Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2012, Article ID 731092, 23 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/731092

Research Article
Statistical Analyses and Modeling of
the Implementation of Agile Manufacturing
Tactics in Industrial Firms

Mohammad D. AL-Tahat1 and Khaled M. Bataineh2

1
Industrial Engineering Department, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan

Correspondence should be addressed to Mohammad D. AL-Tahat, altahat@ju.edu.jo

Received 5 January 2012; Revised 22 April 2012; Accepted 4 June 2012

Academic Editor: Sri Sridharan

Copyright q 2012 M. D. AL-Tahat and K. M. Bataineh. This is an open access article distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This paper provides a review and introduction on agile manufacturing. Tactics of agile
manufacturing are mapped into different production areas eight-construct latent: manufacturing
equipment and technology, processes technology and know-how, quality and productivity
improvement, production planning and control, shop floor management, product design and
development, supplier relationship management, and customer relationship management. The
implementation level of agile manufacturing tactics is investigated in each area. A structural
equation model is proposed. Hypotheses are formulated. Feedback from 456 firms is collected
using five-point-Likert-scale questionnaire. Statistical analysis is carried out using IBM SPSS and
AMOS. Multicollinearity, content validity, consistency, construct validity, ANOVA analysis, and
relationships between agile components are tested. The results of this study prove that the agile
manufacturing tactics have positive effect on the overall agility level. This conclusion can be used
by manufacturing firms to manage challenges when trying to be agile.

1. Introduction
Agile manufacturing AM is described as new tactics of manufacturing. It emerged after lean
production LP. It represents pattern shifts from mass production MP. It originated from
the 21st century manufacturing enterprise study that was conducted at Lehigh University in
the early 1990s 1. Following that, a book entitled “Agile Companies and Virtual Enterprise”
recognized as the state-of-the-art work on AM was published in 1995.
According to Groover 1 “agile manufacturing can be defined as: 1 an enterprise
level manufacturing strategy of introducing new products into rapidly changing markets, 2
an organizational ability to thrive in a competitive environment characterized by continuous
and sometimes unforeseen change”. Pham et al. 2 defined agile manufacturing as the ability
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

to thrive in a competitive environment of continuous unpredictable change and respond

quickly to rapidly changing market driven by customer-based value of products and services.
The international CAM-I 3 addressed the capabilities of an enterprise to reconfigure
itself quickly in response to sudden changes, but in ways that are cost effective, timely, robust,
and of a broad scope. Agility theory seeks to provide matrices for business processes, physical
operations, and human resources to respond to rapid and unpredictable changes.
Agile companies tend to reveal the following agile principles: 1 rapid configuration
of resources to meet dynamic change of market opportunities; 2 managerial personnel
needs and knowledge should be distributed to all level of enterprise on trust base; 3
building business relationships to effectively enhance competitiveness; 4 considerable
attention on innovation and entrepreneurship should be highly considered; 5 considerable
attention on the value of solutions to customers’ problems rather than on the product cost
and price.
Important aspects and tactics of AM are mapped into different production areas as
shown in Table 1. The main focus of this study is to investigate and measure an agility index
that represents the overall implementation of AM tactics in Jordanian industrial firms. After a
Structural Equation Model SME is proposed, related hypotheses are formulated. Necessary
statistical analysis is carried out using the proper tools. Finally, results are presented and
discussed.

2. Comparison of Agile Manufacturing and Lean Production

LP and AM are complement to each other and should not be viewed as competitive. They are
mutually supportive. On the other hand, LP and AM use different statements of principles.
The emphasis in LP seems to be more on technical and operational issues, while emphasis
in AM is on enterprise and people issues. AM is broader in scope and more applicable to
the enterprise level. On the other hand, LP tries to smooth out the production schedule and
reduce batch sizes 1, 4.
AM uses flexible production technology to minimize disruptions due to design
changes. By contrast, the philosophy behind AM is to embrace unpredictable changes. The
capacity of an agile company to adapt to changes depends on its capabilities to minimize the
time and the cost of setup and changeover, to reduce inventories of finished products, and
to avoid other forms of waste. Table 2 summarizes some differences between LP and AM in
many different business dimensions 1, 2. The products are customized in both AM and LP.
AM and LP want to have continuous relationships with their customers. Agile principles
focus on the enhancement of enterprise’s ability to respond quickly to rapidly changing
market driven by customer-based value of products and services. On the other hand, lean
principles focus on the elimination of sources of different types of waste. Agile enterprise can
be described as lean, while the reverse is not necessary true.

3. Constructed Latent of Agile Manufacturing System

The proposed agile manufacturing system AMS is assumed to involve eight-construct latent
listed in Table 3. These are as follows: 1 manufacturing equipment and technology MET, 2
processes technology and know-how PTK, 3 quality and productivity improvement and
measures QPIM, 4 production planning and control PPC, 5 shop floor management SFM,
6 product design and development PDD, 7 supplier relationship management SRM, and
8 customer relationship management CRM.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

Table 1: Mappings of AM tactics to eight impact areas.

Impact area Identifier Agile tactic Identifier

Group technology, cellular layouts, continuous GTC
flow
Production process reengineering PPR
1 Manufacturing
MET Flexible manufacturing system FMS
equipment and technology
CNC and DNC CNC
Robotics and PLC’s PLC
CAD/CAM, CAPP, and CIM CIM
Removal of waste methods RWM
Reconfigurable, and continuously changeable
2 Processes technology RCS
PTK system
and know-how
Rapid machine setups and changeovers RSC
Standardized operating procedures SOP
Rapid prototyping, remote, and E-M
e-manufacturing
Fast identification of in-process defects FID
3 Quality and productivity Strategic focus on long-term productivity
QPIM LPP
improvement and measures performance
Modular production facilities MPF
Fast production cycle times FPT
Effective information system EIS
4 Production planning Make-to-order strategy MTO
PPC
and control
Decision making at functional knowledge levels DMK
Manufacturing resource planning MRP
High flexibility approaches HFS
General purpose equipments GPE
5 Shop floor management SFM ECT
Effective communication technology
Removal of waste methods RWM
Make-to-lot size MLT
Quick introduction of new products QIN
6 Product design and Rapid changes to control software RCC
PDD
development
Rapid prototyping, remote, and E-M
e-manufacturing
CAD/CAM, CAPP, and CIM CIM
Effective communication technology ECT
7 Supplier relationship
SRM Long-term supplier relationship LTR
management
Supplier evaluation and selection SES
Immediate and quick delivery IQD
Effective communication technology ECT
8 Customer relationship
CRM MTO
management Make-to-order strategy
Competitive unit cost CUC
Product customization PCU
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 2: Comparison of agile manufacturing and lean production.

