Skip to main content

Make or buy?

  • Chapter
  • 201 Accesses

Abstract

An important facet of a company’s manufacturing strategy concerns the question of whether to make or buy: the issue of process positioning. This consists of the width of a firm’s internal span of process, the degree and direction of vertical integration alternatives, and its links and relationships at either end of the process spectrum with suppliers, distributors and customers. The make-or-buy decision, therefore, has major ramifications within the business itself. As an integral part of corporate strategy, it can be crucial to survival. However, the investment involved in earlier integration moves, or decisions to buy rather than make parts of products (often justified on the short-term rationale of profit return),1 can restrict a company’s ability to change direction in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and references

  1. R. H. Hayes and J. Abernathy, ‘Managing Our Way to Economic Decline’, Harvard Business Review, July–August 1980, pp. 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ‘Why They’re Integrating into Integrated Circuits’, Business Week, 28 September 1974, p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. H. Hayes and S. C. Wheelwright, Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through Manufacturing (New York: John Wiley, 1984), p. 219.

    Google Scholar 

  4. For example, refer to C. Batchelor’s review of the gains secured through subcontracting and reported in his article, ‘Lower Overheads and Increased Productivity’, Financial Times, 23 April 1991, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. R. Harrigan, Strategies for Vertical Integration (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983) also addresses these issues.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid., ch. 2, discusses these alternatives and offers frameworks to help in their selection.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See, for example, a special report entitled ‘The Hollow Corporation’, Business Week, 3 March 1986, pp. 56–76.

    Google Scholar 

  8. The ripple effect concerns the real cost of imports to an economy. For each $1 billion of foreign-made consumable its was estimated that the total cost to the US economy was $1.43 billion on top of the $1 billion imports themselves, as reported in the following table.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Business Week, March 1986, pp. 63–6 introduces the notion of post-industrial corporations that could subcontract everything from manufacturing to invoicing customers.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thomas Hobson, a Cambridge carrier, had a policy of letting out his horses in rotation, without allowing his customers to choose among them. Hence, they had to take or leave the one on offer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. K. R. Harrigan, ‘Managing Joint Ventures — Part I’, Management Review, February 1987, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  13. ‘Risks and Rewards of Collaboration. A Survey of Product Development Collaboration in UK Companies’, School of Management, UMIST, PO Box 88, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  14. An extensive review of this approach is provided in the NEDC Report, The Experience of Nissan Suppliers: Lessons for the United Kingdom Engineering Industry. May 1991. This approach not only characterises the Japanese motor industry (also refer to J. Griffiths, ‘How Toyota Filters Its Component Suppliers’, Financial Times, 10 April 1991, p. 11) but also other Japanese industries as well. Also refer to C. Batchelor,’ supplying the Japanese — Painstaking Assessment of Product Quality — A Close but Informal Relationship’, Financial Times, 21 May 1991, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  15. ‘World Automotive Suppliers’, Financial Time Survey, 28 June 1993, Section IV.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. Done, Shockwaves are Coming, Financial Times Survey, 28 June 1993, Section IV, p. I.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Financial Times Survey, 28 June 1993, p. III.

    Google Scholar 

  18. ’Strategic Alternatives for the British Motorcycle Industry’, a report prepared for the Secretary of State for Industry by the BCG (London: HMSO, July 1977), p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. J. Schonberger, Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity (New York: Free Press, 1982), p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Taken from G. O’Donnell, ‘How Australian Industry Points the Way on Kanban’, Production Engineer, July–August 1984, pp. 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Baxter, Wanted: ‘A More Gentlemanly Style’, Financial Times, 22 March 1994, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Griffiths, ‘Making it Just in Time’, The Daily Telegraph, 19 October 1992, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  23. The Lean Emterprise Benchmarking Project’ by Andersen Consulting, Cardiff Business School and University of Cambridge (1993).

    Google Scholar 

Further reading

  • Armour, T. J. and D. H. Teece, ‘Vertical Integration and Technological Innovation’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 62 (August 1982), pp. 470–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J., ‘Vertical Integration and Communications’, Bell Journal of Economics, 6 (Spring 1975), pp. 173–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, P. and D. Farmer, Purchasing — Principles and Management, 5th edn (London: Pitman, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blois, K. J. ‘Vertical Quasi-integration’, Journal of Industrial Economics, July 1972, pp. 253–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzell, R. D., ‘Is Vertical Integration Profitable?’, Harvard Business Review, January–February 1983, pp. 92–102. (Offers an analysis based on the profit impact of market strategies (PIMS) data to assess a number of relationships including vertical integration and profitability; vertical integration, investment intensity and return on investments; and vertical integration, relative market share and profitability.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavinato, J. L., Purchasing and Materials Management (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, J. V., ‘Vendor’s Viewpoint: Quality, Response, Delivery’, Quality Progress, 17, no. 11 (November 1988), pp. 40–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, W. A., ‘Vendor Selection and the Buying Process’, Industrial Marketing Management, 17 (1978), pp. 257–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DTI and Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, ‘A Review of the Relationships Between Vehicle Manufacturers and Suppliers’, February 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, H., Today and Tomorrow (Productivity Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, B. T., ‘Can More Capital Buy Higher Productivity?’, Harvard Business Review, July–August 1980, pp. 78–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R., Managing for Joint Venture Success (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraljic, P., ‘Purchasing Must Become Supply Management’, Harvard Business Review, September–October 1983, pp. 109–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit, R. E., ‘Vendor Evaluation Made Simple’, Quality Progress, 17, no. 3 (March 1984), pp. 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., Competitive Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1980). Ch. 14 provides an extensive discussion of the potential benefits and limitations of vertical integration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonberger, R. J., Building a Chain of Customers (London: Hutchinson Business Books, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee, R., ‘A Note on the Theory of Vertical Integration’, Journal of Political Economy, March–April 1973, pp. 442–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E., ‘The Vertical Integration of Production: Market Failure Considerations’, American Economic Review, 61 (May 1971), pp. 112–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1995 Terry Hill

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hill, T. (1995). Make or buy?. In: Manufacturing Strategy. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13724-4_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics