BQM&T
4,1
18
Benchmarking for Quality
Management & Technology,
Vol. 4 No. 1, 1997, pp. 18-33.
© MCB University Press, 1351-3036
Technology and process
management in the Australian
wine industry
Stuart Christopher Orr
Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia
Introduction
Can manufacturing strategy be applied to industries which are not traditionally
considered to be involved in manufacturing processes? This paper
demonstrates the applicability of manufacturing strategy to the Australian
wine industry, via a case study and questionnaire survey analysis of the actual
process of developing a strategy for the industry. The methodology follows
Platts’ method for manufacturing strategy research in the manufacturing
industry[1].
The following features of the wine industry made it an appropriate subject of
study[2]. The positive points were:
• essentially homogeneous;
• good sample size (about 700 organizations);
• scope can include whole industry;
• clearly defined boundaries (product and operations);
• a 200-year history;
• displaying strong growth;
• virgin manufacturing strategy research territory.
The negative points were:
• very proud;
• highly traditional;
• naïve about international business;
• limited corporate orientation;
• medium industry moderation;
• unsure as to industry identity (agriculture, food or manufacturing).
The elements of manufacturing strategy being investigated in this case study
are key decision areas and competitive priorities, as first proposed by
Skinner[3]. Skinner argues that manufacturing strategy is the missing link
A copy of the questionnaire used for the project is available from the author.
between production and business strategy because the capabilities of Technology and
manufacturing often are not considered in the formulation or implementation of process
business strategy. Competitive priorities are operational characteristics which management
the organization wishes to achieve to compete in the market (cost, service,
quality, etc.). Decision areas are choices made in the wine manufacturing
process as to the nature of these operations (technology, job design, work
practices, quality control, etc.) which create the competitive priorities and lead 19
to a competitive advantage. This concept has been developed[4-7] into a
correlation between key decision areas and competitive priorities for industry
competence, which is used as the theoretical principle for this paper.
Figure 1 shows the scope of the research in the context of the manufacturing
process of a wine producer. As can be seen, the external environment is
essentially outside the control of the organization, but determines the actions it
must take to compete. What is within the control of the organization is the
choices it makes about how it will run its operations and which areas it will
focus on in achieving excellence. The project concentrates on those activities
which are under the control of the organization, which extend from its
competitive priorities and key decision areas to wine production competence.
The wine production competence of the organization is the basis of its capacity
to perform in the market.

Figure 1.
Scope of project in the
context of a
manufacturing
organization

Industry overview
On a macro scale, the Australian wine industry has been relatively stable for the
past decade. It has replaced flagging local sales with export sales, making it an
BQM&T industry which has justification for displaying an interest in world class
4,1 manufacturing[9].
On a micro scale, there is some movement in the industry (such as
acquisitions) which makes it an interesting and worthwhile topic for
research[10]. It is an industry with a broad variation in organizational groups,
from the numerous small boutique wineries appearing in South Australia,
20 Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia, to companies which are
large by Australian, as well as world, wine producing standards[9]. Some of the
larger producers have commercial interests in, joint agreements with, or
ownership of, overseas wine manufacturers[11]. This differentiates the
Australian wine industry from industries such as the Australian automotive
industry which is in a state of decline and in which there is a relatively small
number of dedicated major organizations available for research data
collection[12].
The wine industry in Australia has been identified by business observers as
“one of the biggest growth areas in the economy”; Australia has now replaced
Germany as the fourth largest source of wines imported in the USA[13]. Over
the 1990-91 financial year, the Australian wine industry contributed $1.05
billion to Australia’s GDP and $177 million to Australia’s export earnings (4 per
cent of elaborately transformed manufactures exports)[14]. Over the last three
financial years, wine exports (in dollar values) have increased. Exports have
stayed static at about 18 per cent of imports (for the year ended 1993). In terms
of national wine making R&D, Australia spends $1.68 million on public
technical research (or 0.16 per cent of annual production) per year[15]. Major
export destinations are: the UK (27 per cent), Sweden (21 per cent), the USA and
New Zealand (11 per cent each), Canada (8 per cent) and Japan (5 per cent)[16].
A major wine producer, BRL Hardy Pty Ltd, identifies economies of scale
savings in marketing, production, distribution and corporate overhead costs as
being a potential benefit to wine producers[9]. Distribution networks and prod-
uct range were also identified as being important dimensions of competitiveness.
According to BRL (based on findings published at the National Agricultural
Resources Outlook Conference, 1990), Australia enjoys a cost production
advantage over the USA and France in the wine variety Cabernet Sauvignon.
Figure 2 shows the relevant cost components of the production process for this
wine for Australia, USA and France.

Methodology
As stated in the introduction, the methodology for this research follows that of
Platts[1]:
• creating the strategy formulation process;
• testing and refining the process by application in a small number of
companies;
• investigating the applicability of the process by survey.
 Technology and
process
management

21

Figure 2.
International cost
benchmarking: Cabernet
Sauvignon

In this project Platts’ stage two (which drew on a small sample to test and refine
the process) was replaced by an industry workshop (preceded by a pilot group
survey) which provided a larger and richer information source. This is not
considered to weaken the rigour of the project, but reflects the limited literature
available on strategy and manufacturing management practices within the
wine industry. Stage one was augmented by a personal interview process with
industry representatives.
In essence, the project comprised the elements shown in Table I.

Activity Purpose

1 Detailed company interviews using an
interview guide developed from past
detailed industry interviews, e.g. [17].
2 Detailed literature review to match the
identified processes, competitive priority
and key decision areas with other potential
competitive priorities and key decision
areas identified by other researchers.
3 A one-day industry workshop involving
representatives from wine producers of all
sizes, industry researchers, industry
authority representatives and consultants.
4 Design of a questionnaire to be used in
an industry-wide census.
5 DELPHI testing of the questionnaire.
6 Distribution and analysis of the questionnaire.
Identify the main processes which the industry
deals with and create a starting list of
competitive priorities and key decision
areas for this industry.
Produce a complete list of potential
competitive priorities and key decision
areas.
To further test the concept of the relationship
between key decision areas and competitive
priorities for the wine industry and to trial
the list of both.
To determine the correlation between the key
decision areas and competitive priorities and
impact of the key decision areas on
manufacturing competence in this industry. Table I.
Summary of the
To maximize the quality of the responses. elements which the
project comprised
BQM&T Findings
4,1 An initial understanding of the industry was achieved through personal
interviews and the preparation of case studies on nine major wineries. The
personal interviews were based on an interview guide prepared from previous
operations management research projects, conducted by a range of researchers
including Sohal, et al.[18]. In essence it covered the following five issues:
22
(1) Individual company directions.
(2) Wine manufacturing.
(3) Production planning and control.
(4) Purchasing and materials management.
(5) Future opportunities for the Australian wine industry.
The interviewees were mainly CEOs or production managers. The nine largest
wine producers (in terms of sales and number of employees) were interviewed
and the results written up into case studies. A customized follow-up question-
naire was then sent to each organization, addressing areas where information
was omitted in the initial interview, or which the interviewee could not answer
at that time. The information received from these follow-up questionnaires was
then incorporated into the case studies. The key decision areas and competitive
priorities were identified directly from the responses of the interviewees in the
finalized case studies in relation to problems, advantages and the basis for
competition in the Australian wine industry[19].
The competitive priorities and the frequency with which they were identified
by the interviewees are shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, product cost, product

Figure 3.
Frequency of
identification of
competitive priorities by
interviewees
quality, production output variation and delivery/supply flexibility were the Technology and
most significant competitive priorities identified. process
The following were the key decision areas identified by the interviewees: management
• technology investment;
• inventory management;
• JIT; 23
• MRP II;
• plant layout;
• process control;
• production plan manipulation/control;
• statistical process control;
• raw material (grape) quality control;
• distribution;
• subcontracting production;
• customer focus;
• scales of economy;
• allocation of production to centres of strength;
• inclusion of market research in production plan;
• quality certification (ISO 9000).
The key decision areas of technology investment, production plan
manipulation/control, ISO 9002 quality certification, inventory management
and statistical process control were considered to relate directly to the four
major competitive priorities mentioned above by more than 50 per cent of the
interviewees.
The literature reviewed provided a further list of potential competitive
priorities for the wine industry, identified through direct measurement or
reviews of other research. These competitive priorities were then evaluated
against the scope of the project (shown in Figure 1) and the qualitative data in
the case studies. Speed of production, market scope, rate of innovation and
product price were added subsequently to the competitive priorities shown in
Figure 3. The literature reviewed also provided a range of key decision areas for
manufacturing strategy. These key decision areas were similarly evaluated and
the following were added to the list given above:
• process flexibility;
• integration;
• time (control);
• capacity;
BQM&T • quality control;
4,1 • labour and staffing;
• integration with business strategy and environment;
• role of workforce;
24 • product design;
• organizational design;
• facility management;
• work organization;
• material flow;
• worker involvement;
• supplier reliability;
• top management involvement;
• corporate culture;
• communication;
• structural decentralization;
• organization design.
In the course of this project, the term “product quality” in relation to wine and
wine production has become prominent. It is therefore appropriate to define it
here. Different organizations and researchers use different definitions of quality,
the simplest of which is “fitness of purpose”[20]. Other definitions include
“conformance to requirements”[21] and “the totality of features and
characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or
implied needs”[22]. In many cases product and service quality also incorporates
the concept of “value for money”. Quality clearly has meaning only when it is
related to the function of the product[23]. In the wine industry this meaning is
represented by the characteristics of the wine as a (premium) beverage.
Garvin[24] defines product quality as “performance, features, reliability,
conformance, durability (shelf life), serviceability, aesthetics and perceived
quality”. In addition Samson and Sohal[23] believe that quality arising from a
production process should include “what does the customer want and what can
we deliver?” Thus it would appear that the term “product quality” in the context
of wine production is a mixture of delivery, value for money and customer
perception factors. This definition of quality is a moving target for the wine
production process. It is up to the wine producer to monitor customer lead
changes and adjust the process to accommodate these changes. This need for
constant appraisal and adjustment makes the total quality management term
“continuous improvement” very important for industries such as the wine
industry.
 To evaluate the key decision areas and competitive priorities identified in the Technology and
literature and personal interviews, a one-day workshop was held at the process
Australian Wine Research Institute. Attendance at the workshop was by management
invitation. To ensure all perspectives were addressed, winery senior
management, managers, industry consultants and industry researchers were
invited. This process also placed the findings drawn from the case studies in
context. 25
The methodology used for the workshop was to:
• introduce the necessary theoretical concepts to the participants;
• present previous findings and relevant literature;
• form teams of four to five people to discuss the validity and relative
importance of the competitive priorities and key decision areas.
The concepts introduced to the participants were:
• the meaning and role of wine production strategy and competence;
• the meaning and role of key decision areas and competitive priorities.
In total, 20 participants attended the workshop (this represented a 50 per cent
attendance rate of the 40 participants invited). The participants were formed
into three groups containing a mixture of consultants, industry researchers and
winery managers. This ensured a broad spread of perspectives in each group as
well as the basis for competitive discussion. Competitive discussion is useful for
detailed examination of difficult-to-define issues. The groups were given 30
minutes to discuss and prioritize a list of competitive priorities and 30 minutes
to discuss and prioritize a list of key decision areas. Each of these was supplied
as a pro forma list to the participants. Each group then presented their findings
to the rest of the participants. All of these presentations were recorded,
transcribed and the principal observations extracted. As a result the following
competitive priorities were identified as being significant for the Australian
wine industry:
• product cost;
• product quality;
• product price;
• product range;
• supply dependability;
• supply flexibility;
• speed of production;
• role of workforce;
• rate of innovation;
• market scope;
• brand name.
BQM&T With the exception of brand name and product range, these priorities were the
4,1 same as the suggested competitive priorities drawn from the literature and case
studies.
The syndicate groups were asked to give a rating of 1-5 for each of the
suggested competitive priorities. There was only limited agreement as to the
relative importance of each of the priorities between the groups. Most groups
26 concluded that all the above priorities were important and so rating them was a
subjective process. A larger sample would have been required for an accurate
evaluation. The groups’ work sheets (each group submitted a work sheet at the
end of the workshop) indicated that product cost, product quality and product
price were generally considered to be of high priority. Speed of production and
role of workforce were considered generally to be of lower priority.
Each group was asked to make a brief presentation outlining the basis by
which they rated each of the competitive priorities in order of their relative
importance. Group One felt that, in determining the relative importance of
competitive priorities, the individual organization should decide within which
position of the wine market they wished to operate. For example, a wine
producer could sell products into the fine wine segment of the market or
alternatively into the beverage section of the market. This market positioning
will then determine which of the agreed set of competitive priorities are more
important and which are less important for that particular organization. It was
also noted that some organizations which have adopted an approach of having
a very large product range may endeavour to operate in several positions in the
market and for them all competitive priorities may be of equal importance.
For this group the most important competitive priority was for the
organization to establish its mission and be aware of its principal objectives.
This, of course, is a vital business process for any organization although, in
terms of the scope of this project, this activity is part of the strategies of the
organization as a whole and not just the wine manufacturing process.
Determining the mission of the organization is an organization or business
strategy issue, rather than one pertaining solely to manufacturing competitive
priorities and competences.
This group also identified the fact that it was difficult to separate the
competitive priorities of product cost, quality and price as they are very much
interrelated. Despite this, there was agreement within this group that product
quality was universal in that the purchaser of a four litre wine cask has the
same expectation of quality as one who buys an expensive bottle of wine. For
this reason, this group identified product quality as the second priority.
The group’s third priority was product cost. They felt that product price is
influenced by factors outside the organization’s control and that a wine
producer prices products in response to these external influences. The group
did, however, note that the organization does have the option of determining the
product price for a given unit production cost.
The fourth priority identified was the role of the workforce. The skills
possessed by the company’s employees (including technology, operations
management, logistics, sales and marketing) were considered to be main Technology and
contributions of the workforce to the competitive priorities of the wine process
production process. The fifth most important priority according to this group management
was flexibility in supply. The group believed that speed of production, supply
flexibility and supply dependability all really combine to create this competitive
priority. The final competitive priority discussed by the group was rate of
innovation. Innovation in this context was considered to apply to both wine- 27
making processes (including the introduction of new processes), new products
and new business approaches.
Group Two gave each of the competitive priorities a rating of 1 to 5, 1 being
most important as they did not believe that it was possible to rank all the
priorities in order of relative importance. They believed that all competitive
priorities come out of and represent an integrated system and therefore can be
implemented only as a system. They also noted, however, that, in analysing a
system, one must first define the elements. In this context product quality was
defined as the most important competitive priority. They identified product cost
and product price as combining to represent the second most important
competitive priority. They also noted that the systems environment into which
these competitive priorities fit means that possessing any one of these priorities
without the other made any of them of little value. For example, low product
prices without quality have no real value in this industry.
The group then rated supply dependability as a third level of importance as
a competitive priority and identified supply flexibility as being associated very
closely (in terms of its beneficial impact on the organization) with supply
dependability. The group felt that these two competitive priorities together
really represented the third level of importance as a competitive priority.
Production capacity was identified as the fourth level of importance as a
competitive priority. The group noted that many companies were driven by
marketing and sales and neglected the production environment. They felt that
such organizations believed that there was always capacity to produce the order
and did not attempt to match the orders with the capacity that the organization
could manage efficiently.
Market scope was also rated at the third importance level. Awareness of the
market in which the organization operates is vital to matching the organization’s
operations to the market. The role of the workforce within the organization was
given a fourth level importance rating. Multi-skilling and flexibility in the
workforce was identified as being particularly important for today’s wine
manufacturing environment. Innovation in product ranges and processes as well
as the products themselves were rated at the fifth importance level competitive
priorities.
Group Three believed that all of the competitive priorities suggested for
discussion were of equal importance for any wine producing organization.
They believed there was strong synergy within the identified list of competitive
priorities. They also quoted Japanese businesses and Apple Computers as
