Automation and Flexibility: An Apparent or Real Dilemma?

  • Magnus WiktorssonEmail author
  • Anna Granlund
  • Mats Lundin
  • Birgitta Södergren
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 255)


There are trade-offs between cost and capabilities throughout specification, implementation and operation of automated solutions in manufacturing companies. This chapter describes four identified dilemmas or contradictions while balancing flexibility to automation, based on an empirical study with interviews and workshop in five internationally competitive manufacturing companies. The study generated insights on experienced challenges while implementing automated solutions in manufacturing, and these apparent conflicts between automated solutions and maintaining a high operational flexibility need to be managed as manufacturing automation will continue to increase on all levels.



The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions from all the participants in the companies that took part in the study. The financial support from VINNOVA to the “Flaggskeppsfabriken” project is also greatly appreciated. This research was performed in the context of the XPRES framework at Mälardalen University. 


  1. Andreessen, M. (2011, August 20). Why software is eating the world. The Wall Street Journal. Available online Accessed 1 June 2017.
  2. Baines, T. (2004). An integrated process for forming manufacturing technology acquisition decisions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(5), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, P., & Halim, Z. (2007). An exploration of warehouse automation implementations: cost, service and flexibility issues. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(2), 129–138.Google Scholar
  4. Chryssolouris, G., Efthymiou, K., Papakostas, N., Mourtzis, D., & Pagoropoulos, A. (2013). Flexibility and complexity: Is it a trade-off? International Journal of Production Research, 51(23–24), 6788–6802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Credit Suisse. (2014). Global Industrial Automation. The Credit Suisse Connections Series. August 14, 2012. Available online Accessed 1 June 2017.
  6. Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 1–21.Google Scholar
  7. Goyal, S., & Grover, S. (2012). Advanced manufacturing technology effectiveness: A review of literature and some issues. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 7(3), 256–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Granlund, A. (2014). Facilitating automation development in internal logistics systems. Mälardalen University Press Dissertations No. 150.Google Scholar
  9. Granlund, A., & Jackson, M. (2013). Managing automation development projects—A comparison of industrial needs and existing theoretical support. In The 23rd International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, 26–28 June, 2013, Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
  10. Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104–112.Google Scholar
  11. Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1991). The strategy concept and process: A pragmatic approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Jain, A., Jain, P. K., Chan, F. T. S., & Singh, S. (2013). A review on manufacturing flexibility. International Journal of Production Research, 51(19), 5946–5970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kortmann, S., Gelhard, C., Zimmermann, C., & Piller, F. T. (2014). Linking strategic flexibility and operational efficiency: The mediating role of ambidextrous operational capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsson, Ö., Wiktorsson, M., & Cedergren, S. (2014, September 16–18). The third wave of automation: Critical factors for industrial digitization. In 6th Swedish Production Symposium SPS 2014. Sweden: Chalmers University.Google Scholar
  15. McDermott, C. M., & Stock, G. N. (1999). Organizational culture and advanced manufacturing technology implementation. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 521–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mishra, R., Pundir, A. K., & Ganapathy, L. (2014). Assessment of manufacturing flexibility—a review of research and conceptual framework. Management Research Review, 37(8), 750–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomassen, M. K., Sjøbakk, B., & Alfnes, E. (2014). A strategic approach for automation technology initiatives selection. In Grabot et al. (Ed.), APMS 2014, Part III, IFIP AICT 440 (pp. 288–295).Google Scholar
  18. Wiktorsson, M. (2014). Consideration of legacy structures enabling a double helix development of production systems and products. In E. Henriques, P. Peças, & A. Silva (Eds.), Technology and manufacturing process selection: The product life cycle perspective. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Wiktorsson, M., Granlund, A., Lundin, M., & Södergren, B. (2016). Automation and flexibility: Exploring Contradictions in manufacturing operations. In 23rd EurOMA Conference, June 17–22, 2016, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  20. Winroth, M., Säfsten, K., & Stahre, J. (2007). Automation strategies: Existing theory or ad hoc decisions? International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 11(1), 98–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magnus Wiktorsson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Granlund
    • 1
  • Mats Lundin
    • 2
  • Birgitta Södergren
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Innovation, Design and EngineeringMälardalen UniversityEskilstunaSweden
  2. 2.Swerea IVFMölndalSweden
  3. 3.IPFUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations