Identifying manufacturers' competitive priorities has long been considered a key element in manufacturing strategy research. However, relatively little effort has been devoted to measurement of these constructs in published research. In this study we develop scales for commonly accepted competitive priorities, cost importance, quality importance, delivery-time importance, and flexibility importance. We assess how well the scales capture the constructs that they represent using data collected from 114 manufacturing plants in the United States. The findings suggest that the instrument developed can provide reliable data and that the constructs measured are valid. In addition, comparisons between pairs of informants representing the same business indicate that the perceptual measures of competitive priorities are as reliable as point estimates of routine, seemingly objective information.

Process choice, a major part of operations strategy, is a key decision that links operations to business strategy. Hayes and Wheelwright, among others, argue that the emphasis given to product customization and other competitive priorities should agree with process choice. Our empirical study investigates whether firms actually link their process choice to product customization and other competitive priorities as hypothesized, and whether compatible decision patterns lead to better performance. Analysis of data collected from managers at 144 U.S. manufacturing plants shows a strong correlation between process choice, product customization, and competitive priorities. Process choice is highly related with the degree of product customization, and also with the emphasis placed on the quality and cost competitive priorities. Job shops and batch shops tend to have more product customization, higher costs, and higher quality. Some continuous flow shops use part commonality and flexible automation to achieve more customization than would otherwise be expected. Without these initiatives, customization in continuous flow shops results in weak performance.operations management, process choice, operations strategy, manufacturing strategy

Using data collected from manag~rs in a sample of manufacturing plants, parallel sets of variables representing intended performance and achieved performance are factor analyzed to see if they break out in a similar way. For each competitive priority identified as a factor (latent construct), a frequency table is constructed showing how intended and actual competitive priorities match up in practice. Finally, an overall performance measure is overlaid onto the frequency matrix showing how competitive priorities .. both intended and realized .. affect a firm's bottom· line financial performance.

No abstract

A laboratory study was conducted to assess the effects of lift angle on biomechanical stresses to the musculoskeletal system, and in particular, on the lower back. Male subjects were required to lift four different tote boxes from the floor to a height of 0.81 m using two different lifting techniques. Maximum acceptable weights were determined using a psychophysical method. The motion trajectory of lift was studied by means of stroboscopic photography. Moments and forces at various body joints were computed using a biomechanical strength model.Maximum acceptable weights were 16% (range = 9 to 23%) greater for the free-style lifting technique as compared with the squat method of lifting. There were large differences between the maximum acceptable weights and the "maximum permissible limits" recommended by NIOSH. The results showed that the subjects pulled the load toward the body when lifting psychophysically determined maximum weights. The lift angle increased with an increase in box width. The lift angle was greater for the free-style lifting method as compared with the squat lifting technique for lifting compact loads. Lifting at an angle resulted in a decrease in moment at the elbow, shoulder, LiSI disc, and hips, and an increase in moment at the knees and ankles. The estimated compressive force on the lumbar spine was, on the average, 11% lower for lifting at an angle as compared with a straight vertical lift.