organizations which focus simultaneously on all competitive priorities. This
BQM&T group suggested that, despite the interrelatedness of the suggested competitive
4,1 priorities, it was important to attempt to separate them and identify their
individual significance (as did the previous group). This group believed that
brand name also represented a competitive priority for the organization which
was tied in with quality and consistency. They gave this a number one level
importance. As a brand name can be transferred between organizations, or
28 manufacturing sites, it has been concluded that this competitive priority does
not apply to the manufacturing process and so does not fall within the scope of
the project.
Product cost was identified as the second most important competitive
priority by this group. The group then concluded that it was unable to
determine the relative importance of the rest of the competitive priorities. They
did, however, suggest that supply flexibility, speed of production and the role of
the workforce were the least important of the suggested competitive priorities.
They also noted that this did not make these competitive priorities
unimportant, but they would be lower on the importance scale. It is interesting
to note that the opinion of this group does not relate highly with the opinion of
the second group, but does correlate moderately with the opinion of the first
group.
The proposed key decision areas were then presented to the workshop
participants and the following finalized list of key decision areas was identified
as being significant for the Australian wine industry:
• process flexibility;
• process integration;
• time control;
• capacity;
• inventory levels;
• material flow;
• organization design;
• integration of production with business strategy and environment;
• product design;
• plant and equipment;
• production planning control;
• work organization;
• labour and staffing;
• role of workforce;
• worker involvement;
• level of integration of technology;
• facility management;
 • supplier reliability; Technology and
• quality control/assurance; process
• corporate culture; management
• communication;
• structural decentralization;
29
• top management involvement.
The syndicate groups were asked to give a rating of 1-5 for each of the key
decision areas selected. There was only limited agreement as to the relative
importance of the decision areas between the syndicate groups. Most groups
once again concluded that all the above decision areas were important and so
rating them was a subjective process. It was determined that all of the above
key decision areas were generally of high importance except organizational
design and structural decentralization which were considered to have lower
importance than the other key decision areas.
A questionnaire was then designed and mailed out to all registered
Australian wineries. There were 740 registered wineries at the time[8], of which
125 responded, giving a response rate of 17 per cent. The questionnaire
contained two questions of relevance to this paper. The first asked the
respondents to rate the importance of the competitive priorities on a Likert
scale, between 1 and 5. The second question asked the respondents to consider
each competitive priority and then select from the list of key decision areas
given above a key decision area as having the “Most effect”, “Next most effect”
and “Third most effect”. Each of the “effect” categories were listed in columns,
alongside the competitive priorities, creating a cross-correlation table. There
was also scope for the respondents to introduce other competitive priorities and
key decision areas. Although the “other” category was used, no sufficiently
frequent responses were apparent from the frequency analysis.
The results were computed by tabulating the frequency counts of each of the
23 key decision areas with respect to three levels of effect, for each of the ten
competitive priorities. Each level of key decision area effect (“Most effect”, “Next
most effect” and “Third most effect”) was given a weighting of 3, 2 and 1
respectively. The ∑(frequency*weighting) was then calculated for each key
decision area-competitive priority pair (there are 230 of these pairs). To this was
added a significance constraint to improve the validity of the results. The
(frequency*weighting) was set to a value of 0 if less than 10 per cent of the
respondents indicated that the key decision area had an effect on the
competitive priority (i.e. the sum of the frequency of responses ≥ 10 per cent of
respondents. The ∑(frequency*weighting) was then multiplied by the relevant
importance level of each of the competitive priorities (determined from the
Likert scale question) to determine the contribution to the organization from
each key decision area from each competitive priority. The results were then
summed for each key decision area to find the total contribution to the
organization from that key decision area and the findings were normalized to
BQM&T sum to 100. The results are shown in Table II and the main ten are depicted
4,1 graphically in Figure 4.
As can be seen, the key decision areas of plant capacity, quality assurance,
plant and equipment, production planning and control, product design and top
management involvement all have a high and roughly equivalent potential level
of importance to Australian wine producers. This means that these key decision
30 areas have a high level of impact on the competitive priorities which are
considered important by wine producers. These results indicate that the correct
management of these key decision areas will result in a higher level of
manufacturing competence and a more competitive production output from the
wine making process.
Anecdotal evidence from the interview and workshop transcripts supports
these findings. Investment in plant and equipment is a significant issue for all
wine producers, absorbing up to 10 per cent of sales per year. The high cost of
capital equipment for this industry, together with its low profit margins (2 per
cent for some producers) means that the more effectively capacity is managed,
the greater the wine producer’s profitability. Some of the producers interviewed

Key decision area Importance

Plant and equipment 11.8

Quality control/assurance 11.2
Capacity 11.1
Production planning and control 9.9
Product design 8.4
Top management involvement 8.2
Inventory levels 6.4
Labour and staffing 4.8
Integration with business strategy 4.0
Material flow 3.9
Communication 3.4
Worker involvement 2.7
Work organization 2.3
Supplier reliability 2.3
Process flexibility 2.2
Level of integration of technology 1.8
Corporate culture 0.9
Role of workforce 0.8
Time control 0.6
Table II. Process integration 0.0
Importance scores for
key decision areas Organizational design 0.0
(normalized between Facility management 0.0
0 and 100) Other 3.3
 Technology and
process
management

31

Figure 4.
Importance of the ten
major key decision
areas resulting from the
industry census

operated their capacities at 100 per cent while others claimed to be much lower
(down to 50 per cent).
While the industry does have its own internal quality assurance standards
(wine show awards, and toxicity and pesticide residue levels), many of the
larger wine producers have gained or are seeking to gain ISO 9002 quality
certification to support export sales.
Production planning and control is managed at very different levels
throughout the industry. At one end of the spectrum, it is based on the Chief
Wine Maker’s preferences, and at the other end, on a version of MRP II
developed specifically for the industry. The interview and workshop findings
indicate, however, that all major producers are now rapidly increasing their
level of usage of computers in production planning[2]. In an industry where
prices are low (Australian wine prices are quite low compared to the wine
quality, by world standards) buying behaviour is influenced strongly by
product characteristics and design. Thus, product design is also an important
manufacturing characteristic for this industry. As the industry is experiencing
some consolidation at this time, the acquisitions of smaller producers have
meant that some organizations now have up to 30 production sites. With this
type of operating environment, senior management involvement at the
production level naturally is perceived to be low and communication and co-
ordination a significant issue for the larger organizations.
It is also interesting to note that while inventory level still is considered to be
a significant key decision area, it has a lower level of importance than the other
major key decision areas. This may be because of the fact that the industry
perceives inventory holdings as a necessary part of the wine manufacturing
process and not subject to control and reduction. The interviews did, however,
identify the use of JIT in the bottling and packaging areas, which appeared to
lend themselves to inventory level reduction. Some key decision areas scored
BQM&T very low importance scores which suggests that they did not have a significant
4,1 positive impact on any of the competitive priorities which were important to
wine producers. These key decision areas should be given a low priority as the
returns from investing resources in these areas are likely to be low.
When compared to the findings of research projects for more traditionally
identified manufacturing industries[19], such as the automotive industry, the
32 major key decision areas identified in this project are quite similar. This would
suggest that the basis for operational competence for any production-based
process, whether it be manufactured traditionally or not, is driven by the world
class manufacturing parameters of technology management, quality
assurance, capacity and inventory management, production planning and
control, and product design. This has interesting implications for many other
industries.
Figure 5 summarizes the findings of this project by displaying the
relationship between the groupings of the key decision areas and all the
competitive priorities identified in this project.

