implementation of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system strategic facet in automotive sector

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Nov. 2012.

©IJAET ISSN: 2231-1963

241 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HYBRID LEAN-AGILE

MANUFACTURING SYSTEM STRATEGIC FACET IN

AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR

Salah A.M. Elmoselhy MBA Alumnus, Maastricht School of Management, Maastricht, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Recently the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system has been proposed in order to meet the current automotive

market winning order criterion of a blend of cost and availability. This study shows how strategically a hybrid

lean-agile manufacturing system can be implemented. It shows statistically that almost one third of the variation

in successfully dealing with the sources of competitive advantage in automotive sector can be explained by

adopting the strategic facet of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system. The cost demanded by the

implementation of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system can be moderated by the gained benefits of

reduced operational cost and reduced time to market.

KEYWORDS: Lean Manufacturing; Agile Manufacturing; Manufacturing Strategy; Value Chain

I. INTRODUCTION

Getting the right product, at the right price, at the right time, in the right place to the consumer is not

only the way to achieve competitive advantage, but is also the key to sustainable success in the

manufacturing sector. According to Womack [1,2] significant interest has been shown in recent years

in the idea of ‘lean manufacturing’ and the broader concept of the ‘lean enterprise’. Yet, the demand

in the current automotive market is volatile and the customers requirements for variety are high which

together demand for a much higher level of agility. Hence it is not surprising that becoming

competitive in terms of cost, a “lean” attribute, can cause the value chain to become threatened in

terms of availability, an “agile” attribute. A newer manufacturing approach than the lean

manufacturing to deal with the change in the manufacturing business environment is agile

manufacturing. The concept of agility comprises two main factors which are: (a) responding to change

in proper ways and in good time and (b) exploiting changes and taking advantage of them as

opportunities [3,4]. Yet, this agile manufacturing approach has exhibited a cost challenge.

This research stems from the changes in the manufacturing business environment in the automotive

sector that have led to customers requirements of both competitive cost and availability without

compromising quality [5]. The research method adopted in the present research starts with literature

review of the manufacturing systems which traditionally exist in automotive industry. From this

literature review research questions are derived. Answers to some of these research questions are

proposed in a form of a research hypothesis. The rest of the research questions are answered from the

literature review. In an endeavour to validate the research hypothesis, both interview with executives

of and review of annual reports of ground vehicle manufacturing companies and Original Equipment

Manufacturers (OEMs) have been conducted. Since case studies are useful in developing solutions to

the current manufacturing business problems, the General Motors Production System, as a leader in



242 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

automotive sector that has a global corporate strategy, is examined in light of the proposed HLAMS,

in order to verify the relevance of the proposed manufacturing system to the real world of the

automotive business.

This research paper investigates the implementation of the strategic aspects of the proposed HLAMS.

The paper starts with literature review. Research questions are then derived from literature review.

Risk management in product design and manufacturing is investigated after that and the present

research will identify how HLAMS addresses this aspect. This is followed by presenting the proposed

implementation method of the strategic aspects of the proposed HLAMS. Finally, verification,

validation, and the limitations of the proposed manufacturing system will be presented.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to balance the automotive product portfolio, the engineering resources have to be utilized by

global vehicle platforms by shifting product development and manufacturing programs to low-cost

manufacturing bases, such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa [6]. The challenge will

be in building a global engineering network to support vehicle product development and

manufacturing in such multiple regions [7-10]. Therefore, the concept of hybrid lean-agile

manufacturing system (HLAMS) has been proposed recently [11].

The rules for competing and surviving in the automotive industry are changing rapidly. Time and

knowledge are the essence of winning in the contemporary marketplace [12]. Thus, success in the

global automotive market is increasingly linked to the enterprise’s ability to rapidly turning

information into knowledge. The winners will be extended enterprises with the capability to integrate,

optimize, and collaborate across their entire value chain faster, better, and more profitably than

anyone else. The winning value-chains will be those that strike a balance between cost and

availability of products and related services in terms of low costs, short product development and

distribution cycles, and smart investments in value-chain business and technology practices. In other

words, a blend of leanness and agility is expected be a necessity in meeting such contemporary

success criteria [11].

Value engineering can be implemented in the development of any product, such as a car, to optimize

its value [13]. Some scientists called for what was called leagility or agilean, but what they proposed

is to adopt leanness in the upstream of the value chain before the decoupling point and agility in the

downstream of the value chain after the decoupling point [14]. What the HLAMS proposes is a

manufacturing system that hybridizes both leanness and agility together in one manufacturing

framework to be implemented throughout the value chain [11]. The proposed HLAMS hybridizes the

strategic attributes of both the lean and agile manufacturing systems in order to realize both flexibility

of production equipment, of chaining plants, and of execution of a production order along with

responsiveness to varying customer needs.

In the automotive sector, planners have a difficult balancing act. On the one hand, there are benefits

from using common vehicle parts. On the other hand, there are more niche demands in the global

market. The challenge that faces the entire automotive industry is to balance these two extremes cost-

effectively and without compromising quality. This challenge is evident in light of recent and frequent

safety recalls of millions of vehicles in the automotive sector, even from the lean manufacturing

pioneer, Toyota [15]. The current research aims to meet this balancing act by proposing an

implementation method to implement the strategic facet of the HLAMS. The implementation of the

strategic facet of the HLAMS aims at striking a balance between the main six competitive dimensions

of manufacturing in the automotive sector, which are quality, delivery reliability, response time, low

cost, customization and product life cycle, in addition to revenue [16]. Research questions can now be

derived from this literature review.

III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESIS

The research questions have been derived from the literature review. Answers to some of these

research questions are proposed in a form of a research hypothesis.

3.1. Research Questions



243 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

Based on the research problem definition and research objective, the research questions in this

research paper are as follows:

1. Does the implementation of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system necessitate change in

the enterprise organization? If so, how?

2. Can the implementation of the strategic facet of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system

be valid?

3.2. Research Hypothesis The research hypothesis that is derived from some of the research questions in this research paper is

as follows:

Ho: The implementation of the strategic facet of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system is not

correlated with the manufacturing enterprises’ manufacturing business success in automotive sector.

Ha: The implementation of the strategic facet of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system is

correlated with the manufacturing enterprises’ manufacturing business success in automotive sector.

