Hill A.V. The Encyclopedia of Operations Management: A Field Manual and Glossary of Operations Management Terms and Concepts
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
ptg6843605
Weibull distribution
–
what-if analysis
The Encyclopedia of Operations Management Page 386
Weibull distribution – A continuous probability distribution for modeling lifetimes of objects, time to failure, or
time to complete a task that has a long tail; a probability distribution that is commonly used in reliability theory
and maintenance for extreme values.
Parameters:
Shape parameter
0
and scale parameter
0
. Some sources add a location parameter
by replacing x with
( )x
. (Note: The reliability literature uses shape and scale parameters and
and
.)
Density and distribution functions:
The density and distribution functions for the Weibull distribution for
x > 0 are
1
( ) exp( ( / ) )f x x x
and
( ) 1 exp( ( / ) )F x x
.
Statistics:
Range [0, ∞), mean
(1 1/ )
, median
1/
ln(2)
, mode
1/
(( 1) / )
if
1
and 0
otherwise, variance
2 2
( / )(2 (2 / ) (1 / ) (1 / ) )
, where
()
is the gamma function.
Graph:
The graph on the right shows
the Weibull density function with (α, β) =
(2, 1).
Parameter estimation:
Estimating the
α and β parameters from a set of
observations requires numerical methods for
both the MLE and method of moments
estimators. See Law and Kelton (2000) for
information on the MLE approach.
Excel:
In Excel, the Weibull density
and distribution functions are WEIBULL(x,
α, β, FALSE) and WEIBULL(x, α, β,
TRUE). Excel 2003/2007 has no inverse
function for the Weibull, but it can be
calculated with the Excel formula
x = β*(-ln(1-F(x)))^(1/α). Excel 2010
renamed the function WEIBULL.DIST, but
it still uses the same arguments.
Excel simulation:
In an Excel simulation, Weibull distributed random variates can be generated with the
inverse transform method using x = β*(-ln(RAND()))^(1/α).
Relationships to other distributions:
The exponential distribution is a special case of the Weibull when α
= 1, and the Rayleigh distribution is a special case of the Weibull distribution when α = 2. When α = 3, the
Weibull distribution is similar to the normal distribution.
History:
The Weibull distribution was named after Swedish engineer and scientist Ernst Hjalmar Waloddi
Weibull (1887-1979) (source: www.wikipedia.org, November 20, 2007.)
See bathtub curve, beta distribution, exponential distribution, inverse transform method, probability density
function, probability distribution, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM).
weighted average – An average where some values contribute more than others.
A weighted average is commonly used in forecasting where it is important to give more weight to more
recent data. Mathematically, a weighted average is
1
1
T
t t
t
WA
W
wx
, where T is the number of values (time
periods), t is the period index, w
t
is the weight assigned to the value in period t, x
t
is the value in period t, and
1
T
t
t
W w
. The weights are often required to sum to one, which simplifies the equation to
1
T
t t
t
WA
wx
.
See carrying charge, carrying cost, exponential smoothing, forecast error metrics, moving average, periods
supply.
Weighted MAPE – See Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE).
what-if analysis – The practice of evaluating the results of a model when input parameters are changed.
ptg6843605
where-used report
−
work breakdown structure (WBS)
Page 387 The Encyclopedia of Operations Management
What-if sensitivity analysis is often done with mathematical optimization, stochastic simulation, and queuing
theory models to help decision makers (1) evaluate different potential scenarios and make risk return trade-offs,
(2) refine their intuition about the relationships in the model, and (3) validate that the model fits the real-world.
See Activity Based Costing (ABC), DuPont Analysis, linear programming (LP), queuing theory, simulation.
where-used report – A listing of all materials that are “parents” for a particular material in a bill of material.
See bill of material (BOM), bill of material implosion, Materials Requirements Planning (MRP), pegging.
white goods – Major electric appliances (machines) that are typically finished in white enamel.
Examples of white goods include refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, stoves, ovens, washing machines,
dryers, and water heaters. White goods are usually classified as consumer durables, but can be sold for either
consumer or commercial uses.
See durable goods, platform strategy, private label, VAT analysis.
wholesale price – See wholesaler.
wholesaler – A distributor that buys goods and resells them to organizations other than final customers; also called
a distributor or jobber.
Wholesalers often buy large quantities of goods from manufacturers, store them in warehouses, and sell them
to retailers who sell to consumers. The wholesale price is the price wholesalers pay when buying in large
quantities. A rack jobber is a wholesaler that provides goods on consignment for rack displays in retail locations.
