Home » Manufacturing Strategy-Environmental Dynamism-Performance Relationship: An Empirical Amongst Indonesian Large Manufacturers

Manufacturing Strategy-Environmental Dynamism-Performance Relationship: An Empirical Amongst Indonesian Large Manufacturers

Lena Ellitan

Faculty of Business,
Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya, Indonesia
Email: mellistya@yahoo.com


This research was conducted to identify the strategies adopted by Indonesian large manufacturing firms as well as to examine the relationship between manufacturing strategy, business environment, and firms’ performance (in term of financial performance and manufacturing performance). Companies listed in the statistic of centre bureau were used as the sampling frame in this study. The companies selected from the list are those that are involved in manufacturing activities and run their operation in East Java. A Total of 500 manufacturing firms fulfilled the criteria. The questionnaires were sent to the chief executive officer of each firm requesting them to respond to the questionnaire. Out of 500 questionnaires sent out, 104 usable responses were received giving approximately a return rate 21%.  It was found that the Indonesian manufacturing firm that adopts flexibility and delivery strategies can achieve better performance (financial and manufacturing) than the other two strategies. This finding does confirm the fact that manufacturing firms that practice flexibility and delivery strategy, can compete successfully.  The findings of the study support the fact that the manufacturing strategy developed in the west can be practiced by firms in developing countries such as Indonesian. The finding of this study also implies that a proper fit between strategy and environment is required to ensure high performance.


Manufacturing Strategy;
Environmental Dynamism;
Financial Performance;
Manufacturing Performance;
Indonesian Large Manufacturers.

download pdf

Cited as

Lena Ellitan, “Manufacturing Strategy-Environmental Dynamism-Performance Relationship: An Empirical Amongst Indonesian Large Manufacturers,” International Journal of Advanced Engineering and Management, Vol. 2, No. 10, pp. 227-234, 2017.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24999/IJOAEM/02100051


  1. Swamidass, P. M., & Newell, W. T. (1987). Manufacturing strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance: a path analytic model. Management science, 33(4), 509-524.
  2. Badri, M. A., Davis, D., & Davis, D. (2000). Operations strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance: a path analytic model of industries in developing countries. Omega, 28(2), 155-173.
  3. Krajewski, L. J. (1999). Instructor’s Resource Manual Operations Management: Strategy and Analysis. Addison-Wesley.
  4. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of marketing, 63-74.
  5. Calantone, R., & Dröge, C. (1999). Supply chain flexibility: an empirical study. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(2), 16-24
  6. Burgess, T. F., Gules, H. K., Gupta, J. N. D., & Tekin, M. (1998). Competitive priorities, process innovations and time-based competition in the manufacturing sectors of industrialising economies: the case of Turkey. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology5(4), 304-316.
  7. Stonebraker, P. W., & Leong, G. K. (1994). Operations strategy: focusing competitive excellence. Allyn and Bacon.
  8. Choon Tan, K., Kannan, V. R., Handfield, R. B., & Ghosh, S. (2000). Quality, manufacturing strategy, and global competition: An empirical analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7(3), 174-182.
  9. Gerwin, D. (1993). Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective. Management science, 39(4), 395-410.
  10. Braglia, M., & Petroni, A. (2000). Towards a taxonomy of search patterns of manufacturing flexibility in small and medium-sized firms. Omega, 28(2), 195-213.
  11. Akgul, A. K., Gozlu, S., & Tatoglu, E. (2015). Linking operations strategy, environmental dynamism and firm performance: Evidence from Turkish manufacturing companies. Kybernetes, 44(3), 406-422.
  12. Venkatraman, N., & Prescott, J. E. (1990). Environment‐strategy coalignment: an empirical test of its performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 1-23.
  13. A Roy and K Mukherjee, Entrepreneurial Education in India, International Journal of Advanced Engineering and Management, pp. 15-20, 2017.
  14. Tan, Y., Shen, L., & Langston, C. (2011). Competition environment, strategy, and performance in the Hong Kong construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(3), 352-360.
  15. Parnell, J. A., Spillan, J. E., & Mensah, E. C. (2014). Competitive strategy and performance in Southern Ghana. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 13(2), 109-129.
  16. Snyder, N., & Glueck, W. F. (1980). How managers plan—the analysis of managers’ activities. Long range planning, 13(1), 70-76.
  17. Drucker, P. F. (1995). People and performance: The best of Peter Drucker on management. Routledge.
  18. Stanwick, P. A., & Pleshko, L. P. (1995). Relationships of environmental characteristics, formalized planning, and organizational design to performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(2), 175-197.
  19. Manu, F. A., & Sriram, V. (1996). Innovation, marketing strategy, environment, and performance. Journal of business Research, 35(1), 79-91.
  20. Li, M., & Simerly, R. L. (1998). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the ownership and performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 169-179.
  21. Jiao, H., Alon, I., & Cui, Y. (2011). Environmental dynamism, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: the case of China. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 5(2), 131-144.
  22. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American sociological review, 149-164.
  23. Kourteli, L. (2000). Scanning the business environment: some conceptual issues. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7(5), 406-413.
  24. O’Connell & Zimmerman, J.W. (1979). Scanning the environment, California Management Review, 22(Winter).15-33.
  25. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy‐making and environment: the third link. Strategic management journal, 4(3), 221-235.


%d bloggers like this: