Web & Social Media Analytics Previous Year Question Paper.pdf
Dsc 5530 lecture 2
1. DSC 5530 Production and
Operations Management
Dr. Ibrahim Salama
Dr. Robert Radics
2016 Fall Semester
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
2. Lecture 2
2
Intellectual Research Assignment
• Groups and topics
• Method
• Literature review
• Presentation
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
3. Teams
3
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
Group name
(optional)
Team
members
1 Location Strategy
2
Design of Goods and
Services
3 Process Strategy
4 Project Management
5 Forecasting
6
Operations Strategy in
a Global Environment
4. Grading
4
DSC 3750-01
Operations
Management
Assignments % Final Letter
Grade
Scale
Case Report, Presentations & Class
attendance
10
HBR paper report and critique 15 A 90-100
B 80-89
C 70-79
D 60-69
F below 60
Intellectual Research Assignment Report 15
Intellectual Research Assignment Presentation 10
Exam 1, 2, 3 30
Exam 4 20
Total 100
5. Intellectual Research Assignment
Paper and presentation
5
Each group will select a topic of operations and supply chain management
to conduct a research assignment (academic literature review). Students
can ONLY use peer-reviewed, supply chain/operations management
focused papers from NCCU business Journal databases.
Students are encouraged to consult the professor to select topic, find
resources and receive guidelines on how to write an academic paper.
Students will make presentations of their IRA progress and their final
report. The final report presentation will be graded.
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
6. Progress Report and IRA
6
Each group will have 15-20 min. presentation about their plan for their IRA assignment.
The students expected to introduce:
• The topic, why thy choose this particular one.
• What the research question is.
• Explain and discuss 4-5 academic journal papers are closely related to the topic.
• Thoroughly explain and critically analyze 3 journal papers are the most related to the
subject.
• The important theories, concepts, views, or subjects within the area of research.
• Show min. 5 references in APA format that may be used in their study. The final IRA
report has to include 10 papers
• Discussion of the future studies and limitations of the research topic, as discussed in
the literature.
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
7. Robert Radics - PhD Candidate
03/17/2014
LCA Group Meeting
DIFFERENT LITERATURE REVIEW METHODS
8. STUDIES
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an
analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Rowe, R., Whitaker, J., Chapman, J., & Howard, D. (2008).
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT IN THE BIOENERGY
SECTOR : DEVELOPING A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.
9. DIFFERENT METHODS OF LITERATURE
REVIEWS
• Typology
• Health care (Evidence Based
Practice)
http://hanneinmorocco.blogspot.com/
11. REVIEW TYPES
Critical review
Label Description Search Appraisal Synthesis Analysis
Critical
review
Aims to demonstrate writer
has extensively
researched literature and
critically evaluated its
quality.Goesbeyondmere
descriptiontoinclude
degreeof analysis and
conceptualinnovation.
Seeks to
identify
most significant
items
in the field
No formal
quality
assessment.
Attempts
to evaluate
according
to contribution
Typically
narrative,
perhaps
conceptual
or
chronological
Significant
component: seeks
to
identifyconceptual
contribution
to embody existing
or derive
new theory
Strengths:
• Critical
• Built on earlier studies
Continuous development
Weaknesses:
• Not systematic
• Not structured
12. REVIEW TYPES
Literature review
Strengths:
• Built on earlier studies
Continuous development
• Allow consolidation
• Identify gaps
Weaknesses:
• Potential bias by omitted
literature
• Choose preferred hypothesis
Label Description Search Appraisal Synthesis Analysis
Literature
review
Generic term: published
materials that provide
examination of recent or
current literature.
Can cover wide range of
subjects at various
levels of completeness and
comprehensiveness.
May include research findings
May or may not
include
comprehensive
searching
May or may
not
include
quality
assessment
Typically
narrative
Analysis may be
chronological,
conceptual,
thematic, etc.
