Ottó Csiki, Krisztina Demeter and Dávid Losonci
In the multilayered capability framework the authors integrate two layers, namely functional level production capabilities and shop floor-level production routines (PRs). The…
Abstract
Purpose
In the multilayered capability framework the authors integrate two layers, namely functional level production capabilities and shop floor-level production routines (PRs). The authors examine how these two layers are interlinked, and additionally, they explore how these layers contribute to firm performance.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors tested the hypotheses using structural equation modeling (SEM) on a sample of manufacturing firms.
Findings
Regarding the capability layers, the authors found that at the functional level, production dynamic capabilities (PDCs) drive the renewal of production ordinary capabilities (POCs), and that at the shop floor level, deployment of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is influenced by lean production. Regarding the direct links between capability layers, the authors showed that PDCs and POCs have different roles in shaping shop floor PRs: PDCs is linked to I4.0, and lean methods is impacted by POCs. Concerning performance implications, only PDC and POC have significant impact on firm performance (the latter is negative), while PRs do not.
Research limitations/implications
Although, contextual factors (e.g. technology intensity, size) do not influence our findings, the potential country-effect and the dominance of medium-sized firms offer future research directions.
Practical implications
If production managers want to contribute to business performance, they should be more susceptible to resource renewal (PDCs) than to their general (POCs) or specific (PRs) exploitation efforts. As they exploit current resource stocks, they face a trade-off: they must consider that beyond their positive impacts on operational performance, their implications on business performance will be controversial.
Originality/value
Scholars usually examine one layer of capabilities, either capabilities or routines, and associate that with one dimension of performance, either financial and market measures or operational indicators. The authors propose a multilayered capability framework with a complex view on performance implications.
Details
Keywords
Levente Szász, Krisztina Demeter, Ottó Csíki and Réka Horváth
Taking its outset in operations management (OM) contingency research, this paper aims to investigate how firm size, as one of the most powerful explanatory factors, influences the…
Abstract
Purpose
Taking its outset in operations management (OM) contingency research, this paper aims to investigate how firm size, as one of the most powerful explanatory factors, influences the implementation and performance impact of four key manufacturing practices.
Design/methodology/approach
Three large-scale surveys from three different points in time, with a total of 1880 observations from varied geographical regions, are used to offer generalizable evidence on how firm size influences the implementation and performance outcome of technology, lean, quality and human resource practices.
Findings
The four manufacturing practices positively enhance performance: quality and lean practices produce the most consistent effects, while technology and human resource practices turn more beneficial in the latest sample. Furthermore, the authors offer robust support for the selection and mediation models (larger firms generally invest more in the four practices and, through that, achieve higher performance), while finding no evidence for the moderation model (smaller firms can equally benefit if they possess the resources to invest in these practices).
Originality/value
As manufacturing practices are continuously evolving, their performance impact cannot be guaranteed in any context. Size is a frequently used contingency variable in OM studies, but results are contradictory in terms of its impact on the implementation and performance outcomes of manufacturing practices. This study manages to ease these contradictions.