Omega 28 (2000) 155 ± 173

Strategi operasi, ketidakpastian lingkungan dan kinerja: model

analitik path dari industri di negara berkembang
Masood A. Badria, *, Donald Davisb, Donna Davisb
aDepartemen Manajemen, Fakultas Bisnis dan Ekonomi, Uni Emirat Arab Universitas, PO Box 17555, Al-Ain, Uni Emirat Arab
bDepartemen Sistem Informasi Manajemen, Sekolah Tinggi Bisnis, Universitas Mississippi Selatan, Hatiesburgh, MS 39403, AS
Mendapat 1 Januari 1998; diterima 1 Juli 1999
Abstrak
Kami memperluas penelitian Ward et al. [Ward P, Duray R, Leong G, Sum C. Lingkungan bisnis, strategi operasi dan kinerja:
studi empiris tentang pabrikan Singapura. Jurnal Manajemen Operasi 1995; 25 99 ± 115] ke lingkungan bisnis industri
berkembang dengan menambahkan dua variabel lingkungan yang terabaikan: `undang-undang dan peraturan pemerintah 'dan`
pertimbangan politik'. Kami menggunakan kerangka analitik jalur untuk mempelajari efek lingkungan pada pilihan strategi
operasi (biaya rendah, kualitas, fleksibilitas dan pengiriman) dan kinerja (perubahan laba yang dilaporkan sendiri) untuk sampel
dari produsen Uni Emirat Arab. Kami menguji model yang disarankan oleh Ward et al. dan kemudian menguji model perluasan
yang disarankan untuk mengembangkan industri. Untuk industri yang digambarkan sebagai `usaha kecil 'dan` berkembang'
daripada `matang ', kami mengidentifikasi hubungan yang kuat antara faktor lingkungan seperti ketersediaan tenaga kerja,
permusuhan kompetitif, undang-undang dan peraturan pemerintah, kekhawatiran politik dan dinamisme pasar dan pilihan strategi
operasi dicakup oleh prioritas kompetitif. Data juga menunjukkan, bahwa organisasi yang sukses (berkinerja tinggi), mengadopsi
prioritas kompetitif yang paling sesuai dengan kondisi lingkungan, terutama stabilitas dan dinamisme. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa
kebanyakan perusahaan menerima lingkungan mereka sebagaimana diberikan dan menginstal mekanisme untuk bereaksi
terhadap kekuatannya. Berkinerja tinggi sesuai dengan kompleksitas lingkungan eksternal mereka dengan memanfaatkan variabel
lingkungan sebagai sumber untuk kontrol yang efektif dalam organisasi mereka. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. Semua hak
dilindungi undang-undang.
Kata kunci: Negara berkembang; Strategi operasi; Kinerja; Analisis jalur; Persamaan struktural
1. Pendahuluan
Banyak penulis telah mewakili dan mempelajari isi dari strategi operasi manufaktur [1 ± 6]. The
0305-0483 / 00 / $ - lihat masalah depan © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. Semua hak dilindungi undang-undang. PII: S0305-0483
(99) 00041-9
hubungan antara strategi operasi dan kinerja bisnis telah lama ditegaskan dalam pekerjaan konseptual dalam operasi [2]. Terlalu
sering, strategi produksi mencerminkan asumsi yang salah tentang lingkungan. Kurangnya pemahaman tentang lingkungan ini
dapat menyia-nyiakan sumber daya perusahaan selama bertahun-tahun. Banyak penulis telah mengalami pengabaian relatif
terhadap faktor lingkungan dalam penelitian strategi operasi [7 ± 9]. Namun, bukti empiris tentang keberadaan dan sifat dari
tautan ini
www.elsevier.com/locate/orms
* Penulis yang sesuai. Tel .: + 971-3-665-644; faks: + 971- 3-515-538.
Alamat e-mail: masood@uaeu.ac.ae (MA Badri).
telah muncul di mana kekuatan lingkungan dijelaskan secara jelas [9 ± 13].
Lingkungan bisnis eksternal di mana perusahaan bersaing perubahan terus, sehingga organisasi perlu beradaptasi dengan
lingkungan itu secara terus menerus [14,15]. Alasan penting untuk pemindaian lingkungan adalah tetap berada di depan
persaingan. Pesaing dapat memperoleh keunggulan dengan memperluas lini produk, meningkatkan kualitas, atau menurunkan
biaya. Pendatang baru ke pasar atau pesaing yang menawarkan pengganti untuk produk perusahaan dapat mengancam
profitabilitas berkelanjutan [16,17].
Krajewski dan Ritzman [18, hlm. 14 ± 15] mengidentifikasi masalah lingkungan penting lainnya untuk memasukkan tren
ekonomi, perubahan teknologi, kondisi politik, perubahan sosial, ketersediaan sumber daya vital dan kekuatan kolektif pelanggan
dan pemasok. Akibatnya, banyak peneliti mencatat bahwa perubahan lingkungan dapat menyebabkan perusahaan untuk
mengulang kembali strategi saat ini [19 ± 22,23, pp. 8 ± 9,24]. Heizer dan Render [25, pp. 26 ± 27] mendefinisikan variabel
lingkungan untuk memasukkan: ekonomi, budaya, teknologi, demografi dan politik-hukum. Stonebraker dan Leong [26, hlm. 561
± 566] memberikan definisi untuk `bidang tindakan lingkungan 'atau area di mana organisasi tersebut berkomitmen. Ini termasuk
definisi produk / layanan, teknologi proses, pasar dan mekanisme untuk berinteraksi dengan lingkungan eksternal. Lebih lanjut,
mereka menunjukkan bahwa strategi menyediakan hubungan antara yang kritis antara desain organisasi dari fungsi operasi dan
dimensi lingkungan.
Bourgeois [27] menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan perlu fokus pada lingkungan eksternal: pelanggan, pesaing, pendukung dan
badan pengatur; pada atribut kekuatan eksternal: kompleksitas, kedinamisan dan kedaruratan; dan pada persepsi manajerial
tentang atribut lingkungan ini. Swamidass dan Newell [10] menetapkan pentingnya lingkungan bisnis sebagai elemen kausal
yang signifikan dalam strategi operasi Ð nexus kinerja bisnis. Satu-satunya alasan untuk memproyeksikan bahwa lingkungan
harus disajikan sebagai kunci utama yang ketika diintegrasikan dengan strategi operasi yang efektif akan sangat penting bagi
kinerja organisasi.
Kami membangun temuan Ward et al. [13], Swami- das dan Newell [10] dan Williams et al. [28]. Kami memperluas karya
mereka dengan memasukkan pertimbangan faktor lingkungan dalam penelitian tentang operasi dengan mempertimbangkan
atribut lingkungan seperti hukum dan peraturan pemerintah dan pertimbangan politik. Penelitian ini dibedakan dari karya serupa
Ward et al. [13] dan Williams et al. [28] dalam beberapa cara. Pertama, perusahaan dalam survei (dalam hal aset atau ukuran
karyawan) akan membentuk perusahaan manufaktur kecil di AS atau Eropa Barat; kedua, sampel diambil dari lingkungan yang
berkembang (
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155 ± 173 156
lokasi geografis berbeda); ketiga, sampel lebih luas dalam cakupan industri dan lebih besar ukurannya; keempat, masalah
lingkungan diperluas menjadi enam dimensi, bukan empat, karena ini mencakup konten agak lebih lengkap; dan kelima, model
struktur kovarians digunakan untuk memperkirakan model jalur bersama dengan prosedur statistik lainnya.
Kontribusi utama dari makalah ini adalah dari diskusi tentang faktor-faktor lingkungan dan kaitannya dengan strategi operasi
di UAE, sebuah negara berkembang. Studi ini menggunakan teknik pemodelan persamaan struktural untuk memberikan bukti
terbaru tentang hubungan antara strategi operasi, lingkungan dan kinerja dan untuk menggambarkan sifat hubungan ini.
Uni Emirat Arab memberikan pengaturan yang sangat menarik untuk studi ini karena lokasinya di Timur Tengah. Baru-baru
ini, UEA telah mengalami tingkat pertumbuhan ekonomi yang tinggi yang telah mengakibatkan tekanan lingkungan seperti biaya
bisnis yang dirasakan dan kekurangan tenaga kerja terampil dan tidak terampil [29]. Sementara manufaktur yang terkait dengan
minyak mewakili 33,7% dari produk domestik bruto (GDP) UAE, manufaktur non-migas mewakili sekitar 8,2% dari produk
domestik bruto UAE. Kontribusi sektor non-migas dalam PDB telah meningkat dari 11,2 miliar Dirham pada 1994 menjadi 11,8
miliar pada 1995. Lebih lanjut, pemerintah UEA mengklaim bahwa manufaktur merupakan landasan masa depan ekonomi. Posisi
UEA sebagai pemimpin ekonomi dan manufaktur yang muncul di Timur Tengah dan pengabaian relatif terhadap kawasan dalam
literatur operasi membuatnya menjadi suara baru yang penting untuk didengar.
2. Keprihatinan lingkungan, strategi produksi dan kinerja: latar belakang
Baru-baru ini, bukti empiris keberadaan dan sifat hubungan antara lingkungan, strategi produksi dan kinerja telah muncul [30 ±
33]. Studi empiris dalam strategi operasi kadang-kadang berurusan dengan faktor lingkungan secara tidak langsung dengan
berfokus pada satu industri daripada mencakup spektrum yang luas dari industri (Tan dan Litschert [24] fokus pada industri
elektronik; Schroeder dan Mavando [22] pada industri pengolahan makanan ; dan Vickery et al. [11] pada industri furnitur.
Peneliti dalam banyak penelitian telah menunjukkan bahwa karena industri dan lingkungan terkait erat, membatasi studi untuk
industri tunggal juga membatasi variasi lingkungan di sampel [34 ± 36] .Dalam studi beberapa industri strategi operasi, Miller
dan Roth [4] mengakui mereka tidak dapat secara eksplisit mengendalikan
 efek industri ini.Industri efek telah terbukti menjadi pengganti untuk efek lingkungan [35, 37] .Penelitian paling komprehensif
yang mendalilkan hubungan eksplisit antara lingkungan dan strategi oportasi adalah oleh Ward et al. [13]. Mereka berhipotesis
bahwa kinerja dari bisnis secara keseluruhan sangat terkait dengan kesesuaian antara lingkungan dan persepsi manajer dan
pilihan strategi operasi. Empat dimensi dicirikan lingkungan: biaya bisnis, ketersediaan tenaga kerja lokal, permusuhan
kompetitif dan dinamisme (volatilitas pasar yang disebabkan oleh inovasi, perubahan teknologi atau perubahan dalam selera).
Sementara itu, empat dimensi biaya rendah, kualitas, fleksibilitas dan kinerja pengiriman ditandai dengan strategi operasi.
Penelitian ini memperluas pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh peneliti lain dengan melakukan penelitian di lingkungan yang
berbeda yang tidak dipelajari sebelumnya dan dengan memperluas dimensi lingkungan untuk memasukkan variabel lain yang
tidak dipertimbangkan dalam penelitian lain, yaitu undang-undang dan peraturan pemerintah dan efek politik. Sebagian besar
penelitian sebelumnya telah di industri maju. Penelitian ini berkaitan dengan pengembangan industri, di mana lingkungan
dicirikan sebagai sangat bergolak dan di mana peraturan pemerintah dan variabel politik memainkan peran yang signifikan
[29,38].
Namun demikian, penelitian ini mendalilkan hubungan eksplisit antara lingkungan dan strategi operasi. Selanjutnya kami
menyatakan bahwa kesesuaian antara lingkungan dan persepsi manajer dan pilihan strategi operasi yang dipilih oleh manajer
akan memberikan penjelasan untuk kinerja. Gambar. 1 adalah model konseptual yang kami uji dalam penelitian ini.
MABadri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155 ± 173 157
lingkungan dicirikan oleh enam dimensi yang terletak di luar kendali jangka pendek manajemen perusahaan: biaya bisnis di
UEA, ketersediaan tenaga kerja lokal, permusuhan kompetitif, undang-undang dan peraturan pemerintah , pertimbangan politik
dan dinamisme di pasar. Empat dimensi rendah biaya, kualitas, fleksibilitas dan kinerja pengiriman ciri strategi operasi.
3. Definisi operasional dan pertanyaan penelitian
3.1. Keprihatinan lingkungan
Kerangka konseptual untuk dimensi lingkungan telah dikembangkan dan dilaporkan [34,39,40]. Tiga dimensi utama termasuk
kemurahan hati, kedinamisan dan kompleksitas. Dimensi-dimensi ini telah ditangani secara memadai oleh peneliti lain:
kemurahan hati enerjion [34]; dinamisme lingkungan [27,41,42] dan kompleksitas lingkungan: [39,43]. Paling relevan untuk
penelitian ini, Badri [29] mengacu pada lingkungan manufaktur UEA sebagai tidak kompleks, tetapi lebih tepatnya, satu dalam
fase pengenalan dan dengan berbagai kegiatan organisasi terbatas. Studi saat ini berfokus pada efek kemurahan hati dan
dinamisme dan, dengan demikian, tidak termasuk skala kompleksitas lingkungan.
Baru-baru ini, Banyak peneliti dalam manajemen operasi dan bidang terkait telah mengidentifikasi pentingnya dua faktor yang
agak diabaikan dalam penelitian POM tradisional, untuk perusahaan yang beroperasi di lingkungan internasional. Kedua faktor
ini terkait
Gambar. 1. Model konseptual lingkungan, strategi operasi dan kinerja.
peraturan pemerintah dan faktor politik [29,44, pp. 76 ± 89,45]. Menurut definisi, perusahaan internasional berurusan dengan
banyak negara tuan rumah, masing-masing dengan iklim politiknya sendiri. Di setiap negara, iklim politik sangat ditentukan oleh
cara berbagai peserta berinteraksi satu sama lain. Hal ini dipengaruhi oleh tindakan pemerintah negara tuan rumah serta oleh
filsafat politik yang berlaku sebelumnya.
Bagi banyak perusahaan, pertumbuhan dan kesuksesan di masa depan bergantung pada perluasan operasi ke pasar di luar
perbatasan rumah mereka. Namun, ada peningkatan tekanan dalam arah yang berlawanan dari pemerintah lokal dalam bentuk
peraturan [45,46]. Dalam dunia yang ideal, komunitas bisnis akan lebih menyukai lingkungan politik yang sepenuhnya
mendukung kepentingan bisnis dan yang mengikuti kebijakan yang konsisten dan dapat diprediksi. Namun, ketika seseorang
meninjau iklim politik di seluruh dunia, situasi yang kurang memuaskan, dari sudut pandang bisnis, ada. Mengingat sifat
tantangan dan peluang yang ada dalam lingkungan operasi internasional, tekanan yang secara substansial berbeda ditempatkan
pada manajemen [47,48].
Faktor eksternal, khususnya peraturan pemerintah mempengaruhi kinerja perusahaan dan berinteraksi dengan strategi.
Penelitian manajemen operasi jarang secara spesifik mengakui hubungan faktor-faktor peraturan pemerintah [49,50]. Taylor dan
Gutfeld [51] menunjukkan bahwa melalui kebijakan pemerintah yang baru, perusahaan manufaktur dipaksa untuk mengevaluasi
kembali operasi mereka jika mereka ingin tetap kompetitif.
Dornier dkk. [44] menunjukkan bahwa peraturan pemerintah sering memiliki dampak yang signifikan terhadap kegiatan
operasi perusahaan manufaktur. Baron [48] mencatat bahwa lingkungan bisnis juga terdiri dari faktor-faktor yang terkait dengan
pemerintah dan tidak boleh diabaikan dalam riset strategi. Undang-undang dan peraturan pemerintah meliputi aspek kompleksitas
dan kejelasan hukum dan peraturan dan aspek waktu penyelesaian atau penyelesaian transaksi. Hukum pemerintah juga
mencakup strategi pemerintah yang dirasakan dalam melindungi kegiatan industri, dalam mengembangkan infrastruktur industri
dan dalam mengelola investasinya. Peneliti lain yang menyarankan dimasukkannya peraturan pemerintah termasuk Barrback
[47], Miles dan Snow [52] dan Stonebraker dan Leong [26, pp. 561 ± 566].
Banyak peneliti menyarankan dimasukkannya variabel politik dalam mengembangkan strategi tingkat bisnis internasional
[53,54, pp. 50 ± 52]. Dornier dkk. [44, hal. 78 ± 79] menambahkan bahwa lingkungan internasional dan politik dapat
dikarakterisasi sebagai turbulen. Mereka menyarankan bahwa berbagai faktor politik terus membentuk lingkungan manufaktur
global.
Dalam sebuah karya empiris yang luas yang melibatkan 696 perusahaan manufaktur di seluruh dunia, Badri et al. [29]
MA Badri dkk. / Omega 28 (2000) 155 ± 173 158
menyarankan model pendukung keputusan untuk membantu dalam lokasi perusahaan manufaktur di lokasi industri. Selain
faktor-faktor tradisional lokasi yang secara langsung mempengaruhi operasi, faktor politik dan peraturan pemerintah
ditambahkan untuk perusahaan yang beroperasi di lingkungan internasional. Faktor-faktor yang berkaitan dengan peraturan
pemerintah termasuk kejelasan hukum investasi perusahaan, peraturan mengenai usaha patungan dan merger, peraturan tentang
pengalihan penghasilan di luar negeri, pemajakan perusahaan milik asing, undang-undang kepemilikan asing, pegawai pajak
yang diperbolehkan yang mungkin asing, pita birokrasi prevalensi, adanya kontrol harga oleh pemerintah dan persyaratan hukum
untuk pengaturan perusahaan lokal. Faktor-faktor yang terkait dengan politik termasuk stabilitas rezim, perlindungan terhadap
eksploitasi, jenis perjanjian dan pakta, jenis aliansi militer dan sikap terhadap modal asing.
Untuk mengukur masalah lingkungan, kami meminta responden untuk mengidentifikasi nomor (dari 1 hingga 5) yang
menunjukkan sejauh mana variabel lingkungan yang terdaftar menjadi perhatian saat ini bagi perusahaan mereka.
3.2. Strategi operasi yang
paling umum menyatakan operasi strategi taksonomi mengidentifikasi biaya, kualitas, pengiriman dan fleksibilitas sebagai
dimensi penting dari strategi operasi [6,10,55,56]. Untuk tujuan penelitian ini, keempat dimensi akan dimasukkan dan diperiksa.
Heizer dan Render [25, hal. 26] menunjukkan bahwa strategi produksi yang sukses konsisten dengan tuntutan lingkungan (di
bawah kondisi ekonomi dan teknologi apa yang perusahaan coba laksanakan strateginya?), Permintaan kompetitif (apa kekuatan
dan kelemahan pesaing? Apa mereka coba lakukan?), strategi perusahaan (Apa yang perusahaan coba lakukan?) dan siklus hidup
produk (Di mana dalam siklus hidup adalah penawaran perusahaan?).
Bisnis saat ini menerima bahwa, untuk mencapai kesejahteraan, mereka harus melihat pelanggan, pemasok, lokasi fasilitas dan
pesaing dalam istilah global [18, pp. 32 ± 33]. Mereka menyarankan filosofi perbaikan berkelanjutan dalam mencari cara untuk
meningkatkan operasi. Sebagian besar produk saat ini adalah gabungan material dan layanan global dari seluruh dunia.
Kecenderungan lain dalam manajemen operasi telah menjadi penekanan yang semakin meningkat pada persaingan atas dasar
kualitas, waktu, dan keuntungan tekno- logis. Banyak perusahaan secara agresif mencari cara yang lebih baik untuk beroperasi
karena persaingan yang ketat (baik domestik maupun global) dalam produktivitas, kualitas dan waktu [57].
Stonebraker dan Leong [26, hlm. 45 ± 46] mendefinisikan prioritas kompetitif untuk memasukkan biaya, kualitas, pengiriman
dan fleksibilitas. Mereka mendefinisikan strategi biaya sebagai ``
produksi dan distribusi suatu produk dengan biaya minimum atau sumber daya yang terbuang sedemikian rupa sehingga Anda
memiliki keunggulan biaya di pasar ''; strategi kualitas sebagai `` pembuatan produk yang sesuai dengan spesifikasi, atau
memenuhi kebutuhan pelanggan ''; strategi pengiriman sebagai "ketergantungan dalam memenuhi jadwal pengiriman yang
diminta dan dijanjikan, atau kecepatan dalam menanggapi pesanan pelanggan"; dan strategi fleksibilitas sebagai "kemampuan
untuk menanggapi perubahan cepat dari produk, layanan, atau proses, sering diidentifikasi sebagai campuran atau volume".
Peningkatan kualitas umumnya dianggap mengurangi biaya, karena melakukan hal-hal dengan benar pertama kalinya
menghilangkan limbah [58 ± 61]. Ada sejumlah bukti empiris bahwa peningkatan kualitas mengarah pada peningkatan kinerja
bisnis [1,6,56,62,63]. Sulti [64] menggunakan pemodelan persamaan struktural untuk mempelajari 184 perusahaan manufaktur di
Selandia Baru. Kualitas ditemukan memiliki hasil yang beragam ketika dikaitkan dengan kinerja. Kualitas memiliki dampak
positif yang signifikan terhadap ukuran kinerja untuk pemanfaatan proses.
Menurunkan harga dapat meningkatkan permintaan untuk produk atau layanan, tetapi juga mengurangi margin keuntungan jika
produk atau layanan tidak dapat diproduksi dengan biaya lebih rendah. Untuk bersaing, berdasarkan biaya, manajer operasi harus
mengatasi tenaga kerja, bahan, skrap, biaya overhead dan biaya lainnya, untuk merancang sistem yang menurunkan biaya per
unit produk atau layanan [57]. Ward et al. [13], dalam studi empiris pada biaya sebagai strategi kompetitif, menyarankan bahwa
biaya bisnis harus mencakup tenaga kerja, transportasi, telekomunikasi, utilitas, sewa, perawatan kesehatan dan biaya material.
Selain itu, mereka menyarankan bahwa kekuatan (atau kelemahan) dari mata uang resmi yang digunakan dipertimbangkan juga.
Fleksibilitas adalah tema dalam manajemen operasi yang disarankan oleh banyak sarjana [6,55,65,66]. [67] definisi
fleksibilitas Hall mengakui nilai fleksibilitas dalam beradaptasi terhadap perubahan. Dia mencatat, `` fleksibilitas berarti bahwa
rencana harus mampu beralih sangat cepat dari satu produk ke produk lainnya, atau dari satu bagian ke bagian lain ... hampir
seketika ''. Krajewski dan Ritzman [18, hlm. 36 ± 42] menunjukkan bahwa beberapa perusahaan memberikan prioritas tertinggi
untuk fleksibilitas sebagai sarana pesaing yang berkinerja baik. Akibatnya, beberapa produsen beralih ke penyesuaian, di mana
produk atau layanan disesuaikan dengan preferensi individu. Selain itu, fleksibilitas volume adalah kemampuan untuk
mempercepat atau mengurangi laju produksi dengan cepat untuk menangani fluktuasi permintaan yang besar. Variabel-variabel
ini termasuk mengurangi pembuatan lead-time, lead time pengadaan, waktu untuk mengembangkan produk baru dan pengaturan
atau pergantian waktu.
Markland dkk. [68, hlm. 27 ± 28] menggunakan frasa kompetisi berbasis waktu untuk menekankan bahwa manajer harus
secara hati-hati menetapkan langkah dan waktu yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan suatu produk dan kemudian secara kritis
menganalisis setiap langkah untuk menentukan apakah waktu dapat disimpan tanpa mengorbankan kualitas -
MA Badri dkk. / Omega 28 (2000) 155 ± 173 159
ity. Ukuran kinerja pengiriman mencakup penekanan pada kegiatan yang dimaksudkan untuk meningkatkan kewajiban
pengiriman atau kecepatan pengiriman. Peneliti lain yang menekankan penggunaan strategi berbasis waktu termasuk Stalk et al.
[69], Beesley [70] dan Schul et al. [71].
Kita juga perlu menambahkan bahwa dalam lingkungan internasional, beberapa pemerintah juga ikut campur dengan
menerapkan kontrol tambahan seperti kontrol harga, perpajakan produk asing dan pengenaan kendala-kendala campuran tenaga
kerja. Misalnya di UAE, pemerintah belum memberlakukan kontrol harga atau pemajakan produk asing. Namun, ia menuntut
bahwa persentase persalinan tertentu bersifat lokal. Di sisi lain, Arab Saudi telah memberlakukan kontrol harga, kontrol
campuran tenaga kerja dan perpajakan produk asing. Praktik semacam itu dapat berdampak pada semua empat strategi operasi.
Ketika perusahaan bersaing secara global, mereka biasanya berusaha menjangkau sebanyak mungkin pelanggan. Namun,
faktor politik (seperti hubungan dengan negara lain) dari pemerintah tertentu mungkin mencegah pengiriman barang (barang atau
suku cadang terakhir) ke atau dari negara lain. Sekali lagi, faktor politik semacam itu memiliki pengaruh besar pada dua strategi
operasi pengiriman dan biaya. Di lingkungan internasional seperti Timur Tengah di mana UEA berada dan dalam beberapa tahun
terakhir, situasi politik negara-negara telah mengalami perubahan yang cepat serta yang tidak terduga. Ketika perubahan politik
terjadi, perusahaan biasanya mencoba untuk mengubah strategi operasi mereka untuk mengatasi situasi baru atau asing. Dalam
studi saat ini, efek dari dua faktor lingkungan hukum pemerintah dan faktor politik pada strategi operasi akan diperiksa.
Untuk mengukur strategi operasi yang ditekankan oleh perusahaan manufaktur yang beroperasi di UAE, kami meminta
responden untuk mengidentifikasi nomor (dari 1 hingga 5) yang menunjukkan tingkat penekanan yang perusahaan mereka
rencanakan untuk ditempatkan pada kegiatan yang terdaftar selama dua tahun ke depan untuk tetap kompetitif.
3.3. Kinerja
Ketepatan ukuran kinerja yang digunakan dapat bergantung pada keadaan yang unik untuk penelitian [42,72]. Di UAE, tidak
ada agen yang bertanggung jawab untuk mempublikasikan data keuangan untuk perusahaan manufaktur. Akibatnya, metode yang
kredibel diperlukan untuk mengidentifikasi atau mengklasifikasikan perusahaan sebagai pemain berkinerja tinggi atau rendah.
Dalam sebuah wawancara dengan ketua Departemen Pengembangan Ekonomi kota Dubai, yang memiliki jumlah produsen
terbesar di negara tersebut, metode klasifikasi dibahas dan direkomendasikan. Mekanisme klasifikasi didasarkan pada laba yang
dilaporkan sendiri perusahaan selama tiga tahun terakhir (1994-1996). Jika kenaikan persen tahunan berturut-turut dilaporkan,
perusahaan diklasifikasikan sebagai 'berkinerja tinggi'
dan sebagai 'berkinerja rendah' jika tidak. Metode pengukuran kinerja ini memiliki daya tarik khusus untuk penelitian ini karena
tidak ada akses ke data keuangan dan data kinerja lainnya yang akurat (seperti peningkatan laba atas investasi atau pangsa pasar).
Meskipun ukuran kinerja obyektif lebih disukai untuk mengukur ukuran kinerja, yang terakhir telah digunakan dan
direkomendasikan sebagai pengganti ketika pengukuran objektif tidak tersedia [73 ± 75].
Akibatnya, dua kelompok didirikan. Perusahaan-perusahaan dengan peningkatan laba dalam tiga tahun berturut-turut dianggap
berkinerja tinggi, jika tidak mereka dianggap berkinerja rendah. Semua perusahaan yang melaporkan tidak ada perubahan laba
dijatuhkan dari analisis. Berkinerja tinggi menyumbang 268 responden, sedangkan kategori berkinerja rendah termasuk 216
tanggapan.
3.4. Pertanyaan penelitian
Tentu saja, perusahaan harus memilih di antara prioritas kompetitif. Mereka tidak dapat bersaing di semua bidang sekaligus.
Namun demikian, tergantung pada situasinya, perusahaan dapat meningkatkan pada semua prioritas kompetitif secara bersamaan.
Tujuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menyelidiki hubungan antara lingkungan, strategi operasi (komponen prioritas
kompetitif) dan kinerja perusahaan dalam industri yang sedang berkembang. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, temuan penelitian
ekstensif yang mengaitkan lingkungan dengan strategi bisnis ada. Di sisi lain, bukti empiris langsung dari hubungan serupa
antara lingkungan dan strategi operasi kurang luas. Sebagian besar studi terutama berfokus pada industri dewasa yang dicirikan
oleh lingkungan yang agak dapat diprediksi dan stabil.
Untuk memberikan bukti bahwa model yang berhubungan dengan lingkungan, strategi operasi dan kinerja yang dikembangkan
untuk industri yang matang tidak selalu sesuai dengan industri yang sedang berkembang, kami memeriksa dan menganalisa
pertanyaan berikut:
Dalam mengembangkan industri, apakah ada impor yang signifikan untuk masuknya industri variabel yang mencerminkan
kekhawatiran politik dan peraturan pemerintah dalam studi yang berkaitan dengan lingkungan, strategi operasi dan kinerja
perusahaan?
Untuk memberikan bukti pentingnya pertimbangan lingkungan dalam strategi operasi (terutama biaya bisnis, ketersediaan
tenaga kerja, permusuhan kompetitif, peraturan pemerintah dan undang-undang, keprihatinan politik dan dinamisme) kami
memeriksa dan menganalisis pertanyaan berikut:
Apakah ada hubungan yang signifikan antara persepsi Dimensi lingkungan dan strategi operasi?
MA Badri dkk. / Omega 28 (2000) 155 ± 173 160
Kita juga perlu menetapkan bahwa perusahaan manufaktur yang tinggi dan rendah di UAE melihat kekhawatiran lingkungan
dengan cara yang sama. Ward et al. [13] mendukung hipotesis bahwa kinerja tinggi dan rendah menggunakan strategi operasi
yang berbeda ketika persepsi mereka tentang lingkungan adalah sama. Di sisi lain, mereka tidak pernah menunjukkan bukti
bahwa persepsi para seniman tinggi dan rendah terhadap lingkungan Singapura adalah sama. Untuk memberikan bukti bahwa
persepsi pelaku berkinerja tinggi dan rendah terhadap lingkungan UEA adalah sama kita memeriksa dan menganalisis pertanyaan
berikut:
Apakah ada hubungan yang signifikan antara perusahaan berkinerja tinggi dan rendah di UAE dalam persepsi mereka tentang
lingkungan UEA ?
Sebagian besar penelitian empiris langsung oleh Ward et al. [13] dan Swamidass dan Newell [10] telah memberikan dukungan
untuk koneksi antara strategi operasi, lingkungan dan kinerja. Demikian pula, peneliti strategi bisnis telah memberikan bukti
bahwa kinerja unit bisnis terkait dengan pilihan strategi bersaing untuk lingkungan tertentu (misalnya [76 ± 78] .Untuk lebih
menetapkan dukungan untuk hubungan antara lingkungan, strategi operasi dan kinerja, kami memeriksa dan menganalisis berikut
ini Pertanyaan:
Apakah perusahaan manufaktur berkinerja tinggi menggunakan strategi operasi yang berbeda daripada perusahaan manufaktur
berkinerja rendah dalam lingkungan yang dirasakan sama?
4. Metode dan analisis
4.1 Sampel Contoh
untuk penyelidikan empiris model diperoleh melalui studi lapangan Data dikumpulkan dari perusahaan yang berpartisipasi
terutama melalui wawancara tatap muka dengan kepala eksekutif atau setara yang memiliki tanggung jawab tingkat tinggi di
perusahaan mereka (Wakil presiden, direktur utama, manajer umum, manajer pabrik, atau eksekutif / manajer bertanggung jawab
atas fungsi manufaktur) .Kuesioner yang digunakan dalam wawancara begitu terstruktur itu mereka mengizinkan survei surat
ketika wawancara tidak dimungkinkan.
Sebagai langkah pertama dan untuk menarik jumlah maksimum perusahaan yang berpartisipasi, surat dikirim ke semua
perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Kamar Dagang yang berbeda di negara yang meminta partisipasi mereka sambil
menekankan pentingnya
taktik). Tabel 1
Sebagai langkah kedua, panggilan dibuat untuk
mereka Profil perusahaan yang berpartisipasi oleh industri, jumlah
perusahaan yang menerima untuk berpartisipasi dalam
penelitian ini untuk menetapkan karyawan, struktur modal dan jumlahmodal
tanggal wawancarajika memungkinkan, jika tidak, mereka diminta
Jenis industri Jumlah
responden
Persen
untuk mengembalikan kuesioner yang akan dikirimkan kepada mereka sesegera mungkin. Sebanyak 214 perusahaan (47,55%)
diwawancarai sementara 236 perusahaan (52,44%) menanggapi oleh
produk-produk Susu Tekstil 64 7 13,2 1,4
email. Korelasi peringkat Spearman tingkat konsistensi (variabel lingkungan) dan tingkat penekanan Produk makanan lainnya 69
14,3
(strategi operasi) antara yang inter-semen dan bahan bangunan
98 20,2
dilihat dan mereka yang merespons melalui surat adalah
0,9551 Produk farmasi 13 2,7
dan 0,9006 masing-masing, menunjukkan korelasi yang tinggi.
Produk yang terkait dengan kertas 23 4.8
Upaya ekstra telah digunakan untuk mendapatkan bahan kimia non-pemateri (pestisida) 10 Produk minyak bumi 38 Produk
peralatan api 16 Produk kimia lainnya 72 Produk baja dan aluminium 26 Produk transportasi 19 Produk mebel dan kayu 10 2.1
7.9 3.3 14.9 5.4 3.9 2.1
untuk berpartisipasi dalam penelitian. Seorang anggota terkemuka dari Pemerintah Dubai menghubungi masing-masing presiden
perusahaan secara langsung mendesak mereka untuk berpartisipasi. Menggunakan manuver politik seperti itu, total 34
perusahaan menyelesaikan kuesioner. Satu tes dilakukan untuk menganalisa apakah ada perbedaan proporsional antara produk
Respon-kaca 19 3,9
dents dan nonrespondents. The Spearman rank corre-
Jumlah karyawan Kurang dari 50 tingkat tingkat perhatian (variabel lingkungan)
109 22,5
dan tingkat penekanan (strategi operasi) antara> 50 ± 100 58
12,0
dua sampel adalah 0,9418 dan 0,8860 masing-masing, di-> 100
± 200 138 28,5
mencating korelasi tinggi. Dengan demikian, responden sesuai
dengan> 200 ± 500 90 18,6
profil manufaktur UEA secara keseluruhan. Lebih dari 500 89
18.4
Sebuah tim dengan dua belas asisten peneliti membantu
denganAset (dalam jutaan US $)
wawancaradan distribusi kuesioner. Tabel Kurang dari 1 35 7.2
1 menyediakan profil perusahaan yang berpartisipasi -> 1 ± 5
118 24,4
dikalikan oleh industri, struktur modal, total aset dan> 5 ± 10> 10 ± 50 Lebih dari 50 102 202 27 21.1 41.7 5.6
jumlah para karyawan.
Uji χ2 dilakukan untuk menganalisis hubungan antara kinerja (berkinerja tinggi atau rendah) Struktur modal Perusahaan
patungan Lokal Asing 226 242 16 46,7 50,0 3,3
dan jenis industri, struktur modal, total aset dan jumlah karyawan. Tabel 2 menunjukkan hasil tes dan tingkat signifikansi mereka.
Hasil menunjukkan adanya hubungan antara kinerja (perubahan laba yang dilaporkan sendiri) dan jenis industri, jumlah
karyawan dan jumlah modal. Sebagai hasilnya, penelitian ini (ada tujuh Chambers of Commerce
menunjukkan penolakan terhadap hipotesis independen.
Senting tujuh Emirat UAE). Sebanyak 937
Ward et al. [13] provided an argument that environ- firms were
contacted. To guarantee an acceptable level
mental variables should successfully control for the sig- of
manufacturing maturity, only firms that have been
nificant effect of industry on performance, thus operating for
longer than 5 years were contacted (68%
providing further impetus for including environmental of the
total). Acceptance letters to participate in the
variables in operations strategy studies where multiple study
was received from 450 firms across 14 industry
industries are involved. It should also be mentioned categories
in the UAE (constituting 48% of firms con-
that in such economies that have not reached full
Table 2 Test of relationship between performance and number of employees, capital structure, capital amount and type of
industry
Variables Pearson's χ2 Degrees of freedom Significance level
Number of employees 51.63042 4 0.00001 Capital structure 5.305520 2 0.07046 Capital amount 72.13525 4 0.00001 Type of
industry 106.48279 13 0.00001
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 161
maturity yet, we argue that the inclusion of govern- ment laws and regulations and political variables should control for the
significant effects of total assets and number of employees on performance.
4.2. Scale reliability and construct validity
The instrument used to measure environmental con- cern and operations strategy emphasized is a modified version of the one
used by Ward et al. [13]. Questions related to environment and operations strategy are based on a five-point Li kert scale. For
environment variables, respondents are required to indicate the degree to which the factors are a current concern to their firm.
The scale ranged from 1, indicating high concern, to 5, low concern. For operations strategy, the four competitive priorities are
listed and respon- dents are asked to consider the degree of emphasis, from 1, indicating no emphasis to 5, indicating high
emphasis, that the firm plans to place on each of the priorities over the next two years.
With regard to environment variables, the questions are arranged as multi-item scales corresponding to business cost, labor
availability, competitive hostility, government laws and regulations, political issues and dynamism in the market. Similarly the
questions are arranged according to cost, quality, delivery perform- ance and flexibility for operations strategy questions.
Inter-item analysis is used to check the scales for in- ternal consistency or reliability [79,80]. Specifically, Cronbach's
reliability coefficient a is calculated for each scale (dimension), as recommended for empirical research in operations by many
researchers [9,10,13,81,82]. Cronbach's reliability coefficient a values for each scale ranged from 0.8252 to 0.9406 for the
environment dimensions. More specifically the fol- lowing coefficients resulted: business cost (0.8252), labor availability
(0.8711), competitive hostility (0.8285), government laws and regulations (0.9017), political environment (0.9406) and
dynamism in the market (0.8495). These coefficients ranged from 0.8535 to 0.9327 for the operations strategy dimensions. More
specifically the following coefficients resulted: cost (0.8535), quality (0.9048), flexibility (0.9005) and deliv- ery (0.9327). These
values exceed by a comfortable margin the 0.5 to 0.6 criterion generally considered adequate for exploratory work [80].
Construct vali- dation is a process of demonstrating that an empirical measure corresponds to the conceptual definition of a
construct [83]. Accordingly, three types of validity can be established: nomological or theoretical validity, ver- tical validity and
horizontal or criterion-related val- idity. We can argue that the measurement instrument establishes the basis for nomological or
theoretical val- idity since all items are developed by an extensive
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 162
review of the operations strategy body of research. We used factor analysis to check that each of the scales is unidimensional,
thus providing evidence of a single latent construct [9,13]. In addition, Cronbach's a, dis- cussed earlier addresses vertical
validity, which describes the extent to which a scale represents its con- struct. Evidence of criterion-related validity is pre- sented
with our findings by using the various environmental measures to predict operations strategy. Ward et al. [13] note that a related
issue is cross- sample consistency, which demonstrates that the find- ings reported are representative of the population. Browne
and Cudeck [84] developed a cross-validation index specifically for covariance structure modeling. They suggest that an index of
less than one signifies a high probability of correspondence. The cross vali- dation index for the covariance structure model
devel- oped in this research is 0.522, indicating a high probability that the model results are consistent with population
parameters.
In addition to these tests, the Guttman's split-half reliability coefficient for the environmental variables is 0.8414 and for the
operations strategy variables is 0.8539. These values are generally considered adequate for exploratory work [80].
4.3. Path analytic methodology
Structural equation modeling is a useful tool in the- ory development because it allows the researcher to propose and
subsequently test theoretical propositions about interrelationships among variables in a multi- variate setting [85±89]. A
structural model may be viewed as a guide that allows the researcher to assess the relative strength of each variable included in
explaining a desired set of outcomes. Structural equation modeling includes, among other cases, as special cases path analysis
and covariance structure analysis. Path analysis is an appropriate methodology for capturing relationships between variables
because it is concerned with estimating the magnitude of the lin- kages between variables and using these estimates to provide
information about underlying causal processes [90]. We use covariance structure models as a mechan- ism for estimating path
coefficients by solving the sys- tem of equations simultaneously and accounting for covariance among variables within the
model.
In proposing our model, we drew on several theor- etical models occurring in the operations strategy lit- erature [71]. More
specifically, we drew on the model suggested by Ward et al. [13]. Their proposed model is based on extensive review of literature
in which all variables suggested by other researchers were taken into consideration. Moreover, they relied on sound
methodological process to develop their model.
 The exploratory model tested in this study was pos- ited a priori to address the question of whether en- vironmental forces
(concerns) affect the performance of manufacturing firms through specific competitive priorities (operation strategies). As a
result, an initial path model was specified to include all possible paths from environmental concerns to competitive priorities as
well as statistically significant or theoretically im- portant covariance's between variables. Four statisti- cally nonsignificant
environmental covariance's (business cost with dynamism, political concerns with government regulations, business cost with
competitive hostility and business cost with political concerns) are excluded from the model to aid computation. The full set for
the initial model are provided in Table 3.
Our sample database was divided into two groups of high and low performers. The model was run separ- ately for high
performer and for low performer data sets using a covariance structure model that estimates path coefficients through an iterative
process which maximizes the discrepancy of the model's fit. This pro- cess provides the necessary criteria to test the signifi-
cance of the coefficients between perceived environment and operations strategy to confirm the existence of this relationship.
The focal point in analyzing structural equation models is the extent to which the hypothesized model `fits,' or, in other words,
adequately describes the sample data. In assessing model adequacy we use three recommended tests: the root mean square error
of ap- proximation (RMSEA), the Bentler and Bonett's [91] normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI).
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 163
Table 3 Relationships in the model
Independent variables
Business cost Labor availability Competitive hostility Dynamism Error term
Causal relationships Dependent variables Low cost yes yes yes yes yes Quality yes yes yes yes yes Delivery yes yes yes yes yes
Flexibility yes yes yes yes yes
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Covariance relationships (1) Business cost yes (2) Labor availability yes yes (3) Competitive hostility no yes yes (4) Government
laws yes yes yes yes (5) Political concerns no yes yes no yes (6) Dynamism in the market no yes no yes yes yes
The formulas for the NFI and CFI are as follows:
NFI ˆ
w2 0
À w2 k w2 0
,
where w
2=the 0
null model and w
2=the k
hypothesized model.
CFI ˆ

w2 0
À df
0
†À w2 k w2 0
À df
0
†
À df
k
†

where df
0
corresponds to degrees of freedom for the null model, df
k
corresponds with degrees of freedom for the hypothesized model and the (6) indicates trim- ming to place its
value into the 0.0±1.0 range. A value greater than 0.90 indicates an acceptable fit to the data [92].
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) estimates the model's fit to the true popu- lation parameters taking a
number of parameters into consideration. Probabilities are calculated that the RMSEA produces a close fit, ie the population
discre- pancy value approaches zero.
Statistical estimates of the parameters of the models were generated using a computer program called EQS developed by
Bentler [92]. The EQS program is specifi- cally designed to estimate parameters and test the val- idity of a wide variety of
models including those that contain measurement errors, reciprocal causation, vari- ables measured at several points in time and
latent variables. The use of path diagrams to represent a structural equation model facilitates the specification and understanding
of the EQS methodology. In Fig. 2,
high performers, and Fig. 3, low performers, we illus- trate the EQS representation of our model of variables hypothesized to
influence company performance. As seen from the figures, there are six latent variables representing environmental concerns and
four latent variables representing operations strategies.
5. Study results
5.1. Descriptive statistics for environment and operations strategy variables
We have tabulated the means, standard deviations (SD) and the ranks of the degree of concern for en- vironmental variables
(shown in Table 4). Respectively,
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 164
Fig. 2. Significant path coefficients (0.05 level) for environmental concerns and operations strategies (high performers).
the ten most worrying (high concern) environmental variables for the high performers are rising labor cost, rising rental cost,
competition in local markets, rising utility costs, low profit margins, competition in foreign markets, shortage of skilled workers,
shortage of tech- nicians, rising transport costs and rising health care costs. For the low performers, the ten most worrying
variables correspond to rising rental costs, rising ma- terial costs, rising utility costs, competition in local markets, low profit
margins, competition in foreign markets, rising health care costs, shortages of skilled workers, rate of innovation of new
processes of pro- duction and shortages of technicians. In other words, both groups perceive same variables as being of con- cern
to them, but with different ranks. On the other hand, the dimensions of government regulations and
political environments are perceived as most satisfac- tory to both groups.
With reference to data in Table 4, a key issue is the degree of association between high and low perfor- mers. The calculated
Spearman rank correlation coeffi- cient for the two groups on the environmental variables is 0.9462, indicating a high degree of
associ- ation. One should also admit noticing that for almost all the variables high performers provide smaller `mean concern'
relative to low performers. Only one factor is perceived more worrying (in term of its mean)to high performers, complexity of
government regulations and procedures. They usually look for more relaxed gov- ernment procedures, as they would prefer
working in a free atmosphere.
We have tabulated the means, standard deviation (SD) and ranks of the degree of emphasis on oper- ations strategy for both
high and low performers
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 165
Fig. 3. Significant path coefficients (0.05 level) for environmental concerns and operations strategies (low performers).
(shown in Table 5). As can be seen, the ten most sig- nificant areas of emphasis for high performers are: (1) improve product
performance and reliability, (2) reduce defective rate, (3) increase delivery speed, (4) improve vendor's quality, (5) increase
delivery re- liability, (6) improve presale service and technical sup- port, (7) improve after sale service, (8) improve technical
assistance of services to customers, (9) im- plement quality control training programs and (10) reduce manufacturing lead-time.
Most of these factors have to do with quality, delivery and flexibility, while no strategy is associated with reducing costs.
For the low performers, the ten most significant areas of emphasis are: (1) reduce unit costs, (2) reduce overhead costs, (3)
reduce material costs, (4) reduce inventory costs, (5) increase delivery speed, (6) increase delivery reliability, (7) improve
product performance and reliability, (8) improve pre-sale service and techni-
cal support, (9) reduce defective rate and (10) improve technical assistance of services to customers. As noticed, more emphasis
is placed on cost related strat- egies. To better understand the degree of association between high and low performers, the
Spearman rank correlation coefficient is calculated. The coefficient equals 0.03912 (with 0.871 significance level), indicat-
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 166
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for high and low performers (environmental concerns)
Environmental concern High performers Low performers
mean SD rank mean SD rank
Business cost Rising labour cost 3.195 1.148 11 3.285 1.195 13 Rising material cost 3.953 0.984 1 4.015 1.113 2 Rising transport
cost (materials and finished goods) 3.213 1.146 9 3.256 1.237 15 Rising telecommunication cost (ie fax, phone 3.069 1.182 13
3.070 1.432 22 Rising utilities cost (water, gas, electricity etc.) 3.675 1.180 4 3.913 1.080 3 Rising rental cost (housing) 3.827
1.119 2 4.116 1.117 1 Rising health care cost 3.209 1.213 10 3.589 1.289 7 Strength (or weakness) of the Dirham 2.376 1.250 28
2.870 1.529 25 Labour availability Shortage of managerial and administrative staff 2.870 1.241 21 3.256 1.386 15 Shortage of
technicians 3.231 1.178 8 3.478 1.238 10 Shortage of clerical and related works 2.330 1.146 29 2.667 1.369 29 Shortage of
skilled workers (specialisation) 3.354 1.227 7 3.527 1.280 8 Shortage of production workers 2.762 1.192 23 3.116 1.389 20
Government regulations regarding length of each shift 2.290 1.254 30 2.633 1.514 31 Competitive hostility Keen competition in
local market 3.779 1.153 3 3.831 1.245 4 Keen competition in foreign market 3.498 1.212 6 3.701 1.284 6 Low profit margins
3.583 1.042 5 3.812 1.101 5 Declining demand in local market 2.946 1.203 17 3.406 1.344 11 Declining demand in foreign
market 2.888 1.224 19 3.309 1.351 12 Producing to required quality standards 2.978 1.380 16 3.130 1.447 19 Unreliable vendor
(supplier) quality 2.881 1.287 20 3.039 1.414 23 Government laws and regulations Complexity of government regulations and
procedures 2.985 1.283 15 2.913 1.394 24 Unclear government laws and regulations 2.505 1.395 26 2.773 1.479 27 Government
delays in finalising or finishing transactions 2.639 1.359 25 2.863 1.456 26 Government strategies in protecting industrial
activities 2.711 1.371 24 3.106 1.481 21 Government strategies i n developing industrial infrastructure 2.401 1.252 27 2.748
1.509 28 Government strategies with regard to its investments 2.184 1.069 31 2.633 1.330 31 Political environment Attitude of
government toward foreign investment 2.181 1.202 32 2.638 1.539 30 UAE balance of payment status 1.978 1.060 33 2.517
1.536 34 Type of agreements and contracts with other governments 1.921 1.050 35 2.536 1.538 33 Stability of political system in
the UAE 1.773 1.068 37 2.300 1.603 36 Laws and regulations regarding investment protections 1.957 1.086 34 2.498 1.539 35
Type of military alliances with other countries 1.805 0.988 36 2.251 1.575 37 Dynamism in the market Rate at which products
become outdated 2.866 1.280 22 3.208 1.435 18 Rate of innovation of new products 2.939 1.254 18 3.266 1.301 14 Rate of
innovation of new processes of production 3.155 1.149 12 3.498 1.288 9 Rate of change in taste and preferences of customers
3.040 1.187 14 3.222 1.386 17
ing no association between the two groups on sele cting competitive strategies.
5.2. Covariance structure model (Ward et al.'s model)
Using Ward et al.'s [13] model specification, where the two latent variables of political concerns and gov-
ernment laws are not included, path coefficients were estimated for both high and low performers resulting in six significant
paths for high performers and ten sig- nificant paths for low performers.
For high performers, the following significant paths are identified:
1. Labor availability and flexibility; 2. Competitive hostility and quality; 3. Competitive hostility and delivery; 4. Dynamism and
flexibility; 5. Dynamism and delivery; and 6. Dynamism and quality.
Fit statistics for the high performer model show a probability of a close fit of 0.673 and a normed fit index of 0.835 and a
comparative fit index of 0.704, which when considered together doesn't indi- cate a good fit of the model population.
For low performers, the following significant paths are identified:
1. Business cost and low cost; 2. Labor availability and low cost; 3. Competitive hostility and low cost; 4. Competitive hostility
and quality;
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 167
Table 5 Descriptive statistics for high and low performers (operations strategies)
Operations strategies High performers Low performers
mean SD rank mean SD rank
Cost Reduce unit costs 3.112 1.066 18 4.121 1.005 1 Reduce material cost 3.004 1.048 20 3.976 1.184 3 Reduce overhead costs
3.051 1.031 19 4.077 1.016 2 Reduce inventory costs 3.755 1.197 14 3.786 1.153 4 Quality Reduce defective rate 4.332 0.943 2
3.335 1.634 9 Improve product performance and reliability 4.426 0.932 1 3.407 1.573 7 Improve vendor's (supplier's) quality
4.199 1.021 4 3.198 1.446 11 Implement quality control training programs 3.931 1.109 9 3.188 1.451 12 Obtain international
quality certifications (ie ISO 9000) 3.664 1.321 17 3.082 1.560 18 Obtain local certificates of quality 3.880 1.206 12 2.990 1.549
20 Flexibility Reduce manufacturing lead-time (time to manufacture) 3.909 1.063 10 3.178 1.504 15 Reduce procurement lead-
time (time to receive order 3.885 0.986 11 3.207 1.458 14 Reduce time to develop new product 3.729 1.085 16 3.043 1.432 19
Reduce setup/changeover 3.750 1.064 15 3.087 1.432 17 Increase model and variety of product 3.852 1.121 13 3.159 1.501 16
Delivery Increase delivery reliability 4.191 0.998 5 3.411 1.527 6 Increase delivery speed 4.231 1.002 3 3.551 1.512 5 Improve
presale service and technical support 4.137 0.987 6 3.401 1.491 8 Improve technical assistance of services to customers 4.003
1.078 8 3.272 1.469 10 Improve after sale service 4.036 1.119 7 3.188 1.567 12
5. Competitive hostility and flexibility; 6. Competitive hostility and delivery; 7. Dynamism and low cost; 8. Dynamism and
quality; 9. Dynamism and flexibility; and 10. Dynamism and delivery.
The low performer model does not fit as well, with an RMSEA of a close fit of 0.0072, a Bentler±Bonnet fit index of 0.833
and a comparative fit index of 0.391. Thus, all three indices indicate a relatively poor fit for low performers as all indices are
underscored. In sum- mary, both models do not fit well indicating the prob- ability that other variables are not included in the
models. On the other hand, of more importance for theses experiments, several significant paths between environment and
operations strategies are evident for both high and low performer models.
5.3. Covariance structure model (the extended model)
Using the model specifications for the extended model where there are six variables representing en- vironmental concerns and
four variables representing
0.448. operations strategy, path coefficients are estimated for
Even though, the normed index indicate a good both
high and low performers resulting in the signifi-
fit, the other two indexes indicate a poor one. cant paths which
are depicted in Fig. 2 for high perfor-
The fact that high performers fit an operations stra- mers and
Fig. 3 for low performers. The figures also
tegic model better than poor performers was also show the
three models fit statistics for each of the
observed in the empirical study conducted by Ward et models.
Table 6 provides path coefficients and signifi-
al. [13] in Singapore. In addition, based on the exten- cance
levels for all paths for both high and low perfor-
sive strategic management literature on the alignment mers.
of strategy and environment, (eg [74]), it has been Fit statistics
for the high performer model show a probability of a close fit at 0.811 and a normed fit index 0.9985 and a comparative fit index
0.975, which when considered together indicate a good fit of the model to the population. Relative to the high perfor- mer's
model, the low performer's model does not fit, with RMSEA of a close fit of 0.0077, a Bentler±Bon-
suggested that good performers fit a strategic model better than poor performers.
Of more importance for this research, several signifi- cant paths between environment and operations strat- egy are evident for
both high and low performers. For high performers, the following eight significant paths have resulted:
net fit index of 0.9446 and a comparative fit index of
1. Labor availability with flexibility;
Table 6 Path coefficients and significance levels for high and low performers
High performers Low performers
path coefficient t-value path coefficient t-value
Business cost with Low cost 0.138 1.335 0.417 3.949Ã Quality 0.117 1.148 0.138 1.255 Flexibility 0.066 0.674 0.162 1.547
Delivery 0.001 0.011 0.119 1.149 Labor availability with Low cost 0.179 1.636 0.375 3.557Ã Quality 0.126 1.155 0.121 1.153
Flexibility 0.421 4.033Ã 0.376 3.559Ã Delivery 0.099 0.861 0.066 0.669 Competitive hostility with Low cost 0.033 0.339 0.328
3.088Ã Quality 0.561 5.118Ã 0.380 3.563Ã Flexibility 0.129 1.200 0.294 2.788Ã Delivery 0.518 4.856Ã 0.427 4.043Ã
Government laws with Low cost 0.125 1.119 0.227 2.118 Quality 0.370 3.465Ã 0.210 1.930 Flexibility 0.194 1.828 0.179 1.729
Delivery 0.338 3.172Ã 0.146 1.432 Political concerns with Low cost 0.114 1.122 0.229 2.120Ã Quality 0.019 0.220 0.003 0.008
Flexibility 0.052 0.421 0.106 0.109 Delivery 0.104 1.099 0.100 0.101 Dynamism with Low cost 0.043 0 .383 0.277 2.599Ã
Quality 0.453 4.326Ã 0.328 3.072Ã Flexibility 0.448 4.225Ã 0.281 2.698Ã Delivery 0.382 3.668Ã 0.269 2.550Ã
à Significant at the 0.05 level.
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 168
2. Competitive hostility with quality; 3. Competitive hostility with improving delivery; 4. Government laws with quality; 5.
Government laws with improving delivery; 6. Dynamism with improving delivery; 7. Dynamism with flexibility; and 8.
Dynamism with quality.
For low performing firms, the following twelve sig- nificant paths are apparent:
1. Business cost with low cost; 2. Labor availability with low cost; 3. Labor availability with flexibility; 4. Competitive hostility
with low cost; 5. Competitive hostility with quality; 6. Competitive hostility with improving delivery; 7. Competitive hostility
with flexibility; 8. Political concerns with low cost; 9. Dynamism with improving delivery; 10. Dynamism with flexibility; 11.
Dynamism with quality; and 12. Dynamism with low cost.
5.4. The e€ect of industry type, number of employees and amount of capital
Previously, when we analyzed the relationship between performance and industry type, capital struc- ture, amount of capital
and number of employees, we indicated the existence of relationship between per- formance and type of industry, amount of
capital and number of employees. To determine if the effects of these three variables in this study are controlled by the inclusion
of environmental variables, three different co- variance structure models are developed. For each of the new models, the
covariance structure models described previously are altered to include variables in- dicating the effect of the three variables. In
the first new model, variables were included to indicate the effect of industry membership; in the second model, variables were
included to indicate the effect of amount of capital; and in the third model, variables were included to indicate the effect of
number of employees.
We used dummy variables representing industry groups, amount of capital and number of employees. We also specified paths
from each environmental vari- able to each industry, amount of capital or number of employee (dummy) and from each industry,
amount of capital and number of employees (dummy) to each op- erations strategy. The addition of these three variables did not
effect the model substantially, as no paths between them and operations strategy choice are sig- nificant at 0.05 for either high or
low performing firms.
We should also point out that the explanatory
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 169
power of the model is not enhanced by the addition of variables reflecting industry type, amount of capital, or number of
employees. Thus, we can conclude that en- vironmental variables in this model provide effective controls for the effects on
performance of industry type, amount of capital and number of employees.
6. Discussion of results
The first hypothesis is supported by the results of this study. Acceptance of the first hypothesis, that developing industries
provide settings for different models relating environmental forces, operations strat- egy and performance than mature industries
require that we demonstrate that Ward et al.'s [13] models would not fit the environment of the UAE. It was obvious that test
statistics indicated a poor fit for Ward et al.'s model for both high and low performers. Further, when we included variables
reflecting political forces and government regulations and laws, a better fit was obtained for high performing firms.
The second hypothesis, that environment and oper- ations strategy are related, requires that we demon- strate that a path
coefficient is significant for at least one path between environmental dimension and oper- ations strategy. Figures 2 and 3
document that several paths are significant at less than 0.05 for both high and low performers. Thus, the second hypothesis is also
supported.
The third hypothesis, that high performers and low performers perceive the environment in the same man- ner, was supported
by the nonparametric test of Spear- man's rank correlation test which provided a correlation coefficient of 0.9462, significant at
the 0.0001 level.
The fourth hypothesis, that high performers use different operations strategies than low performers when their perception of
the environment is the same, requires that at least one path between an environmen- tal dimension and an operations strategy
differ between high and low performers. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the test of path coefficients shows significant differences
between paths for high and low performers, thus supporting the fourth hypothesis. In addition to providing a test of specific
hypotheses, the significant paths in the extended model imply a fairly circum- scribed set of strategic responses to perceived
environ- mental triggers for high performance firms. Ward et al. [13] reached the same conclusions for their model of mature
industries. Higher environmental dynamism sparks significantly more operations strategy emphasis on the delivery performance,
flexibility and quality competitive priorities. This finding is consistent with Ward et al. [13] and Swamidass and Newell's [10]
con-
clusion about the relationship of uncertainty with flexi- bility. Conceptual work in operations strategy also supports the notion
that quality, flexibility and delivery are appropriate operation strategy responses to en- vironmental dynamism [93±95]. In
addition, results also support the notion that a set of capabilities, which support responsiveness to customers, is particularly
valued in a dynamic environment. This finding is also supported by other researchers that suggested that differentiation is an
appropriate strategy in a dynamic environments [13,62,96,97].
Successful firms facing greater perceived competitive hostility respond with a greater emphasis on quality and delivery
performance, thus indicating an attempt to further dedifferentiate their products rather than emphasizing cost reduction strategy.
This strategic re- sponse for successful firms is consistent with the find- ings of other researchers [12,13,62]. The analysis also
shows that successful UAE firms respond to perceived labor shortages through a strategic emphasis on flexi- bility. This result is
consistent with views held by many authors in operations strategy that shortages of skilled labor is a major reason for pursuing an
operations flexibility strategy [43].
The path model suggests that successful manufactur- ing firms facing greater perceived uncertainty with regard to government
laws and regulations respond with a greater emphasis on delivery performance along with quality rather than emphasizing cost
reduction strategies. The path model also suggests that high per- formers do not show great concerns or worries with regard to
political uncertainties. This result is under- standable since these firms have invested great resources in the environment. Of
course, no firm is ready to take such an action unless it is certain about the political stability of the country.
The path model suggests that some of the strategic responses of low performers to environmental dyna- mism are in exactly the
same direction as high perfor- mers: increased emphasis on quality, flexibility and delivery performance. However, low
performers also respond to environmental dynamism, political uncer- tainty, competitive hostility, labor availability and business
cost, with somewhat more emphasis on cost reduction. In other words, low performers respond to concerns about environmental
munificence (ie business cost, labor availability, competitive hostility and government regulations) quite differently than do high
performers. Competitive hostility prompts low performers to respond with greater strategic emphasis on all four operations
strategies of low cost, quality, flexibility and delivery performance. As we recall, high performers never emphasized the strategy
of low cost.
The difference between high performers and low per- formers strategic response to competitive strategy cor- roborates the
notion suggested by Porter [96], that the
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 170
danger of being stuck in the middle and thus perform- ing poorly, might simultaneously trigger increased emphasis on cost. It is
also obvious that unlike high performers, low performers show greater response to an environmental concern about labor
availability by emphasizing low cost.
7. Summary and conclusion
This research has built on the work of others, most notably Ward et al. [12,13] and Swamidass and Newell [10], in expanding
the dimensions of en- vironment to be examined in operations strategy research. The results indicate that environmental concerns
in mature and emerging manufacturing industries are not similar and hence, should be con- sidered in conducting operations
research studies.
This research establishes the existence of import- ant links between operations strategy and a number of environmental
dimensions. In other words, en- vironmental concerns appear to have substantial impact on operations strategy and that
successful firms (high performers) adopt different operations strategies in response to environmental stimuli than do poor
performers.
The major finding of this study is that operations strategy researchers should build into virtually all research design explicit
consideration to environmen- tal factors. Environment should be included for both substantive and methodological justifications.
The environment appears to have a tangible impact on strategic choices in operations. It also appears that a link between
environment and operations strategy helps determine firm performance. Ignoring the correct package of environmental effects in
a strategic model of operations is likely to result in a specification error, which can lead to erroneous findings.
The managerial implications of this study are clear. First, the correct environmental considerations should be identified and
should be a part of any operations strategy framework. Second, successful firms who occupy dynamic environments are more
likely to emphasize flexibility, quality and delivery performance rather than emphasizing cost reduction strategies. Third, poor
performing firms in hostile environments adopt strategies, which include cost re- ductions.
For policy makers in the UAE, the study has several implications. The study has revealed many character- istics of the UAE
environment. These characteristics should be viewed as environmental concerns and should be studied carefully if the goal is to
provide a more accommodating environment. These environmen-
tal concerns include rising material, rental, health care and utility costs; shortages of technicians and skilled workers; keen
competition in the local market; and low profit margins.
At the general level, this study contributes to the development of an operations strategy theory by add- ing to the existing body
of literature on the subject. It takes an important step in the direction of the empiri- cal development of such a theory. The study
demon- strates the viability of the extended-model in a context other than that of mature industries. The research pro- vides much
needed objective description of the oper- ations strategy employed by small firms operating in fast-growing developing countries.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to three anonymous referees for helpful comments.
References
[1] Adam Jr. E, Swamidass P. Assessing operations manage- ment from a strategic perspective. Journal of Management
1989;15(2):181±203. [2] Hayes R, Wheelwright S. Restoring our competitive edge: competing through manufacturing. New
York, NY: John Wiley, 1984. [3] Hill T. Manufacturing strategy: text and cases, 2nd ed.
Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1989. [4] Miller J, Roth A. A taxonomy of manufacturing strat-
egies. Management Science 1994;40(3):285±304. [5] Skinner W. Manufacturing: missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard
Business Review 1969;47(3):136±45. [6] Wheelwright S. Manufacturing strategy: defining the missing link strategic.
Management Journal 1984;5(1):76± 91. [7] Bourgeois L. Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty and economic performance in
volatile environments. Academy of Management Journal 1985;28(3):548±73. [8] Boyd B, Dess G, Rasheed A. Divergence
between archi- val and perceptual measures of the environment: causes and consequences. Academy of Management Review
1993;18(2):204±26. [9] Flynn B, Sakakibara S, Schroeder R, Bates K, Flynn J. Empirical research methods in operations
management. Journal of Operations Management 1995;9(2):250±84. [10] Swamidass P, Newell W. Manufacturing strategy, en-
vironmental uncertainty and performance: a path ana- lytic model. Management Science 1987;33(4):509±24. [11] Vickery S,
Droge C, Markland R. Production compe- tence and business strategy: do they affect business per- formance. Decision Sciences
1993;24(2):435±56. [12] Ward P, Leong G, Boyer K. Manufacturing pro-active- ness and performance. Decision Sciences
1994;25(3):337± 58.
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 171
[13] Ward P, Duray R, Leong G, Sum C. Business environ- ment, operations strategy and performance: an empirical study of
Singapore manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management 1995;13:99±115. [14] Kim L, Lim Y. Environment, generic
strategies and per- formance in a rapidly developing country: a taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal
1988;31(4):802±27. [15] Roth A, Van der Velde M. Operations as marketing: a competitive service strategy. Journal of
Operations Management 1991;10(3):303±28. [16] Berry W, Boarth C, Hill T, Klompmaker J. Factory focus: segmenting markets
from an operations perspec- tive. Journal of Operations Management 1991;10(3):363± 87. [17] Mintzberg H. The structuring of
organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979. [18] Krajewsky L, Ritzman L. Operations management: strat- egy and analysis,
4th ed. Reading, MA: Adison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1996. [19] Day G, Nedungadi P. Managerial representation of com-
petitive advantage. Journal of Marketing 1994;58(2):31± 44. [20] Leong G, Snyder D, Ward P. Research in the process and
content of manufacturing strategy. Omega 1990;18(2):109±22. [21] Reynolds M, Lindstrom G, Despres C. Strategy, per-
formance and the use of environmental information: evi- dence from a computer simulation. American Business Review
1994;12(1):45±52. [22] Schroeder B, Mavondo F. Strategy/performance/environ- mental linkages in agribusiness: conceptual
issues and a developing country example. Agribusiness 1994;10(5):419±29. [23] Shaffer S, Meredith S. Operations management:
a pro-
cess approach. New York, NY: Wiley, 1998. [24] Tan J, Litschert R. Environment-strategy relationships and its performance
implications: an empirical study of the Chinese electronics industry. Strategic Management Journal 1994;15(1):1±20. [25] Heizer
J, Render B. Production and operations manage- ment: strategies and tactics, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[26] Stonebraker P, Leong G. Operations strategy: focusing competitive excellence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1994. [27]
Bourgeois L. Strategy and environment: a conceptual in- tegration. Academy of Management Review 1980;5(1):25±39. [28]
Williams F, D'Souza E, Rosenfeldt M, Kassaee M. Manufacturing strategy, business strategy and firm per- formance in a mature
industry. Journal of Operations Management 1995;13(2):19±33. [29] Badri M, Davis D, Davis D. Decision support models for
the location of firms in industrial sites. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1995;15(1):50±62. [30]
Child J. Organization structure, environment and per- formance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology 1972;6(1):1±22. [31]
Cleveland G, Schroeder R, Anderson J. Production com-
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 172
petence: a proposed theory. Decision Sciences 1989;20(4):655±88. [32] McDougal P, Deane R, D'Souza D. Manufacturing
strategy and business origin in the computer and com- munications equipment industries. Production and Operations
Management 1992;1(1):53±69. [33] Van Dierdonck R, Miller J. Designing production plan- ning and control systems. Journal of
Operations Management 1980;1(1):37±46. [34] Dess G, Beard D. Dimensions of organizational task en- vironments.
Administrative Science Quarterly 1984;29(1):52±73. [35] Dess G, lreland R, Hitt M. Industry effects and strategic management
research. Journal of Management 1990;16(1):7±27. [36] Swamidass P. Manufacturing strategy: its assessment and practice.
Journal of Operations Management 1986;6(4):471±84. [37] Lawrence P, Lorsch J. Organization and environment.
Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1967. [38] Badri M. Multivariate constructs for quality and organiz- ational performance: a case
study of UAE manufacturing firms. Journal of King Abdulaziz University, Economics and Administration 1997;10(1):37±59.
[39] Aldrich H. Organizations and Environments. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979. [40] Sharfman M, Dean Jr. J. Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational
environment: a multidimensional approach. Journal of Management 1991;17(4):681±700. [41] Bourgeois L, Eisenhardt K.
Strategic decision processes in Silicon Valley: four cases in the microcomputer indus- try. Management Science
1988;34(7):816±35. [42] Zahra S, Neubaum D. Competitive environment, tech- nology strategy and company performance. In:
Proceedings of the Decision Science Institute Annual Meeting 1996, 1996. p. 1265±7. [43] Jaikumar R. Postindustrial
manufacturing . Harvard
Business Review 1989;64(6):69±76. [44] Dornier P, Ernest R, Fender M, Kouvelis P. Global op- erations and logistics: text
and cases. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1998. [45] Doz Y, Prahalad C. Headquarters influence the strategic control in
MNC's. Sloan Management Review 1981;23:1±14. [46] Bartlett C, Ghoshal S. Organizing for worldwide effec- tiveness: the
transnational solution. California Management Review 1988;31:54±74. [47] Barback R. The Firm and its environment. Oxford,
UK:
Philip Allan Publishers Limited, 1988. [48] Baron D. Integrated strategy: market and nonmarket components. California
Management Review 1995;37(2):47±85. [49] Anderson J, Schroeder R, Cleveland G. The process of manufacturing strategy:
some empirical observations and conclusions. International Journal of Operations and Production Management
1991;11(3):63±76. [50] Rogers D. Global innovation strategy. Austin, TX: IC2
Institute, University of Texas at Austin, 1990. [51] Taylor J, Gutfeld R. CBOT Selected to run auctions for polluters. Wall
Street Journal, 1992, September 25, p. 16±17.
[52] Miles R, Snow C. Organizational strategy, structure and
process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978. [53] Carpano C, Chrisman J, Roth K. International strategy and environment:
an assessment of the performance re- lationship. Journal of International Business Studies 1994;25(3):639±56. [54] Stevenson W.
Production and operations management,
5th ed. Chicago, IL: Irwin, 1996. [55] Buffa S. Meeting the competitive challenge. Homewood,
IL: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1984. [56] Skinner W. Manufacturing: the formidable competitive
weapon. New York, NY: Wiley, 1985. [57] Slack N. The importance-performance matrix as a deter- minant of improvement
priority. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 1994;14(5):59± 77. [58] Crosby P. Quality is free. New
York, NY: New
American Library, 1979. [59] Crosby P. Quality without tears. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 1984. [60] Deming W. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Center
for Advanced Engineering Studies, 1986. [61] Juran J. Juran on leadership for quality. New York, NY:
Juran Institute, 1989. [62] Miller D. Relating Porter's business strategies to environ- ment and structure: analysis and
performance impli- cations. Academy of Management Journal 1988;31(2):280±308. [63] Schroeder R, Anderson J, Cleveland G.
The content of manufacturing strategy: an empirical study. Journal of Operations Management 1986;6(3):405±16. [64] Sulti D.
Linking process quality with performance: an empirical study of the New Zealand manufacturing plants. Ph.D. Dissertation, The
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 1992. [65] Plossl G. Flexibility is now the key to survival for manu- facturing.
APICS Ð The Performance Advantage, 1992; April, p. 37±42. [66] Schonberger R. Japanese manufacturing techniques: nine
lessons in simplicity. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1992. [67] Hall R. Zero inventories. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-
 Irwin, 1983. [68] Markland R, Vickery S, Davis R. Operations manage- ment: concepts in manufacturing and services. St.
Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1995. [69] Stalk G, Evans P, Shulman L. Competing on capabili- ties: the new rules of
corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 1992; March±April, p. 57±69. [70] Beesley A. Time compression: new course of
competitive- ness in the supply-chain. Logistics Focus 1995;3(5):24± 35. [71] Schul P, Davis P, Hartline M. Strategic adaptation
to extended rivalry: effects on organizational performance. Journal of Business Research 1995;33(2):129±42. [72] Ferdows K,
De Meyer A. Lasting improvements in man- ufacturing performance: in search of a new theory. Journal of Operations
Management 1990;9(2):168±84. [73] Dess G, Robinson Jr. B. Measuring organizational per- formance in the absence of
objective measures: the case
of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal 1984;5:265±73. [74] Venkatraman N,
Prescott J. Environment-strategy goal alignment: an empirical examination of its performance implications. Strategic
Management Journal 1990;11(1):5±23. [75] Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V. Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review 1986;11(4):801±14. [76] Hambrick D. High profit
strategies in mature capital goods industries: a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal 1983;26(4):687±707.
[77] Hambrick D. Taxonomic approaches to studying strat- egy: some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of
Management 1984;10(1):27±41. [78] Hambrick D, Lei D. Towards an empirical prioritization of contingency variables for
business strategy. Academy of Management Journal 1985;28(3):763±88. [79] Carmines E, Zeller R. Reliability and validity
assessment.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979. [80] Nunnally J. Psychometric methods. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 1978. [81] Buchko A. Conceptualization and measurement of en- vironmental uncertainty: an assessment of
the miles and snow perceived environmental uncertainty scale. Academy of Management Journal 1994;37(2):410±25. [82]
Vickery S. A theory of production competence revisited.
Decision Sciences 1991;22(3):635±43. [83] Schwab D. Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in
Organizational Behavior 1980;2(1):3±43. [84] Browne M, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. Netherlands: Kluwer Publishing, 1993.
MA Badri et al. / Omega 28 (2000) 155±173 173
[85] Bollen K. Structural equations with latent variables. New
York, NY: John Wiley, 1989. [86] Bollen K, Long J, editors. Testing structural equation
models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1993. [87] Heck R, Larsen T, Marcoulides G. Instructional leader- ship and
school achievement: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly 1990;26:94±125. [88] Marcoulides G,
Heck R. Organizational culture and per- formance: proposing and testing a model. Organization Science 1993;4(2):209±25. [89]
Mooney C, Duval R. Bootstrapping: a nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1993. [90] Asher
H. Causal modeling. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications, 1983. [91] Bentler P, Bonnett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin 1980;88:588±606. [92] Bentler P. EQS: structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP
Statistical Software, 1992. [93] Fine C, Hax A. Manufacturing strategy: a methodology
and an illustration. Interfaces 1985;15(6):28±46. [94] Fitzsimmons J, Kouvelis K, Mallick D. Design strategy and its
interface with manufacturing and marketing: a conceptual framework. Journal of Operations Management 1991;10(3):398±415.
[95] Hayes R, Schmenner R. How should you organize man-
ufacturing? Harvard Business Review 1978;56(1):105±15. [96] Porter M. Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free
Press, 1980. [97] Richardson P, Taylor A, Gordon J. A strategic approach to evaluating manufacturing performance.
Interfaces 1985;15(6):15±27.