Framework for assessing the current strategic factory role and deploying an upgrading roadmap

Framework for assessing the current strategic factory

role and deploying an upgrading roadmap: An empirical

study within a global operations network.

Miguel Mediavilla1, Ander Errasti2

1 Manufacturing Engineering Department, UNED University, Madrid, Spain

2 Industrial Organisation Department, Tecnun, University of Navarra, San Sebastián, Spain

Abstract. A globalised economy needs an efficient respond to global markets

by globally sourcing, manufacturing and supplying. All size companies face

difficulties when managing complex global operations networks, but

meanwhile the related literature contains few models to design/restructure

those. Based on the model of Ferdows for factory role analysis within global

operations network, the aim of this paper is twofold: 1) to provide empirical

testing of Ferdows’ model and 2) to present a framework for a focused and

systematic upgrade of a given factory role within its operations network.

Keywords: global operations network, strategic factory role, case study.

1 Introduction

In the recent economically expansive years, characterized by a highly dynamic macro

economy and a global competitive playground, the internationalisation of operations

has become a common trend among companies -mainly by multinationals but also by

small-medium sized companies [1].With this emergence of the global supply and

manufacturing sources, as well as the global market, such an operations network

design will increasingly have to cover multiple regions and cope with a higher

network complexity. Anyhow, the literature on global operations containing models

to design and restructure global operations networks is scarce and fragmented [1].

Ferdows [2][3] proposed an interesting approach to classify any factory within a

global operations network into a certain defined role – based on competences’ degree

and the strategic location factor: offshore, source, server, contributor, outpost or lead

factory. The roles for factories in a manufacturing network are therefore defined, but

an operationalisation of the characteristics for each role has not explicitly broke down

[4]. Thus, the upgrading paths for factory role could be difficult to formulate and

deploy.

This paper will explore the Ferdows’ model application for analysing an already

existing global operations network by assessing 34 production plants of a global

acting company and extend the model by developing a framework that systematically

helps to deploy a weakness-based improvement roadmap, which facilitates a focused

gradual upgrade of the strategic role of a plant within its network.

2 Miguel Mediavilla1, Ander Errasti2

2 Literature Review

The operations strategy is defined as the total standard of decisions that mould the

long term capacities of any kind of operation and their contribution for the general

business strategy through the reconciliation of the market requirements with the

operations resources [5].

This strategy should be reflected in the operations network design, which is

basically about where to locate your supply sources and manufacturing and

distribution operations, as well as the deployment of such operations (i.e. who should

be supplying whom or the facility planning). In this process the quantitative impacts

of such factors like fixed and variable costs of production or distribution facilities,

inventory, freight, and other logistics costs should be captured [6]. A rationalisation or

restructuring an existing network follows the same procedure. [4].

A common internationalisation approach, which looks for short-term cost reduction

and competitiveness, is the establishment and management of foreign factories to

benefit only from tariff and trade concessions, cheap labour, capital subsidies, and

reduced logistics costs. Therefore, a limited range of work, responsibilities, network

participation and resources are assigned to those factories [3].

Other companies demand much more from their foreign factories and, as a result,

try to get much more out of them. This approach provides not only access to the

already mentioned cost oriented incentives, but also a globally distributed

manufacturing network with much higher proximity to potential regions, with close

access to customers, suppliers, or specifically skilled, talented and motivated

workforce. Those factories have a wider range of responsibilities and network

interaction beyond a mere production work, as e.g. product or process engineering,

purchasing decisions, after-sales service, etc.[3]. Therefore, evolving from an

independent managed (or with lower interaction) plant network to a coordinated

manufacturing network allows to benefit from the synergy among the plants, to

improve cost and delivery performance, and to enhance the learning curve from the

experiences of network partners [7].

If managers do not consider manufacturing to be a source of competitive

advantage, they are likely to establish foreign factories with a narrow strategic scope.

In contrast, if managers regard manufacturing as a major source of competitive

advantage, then the foreign plants will reward the company in the form of higher

market share and greater profits [3]. Moreover, because of increasing global

competition, the gap between the companies that treat their foreign plants as a source

of competitive advantage and those that do not is widening [3].

The operations management literature has several models which cope with the

supply chain analysis and performance (see a list of models e.g. in [1][8]), but only

few widen their scope from a supply chain perspective to an entire value chain

approach –which is defined by Porter [9].

Ferdows [2][3] does implicitly cover the value chain and the idea of the

international manufacturing network, especially when introducing the concept of

“lead plant”: it would be a plant contributing to the company’s strategy by e.g.

developing capabilities as new processes, products or technologies, or the local skills,

contact to end customers, suppliers, etc. And these capabilities would be shared with

other plants in the network. Another work that deserves attention is the

Framework for assessing the current strategic factory role and deploying an upgrading

roadmap: An empirical study within a global operations network. 3

“Manufacturing Value Chain” concept by Singh Srai and Shi [10], which provides a

value chain perspective that could be linked to the factory role concept of Ferdows.

However, despite of being reference model which is gaining academic recognition

in the international operations field, as e.g. [1][4][11][12][13][14][15], there are still

few evidences of empirical testing of Ferdows’ model [4] - even when this model is

easily recognisable in practice for executives.

2.1 Environment and Dynamic Strategic Plant Role

The enlargement of the European Union (EU) has created a larger and unified

economic cluster, which provides greater access of low-cost labour and new market

for the multinational companies [16]. Similarly happens with other low-cost countries

(e.g. Turkey, Russia or other Eastern Europe countries) with a geographical closeness

to the European Union. Consequently, many businesses have extended their

operations and redefined the roles of organisation units at different countries

[17][18][19]. Some companies have started reacting with new European strategies

such as moving labour intensive factories to low cost countries, consolidating and

moving logistics centres further east and consolidating regional or country

organisation units to become European operation units [20].

These changes lead to need for new knowledge in managing operations in an

expanding Europe [21], situating these western European companies in a paradoxical

situation regarding their production facilities in high-cost countries. Most new

European strategies lead to redefinition of the roles of foreign factories and sales

organisations and the headquarters. Similar pattern is also observed on multinational

companies from USA or the Western-Europe with subsidiaries on other low-cost

countries out of the EU [22].

Anyhow, the inherent economic and social development of countries receiving off-

shores makes nowadays more and more difficult to maintain a classification of

countries as “high-cost” country (HCC) or “low-cost” country (LCC). Any given

circumstantial change e.g. macro economical factor (e.g. inflation), socioeconomic

change (e.g. wages, labour law) or political instability could rapidly downgrade an

already achieved factory role and harm its competitiveness. Those changing

conditions enhance the need of developing different operational capabilities or

competences, making the dynamism a constant in the strategic role of each role within

a global operations network.

International manufacturing networks design should therefore integrate dynamic

capabilities evaluation [23], as happens in any rationalisation or restructuring of

operations network. These dynamic capabilities are defined by Teece et al. [24] as

“the ability to achieve new forms of competitive advantage to emphasise two key

aspects that were not the main focus of attention in previous strategy perspectives.

The term dynamic refers to the capacity to renew competences so as to achieve

congruence with the changing business environment. The term capabilities

emphasises the key role of strategic management in appropriately adapting,

integrating and reconfiguring internal and external organisational skills, resources and

functional competences to match the requirements of a changing environment”.


3 Research Question and Objectives

The literature review confirmed that, while some attention has been given to the roles

of plants within a network of manufacturing facilities [2][3][25], the Ferdows model

developed [2][3] has few evidences of empirical testing beyond case research [4] and

therefore could be enriched by insights from empirical research [1][26].

Furthermore it is clear that more research is needed to understand how to

coordinate the operations of individual production units within a manufacturing

network [27][28]. How to achieve an overall network performance greater than the

sum of it parts is not well understood [24] in a highly dynamic economical context

and a global competitive playground [1]. More specifically, models and techniques to

aid practitioners formulating and developing operations strategy [5] when facing a

restructuring of an existing network [4] to renew competences and capabilities of

factories are needed [23][24].

This paper will cover the empirical application of the Ferdows’ model and extends

its application to define how to upgrade a plant strategic role acting within a global

operations network by weakness-based identification, i.e. far beyond the solely

analysis of the current strategic role.

4 Framework proposal for assessing/upgrading factory roles

If the factory competences are not enforced in order to get an upgraded strategic role,

usually the less successful plans may disappear from the map due to competitive

pressure to reduce costs and concentrate the production volume in a smaller number

of plants [31]. Therefore companies should redesign and reconfigure the supply chain

multisite network – either from a global (network) or partial (production unit)

initiative: 1) Top-down approach: companies are forced to rationalise and restructure

their operations network in order to adapt themselves to changing circumstantial

conditions and develop different operational capabilities, i.e. enhancing their

competitive advantage to respond to consumers’ needs. To address these challenges

will involve decisions that will determine which manufacturing

capabilities/competences to retain, which new capabilities/competences to develop

and which manufacturing activities to outsource to suppliers. 2) Bottom-up approach:

factories are forced to develop their competences in order to upgrade their strategic

role and not disappear from the company’s global operations network.

The operations redesign is considered to be accomplished on three levels from a

strategic contingency perspective [32]: 1) Supply chain environment, 2) Operations

strategy and 3) Performance. The supply chain competency of a nation is understood

and defined as the nation’s ability to sustain top class supply chain management

practices, institutions and infrastructure, from a supply chain operations and logistics

perspective [33]. A documented review of the competitive priorities related to the

operations strategy and performance when executing an operations network redesign

is documented by Gobbo [34], who summarised it in the following key performance

indicators (KPI) of operations strategy: Cost (C), Quality (Q), speed (S), flexibility

(F), innovation (I) and reliability (R) - which could be later utilised as a measure base



for the improvement cycles. Focusing the framework to cover these KPI (extending

them by e.g. Motivation (M)) the authors of this paper assess the performance of the

plant and link it with the identification of an actual strategic role: the framework is

composed by five main pillars, which are composed by methods and tools (Figure 1).

The 5 lean thinking principles and their value stream [35][36] approach are the main

basis for the framework creation.

Fig. 1. Framework structure: pillars, methods and tools

The framework has been created under consideration of the Management System

transferability abroad -regardless of the cultural differences-, as the development of

the management is based on the general logic [37]. Particular management systems

are often associated with “Best practices” and are applicable across nations [38][39].

Nevertheless a contingency approach is needed [40], where a good fit (strategy,

policy and practices with the context) will lead to good performance. Some authors

assert that Management Systems are neither rejected nor accepted but hybridized with

the locally used management systems [38][41][42] and the degree is determined by

local circumstances, as e.g. culture, attitude and ethics of employees, education and

training, unions, locally used management practices, communication difficulties,

economic considerations and, industry and sector [43]. If the local circumstances [43]

and the Management System are taken into account, the strategic plant role evaluation

and formulation could aid fitting the environment, operations strategy, practices and

performance to be achieved, as well as the necessary roadmap to do so.

5 Case Study: Data Collection and Theory Testing

The study case is developed on a worldwide operating white goods corporation

dedicated to the design, production and distribution, which posted above 8 billion

Euros in 2009 and is one of the global leading companies in the sector. The company

has over 40 factories operating in Europe, the USA, Latin America and Asia, with a

workforce numbering with approx. 40,000 people. The framework has been

implemented in 34 plants (7 countries) since the beginning of 2007 and evaluated in


2008 and 2009 by on-site reviews (by at least 2 people) based on a questionnaire. The

final result and score has been extensively checked with a Delphi panel (Factory

Management Team, Headquarters) to reinforce the validity of the results [44][45].

The questionnaire has 400 questions (max. 1000 points as evaluation and 200

points per pillar) regarding how many and in which grade of extension have been

implemented the mentioned methods and tools. Questions are scored on this range

(based on defined application scope): (no plan), 1 (plan), 2 (pilot area), 3 (>50%

scope), 4 (whole scope). Based on this individual scoring, the following clustering of

factories is proposed (results from 2009): A (>850 points): 12 factories; B (700 to 850

points): 12 factories; C (below 700): 10 factories.

Framework classification and Ferdows’ model: (factory role has been concluded

from the Delphi panels) except by one lead factory classified as A, the rest of A

factories were originally established in LCC as offshore and later source factories. It

is observed that some of the highest scoring plants are starting to become contributor

plants –their score has meanwhile improved. Two of these factories have lead factory

competences for limited topics (the highest scoring methods). Mostly all B factories

are located in HCC and include all but one of the lead factories. The assessment of

lead factories has considerably improved from 2008 to 2009 but is not best-in-class

yet. C factories are mostly new established off-shore or source factories. Few C

factories in HCC are contributor plants, which anyhow are currently under severe

competitiveness and productivity programmes (working packages based on the lowest

scoring pillars of the framework).

External review of the framework: the highest scoring A factory in 2009 was also

externally awarded with the Japanese Award for TPM Excellence (category A). The

direct quantitative savings in materials, labour costs and overhead linked to the

framework implementation counted approx. for 3%-points of the annual Ebit (acc. to

IFRS balancing) in the period 2007-2009. Other indirect benefits (e.g. flexibility,

motivation) have been recognised by the Delphi panel.

6 Conclusions and Limitations

The main conclusions related to the aim of the paper are: 1) The proposed

framework serves as a first analysis tool for assessing the strategic plant role. 2) The

framework assessment prioritises the improvement aspects, which later could impact

on the factory role upgrade 3) It has proven that the implementation of the framework

helps improving the economical performance of each plant, independently from the

studied country. 4) The framework evaluation questionnaire could be transformed

from an implementation questionnaire (how many methods/tools and how wide) to a

maturity grade questionnaire (how good) to have better performance assessment. 5)

The framework could be extended or more specific on other specific topics from the

value chain that also influence the strategic factory role, as e.g. product/process

innovation, product management, strategic supplier management, flexibility toward

different regions. 6) The framework does not explicitly consider the original

contribution of the lead factories, which could score lower on several questions due to

the lack of experience with new topics. The rest of the factories profit themselves

therefore from the experiences in the lead factories.



References

1. Corti, D., Egaña, M.M., Errasti, A., Challenges for off-shored operations: findings from a

comparative multi-case study analysis of Italian and Spanish companies,. Proceedings 16th

annual EurOMA Conference, Gothenburg (2009)

2. Ferdows, K., Mapping international factory networks, in K. Ferdows (Ed.), Managing

International Manufacturing, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, pp.3-21 (1989)

3. Ferdows, K., Making the most of foreign factories, Harvard Business Review, March –

April, pp.73-88 (1997)

4. Vereecke, A. and Van Dierdonck, R.,The Strategic Role of the Plant:Testing Ferdow's

Model, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.22, n.5 (2002)

5. Slack, N. and Lewis, M., Operations Strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2nd

Edition (2002)

6. Lee, H. and Silvermann, A., Renault's Logan Car: Managing Customs Duties for a Global

Product, HBR, Case Study (2008)

7. Flaherty, T., Coordinating international manufacturing and technology, in M. Porter (Eds),

Harvard Business School Press, (1986)

8. Netland, T., Alfnes, E. and Fauske, H., How mature is your supply chain? - A supply chain

maturity assessment test, Proceedings of the 14th EurOMA Conference 2007 conference,

Ankara (2007)

9. Porter M.E., Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York (1985)

10. Singh Srai, J. and Shi, Y., Understanding China's Manufacturing Value Chain, University

of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing Publishing, Cambridge (2008)

11. Fusco, J.P. and Spring, M., Flexibility vs. robust networks: the case of the Brazilian

automotive sector, Integrated manufacturing systems,Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.26-35 (2003)

12. Meijboom, B. and Voordijk, H., Internacional operations and location decisions: a firm

level approach, Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp.

463-476 (2003)

13. Maritan, C.A., Brush, T.H. and Karnani, A.G., Plant roles and decision autonomy in

multinational plant networks, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 489-

503 (2004)

14. Vereecke, A., Van Dierdonck, R. and De Meyer, A., A typology of plants in global

manufacturing networks, Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 11, pp. 1737 – 1750 (2006)

15. Feldmann, A. and Olhager, J., Plant roles and decision-making in manufacturing networks,

Proceedings 16th annual EurOMA Conference, Gothenburg (2009)

16. Agrawal, V., Farrell, D., and Remes, J., Offshoring and beyond, McKinsey Quarterly, 3,

24-35 (2003)

17. Radovilsky, Z.D., Managing operations in the former Soviet Union: current situation and

future development, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(2),

pp. 43-50 (1994)

18. Schmenner, R.W., The erosion in European manufacturing, Production and Operations

Management, 6 (2), pp. 110-113 (1997)

19. Corti, D., Pozzetti, A., Zorzini, M., Production relocation of Italian companies in Romania:

an empirical Analysis, Proceedings of the 13th EurOMA Conference 2006, Vol. 1, pp. 21-30

(2006)

20. Wong, C.Y. and Gubi, E., Managing operations in an expanding Europe – refinement of

transnational theory, Proceedings of the 14th EurOMA Conference 2007 conference, Ankara,

pp. 426-435 (2007)


21. Prasad, S., Babbar, S. and Motwani, J., International operations strategy: current efforts and

future directions, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(5/6),

pp. 645-665 (2001)

22. Ghemawat, P., Finding your new strategy in the new landscape, HBR, March (2010)

23. Sweeney, M., Cousens, A. and Szwejczewski, M., (2007), International manufacturing

networks design - A proposed methodology, Proceedings of the 14th EurOMA Conference

2007 conference, Ankara (2007)

24. Teece, D. J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen, Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,

Strategic Management Journal (18) 7, pp. 509-533 (1997)

25. Vokurka, R.J. and Davis, R.A., Manufacturing strategic facility types, Industrial

Management and Data Systems, Vol.104, No.6, pp. 490-504 (2004)

26. Chakravarty, A., Ferdows, K. and Singhal, K., Managing international operations versus

internationalizing operations management, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 6,

No. 2, pp. 100-101 (1997)

27. Dubois, F.L., Toyne, B. and Oliff, M.D., International manufacturing strategies of U.S.

multinationals: a conceptual framework based on a four-industry study, Journal of

International Business Studies, Q2 24, 2, pp. 307-333 (1993)

28. Shi, Y. and Gregory, M.J, International Manufacturing Networks–to develop global

competitive capabilities, Journal of Operations Management,Vol.16, pp.195-214 (1998)

29. Rudberg, M.,Linking Competitive Priorities and Manufacturing Networks: A

Manufacturing Strategy Perspective,International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and

Management,Vol.6, Nos.1/2, pp. 55-80 (2004)

30. Corti, D., Pozzetti, A., Zorzini, M., Production relocation of Italian companies in Romania:

an empirical Analysis, Proceedings of the Euroma Conference 2006, Vol. 1, 21-30 (2006)

31. De Meyer, A., Vereecke, A., International operations, in Werner, M. (Eds), International

Encyclopedia of Business and Management, Routledge, London (1996)

32. Defee, C. C. and Stank, T. P., Applying the strategy-structure-performance paradigm to the

supply chain environment, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16, No. 1,

pp. 28-50.(2005)

33. Kinra, A., A., Kotzab, H., Skjøtt-Larsen, T. and Bagchi P., Developing a Supply Chain

competency index for transition economies – an AHP approach, E Proceedings of the 14th

EurOMA Conference 2007 conference, Ankara (2007)

34. Gobbo, J., (2007), Inter-firm network: a methodological approach for operations strategy,

Proceedings of the 14th EurOMA Conference 2007 conference, Ankara (2007)

35. Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D., “The machine that changed the world”, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology MIT. Macmillan Publishing Company USA (1990)

36. Womack, J., Jones, D.T., Lean Thinking. Simon & Schuster, New York (1996)

37. Harbison, F. H., and Myers, C. A., Management in the industrial world: An international

analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York (1989)

38. Koontz, H., A model for analyzing the universality and transferability of management, The

Academy of Management Journal, Vol.12, No.4, pp.415-429 (1969)

39. Kono, T., Japanese management philosophy: can it be exported?, Strategic Management in

Japanese Companies, Pergamon Press, pp. 11-24 (1992)

40. Beechler, S., and Yang, J. Z., The transfer of Japanese-style management to American

subsidiaries: Contingencies, constraints, and competencies, Journal of International Business

Studies, Vol.25, No.3, pp. 467-491 (1994)

41. Abo, T. (1994), Hybrid factory: The Japanese production system in the United States,

Oxford University Press, New York (1994)



42. Kumon, H., and Abo, T. (2004), The hybrid factory in Europe: The Japanese management

and production system transferred, Antony Rowe Ltd., London (2004)

43. Yokozawa, K., de Bruijn, E. J., & Steenhuis, H.-J..A conceptual model for the international

transfer of the Japanese management systems. Proceedings of the 14th EurOMA Conference

2007 conference, Ankara (2007)

44. Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M., The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, London

Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, (1975)

45. Turoff, M. and Hiltz, S., Computer based Delphi Processes,

http://eies.njit.edu/~turoff/Papers/delphi3.html

Documents

Framework for assessing the current strategic factory role and deploying an upgrading roadmap