Implementing a Manufacturing Planning and Control Information System

Wight O.W. , Production and Inventory Control in the Computer Age (Boston, MA: Chaners Publishing, 1974); Hall R.H. Vollman T.E. , “Planning Your Material Requirements,” Harvard Business Review, 56 (1978): 105–112.

Buker D.W. , “MRP at Balderson, Incorporated,” American Production and Inventory Control Society Conference Proceedings (1981), pp.121–124; Horovitz B. , “Why Corning is Sticking with MRP,” Industry Week, 212, (1982): 44–48; Anderson J.C. Schroeder R.G. , “Getting Results from Your MRP System,” Business Horizons, 27, (1984): 57–64.

Ibid.; Gunawardane G. , “Implementing a Management Information System in an Extremely Dynamic (and Somewhat Hostile) Environment—A Case Study,” Interfaces, 15, (1985): 93–99.

Cox J.F. Clark S.J. , “Problems in Implementing and Operating a Manufacturing Resource Planning Information System,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 1, (1984): 81–101; Cox J.F. Zmud R.W. Clark S.J. , “Auditing an MRP System,” Academy of Management Journal, 24 (1981): 386–402; Forster A.J. Hsu E.Y.P. , “MRP the Fine Line Between Success and Failure,” American Production and Inventory Control Society Conference Proceedings (1976), pp. 421–446.

White E.M. Anderson J.C. Schroeder R.G. Tupy S.E. , “A Study of the MRP Implementation Process,” Journal of Operations Management, 2, (1982): 145–153.

Overall success was measured on a 10-point scale (with 1-not at all successful, 10-extremely successful), as were problems encountered (1-none, 10-caused severe problems). Degree to which benefits were achieved was measured with a 5-point scale (1-none, 5-very much) as were various before-after implementation data accuracy measures (1-poor, 5-excellent). Steps or characteristics, which proved to be bi-modal based upon the pretest, were grouped together as checklist items, while those which demonstrated a wider variation across the original 5-point Likert scale format were retained in that form.

One hundred telephone follow-up interviews were conducted, with repeated call backs on a random sample of nonrespondent CFOs and CEOs. Forty-one percent were too busy to respond, while 21% had moved to another organization. Forty-three percent of those calls completed were not involved with MRP (indicating a problem with our original mailing list.) Of those involved with MRP, significant differences were found from our mail sample on none of the 13 benefit criteria, and only 3 of the 11 problem areas. A much higher percentage (60% vs. 23% of our mail sample) reported being in early to mid implementation. Thus, non-respondents were primarily either non-involved with MRP, or still implementing it, and those who were involved showed comparable problems encountered and benefits achieved to our original mail sample. This suggests that the degree of non-response bias was minor.