J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
DOI 10.1007/s10845-009-0289-3
Integrating lean and other strategies for mass customization
manufacturing: a case study
Brandon Stump · Fazleena Badurdeen
Received: 6 December 2008 / Accepted: 30 June 2009 / Published online: 17 July 2009
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Mass customization (MC) manufacturing
requires high flexibility to respond to customer needs in a
timely manner. Lean manufacturing principles can be easily
applied to situations with low levels of MC. However, as the
degree of customization increases and customer involvement
occurs earlier in the design and fabrication stages, the direct
application of lean principles to maintain flow and low levels
of inventory becomes difficult. This paper presents a frame-
work to show how other strategies such as Quick Response
manufacturing/POLCA, Theory of Constraints, Flexible/Re-
configurable Manufacturing Systems, etc. can be integrated
with lean in MC environments. A case study of boat mass
customizer is then used to demonstrate how their operations
are transformed by for more efficient MC. Simulation mod-
els are used to compare pre- and post-improvement perfor-
mance.
Keywords Mass customization · Make-to-order manufac-
turing · Lean manufacturing · Pull · Kanban · CONWIP
Introduction
The process of providing goods and services to meet cus-
tomer need, and the strategy contained therein has been con-
stantly changing and evolving over the past century, making
great strides in efficiency, but also increasing in complex-
ity. This evolution of manufacturing paradigms can be easily
modeled by the automobile industry.
Automobile manufacturing began with the craft model
of production which provides a great deal of individuali-
B. Stump · F. Badurdeen (B)
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
e-mail: badurdeen@engr.uky.edu
zation for the customer. Its limitation is the low efficiency
and long lead times. On the other hand mass production and
the moving assembly line pioneered by Ford (1988) can be a
very efficient means of producing in large volume. However,
the push production philosophy can lead to excessive inven-
tory and waste and is inefficient for high variety manufactur-
ing. The Toyota Production System (Ohno 1988), introduced
to the West as lean manufacturing (Womack et al. 1991),
applies pull production concepts linking the shop floor to
the customer, thereby greatly reducing inventory, throughput
times, lead times, etc. This practice enables manufacturers to
add more variety to meet customer requirements while still
largely being dependent on standardized processes (Womack
et al. 1991).
The fragmentation of the previously stable and homo-
geneous markets in the recent years, where customers are
demanding individually customized goods and/or services
has led to the emergence and increasing popularity of mass
customization (MC) (Pine 1993). MC can be defined as provi-
sion of individually customized products (or services)
through the use of flexible and highly responsive manufac-
turing systems (Pine 1993) at a cost near that of mass pro-
duced items (Da Silveira et al. 2001). This combination of
mass production cost and efficiency with individual custom-
ization seems contradictory and unrealistic. However, com-
panies such as Dell, Motorola, Paris Miki, Bally Engineered
Structures, and many others have been pursuing MC success-
fully (Selladurai 2004; Pine 1993). Each of these companies
offer products with different degrees of customization and
they therefore possess varying capabilities to offer the MC
products.
The need for efficient and flexible manufacturing systems
combining push and pull strategies to deliver mass custom-
ized products has been briefly discussed in the literature (Pine
1993; Da Silveira et al. 2001). The potential of applying lean
123
110
manufacturing (LM) concepts to meet MC manufacturing
requirements has also been raised. While some lean prac-
tices are easily applicable others are more difficult to imple-
ment particularly when the degree of MC increases. On the
other hand, the potential of using many other strategies such
as Thoery of Constraints (TOC), Flexible/Reconfigurable
Manufacturing Systems (FMS/RMS), agile/leagile, Quick
Response Manufacturing (QRM) and POLCA to manage
the complexities of manufacturing have also been discussed.
However, the potential of applying lean manufacturing prac-
tices in different MC environments or the potential of inte-
grating these various other strategies for MC manufacturing
has not yet been addressed in detail.
This paper critically reviews the use of lean manufactur-
ing in the context of its application to MC manufacturing.
Various other strategies are qualitatively examined to deter-
mine their strengths and weaknesses for application in dif-
ferent MC environments when lean may be inadequate. A
theoretical framework is then proposed for the application of
lean and other strategies to combine push and pull mecha-
nisms, as relevant, to provide the flexibility needed in for MC.
A customized boat manufacturing company’s operations are
then studied, improvements proposed, modeled and evalu-
ated through simulation in an effort to validate and improve
the framework.
Lean manufacturing overview
Lean manufacturing is based on the Toyota Production Sys-
tem developed by Toyota which focuses on eliminating waste,
reducing inventory, improving throughput, and encourag-
ing employees to bring attention to problems and suggest
improvements to fix them (Womack et al. 1991). Figure 1
illustrates “The Toyota House,” showing the basic building
blocks of lean systems operations (Liker 2003).
In lean manufacturing leveled Production (heijunka) is
used “… to smooth out the perturbations in day-to-day order
flow…” (Womack and Jones 1996) so that mixed model
assembly takes place, as opposed to batch manufacturing.
Process standardization is achieved with standardized work
sheets that outline the steps for each process (Monden 1998).
Visual management of information to provide up-to-date
conditions are achieved through the application of 5s (sort,
straighten, shine, systematize, and sustain) and Visual Con-
trols (e.g.: labeling, color coding, and visual information sys-
tems). Just-in-time production is paced at the takt time and
the pull system helps maintain continuous flow of products at
all stages. This enables reducing lead time and throughput, as
products will not wait in large lines of WIP, but move quickly
and directly to the next process in the order of arrival.
The pull system relies on the downstream customer to sig-
nal that production should commence, whether they be the
123
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
Best Quality – Lowest Cost – Shortest Lead Time – Best Safety –
High Morale
Just-in- Jidoka
Time People & Teamwork (in station
quality)
1. Takt Time 1. Separate
2. Continuous Continuous
man from
machine
Flow Improvement
2. Andon
3. Pull
Systems 3. Problem
4. SMED Waste Reduction
Solving
Leveled Production (heijunka)
Stable and Standardized Processes
Visual Management
Toyota Way Philosophy
Fig. 1 Toyota house (Liker 2003)
end customer or the next process operator in line (Bicheno
2000; Wantuck 1989; Shingo 1988). However, regardless
of the resolution of the examination, the lean manufactur-
ing system operates with a single (or a few) pull signal(s)
(Liker 2003; Ohno 1988). A monument type process within
a plant may feed multiple production lines, but conceptually
the amount of signals it must fulfill is still finite and relatively
small.
The use of SMED (single minute exchange of dies) tech-
niques enable the rapid changeover for mixed model produc-
tion and continuous flow. Jidoka or quality at the source, for
example through the use of poke yoke or mistake proofing,
ensures that defectives are not passed downstream. Elimi-
nation of all forms of waste and continuous improvement
through problem solving are main elements of lean manu-
facturing.
Kanban and CONWIP (Controlled Work-in-progress) are
the two prominent control methods used for material flow
management. These systems seek to cap inventory and
increase the ability for a set of manufacturing processes to
flow (Co and Jacobson 1994; Takahashi et al. 2005). Kanban
applies the pull system while CONWIP seeks to combine
elements of push and pull strategies which allows it to buffer
work content variation between products and processes and
better handle the issue of shifting bottlenecks due to variety
(Takahashi et al. 2005). A comparison of these production
control strategies can be found in Gaury et al. (2000).
Thus, lean manufacturing implies a shift in the very cul-
ture of an organization; it is a philosophy and way of doing
business. It must also be noted that, though the hard side
of lean manufacturing—the tools and techniques—receives
more attention in literature, the soft side—respect, team work,
challenging work environment, as presented in the Toyota
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124 111

Way (2001)—is more important in sustaining the operational Type of Modularity

benefits over the long-term.
Design Fabrication Assembly Use

Design
Point of Customer Involvement
Mass customization overview and classification systems
1 2
MC follows a design-sell-make model where the finished Fabricators Involvers

Assembly Fabrication
product is not manufactured until end-customer order is
received as opposed to the design-make-sell model in tradi-
tional manufacturing (Badurdeen and Liyanage 2009).
Essentially, with MC an order does not exist in the system
until the end customer submits it (Lampel and Mintzberg 3 4
1996). This is in contrast to conventional lean manufacturing Modularizers Assemblers
where (though referred to as a make-to-order system) items

Use
are made to satisfy needs of immediate customers, not the
final consumer. MC therefore involves bypassing the various
intermediate tiers in the supply chain between the manufac- Fig. 2 Types of mass customization (Duray et al. 2000)
turer and end consumer, to directly interact with the latter.
Due to this design-sell-make approach, system operation
for MC manufacturing is very different from the single pull
Involvers engage with customers during the design and fab-
scenario of lean manufacturing; the MC manufacturer
rication stages while using modularity in the assembly and
receives many pull signals from individual consumers. The
delivery stages. Customers are involved early in design, but
effect of these multiple pull signals on operations can be sig-
this design must be created from a selection of standardized
nificant and depends on the extent and type MC adopted by
modules, as no new modules will be designed for them. Fab-
a company.
ricators involve the customer and make use of modularity
Various models have been put forth to classify mass cust-
during the design and fabrication process. Customers cre-
omizers depending on different criteria (Pine 1993; Lampel
ate their custom design, but modularity can be used to some
and Mintzberg 1996; Gilmore and Pine 1997; Duray et al.
degree to create similarities in components. Thus fabricators
2000). Most of these models use a single dimension—the
represent MC with the highest degree of customization in the
point of customer involvement in the value chain to create
product.
the customized product (e.g.: design, fabrication, assembly,
The Duray et al. (2000) model is more detailed and able
and distribution, etc.)—to classify MC manufacturers. The
to identify MC in the early stages of the value chain. Fur-
point of customer involvement is an important dimension
ther, though the importance of modularity for MC was dis-
that reflects the extent to which manufacturing operations
cussed earlier by Pine (1993) it is only fully utilized by Duray
are affected due to MC. However, this alone is not suffient
et al. (2000). As this model provides a more comprehensive
to capture the system complexity that results from different
classification in identifying customer involvement as well as
types of MC. Duray et al. (2000) presented a model that uses
modularity, has an early customer involvement focus than
two dimensions, point of customer involvement and the type
previous models and therefore has a stronger classification
of modularity used in the products to classify MC manufac-
strength, as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, it will be used in
turers. Modularity is a key concept for efficient MC (Pine
the following sections to assess the capabilities required for
1993) and can be present in the product, process or both
different types of MC.
(Swaminathan 2001); it is a means to provide variety and
speed in delivering the MC products (Duray et al. 2000).
Duray et al. (2000) divide mass customizers into four Post-fabrication and pre-assembly customization
groups: assemblers, modularizers, involvers, and fabricators
(Fig. 2 ). Assemblers involve the customer and use modular- The model in Fig. 2 enables creating two more general cate-
ity in the fabrication and assembly stages, enabling the cus- gories based on the similarities between fabricators/involvers
tomer to select different combinations of standard features. and modularizers/assemblers and the impact on manufactur-
Modularizers are characterized by involving the customer ing operations. These categories will hereafter be referred to
in the assembly and delivery stages, but using modularity in as high-level mass customization and low-level mass custom-
the design and fabrication stages. The producer uses standard ization, respectively as shown in Fig. 4.
modules to design and fabricate a base module, and specific With low-level MC, individualization is achieved by
customer needs are incorporated in assembly and delivery. assembling (and/or packing and distributing) pre-fabricated,

123
112 J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124

Fig. 3 Mass customization

classification model comparison

Fig. 4 High-level and High-Level Mass

low-level mass customization Customization
Design
∑ Highly flexible mfg.
sys.Config.
∑ Process modularity
more important.
∑ Production
planning more
complex.
∑ Increased reliance
Fabrication on teamwork and
learning.

Low-level Mass
Customization

∑ Less need for Assembly

flexible mfg.sys.
Config.
∑ Less need for
process
modularity.
∑ Efficient production
planning more
viable.
∑ Teamwork and Distribution
continuous
improvement

standard components in a customized manner. Thus with
both assemblers and modularizers the design and fabrica-
tion stages of the value chain remain unaffected by customer
involvement, warranting the combined discussion of these
two strategies.
Lean manufacturing practices are highly applicable in such
low-level MC where standardized modules can be produced
to forecasted demand (in the design and fabrication stages).
Though diverse orders are received from end-consumers
upstream design and fabrication processes can operate with
single pull signals for standard components from downstream
assembly (Fig. 5).
With high-level MC, which includes the involver and fab-
ricator strategies, customer involvement occurs in either the
design or fabrication stages; engaging the customer early in
the value chain (and imposing multiple pull signals on the