Dimension Lean production Agile manufacturing

Customer enrichment
Eliminate source of waste Cooperate to enhance competitiveness
Perfect first-time quality Organize to master change
Principles
Flexible production lines Leverage the impact of people and
Kaizen information
Break with mass production; emphasis
Production quantity Enhancement of mass production on mass customization
Flexible production for product Greater flexibility for customized
Production flexibility products
variety
On technical, operational issues and On organizational and people issues
Emphasis
management of human resources
Application l To the factory level To the enterprise level
Area of management Emphasis on supplier management Formation of virtual enterprises
Relies on smooth production
Attempts to be responsive to change
Area of change schedule
Attempts to eliminate source of Embrace unpredictable market change
waste
Market life Short Short
Order initiation Produce to order Produce to order
Information content High High
Continuing relationship Continuing relationship
Customer relationship
Pricing by customer value Pricing by customer value

Table 3: Constructed latent of agile manufacturing system.

No. Constructed latent Identifier

1 Manufacturing equipment and technology MET
2 Processes technology and know-how PTK
3 Quality and productivity improvement and measures QPIM
Agile manufacturing 4 Production planning and control PPC
system AMS
5 Shop floor management SFM
6 Product design and development PDD
7 Supplier relationship management SRM
8 Customer relationship management CRM

3.1. Agile Selection of Manufacturing Equipment and Technology (MET)

The relations between the specific equipment configurations with visual control and group
technology are developed by 5, 6. The explanations of how to design cellular layouts
are given by 7, 8. Li-Hua and Khalil 9 investigated the rapid changes in the business
environment. They showed how companies can maximize business opportunities when the
risks are considered. The relation between new equipment/technologies and production
process reengineering is developed by 10, 11. A discussion about how the production
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

process reengineering increases productivity and efficiency is presented in 12, 13. In order to
have a formal investigation about the effect of MET, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H10 : MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H11 : MET implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H20 : MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of PTK.
H21 : MET implementation has no effect on the development of PTK.
H30 : MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of QPIM.
H31 : MET implementation has no effect on the development of QPIM.
H40 : MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of SFM.
H41 : MET implementation has no effect on the development of SFM.
H50 : MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of PDD.
H51 : MET implementation has no effect on the development of PDD.

3.2. Processes Technology and Know-How (PTK)

The elimination of waste can 1 simplify organizations processes 14, 2 allow business to
be more agile and dynamic which offers the opportunity to meet customer demands in new
products and services, and 3 allow business to be more responsive to customers’ concerns
15.
Researchers on AM have established that flexibility is the foundation of AM. Flexibility
is classified into machine flexibility, routing flexibility, product flexibility, manufacturing
system flexibility, strategic flexibility, volume flexibility, and so forth, 16. Yusuf et al. 14
stated that “agility is reflected in: the successful exploration of competitive bases through the
integration of reconfigurable resources and best practices in a knowledge-rich environment
to provide customer-driven products and services in a fast-changing market environment”.
Quinn et al. 17 defined agility as the ability to accomplish rapid changeover from
the assembly of one product to the assembly of different product 18. Gunasekaran 19
found that the rapidprototyping is one of the major enablers of agility. Prototyping describes
the design and generation of an early version of product. Many strategies/techniques such
as rapid-partnership formation, e-manufacturing, and rapid prototyping can be employed
to improve the responsiveness of the overall system for customer requirements 19. This
eventually leads to an increase in the customers’ investments. Accordingly, the following
hypotheses are formulated:

H60 : PTK implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H61 : PTK implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H70 : PTK implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of QPIM.
H71 : PTK implementation has no effect on the development of QPIM.

3.3. Quality and Productivity Improvement and Measures (QPIM)

Hormozi 20 stated that agile manufacturing produces defect free product. Misra et al.
21 stated that agile approaches result in lower defect rates through fast identification
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

of in-process defects. Agility achieves improvements in productivity and quality through

flexibility of access and utilization of resources 22. Gunasekaran 19 showed that
manufacturing performance measures such as productivity would help to design the most
effective agile manufacturing system.
Agile-based manufacturing organizations have higher productivity market shares
23. Several researchers use productivity and quality as measures for process performance
24. Others use different measures such as the multidimensional index created by Schroeder
et al. 25. AM requires modular production facilities. Gunasekaran 26 found out that AM
characterized the needs for modular production facilities in decision making.
AM involves fundamental change in an organization’s approach to cycle-time
reduction 27. Naylor et al. 28 showed the necessity for production lead time reduction
as a prerequisite to agility. Short production lead times were addressed in 23. Sieger et
al. 29 measured responsiveness of companies relative to the product development cycle
time. Vinodh and Kuttalingam 30 suggested that the one major constituent of AM is
the minimization of manufacturing lead times. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are
proposed:

H80 : QPIM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H81 : QPIM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H90 : QPIM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of SRM.
H91 : QPIM implementation has no effect on the development of SRM.
H100 : QPIM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of CRM.
H101 : QPIM implementation has no effect on the development of CRM.

3.4. Production Planning and Control (PPC)

Production planning and control PPC plays an important role in the competitive environ-
ments. PPC responds immediately to achieve higher service level of performance, better
resource utilization, and less material loss. Yan 31 established an approach to stochastic
production planning SPP for flexible automation in agile manufacturing environment. Li
et al. 32 concluded that the performance of customer service level in enterprises is
highly dependent on the effectiveness of its manufacturing planning and control system.
Chen 33 discussed four problems of production management in the environment of agile
manufacturing. These problems are 1 organization of production, 2 production planning,
3 production control, and 4 quality control. Le et al. 34 described the production
planning methodology that can be implemented in agile manufacturing. They studied two
multiitem lot-sizing problems. They detailed the development of the planning problem
mathematically and highlighted solutions to some of their initial problems. Tunglun and sato
35 provided a model of PPC that concretely defines the PPC and allows the possibility for
immediate planning and scheduling.
Gold and Thomas 36 discussed and simulated lean, agile, and hybrid supply chain
strategies. Their study demonstrated that while lean management typically calls for make-
to-stock replenishment driven by short-term forecasts, agile supply chains employ make-to-
order provisions. Ching et al. 37 provided a structured procedure for identifying the agile
drivers in the business environment. They determined the management information system
requirements that enhance manufacturing agility. Adrian et al. 38 studied the evolution of
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

information systems in manufacturing and its importance in supporting agile manufacturing.

Lenny and Mike 39 concluded that the application of enterprise resource planning ERP
has improved agility and responsiveness.
Petri 40 showed that resource management is an important part of any production
system, especially when building agility in the manufacturing of the company. David and
Chong 41 presented a review of agile supply partner decision making published between
2001 and 2011. The progress made in developing new models and methods applicable to
this task is assessed in the context of the previous literature. Particular attention is given to
those methods that are especially relevant for the use of agile in supply chains. The review
highlighted the ongoing need for developing methods that are able to meet the combination
of qualitative and quantitative objectives. These objectives are typically found in partner
selection. Based on previous discussion, we theorized the following hypotheses:

H110 : PPC implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.

H111 : PPC implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.

H120 : PPC implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of SFM.

H121 : PPC implementation has no effect on the development of SFM.

3.5. Shop Floor Management (SFM)

In 1995, shop floor control functional diagram was developed by Technologies Enabling
Agile Manufacturing “TEAM” 42. A hybrid integration approach was developed to solve
the problem of shop floor scheduling 43. Ribeiro et al. demonstrated how the seamless
integration of the shop floor with external tools is achieved 44. A multiagent architecture of
agile manufacturing system and a hybrid strategy for shop floor scheduling were adopted
by Li et al. 45. Software architecture for control of an agile manufacturing work cell is
developed by Kim et al. 46. Jacobs et al. provided a strong empirical evidence of the
advantages of increasing the modularity of products in the firm’s portfolio 47. Chick et
al. provided a descriptive model of the machining system selection process that is focused
on capital intensive 48. Swafford et al. found that information technology integration
enables firms to utilize their flexibility 49. Jacobs et al. studied the product and process
modularity’s effects on manufacturing agility and firm growth performance 47. Forsythe
summarized human factors contributions to the development of agile business practices
and design of enabling technologies. The author also discussed human factors related to
the communications and information infrastructure essential to organization to become
agile 50. Chunxia and Shensheng proposed a web-based agile architecture of supply
chain management system 51. Moore et al. proposed virtual manufacturing approach for
designing, programming, testing, verifying, and deploying control systems for agile modular
manufacturing machinery 52. Based on previous discussion, we suggest the following
hypothesis:

H130 : SFM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.

H131 : SFM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.

8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

3.6. Product Design and Development (PDD)

Andrew 53 considered the outsourcing strategy and how it affects product design. He
explained how outsourcing permits manufacturers to remain more agile and competitive by
retaining local manufacture. Computer-aided design CAD is used to bring out new models
for achieving design agility 54. Agility is greatly influenced by the emergence and growth
of new technologies such as CAD, CAM, CNC, RP, and so forth, 55. Modular architecture
for developing product platform is crucial to agile manufacturing and product variety
that satisfies various customers’ needs and high agility 56. The relations of CAPP/CAM
packages, simulators, design analysis and synthesis tools, and decision support systems with
agility are discussed in 57. Based on this analysis, we postulate the following hypothesis:

H140 : PPD implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H141 : PPD implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.

3.7. Supplier Relationship Management (SRM)

SRM practices create common frame of reference to enable effective communication between
enterprises. In agile environments, relationships and communication between suppliers
should be flexible and responsive 58. Relationships with suppliers in agile manufacturing
are considered in 26, 59. Accordingly, we theorize the following hypothesis:

H150 : SRM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H151 : SRM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.

3.8. Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

Traditional ways of communication with customers include Internet, business to customer
B2C, business to business B2B. The Internet offers several advantages such as reduction of
ordering process cost, revenue flow increase because of credit cards payment, global access,
and pricing flexibility. In-house inventory placement, inventory pooling, forward placement,
vendor-managed inventories VMI, and continuous replenishment program CRP may be used
to build an effective agile customer relationship model. Hence, the following hypothesis is
proposed:

H160 : CRM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H161 : CRM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.

4. Structural Equation Model (SME) and Research Hypotheses

The conceptual relationship model between the eight-construct latent considered in this
study is shown in Figure 1. The relationships between the various-model latent are defined
and summarized in Table 4. The relationship model is constructed based on authors’
experience. Therefore, this model investigates the important relationships between the eight
considered agile areas and the impacts of their implementations on the development of AMS.
Eight different questionnaire drafts were developed. The preliminary questionnaires
were pilot tested and reviewed by managers of several industrial companies, extensive
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

Agile
manufacturing
system
AMS

H16
H1 H6 H15 H8 H14
H11 H13
Customer
relationship
management H12
CRM
Supplier Quality Product
Manufacturing Processes Production Shop floor
technology and relationship and productivity design and
equipment and H10 improvement planning and management
know-how management control development
technology and measures
MET PTK SRM QPIM PPC SFM PDD

H9
H2
H7
H3
H4
H5
GTC RWM IQD HFS
PPR FID EIS QIN
RCS ECT ECT GPE
FMS LPP MTO RCC
RSC LTR MTO ECT
CNC MPF DMK E-M
PLC SOP SES CUC RWM
PCU FPT MRP CIM
CIM E-M MLT

Figure 1: The proposed conceptual model and research hypotheses.

literature review, and group of graduate students. This process continues until all questions
in the eight questionnaires are unambiguous, appropriate, and acceptable to respondents.
Every questionnaire is concerned with the implementation of one impact area. It consists of
five-point Likert scale anchored at 1 “Poor”, 2 “Fair”, 3 “Good”, 4 “Very good”, and
5 “Excellent”.

5. Data Collection and Analysis

Jordanian companies listed in Jordan chamber of commerce were screened according to
whether they have a potential of implementing lean tools or not. Consequently, questionnaire
packets were distributed to 500 services and manufacturing companies. 456 companies have
responded to the questionnaire packets. Data were collected through production managers,
quality engineers, consultants, and owners. Cronbach’s alpha α is a tool that measures
and tests consistency validity and scale reliability. As shown in Table 5, Cronbach’s alpha
value of the whole AMS equals to 0.830 and the AGility index is 60.1%. AG is used to
measure the overall implementation level of agile tactics in the studied sample. The results of
reliability test indicate that both internal consistency and overall model reliability are high.
Mean μ, variance σ 2 , area-tactic correlations, model-tactic correlations, tactic agility index-
area correlations, and area agility index are evaluated and summarized in Table 6. Agile
tactics with no significant correlations at the 0.05 or less level 2 tailed are identified. The
results of tactics-tactics correlation test are summarized in Table 7.
Interrelations between production areas are computed and investigated using
correlation coefficients see Table 8. It is observed that the correlation is significant at the
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 4: Summary of relationships between various-model latent.

H160 CRM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H16
H161 CRM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H150 SRM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H15
H151 SRM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H140 PPD implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H14
H141 PPD implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H130 SFM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H13
H131 SFM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H120 PPC implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of SFM.
H12
H121 PPC implementation has no effect on the development of SFM.
H110 PPC implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H11
H111 PPC implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H100 QPIM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of CRM.
H10
H101 QPIM implementation has no effect on the development of CRM.
H90 QPIM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of SRM.
H9
H91 QPIM implementation has no effect on the development of SRM.
H80 QPIM implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H8
H81 QPIM implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H70 PTK implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of QPIM.
H7
H71 PTK implementation has no effect on the development of QPIM.
H60 PTK implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H6
H61 PTK implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.
H50 MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of PDD.
H5
H51 MET implementation has no effect on the development of PDD.
H40 MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of SFM.
H4
H41 MET implementation has no effect on the development of SFM.
H30 MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of QPIM.
H3
H31 MET implementation has no effect on the development of QPIM.
H20 MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of PTK.
H2
H21 MET implementation has no effect on the development of PTK.
H10 MET implementation has a significant, positive effect on the development of AMS.
H1
H11 MET implementation has no effect on the development of AMS.

Table 5: Consistency and reliability of the model.

Model mean Model variance Cronbach’s Internal Agility index

μ σ 2  alpha correlations AG%
Model 3.003 0.008 0.830 0.011 60.1

0.01 level 2 tailed between some areas like MET-CRM, CRM-SRM. On the other hand, SRM-
PDD correlation and CRM-SRM correlation is significant at the 0.05 level 2 tailed, where
there is no significant correlation between SRM and PPC. AMOS software version 19 is used
to test the model fit for each area. The results of the area-area correlation test and fit indices
are shown in Table 8. A good model fit is found. All items loading on their corresponding
production area are high and significant at the 0.05 or less level 2 tailed. Significance level
at 0.05 is recommended.
 Table 6: Some statistics of model and correlation coefficients.
Area-tactic Model-tactic Model-area
Area Agile tactic Tactic mean μ Tactic variance σ 2  Tactic AG % Area AG%
correlations correlations correlations
GTC 2.999 0.115 0.516∗ 0.517∗ 59.9
∗ ∗
PPR 2.986 0.120 0.518 0.337 59.7
1 MET FMS 3.001 0.117 0.446∗ 0.300∗ 60.1
0.517∗ 60.1
∗ ∗
CNC 3.000 0.106 0.497 0.381 60.0
PLC 3.028 0.126 0.524∗ 0.366∗ 60.0
∗
CIM 3.020 0.123 0.502 0.380∗ 60.0
∗ ∗
RWM 3.002 0.120 0.561 0.470 60.0
∗ ∗
RCS 3.009 0.114 0.354 0.493 60.1
Mathematical Problems in Engineering

2 PTK RSC 2.997 0.114 0.413∗ 0.048 59.9 0.542∗ 60.1
∗ ∗
SOP 3.004 0.109 0.486 0.357 60.0
E-M 3.005 0.113 0.546∗ 0.463∗ 60.1
∗ ∗
FID 3.014 0.114 0.533 0.333 60.3
∗ ∗
3 QPIM LPP 3.002 0.106 0.386 0.394 60.0
0.520∗ 59.9
MPF 3.004 0.114 0.577∗ 0.428∗ 60.0
FPT 2.969 0.135 0.579∗ 0.398∗ 59.3
∗ ∗
EIS 3.015 0.123 0.232 0.155 60.3

4 PPC MTO 3.014 0.131 0.580∗ 0.407∗ 60.2

0.496∗ 60.0
∗ ∗
DMK 2.996 0.132 0.548 0.351 59.9
MRP 3.016 0.120 0.526∗ 0.497∗ 60.3
∗ ∗
HFS 2.984 0.108 0.542 0.352 59.7
GPE 2.982 0.101 0.513∗ 0.366∗ 59.6
5 SFM ECT 3.011 0.124 0.558 ∗
0.589∗
60.2 0.627∗ 59.9
RWM 3.002 0.120 0.470∗ 0.561∗ 60.0
MLT 2.998 0.107 0.556∗ 0.371∗ 60.0
11
 12

Table 6: Continued.
Area-tactic Model-tactic Model-area
Area Agile tactic Tactic mean μ Tactic variance σ 2  Tactic AG % Area AG %
correlations correlations correlations
QIN 2.984 0.121 0.578∗ 0.384∗ 59.7
∗
6 PDD RCC 3.007 0.125 0.569 0.377∗ 60.2
0.543∗ 60.1
∗ ∗
E-M 3.005 0.113 0.560 0.463 60.1
CIM 3.020 0.123 0.575∗ 0.380∗ 60.0
∗ ∗
ECT 3.011 0.124 0.689 0.589 60.2
7 SRM ∗ ∗
LTR 3.000 0.111 0.613 0.430 60.0 0.571∗ 60.1
SES 3.000 0.117 0.632∗ 0.396∗ 60.0
IQD 3.016 0.122 0.556∗ 0.351∗ 60.3
∗ ∗
ECT 3.011 0.124 0.485 0.589 60.2
8 CRM MTO 3.014 0.131 0.505 ∗
0.407∗
60.2 0.633∗ 60.2
∗ ∗
CUC 2.997 0.119 0.515 0.355 59.9
PCU 3.006 0.114 0.492∗ 0.337∗ 60.1
∗
Significant at two-tailed 0.01 significance level.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

Table 7: Tactic-tactic correlations at two-tailed significance level less than or equal to 0.05.

Independent Dependent tactic

tactic MLT MTO EIS MBF FID RSC RCS RWM CIM PLC CNC FMS PPR GTC
PPR No
CNC No
PLC No
CIM No
RSC No No No No No No No No
SOP No No
EM No
FID No
LPP No No
MBF No
FPT No No No No
EIS No No No
MTO No No No No
DMK No
MRP No No
HFS No
GPE No No
ECT No No No
MLT No No
QIN No No No
RCC No No No
LTR No
SES No No No
IQD No No No
CUC No No No
PCU No No
No: Signifies no tactic-tactic correlation; otherwise there is a tactic-tactic correlation.

