The management

A framework for the of product

management of product variety

variety
271
Giovani Da Silveira
School of Business Administration, Federal University of
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Introduction
This study introduces a framework for the management of product variety in
operations. This framework is based on five case studies of companies in
Britain and Brazil. It aims to describe the elements involved in the process of
dealing with product variety needs within the strategic and operational levels
of those organisations.
Increasing product and part variety is one of the most distinctive
characteristics of industrial competition today (Frey, 1994; Lee and Tang, 1997).
Its increasing role as determinant of operations strategy and performance has
been noted by a series of studies (Gerwin, 1993; McCutcheon et al., 1994;
Milgrom and Roberts, 1990). Kekre and Srinivasan’s (1990) survey of 1,400
business units suggested that broadening product lines have a positive impact
in competitiveness and that firms in many businesses have to increase their
product variety to remain competitive.
The literature on product variety has been focused on such issues as its
importance within the competitive strategy (Kekre and Srinivasan, 1990;
Uzemeri and Sanderson, 1995); its impact in operations performance
(MacDuffie et al., 1996; Perkins, 1994; Yeh and Chu, 1991) and the use of
flexibility for dealing with product and part variety in operations and strategy
(Chen et al., 1992; Slack, 1987).
While these studies focus usually on specific levels of strategy or operations,
it seems also important to understand how product and part variety may
influence simultaneously different levels of organisations. This means to
investigate the management of product variety from the assessment of market
requirements as far as the development of strategies to deal with these
requirements within operations. To achieve that, this research investigated
thoroughly five manufacturing companies, aiming to understand how they
dealt with product variety requirements within different systems levels.
Research findings led to a framework for product variety management within
strategy and operations.
International Journal of Operations
& Production Management,
The author thanks two anonymous referees for their comments on a draft of this paper and Vol. 18 No. 3, 1998, pp. 271-285,
CAPES of Brazil for funding the research that led to this paper. © MCB University Press, 0144-3577
IJOPM This research is based on five case studies in Britain and Brazil. The data
18,3 analysis focuses on the cross-case comparison of British versus Brazilian
companies. Its primary objective is to support the development of a products
variety management framework.

Research objective and background

272 This study aims to develop a framework for the management of product variety
in manufacturing. This framework is based on the analysis of five companies in
Britain and Brazil. The case studies focus on four major elements of product
variety as in the literature.
The first element is the strategic importance of product variety. This is its
significance as a competitive variable. This importance may be due to a number
of factors characterising industrial environments. The literature suggests that
the competitive importance of product variety has been increasing recently
(Frey, 1994; McCutcheon et al., 1994). The research examines whether and how
this may have affected manufacturing companies in Brazil and Britain and
which factors may relate most to this change.
The second element is the impact of product variety in operations
performance. Changing the range of products and parts in production may be
disruptive and have a strong impact on performance (MacDuffie et al., 1996; Yeh
and Chu, 1991). The research investigates how changing variety needs may
have affected the performance of the cases.
The third element is the management of product variety. This is how one
deals with product variety aiming to:
• deliver variety levels that are compatible with market requirements; and
• improve the impact of product and part variety on the operations
performance.
This is to close the gap between the importance and performance of product
variety (Platts and Gregory, 1990; Slack, 1994). Thus the management of
product variety may focus on either the importance dimension or the
performance dimension. In the first case, companies may reduce the
competitive importance of variety by a range of adaptive measures to narrow
the scope of the strategy (Kekre and Srinivasan, 1990; Yeh and Chu, 1991).
These include priorities setting, focused manufacturing, mass customisation
and other approaches to limit either the product variety or the objectives
associated with this variety. In the second case, they may increase the system’s
variety performance by improving its flexibility (de Groote, 1994; Gerwin, 1993;
Slack, 1987). Major strategies here are set-up reduction, cellular manufacturing,
design for manufacturability and flexible technologies. Figure 1 illustrates this
idea.
The final element is the types of flexibility relating to those flexibility
strategies (Browne et al., 1984; Chen et al., 1992; Ramsesh and Jaikumar, 1991;
Sethi and Sethi, 1989). These may be divided into strategic and operational
types, as follows:
 Products The management

