methods such as virtual organisation. The emerging paradigm is agile manufacturing, which in concept is
a step forward in generation of new means for better performance and success of business, and in practice is a strategic
approach to manufacturing, considering the new conditions of the business environment. Responding to changes, and
taking advantage of them through strategic utilisation of managerial and manufacturing methods and tools, are the
pivotal concepts of agile manufacturing. This paper discusses the concepts and the development of a methodology to
achieve agility based on them. An introduction to the subject is given followed by a detailed discussion of the proposed
methodology. In addition an empirical study is carried out to support and validate the proposed methodology. Some
preliminary results of this study are reported as well.  1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Agile manufacturing; Agility drivers; Agility capabilities; Change; Responsiveness

1. Introduction concept of entrepreneurial task as the search for

change, response to change, and exploiting change
Change in business environment and uncertainty as an opportunity.
have entered management studies and research for As Hayen [3] believes, there is nothing new
a long time. Thompson [1] argued that one of the about change. Turbulent times and uncertainty in
most important tasks for organisations is to the business environment have been recognised as
manage uncertainties. Drucker [2] described the the cause of most failures in manufacturing indus-
try [4]. Fast and dramatic changes in technology,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 0151 794 4776; fax: 0151 794 especially in the "eld of electronics, were the core
4693; e-mail: h.shari"@liv.ac.uk. concerns in late 1960s and during 1970s, which then

0925-5273/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 2 1 7 - 5
8 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

extended to other aspects of scale and scope of trial competition. These are known to be: the
business economy in the past two decades. These emergence of intense international competition; the
aspects include market, competition, customer re- creation of fragmented markets populated by de-
quirements, social factors, etc., that have been sub- manding, sophisticated customers; and diverse
ject to relentless and overwhelming changes. Such change in transforming technology. They believe
changes, which had already resulted in frequent that the role of new products goes well beyond
evolution of business systems and the creation of fascination it used to evoke, and has become a focal
new manufacturing and management philosophies, point of industrial competition. Another outstand-
are shown to be occurring faster and more unex- ing e!ort that was conducted by a group from
pectedly in recent years than ever. The perceived Iacocca Institute in USA resulted in a report in
radical trend of change has made ground for some 1991 [6]. The report that soon became a focal point
new suggestions about the emergence of a new of manufacturing system studies, stated that a new
business era beyond the traditional systems such as competitive environment is emerging which is act-
mass production or even lean production. ing as a driving force for change in manufacturing.
Competition basis, which used to be the prod- It argues that the new foundations of the competi-
uct's price, has moved to quality, delivery time, and tion criteria are: continuous change, rapid
"nally customer choice or in a more exact way, response, quality improvement, and social respons-
customer satisfaction. The prevailing strategy of ibility. The research that was pursued under Agility
economy of scales has been challenged by the new Forum in Bethelham University, then introduced
vision of economy of scope. Mass production drivers of manufacturing business towards the new
systems are being seriously questioned for their form of competition, and called this new concept
viability in challenging the changing nature of the agile manufacturing. These drivers are competition,
business environment. The new methods that have fragmentation of mass market, cooperative produc-
been used to cure the problems in productivity of tion relationship, evolving customer expectations,
traditional systems, such as #exible manufacturing and increasing social pressures.
and lean manufacturing and all techniques and These works have been supported by a number
tools associated to them, are found insu$cient in of studies that addressed the subject of change and
the way they have been managed and utilised. the methods to cope with chaos and uncertainty.
From late 1980s into 1990s, and following Davis [7] has stressed that the biggest problem for
widespread economic and political changes over executive today is change } responding to external
the world, a great amount of e!orts have been and managing internal changes. Authors such as
directed to understand the roots and causes of the Clemson [8], Graves [9] and Hall [10] have talked
new orders in the world business. USA "rst led the about the desirability and di$culty of handling
movement as they felt a substantial loss in the changes. Drucker [11] has outlined that dramatic
world share of business, especially in manufactur- advances in technology has also changed the way
ing industry where they were confronted by new people work, and made modern types of enterprise
rivals from Asia and Europe. It then became the possible. Hayen [3] has seen the challenge of
concern of Europe as well, as they did not see change to emerge due to technological turbulence,
themselves "t into the new order of business, espe- the all-pervasive nature of microelectronics, the
cially considering the vast foreseen change over the trend towards globalisation, and changes in com-
continent. petitive relationships. Souder and Moenart [12]
Academic groups and funded research institutes have identi"ed four sources of uncertainty which
world wide have carried out research programmes are: consumer, competitor, technology, and re-
in order to understand and diagnose the roots, sources. Bessant et al. [13] have indicated that
causes and e!ects of the new business circumstances. alongside other changes, there have been the devel-
Clark and Fujimoto [5] conducted a "ve year opment in manufacturing methods that in a total
study of product development process world wide combination have formed a mesh of competi-
and reported new forces that drive the new indus- tive threats and opportunities for manufacturing
 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22 9

