The document discusses the evolution and application of manufacturing planning systems (MPS) from the 1960s to the 1990s, highlighting the differences in strategic planning effectiveness among various system types. It presents data from a global survey involving 964 manufacturers, revealing that vendor systems generally offer better performance benefits and data quality compared to in-house systems, although both have their roles. The conclusions emphasize the varying functionalities of MPS and the distinct advantages of major vendor systems, especially in strategic planning contexts.

1. Manufacturing Planning Systems
Use for Strategic Planning
David L. Olson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
dolson3@unl.edu
Bongsug (Kevin) Chae, Kansas State University
Chwen Sheu, Kansas State University

2. Manufacturing Planning Systems
• 1960s 1970s
– Continue to evolve
• 1990s – ERP
– Integrated systems
– Expensive
• MANY VARIANTS
• MPS specific systems can handle planning,
logistics functions
– Not integrated
– More affordable

3. GMRG Data
• Global Manufacturing Research Group
• Since 1985
– Four rounds to date
– Same survey applied to manufacturers in 17
countries
• Our dataset
– 964 responses
– 736 answered question concerning ERP system
used

4. Respondent Categories by Country
None Small In-house BOPSE Total
Albania 8 3 11
Australia 4 17 9 20 50
Austria 1 7 6 14
China 1 8 29 15 53
Croatia 55 4 7 66
Finland 11 94 15 13 133
Germany 2 2 4
Hungary 9 16 15 10 50
Ireland 3 15 4 9 31
Italy 8 26 4 3 41
Korea 3 9 19 17 48
Macedonia 2 2
Mexico 38 8 11 57
Sweden 23 1 6 30
Switzerland 12 6 8 26
Taiwan 4 31 10 45
US 5 45 15 10 75

5. Are there significant differences across systems
in application to strategic planning?
Degree of use of manufacturing planning & control systems
for strategic planning (1-7 scale)
Avg prob(diff) 1-tail
small In-house BOPSE n
none 1.679 .001*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 28
small 2.861 0.000*** 0.000*** 359
In-house 3.626 0.200 171
BOPSE 3.925 147

6. What types of systems are used for different
functions?
Degree of use of manufacturing planning & control systems
Category Material Inventory Labor Shop Floor Cost
Planning Control Planning Control Planning
None Manual Desktop Manual Manual Desktop,
Manual
Small Modified Commercial Commercial, Modified Commercial,
Commercial Manual commercial, Desktop
Manual
In-House Custom Custom Desktop, Desktop, Desktop,
Custom Custom Custom,
Commercial
BOPSE Commercial Commercial Commercial, Commercial, Commercial
Desktop Desktop

7. Are there significant differences across systems
in assessment of operations benefits?
Degree of operations benefits obtained (1-7 scale)
Avg prob(diff) 1-tail
small In-house BOPSE N
None 4.172 0.000*** 0.053* 0.037** 29
Small 4.662 0.027** 0.108 359
In-house 4.442 0.743 165
BOPSE 4.483 143

8. Are there significant differences across
systems in assessment of operations costs?
Degree of operations costs (1-7 scale – 7 low cost)
Avg prob(diff) 1-tail
small In-house BOPSE n
None 4.069 0.006*** 0.372 0.891 29
Small 3.714 0.021** 0.003*** 360
In-house 3.945 0.410 165
BOPSE 4.049 143

9. Are there significant differences across systems in
assessment of information systems data quality?
Satisfaction with IS data quality (1-7 scale)
Avg prob(diff) 1-tail
small In-house BOPSE N
None 3.429 0.003*** 0.004*** 0.001*** 7
Small 5.051 0.914 0.313 39
In-house 5.023 0.124 88
BOPSE 5.323 62

10. Conclusions
• There are a variety of ways to get MPS
• Vendor systems better for strategic planning
– In-house systems not significantly inferior

11. MPS use by Function
• Manual systems or desktop used by those
without formal MPS
• Desktop systems used by all
• Custom software more common in in-house
systems
• Major vendor systems move away from
manual, custom software, desktop

12. Operations Benefits & Costs
• Major vendor systems provide more benefits
– But not significant except against None category
• Small systems have cost disadvantage
– Perceived overall costs of Major Vendor systems
rated as reducing cost

13. Data Quality
• Major Vendor Systems rated best
– Small, In-House systems not significantly inferior