IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infsem/v15y2017i2d10.1007_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, 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v:15:y:2017:i:2: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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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, 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Mufaro Masarira & Kassandra A. Papadopoulou & Amir Rahbarimanesh & Jyoti K. Sinha & Uday Kumar, 2024. "A framework for analysis of stakeholder dynamics and value creation in industrial maintenance projects: the stakeholder ipot," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(9), pages 4229-4251, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Sylvain Lenfle & Christoph Loch, 2017. "Has Megaproject management lost its way ? Lessons from History," Post-Print hal-03640779, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    12. Fanny Romestant, 2017. "L’écoute des parties prenantes dans une optique de développement durable : continuité ou alternative pour le marketing de projets industriels ?," Post-Print hal-01867786, HAL.
    13. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    14. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    15. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    16. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    17. Jelena Cvijović & Vladimir Obradović & Marija Todorović, 2021. "Stakeholder Management and Project Sustainability—A Throw of the Dice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Tao, Liangyan & Wu, Desheng & Liu, Sifeng & Lambert, James H., 2017. "Schedule risk analysis for new-product development: The GERT method extended by a characteristic function," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 464-473.
    19. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    20. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111.

    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:15:y:2017:i:2: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.