companies. They also consider the interaction of all ments and respond in a proper way to every unex-
changing factors as a dynamic, complex and recur- pected change. Also, opportunistic actions in
sive set that could be seen as both driving and capturing new markets and responding to new
enabling change in manufacturing. McCann and customer requirements is another important
Selsky [14] have de"ned a new type of uncertainty feature necessary for success in the contemporary
which is called hyperturbulent or type 5 and is the form of the business environment.
overall e!ect of changing factors in the formation of The opinions on how manufacturing companies
the new business environment. Maull and Tran"eld could succeed is so diverse that a general consensus
et al. [15] have recognised that manufacturing could hardly be reached. Emphasis on new priori-
companies especially SMEs are often faced with ties of business such as time (achieving speed in
competitive pressures such as rapidly decreasing delivery and lead time) and #exibility, deploying
lead time, more and more choices o!ered by com- new technologies (AMT, etc.) and methods, tools
petitors, pricing, and new entries to market espe- and techniques, utilisation of information sys-
cially from the new industrialised countries (NICs). tem/technology and data interchange facilities,
Levary [16] has put forward a set of external vari- more concern on organisational issues and people
ables in four categories: competition, economic (knowledgeable and empowered workers), integra-
environment, customer taste, and unpredictable tion of whole business process, enhancing innova-
occurrences in the marketplace. He de"nes these as tion all over the company, virtual organisation and
variables that are not subject to management con- cooperation, production based on customer order
trol. Iansiti [17] emphasises that the needs of the (mass-customisation), etc., are some but a few
nascent customer base, the number of competitors, to name of regularly suggested solutions for in-
and the range of technological possibilities are all creasing the ability of an organisation in respon-
characterised by frequent and substantial change, ding to change and maintaining the competitive
which creates new challenges for organisations. advantage.
Rothwell [18] stresses that not only is techno- In summary, it could be concluded that the main
logy changing rapidly, but the process of the issue in this new area of manufacturing manage-
commercialisation of technological change, the ment is the ability to cope with unexpected cha-
industrial innovation process, is changing as nges, to survive unprecedented threats of business
well. environment, and to take advantage of changes as
All the mentioned works focused on the rapid opportunities. This ability is called agility or agile
trend of change in the manufacturing area and the manufacturing.
necessity of employing new visions, and revisiting Agile manufacturing that was sometimes mixed
the traditional philosophies and mindsets. They up and confused with previous thought schools of
encourage a di!erent approach beyond the conven- manufacturing management such as #exibility and
tional models, that can provide manufacturing or- lean manufacturing has been backed for having
ganisations with the ability to respond positively to novel concepts beyond the former remedies. This
the changing circumstances and taking advantage has happened thanks to the wide concern it re-
of them. This would only be achieved by changing ceived during the past few years, though in place
the way manufacturers look at their business, their this has been a natural result of the increasing need
relationships with customers and suppliers, and to resolve problems with the so-called remedies and
their cooperation with competitors. The new mind- increasing pressures on manufacturing companies
set required for this purpose should support a new in competing for success. Works by Youssef [19],
strategic vision beyond the conventional systems Brooke [20], Richards [21], Ward [22], Dove [23],
and move to new dimensions of competition rather Kidd [24], Goldman et al. [25], Preiss et al. [26],
than only cost and quality. Surviving and prosper- and Preiss [27,28], Baker [29], have been aimed at
ing in this turbulent situations will be possible if crystallising the concepts and shed light on it in
organisations have the essential capabilities to order to make it distinguishable from other
recognise and understand their changing environ- methods.
10 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

Fig. 1. The generic model [25].

Agility in concept comprises two main factors. The generic model of Preiss et al. [26] is depicted
They are: in Fig. 1. It consists of some steps that could lead
the company to understand its business environ-
E Responding to change (anticipated or unex-
ment and changes taking place there, the attributes,
pected) in proper ways and due time.
enabling infrastructure, and "nally business pro-
E Exploiting changes and taking advantage of
cesses that should be recognised in the further
them as opportunities.
actions of the organisation in order to sustain the
These, indeed necessitate a basic ability that is competitive advantage.
sensing, perceiving and anticipating changes in the The mentioned model has been considered in
business environment of the company. an ongoing research work in the University of
An agile manufacturer, in this way is an organ- Liverpool that is aimed at exploiting the concept
isation with a broad vision on the new order of the and practices of agility, and developing a methodo-
business world, and with a handful of capabilities logy towards agility. The next section will discuss
and abilities to deal with turbulence and capture the research work and its achievements in details.
the advantageous side of the business. Until now,
the proposals towards becoming agile and the char-
acteristics de"ned for an agile manufacturer are 2. The research methodology
more or less expressed in a Utopian way. On the
other hand, although no businesses have been re- Based on the literature survey, a pilot question-
ported to possess all the required speci"cations of naire survey and some industrial interviews, an
agility, a number of evidences of approaches for initial structure and conceptual model of agility
newly minded strategies and practices have made was developed. It was then used as a platform for
ground for providing some realistic and applicable a questionnaire survey of manufacturing industries,
models. that mostly aimed at three speci"c sectors. The
Preiss et al. [26], have prompted a new under- results have supported the research hypotheses and
standing of cooperation as a vital means of survival the previously achieved understandings, which
and prosperity in the new era of business, and have alongside a deep contemplation of the concepts
put forward a generic model of approaching agility. have led to the proposal of a methodological
The model, as a generic methodological approach approach for achieving agility.
to management of business, has also been ad- The perceived hypotheses, the conceptual model,
dressed by other works in the "eld of manufactur- the proposed methodology and some preliminary
ing, including the research by Maull and Tran"eld "ndings of the research will form the following
et al. [15]. parts of the paper.
 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22 11

It is expected to turn the introduced methodo- tices and tools, most of which are already
logy into a practical self-assessing model that could developed and used by industries for certain pur-
be utilised as a tool for manufacturing companies in poses, and some are under development to facil-
attempt to becoming agile as a new condition of itate the capabilities that are required for being
surviving in the new business world. This would be agile.
in hand only after the completion of further steps of E Information system/technology in its utmost
the research. level of timeliness, coverage, communication
ability, data banking and interchange, etc., is
a major di!erentiator of an agile manufacturing
3. Research hypotheses company compared to traditional systems.

E Agility is an ability and a character that every

manufacturing company must have to be able to 4. The conceptual model and the methodology
survive and prosper in the new order of the
world business environment. Considering these hypotheses, "rst a conceptual
E Di!erent organisations are di!erent in the way model was derived from literature. The model is
they should respond to changing business envi- shown in Fig. 2. It consists of three main parts.
ronment, so they need di!erent levels of agility. First is the agility drivers which are the changes in
E Agility is a response to the changes that a com- the business environment that drive the company
pany faces, and shall become a characteristic of to a new position in running their business and
the company. Therefore, the way that the com- searching for competitive advantage. According to
pany should act in turbulent circumstances of literature (e.g. [24,25]), this would urge the com-
the business environment, which is called agility, pany to revisit the company's strategy and recon-
is a direct function of changes in the business struct it, in which becoming agile is considered
environment, and also the business environment seriously. The agility capabilities are the second
itself and the company's situation. part that propose the essential headlines of abilities
E Agility in concept is a strategic response to the that would provide the required strength for
new criteria of the business world, and in prac- responding to changes, and "nally the agility
tice, is a strategic utilisation of business methods, providers that are the means by which the so-called
manufacturing and management processes, prac- capabilities could be achieved and are supposed to

Fig. 2. A conceptual model of agility.

