Operations strategy and analysis of competitive criteria: a case study of a food business

Lohmann, Sabrina; Lacerda, Daniel Pacheco; Camargo, Luís Felipe Riehs; Dresch, Aline

doi:10.1590/0104-530X2290-19

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Gest. Prod. 26 (3) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X2290-19 copy

Operations strategy and analysis of competitive criteria: a case study of a food business

Estratégia de operações e análise dos critérios competitivos: um estudo de caso em uma empresa de alimentos

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This study proposes an alternative way to access customer priority information on competitive criteria that a food industry company needs to take into account. Based on this approach, it is possible to identify a consistent set of information that assists in the decision-making process at an operational strategy level, such as investments in dedicated or shared production lines, quality programs, and cost reduction. This study is a single embedded case study. Data were collected through interviews with ten customers of each business unit (BU). Descriptive statistics of the results were performed to analyze data: mean central tendency, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. The Fleiss Kappa Index was then used to analyze the agreement between respondents' answers. Finally, a new statistical analysis was performed. This analysis was weighted considering the representativeness of each customer in the company's billing. The results show that there are differences among competitive priorities of each BU. In addition, the proportionality of participation of each BU in the company influences the order of preference of competitive criteria.

Keywords:
Operations strategy; Competitive criteria; Customer vision; Fleiss Kappa Index

Author	Title	Analysis Method	Approach	Sector
Barros et al. (2003)Barros, J. No, Fensterseifer, J. E., & Formoso, C. T. (2003). Os critérios competitivos da produção: um estudo exploratório na construção de edificações. Revista Administração Contemporânea, 7(1), 67-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552003000100004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552003...	Competitive criteria of production: An exploratory study on the construction of buildings	Matrix Importance x Performance	Qualitative	Construction
Carpes & Scarpin (2005)Carpes, A. M. S., & Scarpin, J. E. (2005). Análise do alinhamento da estratégia de operações com a estratpegia de competitividade: o caso de uma indústria recondicinadora de pneumáticos. Produção, 15(2), 286-299.	Analysis of the alignment of operations strategy with competitiveness strategy: The case of a tire reconditioning industry	Matrix Importance x Performance	Quantitative	Tires
TomaszewskiTomaszewski, L. A., Lacerda, D. P. & Teixeira, R. (2016). Estratégia de operações em serviços de saúde preventiva: análise dos critérios competitivos e recomendações operacionais. Gestão & Produção, 23(2), 381-396., Lacerda & Teixeira (2016)	Operations strategy of a Pilates studio: Analysis of competitive criteria and operational recommendations	Joint Analysis	Quantitative	Pilates Studio
Araújo et al. (2011)Araújo, J. P. F., Barroco, A. G., Freitas, J. O. No, Freire, P. H. O., & Campos, J. M. (2011). Formulação de estratégia de operações utilizando a matriz importância desempenho: um estudo de caso no setor de padarias na cidade do Natal-RN. In Anais do XXXI Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Producão (p. 13). Belo Horizonte: ENEGEP.	Formulation of operations strategy using the matrix importance performance: A case study on the bakery sector in the city of Natal, RN	Matrix Importance x Performance	Quantitative	Bakery
Santos et al. (2012)Santos, L. C., Gohr, C. F., & Varvakis, G. (2012). Prioridades competitivas para a estratégia de operações de serviços: uma análise dos critérios de valor percebido de uma academia de ginástica. Produção Online, 12(1), 133-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.14488/1676-1901.v12i1.837. http://dx.doi.org/10.14488/1676-1901.v12...	Competitive priorities for service operations strategy: An analysis of perceived value criteria of a health gym	Matrix Importance x Performance	Qualitative	Gym
Souza et al. (2014)Souza, A. M., Lacerda, D. P., Camargo, L. F. R., & Teixeira, R. (2014). Exploring the relationship between marketing and operations: neural network analysis of marketing decision impacts on delivery performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 153(June)	Exploratory analysis of the impacts of marketing decisions on the delivery performance of operations based on artificial neural networks	Artificial intelligence of neural networks	Quantitative	Operations

Analysis Items		Proposition
Proposition 1		Competitive criteria have different priorities within the analyzed business units.
Proposition 2		Prioritized competitive criteria differ among the business units analyzed.
Proposition 3	3a	The proportionality of the company's participation in the revenue of the business unit: Distributors do not influence the order of preference of competitive criteria.
	3b	The proportionality of the company's participation in the revenue of the business unit: Outsourcing does not influence the order of preference of competitive criteria.
	3c	The proportionality of the company's participation in the revenue of the business unit: Ingredients do not influence the order of preference of competitive criteria.

Business Unit and Customer		Percentage of Company Revenue (%)	Percentage of Business Unit Revenue (%)	Position of the interviewee	Relationship Time with the Company (Years)
Distributors	Customer 1	1.6	35.3	Partner	2
	Customer 2	0.6	12.9	Director	1
	Customer 3	0.5	11.0	Partner	1.5
	Customer 4	0.4	7.8	Commercial Manager	2
	Customer 5	0.3	7.4	Managing Partner	1
	Customer 6	0.3	7.1	Manager	1
	Customer 7	0.3	5.6	Purchasing	3
	Customer 8	0.2	5.0	Commercial Manager	1
	Customer 9	0.2	5.0	Commercial Director	1
	Customer 10	0.1	2.9	Owner	2
Outsourcing	Customer 1	^* * At product development stage.	*	Outsourcing Procurement	15
	Customer 2	22	28	Contract Manufacturing	5
	Customer 3	17	22	Own Company Manager	6
	Customer 4	*	*	External Supply Chain	-
	Customer 5	12	16	R&D - Exclusive Brands	10
	Customer 6	10	12	Contract Manufacturing Manager	-
	Customer 7	5.2	6.8	Corporate and Strategic Purchases	4
	Customer 8	3.8	4.9	Own Brand	5
	Customer 9	2.2	2.9	Product Development Supervisor	7
	Customer 10	2.2	2.9	Third Party Manager	15
Ingredients	Customer 1	4	44	Procurement Brazil	10
	Customer 2	3	36	PPC/purchases	3
	Customer 3	1	7.0	Purchasing	3
	Customer 4	0.4	4.6	Supplies	2
	Customer 5	0.3	3.5	Purchasing	4
	Customer 6	0.3	3.1	Purchasing Manager	2
	Customer 7	0.1	1.4	Purchasing	1
	Customer 8	0.1	0.9	Purchasing	4
	Customer 9	0.003	0.03	Purchasing	0.5
	Customer 10	0.003	0.03	Purchasing	2

Score	Classification	Importance
1	Insignificant	It is never considered by customers, and it will probably never be
2	Very Little Important	It is rarely considered by customers
3	Little Important	Usually not considered by customers, but may become important in the future
4	Indifferent	Around the industry average
5	Important	It provides a useful advantage to most customers - it is usually considered
6	Very important	It provides important advantage to customers - it is always considered
7	Extremely important	It provides crucial advantage to customers - it is the main driver of competitiveness

Competitive Criterion	Definition
Generated Value	How much buyers are willing to pay for the product and/or service considering the performance of its attributes and the perceived benefits (Silva & Fernandes, 2009Silva, S. E., & Fernandes, F. C. F. (2009). A estratégia de operações baseada no valor. In Anais do SIMPOI (pp. 1-15). São Paulo: FGV-EAESP.)
Quality	Consistent compliance with consumer expectations (Slack et al., 2002Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Johnston, R. (2002). Administração da produção (3rd ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.)
Delivery Reliability	Deliver products within the promised time frame (Teixeira & Paiva, 2008Teixeira, R., & Paiva, E. L. (2008). Trade-offs em serviços customizados e o ponto de vista do cliente. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 12(2), 457-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552008000200008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552008... )
Flexibility of Compound/Product	Ability to provide a wide variety or compound of products (Araújo et al., 2011Araújo, J. P. F., Barroco, A. G., Freitas, J. O. No, Freire, P. H. O., & Campos, J. M. (2011). Formulação de estratégia de operações utilizando a matriz importância desempenho: um estudo de caso no setor de padarias na cidade do Natal-RN. In Anais do XXXI Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Producão (p. 13). Belo Horizonte: ENEGEP.)
Innovativeness	Ability of the company to launch new products and/or services in a short time (Antunes & Klippel, 2006Antunes Jr, J. A. V., & Klippel, M. (2006). Estratégia de produção: conceituação, critérios competitivos e categorias de decisão. In Anais do III Simpósio de Excelência em Gestão e Tecnologia (pp. 1-10). Rio de Janeiro: SEGeT.)
Food Safety	Ability to control hazards in order to ensure that food is safe until the moment of human consumption (Ribeiro-Furtini & Abreu, 2006Ribeiro-Furtini, L. L., & Abreu, L. R. (2006). Utilização de APPCC na indústria de alimentos. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 30(2), 358-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542006000200025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542006... )
Delivery speed	Deliver products faster (Paiva et al., 2004Paiva, E. L., Carvalho, J. M. Jr, & Fensterseifer, J. E. (2004). Estratégia de produção e de operações: conceitos, melhores práticas, visão de futuro. Porto Alegre: Bookman.)

