By comparing firms by type of manufacturing operations such as process type (fabrication/assembly/ mixed),
in terms of practices and more specifically in relation to maintenance costs, all the firms regardless of their
type of manufacturing operations tend to deploy most of their resources in corrective maintenance (40:60).
The only exception is represented by mixed 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. 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 assembly firms display a greater degree of adherence to the scheme. 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 both the current and the future implementation of quality
programs, balanced firms find themselves at the bottom of the chart the lowest degree of implementation.
As for priorities, overall the data does not display significant variability across firms. All the firms, regardless
of the type of their manufacturing operations display similar results in both changes of priorities of customers
and improvement goals.
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. As for the impact of quality on lateness, yet poor quality of
supplies is a major cause of delay for assembly firms, while it only marginally affects fabrication firms.
Similarly, internal quality is a major cause of delay for mixed firms, while it has a minor impact on
fabrication 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 fabrication firms are more driven to achieve manufacturing conformance whereas mixed firms are less
oriented towards product quality and reliability.
By comparing firms by type of process layout (job shop, cellular layout, dedicated lines, balanced) several
differences also emerge (Table 2).
In terms of practices, all the firms regardless of their type of process layout tend to deploy most of their
resources in corrective maintenance (40:60). The only exception is represented by balanced 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 job-shop firms display a lower degree of
adherence to the scheme. The importance of the quality of the products/services offered in the selection of
suppliers displays significant variability across firms, where dedicated lines firms rate this factor very high
and cellular lay-out firms rate it very low. Finally, as for both the current and the future implementation of
quality programs, dedicated lines firms find themselves at the top of the chart with the highest degree of
implementation, while job-shop firms and balanced firms at the bottom for current and future use
respectively.
As for priorities, overall the data does not display significant variability across firms. All the firms, regardless
of the type of their process layout display similar results in both changes of priorities of customers and
improvement goals. Job-shop firms report higher change in both respect of superior product quality and
superior conformance quality, while balanced firms show lower change in relation to the former and cellular