In an endeavor to answer these research questions, let us first take a closer look at risk management in

product design and manufacturing.

IV. RISK MANAGEMENT IN PRODUCT DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING

Automotive is a huge sector and it is yet expected to become bigger. The World Trade Organization

2006 annual report predicted that the world trade in automotive products from 2005 to 2015 will

increase annually by 7 percent, corrected to inflation [17]. Managing risk in the design and

manufacturing processes concerns manufacturing business managers, particularly in the automotive

sector. A successful manufacturing enterprise must meet the aggregated value chain metrics that

should be met throughout the value chain which are lead time, quality, costs, and associated service

with the product [14]. Quality and the associated services with the product have become prerequisites

to compete in automotive sector. Cost, a lean metric, and lead-time, an agile metric, are the metrics

that manufacturing enterprises compete on with each other in automotive sector. While endeavoring

to meet these metrics the manufacturing enterprise may face some uncertainties. Risk exists only

when uncertainties exist. There can be some risks associated with realizing the manufacturing

competitive dimensions through implementing the strategic facet of the proposed HLAMS.

The lean dimension in the hybrid lean-agile risk management addresses and cures risk through the

elimination of avoidable risk through eliminating the sources of uncertainty and eliminating the

impact of their uncertainty. The agile dimension in the hybrid lean-agile risk management addresses

and cures risk through the reduction of unavoidable risk through reducing the impact of the

unavoidable sources of uncertainty. Risk can be dealt with through dealing with the level of

uncertainty behind that risk and through dealing with the impact of that particular uncertainty. Souder

and Moenart [18] found that there are four sources of uncertainty which are consumers, competitors,

technology, and resources. Maull and Tranfield [19] found that the competitive pressures that the

manufacturing companies, especially Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), are often faced with are

(1) rapidly decreasing lead time, (2) increasing choices offered by competitors, (3) pricing, (4) new

entries to markets, especially from the New Industrialized Countries (NICs).

Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss [20] proved that technological uncertainty moderates the relationship

between organizational process factors and operational outcomes, and market and environmental

uncertainty moderates the relationship between operational outcomes and market success. The most

significant risk because of the technological uncertainty is the risk of failed products [21]. This is an

avoidable risk that can be avoided by taking the following measures: (1) killing-off products as soon

as they fall short of the set target and seem unsuccessful based on marketing and sales early signals;

(2) factoring the costs per unit of stock-outs or market-downs into the production planning process.

By taking these measures the high technical uncertainty behind this risk will be mitigated through

little financial commitment, and consequently little influence of market uncertainty.

There are a couple of most significant risks because of market and environmental uncertainty. The

first of these couple of risks is the uncertainty in demand predictions and this uncertainty is related

directly to the prediction period so that forecast accuracy degrades to ±20% for 2 months future

prediction, to ±50% for 3 months future prediction, and to ±100% for 4 months future prediction [14].

This is also an avoidable risk that can be avoided by taking the following measures: (1) not to make



244 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

demand prediction for more than three months; (2) factoring multiple demand scenarios into

production planning; (3) decisions about the items of the most unpredictable demand should be

postponed until some market signals such as early sales data become available; (4) for seasonal

products, making the items of predictable demand in advance in order to reserve greater

manufacturing capacity for making the items of unpredictable demand and shift the production of

those items that their demand is relatively unpredictable closer to the selling season [22]. The second

of these couple of risks due to market and environmental uncertainty is unsatisfied customers. This is

also an avoidable risk that can be avoided by taking the following measures: (1) conducting customer

satisfaction survey; (2) conducting Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) [23]; (3) acting

accordingly on eliminating the causes behind this dissatisfaction.

The unavoidable risks happen because of the existence of the four unavoidable uncertainties that are

consumers, competitors, technology, and resources. The consumer uncertainty is a sort of market

uncertainty that results in the risk of the ever increasing demand for short lead time. In order to reduce

both of the level of this uncertainty and its impact, the following measures should be taken: (1)

manufacturing should be carried out in the countries in which the cost of manufacturing per unit sold

is the cheapest and which are geographically the closest to the location of the market-places of selling

the product; (2) machine capacity and type of vehicles to be manufactured, e.g. car, bus, or truck,

should be determined based on a global aggregate forecast of demand based on the expected growth

in population in the countries that are the market places of selling the product.

The competitor uncertainty is another sort of market uncertainty that results in the risks of the demand

for variety of choices, low prices, and new entrants. The following measures should be taken to

reduce both the level of this uncertainty and its impact: (1) implement the agile dimension of the

HLAMS in order to deal with the risks of the demand for variety of choices and new entrants; (2)

implement the lean dimension of the HLAMS in order to deal with the risk of the demand for low

prices.

The third unavoidable uncertainty is the technology uncertainty which is a sort of the technological

uncertainty. This uncertainty can result in the risk of obsolescence and lack of efficiency and can be

dealt with by adopting scalable and upgradeable technology. The fourth unavoidable uncertainty is the

resources uncertainty which is a sort of the technological uncertainty. This uncertainty can result in

the risk of incomplete tasks and consequently long lead time. The following measures should be taken

in order to reduce both the level of this uncertainty and its impact: (1) sharing resources throughout

the entire value chain so that loading gets leveled; (2) having resources of flexible attribute in its

operating method and in its construction/architecture so that bottlenecks get resolved.

The present research proposes a risk management action plan to minimize risk in the product design

and manufacturing processes. The proposed risk management action plan consists of the following

three phases which are (1) before the beginning of the product design process, (2) during the product

design process, (3) before the beginning of and during the manufacturing process.

1. Before the beginning of the product design process phase:

Conducting Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis for the

manufacturing enterprise;

Establishing strategic partnership with key suppliers, technology providers, and retailers.

2. During the product design process phase:

2.1. Proving value of design concept to customers at the end of each design phase through

market research and close-contact with key customers.

3. Before the beginning of and during the manufacturing process phase:

3.1. Conducting FMEA.

Having investigated this, let us now explore the proposed implementation method of the strategic

aspects of the proposed HLAMS.

V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED HYBRID LEAN-AGILE

MANUFACTURING SYSTEM

The implementation of the strategic facet of the HLAMS consists of a short-term phase and long-term

phase. In the short term, the assessment of the current state of the manufacturing system with respect

to the HLAMS is implemented, a change plan towards the HLAMS is set, and the Five-S method is



245 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

applied throughout the entire value chain. In the long term, the change plan towards the HLAMS is

carried out and the HLAMS should be fully implemented. A proposed implementation plan of the

HLAMS is illustrated in Table 1, and is proposed for each of the cases of either a firm has already

established its manufacturing business or is going to establish its manufacturing business.

For the already established manufacturing firm, the change program is four-fold. At the system

engineering level, requirements are reviewed with the marketing team and key customers in order to

eliminate those requirements which are unnecessary and costly. In addition, a product design review

checklist is developed and reviewed since most costs are assigned when a product is designed and

often design engineers specify what they are familiar with rather than what is most efficient [24].

Since a manufacturing strategy refers to an approach that starts with corporate, business, and

marketing strategies and then establishes a designs of manufacturing system to support them [25-26],

the following change program is proposed for the manufacturing strategy [27] : (1) gain top

management commitment in both time and resources; (2) evaluate the strategic position of the

company; (3) review in a discussion group the existing primary and secondary requirements of the

manufacturing strategy in light of the corporate strategy; (4) brainstorm issues surrounding these

requirements; (5) categorize these issues in terms of people, machine, process, and plan; (6) carry out

a cause-and-effect analysis; (7) prioritize the identified causes; (8) set initiatives to address prioritized

issues; (9) form teams of inspired people and implement these initiatives; (10) measure the new

processes and compare the results against the expected results to spot and make up for any

differences; (11) analyze the differences to determine their cause; (12) evaluate the strategic position

of the company. For the manufacturing activities improvement, the following change program is

proposed [28]: (1) for each manufacturing activity the following questions are asked: 1.1. What is

value added? 1.2. What activities can be joined? 1.3. What activities can be discarded? 1.4. What

activities can be done in parallel? (2) remove the non-value added manufacturing activities; (3) joint

the possibly joined activities; (4) have the activities that can be done in parallel done in parallel if the

available resources permit.

Table 1. Proposed implementation plan of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system

A firm already has established its manufacturing

business

A firm is going to establish its manufacturing

business

1. Assess the enterprise’s lean capabilities against

the lean capabilities mentioned in the table of

the leanness assessment, Appendix A [29, 30];

the lean capabilities are assessed in terms of

eleven capabilities that are inventory, team

approach, processes, automation, maintenance,

layout & handling, suppliers, set-ups, quality,

retailers, and scheduling & control;

2. Assess the enterprise’s agile capabilities against

the agile capabilities mentioned in the section of

the agility assessment, Appendix B [31]; the

value chain agility is assessed in terms of goals,

design, and managerial measurements with

respect to organization, process, technology, and

people jobs;

3. Address the emerging points of drawbacks and

bridge the gap, if any, through setting a change

management plan towards the hybrid lean-agile

manufacturing attributes mentioned in section

8.3., based on incremental change that has the

following four pillars:

a. Revising and changing incrementally

the business values and business

objectives of the firm to address the

points of drawbacks;

b. Prioritizing the process improvement

initiatives based on their

effectiveness according to the

1. Set business values and business objectives to

realize the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing

attributes;

2. Establish and build the lean capabilities and agile

capabilities mentioned in the tables of the lean

assessment and agile assessment;

3. Establish and build the hybrid lean-agile

manufacturing attributes;

4. Prioritize the process implementation initiatives

based on their effectiveness according to the

(80/20) Pareto rule;

5. Use posters and signs as a way of engaging

employees and maintaining standards [32];

6. Empower enthusiastic workforce for this

implementation;

7. Motivate neutral workforce for this

implementation.

8. Assess the enterprise’s performance;

9. Amend the enterprise’s objectives and strategies

based on the feedback of actual results.



246 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

(80/20) Pareto rule;

c. Using posters and signs as a way of

engaging employees and maintaining

standards [32];

d. Empowering enthusiastic workforce

for this change;

e. Motivating neutral workforce for this

change.

4. Assess the enterprise’s performance;

5. Amend the enterprise’s objectives and

strategies based on the feedback of actual

results.

Manufacturing team leaders should be the focus of training efforts since they are the change agents to

lead improvements in performance as the implementation of the proposed HLAMS should be push

implementation by the manufacturing team leaders rather than pull implementation by the team

themselves. The implementation of the HLAMS necessitates building culture, structure, and systems.

Building culture requires the following: (1) culture development requires leadership with a continuous

passion for perfection to create attitudes in all employees so that their behavior positively influences

product and service quality; (2) culture development also requires the empowerment of all employees

in the pursuit of quality; (3) team work implies that there is an organized, engaged, and self-

disciplined team; (4) it is instilled in all staff that poor quality is a major waste and must be improved

to "near perfect", by continuous improvement with employees who are enabled to solve problems

using tools such as Five Why’s.

Building organizational structure comprises the following: (1) low and high level ownership of

quality; (2) technical and management support to resolve problems; (3) removal of indirect workers,

adopting narrow job classifications, and adopting cross training; (4) short feedback loops based on a

flat organization structure; (5) mechanisms for continuous improvement with routine daily stand-up

team meetings to flush out problems; (6) managers act as facilitators and provide mentoring.

There are two types of quality systems: problem preventive system and problem corrective system.

While the problem preventive quality system prevents problems from happening in the first place, the

problem corrective quality system deals with problems only when they arise. The HLAMS adopts

hybridization of these two quality systems in terms of (1) instilling flexibility into the design and

manufacturing processes for embracing change; (2) adopting robust design of product using Quality

Function Deployment (QFD) to satisfy customers and stakeholders and using Design for Manufacture

in order to provide the manufacturing and transportation processes with what these processes need;

(3) adopting robust design of processes using Five S’s and Poka Yoke; (4) adopting systematic

procedures of doing things using ISO and QS standards; (5) detecting problems that can arise as early

as possible using Statistical Process Control, Management By Walking Around, customer satisfaction

surveys, staff surveys, quality standards audits, Kaizen continuous improvement events, product strip

down, and inspection and testing; (6) analyzing the root causes of those problems and removing those

root causes using Pareto analysis, Ishikawa/fishbone diagrams, Five Why’s, value stream mapping,

and FMEA. The pragmatic reader might now well ask: “How valid is the strategic facet of the

proposed HLAMS?” The next section will answer this question.

