Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaltonen K, Kujala J (2010) A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scand J Manag 26:381–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Hamid T, Madnick SE (1991) Software project dynamics: an integrated approach. Prentice-Hall Software Series, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter C, Murty S (1997) Logic modeling: a tool for teaching practice evaluation. J Soc Work Educ 33(1):103

    Google Scholar 

  • Angerhofer B, Angelides M (2000) System dynamics modelling in supply chain management: research review. In: Proceedings of the 2000 winter simulation conference

  • Barros MO, Werner CML, Travassos GH (2000) Applying system dynamics to scenario based software project management. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference of the System Dynamics Society, Bergen, NW

  • Barros MO, Werner CML, Travassos GH (2002) Evaluating the Use of system dynamics models in software project management. In: Proceedings of the 20th conference of the System Dynamics Society, Bergen, NW

  • “Best Mexican Companies Evaluation Program”. Banamex, Deloitte and Tecnológico de Monterrey. http://www.mejoresempresasmexicanas.com/

  • Chapman C, Ward S (2003) Project risk management: processes, techniques. Wiley, The Atrium, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen H-T, Rossi P (1983) Evaluating with sense—the theory driven approach. Eval Rev 7:283–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen HT, Rossi P (eds) (1992) Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations, vol 290. Greenwood Press, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz R, Galeano N, Molina A (2003) Use of Logic Models to Describe Best manufacturing practices. XXXIII Research Congress of ITESM

  • Forrester JW (1958) Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Bus Rev 36(4):37–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope J, Hope T (1997) Competing in the third wave. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaafari A (2001) Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: time for a fundamental shift. Int J Proj Manag 19(2):89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapsali M (2011) Systems thinking in innovation project management: a match that works. Int J Proj Manag 29(4):396–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB (1999) Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s performance story. Eval Program Plan 22:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina A, Medina V (2003) Application of enterprise models and simulation tools for the evaluation of the impact of best manufacturing practices implementation. Ann Rev Control 27:221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen S, Nielsen E (2008) System dynamics modelling for a balanced scorecard—computing the influence of skills, customers, and work in process on the return on capital employed. Manag Res News 31(3):169–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldsman E, Hallberg K (2004) Framework for evaluating the impact of small enterprise initiatives. In: Proceedings of Rural Community Economic Development: experiences from the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions. Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama

  • Parmenter D (2010) Key performance indicators: developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Pich MT, Loch C, Meyer A (2002) On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Manag Sci 48(8):1008–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project Management Institute (2004) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 3rd edn. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi T, Warraich A, Hizaji S (2009) Significance of project management performance implementation (PMPA) model. Int J Project Manag 27:378–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radeka Katherine (2010) Plan to act: a deep dive into the act step of the LAMDA cycle. Whittier Consulting Group Inc, Camas

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond B (2001) A new language for leveraging scorecard-driven learning. Balanced scorecard report, vol 3. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues A, Bowers J (1996) The role of system dynamics in project management. Int J Proj Manag 14(4):213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline—the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency and Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth HJ, Morris PW (2007) An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their management: methodological issues. Int J Project Manage 25(4):423–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (1992) System dynamics modeling for project management. Technical report. MIT System Dynamics Group, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics—systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2001) System dynamics modelling: tools for learning in a complex world. Calif Manag Rev 43(4):64–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallejo C, Romero D, Molina, A (2012) Enterprise integration engineering reference framework and toolbox. Int J Prod Res 50(6):1489–1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren Kim (2002) Competitive Strategy Dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams TM (2000) Safety regulation changes during projects: the use of system dynamics to quantify the effects of change. Int J Project Manage 18(1):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yampolskaya S, Nesman T, Hernandez M, Koch D (2004) Using concept mapping to develop a logic model and articulate a program theory: a case example. Am J Eval 25(2):191–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors are pleased to thank Deloitte Consulting Firm, Banamex Bank, and Tecnológico de Monterrey University for facilitating the information regarding KRIs of the Best Mexican Companies Evaluation Programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico City, Mexico

    Carlos Vallejo, David Romero & Arturo Molina

  2. Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    David Romero

Authors
  1. Carlos Vallejo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arturo Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to David Romero or Arturo Molina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vallejo, C., Romero, D. & Molina, A. Implementation of best manufacturing practices using logic models and system dynamics: project design and project assessment views. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 15, 535–575 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-016-0327-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-016-0327-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation