IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infsem/vyid10.1007_s10257-016-0327-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementation of best manufacturing practices using logic models and system dynamics: project design and project assessment views

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos Vallejo

    (Tecnológico de Monterrey)

  • David Romero

    (Tecnológico de Monterrey
    Griffith University)

  • Arturo Molina

    (Tecnológico de Monterrey)

Abstract

In today’s global competitive environment, the need for continuous improvement is a matter of considerable importance within manufacturing enterprises. To this end, project managers, and managers in general, design and assess different projects with the purpose of achieving efficient processes, reducing costs and waste, increasing product and service quality, developing new products and services, enhancing customer relationship management, optimising enterprise resources, and so on. However, it is well-known that managing enterprise resources in order to accomplish effective completion of projects is a complex task to carry out. Furthermore, it has been recognised that the way staff actually understands the purpose of a project, the way they perform different project activities, and how they are able to influence project design and assessment are key factors for influencing the success of a project. This paper presents a systemic methodology to design and assess projects more effectively and efficiently based on program logic models and system dynamics with the aim of facilitating a clear understanding of the needs, purposes, goals, activities and tasks of a project among its stakeholders towards achieving success.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos Vallejo & David Romero & Arturo Molina, 0. "Implementation of best manufacturing practices using logic models and system dynamics: project design and project assessment views," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-41.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v::y::i::d:10.1007_s10257-016-0327-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10257-016-0327-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10257-016-0327-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10257-016-0327-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    2. Michael T. Pich & Christoph H. Loch & Arnoud De Meyer, 2002. "On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1008-1023, August.
    3. Aaltonen, Kirsi & Kujala, Jaakko, 2010. "A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 381-397, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos Vallejo & David Romero & Arturo Molina, 2017. "Implementation of best manufacturing practices using logic models and system dynamics: project design and project assessment views," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 535-575, May.
    2. Agathe Gilain & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Managing Learning Curves In The Unknown: From ‘Learning By Doing’ To ‘Learning By Designing’," Post-Print hal-01900961, HAL.
    3. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.
    4. Ferry Koster & Mattijs Lambooij, 2018. "Managing Innovations: A Study of the Implementation of Electronic Medical Records in Dutch Hospitals," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-23, February.
    5. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    6. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    7. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    8. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    9. Jukka Majava & Ville Isoherranen & Pekka Kess, 2013. "Business Collaboration Concepts and Implications for Companies," International Journal of Synergy and Research, ToKnowPress, vol. 2(1), pages 23-40.
    10. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    11. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.
    12. Voeten, J.J., 2012. "Understanding responsible innovation in small producers’ clusters in Northern Vietnam : A grounded theory approach to globalization and poverty alleviation," Other publications TiSEM e01da02b-ef2b-47c9-8d06-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    14. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    15. Sylvain Lenfle & Christoph Loch, 2017. "Has Megaproject management lost its way ? Lessons from History," Post-Print hal-03640779, HAL.
    16. Hermano, Víctor & Martín-Cruz, Natalia, 2016. "The role of top management involvement in firms performing projects: A dynamic capabilities approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3447-3458.
    17. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    18. Junguang Zhang & Dan Wan, 2021. "Determination of early warning time window for bottleneck resource buffer," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(1), pages 289-305, May.
    19. Eric Christian Brun, 2019. "Understanding a Business Incubator as a Start-Up Factory: A Value Chain Model Perspective," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 1-28, May.
    20. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v::y::i::d:10.1007_s10257-016-0327-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.