Flexibility and Agility For Enterprise Synchronization:

Knowledge and Innovation Management Towards

Flexagility
Prof. S. Wadhwa
Mr K.S. Rao
Indian Institute of Technology
New Delhi
INDIA
E-mail: swadhwa@mech.iitd.ernet.in
Abstract: This paper examines two important concepts of the modern business environment, viz., flexibility and agility, with a view
to seek the essence of the concepts and to understand their similarities and differences at a conceptual level. We examined various
perceptions, notions and definitions of flexibility and agility found in the manufacturing and supply chain literature, and compared
the stated objectives, articulated needs and fundamental beliefs underlying the concepts, from a decision-information-
synchronization perspective. Based on this, we attempted to relate flexibility and agility with a view to highlight certain
commonalities and differences and also suggested a possible vision for future evolution these two important concepts. Using demo
models of a supply chain and manufacturing system operating under a decision-information-synchronization environment, the key
results are discussed. Judicious use of flexibility and effective decision system are suggested towards improving the agility
(specifically the lead time performance) of the supply chains. A novel approach of flexagility is proposed for modern enterprises
that are seeking IT facilitated long term competitiveness. The need to innovate synergy with flexibility and agility is highlighted.
Based on this a vision of flexagility towards mass customization and beyond is presented.
Keywords: Flexibility, Agility, Decision-Information-Synchronization, Flexagility. Synergy
Professor Subhash Wadhawa (Eur. Ing., C. Emg.) received his PhD from NUI, Ireland, while working on an ESPRIT project at
CIM Research Unit., Galwai. He extensively contributed to the development of generalized simulators and expert systems for
flexible systems. He is currently Professor and Group In-charge (P&I) at Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi (IITD). He has
originated novel research themes: decision and information delays involving Decision-Information Synchronization (DIS)
applications in CIM, Supply Chain, e-Business; DRIS architecture for Agile Manufacturing; SAMIN architecture in IMS context,
etc. He is an active contributor to EC projects in the IT&C domain and has coordinated several EU workshops. He has been a
Consultant/Contributor/National-Expert to many International bodies EC, UNIDO, CW, APO (Tokyo), etc. He is dedicated to the
goal of bringing synergy between Academics, Industry and Research.
What is Flexibility?
Flexibility is a multi-dimensional and polymorphous concept with several definitions and interpretations.
Browne et al (1984) described several types of flexibility in the context of manufacturing systems.
Carlsson (1988) cited three definition of flexibility from literature: (a) as those attributes of a production
technology which accommodate greater output variation, (b) as the firms response to uncertainty,
especially in the form of fluctuations in demand, but also market imperfection, (c) as a property of initial
positions. Wadhwa and Browne (1989) viewed flexibility, in a generic way, as a means towards the
control on flow of entities through a system. DeGroote (1994) defines flexibility as a hedge against the
diversity of the environment. Nilsson & Nordahl (1995) cites a definition of flexibility as the ability to
respond effectively to changing circumstances. Upton (1995) defines flexibility as the ability to change
with little penalty in time, effort, cost or performance.
Benjaafar & Ramakrishnan (1996) cites five definitions of flexibility from literature as: (a) the capacity of
a system to assume different positions or to assume a certain number of different states, (b) the ability of a
manufacturing plant of being usable for different production tasks, (c) the ability to reconfigure
manufacturing resources so as to produce efficiently different products of acceptable quality, (d) the
ability to respond effectively to changing circumstances and (e) a measure of its capacity to adopt to
changing environmental conditions. Das (1996) defines flexibility as the ability of a system or a facility to
adjust to changes in its internal or external environment. Wadhwa and Rao (2000) defined flexibility as
the ability to deal with change by judiciously providing and exploiting controllable options dynamically.
Golden and Powell (2001) defines flexibility as the capacity to adapt across four dimensions; temporal,
range, intention and focus. Thus the concept of flexibility encompasses several notions. Some of the key
notions of flexibility found in the literature are summarized in Figure-1 and discussed below.
Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 111
Need for
Change
Stochastic
Deterministic
Change
Affects
Performance
Several Types
of Change
Ability to
Change
Greater Flexibility entails
lesser Transition Penalties
Greater Flexibility
enables more
uniform performance
Greater Flexibility
enables more
heterogeneous change
Greater Flexibility
enables greater change
Flexibility
requires ability
to change
Several Types
of Change
Flexibility
offers
alternatives to
deal with
change
Several Types
of Flexibility
Flexibility Management
(reactive or proactive)
Uniformity
Upton (1995),
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Mobility
Upton (1995),
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Range
Heterogeneity
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Range
Upton (1995)
Range Number
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Gerwin (1993)
Browne et al (1984),
Sethi and Sethi (1990),
Benjaafar and
Ramakrishnan (1996)
Decision
Making
Information
Technology Support
Decision-Information
Synchronization (DIS)
Information
Information
Decision Points
Wadhwa and
Browne (1989)
DIS Delay
Wadhwa and
Bhagwat (1998)
Wadhwa and
Aggarwal (2000)
Wadhwa and Rao (2002)
Wadhwa et al (2001)
Knowledge Mgt. &
Decision Support
Wadhwa
and Rao
(2000) Internal
Agility
Flexagility
Type-II Flexibility
Burton Klein (1984),
Carlsson (1988)
Stimuli
Correa and Slack
(1996)
Type-I Flexibility
Burton Klein (1984),
Carlsson (1988)
Browne et al
(1984),
Gerwin (1993),
Golden and
Powell (2001)
External
Browne et al
(1984),
Golden and
Powell (2001)
Dynamic Control
Entity Flow Sync.
Wadhwa,
Maguire and
Browne (1986)
Wadhwa and
Rao (2003)
Proactive Flexibility Management
Flexibility can be used
to enhance the lead-time performance
Need for
Change
Stochastic
Deterministic
Change
Affects
Performance
Several Types
of Change
Ability to
Change
Greater Flexibility entails
lesser Transition Penalties
Greater Flexibility
enables more
uniform performance
Greater Flexibility
enables more
heterogeneous change
Greater Flexibility
enables greater change
Flexibility
requires ability
to change
Several Types
of Change
Flexibility
offers
alternatives to
deal with
change
Several Types
of Flexibility
Flexibility Management
(reactive or proactive)
Uniformity
Upton (1995),
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Mobility
Upton (1995),
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Range
Heterogeneity
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Range
Upton (1995)
Range Number
Koste and
Malhotra (1999)
Gerwin (1993)
Browne et al (1984),
Sethi and Sethi (1990),
Benjaafar and
Ramakrishnan (1996)
Decision
Making
Information
Technology Support
Decision-Information
Synchronization (DIS)
Information
Information
Decision Points
Wadhwa and
Browne (1989)
DIS Delay
Wadhwa and
Bhagwat (1998)
Wadhwa and
Aggarwal (2000)
Wadhwa and Rao (2002)
Wadhwa et al (2001)
Knowledge Mgt. &
Decision Support
Knowledge Mgt. &
Decision Support
Wadhwa
and Rao
(2000) Internal
Agility
Flexagility
Type-II Flexibility
Burton Klein (1984),
Carlsson (1988)
Stimuli
Correa and Slack
(1996)
Type-I Flexibility
Burton Klein (1984),
Carlsson (1988)
Browne et al
(1984),
Gerwin (1993),
Golden and
Powell (2001)
External
Browne et al
(1984),
Golden and
Powell (2001)
Dynamic Control
Entity Flow Sync.
Wadhwa,
Maguire and
Browne (1986)
Wadhwa and
Rao (2003)
Proactive Flexibility Management
Flexibility can be used
to enhance the lead-time performance

Figure 1: Some of the Key Notions of Flexibility Found in Literature and our Background Research
It is expedient to view the research and practicing efforts in flexibility in relation to change. Since change affects
the performance, the enterprise must be able provide an adaptive response. In this context, flexibility is generally
considered as a capability to counter the effect of change. There are several types of change such as the known
change, unknown change, internal change, and external change, short term, medium term and long term change,
and so on. The nature of change can be stochastic (uncertainty related) or deterministic (certainty related). This
has resulted in the development of many types of flexibility. For example Carlson (1988) discusses about Type-I
and Type-II flexibility to counter the effects of known uncertainty and unknown uncertainty respectively.
Similarly, the framework of Gerwin (1993) is based on identification of uncertainty and associated flexibility
types. The framework of Correa and Slack (1996) is also based on certain stimuli resulting from the
environmental uncertainties. On the other hand it is also important to appreciate the deterministic change. The
deterministic nature of change occurs when variety ( a cause for change) is known both in terms of the product
and the manufacturing system entities. The totality of change and the system boundary is certain. However the
system is quite complex because of flexibility that offers several alternatives at each point in time (discrete events)
through which the system evolves Wadhwa and Browne (1989). The challenge is how to exploit flexibility
through effective decision systems within the manufacturing system constraints for a given objective. For instance
the Flexible Manufacturing Systems are often modeled as such discrete event dynamic systems in deterministic
environments as they reflect complex entity flows. Some of our background research in this direction includes
Wadhwa, Maguire and Browne (1986), Wadhwa, Felix and Browne (1987), Caprihan and Wadhwa (1997),
Wadhwa and Bhagwat (1998), Wadhwa and Rao (2000), Wadhwa and Aggarwal (2000), Wadhwa, Amin and
Rao (2001), Wadhwa and Rao (2002). Large number of flexibility types can be found in the literature and several
attempts are being made to relate all the flexibility types in a unified framework.
As regarding the delivery of flexibility, there is a broad agreement in the literature that delivery of
flexibility requires ability to change from an optimum state in a reversible manner. This is considered as
a fundamental requirement for flexibility. Several other notions are built around this theme. The first one
is that the greater flexibility would enable greater change. This idea was represented by Upton (1995) in
112 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
terms of Range. Koste and Malhotra (2000) extended this idea into two notions called the Range Number
and Range Heterogeneity, which represents the range in terms of number of options available, and the
degree of heterogeneity among these options. The next important notion is that greater flexibility entails
lesser transition penalties. Upton (1995) called this notion as Mobility. Any change entails transition
penalties. These may include time, cost, and quality. Greater the flexibility, lesser will be the transition
penalties. The next important notion is concerning the ability of the system to perform during the change.
Any change from optimum state will deteriorate the performance. The objective of flexibility is to
minimize this deterioration. This notion is called by Upton (1995) as Uniformity. This idea is also referred
in the earlier works of Stigler (1939) and Carlsson (1988) but no name was given to the notion. Another
important notion is introduced by Gerwin (1993) that the flexibility can be banked and used to redefine
uncertainty in the environment. Wadhwa and Rao (2000) summarized that the role of flexibility in a
system is to enable the system to cope with change (certain or uncertain), in an effective and efficient
manner. Change in the environment includes change in both the internal environment (for example,
resource bottlenecks) as well as the external environment (for example, customer preferences) An
effective manner refers to the extent to which the effect of change has been successfully countered and
efficiency refers to the time, cost and effort required to do this. It was further observed that the flexibility
of different systems might be measured relatively. A system is more flexible, if it can handle a wider
range of change, if it has a grater number of options to counter the effect of change / uncertainty, if it can
attain a new state (within the range), in a shorter time, at a lesser cost, with lesser effort, with lesser
disturbance / imbalance, etc., if the effect of an unpredictable change (such as machine breakdown) on the
performance of the system (such as drop in production rate) is less, and if it can change its flexibility
based on specific needs, in an easier manner (flexibility of flexibility)
What is Agility?
The concept of agile enterprise originated in 1991, based on a realization that the pace of change in business
environment was accelerating and already outpacing the abilities of many established organizations (Dove,
1999). Accordingly, agility was defined as the ability of an organization to thrive in a continuously changing,
unpredictable business environment. Technology and globalism were perceived as the principle drivers of this
changing environment and subsequently knowledge explosion was added to this list.
Ever since its inception, agility caught the attention of researchers as well as practitioners alike. This resulted in
the development of multiple perceptions and perspectives on agility. In their well-cited work, Goldman et al
(1995), describe agility as being dynamic, context specific, aggressively change embracing, and growth
oriented. Vokurka and Fliedner (1998) describes agility as the ability to produce and market successfully a
broad range of low cost, high quality products with short lead times in varying lot sizes, which provide
enhanced value to individual customers through customization. Shari and Zhang (1999) observe that,
responding to changes, and taking advantage of them through strategic utilisation of managerial and
manufacturing methods and tools, are the pivotal concepts of agile manufacturing. Rigby et al (2000) define
agility as ``the ability of an organization to thrive in a constantly changing, unpredictable business
environment''. Bajgoric (2000) observes that Agility an enterprise-wide response to any competitive and
changing environment, based on four cardinal principles of (a) enrich the customer (b) master change and
uncertainty (c) leverage resources, and (d) co-operate to compete. Zhang and H. Sharifi (2000) observe that
agility is primarily concerned with the ability of enterprises to cope with unexpected changes, to survive
unprecedented threats from the business environment, and to take advantage of changes as opportunities.
Meredith and Francis (2000) view agility as ``the organisation's capacity to gain competitive advantage by
intelligently, rapidly and proactively seizing opportunities and reacting to threats''. Ramasesh et al (2001) cites
a definition of Agility as the successful exploration of competitive bases (speed, flexibility, innovation-
proactivity, quality, and profitability) through the integration of reconfigurable resources, and best practices in a
knowledge-rich environment to provide customer-driven products and services in a fast changing market
environment. Sharifi and Zhang (2001) observes that the concept of agility comprises two main factors: (a)
responding to changes (anticipated or unexpected) in proper ways and due time (b) exploiting changes and
taking advantage of changes as opportunities. van Hoek (2001) observes that three characteristics of supply
chain operations can be earmarked as directly related to becoming agile; that of mastering and benefiting from
variance, that of rapid responsiveness and that of unique or small volume responsiveness.
One important perception of agility is to view it essentially as a property of a group of collaborating
systems. For instance, Huang et al (2000) defines agility as a measure that indicates how well a system
can adjust itself while also seeking help from other system enterprises. Similarly, Hooper et al (2001)
Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 113
observes that the term agility refers to the ability of an enterprise to develop and exploit its inter and intra-
organisational capabilities to successfully compete in an uncertain and unpredictable business
environment. Ramasesh et al (2001) observes that agility is a multi-dimensional attribute of the
manufacturing system, where different subsystems or segments of the manufacturing system may possess
different degrees of agility along different dimensions. Also, these may interact in a variety of ways
depending on the configuration of the system and the changing dynamics of its operating environment.
Agility as a Combination of Speed and Flexibility
One of the important perception of agility is that it is a combination of speed and flexibility. For instance,
Vastag et al (1994) observes that time-based competition and flexibility converge in agile manufacturing.
Ashok Kumar and Jaideep Motwani (1995) perceive agility as a firms ability to accelerate the activities
on critical path, and is, therefore, a direct indicator of a firms time-based competitiveness. Willis (1998)
observes that the implementation of an agile manufacturing philosophy can result in a significant
reduction in the time required to get products to market, and from a manufacturing perspective this is
accomplished through speed and flexibility. McGaughey (1999) views agility as the ability of an
enterprise to respond quickly and successfully to change. Sohal (1999) cites the description of agile
manufacturing as ``a manufacturing system with extraordinary capability to meet the rapidly changing
needs of the marketplace. A system that can shift rapidly amongst product models or between product
lines, ideally in real-time response to customer demands''.
Gunasekaran (1999) defines agile manufacturing as the capability of surviving and prospering in the
competitive environment of continuous and unpredictable change by reacting quickly and effectively to
changing markets, driven by customer-designed products and services. Zhang et al (1999) views agile
manufacturing as an emerging concept in industry that aims at achieving flexibility and responsiveness to
the changing market needs. Vernadat (1999) observes that agile manufacturing aims at achieving
manufacturing flexibility and responsiveness to the new market needs. Meredith and Francis (2000)
observe that the concept of agility has roots in other approaches such as time-based competition, fast-
cycle innovation and intrapreneuring. Prater et al (2001) observes that an agile firm has designed its
organization, processes and products such that it can respond to changes in a useful time frame, and the
two concepts inherent to the definition of agility are speed and flexibility.
Agility as an Extension of Flexibility
Several authors view agility as an extension of flexibility. For instance, Vokurka Fliedner (1998) view agility
as a capability of responding to change in a dimension beyond flexibility. In their view : flexibility refers to the
capability of an organization to move from one task to another quickly and as a routine procedure, with each
situation defined ahead of time so that the procedures needed to manage it are in place. Traditional dimensions
of flexibility include, for example, those that are product or service related (e.g. volume, product mix, and
specification flexibility), or process related (e.g. machine changeover, scheduling and innovation flexibility).
To be agile, a firm needs to be able to deal with unpredictable changes in market or customer demands. Agility
can refer to any of the dimensions of flexibility. However, the key difference is the ability to respond quickly
to unanticipated marketplace changes. The major distinctions between flexibility and agility is the difference in
situations requiring change. Flexible changes are responses to known situations where the procedures are
already in place to manage the change. Agility extends the capability of flexibility by requiring the ability to
respond to unpredictable changes in the market or customer demands. A company must be sufficiently
competent at being able to manage changes to well defined conditions before it can extend its capabilities to
responding to unforeseen changes. From this perspective flexibility is a prerequisite to become agile.
Similarly, Tan (1998) observes that agility and flexibility are closely related. In its most restricted form,
flexibility refers to adaptability and versatility while agility is related to the speed that a system adapts.
Therefore flexibility is a necessary condition for agility. Tan (1998) refers to Uptons (1994) definition of
flexibility as the ability to change or react with little penalty in time, effort, cost or performance, and observes
that. although this definition includes some notions of agility, the agility term stresses the importance of time-
based competition and flexibility, and therefore agile manufacturing is a new paradigm in manufacturing
strategy. Backhouse and Burns (1999) define agility as the ability of an enterprise to adapt to unpredicted
changes in the external environment, in contrast to flexibility, which is taken to mean the ability of companies
to respond to a variety of customer requirements which exist within defined constraints. They further observed
that the boundary between flexibility and agility is naturally blurred.
114 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
Christopher (2001) views agility as a business-wide capability that embraces organizational structures,
information systems, logistics processes and in particular, mindsets. He observes that a key characteristic
of an agile organization is flexibility, and in that respect, the origins of agility as a business concept lie
partially in flexible manufacturing systems. He further observes that, initially it was thought that the route
to manufacturing flexibility was through automation to enable rapid changeovers (i.e. reduced set-up
times) and thus enable a greater responsiveness to changes in product mix or volume. Later this idea of
manufacturing flexibility was extended into the wider business context and the concept of agility as an
organizational orientation was born. Sarkis (2001) observes that the linkage and roles of agility, flexibility
and lean, may provide a partial definition to agility. Accordingly he cites the Department of Defense
summary of these principles in a relative context to each other as: (a) Lean manufacturing as a set of
practices intended to remove all waste from the system, striving to minimize usage of resources, (b)
Flexible manufacturing as a structure as opposed to a strategy and addresses a production line that can be
easily reconfigured or customized for producing different products, (c) Agile manufacturing as a strategy
that contains lean manufacturing and flexible manufacturing and addresses the business enterprise world.
Burgess et al (2002) observes that, in some respects agility can be interpreted as a return to emphasizing
flexibility, but in a more dynamic sense than hitherto, by privileging new product or new supply
capability introduction, with emphasis on the design of a complete enterprise that is flexible, adaptable,
and has the ability to thrive in a continuously changing business environment where markets consist of
rapidly changing ``niches'' serving increasingly sophisticated customer demand.
Flexibility and Agility: Some Propositions
In our view, one good way of understanding an unknown concept is to express it in terms of a known
concept. Extending this logic further, we can also say that a good way of understanding a more unknown
concept is to express it in terms of a less unknown concept. This is what we are trying to do by
expressing agility in terms of flexibility. Also, it is more intuitive to understand anything in a comparative
sense rather than an absolute sense. Keeping this in view, we propose to summarize the above perceptions
of agility in terms of the following four propositions.
Time & Cost Focus
+ Quality Focus
+ Variety Focus
+ Change Focus
+ Rate of Change Focus
Mass Production era
1980s
1990s
21
st
Century
Figure-2 : Evolving Competitive Priorities
Flexibility &
Economies of scope
Agility
Economies of Scale Time & Cost Focus
+ Quality Focus
+ Variety Focus
+ Change Focus
+ Rate of Change Focus
Mass Production era
1980s
1990s
21
st
Century
Figure-2 : Evolving Competitive Priorities
Flexibility &
Economies of scope
Agility
Economies of Scale
Proposition-1: Both flexibility as well as agility are the functions of evolving competitive priorities
As shown in Figure-2, the competitive priorities are evolving towards greater change and accelerated
change. Flexibility originated as an ability to manage change in an efficient and effective manner, where
as agility is intended to addresses the accelerated change in the same manner.
The emerging environment is leading towards an Engineer-To-Order (ETO) situation where new products are
engineered to order by modifying the existing designs. The fundamental assumption of this approach is that
the designs are readily available and variety can be accomplished simply by building flexibility into the
manufacturing systems. However, the real competence for customization lies beyond this, that is, in the ability
to quickly and efficiently design new products using available competencies and development of new
competencies wherever required. We call this as an Innovate-To-Order (ITO) environment. The future
organizations are required to operate and compete in this new environment. As we move from make-to-stock
situation towards the innovate-to-order level, the requirements for flexibility increases and there will be greater
Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 115
need for flexibility management. This is coupled with the new challenge of responsiveness. Thus future
competitiveness is likely to involve both variety and responsiveness challenges. This will require increasing
focus on proactive knowledge and innovation management in future enterprises. Thus Wadhwa and Rao
(2000) have emphasized upon the new topology of Innovate To Order (ITO) to focus on Innovation
management as a strategy. Similarly Wadhwa and Rao (2002) have explained the role of proactive knowledge
management towards achieving both flexibility and agility. Here again the need for innovation is emphasized.
There is a growing need for innovating concepts that enrich the notion of flexibility, as shown in Figure 3.
CAN BE
ASSEMBLED
FROMSTOCK
AVAILABLE
INSTOCK
CANBE
PRODUCED
USINGAVAILABLE
DESIGN
CANBE
DESIGNED
USINGAVAILABLE
COMPETENCE
EXISTING
DESIGNS CANBE
MODIFIED
DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW
COMPETENCIES
NEWPRODUCT /
SERVICE DESIGN
USINGAVAILABLE
COMPETENCIES
DESIGN
MODIFICATIONS &
VARIANTS
PRODUCTION ASSEMBLY
DELIVERY
MARKET
DEMANDS
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
M
A
K
E
-
T
O
-
S
T
O
C
K
A
S
S
E
M
B
L
E
-
T
O
-
O
R
D
E
R
M
A
K
E
-
T
O
-
O
R
D
E
R
ENGINEER-TO-ORDER
INNOVATE-TO-ORDER
1 2 3 4 5 6
STANDARD PRODUCTS CUSTOMIZED PRODUCTS
HIGH
TECHNOLOGY
PRODUCTS /
SERVICES
INCREASING RICHNESS IN FLEXIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
INCREASING NEED FOR MANAGEMENT OF FLEXIBILITY
CAN BE
ASSEMBLED
FROMSTOCK
AVAILABLE
INSTOCK
CANBE
PRODUCED
USINGAVAILABLE
DESIGN
CANBE
DESIGNED
USINGAVAILABLE
COMPETENCE
EXISTING
DESIGNS CANBE
MODIFIED
DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW
COMPETENCIES
NEWPRODUCT /
SERVICE DESIGN
USINGAVAILABLE
COMPETENCIES
DESIGN
MODIFICATIONS &
VARIANTS
PRODUCTION ASSEMBLY
DELIVERY
MARKET
DEMANDS
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
M
A
K
E
-
T
O
-
S
T
O
C
K
A
S
S
E
M
B
L
E
-
T
O
-
O
R
D
E
R
M
A
K
E
-
T
O
-
O
R
D
E
R
ENGINEER-TO-ORDER
INNOVATE-TO-ORDER
1 2 3 4 5 6
STANDARD PRODUCTS CUSTOMIZED PRODUCTS
HIGH
TECHNOLOGY
PRODUCTS /
SERVICES
INCREASING RICHNESS IN FLEXIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
INCREASING NEED FOR MANAGEMENT OF FLEXIBILITY
Figure 3: Increasing Need For Flexibility (Adapted from Wadhwa, Rao (2000) )
Proposition-2: The distinctive focus of flexibility and agility differ mainly in terms of addressing the
predictable change and unpredictable change, respectively. Agility thus should focus more on
external environment (more unpredictable) and view flexibility as an internal capability (more
predictable) to deal with change/
As shown in Figure-4, flexibility and agility have a lot in common in terms of managing the change.
However, the distinctive focus of flexibility is on managing the predictable change with the help of both
predetermined as well as innovative response, where as agility focuses on managing the unpredictable
change using more of an innovative response supported by certain predetermined strategies and
technologies. Another dimension of the unpredictable change is the accelerated change where the change
is so fast that, it overwhelms the ability to respond. Managing such an accelerated change requires a
paradigm change. An example of this phenomenon can be found in is aeronautics, where many of the
design paradigms that are good in subsonic regime do not hold good for the supersonic regime. Agility
strives for such a paradigm shift in the approach to manage change.
116 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
Change
Unpredictable
Predictable
Response
Predetermined Innovative
May not be
feasible
May not be
required
Agility
Flexibility
Change
Unpredictable
Predictable
Response
Predetermined Innovative
May not be
feasible
May not be
required
Agility
Flexibility
Figure 4: Distinctive Focus of Flexibility vis-a-vis Agility in Managing Change
Proposition-3: The distinctive focus of flexibility and agility differ in terms of addressing the
individual systems facing a medium rate of change and a group of systems facing a high rate of
change, respectively.
As shown in Figure-5, flexibility and agility differ in terms of their scope. While the distinctive focus of
flexibility is on individual systems, agility focuses on a group of systems. Some authors expressed that at
the individual system level, both agility and flexibility are same, and the agility of a group of systems is a
function of the flexibility of constituent systems. In our opinion, at this stage, it is really difficult to
distinguish agility and flexibility in this manner, as both the concepts are still evolving. However,
proposition-3 and figure-5 reflects some of the perception found in the literature. Further, there is a rate
of change element also. Literature indicates that there is a greater focus of agility on higher rate of change
as compared to flexibility. Combining the above two perceptions, we may indicate that the distinctive
focus of flexibility and agility differ in terms of addressing the individual systems facing a medium rate of
change and a group of systems facing a high rate of change, respectively
Rate of
Change
High
Medium
Level
Single system
(Eg: Manufacturing System)
Group of Systems
(Eg: Supply Chain)
Flexibility
Agility
Rate of
Change
High
Medium
Level
Single system
(Eg: Manufacturing System)
Group of Systems
(Eg: Supply Chain)
Flexibility
Agility
Figure 5: Distinctive Focus of Flexibility vis-a-vis Agility in Their Scope
Proposition-4: The distinctive focus of flexibility and agility differ in terms of addressing the
constituent elements required to attain flexibility / agility.

Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 117
As a sequel to proposition-3, we also observed that flexibility and agility differ in their focus on the
constituent elements. While flexibility literature is more concerned about the equipment flexibility and
process flexibility, agility is more concerned about structure, relationships and manpower. This is
understandable because, as stated in proposition-2, flexibility is more concerned with managing
predictable change with the help of predetermined response. This predetermined response is embodied in
the equipment and process. Where as agility focuses on the unpredictable change for which it is always
not feasible to have predetermined capabilities. Such an ill structured situations require more of a human
centered approach, and hence the focus on manpower is understandable. Similarly, since agility is more
concerned with the groups of systems, their structural relationships are more important, and hence more
focus on structure is understandable. Figure 6 shows distinctive focus of flexibility and agility.
Equipment Manpower Process Structure
Focus of
Literature on
Flexibility
Focus of
Literature on
Agility
Equipment Manpower Process Structure
Focus of
Literature on
Flexibility
Focus of
Literature on
Agility
Equipment Manpower Process Structure
Focus of
Literature on
Flexibility
Focus of
Literature on
Agility
Figure 6: Distinctive Focus of Flexibility vis-a-vis Agility in Terms of Constituent Elements
Proposition-5: The distinctive focus of flexibility and agility differs in terms of their relative
emphasis on variety and responsiveness.
In a broad sense, flexibility has relatively more emphasis on variety, while the literature on agility indicates
greater emphasis on responsiveness to change. In other words, agility is focused on increasing responsiveness
without loosing flexibility where as flexibility is focused on increasing variety without sacrificing the
responsiveness. But what is ideally needed is a simultaneous improvement in both flexibility and agility. We
refer to this as flexagility (or FlexAgility). The term flexagility may stress towards achieving simultaneously
greater variety with greater responsiveness to change. This vision is reflected in Figure-7. This will help us to
move towards mass customization systems that ideally will be as flexible as one of a kind (OAK) systems and
as efficient as mass production systems (Flow Lines). The challenge is how to move the conventional batch
manufacturing systems towards mass customization systems.
In fact the scope should not be just the physical systems but the enterprise level systems. This implies the
judicious structuring of various decision systems and the information systems across the enterprise,
integrating several business processes and physical systems. In our opinion, IT will play a major role
towards flexagility in manufacturing enterprises. Moving from conventional batch manufacturing to mass
customization manufacturing enterprises, using IT, will go through several stages. The concepts of
decision information synchronization (DIS) for Semi-Computerized Flexible Systems (SCFM) as
proposed by Wadhwa and Bhagwat (1998) will be very important in defining these stages. The dynamic
reconfiguration based on effective decision systems in a DIS environment as suggested by Wadhwa and
Chopra (2000) for Agile Manufacturing Systems can be seen as a flexagility capability here. Here
Dynamic Re-configurability capability (i.e same ability of efficient flow lines for a changed volume-
variety demand) offers Agility and Integrated Dynamic Scheduling (which variety to be scheduled on
which efficient line) offers means to deal with increasing variety. We therefore propose that we view the
manufacturing enterprises on the DIS continuum evolving with their flexagility capabilities as FAME
(Flex-Agility focused Manufacturing Enterprises) systems. The main enterprise in this could be a
manufacturing system or a supply chain or a combination. It is important to discuss and model these
enterprises from a DIS perspective.



118 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
(
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g

F
A
M
E
)
F
l
e
x
a
g
i
l
i
t
y
Responsiveness
High
Medium
Variety Medium High
OAK
Production
Mass
Customization
Rapidly
Reconfigurable
Systems
SCFM
FMS
Flexibility
A
g
i
l
i
t
y
BMS
(
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g

F
A
M
E
)
F
l
e
x
a
g
i
l
i
t
y
Responsiveness
High
Medium
Variety Medium High
OAK
Production
Mass
Customization
Rapidly
Reconfigurable
Systems
SCFM
FMS
Flexibility
A
g
i
l
i
t
y
BMS
Figure 7: A vision for Future Evolution of Flexagility.
Flexagility: A Decision Information Synchronization (DIS) Perspective
Let us use the Dynamic Reconfiguration with Integrated Scheduling (DRIS) architecture proposed by Wadhwa
and Chopra (2000) to discuss the DIS perspective. Now one of the important requirements for effective DRIS
is that Decision Making is close to real time. The information availability need to be fully synchronized with
the Decision Making. Any DIS delays will render the DRIS benefits less effective. When these delays are
significant, it may become counter productive to use DRIS. In fact as described by Wadhwa, Magure and
Browne (1986) through a decision point framework, the decision points need to synchronize the entity flow
processes. At an enterprise level the role of DIS is more challenging to synchronize entity flow processes
because often they are under the control of multiple autonomous agents (i.e supply chain members). It is
therefore important to study the flexagility at the enterprise level FAME. Since it is the decision system and
the available flexibility that fundamentally offers control on entity flows, it is important to focus on their role. A
DIS perspective on flexible systems provides such a focus. The agile systems need a higher level of decision-
information synchronization and are thus less tolerant to DIS delays (see Figure 8).
Agility
Flexibility
Change
Responsiveness
Reactive &
Proactive
Proactive &
Innovative
Response
Known
Variety
Single
Systems
Group of
Systems
Dynamic &
Opportunistic
Dynamic
Some tolerance
to DIS Delays
Less tolerance
to DIS Delays
Control
Tolerance
to DIS
Delays
Focus Scope
Unknown
Agility
Flexibility
Agility Agility
Flexibility Flexibility
Change
Responsiveness
Reactive &
Proactive
Proactive &
Innovative
Response
Known
Variety
Single
Systems
Group of
Systems
Dynamic &
Opportunistic
Dynamic
Some tolerance
to DIS Delays
Less tolerance
to DIS Delays
Control
Tolerance
to DIS
Delays
Focus Scope
Unknown

Figure 8: A comparison of Flexibility and Agility: DIS Perspective

Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 119
Flexibility Models in SCM: Key Results
In order to gain some insights into the interrelations between flexibility, responsiveness and
decision-information-synchronization, we have developed number of demonstration models of
manufacturing systems and supply chains with flexibility, operating under various decision-
information-synchronization scenarios and carried out simulation studies. For the purpose of the
above studies, we have developed a hierarchical simulation model of a flexible supply chain system
as shown in Figure-9. At the highest level, the model comprises of a flexible supply chain system
connected to the customers and the suppliers. The flexible supply chain system accepts orders from
the customers, source the required materials from the suppliers and fulfill the customer orders in the
best possible way. The flexible supply chain system comprises of a number of supply chains
interconnected in parallel through an order management system. The order management system
accepts the orders for the entire supply chain system and depending upon the level of flexibility and
the supplier selection criteria, allocates the orders to different supply chains in a dynamic manner.
When the supply chain system operates under no-supply chain-flexibility conditions, each supply
chain will be able to handle only one type of product and accordingly the order management system
does not have any role to play. However, as flexibility increases, each supply chain will handle more
than one product type and the order management system will have to take a decision on the
allocation of orders to the supply chains. For this purpose we have incorporated a protocol as
follows; (a) upon receiving a customer order, the order management system sends a request for bid
to all the supply chains indicating the product type and quantity required. (b) all supply chains
respond to this call and submit their bids for supplying the above quantity. In case any supply chain
is not in a position to supply a particular product type, it will send a regret message. In their bids,
each supply chain will indicate how many orders it has pending with it, (c) based on the bids
received from different supply chains, the order management system selects the most appropriate
supplier and issues a supply request on that supply chain. In this model, the criteria for selection of
a supplier is set to be the minimum number of orders waiting i.e. a supply chain with lowest number
of orders waiting to be fulfilled will be selected for issuing the supply request, (d) upon receiving the
supply request, the supply chain will backlog the order and initiate necessary action to source the
materials from its supplier and this process will continue up to the end of the chain, (e) the supply
chain node at the end of the chain is called the end supplier and is modeled to deliver any kind of
materials immediately. The materials thus originated travel through the chain back to the customer
who placed the order and the time elapsed between the placements of an order the receipt of products
is measured as supply chain lead-time performance. In these studies, six supply chains have been
modeled and the manufacturing flexibility of all these chains have been simultaneously changed to
study their combined effect on the supply chain performance. These levels are referred to as MSFL-1
to MSFL-6. MSFL-1 refers to all the manufacturing systems having a flexibility level of 1. MSFL-2
refers to all the manufacturing systems having flexibility level of 2, and so on.





















120 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
Make
Supply Chain
Node
(Mfg Sys)
Flexible
Supply Chain
System
Supplier(s) Customer(s)
Supply Chain
Node
(Supplier)
Supply Chain
Node
(Distributor)
Supply Chain 1
Supply Chain 2
Supply Chain...
Supply Chain n
Order
Mgt.
Supply
Mgt.
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine...
Machine n
Loading
Station
Unloading
Station
Plan Source Deliver
Return Return Make
Supply Chain
Node
(Mfg Sys)
Flexible
Supply Chain
System
Supplier(s) Supplier(s) Customer(s) Customer(s)
Supply Chain
Node
(Supplier)
Supply Chain
Node
(Distributor)
Supply Chain 1
Supply Chain 2
Supply Chain...
Supply Chain n
Order
Mgt.
Supply
Mgt.
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine...
Machine n
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine...
Machine n
Loading
Station
Unloading
Station
Plan Source Deliver
Return Return

Figure-9: A Hierarchical Simulation Model
In the next level of the model each supply chain comprises of a number of supply chain nodes. A supply
chain node is a generic entity developed based on the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model
of the supply-chain council (www.supply-chain.org). Supply chain node is comprised of a number of
functional entities such as plan, source, make, deliver and return in accordance with the Supply Chain
Operations Reference (SCOR) model. Among these entities, the entity called make refers to the
manufacturing system. Accordingly, we have embedded a model of the flexible manufacturing system
into the supply chain node to function as make. In the last level of the model, the manufacturing system
(make) comprises of a number of machines, a loading station and an unloading station. The loading
station receives all the customer orders and depending upon the level of flexibility and the machine
selection logic, allocates the orders to the machines. In this model the machine selection logic is
implemented as minimum waiting time. The required manufacturing flexibility is built into this
manufacturing system such that under the conditions of no flexibility (MSFL-1) each machine will be
able to manufacture only one product type. As the flexibility level increases to the first level (MSFL-2)
each machine will be able to manufacture two types of products, as the flexibility increases to the next
level (MSFL-3) each machine will be able to three types of products, and so on up to six levels of
flexibility. The results of the simulation studies carried out with the help of these models are briefly
presented below.


Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 121
Influence of Manufacturing Flexibility on the Manufacturing Lead-time
From the results the following observations may be noted: (a) The manufacturing lead-time
monotonously decreases with increasing levels of manufacturing flexibility. This indicates that
manufacturing flexibility negatively influences manufacturing lead-time. (b) The influence of
manufacturing flexibility on the manufacturing lead-time appears to be strong (F=770.40) and highly
significant (p<0.000). (c) The influence is not uniform at all the levels of flexibility. The results indicate
a lead-time reduction of 62.82%, for a change in the flexibility levels from a condition of no-flexibility
(PFL=1) to a condition of full-flexibility (PFL=6), in a diminishing manner (see Figure 10).
Plot of Means
PFL Main Effect
F(5,12954)=770.40; p<0.000
PFL
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:

L
T
I
M
E
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure-10: Pattern of Lead-time Variation with Manufacturing Flexibility
The above observations imply that: (a) Manufacturing systems that use manufacturing flexibility are
likely to achieve shorter lead-times as compared to those that do not use it. (b) Manufacturing systems
that use greater levels of manufacturing flexibility are likely to achieve shorter lead-times, but the benefit
diminishes with increasing levels of flexibility. (c) The first level of manufacturing flexibility (PFL=2)
provides the greatest benefit, followed by lesser and lesser benefits at subsequent levels. (d) The lead-time
accomplished with the first level of flexibility (PFL=2) is closer to the lead-time accomplished with full-
flexibility (PFL=6) rather than to the lead-time under the conditions of no-flexibility (PFL=1). Similarly,
the lead-time accomplished with the second level of flexibility (PFL=3) is closer to the lead-time
accomplished with the full-flexibility (PFL=6) rather than to the lead-time accomplished with the first
level of flexibility (PFL=2). This pattern continued throughout. (d) Since it is generally expected that the
levels of investment, magnitude of transition penalties and the performance penalty of having and using
flexibility increase with increasing levels of flexibility, the above pattern of lead-time reduction has two
implications. Firstly, at lower levels of flexibility the benefits due to flexibility may always outweigh the
penalty of using flexibility. Secondly, at higher levels of flexibility the penalty of using flexibility may
outweigh the benefits due to flexibility. Hence, there is a need to arrive at judicious levels of flexibility to
balance the penalties and benefits.
122 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
Impact of information cycle period on the flexibility enabled responsiveness improvement
Plot of Means
2-way interaction
F(25,12924)=10.83; p<0.000
RFL
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:

L
T
I
M
E
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
1 2 3 4 5 6
IP
1
IP
20
IP
40
IP
60
IP
80
IP
100
Figure 11: Interaction Between Varying Levels of IP & MF
Wadhwa and Bhagwat (1999) studied the performance of control strategies for flexible systems operating
under a periodic status monitoring. This motivated our studies on the effect of information cycle period.
Figure-11 shows the interactions between varying levels of information period and the manufacturing
flexibility. It is observed that manufacturing flexibility reduces lead-time at lower levels of information
period. However when the information period is high, flexibility becomes counter productive and
increase in the levels of flexibility will result in increase in lead-time. This observation has two
implications, first is that to derive the benefit of flexibility we need adequate IT support which will ensure
that DIS delays are within certain limit, the second is that, up to certain levels of DIS delays can be
tolerated by flexibility without becoming counter productive. This brings out the importance of using
judicious combination of flexibility & IT levels.
Effect of Manufacturing Flexibility on a Single Supply Chain
Plot of Means (unweighted)
PFL Main Effect
F(5,270)=196.67; p<0.000
MSFL
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:

L
T
I
M
E
34000
36000
38000
40000
42000
44000
46000
48000
50000
52000
54000
56000
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 12: Influence of Manufacturing Flexibility on Supply Chain Lead-time
This part presents the results of the studies addressing two research questions. The first question is how
does the flexibility of a manufacturing system influence the lead-time performance of a supply chain
system that encompasses it? The second question is - how does the transportation delays modify the
influence of manufacturing flexibility on the performance of a supply chain system?
The results of the simulation study on the above questions are shown in Figure-12 and Figure-13. From
the results, the following observations may be noted: (a) the supply chain lead-time monotonously
decreases with increasing levels of manufacturing flexibility. This indicates that manufacturing flexibility
negatively influences the supply chain lead-time. The influence of manufacturing flexibility on the supply
Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 123
chain lead-time appears to be strong (F=196.67) and highly significant (p<0.000). The influence is not
uniform at all the flexibility levels. The results indicate a lead-time reduction of 31.12%, for a change in
the flexibility levels from a condition of no-flexibility (MSFL=1) to a condition of full-flexibility
(MSFL=6), in a diminishing manner. It is observed that 76.80% of this benefit is realised with increase in
the first level of flexibility. With the subsequent levels of flexibility the benefit of lead-time reduction is
found to be 14.65%, 7.75%, 0.67% and 0.13% for MSFL=3 to MSFL=6, respectively. These observations
imply that manufacturing systems that use flexibility are likely to contribute more for shorter supply chain
lead-times as compared to those that do not use it. The results also indicate that the first level of
manufacturing flexibility (MSFL=2) provides the greatest benefit, followed by diminishing benefits at
subsequent levels. It is also observed in these studies that, as the transportation times of the supply chain
increases, the influence of manufacturing flexibility on the supply chain lead-time decreases. These
results indicate that investments in flexible manufacturing technologies and associated information
technology elements may give significant benefits through lead-time reduction at the manufacturing
system level but their contribution to the overall supply chain lead-time performance depends on the
transportation times and several other such delays in a supply chain environment. This observation is
important for the designers and manager of manufacturing supply chains to arrive at appropriate types and
judicious levels of flexibility and IT requirements in a supply chain environment.
Plot of Means (unweighted)
2-way interaction
F(10,270)=2.21; p<.0175
MSFL
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:

L
T
I
M
E
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TTIME=10
TTIME=50
TTIME=70
Figure 13: Interactions Between Transport Delays, Flexibility and Lead-time
Proactive Knowledge and Innovation Management Towards Flexagility
We have proposed a flexibility maturity model (Wadhwa and Rao (2002)) to highlight the evolution of
proactive flexibility management in enterprises (Fig 14, Fig 15). The concept of flexagility is suggested as
a proactive knowledge management approach to manage flexibility towards agility improvements. One
important test for the success of flexagility approach is that it must result in improvements towards
enterprise synchronization. This is possible if the new decision opportunities offered by available
flexibility and agility are well synchronized with other entity flows. A good IT infrastructure, for instance
ensures good synchronization between the decision and information entity flows with respect to the other
entity flows (i.e. material, resources, money etc).










124 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003

Required
Flexibility
Available
Flexi bility
Exploited
Flexibility
Managing
Flexibility
Reactive
Control
Proactive
Flexibility
Management
Not affected
Increased in the
desired direction
(single objective)
Can be increased
or decreased
Increased in the
desired direction
(multi-objective)
Legend
Required
Flexibility
Available
Flexi bility
Exploited
Flexibility
Managing
Flexibility
Reactive
Control
Proactive
Flexibility
Management
Proactive
Flexibility
Management
Not affected
Increased in the
desired direction
(single objective)
Can be increased
or decreased
Increased in the
desired direction
(multi-objective)
Legend
Not affected
Increased in the
desired direction
(single objective)
Can be increased
or decreased
Increased in the
desired direction
(multi-objective)
Legend
Figure 14: Towards Proactive Flexibility Management (Wadhwa and Rao (2002))

PFM drives
enterprise agility
A state of being able to identify and measure
flexibility types & levels already available in the system and
estimate their potential impact on systems performance
A state of being aware of the nature of flexibility and its relationship
with systems performance and changes in systems environment
Managing
FlexAgility
Proactive Flexibility
Management (PFM)
Managing
Flexibility
Quantitative
Understanding
Qualitative
Understanding
A state of being able to exploit available
flexibility in a reactive manner
to sustain the systems performance
Reactive
Control
Level
4
Level
3
Level
2
Level
1
Level
0
Level
5
A state of being able to plan and use
the available flexibility
to sustain systems performance
A state of being able to
impact the flexibility requirement
and its synchronization with
available and exploitable flexibility
Flexibility
of flexibility
Managing
Flexibility
2
PFM drives
enterprise agility
A state of being able to identify and measure
flexibility types & levels already available in the system and
estimate their potential impact on systems performance
A state of being aware of the nature of flexibility and its relationship
with systems performance and changes in systems environment
Managing
FlexAgility
Proactive Flexibility
Management (PFM)
Managing
Flexibility
Quantitative
Understanding
Qualitative
Understanding
A state of being able to exploit available
flexibility in a reactive manner
to sustain the systems performance
Reactive
Control
Level
4
Level
3
Level
2
Level
1
Level
0
Level
5
A state of being able to plan and use
the available flexibility
to sustain systems performance
A state of being able to
impact the flexibility requirement
and its synchronization with
available and exploitable flexibility
Flexibility
of flexibility
Managing
Flexibility
2
Figure 15: Flexibility Maturity Model (Wadhwa and Rao (2002))
In our experience, the organizations require an increasing level of knowledge and innovation management
while moving towards the higher levels of flexibility in the Flexibility Maturity Model. For instance at the
flexagility level, the enterprise must proactively manage its flexibility to increase the agility (responsiveness or
lead times). As suggested by Wadhwa and Rao (2000), one strategy here could be to minimize the internal
variety while maximizing the external variety. This is possible by modular and flexible designs. Further one
can innovate ways by which the manufacturing flexibility and design flexibility can be combined effectively
and used towards enterprise synchronization. A good example is the DRIS architecture described before. In
order to promote knowledge and innovation management in these directions there is a need for development of
Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 125
demo models, covering enterprises as single units as well as parts of the supply chains. The flexibility focused
demo models aimed at the lead-time reduction at the supply chain level (as described in this paper) offer a good
platform to further develop the flexagility theme. There is also a need to have flexagility models to study the
agile changes in variety and volumes. This implies development of reconfiguration strategies for the flexible
systems and their integrated and dynamic scheduling, to deal with the volume and mix changes. This is an
important direction for our research.
Conclusion
In this paper, we made an attempt to develop an understanding of agility from a practitioners point of view, by
relating it with the other important concept of flexibility. Our study indicated that both flexibility as well as
agility are evolved in response to the evolving competitive priorities. While the focus of flexibility is on
managing the predictable change with the help of a predetermined response, agility focuses on managing the
unpredictable change in an innovative manner. The capability for predetermined response of flexibility is
embodied in the equipment and processes, where as the response ability of agility resides mainly in the
structural relationships. Accordingly, the focus of these concepts slightly differ. It is important to combine the
flexibility and agility concepts to evolve a paradigm where flexibility (alternatives) becomes a platform to
increase the system agility (responsiveness). Our vision is that the theme of flexagility can promote these ideas
at the enterprise synchronization levels. This implies simultaneous increase in variety and responsiveness, by
increasing the levels of decision information synchronization in flexible enterprises. In order to effectively
implement flexagility, there is a need for developing enterprise level models where the impact of flexibility on
responsiveness may be studied. This will encourage proactive management of knowledge and innovations to
evolve more agile friendly forms of flexibility. We discussed some supply chain models with manufacturing
and supply chain flexibility and showed how the inherent flexibility is useful towards increasing the system
responsiveness (i.e. lead time reductions). We also suggested the directions of evolution in these models to
promote future research in the flexagility domain.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ASHOK KUMA,R MOTWANI, J., 1995. A methodology for assessing time-based competitive
advantage of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 36-53.
2. BACKHOUSE, C.J., BURNS N.D., 1999. Agile value chains for manufacturing
implications for performance measures. International Journal of Agile Management Systems,
Vol.1, No.2. pp. 76-82.
3. BAJGORIC, N., 2000. Web-based information access for agile management. International
journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol.2, No.2, pp. 121-129.
4. BENJAAFAR, S., RAMAKRISHNAN, R., 1996. Modelling, measurement and evaluating of
sequencing flexibility in manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 1195-1219
5. BROWNE, J., DUBOIS, D., RATHMILL, K., SETHI, S.P., STECKE, K.E., (1984),
Classification of flexible manufacturing systems, The FMS Magazine, 114-117.
6. BURGESS T., HWARNG B., SHAW N., MATTOS C. D.E, 2002. Enhancing Value Stream Agility:
The UK Speciality Chemical Industry. European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 199212.
7. CARLSSON, BO., 1988. Flexibility and the theory of the firm. International Journal of
Industrial Organization 7 (1989), 179-203, North-Holland.
8. CHRISTOPHER, M., TOWILL D.R., 2000. Supply chain migration from lean and functional to
agile and customized. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.5, No.4, pp.206-213.
9. CHRISTOPHER, M., TOWILL, D., 2001. An integrated model for the design of agile supply chains.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp.235-246.
10. CHRISTOPHER, M., 2000. The Agile Supply Chain : Competing in Volatile Markets.
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.29, pp.3744.
11. CORREA, H. L., SLACK, N, 1996. Framework to analyse flexibility and unplanned change
in manufacturing systems. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 9, 1, 57-64.
126 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
12. DAS, S. K., 1996. The Measurement of Flexibility in Manufacturing Systems. The
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems. 8, 67-93
13. DE GROOTE, X., 1994. The Flexibility of Production Processes : A General Framework.
Management Science, 40, 7, July.
14. DOVE, R., 1999. Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise. Journal
of Knowledge Management. Vol.3, No.1, pp.1835.
15. GERWIN, D., (1987), An agenda for research on the flexibility of manufacturing processes,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 7 (1), 38-49.
16. GERWIN, D., (1993), Manufacturing flexibility : a strategic perspective, Management
Science, 39(4), 395-410.
17. GOLDEN, W., POWELL, P., 1999. Towards a definition of flexibility : in search of the Holy
Grail ? The International Journal of Management Science (2000), 373-384.
18. GOLDMAN, S.L., NAGEL, R.N., PREISS K. (1995). Agile Competitors and Virtual
Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
19. GUNASEKARAN, A., 1999. Design and implementation of agile manufacturing systems.
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.62, pp.1-6.
20. HUANG, C.Y., CERONI, J.A, NOF S.Y., 2000. Agility of networked enterprises - parallelism,
error recovery and conflict resolution. Computers in Industry, Vol. 42, pp.275287
21. KOSTE, L.L., MALHOTRA, M.K., 1999. A theoretical framework for analyzing the
dimensions of manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 18, 75-93
22. MASON-JONES, R., TOWILL, D.R., 1999. Total cycle time compression and the agile supply
chain. Int. J. Production Economics, Vol.62, pp. 61-73
23. MASON-JONES, R., NAYLOR B., TOWILL, D.R., 2000. Engineering the leagile supply
chain. International Journal of Agile Management Systems,Vol.2, No.1, pp.54-61.
24. MCGAUGHEY, R.E., 1999. Internet technology: contributing to agility in the twenty-first
century. International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 7-13.
25. MEREDITH, S,. FRANCIS, D., 2000. Journey towards agility: the agile wheel explored. The
TQM Magazine, Vol.12, No.2, pp. 137-143.
26. NILSSON, C.H., NORDAHL, H., 1995. Making manufacturing flexibility operational part 1 : a
framework. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 6, 1, 1995, 5-11.
27. Prater, E., Biehl, M., and Smith, M.A., 2001. International supply chain Agility Tradeoffs
between flexibility and Uncertainty. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21, No. 5/6, pp.823-839
28. RAMASESH, R., KULKARNI, S., JAYAKUMAR, M. 2001. Agility in manufacturing systems : an
exploratory modeling framework and simulation. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol.12, No.7,
pp.534-548.
29. RIGBY, C., DAY, M., FORRESTER, P., BURNETT, J., 2000. Agile supply: rethinking
systems thinking, systems Practice. International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol.2,
No.3, pp.178-186
30. SARKIS, J., 2001. Benchmarking for agility. Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8
No. 2, 2001, pp. 88-107.
31. SETHI, A.K., SETHI, S.P., (1990), Flexibility in manufacturing : a survey, The International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 2, 289-328.
32. SHARIFI, H., ZHANG, Z., 1999. A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
Organizations : An introduction. Int. J. Production Economics, Vol.62, pp.7-22.
33. SOHAL, A.S., 1999. Developing agile manufacturing in Australia. International Journal of
Agile Management Systems, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 60-63.
Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003 127
128 Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.12, No.2 June 2003
34. SUBHASH BABU A., 1999. Strategies for enhancing agility of make-to-order
manufacturing systems. International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol.1, No.1,
pp.23-29.
35. TAN, B., 1998. Agile Manufacturing and Management of Variability. International
Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 375-388.
36. UPTON, D.M., (1994), The management of manufacturing flexibility, California Management
Review,pp 72-89.
37. VAN HOEK, REMKO I., 2001. Epilogue: Moving forward with agility. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.290-300.
38. VAN HOEK, REMKO I., HARRISON, ALAN., CHRISTOPHER M., 2001. Measuring agile
capabilities in the supply chain. International journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol.12, No.1/, pp.126-147.
39. VASTAG, G., KASARDA, J.D., BOONE, T., 1994. Logistical Support for Manufacturing
Agility in Global Markets. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
14, No. 11, pp. 73-85
40. VERNADAT, F.B., 1999. Research agenda for agile manufacturing. International Journal of
Agile Management Systems, Vol.1, No.1, pp.37-40.
41. VOKURA, R.J., FLIEDNER GENE, 1998. The journey toward agility. Industrial Management
& Data Systems, Vol.98, No.4, pp.165-171
42. WADHWA, S., BROWNE, J. (1990) Modeling FMS with Decision Petri Nets, International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, No.1, pp. 253-280.
43. WADHWA, S., RAO, K.S. (2000), Flexibility : an emerging meta-competence for managing
high technology, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol.19, Nos. 7/8, 820-845
44. .WADHWA, S., RAO, K.S., Towards a Proactive Flexibility Management View, Global
Journal of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 3, No.2 & 3, pages 1-11, Sept, 2002.
45. WADHWA, S., JOSE, J., GANDHI, A., Managing Innovations in e-Business based Supply
Chain structures: Role of Demo Models, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol 11, no. 2,
September, 2002.
46. WADHWA, S., RAO, K.S., Framework for a Flexibility Maturity Model, Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management, vol. 3, No. 2 & 3, pages 45-55, September, 2002.
47. WADHWA, S., BHAGWAT, R., Judicious Increase in Flexibility and Decision Automation
in Semi-Computerized Flexible Manufacturing (SCFM) Systems, International Journal,
Studies in Informatics and Control, 1998.
48. WADHWA, S., CHOPRA, A., A Genetic Algorithm Application: Dynamic Reconfiguration
of Agile Manufacturing Systems, Studies in Informatics and Control, December, 2000.
49. WILLIS, T.H., 1998. Operational competitive requirements for the twenty-first century.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.98, No.2, pp.8386.
50. ZHANG, J., GU, J., PEIGEN LI, DUAN, Z., 1999. Object-oriented modeling of control system
for agile manufacturing cells. Int. J. Production Economics, Vol.62, pp.145 153.
51. ZHANG, Z., SHARIFI, H., 2000. A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organizations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 4,
pp. 496-512.