Editorial

Citation

Taylor, A. and Taylor, M. (2008), "Editorial", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 12. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm.2008.02428laa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Volume 28, Issue 12

How do we expect workers to respond when faced with too much work? When do they respond by working harder and smarter, and when do they respond by giving up? What about the situation in which the work demanded is less than their capacity? Do they use slack time to make sure that the work is done well, or do they slow down? These are interesting and useful questions for operations management and the experiments designed by Bendoly and Prietula provide useful insights. They test how training that is specific to an operational task, and subsequent experiential learning, can heighten skill and hence shift the level of workload at which individuals are most productively motivated.

Since the beginnings of our field there have been studies of the factors and dynamics that drive productive activity at the level of the individual worker; it is right and proper that in the midst of the many other developments since then, we do not lose this focus (Wingaard and de Vries, 2006). As production and service delivery systems evolve and change, the issues of workload and stress remain (see for example, Conti et al., 2006), juxtaposed with managerial concerns to maximise worker performance. While we may be committed to notions of socio-technical system design, Bendoly and Prietula’s work reminds us that we need a much richer understanding of these issues.

In 2005, in tracing the development of the performance measurement field, Neely’s (2005) analysis confirmed the dominance of the Kaplan and Norton balanced scored approach, first published in 1992. He produced an update on the state of performance measurement research since that time, noting that a dominant research question in the mid 1990s, at least for the operations management community with an interest in performance measurement, was to ask how these so-called “balanced performance measurement systems” could be developed and deployed. An increasing number of organisations have adopted the balanced scorecard – research data suggest that the number is between 30 and 60 per cent (Rigby, 2001; Silk, 1998; Williams, 2001; Speckbacher et al., 2003, Marr et al., 2004), and its adoption has spread beyond large manufacturing companies, reaching SMEs (Garengo and Bititci, 2007), the public (Greatbanks and Tapp, 2007) and voluntary sectors (Moxham and Boaden, 2007), and in fact extending beyond the conventional firm boundary into the supply chain (Forslund, 2007).

While such a heavy reliance on one approach could be considered unhealthy, it does bring the benefit of providing a rich environment for empirical investigation of implementation and impact. McAdam, Hazlett and Anderson tap into this rich vein of study, echoing calls in both the research community and practice for more flexible measurement systems that can cope with the constant evolution of organisations and the challenges of environmental turbulence. In their terms, such systems must be anticipatory and forward looking. Using five case studies of companies which have embarked upon a re-conceptualisation of performance measurement they produce a conceptual model of the dynamics involved in developing such measures, incorporating legitimacy theory (Suchman, 1995; Johnson, 2004).

One of the recurring notions encountered, even in undergraduate studies in our field, is of the tensions inherent in the marketing and operations interface, colloquially expressed as, “they [marketing] sell and makes promises with no reference to capacity or delivery issues”. It is perhaps a little surprising therefore to see that such fundamental tensions remain unresolved. In make-to-order contexts it is even more critical to ensure that customer enquiries are dealt with accurately with regard to promised delivery dates (Reichart and Holweg, 2007). Zorzini, Hendry, Stevenson and Pozzetti explore how firms support delivery date setting in the Italian capital goods sector, noting that much of the extant research in this field has been simulation-based.

Undoubtedly the customer enquiry management (CEM) process involves several trade-offs (Salvador et al., 2007) requiring inter-disciplinary expertise and many integrating mechanisms have been proposed to reduce the potential sales & marketing/production department conflicts. What we need to know, and what still remains unanswered is what works, what does not and what makes the difference? Zorzini et al. recommend high levels of cross-functional co-ordination and formalisation of CEM practices as the two most effective practices, but they also identify three contingency factors which require some modification of the specific approach, namely, the degree of product customisation, the flexibility of the production system and the levels of uncertainty introduced by demand, process, and suppliers (see also Sarkis et al., 2007; Howard and Squire, 2007).

The drive to continuously improve leads organisations to consider new ways to maintain and improve their performance and competitive position. This issue of IJOPM ends with another look at ERP systems in this context, given that standard resource planning systems often do not span all business units and functions within a firm, forcing companies to extend them (Bendoly et al., 2006). Against this background, Watts, Mabert and Hartman examine the implementation of “Bolt-ons” – independent software modules that provide additional functionality to extend the range of activities carried out by a conventional Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. Examples include modules for Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Computerized Maintenance Management (CMM); and systems such as Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES), Warehouse Management Systems (WMS) and Transportation Management Systems (TMS).

Watts et al. investigated the extent of implementation of Bolt-ons for supply chain management activities by US manufacturing firms, including both those firms that have ERP installations and those that do not. For the latter group, Bolt-ons that can communicate with each other are often acquired and built into customised hybrid systems. Whilst it is sometimes argued that having an ERP system is essential for running a business, particularly in a networked economy (Wu and Wang, 2006), it is debatable whether or not the investment leads to better performance (Bozarth, 2006) and of course it is well documented that ERP system implementations are not always successful (Jonsson and Mattsson, 2006), thus mitigating the option to acquire Bolt-ons without the expense and complexity of an ERP implementation. The paper by Watts et al. reports the factors that affect the acquisition of supply chain Bolt-ons, finding that the majority of them are acquired by large companies currently using ERP, which have well-defined plans and objectives and a belief in the importance of adopting “best practices”.

Andrew Taylor, Margaret Taylor