13. REVIEW TYPES
Mapping review / systematic map
Strengths:
• Identify gaps
• Decision supporting tool
Weaknesses:
• Lack of synthesis
• Lack of analysis
Label Description Search Appraisal Synthesis Analysis
Mapping
review/
systematic
map
Map out and categorize
existing literature
from which to commission
further reviews
and/or primary research by
identifying
gaps in research literature
Completeness of
searching
determined
by time/scope
constraints
No formal
quality
assessment
May be
graphical
and tabular
Characterizes
quantity and
quality of literature,
perhaps by
study design and
other key
features. May
identify need for
primary or
secondary research
14. REVIEW TYPES
Mapping review / systematic map example
USA Europe Asia Total
Feedstock 5 2 1 8
Communication 1 4 0 5
Knowledge 0 3 2 5
Policy 0 3 0 3
General perception, attitude 7 4 2 13
Total 13 16 5 35
Focus of perception studies by regions
USA Europe Asia Total
Information_Need 7 11 4 22
Environmental_Friendly 7 9 5 21
Energy_Independence 6 9 4 19
Rural_Development 6 6 1 13
Pollution 4 5 2 11
Food_Price_Increase 4 4 2 10
Jobs 4 3 2 9
Total number of main
attributes found 38 47 20
Measured attributes by regions
15. REVIEW TYPES
Meta-analysis
Strengths:
• Merges results of different
studies
• Quantitative
Weaknesses:
• Need enough data for
statistical analysis
Label Description Search Appraisal Synthesis Analysis
Meta-analysis Technique that statistically
combines the
results of quantitative
studies to provide a
more precise effect of the
results
Aims for
exhaustive,
comprehensive
searching.
May use funnel
plot to
assess
completeness
Quality
assessment
may
determine
inclusion/
exclusion
and/or
sensitivity
analyses
Graphical and
tabular with
narrative
commentary
Numerical analysis
of measures
of effect assuming
absence of
heterogeneity
16. REVIEW TYPES
KEY MESSAGES
• Internationally agreed set of discrete, coherent and
mutually exclusive review types
• Agreed typology
http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/literary-fiction-helps-us-read-
people-67494/
18. OBJECTIVES
• Identifying experiments and methods used in studying social
perception of bioenergy in literature.
• Exploring the general public’s understanding and perceptions
of bioenergy and biofuels in NC and TN.
5
19. STAKEHOLDER’S PERCEPTION OF BIOENERGY:
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Findings (44 articles)
• ~84% based in the US and Europe;
• Small and convenient samples;
• Consumer opinion or general public most
commonly studied (79%)
• Low to moderate support for bioenergy;
• No standardized method;
• Lack of focus on social impacts.
Systematic search
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
No.ofPublicaons
Year of Publica on
6
20. STAKEHOLDER’S PERCEPTION OF BIOENERGY:
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Consumers Factors Driving Opinion about Bioenergy
• Price
• Vehicle compatibility
• Consistent availability, performance of biofuels, effect on
food availability
• Jobs and national security not as important as market
factors
Landowners Factors Affecting Barriers to Supply
• Lack of market structure (need guaranteed contracts)
• No commercially successful examples
• High investment cost (equipment, etc.) to justify
7
21. CONCLUSIONS
STAKEHOLDER’S PERCEPTION OF BIOENERGY:
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
• Social impacts should be studied.
• Need for standardized methods for perception studies.
• Stakeholders expect to be truly involved in collaborative
planning, decision making and collective learning process
• Education and targeting of specific needs of stakeholders
are the key to the successful adoption of bioenergy.
8
22. Robert Radics, Ronalds Gonzalez, Ted Bilek, Stephen Kelley,
CAWES Conference
May 17 2016
TORREFACTION ECONOMIC LITERATURE REVIEW
By Koppejan et al. (2012) 2
2
23. Background – Robert Radics
• Postdoctoral Researcher at NC State University
• Ph.D. in Forest Biomaterials
• MS. In Forestry Engineering
• MS. in Environmental Engineering
• MS. In Economics
• MBA
• Health, Safety and Environmental Manager petrochemical
business 12 years
• CEO Environmental remediation 5 years
24. METHOD
Screening
Identification Databases:
(n>100)
Google Scholar
Web of Science
Articles included:
• Peer-reviewed articles and other papers in English;
• Non peer reviewed if deemed creditable;
• Published between 2005 and 2015.
Screened by
title, abstract
(n= 80 )
Articles excluded:
• No economic relevant data included
• Non peer reviewed and single source of information
Included
Keywords (combination of at least one word from each
of the two bullet points):
• Torrefaction/pellet/torrefied pellet;
• Economic/process/sustainability/market/risk.
Studies
summarized
(n= 34)
Articles included:
• Focus on pellet, torrefaction or torrefied pellet
• Studies that allow for some summarization of the other
studies
2
4
25. SUMMARY
2
5
Table 6. Short summary from update peer reviewed and non-peer- reviewed literature
Reference Mass/ Energy Plant size Capex OPEX
Total
cost
ROI
(Koppejan et al., 78% mass 100,000 t $29 million $9.81/GJ
2012) 98% energy 110,231 T
$290/t
$263/T
(Pirraglia et al.,
2012)– product is
not pelletized
100000 T
$46 million
$460/T
$193.5/T
(Bergman 2005) 70% mass 170000 t 5.6 m Eur
2.2Eur/GJ
2.5Eur/GJ
90% energy 187000 T
$6.32 m
$33.27/T $50/T
(Tiffany, 2013)
Corn stover
65.6% mass
74.5% energy
150000 T $280/T $41.8/T
16%
(steam) 6%
(no steam)
26. COMPARISON OF ENERGY SOURCES
2
6
Wood WP TP Charcoal Coal
Moisture content (% wt) 30 – 45 7 – 10 1 – 5 1 – 5 10 – 15
Heating value (MJ/kg) 9 – 12 15 - 18 20 – 24 30 – 32 23 – 28
Volatile matter (% db) 70 – 75 70 – 75 55 – 65 10 – 12 15 – 30
Fixed carbon (% db) 20 – 25 20 – 25 28 – 35 85 – 87 50 – 55
Density (kg/l) Bulk 0.2 – 0.25 0.55 – 0.75 0.75 – 0.85 ~ 0.20 0.8 – 0.85
Energy density (GJ/m3) (bulk) 2.0 – 3.0 7.5 – 10.4 15.0 – 18.7 6 – 6.4 18.4 – 23.8
Dust Average Limited Limited High Limited
Hydroscopic properties Hydrophilic Hydrophilic Hydrophobic Hydrophobic Hydrophobic
Biological degradation Yes Yes No No No
Grindability Poor Poor Good Good Good
Handling Special Special Good Good Good
Quality variability High Limited Limited Limited Limited
Koppejan et al. (2012)
27. POTENTIAL USE OF TORREFIED BIOMASS
2
7
Koppejan et al. (2012)
Market
segment
Conversion
process
Conversion
technology
State-of- the-
art biofuel
Pre-treatment
requirements
Advantages of
torrefaction
Market
potential
Large-scale
power
production
Co-firing
Coal-fired
boilers
WP High
Process with
the coal
Higher co-
firing rates
High
Gasification
Entrained
flow gasifiers
WP
Very high due
to particle size
Size reduction
Fluidization
C/H/O ratio
very dry
Limited
Stand-alone
Combustion
(>20 MWe)
CFB boilers Wood chips Moderate
Limited,
relatively
expensive
Small
Industrial
heating
Combustion
Blast
furnaces
none Moderate
Handling,
C/H/O ratio,
Energy
content
High
Residential/
District
heating
Combustion
Stoves /
boilers
WP
High,
decentralized
Transport
savings
High
28. By Koppejan et al. (2012)
TORREFACTION MASS-ENERGY BALANCE
Biomass
50% MC
Drying Torrefaction
Torrefied
Biomass
Combustion
1.00 kg
8.30 MJ
8.30 MJ/kg
0.06 kg
0.52 MJ
8.30 MJ/g
Heat
0.37 kg
8.00 MJ
21.70 MJ/kg
0.94 kg
7.80 MJ
8.30 MJ/kg
0.47 kg
8.30 MJ
19.00 MJ/kg
0.10 kg
0.79 MJ
7.90 MJ/kg
Torrefaction
gas
Mass
Energy
Energy/mass
28
29. FEEDSTOCK COSTS
3
0
Note: T refers to short ton
Study Feedstock cost Moisture
(Bergman 2005) $15 /T 50%
(Pirraglia, Gonzalez,
Denig, & Saloni, 2012)
$45/T BD
(Tiffany, 2013), corn
stover
$70/T 17%
(McDow, 2013) $25-$75/T BD
(Anonymous, 2015a) $18-$35/T Green T
30. TORREFACTION TECHNOLOGIES
31
Koppejan et al. (2012)
Reactor technologies Companies involved Advantage Disadvantage
Rotating drum
CDS (UK), Torr-Coal (NL), BIO3D
(FR), EBES AG (AT), 4Energy
Invest (BE), BioEndev/ETPC
(SWE), Atmosclear S.A.(CH),
Andritz, EarthCare Products (USA)
Flexible process control
Direct or indirect heating
Good heat exchange
Upscaling is limited
Screw reactor
BTG (NL), Biolake (NL),
FoxCoal (NL), Agri-tech
Producers (US)
Continuous
Inexpensive
Upscaling is limited
Heat transfer is limited
Hot zones, char
formation
Herreshoff oven/
Multiple Hearth
Furnace (MHF)
CMI-NESA (BE), Wyssmont (USA)
Continuous
Inexpensive
Wide particle size processing
capability
Torbed – fluid bed
reactor
Topell (NL)
Continuous or batch wise
operation
Fast heating – short residence time
Higher temperature
Sensitive to particle size
Microwave reactor Rotawave (UK) High operation costs
Compact moving bed
Andritz/ECN (NL), Thermya (FR),
Buhler (D)
Non-uniform product
Uneven heat
Belt dryer
Stramproy (NL), Agri-tech
producers (USA)
Residence time managed
Uniform product
Not suitable for low bulk
density biomass
Upscaling is limited
31. CAPITAL INVESTMENT
32
Capital investment elements 100 th mt plant by Koppejan et al. (2012)
Cost components WP (million USD) TP (Million USD)
Woodyard 5.0 5.0
Pre dryer (rotary drum) 4.5 3.6
Torrefaction 13.0
Hammermills 2.0
Pelleting 4.0 3.1
Silos 1.0
Civil works & others 3.0 4.3
Total 19.5 29.0
32. OPERATING COSTS
33
Comparison of WP and TP production costs Koppejan et al. (2012)
Cost components WP ($/GJ) TP ($/GJ) Savings ($/GJ)
Biomass Cost 4.28 4.28 0.00
Electricity Cost 0.60 0.74 -0.14
Labor Cost 0.47 0.47 0.01
Financial costs 1.01 1.49 -0.49
Other costs 0.40 0.43 -0.02
Cost at the production site 6.76 7.41 -0.65
Inland logistics from the plant to port 1.12 0.57 0.55
Deep sea shipment 2.04 1.28 0.76
Inland logistics from the port to utility 0.94 0.55 0.39
Cost delivered to the utility 10.87 9.81 1.06
Extra costs at the power plant 1.93 - 1.93
Total costs of coal replacement 12.80 9.81 2.99
33. ENERGY NEED
Table 8. Energy requires for TP and WP (Adams et al., 2015)
Note: 60 kton/ year pellet mill
TP WP
Biomass type Scots pine Scots pine
Biomass volume 163 kton/yr 112 kton/yr
Land area 95 km2 66 km2
Process heat requirement 4000 MJth/t 1560 MJth/t
Natural gas 14.5 m3/t 36.7 m3/t
Grinding electricity 77 kW he/t 260 kW he/t
Pelleting electricity 150 kW he/t 50 kW he/t
Transport bulk density 800 kg/m3 650 kg/m3
Lower calorific value 22.0 MJ/kg 15.5 MJ/kg
Moisture content (MC) (wt.%) 5% 10%
3
4
34. CONCLUSIONS
1. Interest: improved energy density, product is more
consistent with the current coal infrastructure.
2. Compared with WP, the lower freight costs of TP due to
their higher energy density is quantified, while other
benefits are not quantified (up to 100% coal
replacement, less dust, lower grinding energy needs, and
TP hydrophobic attribute).
3. The industry is still in its infancy. Scaling up is missing.
4. Power plants have clear interest in the direct coal
replacement.
5. The supply chain is not yet established.
35. REFERENCES
11
Abt, R. C., Abt, K. L., Cubbage, F. W., & Henderson, J. D. (2010). Effect of policy-based bioenergy demand on southern timber markets: A case study of North Carolina. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(12), 1679–1686.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.05.007
Adams, P. W. R., Shirley, J. E. J., & McManus, M. C. (2015). Comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of wood pellet production with torrefaction. Applied Energy, 138, 367–380. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.002
Anonymous. (2015a). North American Woodfiber & Biomass Markets. RISI, (January). Retrieved from http://www.risiinfo.com/Marketing/Indices/NAWBM_sample.pdf
Anonymous. (2015b). Pellet Plants. Biomass Magazine. Retrieved from http://biomassmagazine.com/plants/listplants/pellet/US/
Bergman, P. C. (2005). Combined torrefaction and pelletisation. The TOP Process. Analysis, (July), 29. doi:ECN-C--05-073
Boskovic, A., Basu, P., & Amyotte, P. (2015). An exploratory study of explosion potential of dust from torrefied biomass. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 93(4), 658–663. doi:10.1002/cjce.22153
Boskovic, A., Basu, P., Amyotte, P., Stelte, W., Glasser, D., & Guo, W. (2013). Logistics and storage of torrefied biomass : Safety aspects. Fule, 93(4), 1–214. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(86)90163-8
Bush, T. G. (2010). Wood Pellet Production in the Southern United States: a Qualitative Economic Assess,emt and Experiment to Determine the Production Factors Influencing Self Heating During Storage. Thesis. Retrieved from
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0041861/bush_t.pdf
Cambero, C., & Sowlati, T. (2014). Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives - A review of literature. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 36, 62–73.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.041
CCOHS. (n.d.). Combustible Dust. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Retrieved from http://ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/combustible_dust.html
Dufaud, O. Ã., Perrin, L., Chazelet, S., & Thomas, D. (2007). Dust Explosions : How Should the Influence of Humidity Be Taken Into Account ?, (153), 1–6.
Fierro, V., Miranda, J. ., Romero, C., Andrés, J. ., Arriaga, A., Schmal, D., & Visser, G. . (1999). Prevention of spontaneous combustion in coal stockpiles. Fuel Processing Technology, 59(1), 23–34. doi:10.1016/S0378-3820(99)00005-3
Forest2Market. (2015). Wood Supply Market Trends in the US South Wood Supply Trends in the US South. Retrieved from http://www.theusipa.org/Documents/USSouthWoodSupplyTrends(ExecutiveSummary).pdf
Glasser, D. (1986). A simplified combustion model of spontaneous in coal stockpiles. Fule, 65, 1035–1041. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(86)90163-8
Goh CS, Junginger M, Cocchi M, Marchal D, Thrän D, Hennig C, Heinimö J, Nikolaisen L, Schouwenberg PP, Bradley D, H. R. (2013). Wood pellet market and trade: a global perspective. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. Biofuels,
Bioproducts and Biorefining, 7(1), 24–42.
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
Johnson, E. (2009). Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(3), 165–168. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.002 Jones,
T., B. (1998). Electrostatics and Dust Explosions in Powder Handling. In Fluidization, Solids Handling, and Processing: Industrial Applications (pp. 817–865). Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YdoBR4MJw_gC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=electrostatics+and+dust+explosions+in+power+handling,+chapter+13+fluidization+1999&ots=t3pvg9uziU&sig=C96EMJfu-
BSVTr_yczV3xbtsNQM#v=onepage&q&f=false
Katie Fletcher. (2016). Pellet Offgassing: Simple Problem, Simple Solution? Biomass Magazine, (01/25). Retrieved from http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/12792/pellet-offgassing-simple-problem-simple-solution
Koppejan, J., Sokhansanj, S., Melin, S., & Madrali, S. (2012). Status overview of torrefaction technologies. IEA Bioenergy Task 32, (December), 1–54.
Krishnaswamy, S., Gunn, R. D., & Agarwal, P. K. (1996). Low-temperature oxidation of coal 2. An experimental and modelling investigation using a fixed-bed isothermal flow reactor. Fuel, 75(3), 344–352. doi:10.1016/0016-
2361(95)00177-8
Lamers, P., Hoefnagels, R., Junginger, M., Hamelinck, C., & Faaij, A. (2014). Global solid biomass trade for energy by 2020: An assessment of potential import streams and supply costs to North-West Europe under different
sustainability constraints. GCB Bioenergy, 618–634. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12162
Lamers, P., Junginger, M., Hamelinck, C., & Faaij, A. (2012). Developments in international solid biofuel trade - An analysis of volumes, policies, and market factors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 3176–3199.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.027
Mathews, J. A. (2008). Carbon-negative biofuels. Energy Policy, 36(3), 940–945. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.029
McDow, W. (2013). The Wood Pellet Value Chain, (March).
