Con el Sistema Administrativo de Recursos Humanos

The concept of flexibility has been studied from different perspectives. In the literature an extensive number of definitions have been stated considering diverse elements of flexibility which makes difficult to agree on how to arrive to a common definition which has led an extended fragmented knowledge (Kumar et al. 2006; Tiwari et al. 2015). For example, Das and Elango (1995) defined strategic flexibility as “the ability of an organization to respond to changes in the environment in a timely and appropriate manner with due regard to the competitive forces in the marketplace”. However, certain general principles have been identified from the literature on flexibility.

In the literature of manufacturing flexibility, this capability is mainly related to uniformity, mobility and range, i.e. the capability to shift from performing one product to another, the diverse states that a system is able to adapt, and the capacity to perform acceptable well while producing any good taking into consideration a defined range (Slack, 1983; Upton, 1995). Koste et al. (2004) extended this to ‘range-number’ (extent of possible ‘options’ that a resource or system is able to achieve) and ‘range-heterogeneity’ (the degree of variance between the ‘options’). Additionally, Slack (1983) and Upton (1995) acknowledged that flexibility constitutes a capability that is always present in some degree as it is, in part, a

45

measure of potential behavior; therefore it does not need to be demonstrated in order to exist, and therefore the full capability of being flexible is not reflected automatically in the product that is produced by a plant (or supply chain). The cost and time required to move from one state to another has been discussed as important aspects of the trade-off between flexibility and efficiency (Slack 1983; Carlsson 1989; Duclos et al. 2003; Ebben and Johnson 2005; Ishfaq 2012). Table 2-4 present an overview of the literature regarding the main features of strategic flexibility (Brozovic 2016).

Table 2-4 Features of strategic flexibility Main features (dimensions)

Strategic flexibility as a reactive ability only (includes responsiveness and adaptation to changes in the business environment)

Strategic flexibility as a proactive ability as well

Strategic flexibility as a fast, swift, quick, prompt, timely response Time aspect: short, medium or long term

The choice of an appropriate strategic option Intention

Source: Brozovic (2016)

Lau (1996) provided a definition strategic flexibility as “a firm's ability to respond to uncertainties by adjusting its objectives with the support of its superior knowledge and capabilities”. In a previous work (Lau 1994), the author presented a conceptual framework for attaining strategic flexibility (Figure 2-13). This framework provides a general depiction of organizational flexibility. On this work, Lau (1994) began to acknowledge that the strategic flexibility goes further the manufacturing capabilities of the organization and the importance of the relationship between the manufacturing firms, the suppliers and the customers.

46

Figure 2-13 A Framework for attaining strategic flexibility Source: Lau (1994)

The alignment of manufacturing capabilities, the skills and knowledge of the organization, its suppliers and customers, and organizational transformation, enhanced the attaining of strategic flexibility. Furthermore, this strategic flexibility allows a swift change of manufacturing strategies and competitive priorities, the development of skills and capabilities for future challenges and to face mass customization.

Some authors have focused on the design of the supply chain as an extension of flexibility and strategy at the plant and firm level, e.g. if demand increases, a plant with high levels of flexibility in the volume of production might be able to address the variations of the demand internally, while a plant with low levels of flexibility in the production volume might intensively depend on subcontractors. Likewise, external supply chain’s suppliers and customers can be compared to work centers on the shop floor when adopting dual sourcing policies. Nevertheless, by building on previous theory of manufacturing flexibility, an inward focus prevailed in the definitions (Harrison and Kelley 1993; Vickery et al. 1999; Narasimhan and Das 2000; Olhager 2003; Martínez Sánchez and Pérez Pérez 2005). Prater et al. (2001) described flexibility as “the degree to which the firm is able to adjust the time in which it can ship or receive goods”. The authors identified two elements related to flexibility, i.e. the promptness; and, the capability to adjust the speed, destinations and volumes.

47

After a deep study inside first-class companies, Lee (2004) presented a “triple-A supply chain”. The author analyzed from inside how these companies focused on building supply chains able to distribute products and services to their customer at the possible lower time and cost. When Lee (2004) compared all the cases, he concluded that although efficiency in the supply chain is necessary, it does not ensure that the firms will have an advantage over their competitor. The companies capable to build adaptable, agile and aligned supply chains, those have a real edge to compete. Adaptability is the capability to modify the design of the supply chain in order to meet changes in the market structure, and adjust the network according with the products, technologies and strategies requirements. Agility is the capability to respond smoothly, quickly and cost-efficiently to short-term variations in any node of the supply chain. Alignment is the firm capability to line up its interest with the other partners’ interest by generating incentives so that firms share costs, risks and rewards equitably and increase their performance. Other definitions focus on the robustness of the buyer-supplier relationship. Das and Abdel-Malek (2003) defined SCF in terms of the ‘elasticity’ between the buyer and supplier relationship under a fluctuating environment on the supply. The authors claimed that “a highly flexible relationship is one in which there is little deterioration in the procurement price under different supply conditions”.

SCF components that many authors seem to agree the most is the flexibility at the interior of the firm and between the firms that are involved in an exchange operation. In addition, it is intended to address the uncertainty and risk in the operations and procedures two contexts. Based on these observation, Tiwari et al. (2013, 2015) stated “a supply chain is said to be flexible if it can ensure smooth undisrupted supply of the products from supplier to the end user under all uncertain or risky environments, with the least variation in the difference between the demand and supply at every demand—supply node, and without much penalty or impact on the supply chain resources and the costs incurred”.

Kumar et al. (2006) provided a broad definition for SCF as “the ability of supply chain partners to restructure their operations, align their strategies, and share the responsibility to respond rapidly to customers’ demand at each link of the chain, to produce a variety of products in the quantities, costs, and qualities that customers expect, while still maintaining high performance”. This definition is the one that will serve for the purpose of this research. SCF is defined as the ability of the supply chain to respond, align and compensate accurately to changes in the customer demand, the interruptions in the supply or any other event that occurs in a dynamic and uncertain environment, with little penalty in time, effort, cost or

48

performance. Additionally, the system approach presented by Duclos et al. (2003) is also considered, as the “[flexibility of entire] supply chain is the result of the flexibility components at each node of the supply chain and their interrelationships”. Furthermore, SCF is the capability to produce a quick response to any disruption upstream or downstream along with variations in other environmental constraints e.g. capacity restrictions, exchange rate, and lead-time (Stevenson and Spring 2007).

In addition, SCF has been identified as a predecessor of supply chain agility (SCA) (Christopher 2000; Prater et al. 2001; Pujawan 2004; Swafford et al. 2006, 2008; Gligor and Holcomb 2012; Gligor et al. 2013). SCA is the supply chain ability to survive to constant disturbing, changing and unpredicted occurrences in business’s environment (Swafford et al. 2000). Therefore, it is the permanent readiness of an organization to embrace changes in a proactive or reactive, rapid or inherently fashion through simple, economical and high-quality linkages and components with its environment.

It is the persistent readiness of an organization to reactively or proactively, inherently or rapidly, embrace change, through simplistic, economical elements, high quality, and relationships with its environment (Conboy 2002). In a comprehensive study of SCF conducted by More and Subash Babu (2008), the authors emphasized three main aspects regarding the relation between flexibility and SCA:

• There is a high emphasis on quality, flexibility and speed as instruments to respond to the uniqueness of market- and customers demand (Pujawan 2004).

• _{At a strategic level, the survival of a firm is determined by the quality, flexibility and} speed.

• Flexibility (i.e. the degree to which an organization is capable to regulate the time in which a new or different state can be reached), and speed (i.e. the time needed to adapt a new or different state)

Swafford et al. (2008) analyzed the role of information technology integration and SCF as predecessors of SCA.

During the last decades both concepts, i.e. agility and flexibility, have evolved within overlapping and confusion between the definition, extension and scope. Nevertheless, flexibility as a supply chain capability is embedded in all processes, operations, activities, functions, subsystems, resources, and so on, and should be considered from machine level to strategic level across the supply chain boundaries and within its partners in order to achieve

49

SCF. Therefore, it can be said that agility constitutes a strategic tool that stems from different components such as flexibility, responsiveness, lean and time-based competitions. Agility is an extension of the flexibility concept and might be attained in any system as there is an inherently flexibility to give a quick response to disturbing and uncertain events (Gligor et al. 2013). Moreover, it can be argued that SCF does not indispensably need to be agile in nature, but to have SCA it is necessary to be flexible in nature. On the other hand, although agility is based on flexibility and responsiveness, it is also a component of cost and quality of products and services (Gunasekaran et al. 2008; More and Subash Babu 2008).

In conclusion, SCF has been identified as a key lever or priority strategy to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage by the firms and organizations that require new innovative ways to address the dynamics, uncertainty, and turbulence of business environment (De Meyer et al. 1989; Narain et al. 2000; Stevenson and Spring 2007; More and Subash Babu 2008; Singh and Acharya 2013; Tiwari et al. 2015). Therefore, managing SCF has emerged as a new competitive strategy to provide volume, cost and time-related efficiency whereas responding to the demand of the customers. This might also provide an edge to moderate firm- and supply chain vulnerability in a highly competitive and changing environment.