ERP pp 181-189 | Cite as

Teaching and Training Integrated Production and Order Management

  • Avraham Shtub
  • Reuven Karni


The essence of Integrated Production and Order Management is teamwork – a process-based organization in which a team is responsible for each process. To ensure a competitive process, each member of the team has to understand the team’s task, its objectives, constraints and the performance measures used to evaluate the team. Furthermore, each individual has to learn the concepts of process and cross-functional process, information systems, the use of information, and the support provided by ERP-type systems. This knowledge of individual team members is the basis of coordination and teamwork. It provides the necessary communication channel for group decisions regarding the design of the process and its implementation. In addition to individual learning, team building and team training are major issues in the implementation of IPOM.

The discussion so far has focused on the knowledge each individual participating in the order-fulfillment process must have. The following discussion focuses on teams, specifically the building teaching and training of the group of people responsible for the design implementation and control of the order-fulfillment process.


Organizational Learning Individual Learning Team Learning Enterprise Resource Planning System Order Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akgun AE, Byrne JC, Keskin H, Lynn GS (2006) Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53: 95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris C, Schon D (1978) Organizational learning. Addison Wesley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Cannon-Bowers JA, Bell HH (1997) Training decision makers for complex environments: Implications of the naturalistic decision prospective. In Zambok C, Klien G (eds), Naturalistic decision making. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 99–110Google Scholar
  4. Day EC, Arthur W, Bell ST, Edwards BD, Bennett W, Mendoza JL, Tubre TC (2005) Ability-based pairing strategies in the team-based training of a complex skill: Does the intelligence of your training partner matter? Intelligence 33: 39–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administ. Sci. Quart. 44: 350–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hinsz VB, Tinadle RS, Vollrath AD (1997) The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin 121: 43–64Google Scholar
  7. Katzenbach RJ, Smith KD (1993) The wisdom of teams. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Kayes AB, Kayes CD, Kolb DA (2005) Developing teams using the Kolb team learning experience. Simulation & Gaming 36: 355–363Google Scholar
  9. Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management 20: 403–437Google Scholar
  10. Lewin K (1948) Resolving social conflicts. Harper, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Stasser G, Vaughan SI, Stewart DD (2000) Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how to access information distributed among team members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82: 45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wright TP (1936) Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences 3: 122–128Google Scholar
  13. Yelle LE (1979) The learning curves: Historical review and comprehensive survey. Decision Sciences 10: 302–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Engineering & ManagementTechnion - Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering & ManagementShenkar College of Engineering & DesignRamat GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations