Gap between production and marketing functions:
a case study
Keywords
Gap analysis,
Performance measurement
Abstract
For any company, measuring its
performance with respect to
customers' expectations is crucial
in selecting suitable strategies
and technologies that it will
employ in producing and
marketing the right product mix.
This certainly holds also for the
company studied here, GEC-
Marconi Aerospace (GECMAe), a
manufacturer of pumping systems,
pneumatic systems, electro-
mechanical actuators and sub-
systems, and fuel handling and
metering equipment for ground
applications and for bulk fuel
distribution. The paper is based on
an actual case study conducted in
GECMAe, and it provides
information on the ``gap'' between
the company's marketing and
production functions. Gap
analysis, proposed by Slack, is the
method used to study the gap
between these functions. A list of
suggestions is provided to help the
company in its efforts to reduce
the gap, and improve its
performance and overall
competitiveness. The study also
provides the reader with an insight
into the company.
Management Decision
40/5 [2002] 428±435
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0025-1747]
[DOI 10.1108/00251740210430407]
[ 428 ]
A. Gunasekaran
Department of Management, University of Massachusetts, North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts, USA
E. Tirtiroglu
Department of Management, University of Massachusetts, North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts, USA
V. Wolstencroft
Gosport, UK
1. Introduction
In the highly competitive business
environment of the new century, it is
becoming increasingly important for
companies to respond both quickly and
effectively to the changing patterns of
customer demand. This requires new and
improved alliances, greater collaboration
and sharing of information, as well as
innovative ways of doing business and new
types of relationships (Griffiths et al., 2001).
Pressures from increased competition, new
technologies and other environmental
changes are forcing companies to seek
greater product differentiation, particularly
in mature and declining markets. For
successful differentiation, companies must
see things ``from a customer's point of view;''
after all ``customers are human beings rather
than statistics with individual needs'' (Slack
et al., 1998). The businesses of the twenty-first
century will have to overcome the challenges
of demanding customers who will seek high-
quality, low-cost products that are relevant to
their specific and rapidly changing needs
(Bunce and Gould, 1996). The time during
which many companies competed based
primarily on price tag has gone. Now is the
time for companies to compete in the global
marketplace, and ``push the envelope'' in
delivery-response, product quality, and
overall excellence in customer service and
customer satisfaction. Businesses are
restructuring and re-engineering themselves
in response to such challenges and demands
of the twenty-first century.
To address precursory challenges of a
similar nature, manufacturing has
undergone many evolutionary stages and
paradigm shifts over the last century.
Mainly, these have been the paradigm shifts
in going from a craft industry to mass
production, then to lean manufacturing, and
finally, to agile manufacturing (Esmail and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
Saggu, 1996; Goldman et al., 1995; Gould, 1997;
Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones,
1996). Most of these changes have been aimed
at reducing the gap between the production
and marketing functions, i.e. formulating
operational policies and activities to match
the requirements of customers or markets.
Gap analysis concept has widely been used
to identify the gap or discrepancy between
different variables, functions and/or planned
goals. For instance, Rho et al. (2001) conducted
a gap analysis to indicate the inconsistency
between manufacturing strategy and
implementation practices in discriminating
the superior from the inferior performance
groups. For the data sets from the USA and
Korea, the gap variables of flexibility, quality
and/or cost show a more significant
contribution in discriminating business
performance groups. Kim and Lee (1993)
discuss the gap between manufacturing
strategy and production systems, while
Evans and Berman (2001) present strategies
and techniques for reducing the gap between
conceptualizing and operationalizing the
business-to-business value chain. Wu and
Ellis (2000) address the link between strategic
manufacturing initiatives and the
requirements of the manufacturing
information system, and propose a
structured approach to help a company
identify the key requirements that are
needed to effectively support the company's
future strategic aims in manufacturing.
Gunasekaran et al. (2001), on the other hand,
highlight the importance of measuring
performance in a supply chain environment
and encourage starting with analyzing the
gap between marketing and production in
the spirit of the methodology developed by
Slack (1991), namely gap analysis. Gap
analysis may help formulate both short-term
changes with the objective of improving
organizational competitiveness, and also
reveal what an organization could do to
perform at an ongoing superior level
(Bigwood, 1997).
This study has the purpose of empirically
studying the gap between marketing and
A. Gunasekaran, production functions at GEC-Marconi
E. Tirtiroglu and Aerospace (GECMAe), with the objective of
V. Wolstencroft
Gap between production and determining both short-term and long-term
marketing functions: changes, strategies and technologies for
a case study improvement. Achieving the goal of a
Management Decision
40/5 [2002] 428±435
reduced gap in real business practice
requires the concurrent planning of the
marketing and manufacturing activities, and
a concurrent (not sequential) product design
process. The objective is to design a product
which meets the needs of a market segment
simultaneously with the manufacturing
process to produce it (and quickly, too).
Unfortunately, simple though that this may
sound, it runs counter to the way in which
companies have evolved for most of this
century. The byword has been
fragmentation: the company has been
fragmented along functional lines; the most
serious fissures are those which have opened
up between marketing and manufacturing
(including design). An attempt has been
made in this paper to apply gap analysis to
identify the gap between production and
marketing functions, and offer solutions to
reduce it.
2. Research methodology
The methodology used in this research is a
case study. Data for the case study have been
collected through personal (open-ended)
interviews with the appropriate personnel
within GECMAe, the company studied. The
purpose is, first, to investigate the current
manufacturing situation at GECMAe and
then to identify, using the ``gap analysis''
technique (Slack, 1991), any possible
mismatch and incongruities between
marketing and production:
Put simply, gap methodology means first
developing a specific idea of what is required
of the manufacturing function in order for it
to compete effectively. Second, it means
assessing the actual achieved performance of
the manufacturing function. Third, the gap
between what is required and what is being
achieved drives priorities for performance
improvement. And fourth, the performance
priorities govern choice and implementation
of long-term and short-term improvement
plans (Slack, 1991).
The first part of the study was carried out
relying on the participation and the input of
the employees within the marketing
department, and the second stage was
conducted with the aid of the engineers (and
related support staff) in the production
department. It is hoped and expected that the
study will help the reader gain an insight
into the possible dissimilarities between
marketing and production in a real
manufacturing company.
3. Case study ± GEC-MARCONI
Aerospace, Ltd (UK)
In this section, the case study conducted at
GECMAe is presented, following a
background on the company. Slack's gap
methodology is used in the paper to identify
the gap between the marketing and
production functions at GECMAe.
Gunasekaran et al. (2002) present a
methodology for measuring the discrepancy
between the current agility level and the
required agility level in order for GACMAe
to continue to compete successfully in a
global market. Taking a different direction
and using a different approach (Slack's gap
methodology), the present paper focuses on
identifying the gap between the marketing
and production functions at GECMAe, and
then makes suggestions for reducing the
mismatch between these functions. In this
process, the performance of the company is
identified in various areas of business, such
as response time to customer enquiries and
adherence to the manufacturing schedule.
These performance measures help to
understand the gap between marketing and
production functions, and justify the
corresponding changes suggested/required
to improve overall organizational
competitiveness.
3.1 GEC-Marconi Aerospace, Ltd
GEC-Marconi Aerospace (formerly Marconi
Aerospace) is a part of the multi-national
group General Electric Company, plc, of the
UK. (Marconi Aerospace was previously
owned by the Plessey group before a take-over
bid in 1989 by the multi-national company
GEC.) At its Titchfield branch, on the South
coast of England, GECMAe employs about 700
people, and has an annual turnover in excess
of £80 million. GECMAe supplies products to
most of the major original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) active in the
aerospace and defence sectors, and to all main
airlines in the world. The overall GEC Head
Office, overseeing all the divisions, is based in
London, and GEC has a group annual
turnover of over £9.4 billion (around US$15
billion), spread across many high technology
areas (Gunasekaran et al., 2002).
GECMAe is an international market leader
in the design and production of a wide range
of critical systems needed to maximise the
performance, integrity and safety of current
and next generation aircraft and air/land
systems. The product range includes a wide
[ 429 ]
A. Gunasekaran, and innovative variety of equipment for
E. Tirtiroglu and pneumatic systems, electro-mechanical
V. Wolstencroft actuators and sub-systems, electrical and
Gap between production and
marketing functions: ground power systems, pumping systems,
a case study and fuel handling and metering equipment
Management Decision for ground applications, including bulk fuel
40/5 [2002] 428±435
distribution. The company is a specialist in
the design, development and production of
high quality components and systems for
applications in civil and defence markets,
including products used in military fighting
vehicles and weapon systems.
GECMAe has extensive site facilities for
the design, development, manufacture,
testing and support of its products, with
specialist departments for key activities in:
. high technology;
. heat treatment;
. metal finishing;
. repair and overhaul; and
. testing.
3.2 An overview of the present
manufacturing system
At GECMAe, manufacturing comprises the
following areas:
. high-speed machining cell;
. prismatic cell;
. cylindrical cell; and
. grinding.
Up-to-date high-speed machining centres
provide unattended running with improved
quality levels while reducing process times
by up to 60 per cent.
GECMAe is committed to maintaining its
lead as a major supplier of safety-critical
systems to a global market, recognising that
customers need high quality and cost-
effective solutions and/or products with
reliable lead times. A review of the product
life cycles revealed that some of the GECMAe
products are within the mature stage and on
the order books for the next ten years!
GECMAe, however, does not rely on the
safety and security of these orders and
remain stagnant; new products are being
developed, especially for the new Joint-Strike
Fighter (JSF) aeroplane project. The
company formulates business strategies and
functional strategies. However, what is
lacking is a systemic approach that takes into
account what GECMAe should have and/or
do, system-wide, in order to continue to
compete in a global market (Gunasekaran et
al., 2002).
Concurrent engineering and electronic
data interchange
GECMAe uses process layout on the
shopfloor. It has an integrated suite of CAE
tools to enable tasks, such as design analysis,
CNC planning and measurement, and rapid
[ 430 ]
prototyping, to be carried out concurrently
from the same 3D model. Networking allows
this information to be stored not only across
the business but also with customers and
partners worldwide. It is claimed (GEC
marketing brochure) that the benefits in
improved quality, reliability and time-to-
manufacture are well proven.
Internal excellence by investment and
external review
At present, GECMAe takes full advantage of
the knowledge and experience available
within the GEC group of companies in
addition to investing extensively in the
skills of its people. Project plans are
regularly reviewed by external specialists,
starting before bid submission and
continuing throughout the life of the
product (Gunasekaran et al., 2002). It is also
claimed (GEC marketing brochure) that the
lifecycle management process helps to
provide customers with defect-free products
on time and within budget. Furthermore, as
mentioned earlier, major investment in the
latest high-speed machining centres
provides unattended running and improved
quality, while reducing process times by up
to 60 per cent such that some of the more
complex products can now be machined in
``one hit''.
In the following parts of this paper, an
attempt is made to demonstrate the
application of gap methodology to study the
inconsistencies between marketing and
manufacturing in a real-life company, with
accompanying short- and long-term solutions
suggested to overcome the gap.
3.3 Gap analysis
In gap analysis, it is important to understand
what the customer perceives as being the:
``order-winning, qualifying, and less-
important'' objectives. The criteria for the
importance of each competitive performance
objective are presented in Tables I and II.
The results of the gap methodology,
executed with key members from the
marketing department and the production
department of GECMAe are presented in the
following section.
Gap analysis results
It is evident that GECMAe has discrepancies
between the marketing and production
functions in the following categories:
. enquiry lead-time;
. manufacturing lead-time;
. delivery reliability;
. design flexibility; and
. delivery flexibility.
A. Gunasekaran,
E. Tirtiroglu and
V. Wolstencroft
Gap between production and
marketing functions:
a case study
Management Decision
40/5 [2002] 428±435
Table I
Nine-point importance scale for marketing
No. Marketing
Order winning objectives
1 Provide a crucial advantage with customers ± the main thrust of competitiveness
2 Provide an important advantage with most customers ± it is always considered
3 Provide a useful advantage with most customers ± it is usually considered
Qualifying objectives
4 Need to be at least up to good industry standard
5 Need to be around the median industry standard
6 Need to be within close range of the rest of the industry
Less important objectives
7 Not usually rate as important to customers but could become more important in the future
8 Very rarely rate as being important to customers
9 Never come into consideration by customers or are ever likely to do so

Table II improve the enquiry lead-time. The picture is

Nine-point performance scale for production just as bleak for the prime spare side of the
business as for the new build side.