Table 9 summarizes the results of the hypothesis testing. The P values of the alterative
hypotheses H11 , H21 , H31 , H41 , H51 , H61 , H71 , H81 , H91 , H101 , H111 , H121 , H131 ,
H141 , H151 , and H161  are calculated. The calculated P-values are less than 0.05, which
indicates that the proposed null hypotheses are true. The t-values fall within the 95% of the
t-distribution −1.96  −t0.025, 458 < t-Value < t0.025, 458  1.96. These results provide
evidence that the alternative hypotheses are rejected. Influential dependencies see Table 10
between production areas are found, and hence multicollinearity is achieved. For the two-
tailed one-way ANOVA test at the 0.05 level, the f0 -value as shown in Table 10 exceeds
f0.025,v1,v2 . This proves that all the considered agile tactics have a positive effect on AMS.
The f0 -value of the F-test obtained from the two-tailed one-way ANOVA analysis is less than
0.001.
 14

Table 8: Correlation matrix and fit indices for each production area.
Area-area correlation coefficients Production area Fit indices
CRM SRM PDD SFM PPC QPIM PTK MET GFI RMSEA P value Chi ratio DF χ2
0.150∗∗ 0.135∗∗ 0.355∗∗ 0.209∗∗ 0.192∗∗ 0.173∗∗ 0.195∗∗ 1 MET 0.91 0.023 0.00 2.69 90 242.1
0.213∗∗ 0.161∗∗ 0.328∗∗ 0.348∗∗ 0.106∗ 0.128∗∗ 1 PTK 0.70 0.024 0.00 2.72 65 177.1
0.262∗∗ 0.179∗∗ 0.131∗∗ 0.215∗∗ 0.202∗∗ 1 QPIM 0.96 0.026 0.00 2.95 189 558.9
0.320∗∗ 0.054 0.153∗∗ 0.192∗∗ 1 PPC 0.87 0.072 0.00 3.21 189 606.3
0.350∗∗ 0.386∗∗ 0.130∗∗ 1 SFM 0.93 0.032 0.00 3.75 324 1215.6
0.200∗∗ 0.119∗ 1 PDD 0.99 0.071 0.00 3.66 299 1095.4
0.352∗∗ 1 SRM 0.97 0.010 0.00 2.97 90 267.1
1 CRM 0.94 0.017 0.00 1.76 90 158.6
∗∗
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 2 tailed.
∗
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level 2 tailed.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 15

Table 9: Hypothesis testing results.

Internal correlation Paired samples test

Alternative hypothesis P value Decision
Area-area Pearson t-value DF P value
H161 CRM-AMS 0.633 1.061 458 0.289 0.000 Reject H161
H151 SRM-AMS 0.571 0.382 458 0.702 0.000 Reject H151
H141 PPD-AMS 0.543 0.216 458 0.829 0.000 Reject H141
H131 SFM-AMS 0.627 −1.413 458 0.158 0.000 Reject H131
H121 PPC-SFM 0.192 0.795 458 0.427 0.000 Reject H121
H111 PPC-AMS 0.496 −0.034 458 0.973 0.000 Reject H111
H101 QPIM-CRM 0.262 −1.296 458 0.196 0.000 Reject H101
H91 QPIM-SRM 0.179 −0.809 458 0.419 0.000 Reject H91
H81 QPIM-AMS 0.520 −0.892 458 0.373 0.000 Reject H81
H71 PTK-QPIM 0.128 0.661 458 0.509 0.006 Reject H71
H61 PTK-AMS 0.542 0.093 458 0.926 0.000 Reject H61
H51 MET-PDD 0.355 0.226 458 0.821 0.000 Reject H51
H41 MET-SFM 0.209 1.297 458 0.195 0.000 Reject H41
H31 MET-QPIM 0.173 1.001 458 0.317 0.000 Reject H31
H21 MET-PTK 0.195 0.322 458 0.748 0.000 Reject H21
H11 MET-AMS 0.517 0.590 458 0.556 0.000 Reject H11

6. Discussion of Results
This paper investigates the causal relationship model among implementation of thirty-six
different agile tactics. These tactics are categorized into eight impact areas manufacturing
equipment and technology MET, processes technology and know-how PTK, quality and
productivity improvement and measures QPIM, production planning and control PPC,
Shop Floor Management SFM, product design and development PDD, supplier relationship
management SRM, and customer relationship management CRM. Analysis of data is carried
out using AMOS 19 and IBM SPSS 20 for Windows. The obtained results show strongly
that the model is valid. The AMOS 19 software is used to test the model fit for each
impact area. The results show that the model fit is good. All items loaded significantly on
their corresponding constructs at the 0.05 level. This demonstrates a good model fit. The
fit statistics indicate that the hypothesized structural model achieves an acceptable fit such
that no further interpretation is required. The testing of the entire hypotheses shows that all
impact areas have positive effect on AMS.
It was found out that the overall assumed agility index is about 60%, the average
agility index of impact areas is about 60%, and the average agility index of agile tactics is
about 60%. The correlation analyses show that all model constructs have a positive correlation
with overall AMS model.
Estimates of the relations in the AMS are investigated and summarized as shown
in Figure 2. The results of this research may be influenced by the person who fills the
questionnaires. This may lead to errors due to the personal reliability and trustworthiness.

7. Conclusion
The implementation of agile manufacturing principles and tools in Jordanian firms is
investigated. Different agile practices that are adopted by the considered firms to manage
16 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 10: One-way ANOVA analysis.

Mean
Area Factor Sum of squares DF v1 v2 f0 P value Conclusion
square
Between groups 27.295 155 0.176
GTC has an
GTC Within groups 25.452 303 155 303 2.096 0.000
effect on MET.
0.084
Total 52.746 458

Between groups 25.946 155 0.167

PPR has an
PPR Within groups 29.188 303 155 303 1.738 0.000
effect on MET.
0.096
Total 55.134 458

Between groups 25.500 155 0.165

FMS has an
FMS Within groups 28.107 303 155 303 1.774 0.000
effect on MET.
0.093
MET Total 53.607 458

Between groups 24.156 155 0.156

CNC has an
CNC Within groups 24.279 303 155 303 1.945 0.000
effect on MET.
0.080
Total 48.435 458

Between groups 30.639 155 4.801

PLC has an
PLC Within groups 27.174 303 155 303 2.204 0.000
effect on MET.
0.008
Total 57.813 458

Between groups 30.141 155 0.194

CIM has an
CIM Within groups 26.075 303 155 303 2.260 0.000
0.086 effect on MET.
Total 56.215 458
Between groups 30.796 142 0.217
RWM has an
RWM Within groups 24.046 316 142 316 2.850 0.000
effect on PTK.
0.076
Total 54.842 458

Between groups 27.640 142 0.195

RCS has an
RCS Within groups 24.490 316 142 316 2.512 0.000
effect on PTK.
0.077
Total 52.130 458

PTK Between groups 28.902 142 0.205

RSC has an
RSC Within groups 23.400 316 142 316 2.768 0.000
effect on PTK.
0.074
Total 52.302 457

Between groups 25.482 142 0.179

SOP has an
SOP Within groups 24.349 316 142 316 2.329 0.000
effect on PTK.
0.077
Total 49.831 458

Between groups 28.788 142 0.203

E-M has an
E-M Within groups 22.766 316 142 316 2.814 0.000
0.072 effect on PTK.
Total 51.554 458
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 17

Table 10: Continued.