VI. VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

STRATEGIC FACET OF THE PROPOSED HYBRID LEAN-AGILE

MANUFACTURING SYSTEM

The implementation of the strategic facet of the proposed HLAMS is verified in this section by

testing the research hypothesis. In an endeavor to verify and validate the implementation of the

strategic facet of proposed HLAMS, product and service managers of three Ground vehicle

manufacturing companies and OEMs were interviewed and their annual reports were reviewed with

regards to the strategic facet of the proposed HLAMS. In addition, the annual reports of additional

twenty seven Ground vehicle manufacturing companies and OEMs were reviewed in this regard.

Historically, Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo developed the Toyota Production System from which



247 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

the lean manufacturing principles were derived over a period of 20-30 years [33]. Thus, in an

endeavor to double check the relevance of the implementation of the strategic facet of the proposed

HLAMS to the real world of the automotive business, the General Motors Production System as an

automotive sector leader, is reviewed in this section as a typical case study on the proposed HLAMS.

6.1. Verification of the Implementation of the Strategic Facet of the Proposed Hybrid

Lean-Agile Manufacturing System

The sources of competitive advantage in automotive sector are: (1) market position; (2) competitive

resources in terms of brand equity, systems, skills, market share, and patents; (3) learning

organization [34-35, 16]. Assuming equal weight of each of these sources of competitive advantage in

automotive sector, the proposed manufacturing system thus can improve on 39% of them since it

improves on systems (6% of the sources of competitive advantages) as well as on learning

organization (33% of the sources of competitive advantages). Therefore, almost one third of the

variation in successfully dealing with the sources of competitive advantage in automotive industry can

be explained by adopting the technical facet of the HLAMS. Therefore, the alternate hypothesis is true

and the implementation of the strategic facet of the HLAMS is positively correlated with firms’

manufacturing business success in automotive sector.

Causality in this study is determined according to the percentage of variation in manufacturing

business success in automotive sector due to a variable (r2) of a correlation coefficient (r). For whether

or not correlation does not necessarily mean causality, the following measure were taken: (1) the

percentage of variation in manufacturing business success due to the variable (r2) has been calculated;

(2) reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) analysis of the data collected has been performed with a result that

satisfies the minimum acceptable value of Cronbach's Alpha which is 0.7; (3) both sampling design

and the sample size are important to establish the representativeness of the sample for limited

generalizability; in the sample design, thus, probability sampling design of simple random sampling

was used for its cost-effective and fair statistical results with more than 50% of the ground vehicle

manufacturing companies included in the statistical sample; in addition, those included automotive

OEMs and manufacturing companies hold collectively more than 50% of the global market share in

the automotive market sector; (4) in order to further establish the representativeness of the sample for

limited generalizability, sample size of 30 is adopted since it is the minimum statistically

representative sample size [36, 37]. This leads us to elaborate on the case studies investigated in this

research.

6.2. Validation of the Implementation of the Strategic Facet of the Proposed Hybrid

Lean-Agile Manufacturing System and Case Studies

The validity of the research results has been tested in terms of four key validity types; firstly, in terms

of statistical conclusion validity, since the resulted relationships are meaningful and reasonable;

secondly, in terms of internal validity, since the results are causal rather than being just descriptive;

thirdly, in terms of construct validity, since the results represent what is theoretically

intended; fourthly, in terms of external validity, since the results can be limitedly generalized to the

population of automotive manufacturers since the statistical sample was representative. An important

and study-worthy practical example of agility combined with leanness in the global arena is China.

China’s biggest threat to world manufacturing is not only low cost but also quick-to-market. Almost

every plant in China boasts that it could design, develop and manufacture products in China faster

than it could overseas. Sometimes this occurs because the intense competition for the growing internal

Chinese consumer market forces companies to be more nimble and innovative than their competitors.

For instance, due to the booming Chinese auto industry, one-third of all growth in annual global auto

sales has been almost taking place in China [38]. This is why all of the major auto makers in the world

have established a manufacturing presence in China, mostly partnered with one of the state-owned

Chinese automotive enterprises that have had strong-enough management to survive the transition to a

market economy.

A hybrid lean-agile production system should be designed to flow, and automation should be selected

after deciding how best to improve flow and boost flow [39-40]. In order to compete in the Chinese

market, which was almost doubled recently, many global automakers, such as the General Motors



248 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

Corporation, have established their own China-based design studios and tooling facilities in order to

speed up their development of auto products customized to the Chinese consumer’s tastes. Some of

these ideas and products can also be used worldwide. This can foster a recent perception that in China

nothing is different, but that it happens cost-effectively and five times faster. Such increased speed-to-

market could be because cheap technical labor in China can enable enterprises to put more minds at

work on a design problem than they could economically justify in dozens of other countries. For

instance, in China an automaker is able to employ an army of highly-skilled sculptors who can

quickly design and hand-make prototypes for consumer testing, and a legion of highly skilled

machinists who can turn the best designs into injection-mold dies within a few months. As a result,

such an automaker can go from concept to production in almost 9 months; a period of time short

enough to enable such an automaker to have a comparative advantage in automotive sector.

Consequently, strategically integrating comparative advantages can be a sustainable competitive

advantage for the enterprise in the marketplace. Apparently, being lean only can harm the availability

attributes of products and related services to customers. Meanwhile, being agile only can prevent

performance on the reasonable cost attribute of products and related services to customers. The

Chinese manufacturing approach in this context gives extra credibility to the validity of the proposed

HLAMS in striking such a balance effectively.

The General Motors Production System, as an automotive sector’s leader, is reviewed as a typical

case study of the proposed HLAMS, in order to double check the relevance of the proposed system to

the real world of the automotive business. By reviewing The General Motors Production System in

light of the leanness assessment table and agility assessment method, Appendix A and Appendix B,

respectively, it has been found that General Motors Production System had two shortcomings. The

first of these two shortcomings, which is related to leanness, was its deficiency in managing the

change towards lean manufacturing. The other shortcoming, which is related to agility, was the lack

of strong relationships with suppliers in the General Motors Corporation supply chain. The

Corporation has recently recognized these shortcomings and has recently acted to resolve them. In an

endeavor to resolve the deficiency in managing change towards lean manufacturing, General Motors

Corporation has established in 2003 its first ever lean and flexible plant. This plant is situated in

Michigan, USA. Also, the Corporation has recently revisited and reestablished its entire value chain,

with great emphasis placed on strong relationships with its suppliers and dealers. For instance,

General Motors Corporation has acquired 10% of Mansour's Automotive Company share equity, the

exclusive distributor of General Motors vehicles in Egypt, in 2001, as a means of moving forward

vertical integration in the General Motors value chain. These findings uphold the proposed

hybridization of leanness and agility as a way towards sustainable competitiveness in automotive

manufacturing business.

VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The challenge that faces automakers is to strike a balance between the current order-winning criterion

of both cost and availability of products and related services without compromising quality. This

research has aimed to help automakers to overcome this challenge through proposing a method to

implement the manufacturing system that hybridizes the strategic attributes of both the lean and agile

manufacturing systems together in one manufacturing framework that meets the three levels of

flexibility and responsiveness in automotive sector.

The study has identified the sources of uncertainty in product design and manufacturing which are the

root causes of risk in product design and manufacturing and has presented a method to deal with

them. In addition, the study has proposed a risk management action plan that consists of three phases:

(1) before the beginning of the product design process, (2) during the product design process, (3)

before the beginning of and during the manufacturing process.

The implementation of the strategic facet of the HLAMS is divided into short-term and long-term

strategies. In the short term, the assessment of the current state of the manufacturing system with

respect to the HLAMS is carried out, a change plan towards the HLAMS is set, and the Five-S

method is applied throughout the entire value chain. In the long term, the change plan towards the

HLAMS is carried out and the HLAMS should be fully implemented. In order to facilitate the

implementation of the strategic facet of the proposed HLAMS, the study has proposed



249 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

implementation plan of the proposed manufacturing system for both the enterprises which have

already established their manufacturing business and for the enterprises which are going to establish

their manufacturing business.

The study has suggested assessing the lean capabilities of a manufacturing enterprise in terms of

eleven capabilities which are inventory, team approach, processes, automation, maintenance, layout &

handling, suppliers, set-ups, quality, retailers, and scheduling & control. The agile aspect of the

strategic facet of the proposed manufacturing system consists of delivery reliability and agility

assessment. The enterprise’s agile capabilities are suggested to be assessed against the agile

capabilities which are organization, process, technology, and people. Each of these four capabilities is

assessed based on three aspects: goals, design, and managerial measures.

There have been some limitations of this research which are: (1) due to the fierce competition in the

automotive market, some information is considered confidential and hence is unavailable; (2) the

interviews were conducted using open-ended questions; these interviews were structured and face-to-

face interviews since the interviewees preferred to be interviewed with open-ended questions; (3) the

scope of the study covers only the automotive sector.

The study has shown that implementing the hybridization of the lean and agile manufacturing systems

together can be strategically and industrially valid. The study has presented that the implementation of

the strategic facet of the HLAMS is correlated with the manufacturing enterprises’ manufacturing

business success in automotive sector. It has been found that almost one third of the variation in the

manufacturing business success can be explained by adopting the HLAMS. The cost demanded by the

implementation of the HLAMS can be moderated by the following benefits: (1) reduced operational

cost; (2) reduced time to market.

VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH

The HLAMS presented in this study exhibits further research. The future research proposed in the

present study includes: (1) conducting industrial experiments for further validating the

implementation of the strategic facet of the HLAMS, (2) reviewing further relevant industrial case

studies for further validation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Professor Arthur Sybrandy from Maastricht School of Management, The Netherlands, is

acknowledged for his insightful contribution to this research work. The people of Maastricht School

of Management, The Netherlands, and the people of The Regional IT Institute, Egypt, are

acknowledged for their support for accomplishing this research.

REFERENCES

[1]. Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D., (1990) The machine that changed the world, Macmillan , New York.

[2]. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., (1996) Lean thinking, Simon and Schuster, NY.

[3]. Davis, E., (April 1995) “What is on American minds?” Management Review, pp. 14-20.

[4]. Davis, T., (July 1993) “Effective supply chain management,” Sloan Management Review.

[5]. Harber, J.E., (2005) “Building an auto company on common,” Manufacturing Engineering, Society of

Manufacturing Engineers, vol. 135, no. 3.

[6]. Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I.A., Moffett, M.H., (2004) Fundamentals of international business, South-

Western: a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.

[7]. Brooke, L., (May 2008) “Creating a global footprint,” Automotive Engineering, pp. 48-49.

[8]. Daniels, J.D., Radebaugh, L.H., Sullivan, D.P., International business environments and operations, Pearson

Prentice Hall, 2004.

[9]. Byrd, J.B., (2008) “Manufacturing's next great leap,” Manufacturing Engineering, Society of Manufacturing

Engineers, vol. 141, no. 2.

[10]. Hansen, R. C., (2005) Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), Industrial Press.

[11]. Elmoselhy, S.A.M., (September 2007) Hybrid lean-agile manufacturing business model in the automotive

sector, MBA thesis, Maastricht School of Management, The Netherlands.

[12]. Deming, W.E., (2000) The new economics for industry, government, education, The MIT Press.

[13]. Annappa, C.M., Panditrao, K.S., (2012) “Application of value engineering for cost reduction – a case study

of universal testing machine,” International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, vol. 4, no. 1,



250 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

pp. 618-629.

[14]. Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M., Berry, D., (1999) “Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing

paradigms in the total supply chain,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 62, pp. 107-118.

[15]. Toyota Motor Corporation Head Office, (2006) Toyota corporation annual report 2005, Toyota Motor

Corporation Head Office, Aichi, Japan.

[16]. Kotha, S., (1995) “Mass customization: implementing the emerging paradigm for competitive advantage,”

Strategic Management Journal, vol. 16, pp. 21-42.

[17]. World Trade Organization, (2007) International trade statistics annual report 2006, World Trade

Organization.

[18]. Souder, W.E., Moenart, K.R., (1992) “Integrating marketing and R&D projects: An information uncertainty

model,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 485-512.

[19]. Maul, R., Tranfield, D., (1992) “Methodological approaches to the regeneration of competitiveness in

manufacturing,” 3rd

International Conference on Factory 2000, IEE, UK, pp. 12-17.

[20]. Tatikonda, M.V., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., (2001) “Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of

product innovation: the influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development

performance,” Management Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 151-172.

[21]. Baxter, M.R., (1995) Product design: practical methods for the systematic development of new products,

Chapman and Hall.

[22]. Fisher, M.L., Hammond, J.H., (May-June 1994) “Making supply meet demand,” Harvard Business Review.

[23]. Aravinth, P., Muthu Kumar, T., Dakshinamoorthy, A., Arun Kumar, N., (2012) “A criticality study by design

failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) procedure in LINCOLN V350 PRO welding machine,”

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 611-617.

[24]. Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S., Taguchi, S., (2000) Robust engineering, McGraw-Hill Professional.

[25]. Wheelen, T.L., Hunger, J.D., (2002) Strategic management and business policy, Pearson Education

International.

[26]. Stevenson, W.J., (2002) Operations management, McGraw-Hill.

[27]. Brassard, M., (1989) The memory jogger plus+ featuring the seven management and planning tools,

Goal/QPC, Methuen, MA.

[28]. Hayes, R.H., Pisano, G.P., (January 1994) “Beyond world-class: the new manufacturing strategy,” Harvard

Business Review.

[29]. Wrennall, W., Lee, Q., (1994) Handbook of commercial and industrial facilities management, McGraw Hill.

[30]. Epely, T., Lee, Q., (2007) Value stream and process mapping: the Strategos guide to, Enna Inc.

[31]. Bolstorff, P., Rosenbaum, R., (2003) Supply chain excellence: a handbook for dramatic improvement using

the SCOR model, Amacom.

[32]. Imai, M., (1997) Gemba kaizen: a commonsense low-cost approach to management, McGraw-Hill

Professional, New York.

[33]. Dennis, P., Shook, J., (2002) “Lean production simplified: a plain-language guide to the world's most

powerful production system,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 21, no. 4.

[34]. Sharifi, H., Zhang, Z., (1999) “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organizations: An

introduction,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 62, pp. 7-22.

[35]. Skinner, W., (1978) Manufacturing in the corporate strategy, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

[36]. Alder, H.L., Roessler, E.B., (1962) Introduction to probability and statistics, W.H. Freeman and Company.

[37]. Wackerly, D.D., Mendenhall, W., Scheaffer, R.L., (1996) Mathematical statistics with applications,

Duxbury Press.

[38]. Cooney, S., (March 2006) China’s impact on the U.S. automotive industry, Federal Reserve Bank of

Chicago.

[39]. Harris, R., Harris, C., (2008) “Can automation be a lean tool?” Manufacturing Engineering, Society of

Manufacturing Engineers, vol. 141, no. 2.

[40]. Morey, B., (2008) “Automating lean tools,” Manufacturing Engineering, Society of Manufacturing

Engineers, vol. 141, no. 1.

APPENDIX A

Leanness Assessment Tool

1.0 Inventory Response X

1.1

For the categories of Finished Goods, Work-

In-Process (WIP) and Purchased/Raw

Materials, what portion of middle and upper

managers can state from memory the current

0%-20%

21%-40%

41%-60%

61%-80%



251 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

turnover and the purpose of each type? 81%-100%

1.2

What is the overall inventory turnover,

including Finished Goods, WIP and

Purchased/Raw material?

0-3

4-7

8-12

13-24

25+

1.3 What is the ratio of Inventory Turnover to the

industry average?

<=1.0

1.1-2.0

2.1-4.0

4.1-8.0

8.1+

2.0 Team Approach Response X

2.1 What is the organization type?

Exploitive

Bureaucratic

Consultative

Participative

Highly Participative

2.2 How are workers on the factory floor

compensated?

Individual Incentive

Hourly Wage

Group Incentive

Salary

Salary +Annual Bonus

2.3 To what extent do people have job security?

Layoffs Every Year

Transfers & Retraining Reduce Layoffs

Layoffs Are Rare

2.4 What is the annual personnel turnover

31%+

14%-30%

7%-11%

3%-6%

0%-2%

2.5 What percentage of personnel has received at

least eight hours of teambuilding training?

<5%

6%-10%

11%-30%

31%-90%

91%-100%

2.6

What percentage of personnel are active

members of formal work teams, quality

teams, or problem-solving teams?

<5%

6%-10%

11%-30%

31%-90%

91%-100%

3.0 Processes Response X

3.1

How many large-scale machines or single-

process areas are in the plant through which

50% or more of different products must pass?

9+

7-8

5-6

3-4

0-2

3.2 How would you rate the overall scale of the

plant's processes?

Large Scale

Medium/Mixed

Small Scale

3.3 How easy is it to shift output when the

product mix changes?

Very Difficult

Moderately Difficult



252 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

Easy

3.4 How easy is it to alter the total production

rate by +/-15%?

Very Difficult

Moderately Difficult

Easy

3.5

What is management's target operating

capacity for individual departments or

machines?

96%-100%

91%-95%

86%-90%

76%-85%

50%-75%

3.6 How would you rate the overall technology

level of the plant's processes?

Complex Technologies

Moderate/Mixed

Simple Technologies

4.0 Automation Response X

4.1 What must be automated to meet customer

demand? (e.g. Load, Cycle, Unload, Transfer)

Nothing

Cycle

Cycle and Unload

Load, Cycle, and Unload

Load, Cycle, Unload, and Transfer

4.2 How many functions the machine has to

perform?

1-2

3-4

5-6

7-8

9-10

10+

4.3

Does the automation have to be in one

machine or can it be spread over multiple

machines?

The automation has to be in one machine

The automation can be spread over multiple

machines

5.0 Maintenance Response X

5.1

Describe equipment records and data. Include

records of uptime, repair history, and spare

parts. Include repair and parts manuals.

Non-Existent

Substantially Complete

Complete & Accurate

5.2

Excluding new installations and construction

projects, what percentage of maintenance

hours is unplanned, unexpected, or

emergency?

71%-90%

51%-70%

26%-50%

11%-25%

0%-10%

5.3 Does maintenance have and follow a defined

preventive schedule?

No Preventive Maintenance

1%-10% Coverage

11%-30% Coverage

31%-90% Coverage

91%+ Coverage

5.4 Do equipment breakdowns limit or interrupt

production?

Often

Occasionally

Frequently

5.5 What is the overall average availability of Unknown



253 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

plant equipment? 0%-75%

76%-90%

91%-95%

96%-100%

6.0 Layout & Handling Response X

6.1 What portion of total space is used for storage

and material handling?

71%-100%

46%70%

30%-45%

16%-30%

0%-15%

6.2 What portion of the plant space is organized

by function or process layout?

71%-100%

46%70%

30%-45%

16%-30%

0%-15%

6.3 How would you characterize material

movement?

Pallet-size (or larger) loads, long distances

(>100'),complex flow patterns, confusion, &

lost material

Moderate loads, bus-route transport, &

intermediate distances

Small loads, short distances (<25'), simple &

direct flow pattern

6.4 How would you rate overall housekeeping

and appearance of the plant?

Messy, Filthy, Confused

Some dirt, Occasional Mess

Spotless , Neat, & Tidy

6.5

How well could a stranger walking through

your plant identify the processes and their

sequence?

Impossible to see any logic or flow sequence.

Most processes are apparent with some study.

Most sequences are visible.

Processes and their sequences are immediately

visible.

7.0 Suppliers Response X

7.1 What is the average number of suppliers for

each raw material or purchased item?

5.1+

4.1-5.0

3.1-4.0

2.1-3.0

1.0-2.0

7.2 On average, how often are items put up for re-

sourcing?

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21+

7.3 What portion of raw material & purchased

parts comes from qualified suppliers?

0%-20%

21%-40%

41%-60%

61%-80%



254 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

81%-100%

7.4

What portion of raw material and purchased

items is delivered directly to the point of use

without incoming inspection or storage?

0%-20%

21%-40%

41%-60%

61%-80%

81%-100%

7.5 What portion of raw materials and purchased

parts is delivered more than once per week?

0%-20%

21%-40%

41%-60%

61%-80%

81%-100%

8.0 Setups Response X

8.1 What is the average overall setup time (in

minutes) for major equipment?

61+

29-60

16-30

10-15

0-9

8.2 What portion of machine operators have had

formal training in Rapid Setup techniques?

0%

1%-15%

16%-30%

31%-45%

46%-100%

8.3 To what extent are workers measured and

judged on setup performance?

Not at All

Informal Tracking & Review

Setups Performance Tracked

9.0 Quality Response X

9.1 What portion of total employees has had basic

Statistical Process Control (SPC) training?

0%

1%-10%

11%-30%

31%-70%

71%-100%

9.2 What portion of operations is controlled by

Statistical Process Control (SPC)?

0%

1%-10%

11%-30%

31%-70%

71%-100%

9.3

What portion of the SPC that is done is

accomplished by operators rather than Quality

or Engineering specialists?

0%

1%-10%

11%-30%

31%-70%

71%-100%

9.4 What is the overall defect rate?

0%

1%-10%

11%-30%

31%-70%

71%-100%



255 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

10.0 Retailers Response X

10.1 What is the average number of retailers for

each product category?

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21+

10.2 What is the number of products categories?

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21+

10.3 What is the percentage of qualified retailers?

0%-20%

21%-40%

41%-60%

61%-80%

81%-100%

10.4 How strong is the relationship with retailers?

Fragile

Moderate

Above-Moderate

Strong

Very Strong

11.0 Scheduling/Control Response X

11.1

What portion of work-in-process flows

directly from one operation to the next

without intermediate storage?

0%

1%-10%

11%-30%

31%-70%

71%-100%

11.2 What portion of work-in-process is under Pull

Kanban control?

0%

1%-10%

11%-30%

31%-70%

71%-100%

11.3 What is the on-time delivery performance?

0%-50%

51%-70%

71%-80%

81%-95%

95%-100%

APPENDIX B Value Chain Agility Assessment Tool

For all the questions in the following four assessment sections of organization, process, technology,

and people, the following rubric should be used: 2 Yes – 1 Partially – 0 Unsure or No. The higher the

score your enterprise gets, the better it is on the value chain agility scale.

1. Organization

1.1. Organization Goals: The organization goals are the facet of value chain strategy that prioritizes organizational performance

requirements of delivery reliability, responsiveness, and flexibility with the internal needs of cost

reduction, profitability and asset utilization.

1.1.1. Have you defined your value chains in terms of products and customers?

1.1.2. Are your senior managers measured and remunerated on a set of value chain measures?

1.1.3. Do you know where your value chain performance rates against competition?



256 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

1.1.4. Have you prioritized your competitive requirements in light of the comparison with the

competing value chains?

1.1.5. Are your performance goals aligned with your suppliers, retailers, and customers’ contracts?

1.1.6. Are your performance goals aligned with your suppliers and retailers’ goals?

1.2. Organization Design:

The organization design is the facet of value chain strategy that has to do with mapping the most

efficient and effective value stream. It attempts to balance centralization versus decentralization,

globalization versus regionalization, and process versus functional focus.

1.2.1. Does your organization structure address the centralization, globalization, and functional

aspects?

1.2.2. Are all relevant functions in place?

1.2.3. Are all the functions necessary?

1.2.4. Is the current flow of inputs and outputs between functions the optimum flow?

1.2.5. Does your organization structure support your suppliers and retailers’ organization structure?

1.3. Organization Managerial Measures:

The organization managerial measures are the facet of value chain strategy that defines your overall

value chain metric scheme including definition, data collection, data segmentation, reporting, and

defect analysis.

1.3.1. Are you regularly measuring and managing metrics for delivery reliability, responsiveness, and

flexibility?

1.3.2. Are you regularly measuring and managing metrics for value chain cost reduction and asset

utilization?

1.3.3. Are you regularly measuring and managing shareholder metrics for profitability and return?

1.3.4. Do you have the data analytics capability to support analyzing value chain performance data?

1.3.5. Are your scorecard and metric definition aligned with your suppliers and customers’ metrics

and contractual requirements?

1.3.6. How responsive is the enterprise to changes in its business environment?

1.3.7. How able is the enterprise to make use of unpredicted opportunities in the marketplace?

2. Process

2.1. Process Goals: The process goals are the facet of value chain strategy that cascades organization goals to your value

chain network and processes. The value chain network refers to the physical movement of goods from

your suppliers’ suppliers to your company to ultimately your customers’ customer. The value chain

process refers to the plan, outsource, make, and deliver processes. Factors considered in setting

network goals include service level, order fulfillment cycle time, flexibility, Cost of Goods Sold

(COGS), and inventory turnover. Factors considered in setting process goals include transactional

productivity for sales orders, purchase orders, work orders, and forecasts.

2.1.1. Do your organizational goals cascade to network goals for service level, order fulfillment cycle

time, flexibility, COGS, and inventory turnover?

2.1.2. Do your organizational goals cascade to transactional productivity goals for sales orders,

purchase orders, work orders, and forecasts?

2.1.3. Have you segmented your network and transactional “cost to serve” for each of your suppliers?

2.1.4. Are your middle managers measured and remunerated on a network and transactional

productivity measures?

2.1.5. Are your network and transactional productivity goals aligned with your suppliers and retailers’

goals and contractual obligations?

2.2. Process Design:



257 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

The process design is the facet of value chain strategy that has to do with defining your material flow,

work flow, and information flow using the assemble-to-order strategy. Process design factors include

geographic location of each supplier, industry best practice assessment, and transactional analysis.

2.2.1. Do you have an integrated plan, outsource, make, and deliver processes?

2.2.2. Have you designed or reviewed your material flow network in the past three years?

2.2.3. Does each of your business units adopt the assemble-to-order strategy?

2.2.4. Have your supply chain processes incorporated the industry best practices?

2.2.5. Are your processes aligned with customer requirements and supplier capability?

2.3. Process Managerial Measures:

The process managerial measures are the facet of value chain strategy that defines your site,

functional area, and process metric scheme including definition, data collection, data segmentation,

reporting, and defect analysis. It cascades from the organization measures.

2.3.1. Are you regularly measuring and managing site and function metrics for delivery reliability,

planned lead-time, and flexibility?

2.3.2. Are you regularly measuring and managing site or function metrics for supply chain cost, i.e.

order management cost, raw material and goods delivery cost, inventory carrying cost, information

technology cost, and planning cost?

2.3.3. Are you regularly measuring and managing transactional productivity, i.e. process efficiency

and transactional yield, for purchase orders, work orders, and sales orders?

2.3.4. Do you have site or functional area data analytics capability to support analyzing value chain

performance data?

2.3.5. Does your organization scorecard and metric definition cascade to your site and functional

areas?

2.3.6. Are your site and functional area metrics aligned with your suppliers and retailers’ goals and

contractual requirements?

3. Technology

3.1. Technology goals: The technology goals are the facet of value chain strategy that defines value chain system

requirements to enable planning and execution of your value chain processes. The factors involved in

defining technology requirements include process flows and definitions, transactional productivity

targets, data warehouse and archiving needs, master data requirements, and system architecture

constraints.

3.1.1. Do you have appropriate technology, i.e. functionality, which supports how you plan,

outsource, make, and deliver?

3.1.2. Did you define your To Be processes based on striking a balance between system functionality

and industry best practice?

3.1.3. Do you have goals set for master data integrity?

3.1.4. Are your technology managers measured and promoted on transactional productivity measures?

3.1.5. Do you have a collaboration technology plan with suppliers and retailers?

3.2. Technology Design:

The technology design is the facet of value chain strategy that has to do with defining your

technological architecture and requirements. Also, it has to do with setting specific configurations for

your business based on your process flows defined above.

3.2.1. Did you configure your system based on a To Be process Blue Print?

3.2.2. Are you using all of the functionality that you bought?

3.2.3. Have you realized all the technological benefits that were aimed to be realized?

3.2.4. Do you have appropriate data warehouse and analytical tools to support value chain analysis?

3.2.5. Did you implement your system with less than 10 software code customizations?



258 Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 241-258

3.3. Technology Managerial Measures: The technology managerial measures are the facet of value chain strategy that defines your technology

performance metric scheme including definition, data collection, data segmentation, reporting, and

defect analysis. It cascades from the process measures. 3.3.1. Have appropriate technology sub-goals been set?

3.3.2. Is your technology performance assessed?

3.3.3. Are sufficient resources allocated to support effective use of technology?

3.3.4. Are the interfaces between technologies being managed?

3.3.5. Is your technology performance metrics aligned with your suppliers and retailers’ performance

metrics and contractual requirements, i.e. outward facing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

based on Private Trading Exchange (PTX) performance?

4. People

4.1. People – Job Goals: The job goals are the facet of value chain strategy that defines the type of job requirements and goals

necessary to execute value chain processes and to manage value chain technology.

4.1.1. Have appropriate job sub goals been set linked to the plan, outsource, make, and deliver

processes?

4.1.2. Are job goals cascaded from the organization and process levels?

4.2. Job Design and People: The job design is the facet of value chain strategy that defines the type of job requirements and goals

necessary to execute value chain processes and to manage technology.

4.2.1. Are sufficient resources allocated to support effective use of technology?

4.2.2. Are the interfaces between technologies being managed?

4.2.3. Are the plan, outsource, make, and deliver processes requirements reflected in the relevant

jobs?

4.2.4. Are job steps in a logical sequence?

4.2.5. Have supportive policies and procedures been developed?

4.2.6. Is the job environment enabling?

4.3. People – Job Managerial Measures: The job managerial measures are the facet of value chain strategy that defines metrics to measure

whether people performance and job requirements and goals meet the goals of executing the value

chain processes and of managing technology.

4.3.1. Do the performers understand the job goals and standards they are expected to meet?

4.3.2. Do the performers have sufficient resources, clear signals and priorities, and logical job design?

4.3.3. Are the performers rewarded for achieving job goals?

4.3.4. Do the performers know if they are meeting job goals?

4.3.5. Do the performers have the necessary knowledge, skill, and physical capability to achieve the

job goals?

AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY

Salah A.M. Elmoselhy holds MS in mechanical design and production engineering that he

received from Cairo University. He holds as well MBA in international manufacturing business

that he received from Maastricht School of Management (MSM). He has ten years of industrial

experience in CAD/CAM and robotised manufacturing systems. He has been recently a

researcher at the Engineering Department and Fitzwilliam College of Cambridge University

from which he received a Diploma of postgraduate studies in engineering design. He is

currently a PhD Candidate in mechanical engineering working with the International Islamic

University Malaysia (IIUM) and the Center for Sustainable Mobility at Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University (Virginia Tech).