Figure 5.
Relationship between
identified decision areas
and competitive
priorities categories

Conclusion
The basic tenets of manufacturing strategy (i.e. that key decision areas
correlate with a set of competitive priorities and subsequently can result in
manufacturing competence) can be successfully applied to an industry such as
the Australian wine industry, which is not traditionally considered to be a
manufacturing industry. The results of this study would suggest that, for an
industry with a production-type process, the basic demands of international
competition result in a fundamental set of key decision areas and competitive
priorities.

References
1. Platts, K.W., “A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, 1993, p. 7.
 2. Orr, S.C., Production Strategies in the Australian Wine Industry – Report 2, Proceedings of Technology and
a Workshop on Wine Industry Production Strategy, Quality Management Research Unit
Publications, Melbourne, 1994. process
3. Skinner, W., “Manufacturing: missing link in corporate strategy”, Harvard Business management
Review, May 1969, pp 136-45.
4. Banks, R.L. and Wheelwright, S.C., “Operations versus strategy: trading tomorrow for
today”, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1979, pp.112-20.
5. Buffa, E.S., Meeting the Competitive Challenge, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1984. 33
6. Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J., “Managing our way to economic decline”, Harvard
Business Review, July-August 1990, pp. 67-77.
7. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C., Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through
Manufacturing, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1984.
8. Orr, S. C., “A case study on operations management and performance improvement in the
Australian wine industry”, paper presented at the Second International EurOMA
Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1995.
9. BRL Hardy Limited, Prospectus, BRL Hardy Limited, Adelaide, July 1992.
10. Petaluma Limited, Investment Prospectus, Petaluma Limited, Piccadilly, South Australia,
1992.
11. Brown, B., “Tough times for small wineries”, Business Australian, 5 August 1993, p. 1.
12. Iddles, N., “Globalisation of the automotive industry – staying in the game”, SAE-A
Journal, September-October 1991, p. 19.
13. Lander, R., “Bikkies and wine taste good”, Bulletin, 6 July 1992, p. 73.
14. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Sales of Australian Wine and Brandy by Winemakers,
Canberra, December 1993, ABS Cat. No. 8504.0.
15. Grape and Wine Research Council, Annual Report 1990-1991, Adelaide, 1991.
16. Port, J., “Meeting overseas wine demands”, The Age, 23 March 1993, p. 25.
17. Minor, E.D., Hensley, R. L. and Wood, R. D., “A review of empirical manufacturing strategy
studies”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,
1994, p. 18.
18. Sohal, A., Samson, D. and Weill, P., “Manufacturing and technology strategy: a survey of
planning for AMT”, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 4 No. 2, May 1991,
pp. 71-9.
19. Orr, S.C., Case Studies on Management Practices in the Australian Wine Industry, Quality
Management Research Unit Publications, Melbourne, 1994.
20. Juran, J.M., Quality Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979.
21. Crosby, P.B., Quality Is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979.
22. ISO 8402, Quality Vocabulary, International Standards Office, Geneva, 1986.
23. Samson, D. A. and Sohal, A., “The strategic status of quality: an Australian perspective”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 5 No 3, 1990.
24. Garvin, D.A., “Competing of the eight dimensions of quality”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65 No. 6, 1987, pp. 101-9.