12 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

be sought from four major areas of the manufactur- earlier, this level is a result of di!erent factors such
ing environment. These areas are organisation, as turbulence of the business environment, the envi-
people, technology, and innovation. Also, it is ronment that the company competes in, the charac-
strongly believed that creation of the mentioned teristics of the company itself, etc. A method is
providers would not be possible without attempts to needed to evaluate the mentioned level for the
integrate the whole set, and also without a powerful company as a basis for further actions. This method
support of information system/technology. that is developed and examined to some extent will
Based on this model and the empirical work be explained later.
performed in the research programme, a methodo- Once the company recognised the level of its
logy has been developed to provide manufacturing agility needs, it should be able to assess itself for the
companies with a realistic tool for better under- level of agility it already has. Although there is still
standing of the total concept of agility, determining no established work in this subject as a reference,
their agility need, assessing their current position, according to the basic de"nitions used in the meth-
determining the capabilities required in order to odology, a preliminary method is being developed
become agile, and adopting relevant practices to assist companies. The model will consist of gen-
which could bring about the recognised capabili- eral factors such as: how responsive is the
ties. The graphical form of this methodology is company against changes in its business environ-
depicted in Fig. 3, and will be expressed in detail in ment, how able is the company in proactively
the following. capturing the market and customers desire and
Business environment as the source of turbulence in taking the competitive advantage of un-
and change impose pressures on the business activ- predicted opportunities in the market, etc. Each
ities of the company. These uncertainties, unpredic- of these general questions and factors could be
ted changes, and pressures urge manufacturing subdivided into sub-factors in place to establish
organisations to approach appropriate ways that a measure for estimating the current strength and
could lead them to a stable position and protect abilities of the company in terms of agility.
them from losing their competitive advantage. This part of the methodology will be extended to
These are called, as mentioned earlier, agility achieve the required measurement tool later in the
drivers. These drivers could vary from one com- research.
pany to another and from one situation to another, The outcome of a gap analysis following the
and therefore the way they a!ect a company could above steps would provide various options to the
vary as well. This would necessitate a mechanism speci"c company in the way of "nding its position
or a method to detect and recognise the changes in regarding agility and becoming agile. The options
the business environment. could be: (a) the company do not need to be agile,
As mentioned in the research hypotheses, com- (b) the company is agile enough to respond to
panies are di!erent in the way they face changes changes it might face in future, (c) the company
and the consequences of these changes. A company needs to take action in order to become agile but
with a sole market or an established and guaran- not as an urgent agenda for the company, or (d) the
teed share of the market, or in a stable and low company needs to be agile and it needs it fast and
competitive market, or with customers that do not strongly.
put much pressure on them in terms of orders As assumed, agility is a strategic approach to-
quantity, delivery time or quality enjoys a business wards success with regard to the new and di!erent
with much less risk of loss and problem than a com- rules and circumstances of the modern and perhaps
pany that lives in an environment of opposite fea- post-modern business environment. Therefore,
tures as mentioned. So it can be argued that there a strategic intent to become agile is vital to make
are di!erences in the way companies must respond the required ground for further steps.
to changes, which is de"ned as the agility need level. The next step will be action towards becoming
The question there will be how agile the company agile, which consists of some steps that could be
needs to be. According to assumptions made optional according to the speci"c circumstances of
 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22 13

Fig. 3. The methodology to become agile.

the company, and the agility need level and the type parts: agility capabilities, and agility practices, that
of agility drivers it deals with. This part will be in an interaction with the agility drivers will form
discussed in detail later. But in relation with the a practical approach for a company to take agility
methodology, the action step will consist of two into its characteristics.
14 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

Fig. 4. The scoring model for determining agility need level.

4.1. A model for determining agility need level becoming agile. This will appear in the form of
a scoring model that is shown in Fig. 4. The pro-
In this model a series of factors are considered as posed factors will be assessed and scored based on
measures, that could form a foundation for assess- its turbulence and/or the impact it would have on
ing the turbulence of the environment and the spe- the company's performance as a factor of pressures
ci"c conditions of the company. These factors are from outside environment or an internal element
used to determine an estimation of the importance, that makes the circumstances more harsh and
severity, and urgency of approaching abilities for severe for the company, such as complexity of the
 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22 15

