The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

Decision-making
Decision-making approaches approaches in
in process innovations: process
innovations
an explorative case study
Erik Flores-Garcia 1
Mälardalens Högskola Campus Eskilstuna, Eskilstuna, Sweden
Received 4 March 2019
Jessica Bruch Revised 18 July 2019
14 September 2019
Mälardalens University Eskilstuna Campus, Eskilstuna, Sweden Accepted 26 September 2019
Magnus Wiktorsson
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, and
Mats Jackson
Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the selection of decision-making approaches at
manufacturing companies when implementing process innovations.
Design/methodology/approach – This study reviews the current understanding of decision structuredness
for determining a decision-making approach and conducts a case study based on an interactive research
approach at a global manufacturer.
Findings – The findings show the correspondence of intuitive, normative and combined intuitive and
normative decision-making approaches in relation to varying degrees of equivocality and analyzability.
Accordingly, the conditions for determining a decision-making choice when implementing process
innovations are revealed.
Research limitations/implications – This study contributes to increased understanding of the combined
use of intuitive and normative decision making in production system design.
Practical implications – Empirical data are drawn from two projects in the heavy-vehicle industry. The
study describes decisions, from start to finish, and the corresponding decision-making approaches when
implementing process innovations. These findings are of value to staff responsible for the design of
production systems.
Originality/value – Unlike prior conceptual studies, this study considers normative, intuitive and combined
intuitive and normative decision making. In addition, this study extends the current understanding of
decision structuredness and discloses the correspondence of decision-making approaches to varying degrees
of equivocality and analyzability.
Keywords Uncertainty, Decision making, Process innovation, Case studies, Production systems,
Manufacturing industry
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Process innovations, which involve new or significantly improved production processes or
technologies, are essential for increasing manufacturing competitiveness (Rönnberg, 2019;
Yu et al., 2017). The benefits of successfully implementing process innovations include

© Erik Flores-Garcia, Jessica Bruch, Magnus Wiktorsson and Mats Jackson. Published by Emerald
Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both
commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Vol. 32 No. 9, 2021
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of all the participants from the anonymous pp. 1-25
Emerald Publishing Limited
company used as a case study in this research. Financial support from the Knowledge Foundation 1741-038X
(KKS), and the industrial graduate school “Innofacture” is also gratefully acknowledged. DOI 10.1108/JMTM-03-2019-0087
JMTM reducing time to market, developing strong competitive barriers and increasing market
32,9 share (Krzeminska and Eckert, 2015; Marzi et al., 2017). However, implementing process
innovations does not always lead to desirable results (Rönnberg et al., 2016; Frishammar
et al., 2011). Instead, literature shows that staff frequently encounter difficulties when
identifying decision-making approaches during the implementation of process innovations
(Eriksson et al., 2016; Terjesen and Patel, 2017). These difficulties originate when staff
2 responsible for implementing process innovations face unfamiliar circumstances
(Gaubinger et al., 2014; Stevens, 2014; Jalonen, 2011). In particular, staff must deal with a
lack of consensus and understanding (equivocality), and absence of rules or processes
facilitating the analysis of information (analyzability) (Piening and Salge, 2015; Milewski
et al., 2015; Kurkkio et al., 2011; Frishammar et al., 2011).
Operations management research offers diverse decision-making approaches useful for
implementing process innovations (Gino and Pisano, 2008; Hämäläinen et al., 2013; Mardani
et al., 2015). This paper focuses on normative, intuitive and mixed-method decision-making
approaches. Normative decision making involves quantitative analyses based on a systematic
assessment of data (Cochran et al., 2017; Battaïa et al., 2018; Dudas et al., 2014). Intuitive
decision making uses affectively charged judgments that arise through rapid, non-conscious,
holistic associations (Elbanna et al., 2013; Dane and Pratt, 2007). The mixed-method approach
considers both quantitative data and intuition (Saaty, 2008; Thakur and Mangla, 2019; Kubler
et al., 2016; Hämäläinen et al., 2013). It is vital to know when each decision-making approach is
most suitable (Zack, 2001; Eling et al., 2014). Unless decision-making approaches are aligned
with their conditions of use, the results could be disappointing (Luoma, 2016).
Different decision-making approaches are used to solve problems when implementing
process innovations (Bellgran and Säfsten, 2010; Gershwin, 2018). However, it remains
unclear when to select a particular decision-making approach (Calabretta et al., 2017;
Dane et al., 2012; Luoma, 2016; Matzler et al., 2014). Recently, it is suggested that the degree
of equivocality and analyzability of a decision, the structuredness of a decision, may
constitute the main criteria for determining a decision-making approach ( Julmi, 2019). While
this work provides novel insight, two salient issues require further research. First, there is a
need for empirical understanding, as current findings remain purely conceptual. For
example, manufacturing companies seldom experience a black-and-white divide between
equivocality and analyzability when implementing process innovations (Parida et al., 2017;
Eriksson et al., 2016; Zack, 2007). Accordingly, it is necessary to remain open to
unanticipated findings and the possibility that current explanations about selecting a
decision-making approach require adjustments. Second, current findings give precedence to
intuitive decision making over normative or mixed approaches. Identifying when and how
to use normative and mixed decision making in addition to intuition is essential for
implementing process innovations in the context of increasing computational capabilities
and the interconnectedness of systems (Mikalef and Krogstie, 2018; Liao et al., 2017;
Schneider, 2018; Rönnberg et al., 2018). Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore the
selection of decision-making approaches at manufacturing companies when implementing
process innovations. This study focuses on production system design, including conception
and planning, because this stage contributes significantly to the performance of process
innovations (Andersen et al., 2017; Rösiö and Bruch, 2018).

2. Frame of reference
2.1 Understanding equivocality and analyzability in process innovations
Equivocality is a central organizational challenge that negatively impacts the
implementation of process innovations in manufacturing companies (Rönnberg et al.,
2016; Eriksson et al., 2016; Parida et al., 2017). The current understanding of equivocality is
grounded on organization theory (Galbraith, 1973). Equivocality refers to the existence of
multiple and conflicting interpretations, and is associated with problems such as a lack of Decision-making
consensus, understanding and confusion (Daft and Macintosh, 1981; Zack, 2007; Zack, 2001; approaches in
Koufteros et al., 2005). Equivocality originates when individuals face new or unfamiliar process
situations in which additional information will not help resolve misunderstandings
(Frishammar et al., 2011). Individuals may experience equivocality of varying innovations
degrees ranging from high equivocality, ambiguous unclear events with no immediate
suggestions about how to move forward, to low equivocality, clearly defined situations 3
requiring additional information (Daft and Lengel, 1986). The literature suggests that to
reduce equivocality, staff must engage in information processing activities that exchange
subjective interpretations, form consensus and enact shared understanding (Rönnberg et al.,
2016; Eriksson et al., 2016; Daft and Lengel, 1986).
Staff responsible for implementing process innovations frequently encounter problems
relating to lack of agreement or consensus, namely, equivocality (Reichstein and Salter,
2006; Jalonen, 2011; Stevens, 2014). The way individuals respond to such problems is
referred to as analyzability (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Analyzability describes the extent to
which problems or activities require objective procedures as opposed to personal judgment
or experience to resolve a task (Haußmann et al., 2012; Zelt et al., 2018). Similar to
equivocality, analyzability is subject to varying degrees. For example, tasks lacking
objectives rules and procedures are regarded as having low analyzability. Conversely, tasks
including clear and objective procedures leading to a solution are considered as having high
analyzability. The degree of analyzability of a task is associated with its degree of
equivocality (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Julmi, 2019; Byström, 2002). When a task is clear and
analyzable, equivocality is low, and staff can rely on the acquisition of explicit information
to answer questions. When a task is unclear and of low analyzability, equivocality is high,
and staff must process information to generate consensus.

2.2 Decision-making approaches

Operations management literature offers distinct approaches to decision making relevant to
implementing process innovations. A first approach involves normative decision making.
Normative decision making involves a logical step-by-step analysis involving a quantitative
assessment (Mintzberg et al., 1976) and requires information that is clear, objective and well
defined (Dean and Sharfman, 1996). Normative decision making is described as a slow and
conscious process where information is logically decomposed and sequentially recombined
to generate an output ( Jonassen, 2012; Swamidass, 1991; Papadakis et al., 1998). The
benefits of normative decision-making approaches include economizing cognitive effort,
solving cognitively intractable problems, producing insight and integrating knowledge
(Liberatore and Luo, 2010). Criticism of the use of normative decision making extend from
studies suggesting that individuals are intendedly rational, but only limitedly so
(Luoma, 2016; Simon, 1997). For example, decision makers may systematically deviate from
recommendations produced by decision models (Käki et al., 2019). Normative decision
making, despite its alleged drawbacks, continues to be used by organizations and has
frequently led to good outcomes (Metters et al., 2008; Klein et al., 2019).
A second approach includes intuitive decision making (Bendoly et al., 2006; Loch and
Wu, 2007; Gino and Pisano, 2008; Elbanna et al., 2013; White, 2016). Intuitive decision
making involves affectively charged judgments that arise through rapid, non-conscious,
holistic association of information (Dane and Pratt, 2007). Intuitive decision making is
associated with having a strong hunch or feeling of knowing what is going to occur, and can
be advantageous when professionals are confronted with time pressure and possess
experience in a field (Gore and Sadler-Smith, 2011; Dane and Pratt, 2007; Bennett, 1998;
Elbanna et al., 2013; Hodgkinson et al., 2009; Khatri and Ng, 2000). Intuitive decision making
is not without drawbacks. Literature suggests that managers using intuition may ignore
JMTM relevant facts, have a hard time explaining the reasons for making a choice, or produce
32,9 gross misjudgments (Dane et al., 2012; Elbanna et al., 2013; Dane and Pratt, 2007).
A third alternative includes the use of mixed decision-making approaches
(Tamura, 2005; Hämäläinen et al., 2013). The main strength of this approach lies in
reducing personal bias and allowing the comparison of dissimilar alternatives while
integrating quantitative analysis (Saaty, 2008). Mixed decision-making approaches provide
4 solutions to problems involving conflicting objectives or criteria affected by uncertainty
(Kahraman et al., 2015). Literature presents a variety of alternatives in relation to mixed
decision-making approaches (Mardani et al., 2015), yet these have the common objective of
helping deal with the evaluation, selection and prioritization of problems by imposing a
disciplined methodology (Kubler et al., 2016).

2.3 Structuredness of decisions and decision making

In the past, decisions have been classified along a continuum according to their structure
(Shapiro and Spence, 1997). This argument maintains that a decision may range from
well- to ill-structured depending on whether rules and processes can be unequivocally
applied. Grounded on organization theory, recent studies propose that the structuredness of
decisions may provide an indication for understanding the correspondence between the
choice of a decision-making approach and its conditions of use ( Julmi, 2019).
Well-structured decisions include intellective tasks with a definite objective criterion of
success within the definitions, rules, operations and relationships of a particular conceptual
system (Dane and Pratt, 2007). A well-structured decision involves rules or procedures and
unequivocal interpretations that have developed over time (March and Simon, 1993;
Luoma, 2016). Therefore, it is argued that well-structured decisions relate to low
equivocality and high analyzability, and that normative decision making is appropriate
because of the structured rules and computable information involved.
Ill-structured decisions involve judgmental tasks where there are no objective criteria, or
demonstrable solutions (Dane and Pratt, 2007). Ill-structured decisions originate from novel
situations that do not include widely accepted rules that may help determine the degree to
which a decision is correct or biased (Cyert and March, 1992; Luoma, 2016; Jacobides, 2007).
Consequently, it is identified that ill-structured decisions correspond to high equivocality and
low analyzability. It is suggested that staff facing ill-structured decisions adopt intuitive
decision-making because intuition does not rely on rules to cope with a problem; rather, it relies
on integrating information holistically into coherent patterns (Dane and Pratt, 2007). Figure 1
illustrates the correspondence of decision-making approaches to the conditions of use based on
the structuredness of decisions.

Structuredness of a problem
(How a problem is defined)

Ill structured Well structured

• High equivocality (multiple and • Low equivocality (unequivocal
Figure 1. conflicting interpretations) interpretation and lack of information)
Choice of intuitive or • Low analyzability (No objective or • High analyzability (objective rule-
normative decision rule-based procedures exist) based procedures)
making based
on decision
structuredness Intuitive decision making Normative decision making
Conceptually, the structuredness of decisions provides a starting point to understand the Decision-making
correspondence of a decision-making approach to its conditions of use. However, there is approaches in
a need to submit these conceptual arguments to empirical scrutiny and explore whether the process
degree of equivocality and analyzability provides guidance in selecting a decision-making
approach when implementing process innovations. The empirical study to explore these innovations
issues is described in the following section.
5
3. Methodology
Prior studies have focused on explaining how to choose a decision-making approach; however,
there is a need for further empirical insight. This casts doubt on the appropriateness of
analysis-based research, which is better suited to evaluating well-developed hypotheses
( Johnson et al., 2007; Mccutcheon and Meredith, 1993; Handfield and Melnyk, 1998).
Accordingly, this study adopts a qualitative-based case study to elaborate on the current
theory (Ketokivi and Choi, 2014). Theory elaboration is well suited to explore an empirical
context with more latitude, and conduct an in-depth investigation based on identified
theoretical concepts (Whetten, 1989). The choice of case study research is justified by prior
studies which describe its advantages for observing and describing a complicated research
phenomenon such that it conveys information in a way that quantitative data cannot
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Handfield and Melnyk, 1998; Meredith, 1998; Mccutcheon
and Meredith, 1993). In designing and conducting the case study, extant guidelines for
qualitative case studies in Operations Management were followed (Barratt et al., 2011).
The focus of this study is the design of production systems. Decision making at this
stage is important for achieving the desired level of competitiveness and the overall goals
of implementing process innovations (Bruch and Bellgran, 2012). Process innovations are
frequently implemented in the form of projects (Bellgran and Säfsten, 2010). Accordingly,
the unit of analysis is the production system design project, and its embedded unit of
analysis decisions within these projects. Given the research agenda, the decisions
occurring in a production system design project are an appropriate unit of analysis. These
decisions should adapt to the structure of the environment (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier,
2011), and are affected by the information processing capacities of an organization
(Matzler et al., 2014).
This study uses empirical data from two production system design projects at one global
manufacturing company, which we refer to as Projects A and B. While case study research at a
single organization offers limited generalizability (Ahlskog et al., 2017), it allows an in-depth
exploration of how decision making occurs at manufacturing companies beyond well-structured
decisions (Kihlander and Ritzén, 2012). The manufacturing company was selected based on
theoretical sampling, with the aim of exploiting opportunities to explore a significant
phenomenon under rare or extreme circumstances relevant to the study of single cases
(Yin, 2013; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). In selecting a manufacturing company, the study
focused on four factors associated with the competent implementation of process innovations
including: large-sized firms of high capital intensity, established processes for developing
production systems, continual design of new products and an emphasis on increasing flexibility
of production systems (Cabagnols and Le Bas, 2002; Pisano, 1997; Martinez-Ros, 1999).
Two aspects influenced the choice of projects. First, the focus was on projects
implementing radical process innovations, namely, those projects involving new equipment
and management practices and changes in the production processes (Reichstein and Salter,
2006). These types of projects reportedly experience varying degrees of equivocality and
analyzability (Parida et al., 2017; Kurkkio et al., 2011; Frishammar et al., 2011). In addition,
radical process innovations depend on normative and intuitive decision-making approaches
for their implementation (Calabretta et al., 2017), which are conditions essential to the focus
of this study. Second, this study gave precedence to projects that included experienced staff
JMTM responsible for implementing process innovations. Prior studies highlight that experience
32,9 influences the capacity of staff to act under conditions of limited information and
equivocality, and facilitates making rapid decisions in the absence of data (Daft and
Macintosh, 1981; Liu and Hart, 2011; Gershwin, 2018; Dane and Pratt, 2007). Accordingly,
two projects in the heavy-vehicle industry focused on the transition from traditional
production systems to multi-product production systems were considered.
6 One of the authors of this study is a researcher at the manufacturing company.
Accordingly, this study adopts an interactive research approach (Ellström, 2008), which
is considered a variant of collaborative research. Interactive research is distinguished
by the continuous joint learning and close collaboration between industry participants
and researchers (Svensson et al., 2007; Ellström, 2008). Despite this close interaction,
the primary focus of this study is to provide a theoretical contribution and relevant
industrial results.

3.1 Description of Projects A and B

The manufacturing company is a leading producer of heavy-vehicle products with more
than 14,000 employees and 13 manufacturing sites in Europe, Asia and North and Latin
America. The heavy-vehicle industry is characterized by a high degree of product
customization and specialized product families targeting specific markets. Manufacturers of
this segment consider a wide offering of products to be a key competitive advantage.
Production systems are distinguished by assembly lines that specialize in a single product
family, and share little else other than the same manufacturing facility.
The manufacturing company initiated two projects, A and B, which originated from a
common corporate goal of reducing time to market, manufacturing footprint, and lead time
to customers, and increasing production flexibility. These projects focused on the
transformation of traditional production systems to multi-product production systems.
Projects A and B were considered process innovations because of their novel approach
compared to traditional production in the heavy-vehicle industry, which included:
standardizing product interfaces, utilizing new production processes and technologies for
product assembly, redesigning facility layouts and developing internal logistic solutions.
Projects A and B were considered successful because these upgraded outdated production
processes and technologies increased production flexibility, reduced production unit labor
cost per output, increased productivity and reduced the assembly area of the production
systems. Table I describes Projects A and B, and Table II outlines the profiles of staff
participating in these projects.

Project A Project B

Process innovation Mixed product production system Mixed product production system
Location North America Latin America
Product type Heavy-vehicle assembly Heavy-vehicle powertrains
Changes in Production system capable of assembling Production system capable of assembling
Table I.
Description of production process five different product families ranging in five different families of vehicle
production system size from 5 to 56 tons with differences in powertrains, including 190 variants
design Projects A and size, sub assembly parts, product design,
B focused on assembly procedure and capabilities
implementing a New equipment Common assembly tools, automated guided vehicles, digital aids for product assembly,
multi-product standardized product interfaces
production system as New management Shorten lead time to customer, reduce manufacturing footprint, provide a common
a process innovation practice product architecture and increase flexibility of manufacturing sites
 Project A Project B
Decision-making
Staff function Degree Experience (years) Staff function Degree Experience (years) approaches in
Project manager PhD 19 Project manager MSc 12
process
Production manager BSc 21 Production manager BSc 30 innovations
Production manager MSc 12 Production engineer BSc 15
Production manager BSc 18 Production engineer BSc 12
Logistics developer MSc 24 Logistics developer MSc 6 7
Production engineer BSc 14 Production engineer BSc 15
Production engineer BSc 7 Production engineer MSc 6
Production engineer BSc 8 Production engineer MSc 7
Production engineer MSc 16 Production engineer BSc 8
Production engineer BSc 15 Production engineer BSc 5
Production engineer BSc 6 Production engineer MSc 16 Table II.
Research and development PhD 8 Research and development PhD 8 Profiles of staff
Research and development PhD 3 Consultant MSc 9 participating in
Consultant MSc 8 Projects A and B

3.2 Data collection

Data collection took place between January 2014 and January 2016. This period comprised
all activities and planning for Projects A and B. Different techniques for data collection were
used including field notes, interviews and company documents to help obtain objective and
reliable results (Karlsson, 2010). The first author drafted field notes during 12 full-day
workshops for Project A and 10 full-day workshops for B. Staff responsible for Projects A
and B attended these workshops including project managers, production managers,
production engineers, logistics developers, consultants and research and development
personnel. These separately held workshops involved three themes. The first theme
consisted of generating a common vision of the process innovations, identifying critical
issues and proposing solutions to these issues. The second theme included designing,
developing and deploying discrete event simulation models. The third theme focused on
discussing the results of on-site tests for Projects A and B. In addition, the first author
participated regularly as a passive observer in project meetings and drafted field notes,
including 60 and 40 1-hour weekly meetings for Projects A and B, respectively.
The authors collected additional data based on five semi-structured interviews for Projects
A and B. The interviews began with an explanation of the project, its background and goals.
Staff described their professional experience and responsibilities in the project and identified
the essential activities and decisions of each project. Next, they narrated the process of
achieving agreement for each decision. Finally, they detailed how decisions were made
including decision-making approaches, rules, processes, information and outcome. To gain a
comprehensive understanding of decision making, the interviews involved staff members
from different seniority levels, including project managers, production engineering managers,
production engineers, logistics developers and consultants. The authors recorded and
transcribed all interviews and sent all transcribed interviews to the interviewees for
verification. Finally, data collection included company documents in the form of presentations,
minutes and reports drafted during the projects. Table III lists the details of data collection.

3.3 Data analysis

Data analysis included an iterative comparison of the collected data and existing literature,
as suggested by Yin (2013). Following the recommendations of Miles et al. (2013), data
analysis occurred in four steps. First, collected data were concurrently selected, abbreviated
and stored in a database during data collection. At this stage, salient decisions were
identified for Projects A and B, and the focus was on decisions involving the commitment of
JMTM Data Description Project A Project B
32,9
Field notes Full-day workshops including project vision and critical issues 4 4
Full-day workshops including discrete event simulation models 4 2
Full-day workshops including on-site testing 4 4
One hour meetings reporting on development of projects 60 40
Interviews Project manager 1 (73 min) 1 (76 min)
8 Production engineering manager 1 (50 min) 1 (60 min)
Production engineer 1 (61 min) 1 (40 min)
Logistics developer 1 (50 min) 1 (60 min)
Table III. Consultants 1 (38 min) 1 (59 min)
Details of data Company Presentations and minutes x x
collection for documents Discrete event simulation models reports x x
Projects A and B Reports detailing activities during production systems design x x

resources (e.g. additional meetings, production experts or managerial discussions) leading to

actions (selecting a layout, proposing a definition or selecting a group of products) as
suggested in the literature (Frishammar, 2003). Afterwards, staff participating in Projects
A and B verified these decisions.
The second step involved systematically coding the collected data for Projects A and B.
The authors jointly decided on three codes for analyzing data: equivocality, analyzability
and decision-making approaches. The literature was heavily relied on to identify the
equivocality and analyzability associated with a decision (Daft and Lengel, 1986). High
equivocality referred to multiple and conflicting interpretations and ambiguous information.
Equivocal situations included partial agreement among the staff and ambiguous
information. Low equivocality involved unequivocal interpretations and a lack of
information. High analyzability concerned clear rules and processes, and low analyzability a
lack of objective rules or rule based procedures. Staff of Projects A and B were left to operate
freely when selecting decision-making approaches based on preferences or established
processes operating at the manufacturing company. Importantly, no definitions of
decision-making approaches were provided to the staff. Instead, the decision-making
approach of each decision was identified a posteriori based on the characteristics of intuitive
or normative decision making found in literature and shown in Table IV.

Decision
making Characteristic Reference

Intuitive Making non-conscious decisions Dane and Pratt (2007)

Rapidly making decisions when compared to normative Dane and Pratt (2007)
decision making
Recognizing cues based on long-term memory leading to Gore and Sadler-Smith
an action (2011)
Mentally simulating the result of a decision before acting Gore and Sadler-Smith
(2011)
Making a holistic association of information to reach a decision Dane and Pratt (2007)
Relying on hunches, gut feelings or emotions Dane and Pratt (2007)
Normative Collecting relevant information Dean and Sharfman (1996)
Formal and systematic analysis Dean and Sharfman (1996)
Table IV. Focusing on the comprehensiveness of a decision based Papadakis et al. (1998)
Characteristics of on information
intuitive and Decision-making following a step-by-step process Dean and Sharfman (1996)
normative decision- Choices based on rules and cause-effect relationships Hodgkinson et al. (2009)
making approaches Commitment of staff time and resources to make a decision Dean and Sharfman (1996)
Third, the authors reassembled data according to the codes described above and analyzed Decision-making
data in two steps, as suggested by Eisenhardt (1989). First, the author analyzed the projects approaches in
separately to become acquainted with and identify patterns. Thereafter, the authors process
analyzed patterns across Projects A and B.
Fourth, the authors compared all the findings in a joint session with the aim of achieving a innovations
comprehensive interpretation of the study. The authors deliberated over differences of
interpretation until an agreement was reached. Where there was no agreement, the authors 9
contacted interviewees for further clarification. Finally, the authors drew conclusions and
conceptualized the findings of the study. The findings were compared and related to existing
theory concerning similarities, contradictions and explanations of differences (Eisenhardt, 1989).

