Adaptability and flexibility have become core requirements for global production networks in recent years. This was not always the case. For decades, cost and efficiency considerations played a central role—both in the design of individual plants and in the planning of global networks. The efficiency paradigm was so dominant that it shaped entire generations of value chains: lean, waste-free, without unnecessary buffers and redundancies, globally distributed and interconnected. The result was an immense productivity boost that contributed to prosperity and growth worldwide. It was the right strategy for a largely stable era—for a world “after the end of history,” as Francis Fukuyama famously described it in his seminal essay in the summer of 1989.

The World After the Summer Fairy Tale

This global summer fairy tale, however, was not meant to last. In 2008, Tesla and BYD launched their electric vehicles, while the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered the global financial crisis. In 2012, Xi Jinping became General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and initiated policies that would profoundly reshape China’s position in international value networks. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea; in 2018, the United States imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese goods; and in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world with full force. History had returned—and “resilience” and “disruption” became the defining concepts of the decade.

As a result, companies now find themselves in a world characterized by dramatic destabilization of the framework conditions, extreme volatility, and unpredictability. It is a world in which processes optimized to the limit—maximally lean, cost-efficient, and efficient—can become an existential risk. Industrial operations therefore require a significantly higher degree of adaptability and flexibility.

The Difficult Transformation

The urgently required transformation, however, comes with major challenges. On the one hand, the manufacturing industry has a long braking distance: strategic approaches are embedded in complex relationships and long-term contracts, in regional footprints, in plant and technology designs, as well as in organizations and processes. Fundamental changes to these structures require substantial time and capital—both of which are scarce today. On the other hand, abandoning high efficiency is not an option given global competition, cost pressure, and increasingly short product and technology life cycles.

Industry is therefore challenged to find ways to resolve the inevitable tension between efficiency and flexibility and to develop hybrid approaches that integrate both. To do so, it is worth first examining what flexibility actually means in the context of industrial operations and which approaches have already proven successful in recent years.

Structural Flexibility: A Hard Shell, a Flexible Core
Modern production facilities enable a high degree of flexibility within existing buildings when it comes to structures and manufacturing technologies. This allows companies to respond quickly to changing market requirements and to adapt their production processes efficiently. Modular plant designs, for example, make it possible to plan individual halls, systems, and supply lines separately and adjust them as needed. Reconfigurable production lines play a central role here, as they are designed to be converted to new products or changing volumes within a short period of time. This flexibility is further enhanced by modular automation, in which flexible robot and machine modules can be combined and adapted as required.

A future-oriented industrial footprint today is not merely a coordinated physical presence across multiple locations, but above all a network of capabilities and competencies. 

Network Flexibility: A Map of Capabilities and Decisions

A future-oriented industrial footprint today is not merely a coordinated physical presence across multiple locations, but above all a network of capabilities and competencies. This means that not every plant has to cover everything; instead, sites complement each other. At the same time, temporary and virtual production capacities—such as container solutions, leased facilities, buffer sites, or platform-coordinated partner networks—can be used to respond flexibly to demand fluctuations.

This approach supports companies in implementing robust nearshoring and multi-source strategies to minimize geopolitical risks and strengthen supply chain resilience. A key role in this perspective is played by the definition of new roles, such as “footprint architects,” who ensure company-wide coordination and clear decision-making processes. The necessary framework is provided by governance structures that base decisions not only on capacity considerations, but also on volatility, resilience, climate risks, and regulatory aspects.

Digital Flexibility: Data Excellence and New Roles as Efficiency Boosters

Expanding digital infrastructure is the key to ensuring that the interplay between flexibility and efficiency does not become a zero-sum game. A data-driven ecosystem with real-time information on status, bottlenecks, and quality creates transparency across the entire network. Moreover, digital technologies make a significant contribution to increasing flexibility. The use of digital twins, simulations, cyber-physical systems, and the Internet of Things (IoT) enables fast and well-founded decision-making when production conditions change. For example, a production planning system (PPS) can use these technologies to react to changes in real time, avoid bottlenecks, and optimally control production.

Transforming a global network into an elastic structure is only sustainable if flexibility is also reflected at the strategic level. 

Strategic Flexibility: Thinking in Scenarios and Dynamics

Transforming a global network into an elastic structure is only sustainable if flexibility is also reflected at the strategic level. If strategy continues to be driven by long-term plans, stable worldviews, linear trend extrapolations, and overly formalized decision-making processes, the flexibilization of individual elements and technologies will have limited impact. The decisive change must therefore begin at the top—with the development of strategic thinking that can deal with disruptions, multidisciplinary perspectives, and decentralization, and that does not dogmatically adhere to once-established assumptions. Only this mindset connects the individual flexibility approaches and gives them direction and momentum.

Conclusion: Building Blocks of Autonomy and Future Viability

Flexibility in the footprint does not mean—put simply—that factories can be moved around like Lego bricks. The challenge lies in designing and interconnecting the individual physical, digital, and organizational building blocks in such a way that an elastic overall structure emerges: adaptable, responsive, resilient, and efficient. These processes must be guided and coordinated by a strategy that is open and sensitive to discontinuities and surprises. Only then does the design of global networks become a true form of future preparedness—securing long-term autonomy and the ability to act in a restless world whose history is far from over.

Author

Dr. Kai Magenheimer, Senior Partner, EFESO Management Consultants

Dr. Kai Magenheimer is Senior Partner at EFESO Management Consultants. He supports internationally operating companies in the strategic design and evaluation of manufacturing and supply chain networks, as well as in the conception and global implementation of Operational Excellence programs.

Further information

Production networks in the food industry >

Industrial Manufacturing >

Insight: F&B Excellence in Central Eastern Europe >