ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Problems in the implementation process of advancedmanufacturing technologies

Jorge L. García A & Alejandro Alvarado I

Received: 5 October 2011 /Accepted: 15 February 2012 /Published online: 17 March 2012# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Abstract The investment in advanced manufacturing tech-nologies provides great benefits to the enterprises that man-age them correctly; however, when this process is notfulfilled in a proper way, it could generate the bankruptcyof the company. That is why the implementation process isconsidered as a complex problem. In this paper, the resultsof a survey made in some industrial plants in Juarez City,Chihuahua, Mexico were discussed. In such survey, it askedabout the situation related to the 26 most commented andreported problems in the literature; the questionnaire wasvalidated using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and facto-rial analysis was applied to the obtained information from a189 cases sample size. Results indicate that the main prob-lems that the assembly plants have to confront when theyimplement advanced manufacturing technologies are relatedwith maintenance, required special installations, suppliersare far away; there is no accomplishment of the productionstandards; there are no economic resources, fear risk toinvest; and finally custom’s problems.

Keywords AMT. Implementation process . Pitfalls in AMTimplementation . CSF . Factor analysis

1 Introduction

Zairi [37] defines advanced manufacturing technologies(AMT) as a social–technical system that requires continuous

revisions, readjustments, and changes, in order to be able toadapt and respond to the changing demands of the compet-itive world, which is a very general goal but, at the sametime, source of confusion. However, the glossary of terms ofthe Zhou et al. [38] defines it as: equipment controlled bycomputer or that is based in microelectronics, and that isapplied to the design, manufacturing, or product manipula-tion. However, this definition only refers to equipment,commonly designated as “hard” technology.

Another definition is more precisely presented by Chuu[5], who defines it as any equipment or methodology that ispart of the production system that allows the improvementof performance in terms of cost, quality, and flexibility. It isan effort to compete with global companies; frequently,those are the objectives that are being sought with theimplementation, according to Karsak and Tolga [15], andLaosirihongthong and Dangayach [17]. As it can bededucted, when the equipment and methodologies arejoined together, automatically it integrates the “hard” andthe “soft” technologies. “Hard” technologies are those thatincorporate computing systems and other types of physicaldevices; while the “soft” technologies refer to optional sup-ports for the operation, regularly consist of tools, and pro-duction techniques and methodologies.

However, there are several taxonomies for AMT; for in-stance, there is a report of one classification, according to theDepartment of Commerce of USA; specifically, it is a 1988legislation with classification purposes, designating AMT asan integration of engineering and design technologies, pro-duction equipment, and manufacturing technologies, machin-ing and assembly, technologies for the automated handling ofmaterials, proof equipment and automated inspection devices,and finally, information technologies [31, 32].

When these technologies are applied effectively to pro-duction systems, great benefits are reported in the literature,

J. L. García A (*) :A. Alvarado IDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing,Autonomous University of Ciudad Juárez,Av. Del Charro 450 Norte,Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico 32315e-mail: jorge.garcia@uacj.mx

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131DOI 10.1007/s00170-012-4011-9

but with very different levels of performance as well. Nev-ertheless, when those technologies had a bad implementa-tion and adoption process, the company could have bigproblems, as can be seen in Kakati [14], Beaumont andSchroder [3], Noori [23], Swink and Nair [35], Millen andSohal [22], Stock and McDermott [33], Efstathiades et al.[11], and Dangayach and Deshmukh [8].

Low-Lock and Seetharaman [20] analyzed and discussed13 problems presented in Malaysian companies whenimplementing advanced manufacturing technologies. Theirstudy was based in a questionnaire where the sample ele-ments were answered in a scale from 1 to 5, regarding thedifficulty level they had when the implementation of theAMT, they obtained measures as the average and the stan-dard deviation of each one of the problems.

Table 1 illustrates the main problems that companies hadreported when implementing AMT, a total of 11 papers wereanalyzed. Table 1 indicates that the investment justificationwas the main problem reported by authors, with a total ofnine quotes. Training to the maintenance personal, senior

manager support, and workers support were the secondproblem, with a total of seven quotes. Also, Table 1 illus-trates that there are four problems that have only one quoteand are related with interface software–hardware, acquisi-tion and delivery of hardware for AMT, comparison with thestatus quo, and incapability of evaluate intangible attributes.Nevertheless, these references are related to the number ofquotes and do not have relation to their magnitude.

Apparently, as can be seen in Table 1, the main problemthat has been reported refers to the investment justification,problem that is commonly closely related to the lack offinancial resources, besides of several organizational issuesbecause of the lack of support of the workers. This problemhas been mentioned by nine of the eleven authors. Anotherof the problems commonly faced, and that has been men-tioned in seven times of the eleven references, is about thetraining of maintenance personal, the lack of senior man-agement support and low commitment of the workers. Thisfactor refers exclusively to some issues of the personnelinvolved and this is why is considered internal and has to

Table 1 Problems faced bycompanies in the implementa-tion of AMT

*Attribute included in the paper

A Canada and Sullivan [4],B Noori [23], C Efstathiadeset al. [10], D Shepherd et al.[30], E Hynek and Janeček [13],F Kotha and Swamidass [16],G Efstathiades et al. [11], HBaldwin and Lin [2], ILow-Lock and Seetharaman [20],J Mital and Pennathur [21],K Shehabuddeen et al. [29]

Attribute A B C D E F G H I J K Total ofquotes

Investment justification * * * * * * * * * 9

Training to the maintenance personal * * * * * * * 7

Senior manager support * * * * * * * 7

Workers support * * * * * * * 7

Training of the operative personal * * * * * * 6

Training of techniques and engineers * * * * * 5

High interest rates * * * * * 5

Maintain good relationships withsuppliers

* * * * 4

Lack of knowledge of the benefits * * * * 4

Inter-department conflicts and culture * * * * 4

Integration of manual an automatic tasks * * * 3

Integration of a team for the AMT * * * 3

Client support from the supplier * * * 3

Uncertainly of world economics * * * 3

Requires special infrastructure * * * 3

Incomplete economic analysis * * * 3

Government regulations * * * 3

Software development for the AMT * * 2

Short life cycle of a product * * 2

Customs duties * * 2

Lack of politics for modernization * * 2

Interface software–hardware * 1

Acquisition and delivery ofhardware for AMT

* 1

Comparison with the status quo * 1

Incapability of evaluateintangible attributes

* 1

124 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131

be solved inside the company, there is no market-availablegeneric technology, the companies have to develop theirown solutions. Another important problem that has beenquoted five times refers to the training that the workers haveto receive to obtain the highest benefit, specifically, todevelop the technical competences and abilities needed bythe operative worker.

In relation to the less mentioned problems, but not lessimportant, there is the creation and development of thesoftware–hardware interphase, in which the optimum stateis very difficult to reach. The acquisition and delivery of thehardware of the AMT, which it is in many cases comple-mentary, and it is not clearly defined what is wanted when ispurchased or when a technological kit is acquired. To com-pare to the status quo in the enterprise, due of the aversion tothe economic risk, and finally, the incapability of evaluateintangible attributes, which can be due to the lack of knowl-edge of multi-criteria and multi-attribute evaluation techni-ques that simplify this problem.

Another problem that has not been much mentioned isabout the development of the software for the control of theAMT. This problem has wider and deeper effects in plantswith process layouts and low batch production, where thesetups are frequently and the companies are involved in apermanent search for alternative use of AMT; therefore, theyhave to reprogram continuously. Also, a contribution comesfrom the short life cycle of the product; it provokes uncer-tainty in the investors because it is very expensive andspecialized equipment that would be down if the productor demand changes radically. In addition, in Mexico, cus-toms is a problem that world companies face because theytransfer–import technology; finally, it has to consider thelack of modernization of politics and governmental econom-ic development strategies that the country has where theenterprise is established.

Thus, it is easy to see that there is empirical evidenceworldwide regarding the problems associated to AMT anddiverse explanations about their causes. Nevertheless, thosereports are only a list of problems, without focusing theirimportance, relevance, or magnitude in a multivariate anal-ysis; those are aimed only to a univariate analysis, givendescriptive parameters, like mean and standard deviation.This is one of the reasons for this project; besides, it isconsidered a convenient research to clarify those issues,given that there is some evidence of this type of problemsin small and medium manufacturing companies located inCiudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Thus, this paper aims toidentify the problems that the small and medium companieslocated in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico have hadwhen they deploy AMT. The importance of this study isthat manufacturing companies in Ciudad Juarez represents50% of the exports of the automotive parts for Mexico [12]and the AMAC [1] has in its records 352 enterprises as

members in different areas, these data indicate the econom-ical importance of this region [1]. Furthermore, this studymay be used as pioneer for future studies related to theimplementation of AMT in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico sincethere are no similar works reporting these problems, andthe manufacturing sector requires a first step towards thesolution of this problem that is very common; specially, inthis region, where several worldwide companies are locateddue to the closeness with the USA (the country with thehighest consumption in the world), and the inexpensivelabor rate of Mexico, where AMT is widely used in compa-nies with capital investments from different counties.

2 Methodology

The methodology that was used in this research projectbegins in the gathering and data compiling, followed bythe application and the analysis and interpretation of data;the tasks were divided into phases that are exposed in thefollowing paragraphs.

2.1 First phase: questionnaire construction

Phase one was focused in a bibliographic revision to deter-mine research that has been done about AMT and the prob-lems that the manufacturing companies have reported whenthey adopt any AMT. The base of the questionnaire wasconstructed with the main problems that report Low-Lockand Seetharaman [20] and those that appear in Table 1. Itwas built with 19 items, related to the problems they facedbefore, during, and after the adoption process of AMT. Thisliterature review allowed doing a validity of content of thequestionnaire that was being constructed.

The initial survey was applied to 29 engineers working inmanufacturing companies; this allowed making severalmodifications to the questions or items, because the literaltranslation had to be improved to be understood in the localfield. A blank space was left for a report of another problemthat they could have observed that was not in the initial list.Also, 10 new problems were added to the final questionnaireand 3 were deleted, having a final list of 26 items. Thesetasks allow giving a judge's validation to the questionnaire.The first section had 13 questions related to problems thatwere faced during process selection, 7 questions faced dur-ing implementation process, and finally, 8 questions relatedto problems faced during the operation process o setup.

A Likert scale was used to answer the questionnaire [19].It had values between 1 and 5. One indicated the totalabsence of that problem, and 5 indicated that the problemwas very serious. The questionnaire was validated with theCronbach's Alpha test, in which is recommended to have avalue higher than 0.8 [6, 7, 36]. Also, it was analyzed the

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131 125

impact of all the items if they were eliminated from thequestionnaire [25, 27].

2.2 Second phase: survey application

During the second phase, a total of 241 engineers workingin the industrial sector in different positions of engineeringand management were contacted. For that, it used a direc-tory that was proportionated by the AMAC (MaquiladorasAssociation, A.C. of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico). Itestablished an appointment with all of them by telephoneand the questionnaire was applied in their offices. Thequestionnaire was not always answered in the first visit; inthose cases, another appointment was set. It was establishedthat it would be three visits per engineer to get the answersof the questionnaire. Besides, it was sent by email in a Wordformat. In the cases where after three visits or three memosby email has no answer, this sample element was abandonedbecause of the time invested and the poor response.

2.3 Third phase: information analysis

In the third phase, the capture and analysis of informationwas built in a database in the software SPSS (StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences, 17). With the validatedquestionnaire, it a descriptive analysis of the problems wasdone, obtaining the median as a central tendency measure.Given that the data were ordinal, because of the Likert scale,the 25 and 75 percentiles were also obtained; this allowed usto obtain the inter-quartile range as a position measure anddispersion of the data [9, 26, 28]. Data was classified in atable, the data of the answered questionnaires appeared inrows, while in the 26 columns were the problems faced inthe implementation of the AMT.

Next, to determine the feasibility of factorial analysis, thecorrelation matrix was analyzed; findings were that themajority of the correlations were higher than 0.3. The anti-image correlations were also analyzed. Additionally, theKMO (Kaiser, Meyer, Olkin) index was calculated (it isrecommended a KMO>0.75). The Bartlett Sphericity testwas applied to measure the sample adequacy. Finally, thecommonality of the attributes was analyzed according toNunnally [24, 25].

To determine the factors, it was fulfilled by a factorialanalysis by the principal component analysis method usingthe correlation matrix for the extraction of the components.The factors that were considered as important are those witha value higher or equal to 1 or the half in the eigenvalues,conditioning the search to 100 iterations for the convergenceof the result [34]. Besides, with the objective of a betterinterpretation of critical factors, a factor rotation by theVarimax method [18] was made. The problems that integratethe factors were identified by the high value that the

factorial charges contained, which is a correlation measurewith the factorial axis [25].

3 Results

The results section is divided in several sub-sections,according to the information that is presented.

3.1 Questionnaire validation

When the questionnaire validation was made to determine ifobtained information was valid, it was found with a Cron-bach's index of 0.928. To corroborate this result, the twohalves test was applied, each one with 13 problems; the firsthalf gave a value of 0.852 and the second one was of 0.905.With these results, it was determined that the questionnairewas adequate to obtain information; thus, it was valid and itcould be applied to the planned analysis.

3.2 Sample composition

A total of 189 surveys of different companies were received.The sectors of the plants are illustrated in Fig. 1, where itcan be clearly seen that the automotive sector was the mostpolled, with 42 elements; followed by the electronic andplastic sector with 34 and 28 surveys, respectively. Theother sectors were from building materials, medical, amongothers. However, nine of those did not report the sector.

Regarding technologies recently acquired, the enterprisesdeclared that the robots integration to the production sys-tems was the most frequent investment, with 48 cases; in thesame way, milling machines, vision systems, and genericequipment CNC had 36, 27, and 21 answers, respectively.The systems in which less investment was reported are softones such as the systems 5'S, manufacturing cells, andvisual aids. In Fig. 2, the details of the AMT that have beenacquired recently are illustrated.

A detail that is important to mention is that from the 189answered surveys, 111 were answered by women and 78 bymen, this is important to mention because indicates thatfrom day to day women are occupying high level adminis-trative positions in Juarez industry. Besides, 151 enterpriseshad a number of workers in the range 50 to 250, and 35 werelarger with 250 or more, and 3 did not report the size, withthis information can be deducted that the polled enterpriseswere at least median.

3.3 Descriptive analysis

Table 2 illustrates a descriptive analysis of the problems thatare presented in the enterprises, which are showed indescending order in function of the median. Thus, as a

126 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131

function of the median, it is observed that the industrialenterprises in the city of Juarez commonly face problemsrelated to the AMT supplier's warranties; delivery timesfrom the supplier; distance to suppliers, frequently locatedtoo far away (generally in another country), and that thespare parts are too far and too expensive. This problem isclearly visible in Mexico, which is very different in othercountries, as it happens in countries capable of producingthe technologies required; but in Mexico, almost all AMT isimported. As a matter of fact, the supplier section wastotally integrated in the questionnaire in the second roundof corrections.

Regarding the less mentioned problems or those thathave a lower median value, they are several, among them,the installation setup and/or adjustments, these are problemsassociated with the supplier, that commonly are included inthe AMT package and responsibility resides in the vendor.Another problem with occupied low values in the medianwere some of financial nature, that in the case of border twin

plants, the economic analysis is not made in headquarters,the central corporative offices which generally are located inanother country and the analysts are not fully acquaintedwith logistics, personnel, and other issues. Another problemis tech tracking, also a function that it is not executed in theplants located in Mexico and might not be the best decisionfor the specific problem. Finally, the less reported problemis associated with the malfunction of the equipment.

About the inter-quartile range and the consensus levelthat was achieved in the survey, the lowest values are theproblems associated to the AMT supplier warranties, thesupplier delivery time of the AMT and the technique appliedfor the justification of the investment, which is indicatedwith a simple asterisk (*). Regarding the problems that havea wide dispersion, seems that there is no generalized con-sensus about their real importance. They are illustrated inTable 2 with a double asterisk (**) and are associated to thetype of AMT that requires specialized and expensive main-tenance personnel; otherwise, quality problems will occur.

48

36

27

21

16

12

9

7

5

3

3

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Robot

Milling

System of vision

CNC

Software

JIT

Test machine

6 Sigma

MRP/ERP

5´s

Manufacturing cells

Visual aids

Quantity

Typ

e o

f A

MT

Fig. 2 AMT recently acquired

42

34

28

21

16

13

9

7

6

4

9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Automotive

Electronic

Plastics

Textile

Services

Medical

Concrete

Office ítems

Air conditioning

Other

Not reported

Quantity

Sec

tor

Fig. 1 Sectors surveyed

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131 127

3.4 Factorial analysis

In the feasibility analysis of the factorial analysis, it wasachieved a KMO index of 0.834, which indicates an accept-able value of the sample adequacy. Besides, in the Bartlett'ssphericity test, obtained was a chi-square value of 577.97

with 325 degrees of freedom, which indicated a significanceof 0.00; thus, the conclusion is that the factorial analysis canbe applied. The total variance explained is shown in Table 3;eight factors explain the 73.802% of variance contained inall data, and appear the initial Eigenvalues and rotatedEigenvalues. For interpretation, the rotated Eigenvalues are

Table 2 Descriptive analysis ofthe problems

*Problems with the lowest val-ues about the inter-quartile rangeand consensus level

**Problems with a wide disper-sion and no generalized consensus

Problem Median Percentiles IR

25 75

Supplier warranties of the AMT 3.606 2.778 4.379 1.602*

Delivery time of the AMT 3.588 2.833 4.333 1.500*

Supplier is located too far away (in another country) 3.500 2.600 4.286 1.686

Spare parts are too expensive and too far away 3.462 2.364 4.429 2.065

It requires special infrastructure to be installed (energy, building) 3.429 2.278 4.346 2.068

Technique justification of the investment (for what is wanted) 3.323 2.435 4.091 1.656*

Workers training 3.314 2.423 4.083 1.660

It requires specialized personal for the maintenance 3.300 1.867 4.241 2.375**

Problems to configure or communication interfaces 3.296 2.175 4.229 2.054

Lack of knowledge to install it 3.250 2.313 4.022 1.709

Installation manuals in a foreign language 3.192 2.250 4.167 1.917

High maintenance fees 3.172 2.180 4.071 1.891

Lack of economic resources 3.161 2.259 3.968 1.708

Customs requirements to import the AMT 3.107 2.185 4.000 1.815

There were too many alternatives (of the AMT's) 3.063 2.107 3.906 1.799

It doesn't achieve the quality requirements 3.042 1.932 4.065 2.133**

Disagreement in the process of internal selection 3.038 2.161 3.981 1.820

Very expensive maintenance 3.000 1.778 3.966 2.188**

Fear and lack of confidence of the investment 2.906 2.125 3.815 1.690

Differences related to the design (the AMT isdifferent to the ordered)

2.806 2.032 3.750 1.718

Warranty failure 2.750 1.920 3.857 1.937

Cannot adjust or set it up 2.719 1.955 3.652 1.698

Financial problems (if it was financed) 2.704 1.792 3.727 1.936

Hard to locate the technology (technological tracker) 2.688 1.880 3.682 1.802

Frequent failures 2.469 1.457 3.420 1.963

Table 3 Total varianceexplained Component Initial eigenvalues Rotation sums of squared loadings

Total Percentageof variance

Cumulativepercentage

Total Percentageof variance

Cumulativepercentage

1 8.470 32.575 32.575 3.105 11.944 11.944

2 2.185 8.405 40.980 3.089 11.883 23.826

3 1.887 7.259 48.240 2.912 11.198 35.025

4 1.703 6.552 54.792 2.409 9.266 44.291

5 1.463 5.625 60.417 2.052 7.891 52.182

6 1.203 4.628 65.045 1.914 7.360 59.541

7 1.165 4.481 69.526 1.858 7.144 66.686

8 1.112 4.277 73.802 1.850 7.116 73.802

128 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131

used and it is easy to see that the first factor explains 11.944%of total variance, second factor explains 11.883% of totalvariance and when added to last factor, they explain a

23.826%. Third factor explains 11.198% of total varianceand when added to the first two factors, they explain35.025%. Similar interpretation is applied to other factors.

Fig. 3 Scree plot

Table 4 Factor analysisFactor Item Factor

loadFactor's name

1 Very expensive maintenance 0.844 Maintenance

It requires specialized personal for the maintenance 0.836 (11.944%)Frequent failures 0.774

High maintenance fees 0.706

Very expensive maintenance 0.508

2 It requires special infrastructure to be installed(energy, building)

0.829 Installation andsetup

Installation manuals in a foreign language 0.762 (11.883%)Cannot adjust or set it up 0.605

3 Delivery time of the AMT 0.762 Suppliers

Supplier warranties of the AMT 0.762 (11.198%)Warranty failure 0.624

Supplier is located too far away (in another country) 0.542

4 Lack of economic resources 0.751 Justification process

Financial problems (if it was financed) 0.695 (9.266%)Fear and lack of confidence of the investment 0.672

Technique justification of the investment (for what is wanted) 0.61

5 Disagreement in the process of internal selection 0.762 Decision process

Hard to locate the technology (technological tracker) 0.551 (7.891%)There were too many alternatives (of the AMT's) 0.502

6 Only a few operators know how to operate 0.822 Knowledge

Lack of knowledge to install it 0.65 (7.360%)Workers training 0.579

7 Customs requirements to import the AMT 0.803 Custom

(7.144%)

8 Differences related to the design (the AMT isdifferent to the ordered)

0.797 Failures anddifferences

Problems to configure or communication interfaces 0.542 (7.116%)It doesn't achieve the quality requirements 0.534

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131 129

In a graph context, the scree plot appears in Fig. 3 with ahorizontal line, indicating a cutoff for the Eigenvalues val-ues. It is easy to see that there are eight points or factors withvalues bigger than one.

Table 4 illustrates the factor number, the items thatcompose it, the load factor that the items have with thefactor associate, and an interpretation name for it. Thefirst factor is composed by five items and named main-tenance, because its items are related to that task. Thesecond factor is composed by three items and was calledinstallation and setup because the items associated to itare with problems faced during installation and setupprocess. Similar interpretation was made for the othersix factors. It is important to say that the differencebetween the first three factors is very close because theyhave values bigger that 11, but less than 12.

4 Conclusions

After an analysis of 189 surveys related to problems facedduring the AMT implementation process, the conclusionsare that there are eight main factors that explain the73.802% of total variance contained in 26 items or prob-lems. The factors or main problems are related to mainte-nance, installation and setup, supplier relationships,investment justification process, decision and analysis pro-cess, lack of knowledge, custom, and failures and differ-ences with the ordered AMT. It is important to say that theseresults can be very different to other developed countriesthat generate their own technologies, where the maintenancecan have a lower cost because the supplier is very close anddo not have custom problems.

In conclusion, manufacturing companies in CiudadJuarez have now a list of potential problems that mostcompanies face in the acquisition and employment ofAMT; besides, results may work to identify candidate sol-utions for the implementation process. Although, some ofthese complications are difficult to solve due to the compa-nies deficiencies or governmental regulations, this studymay be used as a first step towards the generation of strat-egies to solve the problems in the implementation process ofadvanced manufacturing technologies in Ciudad Juarez,Mexico.

Also, after reading several case studies developed inother countries and types of industry, we see that there isno a standardized or universal solution to the problem ofimplementation of advanced manufacturing technologies,and that can be due to that each industry faces its ownproblems, each country has its own customs regulationsfor import processes, and there are even countries that thisprocess is not necessary, since they are generating their owntechnologies.

References

1. AMAC (2010) Maquiladoras Association of Ciudad Juarez, A.C.http://amacweb.org/INICIO/Espanol%20Inicio.html. Accessed 16January 2011 (In Spanish)

2. Baldwin J, Lin Z (2002) Impediments to advanced technologyadoption for Canadian manufacturers. Res Policy 31:1–18

3. Beaumont NB, Schroder RM (1997) Technology, manufacturingperformance and business performance amongst Australian manu-facturers. Technovation 17:297–307

4. Canada J, Sullivan WG (1990) Persistent pitfalls and applicableapproaches for justification of advanced manufacturing systems.Eng Cost Prod Econ 18:241–253

5. Chuu SJ (2009) Selecting the advanced manufacturing technologyusing fuzzy multiple attributes group decision making with multi-ple fuzzy information. Comput Ind Eng 57:1033–1042

6. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure oftests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

7. De Troya-MM, Blázquez N, Rivas F, Fernández I, Rupérez A, PonsJ, Perea E (2009) Validation of a questionnaire in Spanish on behav-iors, attitudes and knowledge related to sun exposure: questionnaireon the beach. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas 100:586–595 (In Spanish)

8. Dangayach GS, Deshmukh SG (2006) An exploratory study ofmanufacturing strategy practices of machinery manufacturingcompanies in India. Omega 34:254–273

9. Denneberg D, Grabisch M (2004) Measure and integral withpurely ordinal scales. J Math Psychol 48:15–22

10. Efstathiades A, Tassou SA, Oxinos G, Antoniou A (2000)Advanced manufacturing technology transfer and implementationin developing countries: the case of the Cypriot manufacturingindustry. Technovation 20:93–102

11. Efstathiades A, Tassou S, Antoniou A (2002) Strategic planning,transfer and implementation of Advanced ManufacturingTechnologies (AMT). Development of an integrated process plan.Technovation 22:201–212

12. INEGI (2010) National Institute of Statistics, Geography andInformatics. http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/mexicocifras/default.aspx?ent008. Accessed 12 September 2011

13. Hynek J, Janeček V (2006) Advanced Manufacturing TechnologyProjects Justification, University of Hradec Králové. Faculty ofInformatics and Management Project no. 402/07/1495

14. Kakati M (1997) Strategic evaluation of advanced manufacturingtechnology. Int J Prod Econ 53:141–156

15. Karsak EE, Tolga E (2001) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-makingprocedure for evaluating advanced manufacturing system invest-ments. Int J Prod Econ 69:49–64

16. Kotha S, Swamidass PM (2000) Strategy, advanced manufacturingtechnology and performance: empirical evidence from U.S. man-ufacturing firms. J Oper Manag 18:257–277

17. Laosirihongthong T, Dangayach GS (2005) New manufacturingtechnology implementation: a study of the Thai automotive indus-try. Prod Plan Control 16:263–272

18. Lévy JP, Varela M (2003) Análisis multivariable para las cienciassociales. Prentice Hall, Madrid

19. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes.Arch Psychol 22:1–55

20. Low-Lock K, Seetharaman A (2003) Towards a better manufac-turing sector: a perspective on the implementation of advancedmanufacturing technology in Malaysia. Int J Manag 20:234–239

21. Mital A, Pennathur A (2004) Advanced technologies and humansin manufacturing workplaces: an interdependent relationship. Int JInd Ergon 33:295–313

22. Millen R, Sohal A (1998) Planning processes for advanced man-ufacturing technology by large American manufacturers.Technovation 18:741–750

130 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131

23. Noori H (1997) Implementing advanced manufacturing technolo-gy: the perspective of a newly industrialized country (Malaysia).Jour High Tech Manag Res 8:1–20

24. Nunally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill, New York25. Nunnally JC, Bernstein H (2005) Teoría psicométrica. McGraw-

Hill Interamericana, México26. Pollandt S, Wille R (2005) Functorial scaling of ordinal data.

Discret Appl Math 147:101–11127. Requena C, López V, González R, Ortiz T (2009) Propiedades

psicométricas de la escala de satisfacción con la vida enmujeres mayores activas. Rev Esp Geriatría y Gerontol 44:146–148

28. Tastle WJ, Wierman MJ (2007) Using consensus to measureweighted targeted agreement. Fuzzy Inf Process Soc 24:31–35

29. Shehabuddeen N, Probert D, Phaal R (2006) From theory topractice: challenges in operationalizing a technology selectionframework. Technovation 26:324–335

30. Shepherd DA, McDemott C, Stock GN (2000) Advanced manu-facturing technology: does more radicalness mean more perceivedbenefits? J High Tech Manag Res 11:19–33

31. Small MH, Chen IJ (1997) Economic and strategic justifica-tion of AMT inferences from industrial practices. Int J ProdEcon 49:65–75

32. Small MH, Yasin MM (1997) Advanced manufacturing technolo-gy: implementation policy and performance. J Oper Manag15:349–370

33. Stock GN, McDermott CM (2001) Organizational and strategicpredictors of manufacturing technology implementation success:an exploratory study. Technovation 21:625–636

34. Streiner D, Norman GR (1995) Health Measurement Scales. Apractical guide to their development and use. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford

35. Swink M, Nair A (2007) Capturing the competitive advantages ofAMT: design–manufacturing integration as a complementary as-set. J Oper Manag 25:36–754

36. Torralva T, Roca M, Gleichgerrcht E, Bonifacio A, Raimondi C,Manes F (2011) Validación de la versión en español delAddenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revisado (ACE-R).Neurologia 26:351–356

37. Zairi M (1992) Measuring success in AMT implementation usingcustomer-supplier interaction criteria. Int J Oper Prod Manag12:34–55

38. Zhou H, Keong LG, Jonsson P, Sum CC (2009) A comparativestudy of advanced manufacturing technology and manufacturinginfrastructure investments in Singapore and Sweden. Int J ProdEcon 120:42–53

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:123–131 131

Copyright of International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology is the property of Springer Science

& Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.