Optimal Acquisition of FMS Technology Subject to Technological Progress

In order to gain competitive advantage, a firm must link its technology choice to its total manufacturing strategy and business unit's goals. A dynamic model is presented to examine the strategic decision concerning the acquisition of flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) technology. A major contribution of this model is its ability to capture the strategic benefits of FMS with respect to economies of scope and technological progress. Decisions such as the timing and size of new technology acquisition and the scrapping of conventional capacity are explored as a firm plans for the upgrading of its facility to meet future dynamic strategic goals. This model may be used to assist with strategic planning because it identifies the critical relationships and trade-offs between various exogenous forces (such as market growth or decay, the cost of acquiring flexible manufacturing systems, and the rate of technological progress) and the decision variables considered.

[1]  Werner Z. Hirsch,et al.  Manufacturing Progress Functions , 1952 .

[2]  Jeffrey D. Camm,et al.  Modeling Synergy and Learning under Multiple Advanced Manufacturing Technologies , 1989 .

[3]  Engelbert J. Dockner,et al.  Optimal advertising policies for diffusion models of new product innovation in monopolistic situations , 1988 .

[4]  Hirohide Hinomoto,et al.  Capacity Expansion with Facilities Under Technological Improvement , 1965 .

[5]  Martin K. Starr,et al.  The decision to adopt new technology--Effects on organizational size , 1984 .

[6]  V. Mahajan,et al.  The adoption of the M-form organizational structure: a test of imitation hypothesis , 1988 .

[7]  Thomas R. Gulledge,et al.  A dynamic cost function for an airframe production program , 1983 .

[8]  A. Roth,et al.  Manufacturing Strategy, Manufacturing Strength, Managerial Success, and Economic Outcomes , 1990 .

[9]  Thomas R. Gulledge,et al.  Learning and costs in airframe production: A multiple‐output production function approach , 1984 .

[10]  Dan Horsky,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Optimal Advertising Policy , 1977 .

[11]  S. Fn.  'Invisible' resource: women for boards. , 1980 .

[12]  J. Ettlie,et al.  Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation , 1984 .

[13]  Strategic planning for the optimal acquisition of flexible manufacturing systems technology , 1986 .

[14]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  Diagnosing the Experience Curve , 1983 .

[15]  Cheryl Gaimon,et al.  The Acquisition of Automation Subject to Diminishing Returns , 1985 .

[16]  R. D. Buzzell,et al.  Modelling changes in market share: A cross‐sectional analysis , 1981 .

[17]  Peter W. Chevalier.  Group Technology as a CAD/CAM Integrator in Batch Manufacturing , 1984 .

[18]  Louis E. Yelle.  THE LEARNING CURVE: HISTORICAL REVIEW AND COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY , 1979 .

[19]  F. Bass.  The Relationship between Diffusion Rates, Experience Curves, and Demand Elasticities for Consumer Durable Technological Innovations , 1980 .

[20]  R. Thietart.  Success Strategies for Businesses that Perform Poorly , 1988 .

[21]  N. K. Womer.  Learning Curves, Production Rate, and Program Costs , 1979 .

[22]  M. L. Vidale,et al.  An Operations-Research Study of Sales Response to Advertising , 1957 .