The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1726-0531.htm

JEDT
12,4
Forty criteria based agility
assessment using scoring
approach in an Indian relays
506 manufacturing organization
Sakthivel Aravind Raj and S. Vinodh
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Tiruchirappalli, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study was to develop a 40-criteria agility assessment model and explore
its practical feasibility in an industrial scenario.
Design/methodology/approach – Agile manufacturing (AM) principles enable organizations to
understand customer needs and incorporate the necessary changes in product- and processes-oriented
approaches. In this research study, a 40-criteria agility assessment model was developed. The agility
assessment model was subjected to investigation in an Indian relays manufacturing organization.
Findings – The research study indicates that the organization is agile. Besides computing agility level,
the gaps across agile criteria have been identified and actions for agility improvement were subjected to
implementation in the case organization.
Research limitations/implications – The 40-criteria agility assessment model was subjected to
investigation in a single manufacturing organization. In future, more number of studies could be
conducted.
Practical implications – To acquire agile characteristics, modern organizations should assess the
agility level at which they operate. In this context, the agility assessment model was developed.
Originality/value – The agility assessment tool presented in this paper consists of 40 agile criteria,
which are well supported by the research findings reported in literature. Hence, the developed
40-criteria agile model is original and novel.
Keywords Agile manufacturing, Agility, Agility assessment, Competitiveness, Scoring approach
Paper type Case study

Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology
Vol. 12 No. 4, 2014
pp. 506-517
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1726-0531
DOI 10.1108/JEDT-10-2010-0065
1. Introduction
The nature of customers’ demand is becoming complex and dynamic with the
ever-increasing competition (Gunasekaran, 1999). The demands of the customers’ are
becoming vibrant and they demand products within a shorter period of time. Also, the
globalization policies followed by the government influence the competition in
liberalized markets (Alexopoulos et al., 2007; Jagadeesh, 1999). Hence, the
manufacturing organizations are becoming increasingly agile. Agility refers to the
The authors are thankful to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India,
for sanctioning the fund towards the execution of project titled “Decision Support System for
measuring agile characteristics” (Ref. No.22 (0505)/10/EMR-II). This research study forms a part
of this major research project.
capability of manufacturing organizations to produce a variety of products within a Forty criteria
short period of time in a cost-effective manner (Yusuf and Adeleye, 2002). This
capability is widely referred to as agile manufacturing (AM) by the contemporary
agility
researchers. assessment
The contemporary organizations are at various levels of acquiring agile capabilities. model
Those organizations which are highly agile are able to thrive in the competitive market.
On the other hand, other organizations are losing their business to other competitors. 507
This situation necessitates the need for agility measurement tools. Few researchers have
contributed certain tools and techniques for agility assessment (Vinodh et al., 2008).
This article reports a study in which a 40-criteria agility assessment model was
developed. The developed model was test implemented in an Indian relays
manufacturing organization. The scoring approach was used for measuring the agility
level. The drag factors that hinder agility were identified and the proposals for agility
improvement were test implemented. The details are presented in the subsequent
sections of this article.

2. Literature survey
The literature was reviewed from the orientation of agility assessment. Kumar and
Motwani (1995) have initially conceptualized a model for measuring agility. This article
deals with time performance to improve agility, from market needs to delivery of
product, time required for the firm to develop ideas into product level in critical path.
The agility index was computed considering various criteria in initial stage. The major
drawback in this article is that the suggested work needs to be tested and validated on
realistic settings across different factors and segments.
Zhang and Sharifi (2000) have presented a new approach for evaluating agility using
scoring approach and a case study was presented. The article also illustrates the
knowledge about agility drivers, capabilities and gap analysis. The practical
approaches to various industries were surveyed and major gaps were identified. The
key factor in agile environment is adopting the market needs in new products and
delivering rapidly to the customers. The model is validated by implementing it in three
manufacturing sectors.
Yang and Li (2002) have contributed the agility assessment especially for mass
customized products. They assess the mass customization enterprise with three indices
and evaluated using multi-grade fuzzy assessment. This evaluation index system
includes three aspects, namely, enterprise organization management, product design
and processing and manufacturing. This model enables in guiding mass customization
enterprise realizing the agile standard.
Lin et al. (2006) contributed an article related to agility index for evaluating supply
chains. They calculated agility index using fuzzy logic approach. The authors followed
a methodology with agile drivers and enablers. To achieve the agility in supply chains,
this article provides knowledge about how to measure and improve agility level.
Qumer and Sellers (2008) have performed work related to evaluation and
improvement of the four dimensions of agility using analytical tools. The agility was
measured using six different methods. From the results derived, degree of agility in each
method was individually found.
Vinodh et al. (2008) have contributed a method for measuring agility in an electronics
company. This article deals with quantification agility level of the firm. Agile
JEDT quantification tool was designed on the basis of a 20-criteria agile model with a set of
questionnaire.
12,4 Vinodh et al. (2010a, 2010b) have presented an article related to agility assessment as
a result of implementing a new concept called total agile design system (TADS) and
followed scoring approach to evaluate the agility level of organization. The authors have
used a 20-criteria model for evaluating agility and provided suggestions to improve the
508 weaker part of the firm after the study.
Based on the literature review, it was found that the 20-criteria agile model could be
enhanced by the incorporation of other agile dimensions. Hence, in this study, efforts
were made to develop a 40-criteria model for agility assessment.

3. Research methodology
The study begins with the literature review on agility assessment which includes the
review of preliminary work done by various authors. Then, the research gap was
identified as the development of comprehensive model for agility assessment. This was
followed by the development of a 40-criteria concept model for agility assessment by
considering newer technologies like new product development, data management,
seasonality, flexible and rapid manufacturing, business support and advanced design
concepts. The relevant data was gathered using agility assessment questionnaire. The
agility index was computed. Then the gaps were identified and proposals for agility
improvement were derived.

4. Conceptual model for agility assessment

The concept model for agility assessment was developed by identifying an additional 20
criteria to the basic 20-criteria concept model (Vinodh et al., 2008). The newly developed
agile model consists of 40 criteria, which was developed from the previous work by
considering technological upgradation in the field of engineering. The newly developed
40-criteria model is shown in Figure 1 and the concept model is shown in Table I
(Figure 2).
Newer agile criteria include product variety, new product development, flexible
volume production, fast production and delivery, flexible delivery time and locations
and seasonality (Readman et al., 2006), virtual enterprise (Zhon and Nagi, 2002), data
management (Hameri and Nitter, 2002), inter-organizational systems (Humphreys et al.,
2001), rapid manufacturing system (Vinodh et al., 2009), advances in design, concurrent
processing (Tang et al., 2000), agile customization, business support systems (Silveira
et al., 2001), flexible business practices (Moitra and Ganesh, 2005), resource optimization
(Wu and Barnes, 2010), knowledge management (Raub and Wittich, 2004), creativity
and teamwork (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2007) and collaborative relationship (Pimentel
Claro and Oliveira Claro, 2010).
The model consists of five enablers, these enablers consist of various criteria, and in
turn criteria consists of various attributes which supports the criteria and improve
agility.
Management responsibility agility consists of criteria like organizational structure,
devolution of authority and nature of management. This enabler mainly deals with
management responsibilities to improve agile characteristics in the firm. Manufacturing
management agility enabler mainly depends on manufacturing management, which
include criteria such as customer response adoption, change in business and technical
 Literature review on agility assessment Forty criteria
agility
assessment
Identification of research gap
model
509
Development of 40 criteria model for
agility assessment

Data collection

Computation of Agility index

Figure 1.
Derivation of inferences Research methodology

Agile enabler Agile criteria

Management Organizational structure, devolution of authority, nature of management

responsibility agility
Manufacturing Customer response adoption, change in business and technical process,
Management agility outsourcing, resources optimization*, Agile customization*, flexible
business practices*, Knowledge management*, business support
systems*, product variety*, rapid manufacturing system*, inter-
organizational systems*
Work force Employee status, employee involvement, team working*, creativity*, fast
production and delivery*
Technology agility Manufacturing setups, product lifecycle, product service, design
improvement, production methodology, manufacturing planning,
automation type, it integration, advances in design*, concurrent
processing*, new product development*, data management*, virtual
enterprise*
Manufacturing Status of quality, status of productivity, cost management, time
Strategy agility management, collaborative relationship*, flexible volume production*,
seasonality*, flexible delivery time and locations* Table I.
Agility enablers and
Note: * Newer agile criteria added criteria

processes, outsourcing, resource optimization, agile customization, flexible business

practices, knowledge management, business support systems, product variety, rapid
manufacturing system and inter-organizational systems. Work force enabler mainly
depends on workforce and how they are being managed according to rapid changes in
market. It deals with criteria like employee status, employee involvement, team
JEDT
12,4

510

Figure 2.
The 40-criteria agile
model

working, creativity, fast production and delivery. Technology agility enabler deals with
newer technologies in market which improves the current position of the firm, like
manufacturing setups, product lifecycle, product service, design improvement,
production methodology, manufacturing planning, automation type, information
technology (IT) integration, advances in design, concurrent processing, new product
development, data management and virtual enterprise-dedicated technologies which
improve the standard of the firm. Manufacturing strategy agility enabler deals with the
strategies to be followed in manufacturing processes, which consists of criteria like
status of quality, status of productivity, cost management, time management,
collaborative relationship, flexible volume production, seasonality and flexible delivery
time and locations. The maximum score was fixed as 1,000, in line with the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award (Bryde, 2003). The 1,000-point score was apportioned
among the 40 criteria. Management responsibility was assigned a 500 score, as without
management commitment, the implementation of newer approaches is not possible. The
score pertaining to manufacturing management, workforce, technology and
manufacturing strategy enablers are 150,100,150 and 100, respectively. The score
apportionment was done in line with the previous agility assessment studies (Vinodh
et al., 2008, 2009). This apportionment was agreed by the AM experts and company
executives. The apportionment is shown in Table II.

5. Case study
This section deals with the steps involved in the agility assessment of case organization.
The case study was conducted in relays manufacturing organization located in
 Maximum AM criterion Maximum
Forty criteria
AM enabler score number AM criteria score agility
Management 500 A11 Organizational structure 100 assessment
responsibility agility A1 A12 Devolution of authority 150 model
A13 Nature of management 250
Manufacturing 150 A21 Customer response adoption 15
Management agility A2 A22 Change in business and technical 10
511
process
A23 Outsourcing 15
A24 Resources optimization 10
A25 Agile customization 15
A26 Flexible business practices 15
A27 Knowledge management 15
A28 Business support systems 10
A29 Product variety 20
A210 Rapid manufacturing system 15
A211 Inter-organizational systems 10
Workforce A3 100 A31 Employee status 20
A32 Employee involvement 20
A33 Team working 20
A34 Creativity 20
A35 Fast production and delivery 20
Technology agility A4 150 A41 Manufacturing setups 10
A42 Product lifecycle 15
Technology agility A4 A43 Product service 10
A44 Design improvement 10
A45 Production methodology 15
A46 Manufacturing planning 10
A47 Automation Type 10
A48 IT integration 10
A49 Advances in design 10
A410 Concurrent processing 10
A411 New product development 10
A412 Data management 15
Manufacturing Strategy 100 A51 Status of quality 15
agility A5 A52 Status of productivity 10
A53 Cost management 15
A54 Time management 10
A55 Collaborative relationship 10
A56 Flexible volume production 15
A57 Seasonality 10 Table II.
A58 Flexible delivery time and 15 Apportionment of scores
locations among 40 agile criteria

Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. After developing the questionnaire, the details were
presented to various experts in industry and academia as a part of our ongoing major
research project and their suggestions were also being incorporated in the model. The
organization manufactures relays, modular switches, starters, etc. There existed a vital
need for the organization to measure its agility level.
JEDT 5.1 Collection of relevant data
The data pertaining to agility assessment was collected using the questionnaire
12,4 developed for each criterion systematically. The responses of five executives who are
heads of various departments of the case organization were collected. Various
departments in the case organization include design, production, customer service,
quality control and new product development. Five executives are the personnel
512 responsible for the implementation of AM practices in the case organization. The
executives possess sufficient experience on the working culture of the organization. As
a sample, the questionnaire pertaining to knowledge management criterion is shown in
Figure 3.

5.2 Sample calculation

The method of calculating the score is presented here. The responses provided by the
executives for the “knowledge management” criterion is presented as follows (Table III).
1, a; 2, a; 3, b; 4, b; 5, b; 6, b
The key for calculating the score is illustrated in Table II. Correspondingly, the score
obtained against each response have been calculated and it is equal to 6 (2 ⫹ 2 ⫹ 0 ⫹
0 ⫹ 0 ⫹ 2). Similarly, the score for all criteria have been computed. The scores pertaining

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Knowledge Management is the systematic management of vital knowledge – and its associated
processes of creation, organization, diffusion, use and exploitation – in pursuit of business
objectives. In an organization knowledge acts like a resource by which one can act and respond
to changes in a shorter time interval.

1. Does the information system have the capability to respond to customer changes in a timely
manner (like retrieval of required information at the required place) such that it will facilitate
enterprise to achieve the concept of agile manufacturing? (2)
a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]

2. Is it possible to share data between dissimilar systems (or) Is data migration possible (making
automation task or of AI easier) (2)
a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]

3. Are you utilizing decision support systems? (2)

a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]

4. Does the company follow Collaborative manufacturing (product centric business solution)? (3)
a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]

5. Is exclusive management portal being available in your organization? (3)

Figure 3. a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
Questionnaire pertaining
to knowledge 6. What is the rate of Knowledge derivation? (3)
management criterion a. Rapid [ ] b. Medium [ ] c. Feeble [ ]
to individual criteria are shown in Table II. The total agility score is found to be 740. The Forty criteria
agility index (Vinodh et al., 2008) has been computed as follows:
agility
Total Score 740 assessment
Agility index ⫽ ⫽ ⫽ 0.74
1000 1000 model
The agility index of the organization is 0.74 513
6. Results and discussions
The agility level of the organization is found to be 74 per cent. Hence, there exists scope
for agility improvement to become 100 per cent agile enterprise. The gaps across the
agile enablers are presented in Table IV. Based on the analysis of results presented in
Table IV, the gap is observed to be the highest for manufacturing management enabler
and lowest for management responsibility enabler. Similarly, the gap is observed to be
higher for the “inter-organizational system” criterion and lower for the “outsourcing”
criterion. The gaps across the criteria are presented in Table V. If the gap is found to be
more than 50 per cent, the criterion is found to be weaker (Vinodh et al., 2008, 2009). The
identified weaker criteria are flexible business practices, knowledge management,
business support system, inter-organizational system, advances in design, concurrent
processing, virtual enterprise and rapid manufacturing system. After identifying the
weaker criteria, suitable proposals were derived and subjected to implementation to
improve the agility level of the organization.

6.1 Agility gap analysis

Based on the analysis of gaps, the proposals for agility improvement are being
suggested and actions are taken for implementation. The gaps prevailing across the
various criteria are identified and the suitable proposals were derived in terms of
manufacturing, design and managerial approaches to improve the agility level of the

Criterion Question
number Criterion number A B C

10 Knowledge management [/15] 1 2 0 –

2 2 0 –
3 2 0 –
4 3 0 – Table III.
5 3 0 – Scores pertaining to
6 3 2 1 individual criterion

Serial number Enabler Obtained score Maximum score % gap

1 Management responsibility 418 500 16.4

2 Manufacturing management 92.5 150 38.33
3 Workforce 67.5 100 32.5 Table IV.
4 Technology agility 93.5 150 37.66 Percentage gap across the
5 Manufacturing strategy 69.5 100 30.5 agile enablers
JEDT Serial number Criteria Obtained score Maximum score % gap
12,4
1 Organizational structure 73 100 27
2 Devolution of authority 125 150 16.66
3 Nature of management 220 250 12
4 Customer response adoption 13 15 13.33
5 Change in business & technical process 8.5 10 15
514 6 Outsourcing 14 15 6.66
7 Resource optimization 6.5 10 35
8 Agile customization 11 15 26.66
9 Flexible business practices 7.5 15 50
10 Knowledge management 6 15 60
11 Business support system 5 10 50
12 Product variety 11.5 20 42.5
13 Rapid manufacturing system 5 10 50
14 Inter-organizational system 4.5 15 70
15 Employee status 14 20 30
16 Employee involvement 11 20 45
17 Team work 12 20 40
18 Creativity 12.5 20 37.5
19 Fast production & delivery 18 20 10
20 Manufacturing setups 6.5 10 35
21 Product life cycle 8 15 46.66
22 Product service 7 10 30
23 Design improvement 7 10 30
24 Production Methodology 10.5 15 30
25 Manufacturing planning 8 10 20
26 Automation type 7 10 30
27 Information technology integration 7 10 30
28 Advances in design 5 10 50
29 Concurrent processing 5 10 50
30 New product development 6 10 40
31 Data management 9 15 40
32 Virtual enterprise 7.5 15 50
33 Status of quality 12 15 20
34 Status of productivity 8 10 20
35 Cost management 8 15 46.66
36 Time management 7 10 30
37 Collaborative relationship 6.5 10 35
38 Flexible volume production 10 15 33.33
39 Seasonality 6 10 10
40 Flexible delivery time and locations 12 15 20
Table V. Total marks 740 1,000
Percentage gap across the
agile criteria Note: Agility index ⫽ 740/1,000 ⫽ 0.74

organization (Vinodh et al., 2008, 2010a, 2010b). The need for transparency in
information flow has to be improved to ensure flexibility in business practices. The
product-centric approach is not being followed and IT has been not fully exploited in
knowledge management. Exclusive portals have been developed for the facilitation of
knowledge sharing; support systems for decision-making are exclusively being Forty criteria
developed to improve the knowledge management (Raub and Wittich, 2004). Employees
are lagging in current technologies to handle rapid manufacturing and also have less
agility
exposure on rapid tooling techniques. Product development team should be assessment
collaborative rather than a wall-over-through approach (Pimentel Claro and Oliveira model
Claro, 2010). Training programs need to be conducted to the employees for improving
rapid manufacturing practices. Advanced design support tools and customization 515
system are not being exclusively used. Supportive tools which are used for evaluating
design should be advanced. Customization should be done by forecasting the market
needs to ensure the advances in design. Previous criteria have shown that less
concentration was provided on collaborative work. The firm does not follow the
collaborative approach in knowledge sharing. Virtual enterprise mainly deals with
collaborative knowledge sharing with experts. The firms have to develop IT-enabled
product development strategies using video conferencing (Zhon and Nagi, 2002).
Concurrent approaches have to be incorporated with the expert team. Lag in distributed
product development has to be rectified by assigning work to various teams instead of
single team. The firm does not have good communication within them because they use
traditional methods for communication. The problem could be overcome by
communicating to the employees and customers via Internet technologies like alert SMS
(short message service), email and popup in system, so that communication become
easier and faster to all activities related to the firm, which ensures the improvement in
inter-organizational system (Silveira et al., 2001).

7. Conclusions
One of the contemporary research agenda in the field of AM is the measurement of
agility. Few researchers have explored the avenues for assessing agility (Vinodh et al.,
2008). A 20-criteria agile model was widely used by the researchers for agility
assessment (Vinodh et al., 2010a,, 2010b). To improve the comprehensiveness of
20-criteria model, in this study, a 40-criteria agility measurement model was proposed.
The model is comprehensive as it addresses all dimensions of agility. The model was
subjected to implementation study in an Indian relays manufacturing organization. The
scoring method is used for measuring the agility level. The agility level is found to be 74
per cent, which indicates that the organization is agile. The gap is found to be higher in
manufacturing management enabler and inter-organizational system criterion. The
gaps that impede agility are being identified and proposals for agility improvement
were subjected to implementation. By effective implementation of the identified
proposals, the agility level of the organization would improve. Similar studies have been
reported by Vinodh et al. (2008) for agility assessment of an electronic switches
manufacturing organization using the 20-criteria model and the agility level is found to
be 85 per cent. Also, Vinodh et al. (2010a, 2010b) have developed a new concept called
TADS for the same organization and the agility level is found to be increased to 94 per
cent after the implementation of the model.
Currently, the developed model was subjected to investigation in a single
manufacturing organization. In future, more number of studies could be conducted. In
the present study, scoring method is used for agility assessment. In future, fuzzy and
other advanced methods could also be used (Vinodh et al., 2010a, 2010b).
JEDT References
12,4 Alexopoulos, K., Mourtzis, D., Papakostas, N. and Chryssolouris, G. (2007), “DESYMA: assessing
flexibility for the lifecycle of manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 1683-1694.
Bryde, D.J. (2003), “Modelling project management performance”, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 229-254.
516 Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 87-105.
Hameri, P.A. and Nitter, P. (2002), “Engineering data management through different breakdown
structures in a large-scale project”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 375-384.
Hoegl, M. and Parboteeah, K.P. (2007), “Creativity in innovative projects: how teamwork matters”,
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 24 Nos 1/2, pp. 148-166.
Humphreys, P.K., Lai, M.K. and Sculli, D. (2001), “An inter-organizational information system for
supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 70 No. 3,
pp. 245-255.
Jagadeesh, R. (1999), “Total quality management in India – perspective and analysis”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 321-327.
Kumar, A. and Motwani, J. (1995), “A methodology for assessing time based competitive
advantage of manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Operation Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 36-53.
Lin, C.-T., Chiu, H. and Tseng, Y.-H. (2006), “Agility evaluation using fuzzy logic”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 353-368.
Moitra, D. and Ganesh, J. (2005), “Web services and flexible business processes: towards the
adaptive enterprise”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 921-933.
Pimentel Claro, D. and Oliveira Claro, P.B. (2010), “Collaborative buyer – supplier relationships
and downstream information in marketing channels”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 221-228.
Qumer, A. and Hendeson Sellers, B. (2008), “An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile
methods and its applicability for method engineering”, Information and Software
Technology, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 280-295.
Raub, S. and Wittich, D.V. (2004), “Implementing knowledge management: three strategies for
effective CKOs”, European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 714-724.
Readman, J., Squire, B., Bessant, J. and Brown, S. (2006), “The application of agile manufacturing
for customer value”, Journal of Financial Transformation, Vol. 18, pp. 133-141.
Silveira, G.D., Borenstein, D. and Fogliatto, S.F. (2001), “Mass customization: literature review and
research directions”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Tang, D., Zheng, L., Li, Z., Li, D. and Zhang, S. (2000), “Re-engineering of the design process for
concurrent engineering”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 479-491.
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S.R. and Rajanayagam, D. (2008), “Quantification of agility
an experimental in an Indian electronics switches manufacturing company”, Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 48-64.
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S.R., Kuttalingam, D. and Rajanayagam, D. (2009), “Agility
through rapid prototyping technology in a manufacturing environment using a 3D printer”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 1023-1041.
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G. and Devadasan, S.R. (2010), “Measuring organisational agility before Forty criteria
and after implementation of TADS”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 47 Nos 5/8, pp. 809-818. agility
Vinodh, S., Devadasan, S.R., Vasudeva Reddy, B. and Ravichand, K. (2010), “Agility index assessment
measurement using multi-grade fuzzy approach integrated in a 20 criteria agile model”, model
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 23, pp. 1-18.
Wu, C. and Barnes, D. (2010), “Formulating partner selection criteria for agile supply chains: a 517
Dempster – Shafer belief acceptability optimisation approach”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 284-293.
Yang, S.L. and Li, T.F. (2002), “Agility evaluation of mass customization product manufacturing”,
Journal of Material Processing and Technology, Vol. 129 Nos 1/3, pp. 640-644.
Yusuf, Y.Y. and Adeleye, E.O. (2002), “A comparative study of lean and agile manufacturing with
a related survey of current practices in the UK”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 40 No. 17, pp. 4545-4562.
Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. (2000), “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organizations”, International Journal of Operation Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 496-512.
Zhon, L. and Nagi, R. (2002), “Design for distributed information systems for agile manufacturing
virtual enterprises using CORBA and STEP standards”, Journal of Manufacturing Science,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 14-31.

Further reading
Brown, S. and Bessant, J. (2003), “The manufacturing strategy-capabilities links in mass
customisation and agile manufacturing – an exploratory study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 707-730.

Corresponding author
Sakthivel Aravind Raj can be contacted at: aravindsakthivel@hotmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.