Effects of Agile Manufacturing Approach On Business Performance – Analysis of Automotive Industry

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 262 - 292, 30.04.2022

Serhat Akpinarlı , Sinan Apak

https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.1079988

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to examine the effects of agility abilities on business performance. Relational screening model was adopted in the study. The sample of the study consists of 364 managers selected by purposive sampling method from enterprises in the automotive sector. The questionnaire form used to collect data in the research consists of ԁеmοgrаphic questions, Agile Manufacturing Capabilities Scale and Business Performance Scale. SPSS v26 and AMOS v20 software were used to analyze the data. Within the scope of the study, validity analysis, reliability analysis, descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis and Structural Equation Modeling were performed. Analyzes showed that agility abilities had a positive effect on business performance. When the effects of agility abilities dimensions were examined, it was determined that responsiveness, competence and speed had positive and significant effects on business performance, while flexibility had no significant effect. As a result, it is evaluated that agility ability has a great effect on business performance and speed is the most important component in this relationship, but other factors that make up agility should not be ignored, and it is important for businesses to acquire and maintain agility

Anahtar Kelimeler

Agile Manufacturing, Business Performance, Automotive Industry

ÇEVİK ÜRETİM YAKLAŞIMININ İŞLETME PERFORMANSINA ETKİLERİ – OTOMOTİV SEKTÖRÜ ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada çeviklik yeteneklerinin işletme performansı üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada ilişkisel tarama modeli benimsenmiştir. Çalışmanın örneklemini, otomotiv sektöründeki işletmelerden amaçlı örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen 364 yönetici oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplamak maksadıyla kullanılan ankеt fοrmunda ԁеmοgrаfіk ѕοruӏаr, Çevik Üretim Yetenekleri Öӏçеğі ve İşletme Performansı Öӏçеğі ƅuӏunmаktаԁır. Verilerin analizinde SPSS v26 ve AMOS v20 yazılımları kullanılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında geçerlilik analizi, güvenilirlik analizi, tanımlayıcı istatistiksel analizler, korelasyon analizi ve Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda çeviklik yeteneğinin işletme performansı üzerinde olumlu etkisinin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çeviklik yetenekleri boyutlarının etkileri incelendiğinde ise işletme performansı üzerinde cevap verme, yetkinlik ve hızın olumlu yönde ve anlamlı etkilerinin olduğu, esnekliğin ise anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, çeviklik yeteneğinin işletme performansı üzerinde çok büyük etkisinin olduğu ve hızın bu ilişkideki en önemli bileşen olduğu, ancak çevikliği oluşturan diğer faktörlerin de göz ardı edilmemesi gerektiği ve işletmelerin çevik nitelik kazanarak bunu sürdürmesinin önem arz ettiği değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevik Üretim, İşletme Performansı, Otomotiv Sektörü

Kaynakça

• Abdalkrim, G. M. (2013). The impact of strategic planning activities on private sector organizations performance in Sudan: An empirical research. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(10), 134-155.
• Abdallah, A. B., Obeidat, B. Y. & Aqqad, N. O. (2014). The impact of supply chain management practices on supply chain performance in Jordan: The moderating effect of competitive intensity. International Business Research, 7(3), 13-27.
• Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. & Tiwari, M. K. (2007). Modeling agility of supply chain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(4), 443-457.
• Akman, G. & Keskin Aydın, G. (2012). İmalat firmalarında çevik üretimin algılanma seviyesinin değerlendirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28, 53-66.
• Ashrafi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T. R. & Magnan, G. (2018). How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: a theoretical review of their relationships. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 25(8), 671–681.
• Bagozzi R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-79.
• Barrett, H. & Weinstein, A. (1998). The effect of market orientation and organizational flexibility on corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 57-70.
• Castro, H., Putnik, G. D. & Shah, V. (2012). A review of agile and lean manufacturing as ıssues in selected ınternational and national research and development programs and roadmaps. Learning Organization, 19(3), 267-289.
• Ceylan, C. (2001). Örgütler için esneklik performans modeli oluşturulması ve örgütlerin esneklik analizi, (Tez No. 104247) [Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi].
• Christopher, M. & Towill, D. R. (2000). Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and customised. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(4), 206-213.
• Curristine, T. (2005). Government performance: Lessons and challenges. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(1), 127-151.
• Çalışkan, A. (2012). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 41-68.
• Dubey, R. & Gunasekaran, A. (2015). Agile manufacturing: framework and its empirical validation. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 76(9-12), 2147-2157.
• Ergün, E. (2003). İşletmelerdeki kültürel özelliklerin örgüt performansı üzerine etkisi ve bir uygulama (Tez No. 137326) [Doktora Tezi, Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü].
• Eshlaghy, A. T., Mashayekhi, A. N., Rajabzadeh, A. & Razavian, M. M. (2010). Applying path analysis method in defining effective factors in organisation agility. International Journal of Production Research, 48(6), 1765-1786.
• Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Gerekan, B. & Bulut, E. (2018). Sürdürülebilir sosyal sorumlulukta üç boyutlu raporlama: Türkiye’de sürdürülebilirlik raporu yayınlayan bankalar üzerine bir araştırma. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 2018(1), 80-88.
• Giachetti, R. E., Martinez, L. D., Sáenz, O. A. & Chen, C. S. (2003). Analysis of the structural measures of flexibility and agility using a measurement theoretical framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 86(1), 47-62.
• Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A framework for research and development. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 87-105.
• Gürbüz, S. & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
• Hallgren, M. & Olhager, J. (2009). Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and performance outcomes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(10), 976-999.
• Hoştut, S. (2014). İtibarlı şirketlerin sosyal performans uygulamaları. 3. Uluslararası İtibar Yönetimi Konferansı, İstanbul, 13-14.
• Inman, R. A., Sale, R. S., Green Jr, K. W. & Whitten, D. (2011). Agile manufacturing: Relation to JIT, operational performance and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 343-355.
• Jacobs, M., Droge, C., Vickery, S. K. & Calantone, R. (2011). Product and process modularity's effects on manufacturing agility and firm growth performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 123-137.
• Kalaycı, Ş. (2016). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (7. Baskı). Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
• Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler (32. Baskı). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Kartal, M. & Bardakçı, S. (2018). SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı örneklerle güvenirlik ve geçerlik analizleri. Akademisyen Yayınevi.
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
• Koplin, J., Seuring, S. & Mesterharm, M. (2007). Incorporating sustainability into supply management in the automotive industry–The case of the Volkswagen AG. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11-12), 1053-1062.
• Kumar, R., Singh, K. & Jain, S.K. (2019). An evaluation of agile manufacturing initiatives in the Indian manufacturing industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 37(1), 156-187.
• Leite, M. (2016). Agile manufacturing practices for new product development: Industrial case studies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(4), 560-576.
• Leite, M. & Braz, V. (2016). Agile manufacturing practices for new product development: industrial case studies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(4), 560-576.
• Li, X., Chung, C., Goldsby, T. J. & Holsapple, C. W. (2008). A unified model of supply chain agility: The work-design perspective. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19(3), 408-435.
• Lin, C. T., Chiu, H. & Tseng, Y. H. (2006). Agility evaluation using fuzzy logic. International Journal of Production Economics, 101(2), 353-368.
• Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Milne, M. J. & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29.
• Mukhibad, H. & Khafid, M. (2018). Financial performance determinant of Islamic banking in Indonesia. Jurnal Keuangan dan Perbankan, 22(3), 506-517.
• Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. & Kim, S. W. (2006). Disentangling leanness and agility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5), 440-457.
• Oloruntoba, R. & Kovács, G. (2015). A commentary on agility in humanitarian aid supply chains. Supply Chain Management, 20(6), 708-716.
• OSD (2022). Otomotiv sanayii genel ve istatistik bülteni. Otomotiv Sanayii Derneği. https://www.osd.org.tr/saved-files/PDF/2022/04/19/KATALOG%202022.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.04.2022.
• Özguner, M. (2021). Çevik üretimin işletme performansına etkisinde inovasyonun aracı rolü. Oltu Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 82-100.
• Parlakkaya, R., Akmeşe, H. & Akmeşe, K. (2016). Türk bankacılık sektöründe kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk raporlaması farkındalık düzeyi. World of Accounting Science, 18, 881-896.
• Ren, J., Yusuf, Y. Y. & Burns, N. D. (2009). A decision-support framework for agile enterprise partnering. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 41(1–2), 180–192.
• Sanchez, A. M., Perez-Perez, M. & Vicente-Oliva, S. (2019). Agile production, innovation and technological cooperation: Overlapping priorities of manufacturing firms. Baltik Journal Management, 14(4), 597-615.
• Sangari, M. S., Razmi, J. & Zolfaghari, S. (2015). Developing a practical evaluation framework for identifying critical factors to achieve supply chain agility. Measurement, 62(1), 205-214.
• Schutz, R. W. & Gessaroli, M. E. (1993). Use, misuse and abuse of psychometrics in sport psychology research. Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology, 901-917.
• Shahin, A. & Jaberi, R. (2011). Designing an integrative model of leagile production and analyzing its influence on the quality of auto parts based on Six Sigma approach with a case study in a manufacturing company. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(3), 215-240.
• Sharifi, H. & Zhang, Z. (1999). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An introduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 7-22.
• Sharifi, H. & Zhang, Z. (2001). Agile manufacturing in practice-application of a methodology. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(5-6), 772-794.
• Snow, C. C. & Hrebiniak, L. G. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 317-336.
• Suttipun, M. (2012). Triple bottom line reporting in annual reports: A case study of companies listed on the stock exchange of Thailand (SET). Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 69-92.
• Şendurur, U. & Karacaer, S. (2017). Üçlü sorumluluk raporlaması: BIST 100 endeksi üzerinde bir araştırma. Ulakbilge Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(12), 897-930.
• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
• Uğurlu, Ö. Y., Çolakoğlu, E. & Öztosun, E. (2019). Stratejik çevikliğin firma performansına etkisi: Üretim işletmelerinde bir araştırma. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 6(1), 93-106.
• Vachon, S. & Klassen, R. D. (2008). Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 299-315.
• Vázquez-Bustelo, D., Avella, L. & Fernández, E. (2007). Agility drivers, enablers and outcomes: Empirical test of an integrated agile manufacturing model. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(12), 1303-1332.
• Yousuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M. & Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and attributes. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 33-43.
• Zhang, Z. & Sharifi, H. (2007). Towards theory building in agile manufacturing strategy—A taxonomical approach. IEEE
• Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(2), 351-370.
• Žıtkıenė, R. & Deksnys, M. (2018). Organizational agility conceptual model. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14(2), 115-129.