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

Testing and cross‐validation of theories and paradigms are necessary to advance the field of manufacturing strategy. When the findings of one study are also obtained in other studies, using entirely different databases, we become more confident in the results. Replication alleviates concerns about spurious results and is one motivation for this study. We examine aspects of the tradeoffs concept, production competence paradigm, and a manufacturing strategy taxonomy framework. In regard to the tradeoffs concept, we found evidence of tradeoffs between some, but certainly not all, manufacturing capabilities of quality, cost, delivery, and customization. The relationships get sharper when controlling for process choice. For example, the tradeoff between cost and customization is particularly strong between plants that have different process choices. We find that such tradeoffs can change, or even disappear, however, once the process choice is in place. With respect to the production competence paradigm, our analysis shows a statistically significant correlation between production competence and operations performance in batch shops, but not in plants with other process choices. Finally, using variables similar to those of Miller and Roth, our data produced three similar clusters even though their unit of analysis was much more macro than ours. Controlling for process choice is consistent with the current manufacturing strategy literature that emphasizes dynamic development of capabilities within the context of path dependencies. A major argument of this strand of research is that operations decisions not only affect current capabilities, but also set the framework for development of capabilities in the future. That being the case, controlling for process choice (or other factors such as industry or markets) should contribute to the understanding of capability‐development paths adopted by different manufacturing plants. In short, we found at least partial support for each of the theories examined here, even though the theories seem on the surface to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. Controlling for process choice or other measures of dependency goes a long way in uncovering consistency across different theories and empirical studies in operations management.

In a departure from most other empirical studies of service organizations, this study employs a lower-level unit of analysis and explores service processes with front-office or back-office orientations. Moreover, unlike past studies, no front-office process has a corresponding back-office process in our sample. The analysis of unrelated front-office and back-office processes offers a more rigorous examination of the customer contact model. The findings by and large support the premise of this model for breaking up the activities involved in a service delivery process. Our most surprising finding relates to the levers for achieving outstanding performance. The best performers among the processes with a front-office orientation emphasize capital investment, while the best performers among those with a back-office orientation embrace higher degrees of labor intensity. It appears that in order to achieve its superior performance, each process type adopts an additional design characteristic commonly attributed to the opposite process type.