123
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
Fig. 5 Low-Level mass
customization
Design Fabrication
Legend
Customer
Interaction
Pull Signal
upstream design/fabrication processes) makes it difficult to
apply lean manufacturing practices (see Fig. 6). The diffi-
culty to forecast demand and plan for work content adds to
the complexity of manufacturing for this form of MC.
Mass customization competencies
MC is a complete paradigm shift from traditional manufac-
turing. Thus identifying appropriate manufacturing system
configurations and evaluating the use of lean manufacturing
principles and practices, mandates a review of the competen-
cies necessary to successfully implement the strategy. While
considerable literature exists on MC and related areas, there
have been very few studies that collectively addressed all the
capabilities needed for MC. Zipkin (2001) identified three
major capabilities for successful MC as elicitation, process
flexibility, and logistics. Moser’s (2007) presented a more
comprehensive model to classify MC competencies, defin-
ing eight distinct categories, and exemplified the impact of
these competencies. Figure 7 provides the competency model
put forth by Moser’s (2007).
Moser’s (2007) model is more descriptive, identifying the
competencies needed in manufacturing and support activi-
ties as well, while Zipkin (2001) mainly focused on primary
activities of the value chain. However, both models cover
the wide range of activities that must come together for MC
products to be marketed, configured, manufactured, and
delivered. Because the emphasis in this paper is on imple-
menting lean manufacturing—together with other strategies,
as needed—for MC, manufacturing competencies are more
relevant and discussed further in the following sections.
Based on the literature and empirical evidence, the MC
manufacturing competencies can be broadly classified into
the following: flexible manufacturing system configuration to
manage mass and individual production (Koren et al. 1999;
Mehrabi et al. 2000; Berman 2002; Zipkin 2001), process
modularity (Swaminathan 2001; Selladurai 2004), centralized
113
Assembly Distribution
OR
End-Consumer
production and logistics planning (Da Silveira et al. 2001;
Zipkin 2001; Selladurai 2004), and organizational learning
and continuous improvement (Barnett et al. 2004; Pine 1993).
Flexible manufacturing system configuration: Flexibility
of the manufacturing system is a key success factor for a mass
customizer (Zipkin 2001; Moser’s 2007); a company cannot
expect to benefit from MC without a highly flexible and adap-
tive manufacturing system configuration. There have been
some improvements in strategy over dedicated manufactur-
ing systems (DMS) (Koren et al. 1999; Mehrabi et al. 2000).
Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) often characterized
by expensive computer controlled machines are capable of
producing a variety of products with variable volume mixes
(Koren et al. 1999). However, they often tend to have lower
throughput than DMS, are costly and are designed to operate
at full capacity from purchase (Koren et al. 1999; Mehrabi
et al. 2000).
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMS) make use
of modularity both in machine and software to allow for quick
capacity adjustment, low changeover/setup between prod-
ucts, rapid adaptability of software, and quick ramp up to new
product production (Mehrabi et al. 2000). Another approach
proposed by Badurdeen and Masel (2007) is the design of
modular minicells to create small cells for the customiz-
able options. Products and parts are then routed through the
necessary minicells, while bypassing the unnecessary ones
(Badurdeen and Masel 2007). Irrespective of the configura-
tion used, for successful MC, the system must be a flexible
and highly responsive manufacturing system configuration
for successful MC.
Process modularity: Modularity is another key concept
for successful MC that enables creating some commonal-
ity between products, allowing for higher efficiencies to be
achieved while permitting customization. Ulrich and Tung
(1991) define modularity as “… the use of interchangeable
units to create product variants.” On the other hand, a mod-
ular process allows sub-processes to be chosen based on the
specific product characteristics and be routed accordingly
123
114 J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124

Fig. 6 High-level mass

customization

Design Fabrication Assembly Distribution

OR

Legend
Customer
Interaction

End-Consumer Pull signal

Fig. 7 Mass customization VIII. Process

competencies (Moser’s 2007) documentation and IT
support

VII. Management of
I. Customer Integration flexible organization
and processes

II. Application of Mass VI. Management of

product configuration Customization mass and individual
systems Competencies production

III. Employment of V. Central production

product modularity and logistics planning

IV. Product variant

management

(Swaminathan 2001; Selladurai 2004). Postponement, along
with modularity in both product and process, can be used to
enable a higher degree of customization (Berman 2002).
Centralized production and logistics planning: Crucial to
MC is the elicitation of customer order information
(Zipkin 2001) and transmittal of those specifications to the
shop floor for quick turnaround. Given the variability in
customer requirements proper determination of capacity
requirements, accurately predicting over/under utilization of
equipment and taking measures to control capacity will be
needed to control inventory levels and maintain predictability
(Swaminathan 2001).
Organizational learning and continuous improvement:
MC environments are characterized by shorter product
life-cycles (Selladurai 2004) and the dynamic work content
requires highly skilled workers capable of working in decen-
tralized and cross-functional teams (Pine 1993; Mehrabi et al.
2000). A learning organization with intellectual workers
(Mehrabi et al. 2000) who continually strive to gain further
knowledge of product and process is essential for MC.
The previous sections briefly discussed the various man-
ufacturing competencies needed for MC. It must be noted
that as the degree of MC varies (high-level versus low-level
MC) so does the extent to which these competencies effect
production.
Applying lean manufacturing for mass customization
Boynton et al. (1993) claim that becoming lean is an impor-
tant step for a company wishing to transition to MC. While
the theme of viewing lean as a transitional step to achieving
MC occurs with some regularity in the literature, little evi-
dence is available on the actual integration of lean principles
for MC operations. Several works refer to lean manufacturing
in a build-to-order or make-to-order environment, but these
essentially mean building only to demand as in a pull sys-
tem (Michel 2002; Clarke 2005). Make-to-order operations
differ from MC in that with the latter no work is done until
the customer configures their individual product and delivers
their specifications to the manufacturer.

123
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
From the previous discussions, it is evident that some
aspects of lean manufacturing are directly transferrable to
MC while others are not. For example the elimination of all
forms of waste, team work and learning organization, the
practice of continuous improvement, SMED, visual control
and 5S are important and applicable to all organizations, irre-
spective of whether they engage in MC or not. However,
when it comes to MC manufacturing, the lean capabilities
and tools that are applicable will vary based on the type of
MC in use.
MC is characterized by very low levels of stability and
standardization. Due to the high variability of demand and
difficulty of accurate forecasting, the concept of takt time
becomes less relevant, particularly with higher levels of MC.
Thus production leveling and takt pacing becomes a near
impossibility in many MC environments. Further, due to
the multiple pull signals for diverse products from individ-
ual customers applying pull manufacturing strategies, too,
is more challenging as the degree of MC increases. While
lean manufacturing is more easily adaptable to low-level MC
operations that delay customer involvement until later stages
of the value chain such as assembly or delivery, the use of
lean practices when the customer is involved in the design or
fabrication stage is much more abstract, and little research
has been done on the subject.
Jidoka, or source quality, is also increasingly difficult
to adapt to MC environments (particularly high-level MC)
because as products become increasingly customized and
variety rises, the concept of good quality becomes obscure
and quality control on the shop floor is more difficult. While
self and successor checks could still be implemented, with
much lower degrees of standardization in the product and
process, these checks become less efficient. However, some
degree of source quality can be used in any MC environment.
For example, the characteristics of a quality weld are con-
stant regardless of where and on what surface the weld is
placed, and thus can be efficiently controlled with self and
successor checks and other jidoka practices.
Other strategies to manage manufacturing flexibility
Various other strategies have emerged in the literature to cope
with changing market requirements. An investigation of these
in the context of integrating with lean manufacturing for sit-
uations where it is inadequate to meet the MC manufacturing
needs is presented below.
Agile/leagile manufacturing
Agility is defined as “… using market knowledge and a
virtual corporation to exploit profitable opportunities in a
volatile market place,” (Naylor et al. 1999). While agile
115
manufacturing is responsive manufacturing to survive in
continuously & unpredictably changing environments
(Buyukozkan et al. 2004) it is entirely different to the lean
paradigm, and even MC (Stratton and Warburton 2003); it
focuses on fast response throughout the supply chain to miti-
gate the effects of variability, while MC is focused on deliver-
ing customized products to individual consumers. By nature,
both paradigms are characterized by high variety and uncer-
tain demand (Krishnamurthy and Yauch 2007).
Many studies show that neither lean nor agile supply is
the answer to most production issues; a combination of both
may often be the best solution. This combination has been
termed leagile and involves the positioning of a decoupling
point in the supply chain (Mason-Jones et al. 2000) to sep-
arate upstream processes which are operated based wholly
on lean practices from those downstream that are run based
on agile approaches (Yusuf and Adeleye 2002; Mason-Jones
et al. 2000). Given that the customer involvement takes place
late in the value chain for low-level MC, these leagile strate-
gies can possibly be implemented with a well placed decou-
pling point. The best combination of lean & agile strategies to
increase customer responsiveness will depend on the product
and its market.
Job shop lean
Job shop lean is a relatively new method in which certain lean
manufacturing practices are applied to job shop environments
(Brink and Ballard 2005). The main focus of job shop lean
is value stream mapping to gain a system wide perspective.
While it is difficult to quantify information such as process-
ing times, lead times, etc. in a job shop environment value
stream mapping can still provide enough perspective over
the system to enable the visualization of many wastes (Brink
and Ballard 2005; Huang et al. 2005). Other lean principles
such as 5s, visual management, WIP control through kanban,
and total productive maintenance have found use in job shop
environments (Brink and Ballard 2005). There is very little
literature available on the actual application of job shop lean
or accounts of successful implementation and the benefits
of applying this strategy to custom manufacturing situations.
Also, it is difficult to see where this strategy differs from that
of lean manufacturing other than the environment in which
it is applied.
Flexible manufacturing systems/reconfigurable
manufacturing systems
Flexible/Reconfigurable manufacturing systems (FMS/RMS)
offer flexibility in manufacturing environments often using
numerically controlled machines and automated equipment
(Byrkett et al. 1988; Mehrabi et al. 2000). They are designed
to combine the flexibility of job shops and the efficiency
123
116
of high-volume manufacturing lines (Chan and Chan 2004).
Quick changeover and the ability to handle a broad range of
products in an efficient manner can be used to the benefit
of any type of MC. While limited to application in equip-
ment intensive environments they can have a profound impact
on throughput. As lean manufacturing also advocates setup
reduction, the combination of lean on the shop floor with
FMS/RMS capable equipment will be beneficial to any type
of MC. However, benefits are likely to increase as customer
integration moves up the value chain towards high-level MC.
Theory of constraints
The Theory of Constraints (TOC) focuses on a constraint or
bottleneck in the system which determines the throughput
and can be used as a pacemaker (Goldratt 2004). Control
is established through the drum-buffer-rope (DBR) mecha-
nism, where the constraint is the drum or pacemaker, a buffer
is placed between the drum and the downstream processes to
eliminate stoppage of the constraint, and the rope is employed
to pull product to the bottleneck from the upstream processes
(Klusewitz and Rerick 1996; Goldratt 2004) as illustrated in
Fig. 8.
Thus, TOC provides a means of inventory control and sys-
tem pacing on the shop floor. However, literature on quan-
tifying its effectiveness or the integration of TOC with lean
manufacturing is lacking (Steele et al. 2005). While the strat-
egy could be very effective for shop floor management in
some environments it could be difficult to apply in many MC
situations.
MC manufacturers are often faced with high work con-
tent variations due to the make-to-order of individualized
products (particularly with high-level MC). Thus the system
constraint is likely to shift with high frequency. The DBR
mechanism can be used with varying bottlenecks by identi-
fying and adjusting the system accordingly (Goldratt 2004).
However, for MC manufacturers it is likely that the constraint
will shift frequently, with a greater impact on low volume
manufacturers with larger cycle time ranges. Thus while TOC
could prove efficient in some MC environments; in others
the nature of MC will make its application too cumbersome
(fabricators and involvers, i.e. high level MC). With low-
level MC the customer interaction takes place later (assem-
bly stage), variety the work content variation will be lower
than with fabricators and involvers. Thus the bottleneck is
likely to more stable, making the application of TOC more
feasible for low-level MC.
Quick response manufacturing
Quick response manufacturing (QRM) is a manufacturing
control strategy that has found use in many situations where
product variety can be high. QRM seeks to reduce lead times
123
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
across all operations in order to gain responsiveness to the
customer and employs the paired cell-overlapping-loops of-
cards-with authorization (POLCA) for controlling flow and
inventory in manufacturing environments that face a high
number of complex product routings (Suri 1998; Fernandes
and Carmo-Silva 2006). POLCA cards are used for a rout-
ing between two cells, and are attached to the product upon
entering the first cell in the routing and detached upon leaving
the second cell (Suri 1998) thus controlling inventory levels
between each pair of cells and across all product routings as
illustrated in Fig. 9.
QRM and POLCA appear to be robust systems that can aid
in situations where customization & variety is high and lean
manufacturing is unable to meet the MC needs. High-level
MC faces high variety with customer interaction occurring
as early as the design stage. Lean principles such as Just-
in-Time, pull manufacturing, and leveled production fail at
this point and inventory control through kanban is likely to
be impossible. Thus, in such situations, the application of
POLCA for inventory control and minimizing lead time is a
key benefit for MC manufacturers. Manufacturers can also
use POLCA in tandem with kanban, employing POLCA to
manage routings and inventory between many cells, while
kanban controls material flow within the cells themselves
(Suri 1994, 1998; Fernandes and Carmo-Silva 2006).
While the competencies required for successful MC and
the principles associated with lean manufacturing are well
documented and defined, it is apparent from the literature
reviewed that there is a need for further investigation into
applying lean manufacturing practices to different MC envi-
ronments. Overall there is little literature to support or dis-
count the application of lean manufacturing for MC or the
successful integration of other common manufacturing strat-
egies. Based on the foregoing discussion on types of mass
customizers, MC manufacturing competencies needed, and
the potential of applying lean manufacturing practices for
those situations, Fig. 10 presents an integrated framework for
applying lean manufacturing and other strategies to different
MC environments.
In the figure, the four categories of mass customizers—
assemblers, modularizers, involvers, fabricators—are shown
in the middle. The lean manufacturing principles and prac-
tices and MC competencies needed are presented at the top
of the figure. The shading is used to highlight the ease of
applying these lean principles and the extent of the MC com-
petencies required for the MC categories. As indicated, pull
production techniques with one-piece flow and stable/stan-
dard processes can be easily applied with low-level MC
(assemblers and modularizers). However, as one moves to
the right of the figure, i.e. high-level MC, lean techniques
turn out to be more difficult to implement. The people and
team work aspect of lean, the soft side, are vital and can be
applied by any type of MC; they are shown at the top of the
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124 117

Drum Buffer Downstream

Upstream (Pacemaker Process) (Prevents stoppage of drum) Process
Process

Rope
(Links drum pacing with order release)

Fig. 8 Drum-buffer-rope (DBR) mechanism in TOC

Three Assembly
Cells

Two Fabrication
One Printing Cells
Cells
F1
A1 One Shipping
Cell
P1F1
P1
Loop F1A2
Loop
A2S1
Loop
A2 S1

F2

A3

Fig. 9 Control using POLCA (Suri 1998)

Fig. 10 Theoretical framework for applying lean manufacturing for MC

123
118
figure. Similarly, while the MC competencies are essential
for any type of MC, the shading is used to indicate those that
become more critical (darker shades) as companies transition
from low-level to high-level MC.
The framework also shows avenues of integrating QRM,
TOC, Agile/Leagile and FMS/RMS in combination with lean
manufacturing for different types of MC. Arrows show
which mass customizer(s) a particular strategy is most likely
to be useful whereas the thickness shows the degree to
which it could be useful in relation to other types of mass
customizers.
It should be noted that while this framework attempts to
give a clear picture of how lean and other manufacturing
strategies can be combined for MC environments, it is by no
means a complete representation of all cases. For instance,
the indication that QRM is beneficial for high-level MC is
meant to show that these are the areas where QRM will most
likely be needed. Obviously, the specific applications of these
strategies will differ on a case-by-case basis. Overall it is an
attempt to combine the existing findings into a comprehen-
sive framework to aid in further research.
Mass customization case study: SCT Boats
In an attempt to validate the framework and assess the poten-
tial of applying LM and other strategies for MC, a company
that manufacturers customized high-end boats is chosen for
study (to maintain anonymity the company will be referred
to as SCT Boats throughout the remainder of the paper).
The competition wakeboarding boat market is a fragmented
niche market with high-end products sold to customers with
varying degrees of customization. SCT Boats is a company
located in the mid-west region of the US and offers two base
model lines of boats; the Mini and the higher end Jumbo.
Within these lines, there are several different models (6 for
Mini and 10 for Jumbo) from which the customer can choose
from. Within the 16 base models there are many different
options for customization, the highest being the boat gel coat
pattern, or paint scheme (not paint color); 37 patterns for
Jumbo and 20 for Mini. In addition, there are many other cus-
tomizable options for each boat, including paint color, engine
options, canvas options, audio/video options, performance
options, trailer options and other miscellaneous options such
as an automatic fire suppression system all leading to an
explosion in the variety of products manufactured by SCT
Boats.
According to the Duray et al. (2000) model SCT Boats
can be classified as an assembler as customers are allowed
to configure products by choosing from a range of options.
Standard modules (the product models) are used as a base-
line and specific customer needs are taken into account in
the assembly and use stages. The company incorporates a
123
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
combination of make-to-stock (30%) and make-to-order
(70%) production, the former being sent to dealerships based
on forecasted demand while the latter is configured through
customer-dealer interaction.
Manufacturing system configuration: The manufacturing
system at SCT Boats is set up as a traditional moving assem-
bly line with various feeder lines. All feeder lines are func-
tionally arranged by department. The main components of
each boat; the deck and hull, move through lamination, rig-
ging, final assembly and inspection, while components such
as upholstery and plastics sync up with the product along the
way.
Process modularity: Process modularity is in use in nearly
every process at SCT Boats. While each product is signifi-
cantly different from the other, the subset of steps for com-
pletion of a particular process is similar, if not the same, for
each product. For example, in lamination, each boat must
have its mold prepared then be gel coated. The gel coat pro-
cess involves spraying several different layers of a gel paint
substance into the mold, with each layer being of different
color, thickness, and shape. This is the point of variety explo-
sion in the manufacturing process. To re-quote Swaminathan
(2001) and Selladurai (2004), a modular process is “… one
where each product undergoes a discrete set of operations
making it possible to store inventory in semi-finished form
and where products differ from each other in terms of the
subset of operations that are performed on them.” The gel
coat and essentially all of the other processes at SCT Boats
follow this trend.
Production planning: The company does not apply any
form of centralized production planning or control. There is
no WIP control or a clear picture of cycle times in any of its
processes that could be used to predict capacity requirements.
This makes dynamic and efficient production planning nearly
impossible.
Organizational learning and continuous improvement:
This is an area the company is actively seeking to better them-
selves. They have educated team members on the basics of
lean concepts and assigned lean improvement projects (such
as 5S). They have also used these teams to seek more active
involvement of employees in improvement projects.
To fully understand operations at SCT Boats a simplified
(details such as cycle times, setup times, WIP levels and num-
ber of operators, etc. is not shown) current state value stream
map (VSM) is presented in Fig. 11. The process begins in
the fabrication department where the deck and hull compo-
nents are moulded. Mould prep is the first operation, where
matching deck and hull moulds are selected and taped off
according to the customizable paint scheme ordered by the
customer. After 3 different coats of gel are applied the empty
cavities are filled with foam to harden for strength, moulds
are pulled and sent to grinding to remove excess material and
holes cut for other components to be added.
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124 119

Skier’s Choice
Monthly Make-to-stock
MRP Production Control
Dealer Orders
Monthly/Quarterly Orders
Weekly Order Buckets
To Stations

Suppliers Weekly Orders Customized Individual Orders Customers

FABRICATION (3 Parallel lines; one deck line, one hull line, one deck/hull line)

Gel/Barrier Core Spray/ Grind/Hole

M o ld P r e p Skinning Bulk
Finish Pull cut
Inspect
Coat

Daily
Daily/Weekly/
Monthly

135 135 45 90 22.5 112.5 90 225

20/35 40/60 40/50 40/50 35/55 30 50/65 40

COMPONENTS FEEDER
Finished
Mold Prep Gel Coat Skinning Pull Goods
Staging
Jumbo Hull
ASSEMBLY & INSPECTION

Receiving
Warehouse Cap & Rail Final Assy

45 180 0 450
20/25 30/40 30/40 20

Jumbo
Deck

UPHOLSTERY

V in y l C u t S e wi n g 135 Pool Test Lake Test Decals Shrink Wrap

Upholstery
Assembly

Mini Deck 180 225 270

35 40 30/40 30/35
Plastic Cut Foam

180
Cap & Rail Final Assy

Mini Hull

LEGEND

Inventory Pull Production Pulse Production

Jumbo Lead Time (best/worst): 2285 min. / 2530 min.
Push Production Manual Information Supermarket
Mini Lead Time (best/worst): 2260 min. / 2550 min.
Material Flow Electronic Information Deliver by Truck

Fig. 11 SCT Boats current state (simplified) VSM

The components department operates in a manner sim- Subsequent to fabrication, the deck and hull components
ilar to fabrication, but creates simpler, smaller parts to be are briefly inspected to repair blemishes and the deck & hull
installed in various stages of production (in fabrication and are also mated to ensure proper fit. From there, boats are sent
final assembly). The department is functionally arranged and to two separate lines (Jumbo and Mini) in the assembly area
consists of several machines commonly found in a wood where decks and hulls run parallel to each other (within each
shop, such as table saws, routers, and mitre saws. This area line) initially to add other interior components such as bilge
creates a large variety of simply shaped plastic pieces which pumps, the engine, and wiring, as well as underwater gear
provide structural support for components added in assembly such as propellers.
and as frames for components made in upholstery. The parts Finally, the deck and hull are mated permanently together
are made to stock and held in store fronts leading to a lot of and the boat undergoes a series of final finish processes
inventory. based on the options specified by the consumer. In the final
In the upholstery department parts are acquired from the inspection stage boats are first taken for pool testing and
plastics store front and assembled into frames based on the then for lake testing. Subsequently, each unit is cleaned, and
specifications of the boat. Foam, which comes roughly pre- final components such as decals and compartment covers are
cut from the supplier, is then glued to the frames and excess added.
foam is removed. Meanwhile, a CNC cutting machine, the As it is there is little control over the system at SCT Boats
only computerized equipment in the plant, cuts out pieces and even less visibility. The amount of WIP on the shop floor
of vinyl based on the size, shape, and color required by the is large in comparison to the daily volume the plant produces,
boat specifications. They are then sorted and sent to a sewing and this WIP amounts to a significant cost given the relatively
department where team members sew the pieces together to high product cost. Also of note is the fact that for the vast
create a skin. Lastly, the skins and frames are matched, and majority of the production process the main body of the boat
the skins are pulled over the frames and stapled before being is in two pieces which must be matched late in the assembly
sent to various stages of final assembly. stage. Obviously if one of these components are not ready the

123
120
assembly is halted (leading to build up of inventory); how-
ever, there is no clear method of sequencing products and
correctly matching the components to the correct boat.
Applicability of lean & other strategies
In this section a discussion on the applicability of lean and
other strategies (presented in the framework) to improve the
overall flow and reduce lead time at SCT Boats is discussed.
Based on the product portfolio offered and how the boats
are produced to meet individual customer needs, SCT Boats
can be classified as an assembler. With an assembler, stan-
dard modules are used in the product and customization is
achieved by allowing each customer to select different com-
binations of standard features, based on their specific needs.
According to the framework (Fig. 11) this means that lean
manufacturing techniques can be easily applied with pull
production and one-piece flow. Thus, the final production
schedule (sequenced) for custom assembled items would be
released to assembly where each boat can be put together
based on individual needs. All upstream areas should then
deliver standard components to final assembly based on pull
production. However, the challenge to implement lean man-
ufacturing in this manner at SCT Boats arises due to the
fact that though the components are standard in size, most
other features such as the gel coat scheme and color are all
individually chosen and affect the first two operations in the
manufacturing process—the completed deck and hull are
therefore highly custom parts. Thus, though SCT Boats
appears to be an assembler, they share some features of fabri-
cators because some components are fabricated after receiv-
ing customer orders. Therefore, the applicability of other
strategies presented in Fig. 11 are investigated below.
Agile/leagile manufacturing: At SCT Boats the use of
postponement to decouple production and downstream oper-
ations is not an option as the variety explosion occurs early
in the process. For this reason, the use of a decoupling point
in the context of the manufacturing operations at SCT Boats,
is not feasible. While agility is certainly a desirable feature
for MC to respond to markets, due to the inability to employ
a decoupling point the application of leagile is unviable SCT
Boats.
Job shop lean: Due to the production volume and prod-
uct variety at SCT Boats restructuring the shop floor as a job
shop will be highly inefficient. Therefore job shop lean is not
suitable for this particular mass customizer.
Flexible/reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Flexible/
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (FMS/RMS), as dis-
cussed earlier, are equipment strategies intended to enable
manufacturing equipment to handle broad ranges of prod-
uct types with fast changeover and setups. Due to the high
amount of labor content in producing wakeboarding boats,
the use of FMS/RMS will be of little use to SCT Boats.
123
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
Theory of constraints: As a mass customizer with high
variability in work content, SCT Boats faces the problem of
inconsistent cycle times in many of its processes. This means
that the constraint is likely to shift on a boat by boat basis.
The ability of TOC to control flow and WIP in the system will
be greatly diminished in this situation of a frequently shifting
constraint, as it will be very difficult to control the system
based on a single process when this constraint to throughput
is constantly moving. While TOC as a whole is an effective
method for systems control in manufacturing, the high var-
iability faced by SCT Boats makes it an unlikely means of
improving performance.
Quick response manufacturing: When examining the oper-
ations at SCT Boats it is apparent that all boats undergo the
same product routing from beginning to end, while the work
content at each process along that routing differs from one
order to the next. Because routing variation is low, the appli-
cation of POLCA seems unnecessary in this situation; the
benefits gained are not likely to outweigh the difficulties of
managing the POLCA system.
The foregoing discussion reveals that SCT Boats is an
assembler but with variety explosion occurring at the early
stages of the manufacturing process. Therefore, the other
strategies are too complex, not suitable or even unneces-
sary due to SCT Boats’ system configuration, resource needs
(highly labor-intensive) and production volume/variety.
Therefore, lean manufacturing techniques, with some adap-
tation to address the specific issues faced by the mass custom-
izer will be most suitable for system improvement. Though
the pull strategy may not work to control flow in all opera-
tions the use of route specific kanbans and CONWIP cards to
apply a combination of pull and push strategies will be most
appropriate. The framework provided a means to review the
production capabilities needed for the MC of SCT Boats and
the applicability of the other strategies for potential integra-
tion with lean techniques.
Restructuring the operations
With SCT Boats the main concern is the improvement of
product flow and reduction of lead time across the system.
The use of lean principles such as kanban, CONWIP, and
just-in-time to facilitate the transition to a lean system is
described below.
In the fabrication department the major issues involve
lack of flow, inventory control, and poor visibility. These
problems can be addressed by restructuring and dedicating
separate lines for Jumbo and Mini and using CONWIP to
control WIP. Each boat type can have two lines, one for hulls
and another for decks, thus synchronizing the flow through-
out the department and avoiding build-up of WIP at the end
due to mismatching hulls/decks.
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
Table 1 Number of CONWIP
cards Scenario Inter-arrival time
Jumbo Mini
A 96 80
B 80 68
To control inventory, CONWIP loops, that are better for
linear flow and variable cycle time environments, as here, will
be effective. To enable matching of decks and hulls, a pair
of color coded (separately for each model Jumbo and Mini)
CONWIP cards can be employed. Thus, to begin work on an
order in fabrication two CONWIP cards of same color must
be available and attached to the deck and hull. Finally, when
the boat exits lamination, the cards are detached and returned
to the beginning of the lamination process. The employment
of the CONWIP system allows overall WIP to be capped
while still using push within the system to help reduce the
effect of variable work content.
Unlike in lamination, the cycle times as well as the vari-
ations are much less in the components department because
the processing of the parts for various boats only differs in
size and occasionally color. Route specific kanbans are better
for high variety situations and can be used here. Since each
boat requires multiple parts from this line, it is also desirable
to employ kitting at the end of the line. Lastly, this department
can be restructured to contain two parallel lines (for Jumbo
and Mini) to allow for more stability and standardization.
For restructuring the upholstery department, dedicated
work cells is likely the best choice for SCT Boats. The com-
pany has already taken the initial steps in this direction by
defining a number of cells and the parts that will be manu-
factured in each of them. These cells are identified as stage
1, 2, and 3 cells based on the point at which the components
that are made in the cell are actually installed during the final
assembly process. While this is an important initial step for
the department, it can certainly be taken further.
Similar to the fabrication line, the assembly area has linear
flow and faces high work content variation making a CON-
WIP loop very suitable. Also as in fabrication, the deck and
hulls travel separately until the cap and rail process, so there
is again a need for a matching mechanism. In inspection the
cycle times for pool and lake testing are only slightly variable
and processing time is same across all models. Therefore a
simple CONWIP loop can serve to cap the inventory and help
to control flow in the system.
Simulation model design and testing
Simulation is a very effective tool to evaluate the poten-
tial impact of system design changes, such as that discussed
121
Fabrication CONWIP Assembly CONWIP Inspection CONWIP
Jumbo Mini Jumbo Mini
10 11 11 12 8
14 15 11 12 8
above, on performance by conducting what-if analyses (Chan
and Chan 2004). Therefore, a simulation model to test the
implementation of the proposed changes at SCT Boats was
built using the Simul8 simulation software.
Testing and results
Number of CONWIP cards is a measure of the inventory
in the system and can be managed to control WIP. How-
ever, stressing the system too fast, by having too few CON-
WIP cards can starve some operations and delay meeting
customer orders. Therefore, there is a need to identify the
best number of CONWIP cards to maintain smooth perfor-
mance initially. As the system performance stabilizes with
these quantities of CONWIP cards, the system can be further
stressed and improved. The preliminary number of CON-
WIP cards to be used with SCT Boats was evaluated through
the simulation by testing different scenarios. To evaluate the
variability of demand on the system, two demand scenarios
are considered (inter-arrival times are, low = 96, 80 min and
high = 80, 68 min for Jumbo and Mini, respectively). Differ-
ent numbers of CONWIP cards for Jumbo and Mini lines
(fabrication, assembly and inspection) were chosen for each
of the demand scenarios. An experimental design with 36
(=3 loops × 2 levels of CONWIP cards for each loop × 2
demand scenarios) combinations was formulated and tested
using the simulation. A separate simulation model was devel-
oped for the current state without the CONWIP loops or
any other changes described previously. The CONWIP card
requirements for the scenarios that gave the best lead time
and inventory levels, compared to the current state is pre-
sented in Table 1. The corresponding average lead time (all
times are in minutes) and system WIP is shown in Table 2
(complete results for all situations tested not presented here
due to space limitations). The reason for the difference in the
lead time quoted in Fig. 11 and those in Table 2 below is that
the former only included the manufacturing lead time; the
latter also includes the time orders are waiting to be released
to production.
Results from the simulation showed a significant reduc-
tion in lead time from the current state to, 45% for the low
demand scenario and 41% for the high demand scenario. It
is apparent from these results that the CONWIP loops are
accomplishing their task of limiting WIP and helping the
123
122
Table 2 Average lead time and
Scenario Inter-arrival time
WIP comparison
Jumbo Mini
A 96 80
B 80 68
system to flow smoothly. Comparison of average WIP in
these situations revealed a reduction of up to 23% for both
demand scenarios. When considering the high cost of the
boats these inventory reductions can turn out to be signifi-
cant savings for the company. These changes to the system
configuration at SCT Boats will help the company to be more
responsive as a mass customizer and reduce overall cost of
operations as well.
Discussion and conclusions
The applicability of lean principles varies depending on the
type of MC and the point of customer involvement in the
value chain. Certain lean principles such as continuous
improvement, waste reduction, visual management, 5s, etc.
can be readily implemented in most manufacturing environ-
ments. However, the ease of applying other lean practices
such as JIT manufacturing and load leveling for MC is less
straightforward. This paper investigated various MC strate-
gies and the application of the lean principles for those sce-
narios. The integration of various other strategies such as
agile/leagile manufacturing, job shop lean, FMS/RMS and
QRM/POLCA, too, were examined. Based on this investi-
gation, a theoretical framework for applying lean manufac-
turing, and the integration of other strategies when lean is
inadequate, for different MC manufacturing environments
was presented.
According to the framework, most lean principles are
applicable to low-level MC where customer involvement is
low and products are often assembled-to-order. However, as
degree of customization and customer involvement increases
(high-level MC), some aspects of lean, such as JIT and pro-
duction leveling become more difficult to apply. In such
situations companies can integrate other strategies with lean
concepts to increase the efficiency of MC operations. For
example, if a company engaged in low-level MC (assem-
blers and modularizers) can identify a clear decoupling point
for its operations (where processes are more standardized
upstream) agile/leagile strategies will be more suitable. Also,
if the production volume is not significantly high, a mass
customizer with a functional configuration can choose to
improve performance by applying job shop lean. On the other
123
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
Average lead time Average total WIP
Future Current % Reduction Future Current % Reduction
4,421 8,045 45 49.3 64 23
5,356 9,147 41 49.3 64 23
hand, FMS/RMS are likely to be the more appropriate choice
for high-level MC (fabricators and involvers) with large vol-
ume production. MC companies with cellular configurations
(or those suitable to be reconfigured as such due to medium-
volume, medium-variety manufacturing) with high routing
variations in the process will be candidates for applying QRM
and POLCA together with appropriate lean techniques. Many
MC companies will often have a clearly identifiable and fixed
bottleneck (e.g.: B2B mass customizer of industrial trans-
formers with a limited capacity oven for baking the cores;
Shuaib and Badurdeen 2009) which affects its operations.
Such companies can effectively integrate TOC to improve
the flexibility of their MC operations. Thus, the framework
presented in this paper can be used by companies engaged
in MC to identify how best lean manufacturing, and other
principles, can be integrated to improve its performance.
As demonstrated by the case study, the specific applica-
tion of these various strategies will vary on a case-by-case
basis. Though the case company was engaged in low-level
MC, some customized features were incorporated upstream,
starting from the first operation in the fabrication process.
Due to this variety explosion way early, complete pull man-
ufacturing was not possible throughout the process; a com-
bination of push and pull manufacturing was found to be the
most suitable. Therefore, the framework must be seen as a
generic representation of the applicability of lean and other
strategies for different types of MC. Each company engaged
in MC will need to select the most appropriate strategy, or
a combination of them, based on the specific circumstances
they are faced with.
The framework presented here can be further validated
and refined, if necessary, by studying the operations of other
types of mass customizers (modularizers, fabricators and in-
volvers) and the applicability of lean and other strategies to
their specific situations. One aspect that was not explicitly
evaluated in the case study and needs further consideration
is the importance of the soft side (people and team work) of
lean manufacturing for MC. As the extent of customization
increases companies will require highly skilled and flexible
work teams to cope with the dynamic work content needed
for different customer orders. This aspect of lean manufac-
turing and its importance and implications for different types
of mass customizers need to be further investigated.
J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124
References
Badurdeen, F., & Liyanage, J. P. (2009). Promoting sustainability
through mass customization: A framework and directions for
future research. International Journal of Sustainable Manufactur-
ing. Accepted.
Badurdeen, F., & Masel, D. (2007). A modular minicell configuration
for mass customization manufacturing. International Journal of
Mass Customisation, 2(1/2), 39–56.
Barnett, L., Rahimifard, S., & Newman, S. (2004). Distributed sched-
uling to support mass customization in the shoe industry. Inter-
national Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17(7),
623–632.
Berman, B. (2002). Should your firm adopt a mass customization
strategy?. Business Horizons, 45(4), 52–60.
Bicheno, J. (2000). The lean toolbox (2nd ed.). England: PICSIE
Books.
Boynton, A. C., Victor, B., & Pine, B. J., II (1993). New com-
petitive strategies: Challenges to organizations and information
technology. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 40–64.
Brink, T., & Ballard, G. (2005). Slam—A case study in applying
lean to job shops. ASCE Construction Research Congress. 5–7
April 2005, San Diego, CA.
Buyukozkan, G., Dereli, T., & Baykasoglu, A. (2004). A survey
on the methods and tools of concurrent new product develop-
ment and agile manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufactur-
ing, 15, 731–751.
Byrkett, D. l., Ozden, M. H., & Patton, J. M. (1988). Integrating
flexible manufacturing systems with traditional manufacturing,
planning and control. Journal of Production and Inventory Man-
agement, 29, 15–21.
Chan, F. T. S., & Chan, H. K. (2004). A comprehensive survey and
future trends of simulation study on FMS scheduling. Journal
of Intelligent Manufacturing, 15(1), 87–102.
Clarke, C. (2005). Do you want to be lean or agile?. Manufacturing
Computer Solutions, 11(3), 14–15.
Co, H. C., & Jacobson, S. H. (1994). Kanban assignment problem in
serial just-in-time production systems. IIE Transactions (Institute
of Industrial Engineers), 26(2), 76–85.
Da Silveira, G., Borenstein, D., & Fogliatto, F. S. (2001). Mass custom-
ization: Literature review and research directions. International
Journal of Production Economics, 72(1), 1–13.
Duray, R., Ward, P. T., Milligan, G. W., & Berry, W. L.
(2000). Approaches to mass customization: Configura-
tions and empirical validation. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 18(6), 605–625.
Fernandes, N. O., & Carmo-Silva, S. (2006). Generic POLCA-
A production and materials flow control mechanism for quick
response manufacturing. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 62(1–2), 119–132.
Ford, H. (1988). Today and tomorrow. Oregon: Productivity Press.
Gaury, E. G. A., Pierreval, H., & Kleijnen, J. P. C. (2000). An evolu-
tionary approach to select a pull system among Kanban, Conwip
and Hybrid. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 11, 157–167.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, J. B. (1997). The four faces of customization
(pp. 91–101). Harvard Business Review.
Goldratt, E. M. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improve-
ment. Minnesota: Highbridge Company.
Huang, C., Tseng, T., & Chang, H. (2005). A novel approach to lean
control. In Proceedings of IIE Annual conference and Exposition,
14–18 May 2005, Atlanta, GA.
Klusewitz, G., & Rerick, R. (1996). Constraint management through the
drum-buffer-rope system. In Proceedings of IEEE/SEMI Advanced
123
Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and Workshop, (pp. 7–
12). 12–14 November 1996, Cambridge, MA.
Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Jovane, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritschow, G., Ulsoy,
G., & Van Brussel, H. (1999). Reconfigurable manufacturing
systems. Annals of the CIRP, 48(2), 527–540.
Krishnamurthy, R., & Yauch, C. A. (2007). Leagile manufactur-
ing: A proposed corporate infrastructure. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 27(6), 588–604.
Lampel, J., & Mintzberg, H. (1996). Customizing customization. Sloan
Management Review, 38(1), 21–30.
Liker, J. K. (2003). The toyota way. Wisconsin: McGraw-Hill.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B., & Towill, D. R. (2000). Lean, agile, or
leagile? matching your supply chain to the marketplace. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, 38(17), 4061–4070.
Mehrabi, M. G., Ulsoy, A. G., & Koren, Y. (2000). Reconfigurable
manufacturing systems: Key to future manufacturing. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 11, 403–419.
Michel, R. (2002). Multiple paths to lean. MSI, 20(11), 54–57.
Monden, Y. (1998). Toyota production system (3rd ed.). Georgia: Engi-
neering and Management Press.
Moser, K. (2007). Mass customization strategies-development of a
competence-based framework for indentifying different mass cus-
tomization strategies. Morrisville, NC: Lulu Enterprises, Inc.
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, 62, 107–
118.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale pro-
duction. New York: Productivity Press.
Pine, J. B. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business
competition. MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Selladurai, R. S. (2004). Mass customization in operations manage-
ment: Oxymoron or reality?. Omega, 32(4), 295–300.
Shingo, S. (1988). Non-stock production: The shingo system for con-
tinuous improvement. Oregon: Productivity Press.
Shuaib, M., & Badurdeen, F. (2009). Job scheduling in associative par-
allel machines to minimize average flow time. In Proceedings of
the Indian Sub-continent Decision Sciences Institute Conference
(pp. 102–112) 2–5 January 2009, Mumbai, India.
Steele, D. C., Philipoom, P. R., Malhotra, M. K., & Fry, T. D.
(2005). Comparisons between drum-buffer-rope and material
requirements planning: A case study. International Journal of
Production Research, 43(15), 3181–3208.
Stratton, R., & Warburton, R. D. H. (2003). The strategic integration
of agile and lean supply. International Journal of Production
Economics, 85, 183–198.
Suri, R. (1994). Common misconceptions and blunders in implement-
ing quick response manufacturing. Technical Paper—Society of
Manufacturing Engineers 1994, (pp. 1–23).
Suri, R. (1998). Quick response manufacturing: A company wide
approach to reducing lead times. Oregon: Productivity Press.
Swaminathan, J. M. (2001). Enabling customization using standard
operations. California Management Review, 43(3), 125–135.
Takahashi, K., Hirotani, M., & Hirotani, D. (2005). Comparing
CONWIP, synchronized CONWIP, and Kanban in complex sup-
ply chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 93–
94, 25–40.
Ulrich, K., & Tung, K. (1991). Fundamentals of product modular-
ity. Issues in Design Manufacture/Integration, 39, 73–79.
Wantuck, K. A. (1989). Just in time for America. Michigan: Edwards
Brothers Inc.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
123
124 J Intell Manuf (2012) 23:109–124

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1991). The machine that in the UK. Modeling, Planning and Scheduling of Manufacturing
changed the world. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Systems, 40(17), 4545–4562.
Yusuf, Y. Y., & Adeleye, E. O. (2002). A comparative study of lean Zipkin, P. (2001). The limits of mass customization. Sloan Management
and agile manufacturing with a related survey of current practices Review, 42(3), 81–87.

123