Talk:Operations management/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shouldn't the concept of six sigma be linked to this topic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

six sigma is one of the sub headings and implementable concepts of operations management which is very fashionable today especially in the IT sector. it should be given both as a subheading and as a link to a full fledged article in wiki.Voruganty vvs (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Shouldn't the concept of Lean Manufacturing be linked to this topic?

== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing

==

lean manufacturing is the application of operations management and needs to be taught as a latest implementable technique of operations managementVoruganty vvs (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Merge with Operations Research

I didn't suggest it, and I don't think it should be. Operations research forms a theoretical basis for OM, but it doesn't cover all the other things that are part of OM. Nor do OM points relate to OR applications outside of manufacturing/commercial applications, and there are a lot of those. I think the articles should link to each other, but not be merged. -[[User:ShaneNZ|ShaneNZ]] 01:54, 5

• File:September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so. Operations research is a part of operations management. Operations research mostly focuses on allocation of resources. But operations manangement is a broader perspective which covers all the areas of operations to be efficient and effective.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.146.162 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever suggested this is clearly foolish. Cristo39 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OR does not equals OM. OR is a technical/mathematical discipline, while OM is a business discipline. Both interact very closely and OR sets the theoretical mainframe for many OM topics, but still, they are not the same. I concurr that linking the topics is appropriate.Erbelc 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OR is a technique while OM is the theoretical framework. both are not the same. in fact OR is a part of OM and not vice versa. production and operations management is the real linked title to the subject to be dealt with. there are many sub headings which need to be included in the heading of OM.Voruganty vvs (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do **not** merge -- OM has its own BoK, its topics spread across various disciplines such as Operations Research, Supply Chain and Production Management (with selected applications in Facility Location and Transportation). --Fbahr (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge. I agree with the statements above. Both articles could use improvement, but are definitely not the same subject, although have sub-topics that may match. Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

links between om and workstudy

what are the links between operations management and work study? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.60.55 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

links between operations management and workstudy

Firstly what are they?,and secondly in terms of a more ofering profetional path,wich field is best advisable in terms of salary and status in an organisation?

Tiba Mlanzeli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.60.55 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair treatment of prominent organizations

Three links to the Operations Management division of the Academy of Management (one of the founding divisions of the Academy) were recently added to three separate Wikipedia pages : Operations Management, Project Management and Supply Chain Management. Because of the timing of the additions, and subsequent attempts to re-add them (under the impression that their removal was simple a mistage), they were incorrectly registered as SPAM. While it can be appreciated that policing of Wikipedia is a necessary effort, these links are appropriate and in no way less valid than the existing organizational links. However, if only one link is to be permitted, and argued for, the addition of the link to the Operations Management article is the most obvious and the removal of the link from this article in the most error. The existance of links in this article to other organizations with alternative perspectives on Operations Management, and the continued absence of a link to the OM division (om.aomonline.org) remains an issue. It is strongly recommended that the link to the division on the Operations Management article be reinstated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 01:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because we have a link to one organization it does not follow that we should link another. Please demonstrate the notability of your organization (and please do not add links to websites you are affiliated with yourself, leave it to somebody who is neutral). - MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear - does that mean someone who is not a member of the Academy, and never has been? Or are members of the Academy permitted to add the link? With all due respect, I don't believe this criteria was in effect when the other organizational links were posted (but I do understand the rationale for qualifying notability). Academy members visit Wikipedia often and likely encounter will encounter this dialogue. Hopefully one will elect to add the link to the OM Division in short time. Can I provide you personally with any additional information on the field of Operations Management that would help you place this group (I didn't create it - It's been around much longer and had a much deeper impact than many organization currently posted and supposedly notable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully any Academy members who happen along soon will also be established Wikipedia editors, since a dim view is often taken of brand new accounts or IPs who show up in situations like this one. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood - and I've read the policy article on 'puppetry' which I think everyone can appreciate. Can I invite individuals that may have had experience editing in Wikipedia to view and contribute to either side of the debate, or would that be viewed badly? Perhaps insisting that they sign-in? I would like to resolve this in a professional way, and I feel now that giving this the highest visibility possible to the academic community is probably the most appropriate route. I belong to several academic list serves (whose majority members have no personnal ties to me). I'd be happy at this point to just put the issue to them and have it resolved by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reading through Wikipedia:Canvassing. - MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good - I also think the most professional approach is to be extremely neutral on the topic, or even somewhat conservative (asking for specific arguments against the addition - if that would be allowed). I think it could be very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

History of techniques

I was thinking of writing a resume regarding the development of the field from Taylor to Ohno. What you people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Reference n° 1=broken link, someone please fix thisLbertolotti (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

k some guy solved itLbertolotti (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Effective Strategy Design

Mr. Naresh Anantharaj added this (to the wrong section of the article). Some good ideas, but needs to be rewritten in encyclopedic tone:

Effective Strategy Design and Application in Business Operations:

In operations management the other main factor to be considered important is strategy application because in global competitive environment no business can sustain for a very long time without creating value to its customers at the end of business operations. Previously, Operations management was focusing only on manufacturing/production, flow, interactions of various units in business environment but in the present complex and dynamic environment operations management has shifted its attention towards service issues. These issues on servicing units can be effectively handled via applying effective strategy, which helps to improve on productivity and business targets. Strategy helps to derive a path for the business to focus on. For Example: Business without strategy is considered to be the ship without compass. Strategy derivation for organization is based on three phases. The top down structure is considered to be one of the important method or approach to frame and design strategy. Using Top Down structure, the business strategy has helps the organization to focus on three phases such as broad corporate organizational phase, business unit level and functional area.

First phase of the strategy formation helps the organization to focus on finance and growth rate also in this phase organizational strategy helps to decide and understand what technologies needed and what market to focus upon. As mentioned above, the second phase of the organizational strategy helps to focus on business unit. This focus on business unit helps to decide which product and market the business operations to concentrate on. For example: Some of the firms desperately operate outsourcing division, warehouse and distribution facilities. The third phase of the organizational strategy helps the business to focus on the level of functional units. In this phase of strategy the organization focuses on the specific activity within the business units. For Example: In business units it is clear on which product and market to choose, this helps to select the functional area such as specific operations to pick such as Information and Communication Technology, marketing, logistics and supply chain management.

Strategy designing also helps to forecast on the demands in functional area of the business operations. Some of the strategy derivation advantages are helps to achieve very strong customer relationship which is managed through right service delivery to right customer on right time at right cost with extreme service quality and security. The business operations consists total of nine phases or units such as clients/suppliers, procurement, production/manufacturing, value add, distribution, warehouse management, inventory management, logistics/distribution, customer delivery and customer service. Sometimes in the business operations supplier may also to be considered as customer hence in the business cycle customers play end to end role while performing the business operations in the global competitive complex and dynamic environment. So, the corporate values of any organization has to be derived and formulated in the way prioritizing customers which puts the clients/customers first then building strong relationship with customers, performing business operations with integrity that leads to achieve quality results at the end of business operations. Organizational strategy helps the firm to strengthen the foundations which consists of elements such as talent, resource and perseverance.

To conclude my writing with recommendations over effective strategy application, organizational strategy has to be first designed/framed with vision which can be achieved through implementing and executing the short term missions. Strategy gives structure to how the business should be operated to achieve greater results, so continuous learning of ever changing business environment and analyzing the various organizational concepts trending in the business market helps to come up with new ideas that can help to bridge a gap in the existing concepts of business operations which helps to achieve success in any business operations performed in the global competitive customer focused environment. This report on strategy design and application in business operations is written based on the knowledge gathered through my Post Graduate degree MBA in International Business - Operations management. Regards, Naresh Anantharaj University of Greenwich, London, UK. B. Tech (IT), MBA (International Business – Operations Management), London, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

gh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.218.51 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the concept of Business Process Mapping be linked to this topic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Process_Mapping

Yes. But in the context of a end-to-end process-centric view, as opposed to a tradiational functional view, of enterprises. It could be argued that a process-centric view is nec essary for effective OM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Glossop (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Operations management does not pertain only to manufacturing

In actuality it pertains to all business processes and departments flowing in sync, regardless of industry. In fact, the most valued operations managers are those with experience in multiple industries across multiple departments who can properly and objectively gauge the company's needs. -- Unsigned: 17:52, 8 May 2007 206.130.173.39

Agreed. This article is far too industry specific. For example it makes no mention of the Operational management of IT or Telecommunications networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.157.27 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I too agree - the article as it stands portrays OM as a manufacturing, particularly metal-bashing type industries, discipline when in fact it is much more general than that. OM applies most critically to logistics type enterprises - like traditional logistics - moving goods and raw materials around (the globe), but also transport enterprises- airlines, railways, mass-transit/transport systems etc. In fact to any enterprise that involves the movement of goods, materials, energy, information etc. - so just about any enterprise involving a network of some description. This includes enterprises such as TV and radio broadcasters, Internet-based firms and power/energy companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Glossop (talk • contribs) 11:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)