Mean
Area Factor Sum of squares DF v1 v2 f0 P value Conclusion
square
Between groups 27.024 123 0.220
FID has an
FID Within groups 25.256 335 123 335 2.914 0.000 effect on
QPIM.
0.075
Total 52.280 458

Between groups 25.765 123 0.209

LPP has an
LPP Within groups 22.905 335 123 335 3.064 0.000 effect on
QPIM.
0.068
QPIM Total 48.670 458

Between groups 27.214 123 0.221

MBF has an
MBF Within Groups 25.076 335 123 335 2.956 0.000 effect on
QPIM.
0.075
Total 52.290 458

Between groups 30.022 123 0.244

FPT has an
FPT Within groups 31.739 335 123 335 2.576 0.000 effect on
0.095 QPIM.
Total 61.761 458
Between groups 14.408 63 0.229
EIS has an
EIS Within groups 42.077 395 63 395 2.147 0.000
effect on PPC.
0.107
Total 56.484 458

Between groups 27.184 63 0.431

MTO has an
MTO Within groups 33.016 395 63 395 5.162 0.000
0.084 effect on PPC.
Total 60.200 458
PPC
Between groups 25.489 63 0.405
DMK has an
DMK Within groups 34.816 395 63 395 4.590 0.000
effect on PPC.
0.088
Total 60.305 458

Between groups 22.479 63 0.357

MRP has an
MRP Within groups 32.326 395 63 395 4.360 0.000
0.082 effect on PPC.
Total 54.805 458
Between groups 28.842 157 0.184
HFS has an
HFS Within groups 20.503 301 157 301 2.697 0.000
effect on SFM.
0.068
Total 49.345 458

Between groups 25.126 157 0.160

GPE has an
GPE Within groups 21.336 301 157 301 2.258 0.000
effect on SFM.
0.071
Total 46.462 458

SFM Between groups 30.429 157 0.194

ECT has an
ECT Within groups 26.146 301 157 301 2.231 0.000
0.087 effect on SFM.
Total 56.575 458
18 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 10: Continued.

Mean
Area Factor Sum of squares DF v1 v2 f0 P value Conclusion
square
Between groups 32.023 157 0.204
RWM has an
RWM Within Groups 22.819 301 157 301 2.690 0.000
effect on SFM.
0.076
Total 54.842 458

Between groups 28.198 157 0.180

MLT has an
MLT Within groups 20.592 301 157 301 2.625 0.000
0.068 effect on SFM.
Total 48.790 458
Between groups 32.806 198 0.166
QIN has an
QIN Within groups 22.685 260 198 260 1.899 0.000
effect on PDD.
0.087
Total 55.491 458

Between groups 34.958 198 0.177

RCC has an
RCC Within groups 22.088 260 198 260 2.078 0.000
effect on PDD.
0.085
PDD Total 57.046 458

Between groups 31.232 198 0.158

E-M has an
E-M Within groups 20.322 260 198 260 2.018 0.000
effect on PDD.
0.078
Total 51.554 458

Between groups 35.112 198 0.177

CIM has an
CIM Within groups 21.103 260 198 260 2.185 0.000
0.081 effect on PDD.
Total 56.215 458
Between groups 32.171 57 0.564
ECT has an
ECT Within groups 24.404 401 57 401 9.274 0.000
effect on SRM.
0.061
Total 56.575 458

Between groups 25.975 57 0.456

LTR has an
SRM LTR Within groups 24.947 401 57 401 7.325 0.000
effect on SRM.
0.062
Total 50.922 458

Between groups 27.583 57 0.484

SES has an
SES Within groups 25.817 401 57 401 7.516 0.000
0.064 effect on SRM.
Total 53.400 458
Between groups 23.490 67 0.351
IQD has an
IQD Within groups 32.175 391 67 391 4.260 0.000
effect on CRM.
.0082
Total 55.665 458

Between groups 19.922 67 0.297

ECT has an
ECT Within groups 36.653 391 67 391 3.172 0.000
0.094 effect on CRM.
Total 56.575 458
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 19

Table 10: Continued.

Mean
Area Factor Sum of squares DF v1 v2 f0 P value Conclusion
square
Between groups 23.125 67 0.345
MTO has an
MTO Within groups 37.075 391 67 391 3.640 0.000
effect on CRM.
0.095
CRM Total 60.200 458

Between groups 21.242 67 0.317

CUC has an
CUC Within groups 33.350 391 67 391 3.717 0.000
effect on CRM.
.0085
Total 54.592 458

Between groups 19.211 67 0.287

PCU has an
PCU Within groups 33.062 391 67 391 3.391 0.000
0.085 effect on CRM.
Total 52.273 458
Between groups 9.056 456 0.020
MET and AG
MET Within groups 0.043 2 456 2 0.928 0.659 have equal
agility index.
0.021
Total 9.099 458

Between groups 10.625 456 0.023

PTK and AG
PTK Within groups 0.021 2 456 2 2.249 0.359 have equal
agility index.
0.010
Total 10.646 458

Between groups 12.952 456 0.028

QPIM and AG
QPIM Within groups 0.113 2 456 2 0.501 0.863 have equal
0.057 agility index.
Total 13.066 458
AG
Between groups 12.912 456 0.028
PPC and AG
PPC Within groups 0.037 2 456 2 1.539 0.477 have equal
agility index.
0.018
Total 12.949 458

Between groups 10.510 456 0.023

SFM and AG
SFM Within groups 0.033 2 456 2 1.411 0.507 have equal
agility index.
0.016
Total 10.543 458

Between groups 13.612 456 0.030

PDD and AG
PDD Within groups 0.006 2 456 2 10.509 0.091 have equal
0.003 agility index.
Total 13.618 458
20 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 10: Continued.

