The relationship of strategy, fit, productivity, and business performance in a services setting
dc.contributor.author | Smith, Thomas M | |
dc.contributor.author | Reece, James S | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-01-15T20:24:26Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-01-15T20:24:26Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1999-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Smith, Thomas M; Reece, James S (1999). "The relationship of strategy, fit, productivity, and business performance in a services setting." Journal of Operations Management 17(2): 145-161. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0272-6963 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1873-1317 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/146853 | |
dc.description.abstract | In their review of the operations strategy literature, Anderson et al. [Anderson, J.C., Cleveland, G., Schroeder, R.G., 1989. Operations strategy: a literature review. J. Operations Manage., 8(2): 133‐158] contend that the hypothesis that a company will perform better if it links its operations strategy to the business strategy is intuitively appealing, but lacks empirical verification. In light of this contention, this research attempts to: (1) define and measure the concept of fit as it applies to operations strategy; (2) show how fit leads to better performance; and (3) investigate the interrelationships between fit, business strategy, productivity, and performance. These objectives are investigated through field‐based research within a wholesale distribution service setting. Utilizing the classificatory framework of Venkatraman [Venkatraman, N., 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad. Manage. Rev., 14(3): 423‐444], fit is defined as the degree to which operational elements match the business strategy. This precise definition closely resembles the concept of ‘external fit’ that began with the work of Skinner [Skinner, W., 1969. Manufacturing–missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard Bus. Rev., 47(3): 136‐145]. A conceptual model of business performance is used with productivity as a mediating variable between the independent variables of business strategy and external fit and the dependent variable of business performance. Path analysis is used to analyze the effect of external fit on performance and to investigate the interrelationships between fit, business strategy, productivity, and performance. The results show that external fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business performance. When coupled with the nonsignificant direct effects of the strategy variables, this suggests that the fit of the operational elements with the strategy is of greater importance than the particular choice of strategy. Although all three business strategies (low cost, a combination of low cost and high customer service, and high customer service) had no significant direct effects on performance, a high customer service strategy did have a significant positive effect on the intervening productivity variable. Finally, the particular design of the research and the findings suggest that much of the conceptual work in operations strategy may be applicable to service operations as well as manufacturing. | |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | |
dc.subject.other | Service operations | |
dc.subject.other | Statistical analysis | |
dc.subject.other | Empirical research | |
dc.subject.other | Measurement and methodology | |
dc.subject.other | Operation strategy | |
dc.subject.other | Productivity | |
dc.title | The relationship of strategy, fit, productivity, and business performance in a services setting | |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Industrial and Operations Engineering | |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Engineering | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | The University of Michigan, School of Business Administration, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1234, USA | |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Hope College, Department of Economics and Business Administration, Holland, MI 49422‐9000, USA | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146853/1/joom145.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00037-0 | |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Operations Management | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R.W Schmenner. International factory productivity gains. J. Operations Manage. 1991; 10 (2): 229 – 254. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | J.G Miller. Fit production systems to the task. Harvard Business Rev. 1981; 59 (1): 145 – 154. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | J.G Miller, A.V Roth. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Manage. Sci. 1994; 40 (3): 285 – 304. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. The Free Press, New York. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | P.R Richardson, J.R.M Gordon. Measuring total manufacturing performance. Sloan Manage. Rev. 1980; 21 (2): 47 – 58. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | M.H Safizadeh, L.P Ritzman, D Sharma, C Wood. An empirical analysis of the product‐process matrix. Manage. Sci. 1996; 42 (11): 1576 – 1591. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | S Sakakibara, B.B Flynn, R.G Schroeder, W.T Morris. The impact of Just‐in‐Time manufacturing and its infrastructure on manufacturing performance. Manage. Sci. 1997; 43 (9): 1246 – 1257. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Schroeder, R.G., Anderson, J.C., Cleveland, G., 1986. The concept of manufacturing strategy: An empirical study. J. Operations Manage. (August), 405–415. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | W Skinner. Manufacturing—missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard Business Rev. 1969; 47 (3): 136 – 145. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | W Skinner. The focused factory. Harvard Business Rev. 1974; 52 (3): 113 – 121. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | W Skinner. The productivity paradox. Harvard Business Rev. 1986; 64 (4): 55 – 59. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | W Skinner. Report of production and operations management research needs committee. Operations Manage. Rev. 1988; 7 (1 and 2): 17 – 23. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R Stobaugh, P Telesio. Match manufacturing policies and product strategy. Harvard Business Rev. 1983; 61 (2): 113 – 120. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | P.M Swamidass, W.T Newell. Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance: A path analytic model. Manage. Sci. 1987; 33 (4): 509 – 524. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in action. McGraw‐Hill, New York. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R Van Dierdonck, J.G Miller. Designing production planning and control systems. J. Operations Manage. 1980; 1 (1): 37 – 46. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | N Venkatraman. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1989; 14 (3): 423 – 444. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | S.K Vickery, C Droge, R.E Markland. Production competence and business strategy: Do they affect business performance. Decision Sci. 1993; 24 (2): 435 – 455. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | S.C Wheelwright. Reflecting corporate strategy in manufacturing decisions. Business Horizons. 1978; 21 (1): 57 – 66. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | S.C Wheelwright. Manufacturing strategy: Defining the missing link. Strategic Manage. J. 1984; 5 (1): 77 – 91. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R.E White, R.G Hamermesh. Toward a model of business unit performance: An integrative approach. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1981; 6 (2): 213 – 223. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | F.P Williams, D.E D’Souza, M.E Rosenfeldt, M Kassaee. Manufacturing strategy, business strategy and firm performance in a mature industry. J. Operations Manage. 1995; 13: 19 – 33. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Yin, R.K., 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | C.D Ittner. An examination of the indirect productivity gains from quality improvement. Prod. Operations Manage. 1994; 3 (3): 153 – 170. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | E.E Adam, P.M Swamidass. Assessing operations management from a strategic perspective. J. Manage. 1989; 15 (2): 181 – 203. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | N.U Ahmed, R.V Montagno, R.J Firenze. Operations strategy and organizational performance: an empirical study. Int. J. Operations Production Manage. 1996; 16 (5): 41 – 53. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | J.C Anderson, G Cleveland, R.G Schroeder. Operations strategy: A literature review. J. Operations Manage. 1989; 8 (2): 133 – 158. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Asher, H.B., 1983, Causal modeling, SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | C.C Bozarth, W.B Berry. Measuring the congruence between market requirements and manufacturing: a methodology and illustration. Decision Sci. 1997; 28 (1): 121 – 150. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | E.S Buffa. Making American manufacturing competitive. California Manage. Rev. 1984; 26 (3): 29 – 46. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chandler, A.D., 1962. Strategy and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R.B Chase, R.B Hayes. Beefing up operations in service firms. Sloan Manage. Rev. 1991; 33 (1): 15 – 26. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chew, W.B., Bresnahan, T.F., Clark, K.B., 1989. Measurement, coordination, and learning in a multiplant network. In: Kaplan, R. (Ed.), Measures for Manufacturing Excellence, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, pp. 129–162. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | K.B Clark. Competing through manufacturing and the new manufacturing paradigm: Is manufacturing strategy passé?. Prod. Operations Manage. 1996; 5 (1): 42 – 58. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | G Cleveland, R.G Schroeder, J.C Anderson. A theory of production competence. Decision Sci. 1989; 20 (4): 655 – 668. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Deming, W.E., 1986. Out of the crisis. MIT CAES, Cambridge, MA. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | D.H Doty, W.H Glick, G.P Huber. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Acad. Manage. J. 1993; 36 (6): 1196 – 1250. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R Drazin, A.H Van de Ven. Alternate forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Sci. Q. 1985; 30 (4): 514 – 539. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | C.H Fine, A.C Hax. Manufacturing strategy: A methodology and an illustration. Interfaces. 1985; 15 (6): 28 – 46. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | B.B Flynn, S Sakakibara, R.G Schroeder, K.A Bates, E.J Flynn. Empirical research methods in operations management. J. Operations Manage. 1990; 9 (2): 250 – 284. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Y.P Gupta, T.M Somers. Business strategy, manufacturing flexibility, and organizational performance relationships: A path analysis approach. Prod. Operations Manage. 1996; 5 (3): 204 – 233. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | D.C Hambrick. High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Acad. Manage. J. 1983; 26: 687 – 707. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | G.S Hansen, B Wernerfelt. Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Manage. J. 1989; 10 (5): 399 – 411. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R.H Hayes, K.B Clark. Explaining observed productivity differentials between plants: Implications for operations research. Interfaces. 1985; 15 (6): 3 – 14. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R.H Hayes, G.P Pisano. Manufacturing strategy: At the intersection of two paradigm shifts. Prod. Operations Manage. 1996; 5 (1): 25 – 41. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., 1984. Restoring our competitive edge: Competing through manufacturing. Wiley, New York. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | R.L Istvan. A new productivity paradigm for competitive advantage. Strategic Manage. J. 1992; 13 (7): 525 – 537. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | L.R James, J.M Brett. Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1984; 69 (2): 307 – 321. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kearney, A.T., 1978. Measuring productivity in physical distribution. NCPDM, Chicago, IL. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | J.S Kim, P Arnold. Operationalizing manufacturing strategy: An exploratory study of constructs and linkage. Int. J. Operations Prod. Manage. 1996; 16 (12): 45 – 73. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Y Kim, J Lee. Manufacturing strategy and production systems: An integrated framework. J. Operations Manage. 1993; 11 (1): 3 – 15. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | S Kotha, D Orne. Generic manufacturing strategies: A conceptual synthesis. Strategic Manage. J. 1989; 10: 211 – 231. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lambert, D.M., Stock, J.R., 1982. Strategic physical distribution management. Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J., 1967. Organization and environment. Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, MA. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | G.K Leong, D.L Snyder, P.T Ward. Research in the process and content of manufacturing strategy. OMEGA Int. J. Manage. Sci. 1990; 18 (2): 109 – 122. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | M.B Lieberman, L.J Lau, M.D Williams. firm‐level productivity and management influence: A comparison of U.S. and Japanese automobile producers. Manage. Sci. 1990; 36 (10): 1193 – 1215. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | D.M McCutcheon, J.R Meredith. Conducting case study research in operations management. J. Operations Manage. 1993; 11: 239 – 256. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | P.P McDougall, R.H Deane, D.E D’Souza. Manufacturing strategy and business origin of new venture firms in the computer and communications equipment industry. Prod. Operations Manage. 1992; 1 (1): 53 – 69. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | J.R Meredith, A Raturi, K Amoako‐Gyampah, B Kaplan. Alternative research paradigms in operations. J. Operations Manage. 1989; 8 (4): 297 – 326. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | D Miller. Relating Porter’s business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Acad. Manage. J. 1988; 31 (2): 280 – 308. | |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.