Manufacturing Strategy and Business Strategy in Medium-Sized Enterprises: Performance Effects of...

192 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 56, NO. 2, MAY 2009

Manufacturing Strategy and Business Strategyin Medium-Sized Enterprises: Performance Effects

of Strategic AlignmentLouis Raymond and Anne-Marie Croteau

Abstract—It is generally recognized that a firm’s manufactur-ing strategy is effective to the extent that it is “aligned” with thebusiness strategy and provides the firm with a competitive advan-tage. Given a conceptualization of business strategy through Milesand Snow’s typology (prospectors, analyzers, and defenders), theaim of this research is threefold. First, one seeks to identify theperformance outcomes of strategic alignment in terms of the pro-ductivity and profitability of medium-sized enterprises (ME). Sec-ond, this research aims to verify if these outcomes are valid for allstrategic types or only for some. Third, to find out what manufac-turing strategy is the most appropriate for each business strategytype. A research model and hypothesis are tested with survey dataobtained from 150 Canadian MEs. Significant performance out-comes of alignment are found, thus validating the research modeland confirming the main research proposition. Differences betweenstrategic types are also found in terms of performance outcomes.Results indicate that each type of business strategy deploys ad-vanced manufacturing systems (AMS) differently by assimilatingand integrating various types of manufacturing technologies. Re-sults suggest that ME owner-managers must assess their firm’slevel of AMS assimilation in light of their strategic objectives.

Index Terms—Advanced manufacturing systems (AMS), ad-vanced manufacturing technology, alignment, business strat-egy, fit, manufacturing strategy, medium-sized enterprises (ME),performance.

I. INTRODUCTION

IN AN environment characterized by globalization and basedon knowledge, a good number of medium-sized manufactur-

ing enterprises (MEs) are subjected to increased pressures withregard to competitiveness, innovation, flexibility, quality, andinformation processing capability. At the strategic and opera-tional management levels, these pressures obviously call uponthe business strategy and manufacturing strategy of these firms.In the last decade, the manufacturing strategy of MEs has beenimplemented mostly through the adoption and assimilation ofadvanced manufacturing systems (AMSs), comprised of ad-vanced manufacturing technologies, such as computer-aideddesign and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) [40], and computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) applications, such as enterprise

Manuscript received June 15, 2007; revised September 15, 2007. Firstpublished May 12, 2008; current version published April 17, 2009. Reviewof this manuscript was arranged by Department Editor J. Liker. This work wassupported in part by the Canada Research Chairs Program and in part by theCanadian Foundation for Innovation.

L. Raymond is with the Departement des Sciences de la Gestion, Universitedu Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Trois-Rivieres, QC G9A 5H7, Canada (e-mail:[email protected]).

A.-M. Croteau is with John Molson School of Business, Concordia University,Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada (e-mail: [email protected]).

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2008.922646

resource planning systems (ERP), to manage manufacturing op-erations and resources [46].

Defining the manufacturing strategy as the choice of invest-ments in processes and infrastructure that enable the fabrica-tion of products and their supply to chosen markets [7], it isgenerally recognized that this strategy is effective to the ex-tent that it supports the firm’s business strategy and provides itwith a competitive advantage [67]. While the necessity of analignment between the business and manufacturing strategies istheoretically founded, only a few researchers have empiricallystudied the nature of this alignment as well as its influence onthe firm’s performance [16], [63]. As denoted by Ketokivi andSchroeder [33, p. 178], their literature review of evidence forthe contingency argument in manufacturing strategy researchwas “alas, a woefully short one.” The validity and usefulness ofa contingency-based theoretical perspective, have thus not yetbeen clearly established. And this is even truer in the context ofmanufacturing MEs, given these organizations’ specificities atthe strategic and operational levels, including their dependencyupon certain business partners such as large prime contractingfirms [15].

Based on survey data obtained from 150 Canadian MEs, thepresent study aims at a deeper understanding of the alignmentbetween the business strategy and the manufacturing strategy,the former being understood through Miles and Snow’s [41]recognized typology that includes prospectors, analyzers, anddefenders. The first of the three objectives of this research is toidentify the consequences of alignment for the operational andbusiness performance of manufacturing MEs. The second ob-jective is to verify if these consequences are valid for all types ofbusiness strategies or only for some of these. And finally, this re-search aims at determining what manufacturing strategy wouldbe most appropriate for each type of business strategy. The re-search question is then formulated as follows. Can MEs enhancetheir performance by aligning their manufacturing strategy withtheir business strategy? The necessity of treating this questionin the context of MEs is justified in the work of Dangayach andDeshmukh [15], who, following a review of the literature, havedenoted an absence of studies on the role and impacts of themanufacturing strategy of these firms.

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A. Business Strategy

As a research object, the business strategy can be apprehendedthrough its content or its processes [1], [11]. Content-oriented

0018-9391/$25.00 © 2009 IEEE

RAYMOND AND CROTEAU: MANUFACTURING STRATEGY AND BUSINESS STRATEGY IN MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES 193

research mainly focuses on the types of decisions that are madeand often investigates strategic taxonomies or typologies. Theobjective of such research is to better classify strategies orpatterns of strategic behavior [47]. Therefore, research on astrategy’s content underlines the what of such strategy. Process-oriented research puts more emphasis on how the strategy is for-mulated, implemented, and evaluated. The content perspectivehas been chosen for this study, given the research objectives thatare to uncover the strategic decisions made by MEs to enhancetheir performance. Also, as recommended by Mintzberg [45],the strategies examined here are the ones that are effectivelyrealized rather than initially formulated by the firms.

While many definitions of business strategy can be foundin the literature, Porter’s position [52] will be adopted here,wherein strategy is constituted by offensive and defensive ac-tions undertaken to counter competitive forces, and thus, providethe firm with an increased return on its investment. Over time,various measurement approaches have been developed, includ-ing narrative [59], typological [41], [53], and comparative [64]approaches. A firm’s strategic orientation or posture is thus aresponse to its environment. When this environment becomesmore hostile, turbulent, or complex, MEs whose orientation isaggressive and entrepreneurial increase their competitiveness byseeking new markets and putting the emphasis on technologicalleadership and product innovation [49]. Other MEs, however,focus on increasing their performance in terms of cost and de-livery capabilities, and in terms of flexibility [62].

With regard to the business strategy, Miles and Snow [41]typology has been the most recognized and widespread clas-sification scheme for the last 25 years [18]. A firm is, thus,classified as a prospector if it is innovative in introducing newproducts and seeking new markets, as an analyzer if it adoptsa “second but better” orientation based on a tradeoff betweenthe minimization of risk and the maximization of business op-portunities, or as a defender if it is cost-oriented and aims tomaintain its position in a relatively stable market. Being appli-cable independently of the industrial sector [22], this typologyhas been validated and used in numerous empirical studies, in-cluding a number done in the context of small and medium-sizedfirms [2], [48]. Note that Miles and Snow’s [41] typology ini-tially included a fourth type, namely, reactor, that is, enterprisesthat do not demonstrate any coherent business strategy. As waslater done by Miles and Snow [42] themselves and as is donein most empirical studies that have used this typology, reactorsare excluded from the present study [17].

Assuming the relationships and interdependence among anorganization’s strategy, structure, and processes, Miles andSnow [41] further developed the “adaptive cycle” concept asa foundation for their strategic typology, thus explaining howorganizations respond to their environment. These authors assertthat organizations are constituted and evolve through the resolu-tion of three managerial problems: the entrepreneurial problem,the engineering problem, and the administrative problem. Theentrepreneurial problem refers to the positioning of the organiza-tion within its market and the exploitation of new opportunities.This necessitates making choices with regard to the products orservices offered and the markets or market segments entered.

The engineering problem refers to the effective production anddistribution of goods and services. One solution to this problemconsists in adopting and assimilating scalable technologies thatwill render the production apparatus more flexible and allow forimprovements in quality. Finally, the administrative problemmainly refers to the control and effectiveness of the organiza-tion. A potential solution to this last problem is twofold: redesignand integration of business processes to reduce uncertainty onone hand, development of managerial processes that supportorganizational learning and adaptation on the other hand.

The adaptive cycle demonstrates how the choice of a givenstrategy (the entrepreneurial problem) demands a particularportfolio of technologies and capabilities (the engineering prob-lem), and how these choices affect the design of organizationalstructures and processes (the administrative problem). Finally,the choice of structure and process will influence and constrainfuture strategic decisions.

B. Manufacturing Strategy

This paper is among the first ones to investigate the linksbetween the business strategy and the adaptive cycle on onehand, and the manufacturing strategy and the decisions madeat various levels on the other hand. Indeed, a parallel can bedrawn between the business and manufacturing strategy. Forinstance, the same distinction between the content of a strategyand the process of strategic management is also made in themanufacturing area [44]. Here, again, the main focus is on thecontent where we are more concerned by the types of strategicdecisions that are made to achieve better performance whenusing AMS.

Starting from a conceptualization of the manufacturing strat-egy as a collective pattern of decisions bearing upon the for-mulation and deployment of manufacturing resources [13], thisstrategy is identified at three levels in research that has exam-ined its content, recalling in some manner the three aspectsof the adaptive cycle. First, the decisions bear upon the firm’smanufacturing capabilities with regard to its competitive pri-orities, such as manufacturing costs, product quality, customerservice, and flexibility of the productive apparatus, given marketneeds [34], [43]. Second, strategic choices must be made withregard to manufacturing structure and infrastructure, in mattersof plant and equipment, of production planning and control,of human resources development, and of product, organization,and management development, while insuring internal and ex-ternal coherence [6], [12]. Third, the manufacturing strategy ismeant to be implemented through best practices, that includeAMS and other advanced managerial practices, such as just-in-time, total quality management, and concurrent engineering,leading to the notion of “world-class manufacturing” [21], [30].

Examining the performance impacts of the implementation ofAMS such as flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs) and man-ufacturing resource planning (MRP-II), Dean and Snell [16]could not confirm the validity of an approach based on bestpractices. They thus rather proposed an approach based oncontingency theory to better understand the relationship be-tween manufacturing practices and performance. Proposing that


the performance outcomes of the use of AMS depend on theobjectives of the manufacturing strategy, these authors foundthat AMS were more appropriate to quality-oriented strategiesand to less competitive environments. For their part, Sun andHong [63] found that only 16% of 553 sampled firms trans-formed their business strategy objectives into a manufacturingstrategy, and those who did so showed a strong increase inprofitability.

C. Contingency Approach

The notion of alignment emanates from conceptual and em-pirical work in the domain of strategy and organization theorywhose basic proposition is that organizational performance isthe consequence of a coherence, compatibility or fit betweentwo or more factors such as strategy, structure, and technol-ogy [9]. In this perspective, coherence is a dynamic searchthat seeks to align the organization with its environment andto organize resources internally in support of this alignment[42, p. 11]. Given that strategy is the mediating force betweenthe firm and its environment, it constitutes in concrete fashionthe basic alignment mechanism, and the organizational technol-ogy must be compatible with this strategy if one aims to createa significant competitive advantage.

The idea that there is no best way to manage an organiza-tion underlies many research domains and models. Organizationtheorists have developed contingency models that share the un-derlying premise that context and structure must be compatible,in one way or another, if the firm is to achieve superior per-formance [19, p. 514]. As for strategic management, the basicpostulate of contingency theory is that no strategy is universallysuperior, whatever the environmental or organizational context[65, p. 424].

Following a study of 164 manufacturing firms, Ketokiviand Schroeder [33] concluded that the strategic contingencyargument explained operational performance better than thebest practice argument. Based on the fundamental assump-tion that there is “no best way,” certain researchers have pro-posed and empirically validated other contingency models, beit to study the alignment between the administrative struc-ture of the production function, the strategy, and the environ-ment [25], between new product development strategies andproduction control approaches [4], between quality manage-ment practices, process choices and business environmental un-certainty [26], and between strategic and structural contingen-cies in the adoption of innovative manufacturing practices [32],[54], [66].

The sophistication of the firm’s management of its systemsmust be aligned with its competitive strategy, be it of theprospector, analyzer, or defender type [21]. This orientationis translated into a manufacturing strategy based on a differ-entiation of supply or a reduction in costs that requires an in-crease in flexibility or integration, in quality and precision, andin information processing capability [16]. The use of advancedmanufacturing applications and technologies has also been em-pirically related to the manufacturing strategy [30], [36], [56].

Fig. 1. Research model on manufacturing strategy alignment in MEs.

III. RESEARCH MODEL

In answer to research question previously formulated, the re-search model underlying the present study is presented in Fig. 1.There are reasons to believe that different manufacturing strat-egy would be appropriate for each business strategy. Indeed, asdefined by Miles and Snow [41], many aspects of their typologyare related to the manufacturing strategy, including the prospec-tors’ need for innovation in terms of product development, theanalyzers’ need for flexibility to conciliate efficiency, qualityand innovation, and the defenders’ emphasis on operational ef-ficiency in terms of manufacturing costs and efficient planning.