Mean
Area Factor Sum of squares DF v1 v2 f0 P value Conclusion
square
Between groups 18.103 456 0.040
SRM and AG
SRM Within groups 0.036 2 456 2 2.233 0.361 have equal
agility index.
0.018
Total 18.139 458

Between groups 10.186 456 0.022

CRM and AG
CRM Within groups 0.002 2 456 2 29.566 0.033 have equal
0.001 agility index.
Total 10.188 458

Agile manufacturing
system
AMS
AG = 60

H16
H1 0.633∗ H8
0.517∗ 0.52∗
CRM H11 H13
H6 H15 AG = 60 H10 ∗ 0.627 ∗ H14
0.469 0.543∗
0.542∗ 0.571∗ 0.262∗
MET PTK SRM QPIM PPC SFM PDD
AG = 60 AG = 60.1 AG = 60 H9 AG = 59.9 AG = 60 H12 AG = 59.9 AG = 60.1
H2 0.179∗ 0.192∗
0.195∗ H7
0.128∗
H3
∗
0.173
H4
0.209∗
H5
0.355∗
GTC : AG = 59.9 RWM : AG = 60 IQD : AG = 60.3 FID : AG = 60.3 EIS : AG = 60.3
HFS : AG = 59.7 QIN : AG = 59.7
PPR : AG = 59.7 RCS : AG = 60.1 ECT : AG = 60.2 ECT : AG = 60.2
LPP : AG = 60MTO : AG = 60.2 GPE : AG = 59.6 RCC : AG = 60.2
FMS : AG = 60.1 LTR : AG = 60
RSC : AG = 59.9 MTO : AG = 60.2 ECT : AG = 60.2
CNC : AG = 60 MPF : AG = 60 DMK : AG = 59.9 E-M : AG = 60.1
PLC : AG = 60 SOP : AG = 60 SES : AG = 60 CUC : AG = 59.9 RWM : AG = 60
CIM : AG = 60 E-M : AG = 60.1 PCU : AG = 60.1 FPT : AG = 59.3 MRP : AG = 60.3 MLT : AG = 60 CIM : AG = 60

Figure 2: Estimates of the relations between models constructs.

their AMS systems are identified based on empirical basis. This paper concludes that the
existence of 36 different agile approaches can be adopted by the different firms to enhance
their competitiveness. These approaches categorized into eight impact areas, namely, MET,
PTK, QPIM, PPC, SFM, PDD, SRM, and CRM. The primary contribution of this paper is
successfully analyzing the causal relationship of implementation level of agile production
areas and their effect on the AMS using SME methodology. The results ensure that SEM
is the correct method for investigating the relationship model between the eight-constructs
considered in this study. IBM SPSS 20 and AMOS 19.0.0 software enable SEM to provide a
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 21

clear and complete specification of the AMS and its constructs. The results of this study show
that the studied agile tactics have significant relationship and are affected positively by the
AMS. The implementation of each agile tactic contributes significantly to the performance of
AMS. The approach presented in this study can be used to facilitate the implementation of
agile practices in industries and measure correlation between them. It may be worthwhile to
focus future research on modeling the implementation of lean production practices, such as
kanban, just in time JIT, pull production control strategy, and so forth, 60 and to compare
and link the expected results with those concluded here.

Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and
suggestions which improved the presentation of the paper.

References
1 M. P. Groover, Automation, Production Systems, & Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Prentice Hall, 2nd
edition, 2001.
2 D. T. Pham, Z. Ebrahim, T. Shamsuddin, R. Barton, and O. Williams, “The relationship between lean
manufacturing agile manufacturing & sustainability,” in Innovative PRoduction Machines & Systems
(I’PROMS ’08), Cardiff University, July 2008.
3 CAM-I, Description, modeling & simulation of next generation manufacturing systems, a proposal to
the European Commission for an International Intelligent Manufacturing Systems Project No. 95002,
1998.
4 J. Prince and J. M. Kay, “Combining lean & agile characteristics: creation of virtual groups by
enhanced production flow analysis,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 85, no. 3, pp.
305–318, 2003.
5 A. Shahin and N. Janatyan, “Group technology GT & lean production: a conceptual model for
enhancing productivity,” International Business Research, vol. 3, no. 4, 2010.
6 J. Norin and D. Karlström, Lean configuration management, softhouse consulting, Stormgatan 14
SE-211 20, Malmö, Sweden, 2006.
7 C. Tsai and C. Lee, “Optimization of manufacturing cell formation with a multi-functional
mathematical programming model,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol.
30, no. 3-4, pp. 309–318, 2006.
8 W. Hachicha, F. Masmoudi, and M. Haddar, “Formation of machine groups & part families in cellular
manufacturing systems using a correlation analysis approach,” International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, vol. 36, no. 11-12, pp. 1157–1169, 2008.
9 R. Li-Hua and T. Khalil, “Technology management in China: a global perspective & challenging
issues,” Journal of Technology Management in China, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–26, 2006.
10 H. Vehkapera, H. Haapasalo, and J. Rusanen, “Analysis of technology management functions in finish
high tech companies,” The Open Management Journal, vol. 2, pp. 1–10, 2009.
11 A. Lee, W. Wang, and T. Lin, “An evaluation framework for technology transfer of new equipment in
high technology industry,” Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 135–150, 2010.
12 K. Piirainen, K. Elfvengren, J. Korpela, and M. Tuominen, “Improving the effectiveness of business
process development through collaboration engineering: a method for process elicitation,” in
Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’09), January
2009.
13 P. Chutima and K. Kaewin, “Using lean & business process reengineering BPR model for improving
agility,” in Proceedings of the IE Network Conference, 2007.
14 Y. Yusuf, M. Sarhadi, and A. Gunasekaran, “Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts & attributes,”
International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 33–43, 1999.
15 D. B. Ganesh and D. T. Marvin, “Examining the relationship between business process improvement
initiatives, information systems integration & customer focus: an empirical study,” Business Process
Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 532–558, 2005.
22 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