OSHA. (n.d.). Combustible Dust: An Explosion Hazard. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/dsg/combustibledust/
Pirraglia, A., Gonzalez, R., Denig, J., & Saloni, D. (2012). Technical and Economic Modeling for the Production of Torrefied Lignocellulosic Biomass for the U.S. Densified Fuel Industry. BioEnergy Research, 6(1), 263–275.
doi:10.1007/s12155-012-9255-6
Radics, R., Dasmohapatra, S., & Kelley, S. S. (2015). Systematic Review of Bioenergy Perception Studies, 10, 8770–8794.
Resch, G., Held, A., Faber, T., Panzer, C., Toro, F., & Haas, R. (2008). Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy, 36, 4048–4056. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.029
Scott, J. A., Ho, W., & Dey, P. K. (2012). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems. Energy, 42(1), 146–156. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.074
Tiffany, D. G. (2013). Economics of Torrefaction Plants with Integrated Ethanol and Coal POwer Plants, 1–26.
U.S. Department of Energy. (2011). Billion Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved from
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf
UNDP. (2000). World Energy Assessment. Energy and the challenge of Sustainability. Vasa. Retrieved from http://medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243N.pdf
Zeller Jr., T. (2015). Wood Pellets Are Big Business (And For Some, a Big Worry). Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomzeller/2015/02/01/wood-pellets-are-big-business-and-for-some-a-big-worry/#b8f1c5771f83
3
6
36. Agility
37
STRATEGIC PLANNING: AGILITY IS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
By Erica Olsen
Is being agile on your strategic plan’s list of competitive advantages? Can your
business react and change its game plan based on either customer feedback or
shifts in market, all while keeping that end vision in focus? A successful business has
the ability to assess any given situation and decide how to proceed based on the
findings.
The ability to adapt quickly is the name of the game in today’s business climate.
When everyone on your team is on the same page and is pulling in the same
direction, you can easily absorb shifts, make changes, and innovate on the fly. If you
don’t have a clear direction in your strategic plan, your team may not know how
and what to adapt to.
We’ve all been around long enough to know that markets shift and things don’t
always stay the same. A business leader’s responsibility is to anticipate change. So
as you work through your strategic management process, take note. Although
you’re preparing a five-year plan, remember that you’ll need to change things up a
bit as you travel down that road to success.
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
37. Agility
38
STRATEGIC PLANNING: AGILITY IS A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE
By Erica Olsen
You’ll likely come across a lot of forks in the road, and you’ll be a more
sustainable organization if you’re better equipped to take the necessary turns to
get to Point B. Keep this point in mind: Good businesses don’t change strategies
every month; they change the tactics to execute a strategy.
Many firms underestimate the buy-in needed to make change happen. Change
initiatives need approximately 75 percent of recognizable support from key
leaders and managers. If at least a majority of the staff and stakeholders are on
board with the strategic management process, then getting everyone else on the
same page when the tactics to get to your vision need to shift will be much
easier.
Identifying what will change, what will stay the same, and why the change is
important helps this process along and helps alleviate any fears your staff may
have of what may happen as a result of the change.
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
38. Agility
39
STRATEGIC PLANNING: AGILITY IS A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE
By Erica Olsen
Q1 How do you maintain your strategic plan to define the right tactic to
achieve your goal? (Process map)
Q2 How do you ensure that your team is pulling in the same direction?
Q3 What are the most important things when you decide on changes? You
can establish scenarios (moving to a new office, reorganize your team,
change a product, etc.)
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
39. 2nd Lecture Outlines
40
Teams and Subjects
Intellectual research assignment
Literature review methods
Sample Literature reviews
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
40. Paper Report and Critique Due by
next Thursday
41
Piercy, N. (2012). Business history and operations
management, 54(2), 154–178.
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
41. Paper Report and Critique
42
Papers have been chosen for select classes and one group/student has
been assigned to present the paper and start/lead the discussion in each
class. All student should read and be prepared for the discussion.
All students should submit a paper report for the assigned paper. The
reports are 1-2 pages in length. No late submissions will be accepted.
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
42. Next Classes
43
Tuesday:
Chapter 2 “Operations Strategy in a Global Environment”
G/S6 will present and lead the discussion. This group submit one print
copy of their report to the professor at the beginning of the class on this
day.
Suggested Intellectual Research topic by teams for class discussion.
Printed copy (importance, relevance, goal, presented in the class 2 min.)
Thursday:
Paper Report and Critique: G/S1 will present and lead the discussion.
All students should submit their report before noon on this day.
DSC 5530
Production and
Operations
Management