K	Interpretation
<0	Poor agreement
0.01 – 0.20	Slight agreement
0.21 – 0.40	Fair agreement
0.41 – 0.60	Moderate agreement
0.61 – 0.80	Substantial agreement
0.81 – 1.00	Almost perfect agreement

		Arithmetic Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Order of Importance
Competitive Criteria	Delivery Reliability	6.50	0.67	10%	1
	Delivery speed	6.40	0.66	10%	2
	Generated Value	6.20	0.75	12%	3
	Quality	5.80	0.87	15%	4
	Food Safety	5.80	0.98	17%	5
	Flexibility of Compound/Product	5.20	0.75	14%	6
	Innovativeness	4.40	0.92	21%	7

		Arithmetic Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Order of Importance
Competitive Criteria	Quality	7.00	0.00	0%	1
	Food Safety	6.90	0.30	4%	2
	Generated Value	6.00	0.77	13%	3
	Innovativeness	5.80	1.25	22%	4
	Delivery speed	5.80	0.75	13%	5
	Delivery Reliability	5.70	0.46	8%	6
	Flexibility of Compound/Product	5.60	1.28	23%	7

		Arithmetic Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Order of Importance
Competitive Criteria	Food Safety	6.70	0.46	7%	1
	Quality	6.50	0.67	10%	2
	Generated Value	6.10	0.54	9%	3
	Delivery speed	6.10	0.70	11%	4
	Delivery Reliability	5.50	0.50	9%	5
	Innovativeness	5.30	1.42	27%	6
	Flexibility of Compound/Product	3.70	1.19	32%	7

Competitive Criterion	Criteria priority order
Competitive Criterion	Outsourcing	Ingredients	Distributors
Quality	1	2	4
Food Safety	2	1	5
Generated Value	3	3	3
Innovativeness	4	6	7
Delivery speed	5	4	2
Delivery Reliability	6	5	1
Flexibility of Compound/Product	7	7	6

Business Unit	Fleiss Kappa Index	P-value
Ingredient	0.127	<0.01
Outsourcing	0.222	<0.01
Distributors	0.0272	0.409

Competitive Criterion	Arithmetic Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Weighted Prioritization	Prioritization Before Weighting
Delivery Reliability	6.66	0.58	8.7%	1	1
Delivery speed	6.21	0.66	10.7%	2	2
Generated Value	6.18	0.69	11.2%	3	3
Food Safety	6.16	0.95	15.3%	4	5
Quality	5.74	0.86	15.0%	5	4
Innovativeness	4.97	0.94	19.0%	6	7
Flexibility of Compound/Product	4.95	0.84	16.9%	7	6

Competitive Criteria	Arithmetic Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Weighted Prioritization	Prioritization Before Weighing
Quality	7.00	0.00	0.0%	1	1
Food Safety	6.97	0.18	2.6%	2	2
Innovativeness	6.37	1.07	16.7%	3	4
Generated Value	6.08	0.60	9.8%	4	3
Flexibility of Compound/Product	6.07	0.96	15.9%	5	7
Delivery speed	5.83	0.70	12.0%	6	5
Delivery Reliability	5.81	0.39	6.8%	7	6

Competitive Criteria	Arithmetic Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Weighted Prioritization	Prioritization Before Weighting
Food Safety	6.97	0.33	4.8%	1	1
Quality	6.94	0.41	6.0%	2	2
Delivery speed	6.88	0.51	7.4%	3	4
Innovativeness	6.36	0.78	12.2%	4	6
Generated Value	5.98	0.31	5.1%	5	3
Delivery Reliability	5.92	0.36	6.1%	6	5
Flexibility of Compound/Product	3.98	1.57	39.5%	7	7

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: prepared by the authors.