product development process. The scoring is de- cognising the type of change and the capabilities
signed so that each score represents a proportional required for recovering them.
rate of the factors with regard to the highest pos- 2. A classi"cation of capabilities that would be
sible level in that speci"c area. This will provide the required and are vital in responding to changes.
possibility of taking the average score of the total 3. An associated list of practices, initiatives,
items as a measure of the agility need level. The methods and tools for gaining the required
outcomes are speci"c to individual companies and capabilities. This would provide guidance for
would not be a comparative measure for the com- choosing the practices and put them in the com-
pany's position relative to its competitors or other pany's action plan.
companies. 4. A tool for processing the model, that will include
As mentioned earlier, the method is examined in proposition of associated capabilities to each
the conducted questionnaire survey. A comparison class of change.
between the extracted results from the survey and
the perception of the companies regarding their
real agility need, that was asked as a separate
5.1. Agility drivers } a classi,cation
question with referring to the provided de"nition in
the questionnaire's attachment, has shown an en-
The number of changes and their type, speci"ca-
couraging support for credibility of the model.
tion or characteristic could not be easily deter-
mined and probably is inde"nite. Di!erent
companies with di!erent characteristics and in dif-
5. Agility drivers, agility capabilities and agility ferent circumstances would experience di!erent
practices changes that are speci"c and perhaps unique to
themselves. A change that may be a harmful inci-
After the initial evaluation of the company's agil- dent for a company may not be bad for another
ity need level and its current agility level, a com- company or even the same company in a di!erent
pany should take the following steps to put agility situation. It could even be an opportunity in a dif-
into action, and make itself agile, as reasoned ferent time or place. But there are common charac-
above: teristics in changes that occur, which could bring
about a general consequence for every company.
1. detect, analyse and recognise the change(s); This could provide a basis for suggestion of some
2. determine the required capabilities to challenge categories that would lead to a generalisation of the
and overcome the change(s); concept. Based on other works in this regard and
3. de"ne the required strategy(ies), if necessary; outcomes from this research we suggest three ways
4. determine the practice(s) or initiative(s) that of categorisation. The "rst is the general areas of
could help in achieving the required capabilities, change, the next is a detailed list of common and
and put them in the company's action plan; inclusive changes as sub-items of the general areas
5. measure and evaluate its performance in agility; which are more or less faced by manufacturing
6. make correction based on the performance companies, and the third is from the way that
measurement results. change can a!ect the company.
The "rst and the second categories are as
A framework is being developed to assist the com- follows.
pany in this relation. This framework attempts to
provide the following facilities:
1. Changes in Market; including items such as:
1. A classi"cation of the various changes that could 䡩 growth of the niche market,
happen in the business environment of the com- 䡩 national and international political changes,
pany. This will help to generalise the model for 䡩 increasing rate of change in product models,
every company and simplify the process of re- 䡩 product lifetime shrinkage.
16 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

2. Changes in Competition criteria; including items 䡩 economic "gures of the company's business
such as: such as sales, pro"t, ROI,2 ,
䡩 rapidly changing market, 䡩 current production plans and schedules of
䡩 increasing pressure on cost, product lines,
䡩 increasing rate of innovation, 䡩 manufacturing process, procedures, and pol-
䡩 increasing pressure of global market competi- icies,
tion, 䡩 organisational processes and procedures,
䡩 decreasing new products time to market, 䡩 orders in process in quantity, delivery
䡩 responsiveness of competitors to changes. time, 2 ,
䡩 new products in the process of development,
3. Changes in Customer requirements; including 䡩 support and services on products.
items such as:
䡩 demand for individualised products and servi- 2. A!ect company's business by endangering its
ces, position in market for some speci"c products or
䡩 quicker delivery time and time to market, in some speci"c sectors of the market. Changes
䡩 quality expectation increasing, in competition rules and methods, new entran-
䡩 sudden changes in order quantity and speci- ces to market, policies and social changes, and
"cation. market pressures are some aspects of this type of
problems. Some factors that might receive e!ect
4. Changes in ¹echnology; including items such as: from these types of change are:
䡩 introduction of more e$cient, faster, and eco- 䡩 market share of the company for one or more
nomic production facilities, speci"c products,
䡩 introduction of new soft technologies (soft- 䡩 market share of the company in some speci"c
ware and methods), sectors of the market,
䡩 inclusion of information technology in new 䡩 total position of the company in the market,
hard technologies. 䡩 reputation of the company and trust of cus-
5. Changes in Social factors; including items such tomers/suppliers/partners in company, and
as: hence the relationship between them.
䡩 environmental pressures, 3. Create new horizons of opportunity for the com-
䡩 workforce/workplace expectations, pany through introduction of new markets, an
䡩 legal/political pressures, instant tendency in customers and market, fall of
䡩 cultural problems, main competitors, a totally novel and innovative
䡩 social contract changes. idea for products and services, etc. Some factors
For the third way of categorisation we begin with that would receive e!ect are:
this idea that changes could happen to a!ect 䡩 future plans of the company for expansion
a manufacturing company in various ways. It and growth, and investment,
could: 䡩 new product introduction policy and market
sectors it could present,
1. A!ect the current activities, programmes and 䡩 plans for collaboration and joint venturing.
plans of the company. These e!ects will be re-
ceived mostly by the bottom line of the manufac- Based on these circumstances, we may categorise
turing process in the form of change in order the changes into three domains, each requiring
quantity and/or delivery time, product speci"ca- a di!erent type or level of response and hence
tion, model or con"guration, required services di!erent capabilities to respond to change.
and support for the products, also problems The "rst domain, explained above as changes
with e!ective completion of the product line that impact current activities and plans of the com-
schedule due to supplier problems. These pany, requires an immediate response and reaction
changes can a!ect factors such as: that results in recovery from that change. Based on
 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22 17

the speci"c circumstances, di!erent capabilities

may be required for making the response and re-
covery possible.
The second domain, that refers to problems
facing the company regarding their position in the
market, requires at the "rst order an overview of
the company's strategy in areas such as marketing,
pricing, manufacturing, support and services, etc. Fig. 5. Domains of change e!ects.
Based on this review, the capabilities required to
respond to the changes will be recognised and ap-
propriate actions will be taken which could consist and also from one company to another, there will
of the current activities of the company and its be optional alternatives for the required capabili-
internal processes and policies. This would indeed ties that should be clari"ed, measured for its level of
necessitate the observation and action in the pre- impact and importance, veri"ed for its position in
vious domain as well. the company, and a decision be made for approach-
The third domain that is considered to bring ing it through relevant practices.
about new opportunities and make the company
change its direction of business and the strategies
adopted towards success, requires a review of the
5.2. Agility capabilities
total strategy of the company in order to draw the
future lines of the business as a "rst step. The
The capabilities that an agile organisation
required capabilities to enhance the new drawn
should have to be able to make appropriate re-
paths of the company's future movements will be
sponse to changes taking place in its business envi-
recognised and the two previous domains, espe-
ronment, are basically divided into four major
cially the "rst one, would also be taken into ac-
categories. These are:
count and investigated if the speci"c change would
a!ect the criteria of those domains. Responsiveness: Which is the ability to identify
Fig. 5 shows a simple form of interaction and changes and respond fast to them, reactively or
priority in the categorisation of three domains. proactively, and recover from them. This has been
This model will help us to direct every change itemised as follows:
that occurs in the business environment of a com-
pany to a certain level of need to consideration of E sensing, perceiving and anticipating changes,
proper response, strategy amendment, and new E immediate reaction to change by e!ecting them
strategy building. into system,
What makes the company able to realise cor- E recovery from change.
rectly the type of change it faces, is the ability to Competency: Which is the extensive set of abil-
sense, perceive and anticipate changes. This is ities that provide productivity, e$ciency, and e!ec-
a `musta for any manufacturer that wants to be tiveness of activities towards the aims and goals of
agile and stand in a trustworthy position, whatever the company. Following items form the capability
the required level of agility is. structure:
There are some MUST(s) for each level that
should be taken into consideration by manufac- E strategic vision,
turers. These are the basic movements to receive E appropriate technology (hard and soft), or su$-
and perceive the changes, make a rapid response to cient technological ability,
it (if necessary), review and re-evaluate the company's E products/services quality,
business strategy and/or operational strategies. E cost e!ectiveness,
As the change could be in a wide range of var- E high rate of new products introduction,
ieties and may di!er from one situation to another, E change management,
18 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

E knowledgeable, competent, and empowered odology. This will be in the form of a table which
people, will be scored by some authority in a company, and
E operations e$ciency and e!ectiveness (leanness), the result will be a guidance to action by referring
E cooperation (internal and external), to the next table and choosing the proper practices
E integration. and putting them into the plans and programmes of
Flexibility: Which is the ability to process di!er- the company. Fig. 6 represents the proposed table.
ent products and achieve di!erent objectives with `Xa in the table indicates the capabilities that are
the same facilities. It consists of items such as: found not directly relevant to the change e!ect
domain and are not necessary to be considered as
E product volume #exibility, vital parts of the required capabilities. Though
E product model/con"guration #exibility, these factors may be seen later if the change starts
E organisation and organisational issues #exibility, from a higher level domain of e!ect and then lower
E people #exibility. levels found to be necessary for consideration later.
Quickness: Which is the ability to carry out tasks Another table will be provided as a complement-
and operations in the shortest possible time. This ary tool which will propose the relevant set of
will include items such as: practices and related tools and techniques that could
be applied in order to gain the speci"ed capability.
E quick new products time to market,
A typical form of this table is shown in Fig. 7.
E products and services delivery quickness and
timeliness,
E fast operations time.
7. Results from industrial survey

5.3. Agility practices A questionnaire survey supported by a prelimi-

nary pilot study (questionnaire and industrial inter-
The mentioned capabilities are typical manage-
views) was conducted to investigate the practical
ment issues that have been under study and devel-
aspects of the research. The survey was aimed to
opment for years. Most of them are the general
carry out a general study of agility drivers, the
initiatives that have been approached in di!erent
strategies and capabilities adopted by manufactur-
ways. These ways are the practices, models,
ing companies, the practices deployed in respon-
methods, and tools that could be practised in di!er-
ding to changing environment, and to establish
ent levels of the organisation, from top managerial
a preliminary correlation between them. The sur-
decision and strategy making to shop #oor tech-
vey covered around 1000 companies in three major
niques for operations improvement. There are
industrial sectors, electrical and electronic manu-
some methods and tools referred to as agile tech-
facturing, aerospace manufacturing, and vehicle
niques that have been developed very recently or
parts manufacturing. These sectors were chosen as
under construction by researchers, and theoret-
they were perceived to be more a!ected by the
ically are found to be necessary for gaining the
changes in their environment, and perhaps were
required capabilities of agile manufacturing.
more interested in the subject of agility than others.
A list of appropriate practices, associated to each
Results were expected to reveal di!erences between
capability will be provided as a guide for manufac-
manufacturers in their approach towards agility, as
turers, which complements the tool. This list will be
assumed in the research hypotheses. Almost 60
introduced in details in the next paper when report-
responses out of a total 85 received were valid.
ing the next stages of the research.
These were used in analysis of the survey.
Some "ndings of the performed survey are as
6. A tool for applying the model follows:

The following tool is being developed to assist 1. The average awareness of the concept of agility
the companies in implementing the proposed meth- among respondents was 2.8 out of 5. Minimum
H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22 19

Fig. 6. Table for determining the necessary capabilities.

20 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

Fig. 7. Guide table for determining the required practices, tools, techniques.

average awareness is from vehicle parts manu- companies. In the same time, despite the ex-
facturing sector (1.9) and the maximum is from pressed impact and importance of these practi-
aerospace sector. ces, the achievements resulted from them in
2. Environmental pressures, or agility drivers are responding to change and taking competitive
strongly recognised by companies as the source advantage have not gone far enough. This could
of disturbance and problem in the battle"eld of be interpreted as the lack of strategic intent and
competition. These pressures vary for di!erent weakness of approaches to adoption of practices.
sectors and di!erent companies in each sector, 5. Practices regarding organisation and people are
but `customer requirements changesa is the found to be more e!ective and also more impor-
most important factor among all three sectors. tant for manufacturers.
3. Companies in di!erent sectors respond di!er- 6. In contrary with the strong emphasis of agile
ently to change by considering strategic capabil- manufacturing literature on practices such as
ities which suit them and correlate to their speci- virtual organisation, mass-customisation, and
"c circumstances. Focusing on customer, utilising Internet as an information tool, they
however, received a high rank of emphasis by were found implemented partially in only
most respondents. a small percent of responding companies. Also
4. Utilisation of methods, tools and techniques is the importance stated for them were not signi"-
widely experienced or considered by respon- cant.
dents. Most of proposed practices as appropri- 7. Sixty eight percent of respondents use a system
ate tools for agile manufacturing including of `manufacturing to ordera which shows a
information system methods/tools/techniques major tendency to specialise products according
are partially implemented in more than 60% of to changing nature of the business environment.
 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22 21