A. Performance of Business Strategy

Although performance is typically a dependent construct as-sociated with Miles and Snow’s [41] strategic types, previousempirical studies have obtained mitigated or contrasting results,indicating that further investigation is needed. Indeed, somestudies found prospectors, analysers, and defenders to be equallysuccessful [55], [58], whereas others found prospectors to ei-ther be surpassed by defenders [22] or to outperform them [14].Organizational performance in such studies has usually beenmeasured in terms of market and financial performance.

When organizational performance is ascertained in terms ofgrowth (e.g., sales growth, market share, etc.), results indi-cate that defenders and analyzers are outperformed by prospec-tors [27], [51]. When profitability is the key performance out-come (e.g., net profit margin, return on assets, etc.), defendersoutperform the other two [69]. Furthermore, in terms of financialstructure, defenders have been found to show greater liquidityand less leverage than prospectors [20]. Note that such fluctua-tion in empirical results may be due to the fact that these studieswere conducted in different industries (e.g., manufacturing andservices such as the hospital industry) with organizations ofvarious sizes (i.e., large, medium-sized, and small).

B. Performance of Manufacturing Strategy Alignment

Firms whose strategy and manufacturing technology arealigned should be less vulnerable to changes in their business


TABLE IIDEAL MANUFACTURING STRATEGY PROFILES OF DEFENDERS, ANALYZERS, AND PROSPECTORS

environment and to internal malfunctions. They should alsoperform better because the technology provides the systemsand processes required for a successful implementation of thestrategy. The effect of this alignment on the firm’s performancemay, however, be moderated by the industrial sector in which itoperates, given that some sectors show higher levels of techno-logical intensity than others [29]. Such potential industry effectswith regard to strategic management must thus be taken into ac-count [39].

As mentioned previously, few researchers have empiricallyand rigorously examined the contingency relationship betweenmanufacturing strategy and business strategy. Dean and Snell[16] found that the performance outcomes of advanced manu-facturing technologies such as FMS and integrated applicationsuch as MRP-II, where more important when the firm’s strategywas quality oriented. Ketokivi and Schroeder [33] were able toshow that the impact on operational performance of a practicedeemed to be exemplary, such as just-in-time, depended, in fact,upon the strategic priorities of the firm. In line with empiricalresults on the strategic alignment of information systems [55],one can suppose that a high level of alignment between thebusiness strategy and the manufacturing strategy demonstratesthat the use of AMS by the firm is targeted on its competitiveneeds and strategic priorities, and thus, enables it to increase itsperformance. The first research hypothesis follows.

Hypothesis 1: Greater alignment of manufacturing strategywith business strategy is associated to greater performance.

Returning to Fig. 1, one should note that in terms of per-formance, the research model includes a proximal indicatorof productivity that is directly related to the objectives of theME’s manufacturing strategy and a distal indicator of financialperformance.

C. Ideal Profiles of Manufacturing Strategy Alignment

Deduced from the attributes of Miles and Snow’s typologyand from the implications of this typology for the assimilationof advanced manufacturing systems in MEs, the ideal profilesof manufacturing strategy alignment for prospectors, analyzers,and defenders are presented in Table I. In developing such aprofile, Venkatraman [65, pp. 434–435] indicates that there aretwo choices, one being theoretical, where the profile is specified“along a set of dimensions that are appropriate for a particularenvironment,” the other being empirical, where a calibrationsample is used. The former choice was made here, in order to

provide further evidence of the applicability and usefulness ofMiles and Snow’s typology in manufacturing strategy research,and to contribute to this research by identifying the profiles ofmanufacturing strategy “most suitable for each business strat-egy” [55, p. 25].

The manufacturing strategy is identified as the assimilationof AMS, based on Kotha and Swamidass’ [35] categorizationin three groups, on the basis of their functions and informationprocessing capabilities: 1) technologies for the design of newor improved products, such as CAD, meant to enable organi-zational innovation [38], 2) technologies linked to the manu-facturing process, such as FMS, meant to provide manufactur-ing flexibility [31], and 3) applications related to logistics andplanning, such as ERP, meant to increase business and systemsintegration [50]. Note that Kotha and Swamidass [35] includea fourth category of AMS, information exchange technologiessuch as electronic data interchange (EDI) and Internet-basednetworks (extranets) with customers and suppliers, meant toincrease interorganizational or external integration [37]. In thepresent study, this last category was combined with the thirdone, logistics and planning applications, for purposes of clarityand parsimony in the conceptualization and measure of manu-facturing strategy alignment.

Centered on the support provided by AMS to business pro-cesses, these three groups of technologies, respectively, reflectthree types of manufacturing strategies, namely, AMS for inno-vation, AMS for flexibility, and AMS for integration. It is positedthat these manufacturing strategies are the ways of providingsolutions to the problems of the adaptive cycle, as described byMiles and Snow [41]. The product design technologies containapplications centered toward product development, which canbe a key solution to the entrepreneurial problem. The processtechnologies are mainly manufacturing and robotic applications,and therefore, are a potential answer to the engineering problem.Finally, the logistics and planning applications are designed tosolve some administrative problems.

Therefore, AMS for innovation, AMS for flexibility, and AMSfor integration are, in turn, hypothesized to be most appro-priate for business strategies of the prospector, analyzer, anddefender types, respectively. More specifically, the AMS for in-novation manufacturing strategy is associated with the prospec-tor MEs who make greater use of product design technolo-gies when developing innovative products. The AMS for flex-ibility manufacturing strategy is reflected in the greater useof process technologies by the analyzer MEs who often need


technologies that offer multiple automated ways of producinggoods. Finally, the AMS for integration manufacturing strategyis associated with the defender MEs who are more likely to uselogistics and planning applications such as CIM applications thatprovide appropriate information, communication, and controlmechanisms.

It is important to note that flexibility and integration are char-acteristics of manufacturing organizations that bear both an op-posing and a complementary relationship. On one hand, themore an organization is integrated, the harder it is to “discon-nect” itself [37]. Thus, it has been found that the more firmsadopt integrated technologies, the less flexible they are [8]. Onthe other hand, integrated processes allow for greater shar-ing of new information, thus insuring quicker response tochanges in the environment and increasing the organization’sflexibility. Manufacturing strategy choices thus involve suchtradeoff.

In accordance with Miles and Snow’s typology, MEs ofthe prospector type are more committed to developing newproducts, investing more in R&D [48]. These firms have in-vested less in fixed production assets, but experiment with alarger number of technologies. The strategic priority would thusbe placed upon technologies that increase the firm’s productinnovation capability, such as CAD/CAM, but also, to a lesserextent, upon technologies that increase manufacturing flexibil-ity in order to rapidly bring new or modified products to existingor new markets [2].

Analyzers share certain traits with defenders and prospectors,being oriented on operational effectiveness and an increasedproduction in stable markets and on innovation in turbulent en-vironments [57]. These firms must maintain a basic set of prod-ucts, necessitating a certain level of integration in the productiveapparatus, but attempt moreover to seize product/market oppor-tunities, necessitating a certain level of product and processinnovation. This tension between the needs for competitivenessand effectiveness would bring analyzers to opt for the flexibilityprovided by technologies, such as FMS, that allow rapid and ef-fective adjustments to manufacturing processes in order to meetan added demand for an existing product or a demand for a newproduct [5].

Defender MEs put more emphasis on operational efficiencyand on the quality of products, but of standard and low-priceproducts [22]. These firms invest more intensively in equip-ment and other fixed assets for production, but they only usea few manufacturing technologies. Given their strategic objec-tives, one can presume that the strategic priority of these firmswould be one of integration of its intra- and interorganizationalmanufacturing processes in order to reduce its costs, increase itsproductivity, and better respond to the demands of its customerswith the support of applications such as ERP, e-commerce, andcustomer-relationship management (CRM) [37].

To summarize, a strategy based on AMS for innovation, fo-cused on the competitiveness provided by an improved productdevelopment process, would be advocated for prospectors. Astrategy based on the assimilation of AMS for flexibility, facil-itating changes in production volumes and processes, and thus,preserving both competitiveness and operational effectiveness

would be most appropriate for analyzers. And, a manufacturingstrategy based on the assimilation of AM for integration, ori-ented on the operational effectiveness obtained through bettersupply-chain and customer–relationship management, would bemost appropriate for defenders. This leads to three additionalresearch hypotheses.

Hypothesis 2: For prospectors, greater alignment with theAMS for innovation manufacturing strategy is associated togreater performance.

Hypothesis 3: For analyzers, greater alignment with the AMSfor flexibility manufacturing strategy is associated to greaterperformance.

Hypothesis 4: For defenders, greater alignment with the AMSfor integration manufacturing strategy is associated to greaterperformance.

Alignment is hence conceptualized and measured from a“profile deviation” perspective [65], that is, the less prospectors,defenders, and analyzers deviate from their ideal manufacturingstrategy profile, the better will be their performance. Followingthe method used by Sabherwal and Chan [55], deviation scoresare obtained for each firm in three steps.

1) Based on the theoretical profiles of the manufacturingstrategy attributes (Table I), values of 1, 0, and –1 areassigned as ideal values of high, medium, and low AMSassimilation, respectively.

2) The actual AMS assimilation scores for each firm arenormalized (thus, a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1for the normalized scores).

3) The deviation score is obtained by calculating the Eu-clidean distance between the firm’s ideal manufacturingstrategy profile for the business strategy type to which itbelongs, say AMS for flexibility for an analyzer firm, andits actual strategic profile as follows:

alignmentprospector = 1 − [[assimilationPDT − 1]2

+ [assimilationPT + 0]2

+ [assimilationLPA + 1]2]1/2

alignmentanalyzer = 1 − [[assimilationPDT + 0]2

+ [assimilationPT − 1]2

+ [assimilationLPA + 0]2]1/2

alignmentdefender = 1 − [[assimilationPDT + 1]2

+ [assimilationPT + 1]2

+ [assimilationLPA − 1]2 ]1/2

noting that the deviation score is subtracted from 1 in order toobtained a measure of “alignment” rather than “misalignment.”

IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research data were obtained from the Performance, De-velopment, Growth (PDGTM ) database, created by a univer-sity research center, containing information on 150 manufactur-ing MEs located in the province of Quebec, Canada. With the


collaboration of an industry association to which most of thesefirms belong, the database was created by having the MEs’chief executive and functional executives, such as the controller,human resources manager, and production manager, fill out aquestionnaire to provide data on the practices and results oftheir firm and add their firm’s financial statements for the lastfive years. Anonymity and confidentiality is preserved by hav-ing the questionnaires transit through the industry associationso that firms are known by the research center only by an al-phanumeric identifier assigned by the association. Once all thequestionnaire data and financial statements have been manu-ally verified by the research center’s personnel, they are typedin via validation software and entered in the database as validdata, ready for benchmarking. In exchange for these data, thefirms are provided with a complete comparative diagnostic oftheir overall situation in terms of performance and vulnerability(further information on the PDG diagnosis system and on datacollection and validation can be found in [60]).

Following a self-classification approach previously used [24],[48] to identify the firm as a prospector, defender, analyzer,or reactor, it was asked of the chief executive officer (CEO)to choose among the following statements the one that bestdescribed their business strategy.

1) I continuously innovate and regularly launch new prod-ucts/services.

2) My first goal is to maintain my current market share withexisting products/services by lowering their price or in-creasing their quality.

3) I rely primarily on existing products, while I cautiously in-troduce products or services that have already been provensuccessful on the market.

4) I am quite satisfied with the current situation. I will revisethe price or quality of my products or eventually introducenew products or services only if my firm is facing a majorthreat that endangers its survival.

Following Brandyberry and White [8], the assimilation ofAMS is measured by asking the operations manager to evaluatethe extent to which the technologies and applications imple-mented are actually mastered by the organization, on a scaleof 1 (low) to 5 (high). By summing these evaluations over thethree types of AMS defined in Table I, that is, over four productdevelopment technologies, five process technologies, and sixlogistics and planning applications, one thus obtains three as-similation scores (respectively, ranging from 0 to 20, 0 to 25, and0 to 30). Two widely used performance indicators were selected.The first one is more directly related to the firm’s manufacturingsystems, that is, the productivity of the workforce (gross marginper employee ratio). An indicator of financial performance wasalso included, that is, the net profit margin (ratio of net profit tosales), to evaluate if intermediate outcomes of alignment alsohave repercussions on the firm’s overall performance.

For the study’s purposes, an ME is defined as an enterprisewith more than 50 employees and less than 250, correspondingto the definition used by the European Union (see Kalantaridis[28, p. 249], for instance). The size of the sampled firms, thus,varies between 50 and 240 employees, with a median of 83,whereas annual sales vary from 1.6 to 55 million Canadian dol-

TABLE IILEVELS OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS ADOPTION AND

ASSIMILATION

lars, with a median of 10. More than 15 industrial sectors arerepresented, including metal products (28.7% of the sampledMEs), wood (16.0%), plastics, and rubber (15.3%), electricalproducts (7.3%), food, and beverage (5.3%), and machinery(4.0%). Being relatively representative of Canadian manufac-turing MEs with regard to size and sector, 49 of the sampledMEs (33%) operate in a sector whose technological level is low,83 (55%) in a medium to low-tech sector, and 18 (12%) in amedium to high-tech sector [61].

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. MEs’ Manufacturing Strategy, Type of Business Strategy,and Performance

As shown in Table II, the first descriptive results pertain to thelevels of AMS adoption and assimilation in MEs, thus reflectingtheir manufacturing strategy.

One can first denote technologies and applications that havebeen adopted by half or more of the sampled firms, i.e.,computer-aided drawing (68%), CAD (54%), programmablelogic controller (51%), and computer-based production schedul-ing (53%), reflecting each type of manufacturing strategy. Onemay also denote that technologies and applications that enableinnovation, flexibility, and integration, that is, CAD/CAM, FMS,and ERP, respectively, have been adopted by only a minority ofthe sampled firms, that is, 35%, 31%, and 13%, respectively.

With regard to the MEs’ business strategy, the sample is con-stituted of 66 prospectors (44.0%), 52 analyzers (34.7%), and 32defenders (21.3%), the greater proportion of prospectors con-firming results of previous studies [18]. The initial decision toexclude reactors was confirmed by the fact that none of the150 CEOs identified their firm’s strategic orientation as beingof the reactor type, in line with previous studies made by Auh


TABLE IIIBREAKDOWN OF THE SAMPLED MES BY STRATEGY TYPE AND INDUSTRY

TABLE IVMANUFACTURING STRATEGY BY TYPE OF BUSINESS STRATEGY

TABLE VPERFORMANCE BY TYPE OF BUSINESS STRATEGY

and Mengue [3] and by O’Regan and Ghobadian [48], amongothers. Table III presents the frequencies of the three strategictypes within each of the three industry groups formed on thebasis of the industry’s technological intensity, indicating thatthere is no significant relationship between the industry and thetype of strategy.

Analysis of variance results presented in Table IV also indi-cate that these three strategy groups do not differ with regard totheir manufacturing strategy, with the exception of a dominanceof both prospectors and defenders over analyzers in regard toAMS for integration (logistics and planning applications).

Moreover, as indicated in Table V, the three strategic typesof MEs are equal in productivity and profitability. This is inconformity with Miles and Snow’s [41] initial assertion andlater evidence [68] that no type should a priori lead to greaterperformance than others. One may note also that productivityand profitability are uncorrelated not only for all MEs (r = 0.04,p = 0.32, n = 150), but also within the prospector (r = –.03,p = 0.41), analyzer (r = 0.19, p = 0.09), and defender (r =–0.01, p = 0.49) groups.

Table VI shows the correlation coefficients that estimate thedirect effect of the manufacturing strategy on performance.Overall, these results are in line with a contingency rather thana “best practices” hypothesis, given that for all MEs, there isonly one significant positive association of the manufacturingstrategy with performance, i.e., the more process technologies

TABLE VICORRELATION OF MANUFACTURING STRATEGY WITH PERFORMANCE

are assimilated in the sampled firms, the more they are profitable(r = 0.18).

For prospectors, there is some positive effect of process tech-nologies on profitability (r = 0.17) but a negative effect oflogistics/planning applications on both productivity and prof-itability (r = –0.23, r = –0.32). For defenders in particular,there is no positive effect; there is however a significant nega-tive effect of process technologies on productivity (r = –0.41).Analyzers fare better in this regard as, in their case, both prod-uct development technologies and process technologies showsignificant positive associations with productivity (r = 0.25, r= 0.21) and profitability (r = 0.27, r = 0.27). Thus, no man-ufacturing strategy, in the form of AMS assimilation, seems tobe good for all manufacturing MEs, irrespective of their busi-ness strategy, and some manufacturing strategies could be badfor some enterprises. The alignment hypothesis, taking into ac-count the firms’ business strategy, thus seems called for in orderto better understand the effect of the manufacturing strategy ontheir performance.

B. Consequences of Alignment for the Performance of MEs

The first hypothesis was tested by calculating the product–moment correlation coefficient, both zero-order and partial, be-tween performance and alignment across all sampled organiza-tions. Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 were tested by correlating perfor-mance and alignment within each of the three groups, that is, forprospectors, analyzers, and defenders separately. The potentialinfluence of the industrial sector was estimated by using the sec-tor’s technological intensity level as a control variable. Resultsdid not differ significantly when sector effects are taken intoaccount, as were results with regard to profitability when thepotential intervening effect of productivity was also controlledfor.

The results of testing the first research hypothesis, proposingthat the alignment between the manufacturing strategy and thebusiness strategy positively influences the performance of a ME,are presented in Table VII. As indicated by the positive andsignificant correlation, hypothesis 1 is confirmed with regard toproductivity (r = 0.21, p < 0.01), but this was not the case forprofitability (r = 0.07).

Also presented in Table VII are the results of testing hy-potheses 2, 3, and 4, that is, for each type of business strategy.A greater coherence between their business strategy and theirmanufacturing strategy leads prospectors to be more produc-tive (r = 0.18, p < 0.1), but not significantly more profitable


TABLE VIICORRELATION OF ALIGNMENT WITH PERFORMANCE

(r = 0.15). For the defenders, a better alignment is associated toa better productivity (r = 0.31, p < 0.05), but not to profitability(r = –0.08). Whereas being closer to their ideal manufacturingstrategy profile does not render analyzers significantly moreproductive (r = 0.05), but it does render them more profitable(r = 0.26, p < 0.05).

These results confirm that is neither the business strategy northe manufacturing strategy by itself that leads to better perfor-mance but rather the “fit” between the two. As could be expected,the strategic alignment outcome was seen at the proximal or in-termediate performance level, namely, in terms of productivity.This is true overall, and is also true for both prospector anddefender-type MEs. These findings illustrate the fact that thesefirms use manufacturing technologies mainly to mainly increasetheir productivity.

However, firms of the analyzer-type differ, as their alignmentoutcomes are seen at a distal or business level of performance,namely, in terms of profitability. One may remember that analyz-ers are the only group of firms to directly benefit from both theirassimilation of AMS for innovation and AMS for integration(Table VI), and that they share certain characteristics with bothprospectors and defenders, and thus, present a less archetypi-cal strategic profile. It may also be that the AMS for flexibilitystrategy is more cost-effective in terms of overall costs ratherthan in terms of manufacturing costs, i.e., including sales andadministrative costs, because this strategy allows for quickerand better responses by MEs to sudden changes in demand ornew customer exigencies.

In reconciling these research findings with previous work onmanufacturing strategy, several conclusions can be drawn. Em-pirical credence was given to the contingency approach, aligningmanufacturing strategy with business strategy, and linking thisalignment with performance. This means that alignment or “fit”constitutes a valid theoretical foundation on which to furtherinvestigate the fundamental strategic management problem formanufacturing MEs, namely, how can these firms achieve valuefrom ever-increasing investments in advanced manufacturingsystems and practices and, in so-doing, also achieve world-classstatus for those needing or wanting to compete globally.

On a methodological basis, the profile deviation perspectivechosen to conceptualize and measure strategic alignment seemseffective in its capacity to describe the role and predict theperformance of the manufacturing strategy. The results of thisstudy also reveal that certain manufacturing practices in termsof AMS assimilation for purposes of innovation, integration, orflexibility can enable the development strategies of manufactur-ing MEs, providing for more favorable performance outcomes.

By accounting for other potential responses to the problem ofthe elaborating and implementing a manufacturing strategy thatis aligned with the business strategy, such as network responses(e.g., collaborative production and design), future studies wouldallow for a better understanding of the multiple adjustments thatmust be made by manufacturing MEs under the new constraintsimposed by globalization and the knowledge economy. Thesestudies should include other dimensions or manifestations of themanufacturing strategy than AMS assimilation, and particularlyin terms of human resource development.

VI. IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

A number of contributions and implications of this researchcan be identified. This study is among the first to have used arigorous conceptualization and measure of alignment to confirmthe theoretical validity and practical usefulness of this notion andof the contingency approach to the manufacturing strategy ofMEs, as opposed to the universalistic approach founded on the“best practices” notion. This allows one to emphasize the naturerather than the monetary value of the manufacturing MEs’ tech-nological investments, given that all AMS are not appropriate forall firms, but rather that certain types of systems are appropriatefor certain types of strategic orientation. Results indicate thatadoption and assimilation levels are higher for product devel-opment technologies than for process technologies which are inturn higher than for planning/logistics applications. This wouldbe in line with Miles and Snow’s [41] adaptive cycle, whereineach managerial problem is associated with a solution based onassimilating advanced manufacturing systems.

Having examined the rather complex relationships betweenstrategic alignment and performance, this study has confirmedthe existence of many relationships, a number of these depend-ing on the business strategy. For instance, a positive associationbetween alignment and productivity was observed for prospec-tors and defenders, but not for analyzers. Similarly, a positiveassociation between alignment and profitability was observedfor analyzers but not for prospectors and defenders. This im-plies that strategic alignment can not be in turn prescribed in auniversal fashion.

Indeed, when analysing our results in more detail, such ascorrelating both the business and the manufacturing strategiesagainst productivity and profitability, findings indicate that ana-lyzer MEs seem to benefit the most from the alignment betweentheir strategy and their manufacturing strategy. This may be ex-plained by the fact that analyzers seek to achieve a balance be-tween how they allocate their efforts in developing new productsand market opportunities, and how they use their technologiesto stabilize their current processes and make them as efficientas possible [41]. This equilibrium is illustrated by the fact thattheir use of both product development technologies and pro-cess technologies were found to be significantly and positivelycorrelated with both productivity and profitability.

For the owner-managers of MEs that want to augment theirfirm’s manufacturing flexibility, lower production costs, in-crease systems integration, improve product and service quality,and reinforce product and process innovation, the results of thisstudy allow one to advocate an examination of their level of


AMS assimilation, this being done in conjunction with theirstrategic intent. Identifying the assimilation level of the varioustechnologies and applications is essential in determining thealignment of the ME’s manufacturing strategy with its strate-gic objectives and competitive environment. For example, thiswould help in answering a question increasingly posed to agood number of manufacturing MEs, under pressure from com-petition that has become global, namely, if they should totallyintegrate their supply-chain and customer-relationship manage-ment by implementing an extended ERP system. This also im-plies that MEs must develop manufacturing competencies thatare matched with their strategic competencies, and adapt theirmanufacturing practices to the new organizational and environ-mental realities.

This study has certain limits that must be mentioned. Whilethe sampled firms are relatively representative of the popula-tion of Canadian manufacturing MEs, the sample is nonethelesscomposed of firms that have chosen to undertake an organiza-tional diagnostic exercise. There could thus be a sample bias inthat these firms may differ from the general population in regardto their strategic orientation, their manufacturing strategy, andtheir performance [10]. Other than the nature of the sample, an-other limit associated to the survey research method pertains tothe use of perceptual measures that demand prudence in general-ising results. Relying on the CEO for the self-typing of the firm’sbusiness strategy may also imply a cognitive bias, notwithstand-ing that this type of measurement is widely accepted in strategicmanagement research [2]. The cross-sectional rather than lon-gitudinal nature of the study moreover implies that the resultsdo not necessarily reflect the long-term effects of alignment onperformance. Finally, while used in this research to describe thestrategic behaviors of MEs with clarity and parsimony, Milesand Snow’s typology obviously simplifies reality to the extentthat these firms can adopt hybrid strategies that combine certaincharacteristics of the defender, the analyser, and the prospectortype [18].

VII. CONCLUSION

It is recognized that MEs must be flexible and readily adapt-able to change, be it competitive, strategic, operational, or tech-nological in nature. A number of these enterprises have alreadyimplemented a manufacturing strategy based on advanced man-ufacturing systems. In a business environment that has becomemore complex, manufacturing MEs must also implement prac-tices, such as concurrent engineering, just-in-time, and value-added production to improve their competitive position. In thecontinuation of the present research results, one should not how-ever propose such practices to medium-sized firms as best prac-tices to be adopted by all firms whatever their strategic orienta-tion, but rather in a contingency perspective. As demonstrated,investments in AMS cannot by themselves lead to better per-formance, to the extent that they are not in coherence with theMEs’ competitive environment and strategic objectives. To thisend, these firms must improve their technology managementcapability in a strategic alignment perspective; hence, they mustobtain added support from researchers and knowledge transferagents.

For purposes of comparison and extension of these findings,further research on the manufacturing strategy of MEs mustbe pursued, using other strategic typologies than that of Milesand Snow, such as Porter’s [52] generic competitive strategies,and manifestations of the manufacturing strategy other than theassimilation of AMS, for instance at the human resource man-agement level. Potentially important contextual factors otherthan size and sector, such as the firm’s marketing strategy andtechnological learning, should also be taken into account.

REFERENCES

[1] H. I. Ansoff, Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.[2] A. Aragon-Sanchez and G. Sanchez-Marın, “Strategic orientation, man-

agement characteristics, and performance: A study of Spanish SMEs,” J.Small Bus. Manage., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 287–308, 2005.

[3] S. Auh and B. Mengue, “Balancing exploration and exploitation: Themoderating role of competitive intensity,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 58, no. 12,pp. 1652–1661, 2004.

[4] C. K. Bart, “Controlling new products: A contingency approach,” Int. J.Technol. Manage., vol. 18, pp. 395–413, 1999.

[5] R. Beach, A. P. Muhlemann, D. H. R. Price, A. Paterson, and J. A. Sharp,“Manufacturing operations and strategic flexibility: Survey and cases,”Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 7–30, 2000.

[6] W. L. Berry and T. Hill, “Linking systems to strategy,” Int. J. Oper. Prod.Manage., vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 3–15, 1992.

[7] W. L. Berry, T. Hill, and J. E. Klompmaker, “Customer driven manufac-turing,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 4–15, 1995.

[8] A. Brandyberry and G. P. White, “Intermediate performance impacts ofadvanced manufacturing technology systems: An empirical investigation,”Decis. Sci., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 993–1020, 1999.

[9] T. Burns and G. M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation. London,U.K.: Tavistock, 1961.

[10] C. Cassell, S. Nadin, and M. O. Gray, “The use and effectiveness ofbenchmarking in SMEs,” Benchmarking: Int. J., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 212–222, 2001.

[11] A. D. Chandler, Jr., Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1962.

[12] S. Chatterjee, “Delivering desired outcomes efficiently: The creative keyto competitive strategy,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 78–95,1998.

[13] J. F. Cox, III and J. H. Blackstone, APICS Dictionary, 9th ed. FallsChurch, VA: The Association for Operations Management, 1998.

[14] A.-M. Croteau and F. Bergeron, “An information technology trilogy: Busi-ness strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance,”J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 77–99, 2001.

[15] G. S. Dangayach and S. G. Deshmukh, “Manufacturing strategy: Literaturereview and some issues,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 21, no. 7,pp. 884–932, 2001.

[16] J. W. Dean, Jr. and S. A. Snell, “The strategic use of integrated manufac-turing: An empirical examination,” Strateg. Manage. J., vol. 17, no. 6,pp. 459–480, 1996.

[17] J. Delery and D. H. Doty, “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resourcemanagement: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational per-formance predictors,” Acad. Manage. J., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 802–835, 1996.

[18] W. S. DeSarbo, C. A. Di Benedetto, M. Song, and I. Sinha, “Revisitingthe miles and snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationshipsbetween strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firmperformance,” Strateg. Manage. J., vol. 26, pp. 47–74, 2005.

[19] R. Drazin and A. H. Van de Ven, “An examination of the alternative formsof contingency theory,” Administ. Sci. Quart., vol. 30, pp. 514–539, 1985.

[20] G. O. Ginn, G. J. Young, and R. I. Beekun, “Business strategy and financialstructure: An empirical analysis of acute care hospitals,” Hospital HealthServ. Admin., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 191–209, 1995.

[21] Y. P. Gupta, J. Karimi, and T. M. Somers, “Alignment of a firm’s competi-tive strategy and information technology management sophistication: Themissing link,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 399–413,Nov. 1997.

[22] D. C. Hambrick, “Some tests of the effectiveness of functional attributesof Miles and Snow’s strategic types,” Acad. Manage. J., vol. 26, no. 1,pp. 5–26, 1983.


[23] D. C. Hambrick and J. W. Fredrickson, “Are you sure you have a strat-egy?,” Acad. Manage. Exec., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 48–59, 2001.

[24] W. L. James and K. J. Hatten, “Further evidence on the validity of theself-typing paragraph approach: Miles and Snow’s strategic archetypes inbanking,” Strateg. Manage. J., vol. 16, pp. 161–168, 1995.

[25] M. Jelinek and M. C. Burstein, “The production administrative structure:A paradigm for strategic fit,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 242–252, 1982.

[26] R. T. Jones and C. Ryan, “Matching process choice and uncertainty:Modelling quality management,” Bus. Process Manage. J., vol. 8, no. 2,pp. 161–168, 2002.

[27] R. Jusoh, D. N. Ibrahim, and Y. Zainuddin, “Assessing the alignmentbetween business strategy and use of multiple performance measures usinginteraction approach,” Bus. Rev., Camb., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 51–60, 1992.

[28] C. Kalantaridis, “Internationalization, strategic behavior, and the smallfirm: A comparative investigation,” J. Small Bus. Manage., vol. 42, no. 3,pp. 245–262, 2004.

[29] C. Kalantaridis and J. Pheby, “Processes of innovation among manufac-turing SMEs: The experience of Bedfordshire,” Entrepreneurship Reg.Develop., vol. 11, pp. 57–78, 1999.

[30] R. Kathuria and M. Igbaria, “Linking IT applications with manufacturingstrategy: An integrated framework,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 17,no. 6, pp. 611–629, 1997.

[31] M. A. Ketokivi, “Elaborating the contingency theory of organizations:The case of manufacturing flexibility strategies,” Prod. Oper. Manage.,vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 215–228, 2006.

[32] M. A. Ketokivi and R. G. Schroeder, “Strategic, structural contingencyand institutional explanations in the adoption of innovative manufacturingprocesses,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63–89, 2004.

[33] M. A. Ketokivi and R. G. Schroeder, “Manufacturing practices, strategicfit and performance: A routine-based view,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage.,vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 171–191, 2004.

[34] L. L. Koste and M. K. Malhotra, “Trade-offs among the elements offlexibility: A comparison from the automotive industry,” Omega, vol. 28,pp. 693–710, 2000.

[35] S. Kotha and P. M. Swamidass, “Strategy, advanced manufacturing tech-nology and performence: Empirical evidence from U.S. manufacturingfirms,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 257–277, 2000.

[36] L. A. Lefebvre, A. Langley, J. Harvey, and E. Lefebvre, “Exploring thestrategy-technology connection in small manufacturing firms,” Prod.Oper. Manage., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 269–285, 1992.

[37] M. L. Markus, “Paradigm shifts: E-business and business systems inte-gration,” Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1–44, 2000.

[38] A. M. Sanchez and M. P. Perez, “Cooperation and the ability to minimizethe time and cost of new product development within the Spanish automo-tive supplier industry,” J. Prod. Innov. Manage., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 57–69,2003.

[39] A. J. Mauri and M. P. Michaels, “Firm and industry effects within strategicmanagement: An empirical examination,” Strateg. Manage. J., vol. 19,no. 3, pp. 211–219, 1998.

