Managing information and supplies inventory operations in a manufacturing environment. Part 1: An action research study

International Journal of Production Research

Volumn 50, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1666-1681

  Baker, Tim ^a   Jayaraman, Vaidyanathan ^b  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

action research; inventory management; manufacturing information systems

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; CAUSE-AND-EFFECT DIAGRAM; DATA SYSTEMS; DELIVERY SCHEDULES; ELECTRIC POWER OUTPUT; FAILURE MODE EFFECT ANALYSIS; GOOD DATA; INVENTORY MANAGEMENT; MANUFACTURING ENVIRONMENTS; MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES; MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PLANT DOWNTIME; PLANT OUTAGES; PROCESS INFORMATION; PROCESS MAPS; PRODUCTION PROCESS; PRODUCTION SCHEDULE; REACTOR FUELS; RESEARCH STUDIES; WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE;

DATA PROCESSING; INVENTORY CONTROL; MAINTENANCE; MANUFACTURE; NUCLEAR FUELS; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; NUCLEAR REACTORS; OUTAGES; SUPPLY CHAINS;

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84861380456     PISSN: 00207543     EISSN: 1366588X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2010.550697     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Agar, M., 1986. Speaking of ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
2. Agar, M. and MacDonald, J., 1995. Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organisation, 54 (1), 78-95.
3. AREVA, 2008. Half-year report. June [online]. Available from: http://www.areva.com/servlet/librarytools/publishes/energybusiness-en.html.
4. Argyris, C., 1985. Making knowledge more relevant to practice: Maps for action. In: E.E. Lawler III, A.M. Mohrman, S.A. Mohrman, G.E. Ledford Jr and T.G. Cummings, eds. Doing research that is useful for theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 79-125.
5. Avison, D.E., Lau, F., Myers, M., and Nielsen, P.A., 1999. Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42, 94-97.
6. Bargal, D., Gold, M., and Lewin, M., 1992. Introduction: The heritage of Kurt Lewin. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (2), 3-13.
7. Barratt, M. and Choi, T., 2007. Mandated RFID and Institutional responses. Production and Operations Management, 16 (5), 569-585.
8. Bartunek, J.M. and Louis, M.R., 1996. Insider and outsider team research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
9. Baskerville, R., 1999. Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the ACM, 2 (3), 1-32.
10. Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J., 1999. Grounded action research as a method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 9, 1-23.
11. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., and Mead, M., 1987. The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, September, 369-386.
12. Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P., 2006. Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17 (1), 56-72.
13. Blackburn, J., Kropp, D., and Millen, R., 1986. A comparison of strategies to dampen nervousness in MRP systems. Management Science, 32 (4), 413-429.
14. Bramwell, D., 2008. QuikSigma. Layton, UT: Promontory Management Group.
15. Bunning, C., 1995. Placing action learning and action research in context. Brisbane, Australia: International Management Centre.
16. Bushell, S., Mobley, J., and Shelest, B., 2002. Discovering lean thinking at progressive healthcare. Journal for Quality and Participation, 25 (2), 20-25.
17. Chakravorthy, S.S. and Hales, D.N., 2008. The evolution of manufacturing cells: An action research study. European Journal of Operational Research, 188, 153-168.
18. Checkland, P. and Holwell, S., 1998. Action research: Its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11 (1), 9-21.
19. Choi, T. and Hong, Y., 2002. Unveiling the structure of supply networks: Case studies in Honda, Acura and DaimlerChrysler. Journal of Operations Management, 20 (5), 469-493.
20. Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D., 2002. Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22 (2), 220-240.
21. Cunningham, J.B., 1993. Action research and organisational development. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
22. Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G., and Kock, N., 2004. Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14, 65-86.
23. Dickens, L. and Watkins, K., 1999. Action research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30, 127-140.
24. DOE EIA, 2007. International energy outlook. Report: DOE/EIA-0484(2007).
25. Eden, C. and Huxham, C., 1996. Action research for management research. British Journal of Management, 7, 75-86.
26. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
27. Elden, M. and Chisholm, R.F., 1993. Emerging varieties of action research: An introduction to the special issue. Human Relations, 46, 121-142.
28. Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., and Schroeder, R.G., 1995. Relationship between JIT and TQM: Practices and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5), 1325-1360.
29. Gentz, C., (2008). Private conversations with Celia Gentz, analyst, AREVA Richland, WA, facility.
30. Heller, F., 1983. Another look at action research. Human Relations, 46, 1235-1242.
31. Hines, P., Holwe, M., and Rich, N., 2004. Learning to evolve -A review of contemporary lean thinking. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24 (10), 994-1011.
32. Huls, K., 2005. The Antioch company brings Lean into the office. Journal of Organisational Excellence, 24 (4), 31-38.
33. Kaplowitz, M.D., 2000. Statistical analysis of sensitive topics in group and individual interviews. Quality and Quantity, 34 (4), 419-431.
34. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R., 1988. The action research planner. Victoria: Deakin University.
35. Kimura, R., (2004). Performance of transmission-corrected high-resolution gamma assays in a nuclear fuel fabrication facility. WM '04 conference, 29 February-4 March 2004, Tucson, AZ.
36. Kuick, S., (2008). Private conversations with Stan Kuick, Lean Programs Manager, AREVA Richland, WA, facility.
37. Lau, F., 1999. Towards a framework for action research in information system studies. Information Technology & People, 12 (2), 148-176.
38. Lee, A.S. and Hubona, G., 2009. A scientific basis for rigor in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 33 (2), 237-262.
39. Levy, D.L., 1997. Lean production in an International Supply Chain. Sloan Management review, 38 (2), 94-102.
40. Lior, N., 2008. Energy resources and use: The present situation and possible paths to the future. Energy, 33, 842-857.
41. Majumdar, S.K. and Venkataraman, K.S., 1998. Network effects and the adoption of new technology: Evidence from the US communications industry. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (11), 1045-1062.
42. McKay, J. and Marshall, P., 2001. The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology and People, 14, 46-59.
43. McKone, K.E. and Weiss, E.N., 1998. TPM: Planned and autonomous maintenance: Bridging the gap between practice and research. Production and Operations Management, 7 (4), 335-351.
44. McTaggart, R., 1991. Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 168-187.
45. Meredith, J.R., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., and Kaplan, B., 1989. Alternative research paradigms in operations. Journal of Operations Management, 8 (4), 297-326.
46. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B., 1977. Institutional organisations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340-363.
47. Nonaka, I. and Takeutchi, H., 1995. The knowledge creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48. Olesen, K. and Myers, M.D., 1999. Trying to improve communication and collaboration with information technology: An action research project which failed. Information Technology and People, 12, 317-332.
49. Pasmore, W. and Friendlander, F., 1982. An action research program for increasing employee involvement in problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 343-362.
50. Peters, M. and Robinson, V., 1984. The origins and status of action research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 113-124.
51. Ponomarev-Stepnoi, N., 1997. Nuclear power of the 21st century. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 173, 21-31.
52. Pressman, R.S., 2001. Software engineering: A practitioner's approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Publications.
53. Prybutok, V.R. and Ramasesh, R., 2005. An action research based instrument for monitoring continuous quality improvement. European Journal of Operational Research, 166, 293-309.
54. Rapoport, R.N., 1970. Three dilemmas of action research. Human Relations, 23, 499-513.
55. Ross, A., Jayaraman, V., and Robinson, P., 2007. Optimising 3PL service delivery using a cost-to-serve and action research framework. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (1), 83-101.
56. Scott, R., 1995. Institutions and organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Shah, R. and Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21 (2), 129-149.
58. Singer, E.T., Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
59. Straub, D.W. and Welke, R.J., 1998. Coping with systems risk: Security planning models for management decision making. MIS Quarterly, 22 (4), 441-469.
60. Susman, G.L. and Evered, R.D., 1978. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.
61. Sutton, R.I. and Callahan, A.L., 1987. The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organisational image and its management. Academy of Management Journal, 30 (3), 405-436.
62. Teo, H., Wei, K.K., and Benbasat, I., 2003. Predicting intention to adopt inter-organisational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 19-49.
63. Van Eynde, D. and Bledsoe, J., 1990. The changing practice of organisational development. Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 11 (2), 25-30.
64. Westbrook, R., 1993. Orderbook models for priority management: A taxonomy of data structures. Journal of Operations Management, 11 (2), 123-142.
65. Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T., 2005. Lean consumption. Harvard Business Review, 83 (3), 58-68.
66. Zsidisin, G.A., Melynk, S.A., and Ragatz, G.L., 2005. An institutional theory perspective on business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (16), 3401-3420.