Abstract
With the advent of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems such as SAP and Oracle, availability of data is no longer the bottleneck to decision making in many organizations. Instead the reverse seems to apply more frequently. Integrated organization-wide computer systems overwhelm managers with data to such an extent that it becomes difficult to assess its relevance for managing operations. A number of methodologies attempt to help management to distill meaning from large amounts of data, such as the Balanced Scorecard, discrete event simulation, qualitative modeling approaches and system dynamics. These methodologies enable managers to identify multiple performance indicators and determine tradeoffs between effects of proposed improvements. Implementation of improvements however entails small or large scale organizational change. Methodologies are commonly used in an expert mode, which makes them prone to many of the potential traps of change management, such as lack of commitment. The approaches can often only be used by experienced consultants. Indeed the literature shows many cases in which ERP systems are not used to their full extent, even though expert consultants supervise implementation months or years after the initial roll-out. Alternative methodologies that enable problem owners to identify problems and combine knowledge and system data in solving these are available. Group model building, which combines system dynamics and active involvement of problem owners, may circumvent the traps to which expert methods are prone. In this chapter we explore three projects in which master students with limited experience used group model building to model and improve operations management. We address the context in which the projects were carried out and the process of client participation and model construction. We describe effects in terms of end products, quality of solutions, results as judged by the clients (such as commitment and implementation) and outcomes of system changes. Our contribution to the literature on ERP systems is a definition of the necessary conditions that need to be in place, in order for group model building to succeed in improving operations management. Our contribution to the group model building literature is a clarification of where the standard process of participative modeling needs to be adapted when used in operations management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ackermann, F., and C. Eden (2005): Using causal mapping to support Information Systems development: some considerations. In: Narayanan, V. und D. Armstrong (eds.): Causal mapping for research in Information Technology, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 263–283.
Ajzen, I. (2001): Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52: 27–58.
Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2007): Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioural intention: an empirical study of ERP implementation. Computers in Human Behaviour 23: 1232–1248.
Andersen, D., and G. Richardson (1997): Scripts for group model building. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 13: 107–129.
Andersen, D. F., J. A. M. Vennix, G. P. Richardson and E. A. J. A. Rouwette (2007): Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58(5): 691–694.
Banker, R., and R. Kaufmann (2004): The evolution of research on information systems. A fiftieth year survey of the literature in Management Science. Manage. Sci. 50(3): 281–298.
Benders, J., R. Batenburg and H. van der Blonk (2006): Sticking to standards; technical and other isomorphic pressures in deploying ERP-systerns. Information & Management 43(2): 194–203.
Checkland, P., and S. Holwell (1998): Information, systems and information systems. Chichester: Wiley.
Checkland, P., and J. Poulter (2006): Learning for action. A short definitive account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester: Wiley.
Davenport, T. H. (1998): Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review 76(4): 121–131.
Deenen, R. E. M. (2007a): Maintenance performance improvement with system dynamics: a corrective maintenance showcase. Paper presented at the ISDC, Athens, Greece.
Deenen, R. E. M. (2007b): Performance improvement of a corrective maintenance process. A showcase of a system dynamics approach. TU Delft, Delft.
Ewalts, D. (2005): Painting by numbers. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
Fahy, M. (2002): Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. London.
Forrester, J. (1958): Industrial dynamics. A major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Business Review (July–August): 37–66.
Forrester, J., and P. Senge (1980): Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 14: 209–228.
Goedhart, K. (2002): Bringing judgement into a forecasting model. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
Größler, A., J. H. Thun and P. M. Milling (2008): System dynamics as a structural theory in operations management. Production and operations management 17(3): 373–384.
Hall, R. (2002): Enterprise resource planning systems and organizational change: transforming work organization? Strategic Change 11: 263–270.
Hodgkinson, G., and G. Clarkson (2005): What have we learned from almost 30 years of research on causal mapping? Methodological lessons and choices for the Information Systems and Information Technology communities. In: Narayanan, V. and D. Armstrong (eds.): Causal mapping for research in Information Technology, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 46–80.
Howick, S., F. Ackermann and D. Andersen (2006): Linking event thinking with structural thinking: methods to improve client value in projects. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 22(2): 113–140.
Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton (1996): The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton (2004): Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lane, D. C. (1994): With a little help from our friends. How system dynamics and soft OR can learn from each other. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10(2/3): 101–134.
Luna-Reyes, L., I. Martinez-Moyano, T. Pardo, A. Cresswell, D. Andersen and G. Richardson (2006): Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: building dynamic theory from case study research. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 22(4): 291–320.
Mabert, V. A., A. Soni and M. A. Venkataramanan (2003): Enterprise resource planning: managing the implementation process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146(2): 302–314.
Milling, P. M. (1996): Modeling innovation processes for decision support and management simulation. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 12(3): 211–234.
Milling, P. M. (2002): Understanding and managing innovation processes. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18(1): 73–86.
Muscatello, R., and D. H. Parente (2006): Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): A Postimplementation Cross-Case Analysis. Information Resource Management Journal 19(3): 61–80.
Nah, F., Tan, X., and S. H. The (2004): An Empirical Investigation on End-Users' Acceptance of Enterprise Systems. Information Resource Management Journal 17(3): 32–53.
Otto, P., and J. Struben (2004): Gloucester fishery: insights from a group modeling intervention. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 20(4): 287–312.
Pawson, R., and N. Tilley (1997): Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Richardson, G. (2006): Concept models. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Richardson, G., and D. Andersen (1995): Teamwork in group model building. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 11(2): 113–137.
Roberts, E. (1973): Strategies for effective implementation of complex corporate models. TIMS-ORSA Interfaces 8(1, part 1): 26–33.
Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2003): Group model building as mutual persuasion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., and Hoppenbrouwers, S. (2008): Collaborative systems modeling and group model building: a useful combination? Paper presented at the System Dynamics Conference Athens.
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., and J. A. M. Vennix (submitted): Modeling crime control in the Netherlands: insights on process. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., J. A. M. Vennix and T. van Mullekom (2002): Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18(1): 5–45.
Snabe, B., and A. Größler (2006): System dynamics modelling for strategy implementation – Case study and issues. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 23(4): 467–481.
The Standish Group, T. S. (2003): Chaos Chronicles Version 3.0. West Yarmouth, MA.
Trunick, P. (1999): ERP: Promise or pipe dream? Transportation and Distribution 40(1): 23–26.
Venderbosch, T. (2007): Using Group Model Building to optimize the maintenance process in an ERP environment at ONEgas. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
Vennix, J. (1996): Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.
Vennix, J. A. M., H. A. Akkermans and E. A. J. A. Rouwette (1996): Group model building to facilitate organisational change. An exploratory study. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 12(1): 39–58.
Vennix, J. A. M., and E. A. J. A. Rouwette (2000): Group model building. What does the client think of it now? Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Conference, Bergen, Norway.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rouwette, E.A., Vennix, J.A. (2009). Improving Operations Management by Synthesizing Participant Knowledge and System Data. In: Strohhecker, J., Größler, A. (eds) Strategisches und operatives Produktionsmanagement. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8401-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8401-2_13
Publisher Name: Gabler
Print ISBN: 978-3-8349-1766-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-8349-8401-2
eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)