Modernization of manufacturing means updatingcapabilities and changing the ways in whichcompanies organize and manage processes, producetheir product, and hire, train, and retain theirpersonnel. Often referred to as "high performance," these qualities are characterized by workertraining and development, continuous improvement,ongoing information sharing, and workerdiscretion and autonomy. They are equallyapplicable to small, medium-sized, and largemanufacturing firms. While many barriers existthat challenge small manufacturers to move fromtheir traditional operations to high performance,those that are able to operate in this mode havedemonstrated success.In 1988, Congress passed the Omnibus Trade andCompetitiveness Act which charged the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tohelp smaller manufacturers adopt and applyperformance-improving technologies as needed tomeet the intensifying domestic and globalcompetition in manufacturing. NIST establishedthe Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)program to create and implement a nationwidesystem of technical assistance centers, staffedby knowledgeable manufacturing and other businesssystem professionals, to enable small andmedium-sized manufacturers reach this goal.Each of the 78 MEP center's individuality resultsfrom its respective charter, which, in turn,reflects the needs and priorities of itsstakeholders, location, and client firms. Asproviders of services that help smallmanufacturing firms become more productive in allof their functions, MEP centers can influencetheir client firms' evolution towards highperformance, which would include a focus ontraining and other flexible work practices. Yet,not all of the MEP centers report that theyprovide technical assistance in humanresource-related activities to their client firms.In fact, some of the centers report no assistancein this topic area at all. This study attemptedto understand why some MEP centers do not place ahigh value on training and other flexible workpractices as critical components of the servicesthey provide to their client firms.I conducted qualitative case studies of three MEPcenters whose inclusion of training and otherflexible work practices to their client firmsranged from none to integration with all services.Applying grounded theory analysis techniques, Iidentified experiences, training, andorganizational policies that have either enabledor discouraged these service providers fromoffering a comprehensive, holistic range ofservices to their client firms. The data yieldedfour constructs that are common to the threecenters and explain their involvement with humanresource-related activities: (1) control; (2)discrepant values and behaviors; (3) limiteddefinitions of training and development; and (4)experiences. The four constructs formed thebasis of the analyses of the three centers. Theconstructs also contributed to a model foridentifying interventions to assist MEP centersand their staffs transition from solelytechnically-oriented assistance to more holisticapproaches.
