The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

IJOPM ORIGINAL PAPER

25,12
The flexibility of manufacturing
systems
1190
Nigel Slack
Brunel University, London, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Many of the pressures from the manufacturing environment are turning manufacturing
managers’ attention to the virtues of developing a flexible manufacturing function. This paper,
originally published in 1987, focuses on flexibility in manufacturing.
Design/methodology/approach – Assessses how managers in 10 companies view manufacturing
flexibility in terms of how they see the contribution of manufacturing flexibility to overall company
performance; what types of flexibility they regard as important; and what their desired degree of
flexibility is.
Findings – Flexibility has different meanings for different managers and several perfectly legitimate
alternative paths exist towards flexible manufacturing. The results of the investigations in these ten
companies are summarised in the form of ten empirical “observations”. Based on these “observations”
a check-list of prescriptions is presented and a hierarchical framework developed into which the
various issues raised by the “observations” can be incorporated.
Originality/value – Provides a focus on flexibility in manufacturing, as determined in 1987.
Keywords Flexible manufacturing systems, Manufacturing industries
Paper type Conceptual paper

International Journal of Operations &
Production Management
Vol. 25 No. 12, 2005
pp. 1190-1200
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443570510633594
Introduction
Flexibility is fashionable. As customers demand faster response and a wider variety of
updated products and as competitors achieve levels of performance above that which
was considered feasible a few years ago flexibility, above all other measures of
manufacturing performance, is cited as a solution. More flexibility in manufacturing
operations, it is held, means more ability to move with customer needs, respond to
competitive pressures and be closer to the market. Yet for all its new found popularity,
flexibility seems to be the least understood of manufacturing objectives; the very word
flexibility is used by different managers to mean different things.
The literature on manufacturing flexibility treated as a broad management
objective, is sparse. Zelenovic (1982), Buzacott (1982), Gerwin (1982) and Slack (1983),
amongst others, all developed some form of flexibility typology. Adler (1985) provides
an excellent summary of the work on flexibility classifications and some of the
emergent issues, while Gerwin (1983) and Graham (1986) develop methodologies for a
limited comparison of the flexibility of alternative manufacturing systems. As yet,
though, no totally satisfactory methods exist for assessing a company’s flexibility
needs, auditing its flexibility capability or (perhaps of most immediate use) evaluating
This paper was first published in IJOPM Volume 7 Issue 4 (1987) pp. 35-45. It has been included
here as part of the 25th anniversary issue of the journal.
in a broad sense change or in-vestment proposals involving the enhanced flexibility of The flexibility of
production systems. manufacturing
The intention of this article is to take the area at least one step further towards an
evaluative procedure by contributing in two ways to the growing debate on the systems
importance, nature and analysis of manufacturing flexibility. It presents:
(1) the results of a study which sought managers’ views on manufacturing
flexibility; and 1191
(2) an hierarchical framework which can be used for conceptualising and analysing
the flexibility needs of manufacturing organisations.

Managers’ perceptions of manufacturing flexibility

A study was made of how managers view the flexibility of their manufacturing
systems. It was not intended to be a comprehensive survey, rather it was intended to
provide an empirical basis for the development of a framework useful for the analysis
of broad manufacturing flexibility. More especially it had the objective of developing
propositions relating to a number of issues, namely:
.
Was flexibility regarded as intrinsically desirable under all or most
circumstances, or was it viewed as an attribute of the production system
useful only under certain circumstances?
. Where flexibility was regarded as important, why was it so regarded?
.
What types of flexibility were recognised, and which were seen as being
important?
.
How was the desirable degree of flexibility articulated, assessed or informally
judged?
.
How (if at all) was flexibility formally evaluated, for example for capital
budgeting purposes?

Ten manufacturing organisations were studied. Three of these were in the

process/mass production area, three were mass/batch producers of consumer
durables, one a large batch producer of industrial products and three were
batch/jobbing producers of industrial products. Depending on the company’s
management structure and the availability of key executives, several managers in
each company were interviewed. In all cases the manufacturing director, works
manager or whoever bore overall responsibility for the manufacturing function was
interviewed. Also interviewed, where possible, were other managers in the broad
manufacturing area, for example engineering, production control, industrial
engineering and quality control. In addition, senior managers outside the
manufacturing area were questioned in all of the companies visited. Usually these
included the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Marketing Director and, in six of
the companies, either the Purchasing or Personnel Managers or both.
The interviews were conducted on an informal basis although the same topics were
raised, usually in a similar sequence, in all cases. These roughly corresponded with the
previously described research objectives. In all but two of the organisations some of the
interviewees were given notice of the subject of the discussion and the type of
questions which would be raised.
IJOPM The results – 10 observations on manufacturing flexibility
25,12 Given such a small sample and a wide spread of companies, and given the relatively
loose methodology of the investigation no definitive conclusions can be drawn; but this
was never the intention. What did emerge were several generalisations about how
managers view manufacturing flexibility. These can be summarised in the form of ten
observations which will be used later to develop a framework for manufacturing
1192 flexibility.

Observation 1. Managers had a partial rather than a comprehensive view of

manufacturing flexibility
There was a tendency amongst most managers to restrict their perception of flexibility
in two ways. First, most managers focused more on flexibility as it applied to the
individual resources of manufacture as opposed to the flexibility of the production
system as a whole (Figure 1).
Using Buzacott’s distinction Buzacott (1982), they focused on “machine” rather than
“system” flexibility – Gerwin draws a similar distinction Gerwin (1982). This tendency
was especially marked amongst managers in the production function below director
level, where there seemed to be little voluntary discussion of how resource flexibility
contributed to the overall performance of the manufacturing function. The managers
who were least likely to discuss flexibility exclusively at the individual resource level
were those in the marketing area (and to a slightly lesser extent the CEOs) who often
actively sought system flexibility as a solution to unpredictable market conditions.
Second, not only was perception frequently limited to the resource level but also it often
focused exclusively on one particular resource. So “flexibility” was synonymous with
“machine flexibility” or alternatively “labour flexibility” in many managers’
vocabulary.

Figure 1.
Observation 2. Different types of manufacturing are concerned with the flexibility of The flexibility of
different resources manufacturing
Across all companies there was a tendency to concentrate on flexibility at the resource
rather than the system level. Amongst the companies studied, this tendency was most systems
marked in the jobbing/batch manufacturers for whom “flexibility” equated with
“machine flexibility”, and for process manufacturers where “flexibility” usually meant
“labour flexibility”. Companies in the batch/mass production area seemed to 1193
concentrate either on machine flexibility or alternatively both machine and labour
flexibility. In only one company was the issue of infrastructural flexibility raised; this
in relation to the ability of the company’s production control system to reschedule
production at short notice.

Observation 3. At the total manufacturing system level, managers identify four main
types of flexibility
When managers volunteered views on system flexibility or when discussion was thus
guided, four distinct types of flexibility emerged as important.
(1) Product flexibility: the ability to introduce novel products, or to modify existing
ones.
(2) Mix flexibility: the ability to change the range of products made within a given
time period.
(3) Volume flexibility: the ability to change the level of aggregated output.
(4) Delivery flexibility: the ability to change planned or assumed delivery dates.

These types are similar to a previously published typology Slack (1983) with the
omission of “quality flexibility” – the ability to change planned product quality levels.
No support was found in the sample for the idea that companies might want to vary the
quality of their products – improve maybe, but not “vary”.

Observation 4. Volume flexibility and delivery flexibility have some degree of

interchangeability determined by the type of manufacturing system
All the companies studied were concerned with mix flexibility and product flexibility
but volume and delivery flexibility seemed to be interchangeable to some extent.
Process and mass producers were more concerned with volume flexibility whereas
batch and especially jobbing companies were more concerned with delivery flexibility.
The various functional managers’ interest in the types of flexibility was predictable;
product engineers focused on product flexibility, process and industrial engineers on
mix flexibility and production controllers on volume and/or delivery flexibility.
Marketing, purchasing and general managers were interested in all four types.

Observation 5. Managers seek to limit the need to be flexible

Managers questioned in the study did not usually regard flexibility as something to be
promoted indiscriminately throughout the production system. In fact, they seemed to
try and reduce the need for flexibility by using one or more of three broad strategies,
controlling the external stance, controlling the internal need generally, and confining
the internal need to a limited part of the manufacturing system:
IJOPM .
Moving the company’s (external) market stance towards competing on a
25,12 non-flexible basis involved, for example, adopting strict limits on product range,
attempting to stabilise demand fluctuations or discouraging frequent production
modifications.
. Reducing the overall (internal) need for flexibility throughout the organisation
involved, for example, adopting modular product design principles or making for
1194 stock rather than following demand variations.
.
Confining the need for flexibility to selected parts of the manufacturing system
usually involved matching market segmentation with segmentation of the
production system often to restrict a significant proportion of the product range
to a limited part of the manufacturing system.
Observation 6. Managers accept that the word flexibility is used in two senses – to mean
range and to mean response
There was widespread support in the organisations studied for the differentiation
between these distinct dimensions of flexibility. It had been suggested previously
(Slack 1983) that flexibility has two dimensions. One dimension involves the range of
states a production system can adopt. Thus one production system is more flexibile
than another if it can exhibit a wider range of states or behaviours, for example, make a
greater variety of products, manufacture at different output levels or delivery lead
times, and so on. However the range of states a production system can adopt does not
totally describe its flexibility. The ease, with which it moves from one state to another,
in terms of cost, time or organisational disruption, is also important. A production
system which moves quickly, smoothly and cheaply from one state to another should
be considered more flexible than a system which can only achieve the same change at
great cost and/or organisational disruption. Both cost and time can be regarded as the
“friction” elements of flexibility which constrain the response of the system. They
are the manifestations of the difficulty of making a change.

Observation 7. Differentiating between range and response flexibility helps managers to

articulate their flexibility needs
After initial discussions with most of the managers interviewed the distinction
between range and response flexibility was introduced. The concepts were defined as:
.
Range flexibility, the total envelope of capability or range of states which the
production system or resource is capable of achieving.
.
Response flexibility, the ease (in terms of cost, time, or both) with which changes
can be made within the capability envelope.

It became clear that failure to distinguish between range and response flexibility was a
major cause of confusion between managers in the same organisation. For example, in
one of the sample companies a new flexible machining centre was installed which
considerably enhanced the production function’s response flexibility (giving major
benefits in terms of shorter throughput times, lower work in progress, etc.) but which
actually reduced the range of (differently sized) products which the company could
produce. Not surprisingly the marketing manager could not understand why the new
“flexible” technology seemed less flexible (in terms of range flexibility) than the old
jobbing shop which it had replaced.
Observation 8. Response flexibility is of more immediate concern to most managers than The flexibility of
range flexibility manufacturing
There was in most organisations a distinct tendency to view response and range
flexibility as short-term and long-term problems, respectively. In other words, the most systems
pressing issues of flexibility improvement which could reasonably be resolved in the
short-term were nearly always concerned with improving response, i.e. the time or
(more rarely) cost of making changes. So, for example, short-term flexibility problems 1195
included machine changeover times, new product lead times, purchasing lead times,
limiting volume changes, and so on. Issues of range flexibility on the other hand, were
usually long-term in nature and involved extra or improved resources. For example,
the range of products or parts capable of being produced in the manufacturing system
is usually determined by the capabilities of the technology and labour resources in the
system. Changing the possible range of products means changing or adding to these
resources in the longer term.

Observation 9. Managers see flexibility not as an end in itself but as a means to

other ends
Surprisingly the interviews seemed to indicate that managers see little intrinsic merit
in flexibility per se, rather that they want to be flexible in order to improve some other
aspect of production. In other words the justification for enhancing flexibility was
usually instrumental, and indeed often expressed in terms of other attributes of
production performance. Companies did not see themselves as selling flexibility
directly, they considered themselves to be selling what a flexible manufacturing
function can give. This was usually:
.
better product availability, i.e. shorter delivery lead time or a wider or
customised product range;
.
more dependable delivery, i.e. processing the part or product on schedule even in
the face of unreliable supply or uncertain process reliability; and
. increased productivity, i.e. better utilisation of process technology, labour or
material resources.

So, flexibility was often judged in terms of how it enhanced other measures of
manufacturing performance, namely dependability, productivity and availability.
Which of these was regarded as being most important was governed by the
perceived competitive position of the company, but also seemed to be strongly
influenced by functional responsibility.
Managers on the supply side of companies such as purchasing (suppliers of
material) and personnel (suppliers of labour) managers had a tendency to stress
flexibility as an answer to dependability problems. For example in-house
manufacturing capability (mix flexibility) helps to overcome slow vendor response,
transferability of labour between departments (labour flexibility) helps cope with
temporary skill shortages and so on.
Manufacturing managers, in the middle of the material chain, were more likely to see
flexibility as contributing to overall productivity. Manufacturing systems which were
flexible were seen as overcoming such problems as, for example, long machine changeover
times, excessive work in progress, fluctuating demand between product groups and so on,
all of which adversly affected resource utilisation and therefore manufacturing cost.
IJOPM Sales and marketing managers on the demand side of the company seemed to focus
25,12 on flexibility as a solution to problems of availability. The major advantages of a
flexible manufacturing function were seen as reducing delivery lead times, reducing
new product introduction lead times, the ability to offer customisation, and so on.
It should be stressed that there was not an exclusive preoccupation by any class of
manager on dependability, productivity or availability alone. Most managers cited all
1196 three justifications but in perceived importance the focus was as described (Figure 2).

Observation 10. The types and dimensions of flexibility which most concern
manufacturing organisations are determined by variety and uncertainty
It is perhaps traditional to leave the more speculative observations until last, and this
final point certainly is presented with less empirical support from the study. However,
as well as an intuitive attraction the idea does have some support from the research
data and was not directly contradicted in any of the sample companies.
In searching for some predictor of which types of flexibility were of interest to the
companies in the sample it seemed that two factors more than any other were at the
root of the need to be flexible. These two factors were:
(1) the variety of products, processes and activities with which the system has to
cope; and
(2) the ability of the system to predict the demands on it, i.e. the degree of
uncertainty under which it operates.

Puttick (1980) uses a similar device to categorise manufacturing systems.

In the short term, variety in manufacturing operations increases the need to
change the mix of products loaded on the system (mix flexibility – response) and
the need to readjust due dates since there are many different due dates
(delivery flexibility – response). In the long term the likely product design turbulence

Figure 2.
increases the need to be able to introduce a wide range of new products (product The flexibility of
flexibility – range). manufacturing
High levels of uncertainty in the market mean that in the short term emphasis
will be placed on responding to unexpected changes in demand (volume flexibility – systems
response), introducing new or modified products at short notice (product flexibility –
response) and rearranging due dates (delivery flexibility – response). Longer term, the
likelihood of continued market uncertainty will prompt concern over the limits to how 1197
much or how little needs to be produced (volume flexibility – range), what can be
produced using current technology and labour (mix flexibility – range) and by how
much orders can be expedited (delivery flexibility – range).
Figure 3 shows the effect of these two factors. Concurrent high levels both of variety
and uncertainty will presumably result in the whole field of flexibility types being
relevant.
The ten observations presented above are essentially descriptive in nature –
even allowing for occasional interpretive lapses by the researcher. It is not too
large a step however to framing a set of prescriptions useful for any organisation
which wants to understand its own broad flexibility requirements. Such a list
could be:
.
Flexibility is about the ability to change. Think of how the whole
manufacturing system can change what it does, as well as how individual
parts of it can change.
.
All resources contribute to flexibility. Flexible technology cannot be totally
effective without flexible labour and vice versa. Neither can be effective without a
set of procedures, systems and controls which are themselves capable of coping
with the flexibility of the physical processes.
.
Think of flexibility in four areas:

Figure 3.
IJOPM (1) introducing product changes;
25,12 (2) making different mixes of products;
(3) adjusting the volume of output; and
(4) changing delivery dates.
.
Not all of these will be equally important. Consider priorities, based on the type
1198 of manufacturing engaged in and the competitive position.
.
Flexibility costs money. Try to focus flexibility where it is needed to enhance
competitiveness.
.
Do not make life unnecessarily difficult. It is bad enough that the market
demands flexibility without bad design, poor communication, lack of focus,
excessive routing complexity, with year-end spurts making things even worse.
.
Always distinguish between the range and response dimensions of flexibility, i.e.
between what changes are possible and how easily they can be made.
.
Getting better response flexibility is likely to give immediate benefit, but without
decisions on range flexibility resources cannot be effectively developed over the
long term.
.
Think of flexibility in terms of how it can improve manufacturing performance –
especially in terms of dependability of delivery (between different parts of the
production system or to the customer), productivity of resources, and availability
of products (either lead time or range).
.
If possible, try and separate the parts of the business which have to cope with
high variety from those which operate under uncertainty. When both come
together the need for flexibility is maximised.

It is also useful to link some of these ideas together; behind much of the perceived
confusion surrounding manufacturing flexibility is the lack of any model or framework
which links the various aspects and types of flexibility discussed above. In an attempt
to provide a suitable framework, a flexibility hierarchy is presented which can be used
to clarify the contribution and role of flexibility in overall manufacturing strategy.
The central argument is that flexibility should be considered at four levels.
(1) the production resources themselves;
(2) the tasks which the production function needs to manage;
(3) the overall performance of the production function; and
(4) the competitive performance of the whole company (Figure 4).

Structural and infrastructural resources determine the degree of flexibility (measured

in terms of both range and response) of the four types of manufacturing flexibility at
the task level – new product flexibility, mix flexibility, volume flexibility and delivery
flexibility. Enhanced flexibility in these four areas gives better production performance
in terms of availability, dependability and productivity. Improved production
performance in turn increases overall company competitiveness.
The hierarchy is presented not to assess the effect of enhanced production resources
on company competitiveness by working up through the four levels but to help define
guidelines for the development of appropriately flexible production resources by
 The flexibility of
manufacturing
systems

1199

Figure 4.
The flexibility hierarchy

working down through the levels. In other words a company’s chosen competitive
position should define the desired levels of availability, dependability and
productivity. This will indicate the necessary range and response characteristics for
the four types of flexibility which in turn will set goals for the development of
appropriately flexible resources.

Summary
Managers’ views on manufacturing flexibility seem to be partly influenced by their
functional responsibilities and partly by their organisational position. However, most
managers have only a limited view of their company’s flexibility needs. Rarely do they
consider all the facets of manufacturing flexibility, nor do they recognise that all
manufacturing structural and infrastructural resources contribute to flexibility.
As regards functional responsibility, managers who supply resources to the
manufacturing core of the organisation such as personnel and purchasing managers
stress flexibility as a means of coping with unplanned disturbance. A flexible
organisation is one, which can accommodate such disturbances and thus ensure
dependability of supply. Manufacturing managers see flexibility as an aid to greater
productivity because flexible resources can be utilised more readily without cost
penalties. Managers on the demand side of the organisation see enhanced availability
of supply, either by widening the range of what can be made or by shortening supply
lead time, as being the main benefit of a flexible manufacturing function.
Support was found for a modified version of a previously presented typology of
flexibility Slack (1983) with additional observations that response flexibility is largely
IJOPM a short-term concern and range flexibility a long-term concern. Further it was
tentatively suggested that the variety and uncertainty under which a company
25,12 operates will determine the most relevant types of flexibility.
Finally, it is suggested that availability, productivity and dependability be formally
incorporated into a flexibility hierarchy which links overall company competitiveness
with resource level decisions concerning operational flexibility. This hierarchy could
1200 then form the basis of a procedure for assessing the broad flexibility needs of the
organisation.

References
Adler, P. (1985), “Managing flexibility: a selective review of the challenges of managing the new
production technologies potential for flexibility”, A Report to the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, Stanford University, July.
Buzacott, J.A. (1982), “Principles of flexibility in manufacturing systems”, Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Flexible Manufacturing Systems.
Gerwin, D. (1982), “Do’s and don’t’s of computerised manufacture”, Harvard Business Review,
March-April.
Gerwin, D. (1983), A Framework for Analysing the Flexibility of Manufacturing Processes, School
of Business and Administration, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Graham, M.B.W. (1986), “A tale of two FMSs”, in Voss, C. (Ed.), Managing Advanced
Manufacturing Technologies, IPS (Publications) Ltd, Thessaloniki.
Puttick, J. (1980), “The design of flexible manufacturing systems”, B.P.I.C.S. Proceedings.
Slack, N. (1983), “Flexibility as a manufacturing objective”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 3 No. 3.
Zelenovic, D.M. (1982), “Flexibility: a condition for effective production systems”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 20 No. 3.