No. Production It is clear that there is a definite problem
1 Consistently considerably better than our nearest competitor with respect to responding on time to
2 Consistently clearly better than our nearest competitor customer enquiries, which will become more
3 Consistently marginally better than our nearest competitor evident when the reader looks ahead to the
4 Often marginally better than most competitors section on customer complaints that
5 About the same as most competitors highlights the severity of the situation.
6 Often close to the main competitors
7 Usually marginally worse than main competitors Adherence to manufacturing schedule
8 Usually worse than most competitors The next item of importance is adherence to
9 Consistently worse than most competitors the manufacturing lead-time. In this
context, for GECMAe, ``early'' is defined as
``completed more than five days prior'' to
These discrepancies are supported by the the scheduled date. ``On time'' is defined as
data as summarized and reported in ``completed between five days prior to and
Tables III and IV. five days after'' the scheduled date. ``Late''
The information in the tables reflects the is defined as ``completed more than five
gap between marketing and production at days after'' the scheduled date. GECMAe's
GECMAe. The performance of the production performance in adherence to
department is discussed in the following manufacturing schedule is presented in
sections. Figure 3. These results show the final
Response time to customer enquiries operations completed on time, and go a long
The target for GECMAe response times is 30 way towards understanding delivery
days. The response time to customer reliability which is obviously poor (see
enquiries for new build and prime spares are Figure 4).
depicted, respectively, in Figures 1 and 2. Customer complaints
One can see that there is an obvious need to The following list shows the top seven
customer complaint areas over years
Table III 1993-1999:
The results of gap analysis ± marketing 1 (A) Turn around time/late delivery.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 (B) Error documentation.
3 (C) Price.
Price X 4 (D) Responsiveness.
Quality of product X 5 (E) Packaging.
Quality of engineering X 6 (F) Quality.
Enquiry lead-time X 7 (G) Warranty.
Manufacturing lead-time X
Delivery relaibility X The frequency of these customer complaints
Design reliability X (1993-1999) is presented in Figure 4.
Delivery flexibility X One can see immediately that ``turn around
Volume flexibility X time/late delivery'' is the most notable area
of complaint from the customers, reinforcing
[ 431 ]
A. Gunasekaran,
E. Tirtiroglu and
V. Wolstencroft
Gap between production and
marketing functions:
a case study
Management Decision
40/5 [2002] 428±435
Table IV
The results of gap analysis ± production
1 2
Cost
Quality of product X
Quality of engineering
Enquiry lead-time
Manufacturing lead-time
Delivery reliability
Design reliability
Delivery flexibility
Volume flexibility
similar observations that can be made from
Tables III and IV. However, it is interesting
that there are not many complaints with
regard to price (see Figure 4), possibly
because of the quality of products and brand
loyalty of GECMAe customers. But this is not
to say that price is not a major factor
when it comes to winning bids, as seen in
Figure 5.
Reasons for bid loss
The reasons for bid loss are the price,
delivery performance (time scale) and
technical matters. Figure 5 suggests that cost
reduction (for lower prices) plays a
predominant role in securing orders. Cost
reduction, however, goes together with
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 would make sense for the majority of
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
making improvements in technical and
delivery performance areas.
For example, reducing throughput time
will lead to a decrease in price and, hence,
improve competitiveness. However, the
reduction in throughput time can be
achieved with new manufacturing concepts
and technologies such as lean production,
JIT, CIM and BPR, and e-commerce, EDI
and ERP.
4. Recommendations for reducing
the gap and implementation
The following are the suggestions for
reducing the gap between marketing and
production functions at GECMAe. The
implementation experiences of those
suggestions are also discussed in this section:
. Implementation of cellular manufacturing
GECMAe products (those that are already
well established and in their maturity
stage of the product life cycle).
Considering the maturity stage of the
product life cycle, the strategic
requirement at this stage is to reduce unit
production costs in order to remain
competitive. Cellular manufacturing will
not only reduce the unit costs, but it will
also reduce the throughput time; hence,

Figure 1
Response time to customer enquiries ± new build (GECMAe)

Figure 2
Response time to customer enquiries ± prime spares (GECMAe)

[ 432 ]
A. Gunasekaran,
E. Tirtiroglu and
V. Wolstencroft
Gap between production and
marketing functions:
a case study
Management Decision . It should be noted that group technology
40/5 [2002] 428±435
the work-in-process (WIP) as well.
GECMAe can also dramatically improve
its volume, without sacrificing variety, by
going from process layout to cellular
layout.
has somewhat lesser product flexibility
than process layout, but this does not
affect the products that are already well
established. The process layout could still
be kept, dedicated to the new products
that require more flexibility, and hence
facilitate agility in the area of newbuild
production. The company rearranged the
machines in order to have a dedicated
production line for each family of parts
and products. The layout has been
U-shaped in order to support the
teamwork for improved productivity. In
the beginning, there has been resistance
on the shopfloor to the changes, as people
feared downsizing to ensue. Regular
workshops and meetings have been
organized to make sure there is no
misunderstanding about the change in the
layout and the implementation of

Figure 3
Adherence to manufacturing schedule (GECMAe)

Figure 4
Customer compalints (GECMAe)

Figure 5
Reasons for bid loss (GECMAe)

[ 433 ]
A. Gunasekaran,
E. Tirtiroglu and
V. Wolstencroft
Gap between production and
marketing functions:
a case study
Management Decision
40/5 [2002] 428±435
. Kanbans can smooth out the flow of work
. Another interesting observation from the
. The data collected from the gap analysis
. Application of BPR to identify and
. Establish an alternative to performance-
. Develop cross-functional teams to
[ 434 ]
manufacturing cells. Also, training has
been provided to the implementation team
in order for the team members to develop
an understanding of the new grouping of
parts and machines with the objective of
having production lines for each family of
products and parts. Various performance
measures, such as manufacturing cycle
time and inventory level (including
defective rates), have been introduced/
monitored or given emphasis.
at GECMAe (Slack et al., 1995). The
kanban system would work very well with
cellular manufacturing, as it is more
suited to higher volume production
(Schonberger, 1982).
case study is that, even with late
deliveries, high prices, and slow response
to changes in the market, customers still
come to GECMAe. This suggests that the
key factors of importance to the customer
consist of other attributes, such as
reliability and durability (since one is
dealing with aeroplanes). Perhaps the
customers are dealing with GECMAe
purely because of the prestige of the
company. Improvements must be made
now in order to maintain this competitive
advantage. Otherwise, with competition
becoming increasingly intense, if the
company rests on its laurels it will be
marginalised.
have led to the conclusion that cost is a
key parameter for both production (the
company) and, more importantly, the
customer. Since cost is the primary issue,
then one should be in the mode of
``thinking lean.'' To reduce costs, along
with cellular manufacturing, adoption of
other valuable concepts and technologies,
such as the following, should also be
considered: BPR, JIT, CE, DfM,
CAD/CAM, modularization/
standardization, rapid prototyping, and
QFD (Gunasekaran et al., 2002).
eliminate hand-offs/non-value-adding
activities to save money at GECMAe
(Hammer, 1990; Hammer and Champy,
1993; Hammer and Stanton, 1995).
related pay that will keep employees
motivated and encourage teamwork at
GECMAe.
eliminate dissimilarities between
marketing and production.
GECMAe has implemented some of the above
suggestions, except that some of them have
been partially implemented. The major
challenges during the course of various
change processes in GECMAe are:
. top management support with financial
and technical aspects;
. identifying the areas for improvement
with change processes;
. establishment of core implementation
team; and
. education and training on the new
methods of manufacturing and
technologies including BPR,
manufacturing cells, and kanban.
GECMAe has invested in two major areas:
1 people; and
2 information technology.
Education and training have become crucial
for making employees participate in the
change process. IT, such as CAD/CAM, the
Internet and WWW have helped to develop
teamwork for implementing the above
(recommended) changes. Performance
measures and metrics have been developed to
encourage reward for contribution to the
change process and obtain co-operation.
These two areas are essential for any change
process. Furthermore, GECMAe has invested
in developing suppliers.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, an attempt has been made to
study the gap between marketing and
production in the context of a case study from
the real world of business. The case study,
conducted at GECMAe, an aerospace
company, was used to add a real industrial
perspective; thus, it provided a basis for
assessing and discussing the implementation
of gap analysis. It also highlighted some
important problems currently arising within
GACMAe, especially with regard to
improving manufacturing performance.
The main contribution of the paper lies in
how a simple methodology such as ``gap
analysis'' can be used to identify the
inconsistency between marketing and
production. This methodology has been
applied to a large-scale company, and the
lessons learned from the case study would be
useful to other companies.
GECMAe has always been successful in
implementing the right technologies and
concepts at the right time. There are,
however, many changes that are currently
taking place at GECMAe, as well. The
``change team'' has been set up to investigate
current manufacturing problems. Much
A. Gunasekaran,
E. Tirtiroglu and
V. Wolstencroft
Gap between production and
marketing functions:
a case study
Management Decision
40/5 [2002] 428±435
The authors are grateful to
Professor John Peters and
two anonymous referees for
their constructive
comments on the earlier
version of the manuscript
that helped to improve the
presentation of the paper
considerably. Also, the
authors are most grateful to
Mr Chris West (Managing
Director), and to the
employees of GECMAe for
their support in this
research project.
work has been carried out to improve the
training and education of employees, and the
pilot introduction of kanbans and cellular
manufacturing has been most successful.
Changes are being made in light of the
overall business perspective and the market.
GECMAe has the right philosophy, in that,
there is no point buying the latest technology
if re-engineering or efficiency improvements
can achieve the same desired end result. BPR
is a powerful concept that has proved to
produce some impressive increases in
productivity. At GECMAe, not many
employees have heard of BPR; however,
unaware of it and inadvertently, they use
many BPR ideas, improving business
processes and reducing the numbers of hand-
offs in the spirit of best practice more than
anything else.
References
Bigwood, M.P. (1997), ``Total quality management
at work: development of an effective
competitive analysis process'', Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 26, pp. 459-66.
Bunce, P. and Gould, P. (1996), ``From lean to agile
manufacturing'', IEE Colloquium (Digest),
No. 278, pp. 3/1-3/5, IEE, Stevenage.
Esmail, K. and Saggu, J. (1996), ``A changing
paradigm'', Manufacturing Engineer,
pp. 285-8.
Evans, J.R. and Berman, B. (2001),
``Conceptualizing and operationalizing the
business-to-business value chain'', Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 30, pp. 135-48.
Goldman, S., Nagel, R. and Preiss, K. (1995), Agile
Competitors and Virtual Organisations, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Gould, P. (1997), ``What is agility'', Manufacturing
Engineer, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 28-31.
Griffiths, J., Elson, B. and Amos, D. (2001), ``A
customer-supplier interaction model to
improve customer focus in turbulent
markets'', Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E.
(2001), ``Performance measures and metrics in
a supply chain environment'', International
Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 71-87.
Gunasekaran, A., Tirtiroglu, E. and
Wolstenscroft, V. (2002), ``An investigation
into the application of agile manufacturing in
an aerospace company'', Technovation,
forthcoming.
Hammer, M. (1990), ``Reengineering work: don't
automate, obliterate'', Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, July/August, pp. 104-12.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering
the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Resolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1995), The
Reengineering Revolution, Harper Collins,
New York, NY.
Kim, Y. and Lee, J. (1993), ``Manufacturing
strategy and production systems: an
integrated framework'', Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Moon, M.A., Mentzer, J.T. and Thomas, D.E. Jr
(2000), ``Customer demand planning at Lucent
Technologies'', Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 19-26.
Rho, B.-H., Park, K. and Yu, Y.-M. (2001), ``An
international comparison of the effect of
manufacturing strategy-implementation gap
on business performance'', International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 70,
pp. 89-97.
Schonberger, R.J. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing
Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in
Simplicity, Free Press, New York, NY.
Slack, N. (1991), The Manufacturing Advantage,
Management Books 2000, London.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A.
and Johnston, R. (1998), Operations
Management, 2nd ed., Pitman Publishing,
London.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean
Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
Your Corporation, Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The
Machine That Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.
Wu, B. and Ellis, R. (2000), ``Manufacturing
strategy analysis and manufacturing
information system design: process and
application'', International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 65, pp. 55-72.
[ 435 ]