as being very important factors for component manufactures. Differently end-user firms rate product design
and quality as far lower. As for the impact of quality on lateness, yet poor quality of supplies is a major cause
of delay for both distributors and end-users firms, while it only marginally affects product assemblers.
Internal quality is a major cause of delays only for mixed firms. The rankings in the amount of change in
quality performance criteria such as manufacturing conformance and product quality and reliability over the
past three years portray also a quite varied picture where distributors are more quality-driven and mixed firms
are less oriented towards quality.
By comparing firms on the basis of their type of customer orders (designed/engineered, manufactured,
procured or assembled to order, produced to stock, mixed) several differences also emerge (Table 2).
In terms of practices and more specifically in relation to maintenance costs, all the firms regardless of their
type of customer orders tend to deploy most of their resources in corrective maintenance (40:60). The only
exception is represented by produced to stock firms that deploy equally their resources among preventive and
corrective maintenance (50:50). As for quality costs, all the firms tend to spend more on inspection costs
rather than internal, preventive or external costs. In terms of implanting ISO9000, all firms exhibit similar
figures although assembled to order firms display the highest degree of adherence to the scheme, whereas
designed to order firms he lowest. The importance of the quality of the products/services offered in the
selection of the suppliers does not display significant variability across firms. Finally, as for the current
implementation of quality programs, assembled to order firms find themselves at the top of the chart with the
highest degree of implementation, while mixed firms at the bottom for current use. In relation to the future
implementation of quality programs, manufactured to order firms display higher commitment.
As for priorities, overall the data does not display significant variability across firms. All the firms, except
mixed firms that display very high scores, display similar results in both changes of priorities of customers
and improvement goals. Produced to stock firms show the lowest change in relation to quality conformance.
Mixed firms display also more commitment toward improvement goals, whereas produced to stock firms the
lowest.
In terms of performance, the competitive importance of quality issues in winning orders over competitors
does not display significant variability. Product design and quality and quality conformance are perceived as
being very important factors for all the firms. Procured to order and mixed firms rate product design and
quality very high, while assembled to order firms rate quality conformance very low. As for the impact of
quality on lateness, yet poor quality of supplies is a major cause of delay for both procured to order and mixed
firms, while internal quality strongly affects only manufactured to order firms. The rankings in the amount of
change in quality performance criteria such as manufacturing conformance and product quality and reliability
over the past three years portray also a quite varied picture where produced to stock firms and manufactured
to order firms display higher change in manufacturing conformance and product quality reliability,
respectively.
3.5 Degree of integration of functional strategies and their location on the supply
chain
By comparing firms by type of manufacturing operations such as process type (fabrication/assembly mix) and
by process layout (job shop, cellular layout or dedicated lines) several differences also emerge (Table 2).