[40] G. W. Mechling, J. W. Pierce, and J. W. Busbin, “Exploiting AMT insmall manufacturing firms for global competitiveness,” Int. J. Oper. Prod.Manage., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 61–76, 1995.

[41] R. E. Miles and C. C. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, andProcess. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

[42] R. E. Miles and C. C. Snow, “Fit, failure, and the Hall of Fame,” Calif.Manage. Rev., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 10–28, 1984.

[43] J. G. Miller and A. V. Roth, “A taxonomy of manufacturing strategy,”Manage. Sci., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 285–304, 1994.

[44] E. D. Minor, R. Hensley, and D. R. Wood, “A review of empirical man-ufacturing strategy studies,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 14, no. 1,pp. 5–25, 1994.

[45] H. Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1979.

[46] J. R. Muscatello, M. H. Small, and I. J. Chen, “Implementing enterpriseresource planning (ERP) systems in small and midsize manufacturingfirms,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 850–871, 2003.

[47] P. D. Olson and D. W. Bokor, “Strategy process-content interaction: Ef-fects on growth performance in small, start-up firms,” J. Bus. Manage.,vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 34–44, 1995.

[48] N. O’Regan and A. Ghobadian, “Innovation in SMEs: The impact ofstrategic orientation and environmental perceptions,” Int. J. Oper. Prod.Manage., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 81–97, 2005.

[49] A. Ozsomer, R. J. Calantone, and A. Di Benedetto, “What makes firmsmore innovative? A look at organizational and environmental factors,” J.Bus. Ind. Mark., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 400–416, 1997.

[50] K. Park and A. Kusiak, “Enterprise resource planning (ERP) operationssupport system for maintaining process integration,” Int. J. Prod. Res.,vol. 43, no. 19, pp. 3959–3982, 2005.

[51] M. Parry and A. E. Parry, “Strategy and marketing tactics in nonprofithospitals,” Health Care Manage. Rev., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 51–61, 1992.

[52] M. E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industriesand Competitors. New York: Free Press, 1980.

[53] M. E. Porter, Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press, 1990.[54] L. Raymond, “Operations management and advanced manufacturing tech-

nologies in SMEs: A contingency approach,” J. Manuf. Technol. Manage.,vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 936–955, 2005.

[55] R. Sabherwal and Y. E. Chan, “Alignment between business and IS strate-gies: A study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders,” Inf. Syst. Res.,vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 11–33, 2001.

[56] D. M. Schroeder, S. W. Congden, and C. Gopinath, “Linking competi-tive strategy and manufacturing process technology,” J. Manage. Stud.,vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 163–189, 1995.

[57] S. F. Slater and J. C. Narver, “Product-market strategy and performance:An analysis of the miles and snow strategy types,” Eur. J. Mark., vol. 27,no. 10, pp. 33–51, 1993.

[58] C. C. Snow and L. G. Hrebiniak, “Strategy, distinctive competence, and or-ganizational performance,” Administ. Sci. Quart., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 317–336, 1980.

[59] G. A. Steiner, Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know.New York: Free Press, 1979.

[60] J. St-Pierre and S. Delisle, “An expert diagnosis system for the benchmark-ing of SMEs’ performance,” Benchmarking: An Int. J., vol. 13, no. 1, 2,pp. 106–119, 2006.

[61] K. St-Pierre, Classification Par Niveau Technologique Du Secteur Manu-facturier. Quebec, Canada: Institut de la statistique du Quebec, 2002.

[62] C. Sum, L. S.-J. Kow, and C.-S. Chen, “A taxonomy of operations strate-gies of high performing small and medium enterprises in Singapore,” Int.J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 321–345, 2004.

[63] H. Sun and C. Hong, “The alignment between manufacturing and businessstrategies: Its influence on business performance,” Technovation, vol. 22,no. 11, pp. 699–705, 2002.

[64] N. Venkatraman, “Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The con-struct, dimensionality, and measurement,” Manage. Sci., vol. 35, no. 8,pp. 942–962, 1989.

[65] N. Venkatraman, “The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward ver-bal and statistical correspondence,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 14, no. 3,pp. 423–444, 1989.

[66] P. T. Ward, D. J. Bickford, and G. Keong Leong, “Configurations ofmanufacturing strategy, business strategy, environment and structure,” J.Manage., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 597–626, 1996.

[67] F. P. Williams, D. E. D’Souza, M. E. Rosenfeldt, and M. Kassaee, “Man-ufacturing strategy, business strategy and firm performance in a matureindustry,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 19–33, 1995.

[68] S. A. Zahra and J. A. Pearce, II, “Research evidence on the miles-snowtypology,” J. Manage., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 751–768, 1990.

[69] E. Zajac and S. M. Shortell, “Changing generic strategies: Likelihood,direction and performance implications,” Strateg. Manage. J., vol. 10,no. 5, pp. 413–430, 1989.

Louis Raymond received the Ph.D. degree in admin-istration from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commer-ciales (HEC), Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1984.

He is the Titular of the Canada Research Chairon Enterprise Performance and a Professor of In-formation Systems at the Universite du Quebec aTrois-Rivieres, Trois-Rivieres, QC. He is the authoror coauthor of several research papers published inrefereed journals such as MIS Quarterly, Journal ofManagement Information Systems, Journal of Infor-mation Technology, International Journal of Elec-

tronic Commerce, Decision Support Systems, and Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, and in international proceedings such as the International Confer-ence on Information Systems and Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. He isalso the Editor-in-Chief of the Revue Internationale PME. His current researchinterests include management of information technology for organizational per-formance in the context of small business and network enterprises.


Anne-Marie Croteau received the Ph.D. degree inmanagement information systems from Laval Uni-versity, Quebec City, QC, Canada, in 1998.

She is currently an Associate Professor of Man-agement Information Systems (MIS) in John Mol-son School of Business, Concordia University, Mon-treal, QC. She is the Director of the Executive Masterof Business Administration (MBA) and the Interna-tional Aviation MBA programs. She is the authoror coauthor of several research papers published inrefereed journals such as the Journal of Strategic In-

formation Systems, Journal of Information Technology, Industrial Managementand Data Systems, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, and Inter-national Journal of Knowledge Management, as well as in several nationaland international proceedings. Her current research interests include interor-ganizational governance of information technology, strategic management ofinformation technology, and organizational transformation.

Date post:	24-Sep-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	a-m
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

Manufacturing Strategy and Business Strategy in Medium-Sized Enterprises: Performance Effects of...

Documents