They are given dedicated space in the store in exchange for sharing profits with the retailer.
See B2B, broker, distributor, supplier, supply chain management.
Winsorizing – A simple bounding procedure that replaces values greater (less) than the maximum (minimum) value
allowed with the maximum value.
Data can be Winsorized by setting a maximum and minimum value or by defining the upper and lower
percentiles allowed on the cumulative distribution. Whereas Winsorizing replaces values in the tail of the
sample, trimming excludes these values.
See forecast error metrics, Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE), outlier, Relative Absolute Error (RAE),
trim, trimmed mean.
WIP – See Work-in-Process (WIP) inventory.
WMS – See Warehouse Management System (WMS).
work breakdown structure (WBS) – A project management tool that defines the hierarchy of project activities
(tasks) needed to complete the project.
The WBS is a useful way to identify all tasks needed for a
project
, break large tasks into smaller, more
manageable tasks, and organize and communicate the list of tasks. The WBS lists all tasks required for the
project, starting at the highest level of aggregation and going down to a detailed list of all tasks. It is like a bill of
material for the project and can be drawn like the roots of a tree. The WBS does not create the project schedule,
communicate precedence relationships between tasks, or define the resources required for each task. The U.S.
Air Force encourages suppliers to define a WBS so all tasks require about one week of work.
For example, the top level of the WBS for a wedding might include create invitations, acquire dresses/tuxes,
and reserve church. The example below shows a small portion of the WBS for this simple example. This WBS
could be broken down into much more detail as needed. The lowest level of the WBS should define all specific
tasks needed to complete the project.
It is important to understand that the WBS is not a
schedule or sequence of activities. It is simply a
hierarchical list of the activities that need to be done to
complete the project.
The next step after using the WBS to identify tasks
is to identify the precedence constraints between the
tasks. That information can then be used to determine
the early and late start times and early and late finish
times for each task and finally determine the critical
path through the network.
Wedding
Invitations Dresses/Tuxes Church
Wedding dress Other dresses Tuxes
Select Fit Pick up
Example work breakdown structure for a wedding
ptg6843605
work center – workcenter
The Encyclopedia of Operations Management Page 388
See Critical Path Method (CPM), Earned Value Management (EVM), mindmap, Project Evaluation and
Review Technique (PERT), project management.
work center – See workcenter.
work design – See job design.
work measurement – The process of estimating the standard time required for a task; also called labor standards,
engineered labor standards, labor management systems, and Methods Time Measurement (MTM).
The main reasons for a work measurement system (labor management system) include:
Cost accounting – Standard times are used to assign both labor and overhead cost to products or jobs.
Evaluation of alternatives – Standard times are used to help evaluate new equipment investments or
changes in the current equipment configuration.
Evaluation and reward systems – Standard times are often used as a basis of comparison for evaluating and
rewarding direct labor, where workers are rewarded when they “beat” the standard times.
Scheduling – Jobs, workers, and machines are often scheduled based on standard times.
The three common ways to measure the time for a task are (1) time study, (2) standard data, and (3) work
sampling. A time study can be used for almost any existing job with a relatively short duration. Standard data
only requires that the analyst determine which elemental motions (e.g., pick, drop, etc.) are required for the job.
Once these are determined, the analyst simply looks these up in the reference database and adds them up to
“assemble” the total time for the task. The data for this type of analysis is often called pre-determined motion
and time data. Work sampling takes a large number of random “snapshots” (samples) of the process over
several weeks and estimates how much time is spent in each “state” based on the percentage of the random
samples found in each state. This data is often self-reported and is more appropriate for knowledge work.
See human resources, job design, normal time, operations performance metrics, overhead, performance
management system, performance rating, scientific management, standard time, time study, work sampling.
work order – A request for a job to be done; also called a workorder, job, production order, and work ticket.
In a manufacturing context, a work order is a request to a maintenance organization to perform either
preventive or emergency maintenance or a request to a machine shop to make a tool. Work orders should
identify the customer, the date the work order was created, and some indication of the urgency of the work.
A work order should not be confused with a manufacturing order.
See maintenance, manufacturing order, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM).
work sampling – The application of statistical sampling methods to estimate the percentage of time that a worker is
spending on each activity (or in each “state”); also called occurrence sampling.
This approach to work measurement should only be used for long cycle tasks. For example, a hospital
administrator wants to know how much time nurses are sitting at the nursing station per day. The person
responsible for collecting the data takes a large number of random “snapshots” (samples) of the process over
several weeks. Work sampling assumes that the percentage of the samples in each activity (state) is proportional
to the percentage of work time in each activity. From these snapshots, the administrator can estimate how much
time nurses spend at the nursing station per day on average.
