The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of manufacturing flexibility
Open accessAbstract
The competitive environment of today has generated an increased interest in flexibility as a response mechanism. While the potential benefits of flexibility are familiar, the concept of flexibility itself is not well‐understood. Neither practitioners nor academics agree upon, or know, how flexibility can be gauged or measured in its totality. Consequently, this study seeks to provide a framework for understanding this complex concept and to create a theoretical foundation for the development of generalizable measures for manufacturing flexibility. With this objective in mind, we first critically examine diverse streams of literature to define four constituent elements of flexibility: range‐number (R‐N), range‐heterogeneity (R‐H), mobility (M), and uniformity (U). The R‐H element is new, and has not been proposed before in prior literature. These four elements can be applied to consistently define different types or dimensions of flexibility. Definitions for 10 flexibility dimensions pertaining to manufacturing are thus obtained. These definitions serve a dual purpose. First, they capture the domain of flexibility. Second, we show in this study how these definitions can be used to generate scale items, thereby facilitating the development of generalizable manufacturing flexibility measures. Several research avenues that can be explored once such measures are developed are also highlighted.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
Knight, F. H. (1921) · Cited by 9,948
The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990) · American Economic Review · Cited by 2,615
Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition
(1999) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/s0278-6125(99)90108-5 · Cited by 2,322
Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through Manufacturing.
Thomas, L. J., Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1985) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393118 · Cited by 2,212
Flexibility in manufacturing: A survey
Sethi, A., & Sethi, S. (1990) · International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1007/bf00186471 · Cited by 1,691
Strategic flexibility in product competition
Sanchez, R. (1995) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250160921 · Cited by 1,497
Manufacturing Flexibility: A Strategic Perspective
Gerwin, D. (1993) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.4.395 · Cited by 1,132
Manufacturing Strategy, Environmental Uncertainty and Performance: A Path Analytic Model
Swamidass, P. M., & Newell, W. T. (1987) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.4.509 · Cited by 1,050
Organizing for Effective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness
Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299505900105 · Cited by 978
Cited by
Manufacturing strategy: Literature review and some issues
Dangayach, G. S., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2001) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570110393414 · Cited by 469
Santos Bernardes, E., & Hanna, M. D. (2009) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570910925352 · Cited by 388
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., & Kim, S. W. (2005) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5414.2005.00079.x · Cited by 353
Cloud computing in manufacturing: The next industrial revolution in Malaysia?
Ooi, K.-B., Lee, V.-H., Tan, G. W.-H., Hew, T.-S., & Hew, J.-J. (2018) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.10.009 · Cited by 341
Towards a Theory of Competitive Progression: Evidence from High‐Tech Manufacturing
Rosenzweig, E. D., & Roth, A. V. (2004) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2004.tb00223.x · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Koste, L. L., & Malhotra, M. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Operations Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-93
- ISSN
- 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-1317
- OpenAlex
- W2070207215
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 13.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of manufacturing flexibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0272-6963(99)00010-8
- The paper
- Koste, L. L., & Malhotra, M. K. (1999). A theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(99)00010-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.