16 S. Vinodh, G. Sundararaj, and S. R. Devadasan, “Measuring organisational agility before & after
implementation of TADS,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 47, no. 5–8,
pp. 809–818, 2010.
17 R. D. Quinn, G. C. Causey, F. L. Merat et al., “An agile manufacturing workcell design,” IIE
Transactions, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 901–909, 1997.
18 L. R. Francisco and T. Manuela, “Exploring agile methods in construction small & medium
enterprises: a case study,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 161–180,
2010.
19 A. Gunasekaran, “Agile manufacturing: enablers & an implementation framework,” International
Journal of Production Research, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1223–1247, 1998.
20 A. M. Hormozi, “Agile manufacturing: the next logical step,” Benchmarking, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 132–143,
2001.
21 S. C. Misra, V. Kumar, and U. Kumar, “Identifying some critical changes required in adopting agile
practices in traditional software development projects,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 451–474, 2010.
22 A. C. S&erson, R. J. Graves, and D. L. Millard, “Multipath agility in electronics manufacturing,” in
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, vol. 1, pp. 501–505, October
1994.
23 M. F. Assen, E. W. Hans, and S. L. Velde, “An agile planning & control framework for customer-order
driven discrete parts manufacturing environments,” International Journal of Agile Management Systems,
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 16–23, 2000.
24 J. P. MacDuffie, “Human resource bundles & manufacturing performance: organizational logic &
flexible production systems in the world auto industry,” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol. 48,
no. 2, pp. 197–221, 1995.
25 R. G. Schroeder, K. A. Bates, and M. A. Junttila, “A resource-based view of manufacturing strategy
& the relationship to manufacturing performance,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp.
105–117, 2002.
26 A. Gunasekaran, “Agile manufacturing: a framework for research & development,” International
Journal of Production Economics, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 87–105, 1999.
27 R. Dove, “Measuring agility: the toll of turmoil,” Production, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 12–14, 1995.
28 B. Naylor, M. M. Naim, and D. Berry, “Leagility: integrating the lean & agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 62, no. 1, pp.
107–118, 1999.
29 D. B. Sieger, A. Badiru, and M. Milatovic, “A metric for agility measurement in product
development,” IIE Transactions, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 637–645, 2000.
30 S. Vinodh and D. Kuttalingam, “Computer-aided design & engineering as enablers of agile
manufacturing: a case study in an Indian manufacturing organization,” Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 405–418, 2011.
31 H. S. Yan, An Approach to Workshop Stochastic Production Planning in Agile Manufacturing Environment,
Southeast University, Jiangsu, China, 1998.
32 C. W. Li, K. L. Sian, and P. H. Li, “A RFID based agile manufacturing planning & control system,”
International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 75, pp. 1–2, 2002.
33 Z. X. Chen, “Problems of production management in agile manufacturing environment & their
counter measures,” Journal of Xiamen University (Natural Science), no. S1, 2002.
34 V. T. Le, B. M. Gunn, and S. Nahavandi, “MRP—production planning in agile manufacturing,” in
Proceedings of the 2nd International IEEE Conference “Intelligent Systems”, Varna, Bulgaria, June 2004.
35 T. Tunglun and R. Sato, “A UML model of agile production planning & control system,” Computers in
Industry, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 133–152, 2004.
36 B. Golds and J. Thomas, “Modeling Lean, agile, and leagile supply chain strategies,” Journal of Business
Logistics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 57–80, 2006.
37 T. Ching, Y. Lin, C. C. Te, and Y. Cheng, “Agile manufacturing and information system design—a
Taiwan case,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, October
2004.
38 E. Adrian M. Coronado, S. Mansoor, and M. Colin, “Defining a framework for information systems
requirements for agile manufacturing,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 75, no. 1, pp.
57–68, 2002.
39 K. Lenny and S. Mike, Change & Uncertainty in SME Manufacturing Environments Using ERP, Emerald
Group, 2005.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 23

40 T. Petri, “Agile production management: an analysis of capacity decisions & order-fulfillment time,”
International Journal of Agile Systems & Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2–10, 2006-.
41 B. David and W. Chong, “A literature review of decision-making models & approaches for partner
selection in agile supply chains,” Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 256–
274, 2011.
42 G. Langer and L. Alting, “An architecture for agile shop floor control systems,” Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 267–281, 2000.
43 C. Bang, Hybrid integration-approach for process planning & shop floor scheduling in agile manufacturing
[Ph.D. thesis], State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA, 2002.
44 L. Ribeiro, J. Barata, and A. Colombo, “Supporting agile supply chains using a service-oriented shop
floor,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 950–960, 2009.
45 Y. Li, J. Q. Zheng, and S. L. Yang, “Multi-agent-based fuzzy scheduling for shop floor,” International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 49, no. 5–8, pp. 689–695, 2010.
46 Y. Kim, J. Y. Jo, V. B. Velasco et al., “Flexible software architecture for agile manufacturing,” in
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, (ICRA ’97), vol. 4, pp. 3043–3047,
April 1997.
47 M. Jacobs, C. Droge, S. K. Vickery, and R. Calantone, “Product & process modularity’s effects on
manufacturing agility & firm growth performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28,
no. 1, pp. 123–137, 2011.
48 S. E. Chick, T. L. Olsen, K. Sethuraman, K. E. Stecke, and C. C. White III, “A descriptive multi-attribute
model for reconfigurable machining system selection examining buyer-supplier relationships,”
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 33–48, 2000.
49 P. M. Swafford, S. Ghosh, and N. Murthy, “Achieving supply chain agility through IT integration &
flexibility,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 288–297, 2008.
50 C. Forsythe, “Human factors in agile manufacturing: a brief overview with emphasis on
communications & information infrastructure,” Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 1997.
51 L. Chunxia and Z. Shensheng, “Reconfiguration based agile supply chain system,” in Proceedings of
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, Tucson, Ariz, USA, October 2001.
52 P. R. Moore, J. Pu, H. C. Ng et al., “Virtual engineering: an integrated approach to agile manufacturing
machinery design & control,” Mechatronics, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 1105–1121, 2003.
53 L. M. Andrew, “Improved product design as an alternative to outsourcing manufacture & assembly,”
Assembly Automation, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 121–126, 2006.
54 S. Vinodh, S. R. Devadasan, and C. Shankar, “Design agility through computer aided design,” Journal
of Engineering, Design & Technology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 94–106, 2010.
55 Y. Y. Yusuf and E. O. Adeleye, “A comparative study of lean & agile manufacturing with a related
survey of current practices in the UK,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 40, no. 17, pp.
4545–4562, 2002.
56 A. H. M. Shamsuzzoha, “Modular product architecture for productivity enhancement,” Business
Process Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21–41, 2011.
57 H. S. Yan and J. Jiang, “Agile concurrent engineering,” Integrated Manufacturing Systems, vol. 10, no.
2, pp. 103–113, 1999.
58 A. Gunasekaran and Y. Y. Yusuf, “Agile manufacturing: a taxonomy of strategic & technological
imperatives,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1357–1385, 2002.
59 S. Paul, “With agility & adequate partnership strategies towards effective logistics networks,”
Computers in Industry, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 33–42, 2000.
60 M. D. Al-Tahat, D. Dalalah, and M. A. Barghash, “Dynamic programming model for multi-stage
single-product Kanban-controlled serial production line,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 23,
no. 1, pp. 37–48, 2009.