4. Empirical findings
4.1 Equivocality
Projects A and B were characterized by the transition from high equivocality, at the start of
the projects, to low equivocality, at the conclusion of the projects. Staff associated equivocality
to the disagreement of participants originating from new or unfamiliar situations. For
example, the breadth and depth of changes to a production system necessary for reaching
corporate goals, or the definition, functionalities and characteristics of multi-product
production systems. Staff described high levels of equivocality as problematic, including
differing opinions about immediate steps, and requiring additional resources to generate
agreement or consensus. The following quotes illustrate the difficulties described above:
What is a good assembly sequence for all these different products? You had to propose what to do,
and then do it, and then show the results. It is not that you would have asked someone: Are we
doing the right thing? Should we do it this way? No one really had an answer for that. (Project
manager of Project A)
Each of us (project B) has worked with powertrains for a long time, but this was different.
Originally we believed that it was necessary to include the vehicle transmission and an additional
component in our scope. This choice was not simple because of the intrinsic differences and
functionalities of each product family. In addition, we lacked experience on anything remotely
similar, did not have enough information, and held different opinions on the matter. (Production
engineer of Project B)
Initially, all activities of Projects A and B focused on reducing equivocality by generating
consensus. Consensus was reached during weekly discussions and face-to-face workshops.
These discussions focused on exchanging information and enacting a shared understanding.
In these instances, staff utilized intuition as a starting point for discussion and to present
arguments. The impetus to generate consensus is exemplified by the following quote:
We based all the work on the assumption that there is one common assembly sequence. We
regarded that as a backbone in the project. I strongly believe that if you have a common assembly
sequence, it has an enormous impact on production. (Project manager of Project A)
Reaching agreement in Projects A and B was not straightforward. Staff frequently
backtracked on decisions as new information emerged. This required reconsidering,
reducing equivocality and reaching new agreements. Retrospectively, staff acknowledged
that acquiring new information before achieving unequivocal interpretations was
detrimental to the projects. Conversely, they agreed that new or additional information
was beneficial after reducing equivocality and reaching a shared interpretation. These
situations are exemplified in the following excerpts:
First, we decided to do an extensive data collection. That drove the project into the wall. On a
second attempt, we decided not to dig so deep into the details and focused on a holistic perspective.
We went through our products looking for similarities. Based on discussions with our product and
JMTM production experts, we identified 17 key components; based on these, we developed a common
32,9 assembly sequence. (Production engineer of Project B)
After developing a shared understanding of a multi-product assembly, our activities focused on
issues that could improve our concept. We collected and analyzed information, and compared
alternatives. It was essential to know what choices brought our process innovation closer to
objectives set up by management. (Logistics developer of Case A)
10
4.2 Analyzability
Staff experienced analyzability as a tension between two opposites. On the one hand, staff
was subject to familiar circumstances, known problems or decisions encountered in the past.
In these situations, they adopted standardized rules and procedures common in production
system design projects at the manufacturing company: for example, processes for designing
a production system, line balancing strategies or the classification of logistics parts.
On the other hand, staff faced new and unfamiliar decisions originating from the
specification of the characteristics of a multi-product production system. For example, the
manufacturing company possessed no procedures specifying the grouping of different product
families for production in a multi-product production system. Similarly, the manufacturing
company did not possess rules for identifying a best choice among alternative product groups.
Staff considered both decision-making processes essential for multi-product production systems.
When a decision was identified as new or unfamiliar, staff openly discussed the decision and
came to an understanding of its similarities and differences to decisions they experienced in the
past. Next, they developed procedures or rules that would help them arrive at a solution and
explain their solution to others (e.g. steering committee members, corporate or site managers).
New or unfamiliar decisions included establishing rules and procedures for modular assembly,
and specifying vehicle modules or logistics requirements for a multi-product production system.
Developing new rules or procedures was time consuming, and required Projects A and B staff
participants and production experts from different sites. Developing new rules and procedures
was considered important; however, it was confined to situations that were perceived critical
and novel. Finally, data show that the staff established rules and procedures in conjunction
with those newly developed, as described in the following quote:
Once we developed a common perspective about a single assembly line, we mapped assembly
times, figured out the number of stations, moved as much work as possible to sub-assembly lines,
worked with logistics, material handling, kitting in line. With a common objective, it was easier for
us to pinpoint what the production system would look like. (Production engineer of Project A)

4.3 Decision-making approaches

Staff of Projects A and B utilized three distinct decision-making approaches including
intuitive, normative and a combination of intuitive and normative. Intuitive decision
making was frequent at the start of Projects A and B, and relied on gut feeling,
best knowledge and a holistic consideration of information. Intuitive decision making did
not focus on detailed information. Instead, the staff integrated the results from different
reports and argued for a solution based on experience or hunches. The staff utilized
intuitive decision making in two distinct instances. First, staff relied on intuitive decision
making during open and informal debates to achieve consensus. In these circumstances,
they either generated a solution to a decision (e.g. agreeing on the importance of a common
assembly sequence) or determined new rules or procedures (e.g. steps for grouping and
ranking product groups). Second, they utilized intuitive decision making jointly with
normative decision making, e.g. in identifying problems and proposing solutions to the
production process. An additional example of the latter includes simulation models.
Simulation models originally included rough assumptions and simplifications based on Decision-making
the intuition of experts and their general understanding of the production systems, which approaches in
were increasingly completed with new information. process
Staff utilized normative decision making after agreeing on the purpose of a decision and
searching for an improved outcome. Normative decision making was supported by the innovations
collection of data, ideation of alternatives, selection of criteria for evaluation and concurrent
evaluation of choices. A variety of normative decision-making approaches were utilized in 11
Projects A and B including simulations, spread sheet calculations, matrices for ranking and
selection, and factory testing. Normative decision making was resource and time consuming,
required experts for developing a solution and interpreting its results, and depended on the
processing and analysis of data. Staff perceived the results from normative decision making
as essential for completing Projects A and B, as illustrated by the following quote:
The results of the simulation analysis were very important to the outcome of the process
innovation. This helped us understand how to eliminate variation in our production process. The
simulation also helped us understand how the solutions we tested in the factory floor turned out
over weeks or months across different areas. We could not have achieved this detail of
understanding any other way. (Consultant of Project A)

Finally, staff jointly applied a combination of intuitive and normative decision-making

approaches during Projects A and B. Joint intuitive and normative decision-making
approaches were subject to the agreement of the staff, collection of data and clear rules or
procedures which could be either new or established ones. Intuitive decision making could
precede, follow or be used concurrently with normative decision making (e.g. when
determining the advantages or trade-offs of a multi-product production system). In this
example, staff utilized normative decision making (e.g. simulations) to compare the
production systems of sites in North and Latin America to the multi-product production
systems developed in Projects A and B. The results of this comparison were presented in
workshops and face-to-face meetings. In these meetings, staff participating in Projects
A and B and experts from sites in North and Latin America scrutinized the simulation
results and compared them to demand forecasts, production reports and experience. This
required several iterations, and the primary concern was that of earning trustworthiness
from experts. Afterwards, the results of a decision were escalated to a managerial level.
When determining the benefits and trade-offs of a multi-product production system,
managers considered information from diverse sources – and not exclusively the results of
a simulation analysis. Frequently, managers requested “what if” or sensitivity types of
analysis from normative decision-making approaches. Accomplishing this required a new
iteration of the steps described above. Finally, managers made decisions based on intuition,
considering various sources of information holistically. Tables V and VI describe the
salient decisions and equivocality, analyzability and decision making of each decision for
Projects A and B.
Analysis. An important observation is that decisions were subject to different degrees of
equivocality and analyzability when implementing process innovations. The findings show
that distinct decision-making approaches occur at different degrees of equivocality and
analyzability. Understanding the correspondence of equivocality and analyzability to a
decision-making choice is difficult to comprehend. Therefore, Figure 2 presents the
correspondence and frequency of decision-making approaches to the degree of equivocality
and analyzability in Projects A and B.
The correspondence between the degree of equivocality and analyzability of a decision and
decision-making approaches is identified based on a synthesis of the choices of decision-making
approaches in Projects A and B and extant literature. First, findings show that decision-making
approaches were most frequently utilized in conditions of low equivocality and high
JMTM Decision
32,9 Decisions Information Equivocality Analyzability making

Products
Producing a limited number of Financial indicators, demand, product HE LA Intuitive
products characteristics and experience
Establishing rules and Product functionality, physical LE LA Intuitive
12 procedures for grouping dimensions and experience
products
Selecting one group of products Quantitative analysis, financial LE HA Intuitive
including three product families indicators, forecasted demand and
and experience normative
Production process
Prioritizing the reduction of Experience, discussions and mental HE LA Intuitive
variation in production process simulations
Defining modular assembly Product demand, bills of materials and HE LA Intuitive
concept across product families processes, and experience
Establishing rules and Product demand, bills of materials and LE LA Intuitive
procedures for modular processes and experience
assembly
Identifying 16 vehicle modules Product demand, bills of materials and LE HA Intuitive
for three product families processes, and experience and
normative
Analyzing fit between current Bills of processes and materials, LE HA Normative
product design and vehicle experience, and simulation
modules
Specifying vehicle modules for Bills of processes and materials, LE LA Intuitive
each product family and experience and
normative
Proposing a common assembly Bills of processes and materials, HE LA Intuitive
sequence for multi-product and experience
production system
Analyzing differences between Bills of processes and materials, LE LA Intuitive
existing and common assembly and experience and
sequence normative
Specifying common assembly Bills of processes and materials, LE LA Intuitive
sequence and experience and
normative
Identifying problems and Bills of processes and materials, LE HA Intuitive
improving production process experience, simulation, prototyping, line and
balancing and production databases normative
Layout
Setting objective of reducing Experience, discussions, mental LE HA Intuitive
assembly area simulations and managerial reports and
normative
Identifying needs of Experience, discussions, mental HE LA Intuitive
multi-product production simulations and prior activities
system
Evaluating current layout in Dimensions, production process, material LE HA Normative
relation to future needs flow, simulation and forecasted demand
Selecting one layout based on Dimensions, production process, LE HA Intuitive
five alternatives material flow, forecasted demand and and
simulation normative
Table V.
Tools and technology
Description of
Setting objectives for Experience, discussions and prior HE LA Intuitive
salient decisions,
standardizing tools for activities
equivocality,
production process
analyzability and
decision making
in Project A (continued )
 Decision
Decision-making
Decisions Information Equivocality Analyzability making approaches in
Mapping current equipment Bills of processes, work instructions, LE HA Normative
process
and tools experience and site visits innovations
Specifying tools and equipment Bills of processes, work instructions, LE LA Intuitive
for multi-product production experience and prior activities and
system normative 13
Logistics
Identifying logistics needs for Experience, discussions and mental E LA Intuitive
multi-product production simulations
system
Specifying logistics Forecasted demand, assembly LE LA Intuitive
requirements for multi-product sequence, parts, routes, warehousing and
production system and on-site analysis normative
Evaluating current logistics Forecasted demand, assembly LE HA Normative
capabilities in relation to future sequence, parts, routes, warehousing
needs and on-site analysis
Proposing logistics solutions for Forecasted demand, assembly E HA Intuitive
multi-product production sequence, parts, routes, warehousing, and
system on-site analysis and prototyping normative
logistics solution
Organization
Agreeing on need for improving Experience, discussions and expert LE HA Intuitive
competence of operative staff input
Determining critical issues for Experience, discussions, expert input, LE HA Intuitive
improving staff competence prior activities, forecasted demand, line
balancing, time studies and material
flow
Specifying policies for staffing, Experience, discussions, expert input, LE HA Intuitive
organizational strategies and prior activities, forecasted demand, line and
training balancing, time studies, material flow normative
and simulation
Performance indicators
Agreeing on performance Experience, discussions, expert input HE LA Intuitive
indicators for multi-product and operational reports
production system
Establishing rules and Experience, discussions, expert input LE LA Intuitive
procedures for performance and operational reports
indicators
Comparing current production Prior activities, forecasted demand, LE HA Intuitive
system to a multi-product material flow, simulation and expert and
system and management input normative
Determining advantages and Prior activities, forecasted demand, E HA Intuitive
trade-offs of multi-product material flow, simulation and expert and
production system and management input normative
Notes: Equivocality (HE, high equivocality; E, equivocality; LE, low equivocality), Analyzability (HA, high
analyzability; LA -, low analyzability) Table V.

