International approaches to computer‐integrated manufacturing perspectives from Europe and Japan

Abstract

Highlights similarities, as well as differences, between European and Japanese approaches to implementing computer‐integrated manufacturing (CIM), and is based on research which uses the 7S model, developed by McKinsey & Co., as an underlying framework. Considers a number of pertinent factors which were employed to define a sample frame: first, to judge the influence of CIM on world‐class manufacturing organizations, researches manufacturing companies in key developed countries with an established manufacturing base; second, emphasizes the impact of CIM on profit‐seeking businesses; third, as the survey assessed the integration of leading‐edge technology, the sample of manufacturing organizations comprised technology‐driven companies.

Focusing leadership through force field analysis: new variations on a venerable planning tool

“…The framework was first developed at McKinsey Consulting and later described by Waterman et al (1980). The 7S model has been useful in such areas as product development (Barclay and Mark, 1990;Dwyer and Mellor, 1991;Dwyer, 1990), analysis of a computer integrated manufacturing system (Hardaker and Pervaiz, 1995), and, as a general model for exploring strategic change and innovation (Pascale, 1990).…”

Understanding and implementing CIM through BPR

“…The five-stage model implies that BPR is more radical than CIM in performance improvement. But other authors argued that CIM could also be radical if the procedure of achieving CIM is suitable (Hardaker and Ahmed, 1995).…”

“…It appears clear that possession of relatively higher percentages of CIM systems, as evidenced by the European companies, does not in itself lead to competitive advantage in the marketplace (Hardaker and Ahmed, 1995). What is required is effort and time to build CIM systems that actually work and that actually deliver the goods of efficiency and flexibility.…”