The advantage of work sampling over other work measurement tools is that the data are gathered over a
relatively long time period. In contrast, a time study makes more sense for a task that requires a relatively short
amount of time, with the observer recording each repetition of the process.
See normal time, sampling, standard time, time study, work measurement.
work simplification – The process of reducing the complexity of a process.
Work simplification involves designing the job to have fewer stages, steps, moves, and interdependences,
thus making the job easier to learn, perform, and understand. This is closely related to work standardization.
Although normally applied only to repetitive factory and service work, it can also be applied to less repetitive
knowledge work done by professionals and salaried workers. Simplicity is highly valued in lean thinking.
See Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), error proofing, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA),
human resources, job design, job enlargement, standardized work.
work standardization – See standardized work.
work standards – See standardized work.
ptg6843605
workcenter − XML (Extensible Markup Language)
Page 389 The Encyclopedia of Operations Management
workcenter – An area where work is performed by people, tools, and machines and usually focuses on one type of
process (e.g., drilling) or one set of products (e.g., assembly of a particular type of product).
A workcenter in a factory is usually a group of similar machines or a group of processes used to make a
product family. The item routing defines the sequence of workcenters required to make a product. When a
workcenter has multiple machines or people, the production planning system usually considers them identical in
terms of capabilities and capacities.
See cellular manufacturing, facility layout, routing.
workflow software – See groupware.
workforce agility – The ability of the employees in a firm to adapt to change.
The main benefits of increased workforce agility can include (Hopp and Van Oyen 2001):
• Improved efficiency – Better on-time delivery, reduced cycle time, and reduced Work in Process (WIP)
because idle time in the production line is decreased.
• Enhanced flexibility – Reduced overtime cost, increased productivity, reduced absenteeism and labor
turnover because cross-trained workers can absorb some of the work assigned to absent workers.
• Improved quality – Increased worker knowledge which enables them to reduce defects.
• Improved culture – Improved working environment due to increased job satisfaction, worker motivation,
and reduced ergonomic stress.
However, it is possible to have too much agility. Workers cannot be expected to be experts at every job in an
organization. Training that is never used is of very limited value to the organization. Some specialization is
good from a learning curve and responsibility assignment point of view.
See absorptive capacity, cross-training, human resources, job design, job rotation, learning curve, learning
organization, organizational design, RACI Matrix.
Work-in-Process (WIP) inventory – Orders or materials that have been started in a production process, but are
not yet complete; sometimes called Work-in-Progress inventory and in-process inventory.
Work-in-Process (WIP) includes all orders or materials in queue waiting to be started, in the process of being
set up, currently being run, waiting to be moved to the next operation, and being moved. WIP inventory is
usually valued as the sum of the direct labor, materials, and overhead for all operations that have been completed.
Some factories assign manufacturing overhead to a product when it is started; others assign manufacturing
overhead when it is completed. Goldratt recommends not assigning overhead at all.
See blocking, cellular manufacturing, CONWIP, finished goods inventory, Little’s Law, overhead, pipeline
inventory, throughput accounting, wait time.
Work-in-Progress inventory (WIP) – See Work-in-Process (WIP) inventory.
X
x-bar chart – A quality control chart that monitors the mean performance of a process.
A sample of n parts is collected from a process at regular intervals (either time intervals or production
quantity intervals). The mean of the sample is plotted on the control chart, and the process is evaluated to see if
it is “under control.” The name of this chart comes from the sample mean
x
, which is read as “x-bar.”
See control chart, Statistical Process Control (SPC), Statistical Quality Control (SQC).
X-Matrix – See hoshin planning.
XML (Extensible Markup Language) – A simple, flexible language used to create webpages.
XML is an extensible version of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). Another popular way to create
webpages is Active Server Pages (ASP). XML is also a robust and flexible alternative to Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI).
See Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), robust.
ptg6843605
yield – yield management
The Encyclopedia of Operations Management Page 390
Y
yield – (1) In manufacturing: The ratio of units started in a process to completed without defect. (2) In finance: The
ratio of return to investment. (3) In service management: The ratio of realized to potential revenue.
See the yield management entry for the service management context. See the Compounded Annual Growth
Rate (CAGR) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) entries for the finance context.
In the manufacturing context, process yield (also called final yield) is used as (1) a performance measure
(after production) and (2) a planning factor (before production) to increase the production start quantity so the
final quantity meets the requirements. Process yield planning factors are usually stored in the bill of material.
For example, if the requirement is for 100 units and the process yield is 80%, the start quantity should be
100/0.8 = 125 units so that the final quantity produced is 125 x 0.8 = 100 units.
Lean sigma consultants often promote a demanding yield metric called rolled throughput yield (RTY),
sometimes also called first pass yield and first time yield. This is the percentage of units completed without
needing any rework. The following table compares the traditional process yield with RTY.
Comparison of traditional process yield and rolled throughput yield (RTY)
Process yield Rolled throughput yield (RTY)
Definition
Percentage of units started that were
completed without defects, including units
that were successfully reworked.
Percentage of units that passed through the
entire process without needing any rework.
Other names
Yield; final yield. First pass yield; first time yield.
Uses
Best metric for production planning. Best metric for performance measurement.
Benefits
True measure of yield. Exposes the “hidden factory”
65
by making
rework more visible.
Calculation
Product of process yields for each step; also
the ratio of the final to the starting input.
Product of the RTY for each step in the
process.
Criticisms
Does not indicate rework, which is clearly a
non-value-adding activity; may not be a very
demanding standard.
Rework and repair is often hidden and not
recorded; multiple defects occurring on a
single unit are not captured.
Source: Professor Arthur V. Hill
The table below provides a simple example of these metrics. Reporting only the overall process yield of
90% hides the extensive rework in this process; however, the RTY of 25.9% makes the rework evident.
Yield metric example
Step Units in
First pass
yield units
Failed on
first pass
Rework
success Units out
Process
yield
Rolled throughput
yield (RTY)
1 100 70 30 20 90 90/100 = 90.0% 70/100 = 70.0%
2 90 60 30 30 90 90/90 = 100.0% 60/90 = 66.7%
3 90 50 40 40 90 90/90 = 100.0% 50/90 = 55.6%
Overall
90.0%
a
25.9%
b
a
Calculated as 90.0% x 100.0% x 100.0% = 90.0%. Also calculated as (final units)/(start units) = 90/100 = 90.0%.
b
Calculated as 70.0% x 66.7% x 55.6% = 25.9%. Source: Professor Arthur V. Hill
Process yield is one of the three dimensions of Overall Equipment Effectiveness, an important performance
measure in many firms. Note that yield has little relationship to yield management tools used in services.
See bill of material (BOM), conformance quality, hidden factory, operations performance metrics, Overall
Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), process capability and performance, quality management, scrap, supplier
scorecard.
yield management – A set of metrics and tools for maximizing revenue for organizations that have relatively fixed
capacity costs; also called revenue management or perishable asset resource management.
65
See the hidden factory entry for an explanation of this term.
ptg6843605
Y-tree − Y-tree
Page 391 The Encyclopedia of Operations Management
The goal – For many capital-intensive businesses, such as airlines, hotels, theaters, stadiums, and utilities,
maximizing revenue is equivalent to maximizing profit, because nearly all costs are relatively fixed. The goal is
to maximize revenue per unit of resource ($/room night, $/seat mile, etc.). The goal is not to maximize
utilization, although that is usually the result.
The control variables – Yield management systems change prices and capacity allocations over time as the
date of the event approaches. For example, airlines change their prices thousands of times every day.
The performance metrics – The following yield management terms are used in the airline industry:
Available seat miles (ASM) – A measure of capacity defined as the number of seat miles that are available
for purchase on an airline.
Revenue passenger miles (RPM) – The number of available seat miles (ASM) actually sold. This is a
measure of an airline’s traffic.
Load factor – The RPM divided by the ASM. Alternatively, this can be measured by the percentage of seats
that were sold compared to the number of seats that could have been sold.
Yield – How much an airline makes per revenue passenger mile (RPM).
Revenue per available seat mile (RASM) – Sometimes called the “unit revenue,” this metric has become
the industry standard and is tracked each month because it gives a good overall picture of how an airline is
performing.
Cost per available seat mile (CASM) – A widely used metric indicating the cost divided by the available
miles that could have been flown (not the miles actually flown), regardless if the seats were occupied.
Stage length – The length of the average flight for a particular airline. As stage length increases, costs per
mile tend to go down. Consequently, increases in the stage length of an airline will tend to bode well for the cost
side, all other things being equal.
The booking curve – See the booking curve entry for more information on this yield management tool.
Other factors – Hotels and airlines place great importance on no-show factors, cancellations/reservation
adjustments, and “wash” for groups, all of which help determine the necessary level of “oversell.” Businesses
with perishable inventory must remember that when the forecasted demand is below capacity, it is better to sell
the room at a lower rate than to not sell it at all. In the hotel business, the term “revenue management” is often
equated with getting “heads in beds.” Additional ways to maximize revenues are to implement length of stay or
stay restrictions, overbook effectively, take advantage of up-sell opportunities, and allocate correct inventory to
the appropriate channels (discounts in particular). An emerging trend in the hotel business is to move all
segments, not just e-channels and rack (standard), to dynamic pricing structures. This will enable the hotels to
better control the negotiated/volume accounts, which is one of the larger segments.
See booking curve, capacity, congestion pricing.
Y-tree – A tool for creating a strategic linkage between the efforts of individuals and the goals of the organization;
also called a goal tree.
The Y-tree begins at the highest level of organizational goals and breaks these down into intermediate goals
and objectives, which are finally translated into specific projects. A Y-tree is essentially a strategy map, but goes
one step further by connecting the metrics to action plans and projects. Like a strategy map, a Y-tree represents
the firm’s hypotheses and beliefs about how the highest-level performance variables are connected to
intermediate performance measures and how the firm can “move the needle” on these measures with specific
projects. All projects should have explicit connections to one or more higher-level goals.
Bossidy, Charan, and Burck (2002) point out that one of the most significant problems with strategic
planning is that the strategies too often are not translated into actions. The Y-tree (along with the balanced
scorecard and hoshin planning) is a means of accomplishing this difficult task.
At 3M, the highest-level elements of the Y-trees are growth, productivity/cost, and cash. These are often
supplemented with two additional high-level strategies, emphasis on the customer and emphasis on corporate
values and reputation. The table below is a simple example. Excel is a good tool for a Y-tree.
ptg6843605
zero defects – zone storage location
The Encyclopedia of Operations Management Page 392
Super Y metrics Little y metrics Critical x metrics Action plans/projects
Growth Fill rate Average leadtime Queue time reduction project
Leadtime variation Machine reliability project
Product quality DPMO Filler line project
Cash Carrying cost Lotsize inventory SMED project
Safety stock inventory Forecasting project
Source: Professor Arthur V. Hill
See balanced scorecard, benchmarking, causal map, DuPont Analysis, financial performance metrics,
hoshin planning, issue tree, Management by Objectives (MBO), MECE, mission statement, operations
performance metrics, strategy map.
Z
zero defects – A concept that stresses elimination of all defects; sometimes abbreviated ZD.
Deming introduced the zero defects concept to Japanese manufacturers after World War II. This approach
differs from the traditional American approach promoted by American military standards, such as Mil Standard
105D that allowed for a certain percentage of defects, known as an Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).
See Acceptable Quality Level (AQL), lean sigma, quality management, Statistical Process Control (SPC),
Statistical Quality Control (SQC), Total Quality Management (TQM).
zero inventory – A term used to describe a JIT inventory system.
Professor Robert “Doc” Hall (formerly at Indiana University) popularized this term with a book of the same
name (Hall 1983). However, this term seems to have fallen into disuse, partly because lean thinking is so much
broader than just reducing inventory.
See inventory management, lean thinking, one-piece flow.
zero sum game – A game theory term used to describe a conflict where the sum of payoffs for the players in the
game is zero; also known as a constant sum game.
In a zero sum game, one player’s payoff can only improve at the expense of the other players. The standard
metaphor here is that the players are dividing up the pie, but the size of the pie does not change with the number
of players or with any decision made by any player.
See futures contract, game theory, prisoners’ dilemma.
zone picking – An order picking method where a warehouse is divided into several areas called zones and items are
picked from each zone and then passed to the next zone; also known as “pick-and-pass.”
Order pickers are assigned to zones and only pick items in their own zones. The items for a customer order
are then grouped together later. Sometimes orders are moved from one zone to the next (usually on conveyor
systems) as they are picked. Adapted from http://accuracybook.com/glossary.htm, September 7, 2006.
See Automated Storage & Retrieval System (AS/RS), batch picking, picking, Warehouse Management System
(WMS), wave picking.
zone storage location – A warehouse management practice that defines storage areas (zones) dedicated to
particular types of items.
A zone might be created based on temperature requirements, security, typical container size, frequency of
picks, etc. Within a zone, the warehouse could use either a fixed or random storage location system.
See fixed storage location, locator system, random storage location, warehouse, Warehouse Management
System (WMS).
ptg6843605
The Encyclopedia of Operations Management Page 393
USEFUL LINKS
Accounting terms http://www.a-z-dictionaries.com/glossaries/Accounting_Glossary.html
e-business terms http://www.bannerview.com/glossary
http://www.rms.net/gloss_b2b.htm
Economics terms http://www.economist.com/research/economics
ERP terms www.4eto.co.uk/ERP-Dictionary-Category.asp
www.bridgefieldgroup.com/bridgefieldgroup/glos1.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_glossary/en/index.htm
Financial terms www.forbes.com/tools/glossary/index.jhtml
www.duke.edu/~charvey/Classes/wpg/glossary.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/glossary/bfglosa.htm
Forecasting terms http://armstrong.wharton.upenn.edu/dictionary/defined%20terms.html
General terms www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Human resource terms http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/Glossaries/HRTerms/Pages/default.aspx
Industrial engineering terms www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=645
Information technology terms http://whatis.techtarget.com
http://www.sharpened.net/glossary
International trade terms www.itds.treas.gov/glossaryfrm.html
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/index.html
Inventory terms www.inventoryops.com/dictionary.htm
http://accuracybook.com/glossary.htm
Lean terms www.fredharriman.com/resources/documents/FHcom_Kaizen_Terminology_03.pdf
www.leanaffiliates.com/glossary/glossary_d.htm
www.gemba.com/resources.cfm?id=41
www.gembutsu.com/articles/leanmanufacturingglossary.html
Logistics terms www.clm1.org/Website/Resources/Terms.asp
www.scl.gatech.edu/resources/glossary
Maintenance terms http://www.skf.com/aptitudexchange/glossary.html
Manufacturing terms www.successfulleanmanufacturing.com/Glossary.htm
www.glossaryofmanufacturing.com
www.industryweek.com/manufacturing101/glossary.aspx
Marketing terms www.marketingpower.com/mg-dictionary.php
Materials handling terms www.easyrack.org/glossary-terms-t-61.html
Math programming terms http://glossary.computing.society.informs.org/index.php?page=index_page.html
New product development terms www.npd-solutions.com/glossary.html
www.pdma.org/library/glossary.html
organizational behavior terms http://college.cengage.com/business/moorhead/organizational/6e/students/glossary/index.html
Project management terms www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/index.htm
http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/glossary.html
Purchasing/procurement terms http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/mn06008.htm
www.window.state.tx.us/procurement/pub/manual/4-6.pdf
Quality management terms www.asq.org/glossary/index.html
www.1stnclass.com/quality_glossary.htm
www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/glossary.asp
http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance_Terms_Glossary
Shipping terms www.shipping.francoudi.com/main/main.asp?cm=14
Six Sigma terms www.isixsigma.com/dictionary
Statistics terms www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/main.html
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/gloss.htm
Supply chain terms http://cscmp.org/digital/glossary/glossary.asp
www.logisticsservicelocator.com/resources/glossary03.pdf
Theory of Constraints terms www.pinnacle-strategies.com/glossary.htm
www.goldratt.com
Transportation terms www.eyefortransport.com/glossary/ab.shtml
www.transportation-dictionary.org
www.transportation-dictionary.org
Warehousing terms www.dataid.com/wrhseglossery.htm
www.inventoryops.com/dictionary.htm
ptg6843605
The Encyclopedia of Operations Management Page 394
GENERAL REFERENCES
Blackstone, J.H. Jr., editor (2010). APICS Dictionary – 13th Edition (Revised), APICS, Chicago, 165 pages.
Gass, S.I., and C.M. Harris, editors (2000). Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science - Second Edition, Springer,
New York, 960 pages.
Marchwinski, C., and J. Shook, editors (2008). Lean Lexicon – 4
th
Edition, Lean Enterprise Institute, 125 pages.
Salvendy, G., editor (2001). Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Third Edition, Wiley-Interscience, 2796 pages.
Slack, N., and M. Lewis, editors (2006). Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management – Operations Management, Second Edition, Blackwell
Publishing Limited, 376 pages.
Swamidass, P.M., editor (2000). Encyclopedia of Production and Manufacturing Management, Springer, New York, 1048 pages.
CITED REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I.A. Stegun (1964). Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, Dover
Publications, New York.
Aggarwal, R., and B. Simkins (2001). “Open-book management – Optimizing human capital,” Business Horizons, 44 (5), 5-13.
Allen, D. (2001). Getting Things Done – The Art of Stress-Free Productivity, Penguin Books, New York.
Anderson, J.C., M. Rungtusanatham, and R.G. Schroeder (1994). “A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management
method,” Academy of Management Review, 19 (3), 472-509.
Armstrong J., editor (2000). Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Norwell, Massachusetts.
Armstrong, J.S. editor (2001). “The forecasting dictionary,” Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners,
Springer, New York.
Armstrong, J.S., and F. Collopy (1992). “Error measures for generalizing about forecasting methods: Empirical comparisons,” International
Journal of Forecasting, 8 (1), 69-80.
Assimakopoulos, V., and K. Nikolopoulos (2000). “The Theta Model: A decomposition approach to forecasting,” International Journal of
Forecasting, 16 (4), 521-530.
Assimakopoulos, V., K. Nikolopoulos (2005). “Fathoming the Theta model,” Working paper, National Technical University of Athens.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York.
Barach, P., and S.D. Small (2000). “Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: Lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems,”
British Medical Journal, 320 (7237), 759–763, found at www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117768, January 23, 2008.
Barrentine, L.B. (2003). Concepts for R&R Studies, Second Edition, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Bartels, A. (2000). “The difference between e-business and e-commerce,” Computerworld, October 30.
Bartholdi, J.J. (2011). Warehouse & Distribution Science, found at www.warehouse-science.com, April 4, 2011.
Bartholdi, J.J., and S.T. Hackman (2008). “Allocating space in a forward pick area of a distribution center for small parts,” IIE Transactions,
40, 1046-1053
Bass, F. (1969). “A new product growth for model consumer durables,” Management Science, 15 (5), 215-227.
Berry, L.L., L.P. Carbone, and S.H. Haeckel (2002). “Customer experiences must be managed,” Sloan Management Review, Spring, 85-89,
found at http://wehner.tamu.edu/ mktg/faculty/berry/articles/Managing_the_Total_Customer_Experience.pdf.
Berry, W.L., and V. Rao (1975). “Critical ratio scheduling: An experimental analysis,” Management Science, 22 (2), 192-201.
Blanchard, K.H., and S. Johnson (1982). The One Minute Manager, William Morrow, New York.
Blischke, W.R., and D.N.P. Murty (1992). “Product warranty management – I: A taxonomy of warranty policies,” European Journal of
Operational Research, 62 (2), 127-148.
Blumenfeld, D. (2010). Operations Research Calculations Handbook, Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, Florida.
Bodek, N. (2009). “The ninth waste – saying no,” IndustryWeek.com, Leadership in Manufacturing, October 9, 2007, found at
www.industryweek.com/PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=15106.
Boothroyd, G., P. Dewhurst, and W.A. Knight (2010). Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, Third Edition, CRC Press (Taylor &
Francis Group), Boca Raton, Florida.
Bossidy, L., R. Charan, and C. Burck (2002). Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Crown Business, New York.
Bowers, D.P. and J.E. West (2011). “Getting on track – The SR standard allows quality professionals to lead organizations in the right
direction,” Quality Progress, May, 25-35.
Box, G.E.P., G.M. Jenkins, G.C. Reinsel, and G. Jenkins (1994). Time Series Analysis: Forecasting & Control, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Brandenburger, A.M., and B.J. Nalebuff (1996). Co-Opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation,
Doubleday Business, New York.
Briscoe, B., A. Odlyzko, and B. Tilly (2006). “Metcalfe’s Law is wrong,” IEEE Spectrum, 43 (7), 34-39.
Brown, K., and N. Hyer (2009). Managing Projects: A Team-Based Approach, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
Brown, R.G. (1967). Decision Rules for Inventory Management, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Buffa, E.S., G.C. Armour, and T.E. Vollmann (1964). “Allocating facilities with CRAFT,” Harvard Business Review, 42 (2), 136-158.
Buzan, T., and B. Buzan (1996). The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain’s Untapped Potential,
Plume.
ptg6843605
Page 395 The Encyclopedia of Operations Management
Cachon, G.P. (2001), “Supply chain coordination with contracts,” http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~cachon/pdf/cachon_chp_scontract.pdf,
March 11, 2011.
Cachon, G.P., and M.A. Lariviere (2001). “Turning the supply chain into a revenue chain,” Harvard Business Review, 79 (3), 20-21.
Cachon, G.P., and M.A. Lariviere (2005). “Supply chain coordination with revenue sharing contracts,” Management Science, 51 (1), 30-44.
Canbäck, S., P. Samouel, and D. Price (2006). “Do diseconomies of scale impact firm size and performance? A Theoretical and empirical
overview,” Journal of Managerial Economics, 4, (1), 27-70.
Carbone, L. (2004). Clued In: How to Create Customer Experiences So They Will Come Back Again and Again, Pearson Education, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
Caroselli, M. (2003). 50 Activities for Promoting Ethics within the Organization, HRD Press, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Chase, R.B., F.R. Jacobs, and N.J. Aquilano (2006). Operations Management for Competitive Advantage, Eleventh Edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Cheney, W. and D. Kincaid (1994). Numerical Mathematics and Computing. Third Edition, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific
Grove, California.
Christensen, C.M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Christensen, C.M., and M.E. Raynor (2003). The Innovator’s Solution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Chua, R.C.H., G.D. Scudder, and A.V. Hill (1993). “Batching policies for a repair shop with limited spares and finite capacity,” European
Journal of Operational Research, 66 (1), 135-147.
Clark, K., and S.C. Wheelwright (1992). “Organizing and leading heavyweight development teams,” California Management Review, 34 (3),
9-28.
Coens, T., and M. Jenkins (2002). Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, San Francisco.
Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal (1990). “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152.
Collins, J. ,and J. Porras (1996). “Building your company’s vision,” Harvard Business Review, 74 (5), 65-77.
Collopy, F., and J.S. Armstrong (2000). “Another error measure for selection of the best forecasting method: The unbiased absolute percent
error,” Found at www.forecastingprinciples.com/paperpdf/armstrong-unbiasedAPE.pdf, October 7, 2006.
Cooper, R. (1993). Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing,
Reading, Massachusetts.
Cooper, R. (2001). Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, Basic Books, New York.
Coyle, J.J., E.J. Bardi, and C.J. Langley (2002). Management of Business Logistics: A Supply Chain Perspective, Seventh Edition, South-
Western, Boston.
Coyne, K.P., S.J.D. Hall, and P.G. Clifford (1997). “Is your core competence a MIRAGE?,” McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 40-54.
Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality Is Free. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Croston, J.D. (1972). “Forecasting and stock control for intermittent demands,” Operational Research Quarterly, 23 (3), 289-303.
Culbert, S.A. (2010). Get Rid of the Performance Review!: How Companies Can Stop Intimidating, Start Managing – and Focus on What
Really Matters, Business Plus, New York.
Dennis, P. (2002). Lean Production Simplified: A Plain-Language Guide to the World’s Most Powerful Production System, Productivity
Press, New York.
DeMast, J., and A. Trip (2005). “Gauge R&R studies for destructive measurement.” Journal of Quality Technology, 37 (1), 40-49.
Deming, W.E, (1986). Out of the Crisis, First MIT Press Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Deming, W.E. (2000). The New Economics for Industry, First MIT Press Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dixon, J.R. (1992). “Measuring manufacturing flexibility: An empirical investigation,” European Journal of Operations Research, 60 (2),
131-143.
Dixon, M., K. Freeman, and N. Toman (2010). “Stop trying to delight your customers,” Harvard Business Review, 88 (7/8), 116-122.
Drucker, P.F. (1954). The Practice of Management. Harper, New York.
Drucker, P.F. (1959). Landmarks of Tomorrow, Heinemann, London.
Drucker, P.F. (1995). “The information executives truly need,” Harvard Business Review, 73 (1), 54-62.
Dudek, R.A., S.S. Panwalkar, and M.L. Smith (1992). “The lessons of flowshop scheduling research,” Operations Research, 40 (1), 7–13.
Elkington, J. (1994). “Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development.” California
Management Review, 36 (2), 90-100.
Elmaghraby, W., M. Goyal, and A. Pilehvar (2010). “The right-of-first-refusal in sequential procurement auctions,” Working paper, University
of Maryland.
Englund, R.L., R.J. Graham, P.C. Dinsmore (2003). Creating the Project Office – A Manager’s Guide to Leading Organizational Change,
Jossey-Bass (Wiley), San Francisco.
Evans, J.R. (1985). “An efficient implementation of the Wagner-Whitin algorithm for dynamic lot-sizing,” Journal of Operations
Management, 5 (2), 229-235.
Evers, P.T. (1995). “Expanding the square root law: An analysis of both safety and cycle stocks,” Logistics and Transportation Review, 31
(1), 1-20.
Fagan, M. (2001). “Reviews and inspections,” Software Design and Managmeent Conference Proceedings, p. 214-225.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (2004). Total Quality Control, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ferdows, K., and A. De Meyer (1990). “Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of a new theory,” Journal of
Operations Management, 9 (2), 168-184.
Fine, C.H. (1995). Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage, Perseus Books Group, Boulder, Colorado.
Fisher, M. (1997). “What is the right supply chain for your product,” Harvard Business Review, 1997 (2), 105-116.