analyzability. In this approach, the staff interpreted a problem unequivocally, possessed clear
rules and procedures; however, they lacked information. The staff utilized three different
decision-making approaches in conditions of low equivocality and high analyzability, including
intuitive, normative and a combination of intuitive and normative decision making.
Our data show that staff found low equivocality and high analyzability as the only
conditions suitable for normative decision making in this study. Normative decision making
relied on explicit information, a sequential analysis and well-defined decisions. Staff from
JMTM Decision
32,9 Decisions Information Equivocality Analyzability making

Product
Producing all product Bills of materials and processes HE LA Intuitive
families and acquiring
information
14 Limiting products to needs Forecasted demand, bills of materials LE HA Intuitive
of Latin American site and processes, experience and
normative
Production process
Prioritizing modular Experience, discussions, gut feeling HE LA Intuitive
production process
Agreeing on definition of a Experience, discussions, bills of HE LA Intuitive
powertrain across product materials and processes
families
Establishing rules and Experience, discussions, bills of HE LA Intuitive
procedures for mapping materials and processes
powertrain components
Mapping powertrain Bills of materials and processes, LE HA Normative
components experience
Determining need for Product demand, bills of materials HE LA Intuitive
modular assembly of and processes, experience
powertrains
Identifying powertrain Bills of material and processes, LE HA Intuitive
modules experience, prior activities and
normative
Analyzing fit between Bills of processes and materials, LE HA Normative
current product design and experience, spread sheet calculations
powertrain modules
Identifying need for Experience, discussions, gut feeling, HE LA Intuitive
common assembly bills of materials and processes
sequence
Establishing rules and Experience, discussions, gut feeling, HE LA Intuitive
procedures for modular bills of materials and processes
assembly
Proposing a common Experience, discussions, gut feeling, HE LA Intuitive
assembly sequence for bills of materials and processes
multi-product production
system
Analyzing differences Experience, discussions, gut feeling, LE LA Intuitive
between existing and bills of materials and processes and
common assembly normative
sequence
Specifying common Bills of processes and materials, LE LA Intuitive
assembly sequence experience and
normative
Adapting production Experience, discussions, gut feeling, LE HA Intuitive
process to site specific bills of materials and processes and
needs normative
Table VI. Identifying problems and Bills of processes and materials, LE HA Intuitive
Description of salient improving production experience, spread sheet calculations, and
decisions, process prototyping, line balancing, normative
equivocality, production databases
analyzability and
decision making in
Project B (continued )
 Decision
Decision-making
Decisions Information Equivocality Analyzability making approaches in
process
Layout
Setting objective Experience, discussions, mental LE HA Intuitive innovations
for reducing factory simulations, managerial reports and
floor space normative
Identifying needs of Bills of materials and processes, LE HA Intuitive 15
production site in forecasted demand, line balancing,
Latin America site visits, experience, discussions
Proposing layout for Bills of materials and processes, E LA Intuitive
multi-product production forecasted demand, line balancing, and
system site visits, experience, discussions normative
and testing on site
Evaluating and Dimensions, production process, LE HA Intuitive
testing layout for material flow, spread sheet, and
multi-product production calculations and forecasted normative
system demand
Tools and technology
Setting objectives for Experience, discussions, prior LE LA Intuitive
standardizing tools for activities
production process
Mapping current Bills of processes, work instructions, LE HA Intuitive
equipment and tools experience and site visits and
normative
Specifying tools and Bills of processes, work instructions, LE LA Intuitive
equipment for multi- experience, prior activities, testing and
product production system on site normative
Logistics
Prioritizing the reduction of Experience, discussions, prior LE LA Intuitive
traveling distance of activities
internal logistics
Identifying logistic needs Experience, discussions and mental LE LA Intuitive
for multi-product simulations
production system
Evaluating current Forecasted demand, assembly LE HA Normative
logistics capabilities sequence, parts, routes, warehousing
and on-site analysis
Proposing logistics Forecasted demand, assembly E HA Intuitive
solutions for multi-product sequence, parts, routes, and
production system warehousing, on-site analysis and normative
testing on site
Organization
Agreeing on need for Experience, discussions and LE HA Intuitive
improving competence of expert input
operative staff
Determining critical issues Experience, discussions, expert input, LE HA Intuitive
for improving staff prior activities, forecasted demand,
competence line balancing, time studies and
material flow
Specifying policies for Experience, discussions, expert input, LE HA Intuitive
staffing, organization prior activities, forecasted demand, and
strategies, and training line balancing, time studies, material normative
flow and testing on site

(continued ) Table VI.

JMTM Decision
32,9 Decisions Information Equivocality Analyzability making

Performance indicators
Adopting performance Experience, discussions, expert input LE HA Intuitive
indicators on site and managerial reports
Comparing current Prior activities, forecasted demand, LE HA Intuitive
16 production system to material flow, spread sheet and
a multi-product one calculations, expert and normative
management input
Determining advantages Prior activities, forecasted demand, E HA Intuition
and trade-offs of multi- material flow, spread sheet and
product production system calculations, expert and normative
management input
Notes: Equivocality (HE, high equivocality; E, equivocality; LE, low equivocality), Analyzability (HA, high
Table VI. analyzability; LA, low analyzability)

Decisions Decisions
Project A Project B
High Normative
Equivocality decision making

Figure 2. Intuitive and

Correspondence of Equivocality normative decision
decision-making making
approaches to degree
of equivocality and Low Intuitive decision
analyzability in Equivocality making
Projects A and B
Low Analyzability High Analyzability

Projects A and B utilized normative decision making for detailed technical aspects such as
evaluating layouts.
In addition, the staff made use of combined intuitive and normative decision making in
conditions of low equivocality and high analyzability. Here, they utilized combined intuitive
and normative decision making when facing new situations, having previously agreed on
procedures for analysis (e.g. identifying vehicle modules). They utilized combined intuitive
and normative decision making for high stake decisions involving an aggregation of prior
activities and requiring managerial involvement (e.g. comparing a multi-product production
system to existing multi-product production systems).
Finally, the staff utilized intuitive decision making in low equivocality and high
analyzability when encountering situations perceived as similar to prior situations. In these
instances, they relied on experience, quick decisions and a holistic association of information
to produce a result (e.g. agreeing on the need for improving staff competence).
Second, Projects A and B faced conditions of low equivocality and low analyzability.
Staff agreed on the nature of a problem; however, they lacked clear rules, procedures and
relevant information. They judged that these conditions did not meet the criteria for the
exclusive use of normative decision making. Instead, they utilized intuitive or a combination
of intuitive and normative decision-making approaches. The staff applied intuitive decision
making to decisions where the end goal was that of establishing rules or procedures.
In these instances, they were not undecided about the goal of a decision, rather how to arrive
at a solution (e.g. establishing the rules and procedures for modular assembly and
performance indicators). When combining intuitive and normative decision making, they Decision-making
utilized intuition for agreeing on rules and procedures, associated decisions to those faced in approaches in
the past, and devised steps that were understandable to others based on experience. Next, process
quantitative analyses were utilized to provide detailed insight, acquire information and
logically decompose a problem (e.g. specifying an assembly sequence). innovations
Third, staff of Projects A and B made decisions in a context of equivocality and high
analyzability. This coincided with having clear rules and processes; however, with only a 17
partial agreement about the information necessary to complete a task or the outcome of a
decision. In these instances, the staff resorted to intuitive decision making for agreeing on
the type of information necessary to complete a task. Next, they utilized normative decision
making in the form of quantitative based analysis such as spread sheet calculations or
simulations. Finally, they returned to intuitive decision making to arrive at a solution while
considering holistic information from a variety of sources. Examples of this include
proposing logistics solutions for multi-product production systems, and determining
advantages and trade-offs of multi-product production systems. The findings of this study
would suggest that the conditions of equivocality and high analyzability do not provide
sufficient support for the use of an entirely normative decision-making approach. Empirical
results suggest that applying purely intuitive decision-making approaches is undesirable.
Actually, the staff recognized that decisions could not rest exclusively on hunches,
experience or rapid decisions by acknowledging the need for additional information, and
disputing the appropriateness of information to complete a task.
Fourth, staff of Projects A and B made decisions against a backdrop of equivocality and
low analyzability. These decisions involved the lack of rules or processes and partial
agreement about information necessary to complete a task. Decisions of equivocality and
low analyzability were not like small differences of opinion resolved over the course of a
meeting or workshop. Instead, these decisions required detailed investigation, resource
commitment and weeks of deliberation. Staff in Projects A and B proceeded differently
when encountering equivocality and low analyzability.
In Project A, the staff identified the logistics needs for a multi-product production system.
They agreed on the need for adapting logistics capabilities; however, the information available
did not correspond to the needs of a multi-product production system. They estimated
logistics needs based on hunches, discussions and experience. They considered the outcome of
this decision provisional and subject to increased knowledge about logistics in a multi-product
production system. In Project B, the staff proposed a layout for a multi-product production
system. To do so, they utilized intuitive decision making to set an initial direction. This was
considered insufficient to finalize a decision, and additional information was acquired, and
alternatives were judged based on normative decision making.
Findings suggest that these types of decisions are not readily solvable, and evidence a
need for generating agreement about the purpose of the decision, information, rules and
processes enabling a solution. Data suggest that intuitive decision making is important
in enacting a shared understanding; nevertheless, committing to a decision may require
the quantitative insight provided by normative decision making. Consequently,
decisions experiencing equivocality and low analyzability were subject to a combined
intuitive and normative decision-making approach. Examples include identifying logistics
needs for multi-product production systems or proposing layouts for multi-product
production systems.
Fifth, findings show that no decisions coincided with high equivocality and high
analyzability, namely, multiple and conflicting interpretation, ambiguous information, and
clear rules and processes. We argue that high equivocality and high analyzability present a
contradiction and suggest that the incidence of decision making in these conditions may
JMTM signal an error. This error may well indicate the inadequate interpretation of existing rules
32,9 or processes by staff responsible for implementing process innovations.
Sixth, staff made exclusive use of intuitive decision making in decisions involving high
equivocality and low analyzability. These type of decisions were characterized by the absence of
objectives rules or processes, multiple and conflicting interpretations, and ambiguous
information. These decisions were common in the beginning of Projects A and B, and when the
18 staff faced decisions perceived as different from those encountered in the past. They relied on
hunches, approximations or conjectures about the result of a decision to guide consensus.
Additional information did not help resolve decisions in high equivocality and low analyzability:
for instance, when agreeing on the definition of a powertrain across different product families.
Figure 3 outlines the choice of decision-making approaches when implementing process
innovations according the degree of equivocality and analyzability of decisions.

5. Discussion and implications

The purpose of this study is to explore the selection of decision-making approaches at
manufacturing companies when implementing process innovations. In particular, this study
focused on how the conditions of equivocality and analyzability provide guidance to the
choice of a decision-making approach. Extant literature is compared to empirical findings
from two projects implementing process innovations in the form of a multi-product
production system in the heavy-vehicle industry. The findings of this study are particularly
relevant in light of the interest from manufacturing managers and academics to better
understand when and where a decision-making approach is most suitable during the
implementation of process innovations.

5.1 Theoretical implications

Recent studies recommended decision-making approaches in extreme cases of problem
structuredness, high equivocality and low analyzability or low equivocality and high

Low Equivocality Equivocality High Equivocality

Unequivocal interpretation Partial agreement Multiple and conflicting
Lack of information Ambiguous information interpretations
Ambiguous information

• Detailed technical decisions requiring • Decisions requiring agreement • No decision, signal for
sequential analysis of well defined situations about type of information and reexamination, decision in this
and explicit information (normative decision quantitative based analysis for area may indicate an inadequate
making) selecting a best choice interpretation of rules or
(combined intuitive and processes
• High stake and previously unencountered normative decision making)
High Analyzability decisions involving the aggregation of
activities and managerial involvement
Clear rules and (combined intuitive and normative
processes decision making)
• Rapid decisions resembling those
experienced in the past and based on a
holistic association of information
(intuitive decision making)
Figure 3.
Choice of • Decisions requiring new rules and • Non readily solvable decisions • Decisions encountered in new
decision-making procedures and detailed insight and the where intuition can enact shared situations, common to the start of
logical decomposition of a problem understanding, but normative- process innovation projects and
approaches when (combined intuitive and normative decision making is needed for focused on achieving consensus.
implementing process Low Analyzability decision making) quantitative insight (combined Additional information was
innovations according intuitive and normative detrimental (intuitive decision
decision making) making)
to the degree of No objective rules or • Decisions determining new processes
rule-based procedures or rules necessary for explaining how
equivocality and to arrive to a solution (intuitive
analyzability decision making)
of decisions
analyzability ( Julmi, 2019). However, staff face varying degrees of equivocality and Decision-making
analyzability when implementing process innovations (Parida et al., 2017; Frishammar et al., approaches in
2011). This study reveals additional combinations of equivocality and analyzability than process
those previously described in literature. This finding is important because it extends current
understanding of decision structuredness, which thus far had been limited to presenting innovations
extreme cases, namely, well- and ill-structured decisions. In addition, this study provides
empirical evidence that staff must respond to decisions at varying degrees of equivocality 19
and analyzability when implementing process innovations. In particular, this study
identified three degrees of equivocality and two of analyzability when implementing process
innovations. This study highlights the need for increased understanding of equivocality and
analyzability, which may help manufacturing companies avoid failed choice or erroneous
approaches to decision making when implementing process innovations. This finding is
important as it may help clarify the selection of decision-making approaches leading to an
improved outcome (Calabretta et al., 2017; Luoma, 2016), a situation that is crucial for
implementing process innovations (Frishammar et al., 2011; Milewski et al., 2015).
Current understanding of decision structuredness argues that there are no superior
decision-making approaches ( Julmi, 2019). Instead, a decision-making approach may
be better suited to certain conditions and, under these conditions, lead to an effective
outcome (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011). Our findings show that, consistent with the
literature, well-structured and ill-structured decisions corresponded to normative and
intuitive decision making. However, findings show differences with prior studies focused on
decision structuredness and decision making. For example, staff applied intuitive decision
making at varying degrees of equivocality and analyzability, combined normative and
intuitive decision making not described in literature, and utilized more than one
decision-making approach in three out of six combinations of equivocality and
analyzability. The results of this study suggest that decision structuredness may not
prescribe a decision-making approach, but may clarify the conditions in which decisions
take place. This finding is important because it suggests that current understanding of
decision-making choice based on extreme cases of problem structuredness, namely well- or
ill-structured decisions, is insufficient to guide a choice of decision-making approach.
Addressing this dearth of understanding, this study outlines the choice of decision-making
approaches when implementing process innovations according the degree of equivocality
and analyzability of decisions. This findings is essential as it suggests that identifying the
fit of a decision-making approach to the structuredness of a problem is as important as the
technical acumen, resources and experience necessary for using a particular type of decision
making ( Jonassen, 2012; Dean and Sharfman, 1996).
By classifying decisions in relation to their degree of equivocality, this study shows that
decisions occur more frequently in situations involving low equivocality, followed by those
of high equivocality, and finally by those involving partial agreement and ambiguous
information or equivocal. A higher frequency of decisions in situations of low equivocality is
expected when implementing process innovations. However, an intriguing finding of this
study involves the frequency in which staff made decisions in situations including multiple
and conflicting interpretations and ambiguous information (e.g. high equivocality). These
decisions appeared when staff identified a problem (e.g. product, production process, tools
and technology, layouts, logistics), were based on intuitive decision making and defined
subsequent decisions of Projects A and B. This finding is disquieting as prior studies show
that manufacturing companies frequently rely on ad hoc practices when making early
decisions in production system design projects (Rösiö and Bruch, 2018). Similarly, the
literature highlights a limited understanding of equivocality at manufacturing companies
when implementing process innovations (Parida et al., 2017). Therefore, our findings give
credibility to the claim that comprehension of equivocality, its reduction and the effective
JMTM use of intuition may harness a competitive edge for manufacturing companies implementing
32,9 process innovations (Rönnberg et al., 2016; Frishammar et al., 2012).
The literature advocates the use of structured processes for implementing process
innovations (Kurkkio et al., 2011). Accordingly, the need for clear rules and procedures
facilitating high analyzability is essential. The results of this study show no telling
difference in the frequency of decisions involving high analyzability or low analyzability in
20 Projects A and B. Importantly, data do not indicate that staff forwent rules and processes
when these were lacking. Instead, staff developed rules and processes when facing decisions
not previously experienced or described in established procedures. This result is significant
and suggests that the ability of staff to develop rules and processes, or procedures when
facing non-recurring situations (Luoma, 2016), is as likely to be necessary as that of
structured processes for implementing process innovations. The development of rules and
processes during the implementation of process innovations is rarely discussed in literature,
and therefore constitutes a venue for future research.
Mixed decision-making approaches constitute a well-established field that may help staff
arrive at decisions under uncertainty (Kubler et al., 2016). This study showed that decisions
were frequently reached as a result of combined intuitive and normative decision making.
However, the process for arriving at these decisions was unlike the methods used in the
literature. The findings of this study suggest both the need of mixed decision-making
approaches when implementing process innovations, and increased efforts to bridge the gap
between academic findings and manufacturing practice.

5.2 Practical implications

The findings of this study have direct practical implications that may benefit staff and
managers responsible for implementing process innovations. First, this study underscores the
importance of a structured process, experienced design teams and familiarity with normative,
intuitive or mixed decision making that enable the implementation of process innovations
(Rösiö and Bruch, 2018). However, the analysis also shows that although these concepts are
necessary, they are not sufficient to successfully implement process innovations. Instead,
managers must be aware of the importance of determining a decision-making approach that
corresponds to the conditions of a decision. Addressing this point, this study emphasized the
importance of equivocality and analyzability when determining a decision-making approach
during the implementation of process innovations. Accordingly, this study underscores the
importance of information processing activities, which are under prioritized or neglected
because of a lack of resources or competence (Rönnberg et al., 2016; Koufteros et al., 2005).

5.3 Limitations and future research

Some key limitations circumscribe this study. Like all case studies, our contributions are
limited by the idiosyncrasies of the context of study (Eisenhardt, 1989). This study draws data
from a global manufacturing company. Undoubtedly, smaller sized manufacturing companies
may have different access to staff, resources and experienced personnel when implementing
process innovations. Prior studies suggest that these elements affect decision-making
approaches. Therefore, validating our results against cases from varying company sizes is
important. Another limitation constitutes our focus on the production of heavy vehicles and
their components. A suggestion for future research includes the investigation of cases in
additional context: for example, the process industry or batch production.
Process innovations concern new production processes or technologies. This study, like
many other process innovation studies (Krzeminska and Eckert, 2015; Marzi et al., 2017),
focused on new material, equipment or reengineering of operational processes. In doing so,
concern stemmed from the conditions that may determine the choice of a decision-making
approach. Process innovation literature reflects increasing interest in the way artificial
intelligence, automation and digital technologies connected to the Internet of Things affect Decision-making
decision making (Rönnberg et al., 2018). While the interplay of intuitive, normative and approaches in
mixed decision-making approaches is a concern of this study, technological changes process
enabling decision making is not. Future research could focus on conceptualizing the domain
of novel digital technologies and decision making when implementing process innovations. innovations

References 21
Ahlskog, M., Bruch, J. and Jackson, M. (2017), “Knowledge integration in manufacturing technology
development”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1035-1054.
Andersen, A.-L., Brunoe, T.D., Nielsen, K. and Rösiö, C. (2017), “Towards a generic design method for
reconfigurable manufacturing systems: analysis and synthesis of current design methods and
evaluation of supportive tools”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 179-195.
Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y. and Li, M. (2011), “Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends,
research outcomes, and future research implications”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 329-342.
Battaïa, O., Dolgui, A., Heragu, S.S., Meerkov, S.M. and Tiwari, M.K. (2018), “Design for manufacturing
and assembly/disassembly: joint design of products and production systems”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 24, pp. 7181-7189.
Bellgran, M. and Säfsten, K. (2010), Production Development: Design and Operation of Production
Systems, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY.
Bendoly, E., Donohue, K. and Schultz, K.L. (2006), “Behavior in operations management: assessing
recent findings and revisiting old assumptions”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24
No. 6, pp. 737-752.
Bennett, R.H. (1998), “The importance of tacit knowledge in strategic deliberations and decisions”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 589-597.
Bruch, J. and Bellgran, M. (2012), “Creating a competitive edge when designing production systems –
facilitating the sharing of design information”, International Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 4
Nos 3-4, pp. 257-276.
Byström, K. (2002), “Information and information sources in tasks of varying complexity”, Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 581-591.
Cabagnols, A. and Le Bas, C. (2002), “Differences in the determinants of product and process innovations:
the french case”, in Kleinknecht, A. and Mohnen, P. (Eds), Innovation and Firm Performance:
Econometric Explorations of Survey Data, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp. 112-149.
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2017), “The interplay between intuition and rationality
in strategic decision making: a paradox perspective”, Organization Studies, Vol. 38 Nos 3-4,
pp. 365-401.
Cochran, D.S., Foley, J.T. and Bi, Z. (2017), “Use of the manufacturing system design decomposition for
comparative analysis and effective design of production systems”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 870-890.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1992), A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), “Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 554-571.
Daft, R.L. and Macintosh, N.B. (1981), “A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of
information processing in organizational work units”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 207-224.
Dane, E. and Pratt, M.G. (2007), “Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 33-54.
Dane, E., Rockmann, K.W. and Pratt, M.G. (2012), “When should i trust my gut? Linking domain
expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 187-194.
JMTM Dean, J.W. and Sharfman, M.P. (1996), “Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-
32,9 making effectiveness”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 368-392.
Dudas, C., Ng, A.H.C., Pehrsson, L. and Boström, H. (2014), “Integration of data mining and
multi-objective optimisation for decision support in production systems development”,
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 824-839.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
22 Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Elbanna, S., Child, J. and Dayan, M. (2013), “A model of antecedents and consequences of intuition in
strategic decision-making: evidence from egypt”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 149-176.
Eling, K., Griffin, A. and Langerak, F. (2014), “Using intuition in fuzzy front-end decision-making: a
conceptual framework”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 956-972.
Ellström, P.-E. (2008), “Knowledge creation through interactive research: a learning approach”,
Proceedings of the ECER Conference, Jönköping.
Eriksson, P.E., Patel, P.C., Sjödin, D.R., Frishammar, J. and Parida, V. (2016), “Managing
interorganizational innovation projects: Mitigating the negative effects of equivocality
through knowledge search strategies”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 691-705.
Frishammar, J. (2003), “Information use in strategic decision making”, Management Decision, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 318-326.
Frishammar, J., Florén, H. and Wincent, J. (2011), “Beyond managing uncertainty: insights from
studying equivocality in the fuzzy front end of product and process innovation projects”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 551-563.
Frishammar, J., Kurkkio, M., Abrahamsson, L. and Lichtenthaler, U. (2012), “Antecedents and
consequences of firm’s process innovation capability: a literature review and a conceptual
framework”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 519-529.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing,
Reading, MA.
Gaubinger, K., Michael, R., Swan, S. and Werani, T. (2014), Innovation and Product Management a
Holistic and Practical Approach to Uncertainty Reduction, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Gershwin, S.B. (2018), “The future of manufacturing systems engineering”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 56 Nos 1–2, pp. 224-237.
Gigerenzer, G. and Gaissmaier, W. (2011), “Heuristic decision making”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 451-482.
Gino, F. and Pisano, G. (2008), “Toward a theory of behavioral operations”, Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 676-691.
Gore, J. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2011), “Unpacking intuition: a process and outcome framework”, Review
of General Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 304-316.
Hämäläinen, R.P., Luoma, J. and Saarinen, E. (2013), “On the importance of behavioral operational
research: the case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 228 No. 3, pp. 623-634.
Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998), “The scientific theory-building process: a primer using the
case of tqm”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 321-339.
Haußmann, C., Dwivedi, Y.K., Venkitachalam, K. and Williams, M.D. (2012), “A summary and review of
galbraith’s organizational information processing theory”, in Dwivedi, Y.K., Wade, M.R. and
Schneberger, S.L. (Eds), Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital
Society, Vol. 2, Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 71-93.
Hodgkinson, G.P., Sadler-Smith, E., Burke, L.A., Claxton, G. and Sparrow, P.R. (2009), “Intuition in
organizations: implications for strategic management”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 277-297.
Jacobides, M.G. (2007), “The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of Decision-making
hierarchy: lessons from a near-war”, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 455-477. approaches in
Jalonen, H. (2011), “The uncertainty of innovation: a systematic review of the literature”, Journal of process
Management Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-47.
innovations
Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2007), “Defining qualitative management research:
an empirical investigation”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-42. 23
Jonassen, D.H. (2012), “Designing for decision making”, Educational Technology Research and
Development, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 341-359.
Julmi, C. (2019), “When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and
re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness”, Business Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 291-314.
Kahraman, C., Onar, S.C. and Oztaysi, B. (2015), “Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a literature
review”, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 637-666.
Käki, A., Kemppainen, K. and Liesiö, J. (2019), “What to do when decision-makers deviate from model
recommendations? Empirical evidence from hydropower industry”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 278 No. 3, pp. 869-882.
Karlsson, C. (2010), Researching Operations Management, Routledge, New York, NY.
Ketokivi, M. and Choi, T. (2014), “Renaissance of case research as a scientific method”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 232-240.
Khatri, N. and Ng, H.A. (2000), “The role of intuition in strategic decision making”, Human Relations,
Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 57-86.
Kihlander, I. and Ritzén, S. (2012), “Compatibility before completeness – identifying intrinsic conflicts
in concept decision making for technical systems”, Technovation, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Klein, R., Koch, S., Steinhardt, C. and Strauss, A.K. (2019), “A review of revenue management: recent
generalizations and advances in industry applications”, European Journal of Operational Research,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.034
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M. and Jayaram, J. (2005), “Internal and external integration for product
development: the contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy”,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 97-133.
Krzeminska, A. and Eckert, C. (2015), “Complementarity of internal and external r&d: Is there a difference
between product versus process innovations?”, R and D Management, Vol. 46 No. S3, pp. 931-944.
Kubler, S., Robert, J., Derigent, W., Voisin, A. and Le Traon, Y. (2016), “A state-of the-art survey & testbed
of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 65, pp. 398-422.
Kurkkio, M., Frishammar, J. and Lichtenthaler, U. (2011), “Where process development begins: a multiple
case study of front end activities in process firms”, Technovation, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 490-504.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.D.F.R. and Ramos, L.F.P. (2017), “Past, present and future of
industry 4.0 – a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 3609-3629.
Liberatore, M.J. and Luo, W. (2010), “The analytics movement: implications for operations research”,
INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 313-324.
Liu, R. and Hart, S. (2011), “Does experience matter? – A study of knowledge processes and uncertainty
reduction in solution innovation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 691-698.
Loch, C.H. and Wu, Y. (2007), “Behavioral operations management”, Foundations and Trends® in
Technology, Information and Operations Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 121-232.
Luoma, J. (2016), “Model-based organizational decision making: a behavioral lens”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 249 No. 3, pp. 816-826.
Mccutcheon, D.M. and Meredith, J.R. (1993), “Conducting case study research in operations
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 239-256.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1993), Organizations, Blackwell Business, Oxford.
JMTM Mardani, A., Jusoh, A. and Zavadskas, E.K. (2015), “Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques
32,9 and applications – two decades review from 1994 to 2014”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 4126-4148.
Martinez-Ros, E. (1999), “Explaining the decisions to carry out product and process innovations: the
spanish case”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 223-242.
Marzi, G., Dabić, M., Daim, T. and Garces, E. (2017), “Product and process innovation in manufacturing
24 firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 673-704.
Matzler, K., Uzelac, B. and Bauer, F. (2014), “Intuition’s value for organizational innovativeness and
why managers still refrain from using it”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 526-539.
Meredith, J. (1998), “Building operations management theory through case and field research”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 441-454.
Metters, R., Queenan, C., Ferguson, M., Harrison, L., Higbie, J., Ward, S., Barfield, B., Farley, T., Kuyumcu,
H.A. and Duggasani, A. (2008), “The ‘killer application’ of revenue management: Harrah’s cherokee
casino & hotel”, INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 161-175.
Mikalef, P. and Krogstie, J. (2018), Big Data Analytics As An Enabler of Process Innovation Capabilities:
A Configurational Approach, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 426-441.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldaña, J. (2013), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Milewski, S.K., Fernandes, K.J. and Mount, M.P. (2015), “Exploring technological process innovation
from a lifecycle perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1312-1331.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Théorêt, A. (1976), “The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision
processes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 246-275.
Papadakis, V.M., Lioukas, S. and Chambers, D. (1998), “Strategic decision-making processes: the role of
management and context”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 115-147.
Parida, V., Patel, P.C., Frishammar, J. and Wincent, J. (2017), “Managing the front-end phase of process
innovation under conditions of high uncertainty”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 1983-2000.
Piening, E.P. and Salge, T.O. (2015), “Understanding the antecedents, contingencies, and performance
implications of process innovation: a dynamic capabilities perspective”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 80-97.
Pisano, G.P. (1997), The Development Factory: Unlocking the Potential of Process Innovation, Harvard
Business Press, Boston, MA.
Reichstein, T. and Salter, A. (2006), “Investigating the sources of process innovation among uk
manufacturing firms”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 653-682.
Rönnberg, D.S. (2019), “Knowledge processing and ecosystem co-creation for process innovation:
Managing joint knowledge processing in process innovation projects”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 135-162.
Rönnberg, D.S., Frishammar, J. and Eriksson, P.E. (2016), “Managing uncertainty and equivocality in
joint process development projects”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Rönnberg, D.S., Parida, V., Leksell, M. and Petrovic, A. (2018), “Smart factory implementation and
process innovation”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 22-31.
Rösiö, C. and Bruch, J. (2018), “Exploring the design process of reconfigurable industrial production
systems: activities, challenges, and tactics”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Saaty, T.L. (2008), “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”, Interntional Journal of
Services Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 83-98.
Schneider, P. (2018), “Managerial challenges of industry 4.0: an empirically backed research agenda for
a nascent field”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 803-848.
Shapiro, S. and Spence, M.T. (1997), “Managerial intuition: a conceptual and operational framework”, Decision-making
Business Horizons, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 63-68. approaches in
Simon, H.A. (1997), Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason, MIT Press, process
Cambridge, MA.
Stevens, E. (2014), “Fuzzy front-end learning strategies: exploration of a high-tech company”,
innovations
Technovation, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 431-440.
Svensson, L., Ellström, P.-E. and Brulin, G. (2007), “Introduction–on interactive research”, International 25
Journal of Action Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 233-249.
Swamidass, P.M. (1991), “Empirical science: new frontier in operations management research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 793-814.
Tamura, H. (2005), “Behavioral models for complex decision analysis”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 166 No. 3, pp. 655-665.
Terjesen, S. and Patel, P.C. (2017), “In search of process innovations: the role of search depth, search
breadth, and the industry environment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 1421-1446.
Thakur, V. and Mangla, S.K. (2019), “Change management for sustainability: evaluating the role of
human, operational and technological factors in leading indian firms in home appliances sector”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 213, pp. 847-862.
Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-495.
White, L. (2016), “Behavioural operational research: towards a framework for understanding behaviour
in or interventions”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 249 No. 3, pp. 827-841.
Yin, R.K. (2013), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yu, C., Zhang, Z., Lin, C. and Wu, J.Y. (2017), “Knowledge creation process and sustainable competitive
advantage: the role of technological innovation capabilities”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 12,
pp. 1-16.
Zack, M.H. (2001), “If managing knowledge is the solution, then what’s the problem?”, in Yogesh, M.
(Ed.), Knowledge Management And Business Model Innovation, IGI Global, Hershey, PA,
pp. 16-36.
Zack, M.H. (2007), “The role of decision support systems in an indeterminate world”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 1664-1674.
Zelt, S., Schmiedel, T. and Vom Brocke, J. (2018), “Understanding the nature of processes: an information-
processing perspective”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 67-88.

About the authors

Erik Flores-Garcia is Doctoral Candidate at the Innofacture Industrial Graduate School, Mälardalen
University, Sweden. His research interests include simulation, production decisions and process
innovation. Erik Flores-Garcia is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: erik.flores@mdh.se
Jessica Bruch is Professor in production systems at Mälardalen University, Sweden. Her research
interest concerns various aspects of production development and addresses both technological and
organizational aspects on the project, company and inter-organizational level.
Magnus Wiktorsson is Professor in production logistics at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),
Sweden. His research interests include two ongoing major changes in production logistics: the
digitization of all processes and the need for transformation into environmentally sustainable production.
Mats Jackson is Professor in innovative production at Jönköping University, Sweden. His research
interests include flexibility of production systems, industrialization and innovation in production systems.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com