ce
Variety
of product

an
Importance

rm
variety

rfo
Pe
>

e
nc
e
Adaptive

nc

rta
rta
Strategies

po
273

po

Im
Im

>
ce
an
rm
rfo
Pe
Figure 1.
The role of adaptive and
Products Variety Performance flexibility strategies in
product variety
management
Flexibility Strategies

Strategic flexibility
• Product flexibility: the ability to introduce or modify products
economically.
• Mix flexibility: the ability to change the range of products made within a
period.
• Production flexibility: the ability to produce economically a range of part
types.
• Volume flexibility: the ability to operate economically at different
product volumes.
• Expansion flexibility: the ability to build and expand the system’s
capacity.

Operational flexibility
• Delivery flexibility: the ability to change delivery dates.
• Process flexibility: the ability to produce with different process
sequences or materials.
• Programming flexibility: the ability to operate unattended for a given
time.
• Routing flexibility: the ability to process a given set of parts using
alternative routes.
• Machine flexibility: the machine’s ability to perform different operations
efficiently.
• Labour flexibility: labour’s ability to perform a wide range of tasks
efficiently.
IJOPM Strategic flexibility deals with changes in the external environment, while
18,3 operational flexibility deals with changes in the internal environment. The
development of strategic flexibility types requires usually more effort and long-
term commitment than operational types. They also depend on the prior
development of corresponding operational types.
Flexibility as a response to increasing product variety needs has been
274 studied extensively since the early 1980s (Chen et al., 1992; Gupta and Goyal,
1989; Primrose and Verter, 1996; Upton, 1995a; Zelenovic, 1982). Correa (1994)
proposed a framework to help on the management of flexibility in the context of
variety and uncertainty, following the analysis of Brazilian and British
automotive components manufacturers. Boyer and Leong (1996) examined the
role of process and machine flexibility on responding to changes in demand.
Newman et al. (1993) developed a “dynamic equilibrium model” of the trade-offs
involving a system’s uncertainty, flexibility and inventory and capacity buffers.
Slack and Correa (1992) compared the flexibility of a pull-based system and a
push-based system to cope with product variety and uncertainty. Upton (1994)
developed a framework for the analysis of manufacturing flexibility with the
idea of process mobility – the ability to change quickly between products
(Upton, 1995b).

Research methodology and cases background

The appropriate selection of case sites has a major importance in studies
aiming to build theory. It helps to determine the extent to which research
findings may be generalised and serve as a control barrier to external variations
on these findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). Explanatory case studies rely usually on
the theoretical sampling of sites. According to Platts (1993), the researcher
should define whether to look for consistency in similar types of sites or test the
feasibility of the general process in different sites.
This research focused on the second alternative, aiming to increase the
study’s generalisability and the validity of similarities across cases. Thus it
investigated five manufacturing companies with the following characteristics:
(a) three were Brazilian and two were British; (b) at least one Brazilian and one
British case consisted either of a process or batch operations type; (c) each
company related to one specific industrial sector. These characteristics
enhanced the study’s generalisability and validity of similarities, while
characteristic (b) guaranteed that differences between the cases could be
discriminated along external (i.e. country-based) or internal (i.e. process type-
based) sources. These characteristics combined also with the research subject.
It is assumed that the analysis of cases from such different industrial
environments as Britain and Brazil may increase the validity and
generalisability of such study of product variety – a subject with strong ties
with external variables.
All case studies were grounded on similar data collection and analysis
procedures. Data were collected through outside observations and semi-
structured interviews with operations managers. The case companies are The management
briefly described as follows. of product
Case A was a mechanical equipment manufacturer located in Britain. It had variety
around 1,100 employees – 50 per cent in the shop-floor and 50 per cent in the
office. This company assembled a large variety of mechanical equipment for
civil engineering. It usually assembled-to-order, albeit some best-selling
products were assembled-to-stock. The plant had three production lines. Each 275
line consisted of a group of assembly cells and one final assembly with a fixed
layout. The company had been implementing a number of work methodologies.
Team-working and quality groups seemed to be operating well, and the
operators had a fair degree of autonomy.
Case B was a plastic packaging manufacturer from Britain. It employed 120
people in the shop-floor and 50 in the office. This plant processed coating films
for electronics and civil engineering industries. It operated on a make-to-order
basis. The shop-floor had a process layout divided into four semi-integrated
stages. Work-in-progress moved through either manually or automatically. The
implementation of team-working had been the major recent change in
organisation. Management started recently to implement a manufacturing
resources planning (MRP) system, following the allocation of production
planning and control (PPC) activities to the shop-floor’s level.
Case C was a shoe manufacturer from Brazil. It employed about 3,500 people
(80 per cent in the shop-floor). The company designed and produced a broad line
of sandals and tennis shoes to domestic and international markets. Its major
strategic objectives were gaining market share, delivering fashionable,
diversified products and being a low cost producer. Production was made-to-
stock. The company had more than 120 products in catalogue (with varying
design, colours and materials), renewed twice a year. The site’s three focused
factories were divided mostly into functional areas, while some manufacturing
cells had been introduced with success. Each factory had four major sections:
fabrication, sewing, assembly and packaging.
Case D was an automotive components manufacturer from Brazil. It
employed 700 people in the shop-floor and 600 in design and management. The
company developed and manufactured parts to car plants in Brazil and abroad.
The factory worked on both a make-to-order and make-to-stock basis. Products
were developed either in-house or in the clients’ laboratories. Its layout
consisted of manufacturing cells, functional areas and assembly lines.
Management emphasised process control, communication and safety on the
shop-floor. They had been implementing such advanced methodologies as total
quality control, theory of constraints and total preventive maintenance. Design
had an integrated computer aided design (CAD)/computer aided manufacturing
(CAM) system. Manufacturing had numerically controlled (NC) machines,
automatic loaders and automated transport systems.
Case E was a wine, grape juice and fruits manufacturer from Brazil. It had 55
employees – 35 in manufacturing and 20 in the office. Wine corresponded to 70
IJOPM per cent of revenues. Manufacturing was highly focused on the first semester –
18,3 part of the production was stored and then bottled in the second semester. The
plant was a conventional winery process divided into manufacturing and
bottling. Manufacturing had three lines: white wine, red wine and grape juice.
Bottling could cope with any product type. The workforce was highly
experienced due to its low rotation. System’s improvements concerned usually
276 new process technologies. There were recent changes in the layout of the
bottling and delivery areas.

Data analysis
This section is the cross-case analysis of the data. This emphasises the
similarities and differences between the Brazilian and British companies. Each
sub-section discusses the findings relating to one of the four elements in the
research background.

The strategic importance of product variety

The strategic importance of product variety increased in recent years in both
the Brazilian and the British cases.
Three major factors may explain this phenomenon. First, Cases A, C and E
were aiming increasing product customisation. Case A was delivering an
increasing variety of equipment for civil construction and agriculture.
Management suggested they should deliver products to cope with any
customer’s requirements, to perform a wide range of tasks in different
environments. Case C was delivering shoes within increasingly different
models, colours, materials and sizes, most renewed twice a year. Case E reduced
the number of product lines to be able to deliver wines and juices within an
increasing variety of bottles and packages.
Second, Cases B and C had to cope with raising customer requirements. Case
B’s customers were no longer satisfied with standard coating films. They
wanted products with increasingly varied dimensions, colours and chemical
and physical properties. Case C had to fulfil demands for products reflecting the
ever changing seasons and fashions.
Third, Cases B, D and E were facing increasing competition. The major entry
barrier in Case B’s industry was the large investments in process technology
needed for making coating films. However, technological advancements and the
entry of some European and US firms in the British market increased the
number of firms able to set-up this process in a relatively short time. Case D was
meeting growing competition from Brazil and abroad. While product variety
was not an issue when they had the monopoly of the Brazilian market, this
became important with multiple competitors. Case E was also facing increasing
competition from Argentinean and Chilean firms and had to improve both its
product variety and quality.
All factors characterised at least one Brazilian and British company and one
batch and process company, as shown in Table I.
The impact of product variety in operations performance The management
The impact of increasing product variety in performance seemed worst in the of product
Brazilian than in the British companies. variety
While the competitive importance of product variety increased in all the cases,
its impact in performance seemed worse in the Brazilian companies. The
British companies seemed to develop a better combination of strategy and
operations to deal with that. 277
The impact of variety in business performance seemed worse in the
Brazilian cases, specially D and E. Case D was still trying to adapt to the new
scenario by improving “set-ups and processes”. Case E seemed the worst
affected, having to even stop making third part labels (that is “customised” wine
batches, usually for institutional customers). In other words, they compensated
an increase in one type of variety (packages and bottle types and sizes) by
reducing another type (labels). This stems from the rigidity of their process.
Case C was in an intermediate situation. Recent increases in products and parts
diversity had affected, for example, their dependability performance. However,
changes in technology, labour skills and organisation minimised this impact,
albeit still negative.
All the cases had to change somehow to deal with variety. However, the
British companies seemed to anticipate this scenario better by either changing
their strategy or improving their operations before increasing their range of
products. The Brazilian companies seemed first to increase the variety and then
look for operations or strategy improvements to minimise its impact. This led
to failures that, at least in Cases D and E, did affect the overall performance.

Cases
Product variety factors A B C D E

Level of products customisation X X X Table I.

Level of customer requirements X X Product variety factors
Level of competition X X X in the cases

The management of product variety

Managers could deal with product and part variety through adaptive or
flexibility strategies. While the British companies emphasised both types, the
Brazilian companies focused more on flexibility strategies.
The British companies seemed to try matching the importance and
performance levels of product variety by changing both their strategy and
operations (that is mixing adaptation and flexibility). The Brazilian companies
emphasised changes in operations (that is increasing flexibility) which did not
change but rather enlarged the scope of their strategy.
Two hypotheses may explain this difference. First, as discussed, the British
companies seemed to anticipate increases in variety needs better than the
IJOPM Brazilian companies. Thus they had more time to change their strategy while
18,3 introducing systems’ improvements. Second, the Brazilian managers
considered often increasing variety requirements as “permanent environmental
changes” that could only be tackled by a new system’s structure – narrowing
the strategy would not be effective in the long term.
Case A used both adaptive and flexibility strategies. Increasing product
278 variety had an impact on speed, quality and cost performance. Adaptive
strategies aiming to reduce this impact were:
• setting quality a strategic priority over variety; and
• compensating variety costs with premium prices for customised
products.
Flexibility strategies were:
• reducing set-up times in assembly to deliver more variety at the same
speed; and
• improving labour skills to deal with different products and tasks. These
increased the machine, process and labour flexibility.
Case B suggested two adaptive strategies and two flexibility strategies. First,
managers limited product variety to levels that would not harm other priorities
– namely quality and yield. Second, they suggested the manufacturing strategy
should find an equilibrium (balance) among different competitive priorities
(including product variety) to maximise the company’s competitiveness. The
first flexibility measure was improving capabilities – machine set-ups and
production scheduling. Line set-up times were reduced from 10 hours to 1.5
hours on average. Production planning and control were put into the cells,
improving responsiveness. This and the second flexibility strategy – the
introduction of machine cells – improved the machine, process, delivery and
production flexibility.
Since product variety was Case C’s major objective, adaptive strategies had a
minor role there. Managers suggested flexibility resources (NC machines, CAD,
CAM, MRP) and capabilities development (product design, forecasting, supply
management, set-ups, inventory management) as the two major strategies for
dealing with variety. Training for improving labour skills was also important.
These increased the process, labour, product, machine and volume flexibility,
minimising the impact of variety in quality, cost and speed. On adaptive
strategies, one manager suggested they still considered dependability a priority
over variety.
Case D was similar to Case C, except for, here, increasing variety needs had a
worst impact on performance and their response had been slower. Nevertheless,
they also focused on flexibility rather than adaptive strategies. There had been
major recent improvements in flexibility resources (CAD, CAM, MRP and NCs)
and capabilities (product design, inventory management and machine and line
set-ups). One difference from Case C was the small role of labour’s flexibility
skills development here. This may explain in part their difficulties on dealing
with part variety in the shop-floor. Product, volume, production and machine The management
were the flexibility types best affected by those improvements. On adaptive of product
strategies, they suggested that limiting part variety might be still necessary to variety
minimise its impact on cost and quality.
Case E’s business performance was also badly affected by increasing variety.
Their response brought limited improvements to that. They focused on
improving flexibility resources (process technology and layout) and capabilities 279
(parts transportation, inventory management and set-ups). The only adaptive
measure was limiting the variety of labels, specially third part labels. Those
strategies were reasonably successful; problems persisted more due to the lack
of additional measures than to a “failure” of these strategies to deliver
flexibility. Nevertheless, there were improvements in volume, routing and
machine flexibility.
Table II summarises the types of strategies implemented in the cases.
Priorities setting was the cases’ most common adaptive strategy. This
combines with early ideas in management theory (Porter, 1980; Skinner, 1974).
Flexibility strategies consisted: developing technologies (especially layout/cells,
CAD, CAM and NC machines), capabilities (especially set-ups, scheduling and
inventory management) and labour skills.

Cases
Strategies A B C D E

Flexibility
Implementing flexibility capabilities X X X X X
Implementing flexibility resources X X X X X
Developing labour skills X X
Adaptive
Priorities setting X X X
Compensation – premium prices X Table II.
Equilibrium X Product variety
Limiting product variety X X strategie in the cases

Flexibility types
The cases’ flexibility strategies related to operational or strategic flexibility
types. While the Brazilian companies emphasised flexibility both strategic and
operational, the British companies emphasised operational flexibility
development.
The last section discussed the flexibility strategies employed in each case
and the flexibility types most directly affected by those strategies. Table III
presents the flexibility types more emphasised in each case.
According to this summary, the Brazilian companies seemed to improve
strategic flexibility types (product, production and volume) as well as
operational types, while the British companies provided some stronger
emphasis on the development of operational flexibility.
IJOPM Considering the data analysis, one may suggest two hypotheses to explain this
18,3 difference. First, the British companies emphasised adaptive strategies more
than the Brazilian companies. They seemed more able to anticipate changes in
(external) product variety needs and thus adapt their strategies, reducing the
need for process improvements. In other words, the better knowledge about
(and greater stability of) their British markets could mean that strategic
280 flexibility was less necessary than for the Brazilian companies. Second, and
related to the first, the flexibility strategies of the Brazilian companies had a
broader scope and thus affected both the strategic and the operational
flexibility types.

Cases
Types A B C D E

Strategic
Product X X
Production X X
Volume X X X
Operational
Delivery X
Process X X X
Table III. Routing X
Improving flexibility Machine X X X X X
types in the cases Labour X X

A framework of product variety management

The cross-case analysis considered four elements of product variety
management. These were:
(1) the strategic importance of product variety;
(2) the impact of increasing product variety in performance;
(3) the management of product and part variety through adaptive and
flexibility strategies; and
(4) the flexibility types and means related to flexibility strategies.
While these elements emerged from the literature, the case studies provided
evidence for a further description and explanation of their role, relationships
and characteristics in practice. Combining these findings with the literature led
to a framework of the management of product variety (Figure 2). This
framework may be interpreted as a process of product variety management,
that is the assessment, planning and control of product variety.
The first step in this process is the identification of product variety needs.
The strategic importance of product variety in the cases related always with
external factors. These were:
• the level of products customisation in supply;
 (1) Strategic Importance Changes (4) Adaptive Strategies The management
in Strategy
Sources of Product Variety Needs:
• Level of products customisation
• Priorities setting
• Premium prices
of product
• Level of customer requirements • Equilibrium variety
• Level of market competition • Limiting variety levels

Strategy
281
str
at
eg
(3) Gap Analysis ic
fle
xib
ilit
opera y
tional
Operations flexib
ility

(2) Operations Performance

(4) Flexibility Strategies
Impact of Product Variety in:
(Strategic/Operational Flexibility)
• Cost
• Flexibility capabilities Figure 2.
• Quality A framework of product
Changes • Flexibility resources
• Speed
• Dependability
in Operations • Developing labour skills variety management

• the level of customers requirements on that customisation; and

• the level of market competition.
These factors were related and reinforced each other in all the cases. Assessing
these factors leads to the identification of product variety requirements.
The second step is the identification of the operations ability to deliver
product variety. The performance of product variety concerns its relationship
with other objectives – for example cost, quality, speed and dependability.
Trade-offs between variety and these objectives have been identified in the
literature (Yeh and Chu, 1991) and were corroborated by the cases’ evidence.
One may suggest that the strength of trade-offs between variety and these
objectives is negatively related to this system’s ability to deliver the required
product variety levels.
The third step is the analysis of the gaps between the importance and
performance levels of product variety identified earlier. This model of analysis
in operations has been suggested by Platts and Gregory (1990) and Slack (1994).
The definition of strategies to deal with these gaps will follow the analysis of
the gaps’ size, areas and levels within the system.
The fourth step concerns the definition of adaptive and flexibility strategies
to close the gaps between product variety importance and performance.
Adaptive strategies affect the level of importance of product variety within the
strategy. The case studies suggested at least four types of adaptive strategies.
The first was setting priorities in performance to establish the level of
precedence of product variety over other objectives in the strategy. The second
was compensating losses in performance (due to increasing variety) with
premium prices. The third was finding an equilibrium (balance) in performance
requirements to satisfy product variety and other objectives simultaneously.
IJOPM Finally, one could simply limit the system’s required levels of product variety by
18,3 changing the strategic focus.
Flexibility strategies might be used in combination or as an alternative to
adaptive strategies. They focused on the product variety performance by
improving the system’s ability to deliver a required set of products and parts.
The flexibility strategies suggested in the cases could be divided into three
282 major types. The first was the development of capabilities relating to flexibility
such as machine set-ups, product development, production planning and
control and inventory management. The second was the development of
resources relating to flexibility, including technologies such as CAD, NC
machines and automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and methodologies such as
design for manufacturability and team-working. The third was improving the
range and responsiveness of labour skills. This related to the first type –
development of capabilities – but has been considered separately due to its
great scope and impact in operations improvement.
While adaptive measures focused essentially on the systems’ strategy,
flexibility measures might affect both their operations and strategy. Such effect
depended on the scope of flexibility strategies and on their corresponding
flexibility types. For example, the effect of improving machines set-ups might
be either restricted to operational types such as machine or process flexibility,
or include strategic types such as production and mix flexibility. Flexibility
measures might affect operational and/or strategic flexibility, depending on
their scope, effectiveness and co-ordination with other measures.
Still on this point, the case studies suggested that improving strategic
flexibility types might be more important in the absence of adaptive measures,
since the strategic importance of product variety could not be reduced in such
situations.

Product variety measures

The first and second steps of the framework may require the use of quantitative
measures of product variety. Based on the literature, one may suggest two
major approaches for the measurement of a system’s product variety. The first
may be called the “product line breadth” approach (Kekre and Srinivasan, 1990).
It consists simply in counting the number of products in line – where each
product combines distinct characteristics and features. This approach was used
in a series of studies on the relationships between product variety, performance
and competitiveness by such as Bental and Spiegel (1984), Lindsley et al. (1991)
and Yeh and Chu (1991). The second may be called the “product complexity”
approach. This was used by MacDuffie et al. (1996) on measuring the product
variety of automotive plants. This is a complex approach that may involve three
dimensions of product variety (fundamental, intermediate and peripheral
variety). Each dimension refers to a group of parts with a specific level of
relationship with the products “core design”.
The first approach is more simple and may be useful in assessing products
with low complexity levels; the second may be used in measuring the variety of
complex products such as automobiles and machine-tools. This study The management
considered always the first approach on measuring the product variety of the of product
cases, due to the low complexity of their products. variety
Conclusions and implications for practice
The increasing importance of product variety as a competitive variable
characterised all the case companies. This was due to increasing levels of 283
product customisation in supply, rising customer requirements and increasing
competition. The effect of this phenomenon in the cases’ performances
depended on their ability to anticipate market changes and to adapt their
strategies accordingly – which the British companies seemed more able to do.
Difficulties in monitoring and adapting to changes in competition led the
Brazilian companies to emphasise strategic flexibility development more than
the British companies.
The research findings followed the cross-case comparison of Brazilian and
British manufacturing companies of both process and batch types. Thus they
are generalisable to manufacturing companies of different types operating in
environments of either lower (as in Britain) or higher (as in Brazil) levels of
variety and uncertainty. However, all the cases were facing increasing variety
needs and thus the research findings will apply primarily to companies under
such competitive trend.
The validity of findings was enhanced by the following aspects. First, data
were collected from different sources (outside observations and semi-structured
interviews), thus allowing their comparison and corroboration. Second,
findings based on similarities referred to companies from such different
backgrounds as Brazil and Britain and with different (process and batch)
systems’ types. Third, differences between the Brazilian and the British cases
could be interpreted as based on geography since those Brazilian findings
characterised equally the Brazilian process and batch companies, while the
corresponding British findings characterised equally the British process and
batch companies. Finally, the chain of causality between data and findings was
evident along the data analysis and in the framework.
The combination of these findings with the research background grounded
the development of a framework of product variety management. This
integrates the various elements involved in the process of assessment, planning
and control of product variety. The gaps between the importance and
performance of product variety will determine the types of adaptive and
flexibility strategies that should be implemented. This framework thus
combines the gap analysis method in operations strategy (Platts and Gregory,
1990; Slack, 1994) with the series of adaptive and flexibility strategies to deal
with product and part variety (Kekre and Srinivasan, 1990; Yeh and Chu, 1991).
The framework emerged from the cross-case analysis of the five case
companies, and thus may ground the process of product variety management in
companies facing such increasing requirements in this area. Nevertheless, since
the framework emerged after the cases analysis – due to the explanatory nature
IJOPM of this study – further research is needed to test its validity and the limits of its
18,3 applicability in practice.
The implications of this study for management practice are the following.
Dealing with product variety in operations should involve two major steps
which are:
(1) the analysis of gaps between product variety importance and
284 performance; and
(2) the implementation of adaptive and flexibility strategies to close those
gaps.
Flexibility strategies are specially needed on dealing with product variety
requirements that cannot be dealt with by adaptive measures.

References
Bental, B. and Spiegel, M. (1984), “Horizontal product differentiation, prices and quantity
selections of a multi-product monopolist”, International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Vol. 2, pp. 99-104.
Boyer, K. and Leong, G. (1996), “Manufacturing flexibility at the plant level”, Omega, Vol. 24
No. 5, pp. 495-510.
Browne, J., Dubois, D., Rathmill, K., Sethi, S.P. and Stecke, K.E. (1984), “Classification of flexible
manufacturing systems”, The FMS Magazine, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 114-17.
Chen, I.J., Calantone, R.J. and Chung, C.-H. (1992), “The marketing-manufacturing interface and
manufacturing flexibility”, Omega International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 431-43.
Correa, H. (1994), “The flexibility of technological and human resources in automotive
manufacturing”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 33-40.
de Groote, X. (1994), “Flexibility and product variety in lot-sizing models”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 264-74.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Frey, D.N. (1994), “The new dynamism: part 2”, Interfaces, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 105-8.
Gerwin, D. (1993), “Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective”, Management Science, Vol.
39 No. 4, pp. 395-410.
Gupta, Y. and Goyal, S. (1989), “Flexibility of manufacturing systems: concepts and
measurements”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 43, pp. 119-35.
Kekre, S. and Srinivasan, K. (1990), “Broader product line: a necessity to achieve success?”,
Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1216-31.
Lee, H.L. and Tang, C.S. (1997), “Modelling the costs and benefits of delayed product
differentiation”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 40-53.
Lindsley, W., Blackburn, J. and Elrod, T. (1991), “Time and product variety competition in the
book distribution industry”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 344-62.
MacDuffie, J.P., Sethuraman, K. and Fisher, M.L. (1996), “Product variety and manufacturing
performance: evidence from the international automotive assembly plant study”,
Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 350-69.
McCutcheon, D.M., Raturi, A.S. and Meredith, J.R. (1994), “The customization-responsiveness
squeeze”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 89-99.
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1990), “The economics of modern manufacturing: technology,
strategy and organization”, American Economy Review, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 511-28.
Newman, W., Hanna, M. and Maffei, M. (1993), “Dealing with the uncertainties of manufacturing: The management
flexibility, buffers and integration”, International Journal of Production & Operations
Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-34. of product
Perkins, A.G. (1994), “Product variety: beyond black”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 6, variety
pp. 13-14.
Platts, K. (1993), “A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 4-17.
Platts, K.W. and Gregory, M.J. (1990), “Manufacturing audit in the process of strategy 285
formulation”, International Journal of Production & Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 9,
pp. 5-26.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Advantage, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Primrose, P. and Verter, V. (1996), “Do companies need to measure their production flexibility?”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 4-11.
Ramsesh, R.L. and Jaikumar, M.D. (1991), “Measurement of manufacturing flexibility: a value
based approach”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 446-68.
Sethi, A.K. and Sethi, S.P. (1989), “Flexibility in manufacturing – a survey”, Working Paper,
Faculty of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, October.
Skinner, W. (1974), “The focused factory”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 113-21.
Slack, N. (1987), “The flexibility of manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Production
& Operations Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 35-45.
Slack, N. (1994), “The importance-performance matrix as a determinant of improvement
priority”, International Journal of Production & Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 59-75.
Slack, N. and Correa, H. (1992), “The flexibilities of push and pull”, International Journal of
Production & Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 82-92.
Upton, D. (1994), “The management of manufacturing flexibility”, California Management
Review, Winter, pp. 72-89.
Upton, D. (1995a), “What really makes factories flexible?”, Harvard Business Review, July-August,
pp. 74-84.
Upton, D. (1995b), “Flexibility as process mobility: the management of plant capabilities for quick
response manufacturing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 12, pp. 205-24.
Uzemeri, M. and Sanderson, S. (1995), “A framework for model and product family competition”,
Research Policy, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 583-607.
Yeh, K.-H. and Chu, C.-H. (1991), “Adaptive strategies for coping with product variety decisions”,
International Journal of Production & Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 35-47.
Zelenovic, D. (1982), “Flexibility – a condition for effective production systems”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 319-37.