7.1. Discussion been put together in the form of a methodology

that suggests a realistic understanding of the manu-
Data revealed from the survey has provided facturers business environment and some steps that
support for the concepts employed by the meth- would lead them to resolve the di$culties and
odology. These including validity of the basic as- problems and also the ways to take advantage of
sumption made about change as the main driver of the emerging opportunities.
agility, di!erent types and di!erent levels of impact The study so far suggests that the research need
of changes as drivers of agility in di!erent sectors to be pursued by the following stages:
and di!erent type of companies, various strategies
approached by manufacturing companies to 1. An industrial structured interview session to
respond to change, various practices that are exploit the unveiled aspects of the methodology
deployed by companies and the degree of impact of including details of change areas, agility capabil-
each on the ability of the company in responding to ities, and agility practices, and also to provide
change and achieving success, and support for the further support for the achieved conceptual
relationships that were assumed in the model. The results.
data are also being used in providing the following 2. The results from the interviews should be exam-
evidences in developing the model further: ined through a series of case studies to validate it
1. Determining the practices that are more widely and gain the required credibility.
used and the degree of their impact on the ability 3. The results from the interview and case study
of companies in responding to di!erent areas of sections to be geared together in order to pro-
change. vide an information system tool which could be
2. Determining the best strategies and practices in used by manufacturing companies in approach-
responding to change, by comparison between ing agility.
more successful and less successful companies,
based on the measures taken from literature. References
3. Establishing a basis for developing a preliminary
network of relationships between agility drivers, [1] J. Thompson, Organisation in Action, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1967.
agility capabilities and agility practices. This
[2] P.F. Drucker, Comeback of the entrepreneur, Manage-
would be resulted by a cross analysis of the data ment Today (1968).
from the survey, which will be validated and [3] G.J.J.M. Hayen, Change, challenge and continuity: An
extended in the next step of the research. entrepreneurial vision from an electronics multinational, In-
ternational Journal of Technology Management 3 (1988) 3.
[4] A.W. Small, A.E. Downey, Orchestrating multiple
8. Conclusion changes: A framework for managing concurrent changes of
varied type and scope, Proceedings of IEMC 1996 Confer-
ence on Managing Virtual Enterprise, Canada, 1996.
Agility is a vital ability in the revolutionary turn- [5] K.B. Clark, T. Fujimoto, Product Development Perfor-
ing of the business environment into a turbulent mance: Strategy, Organisation, and Management in the
place of competition and struggle for success. World Auto Industry, Harvard University Publications,
Agility is the ability to detect the changes in the Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991.
business environment, and respond to them by [6] Iacocca Institute, 21st century Manufacturing Strategy:
An Industry-Led View, vol. 1&2, Lehigh University,
providing the appropriate capabilities. Strategic in- Bethlehem, PA, 1991.
tent to become agile and leveraging the core com- [7] E. Davis, What is on American minds? Management
petencies of the company towards achieving the Review, April 1995, 14}20.
competitive advantage are essential. Every com- [8] B. Clemson, D. Alasya, Implement TQM and CIM
pany should understand the circumstances it deals together, 1992 International Engineering Management
Conference, 25}28 October, Eatontown, NJ, IEEE Engin-
with, the threats it receives from the business envi- eering Management Society, New York, 1992.
ronment and the opportunities that would bring [9] J. Graves, Leaders of corporate change, Fortune 14
them prosperity and success. These concepts have December 1993.
22 H. Sharix, Z. Zhang/Int. J. Production Economics 62 (1999) 7}22

[10] G. Hall et al., How to make reengineering really work, [20] L. Brooke, Is agility the answer? Automotive Industries,
Harvard Business Review, November}December (1993). 1993.
[11] P.F. Drucker, Managing in a Time of Great Change, [21] W.C. Richards, Agile manufacturing: Beyond lean, Pro-
Truman Talley/Dutton, New York, 1995. duction and Inventory Management Journal, Second
[12] W.E. Souder, K.R. Moenart, Integrating marketing and Quarter (1996).
R&D projects: An information uncertainty model, Journal [22] C. War, What is agility? Industrial Engineering, November
of Management Studies 29 (4) (1992) 485}512. (1994).
[13] J. Bessant et al., Coping with chaos: Designing the organ- [23] R. Dove, Agile and otherwise, series of articles on agile
isation for factory 2000, Third International Conference manufacturing, Production Magazine, from November
on Factory 2000, IEE, UK, 1992. 1994 to July 1996.
[14] J. McCann, J. Selsky, Hyperturbulence and the emergence [24] P. Kidd, Agile Manufacturing, Forging New Frontiers,
of the type 5 environment, Academy of Management Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994.
Review 9 (1984) 3. [25] S.L. Goldman, R.N. Nagel, K. Preiss, Agile Competitors
[15] R. Maul, D. Tran"eld et al., Methodological approaches to and Virtual Organisation; Strategy for Enriching the Cus-
the regeneration of competitiveness in manufacturing, 3rd tomer, Van Nostrand, Reinhold, New York, 1995.
International Conference on Factory 2000, IEE, UK, 1992. [26] K. Preiss, S.L. Goldman, R.N. Nagel, Cooperate to Com-
[16] R.R. Levary, Enhancing competitive advantage in fast- pete: Building Agile Business Relationship, Van Nostrand,
changing manufacturing environment, Industrial Engin- Reinhold, New York, 1996.
eering, December 1992. [27] K. Preiss, A systems perspective of lean and agile
[17] M. Iansiti, Shooting the rapids: Managing product devel- manufacturing, Agility and Global Competition 1 (1997) 1.
opment in turbulent environments, California Manage- [28] K. Preiss, The emergence of the interprise, keynote lecture
ment Review 38 (1995) 1. to the IFIP WG 5.7 Working Conference, Ascona,
[18] R. Rothwell, Successful industrial innovation: Critical fac- Switzerland, September, 1997.
tors for the 1990s, R&D Management 22 (1992) 3. [29] J. Baker, Agility and #exibility, what's the di!erence?,
[19] M.A. Youssef, Agile manufacturing: A necessary condition Working paper, The Cran"eld School of Management,
for competing in global markets, Industrial Engineering, Cran"eld University, UK, 1996.
December (1992).