2 Planificacion Jerarquica

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
The role of hierarchical production planning in food manufacturing SMEs

Seamus O'Reilly Anita Kumar Frédéric Adam
Article information:
To cite this document:
Seamus O'Reilly Anita Kumar Frédéric Adam , (2015),"The role of hierarchical production planning
in food manufacturing SMEs", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35
Iss 10 pp. 1362 - 1385
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 15:35 11 February 2016 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2014-0157
Downloaded on: 11 February 2016, At: 15:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 441 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lillian Do Nascimento Gambi, Harry Boer, Mateus Cecilio Gerolamo, Frances Jørgensen, Luiz Cesar
Ribeiro Carpinetti, (2015),"The relationship between organizational culture and quality techniques,
and its impact on operational performance", International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 35 Iss 10 pp. 1460-1484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2013-0563
Christos Tsinopoulos, Carlos Mena, (2015),"Supply chain integration configurations: process structure
and product newness", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35
Iss 10 pp. 1437-1459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2013-0369
Elena Revilla, Desirée Knoppen, (2015),"Building knowledge integration in buyer-supplier
relationships: The critical role of strategic supply management and trust", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 Iss 10 pp. 1408-1436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-01-2014-0030
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:172900 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
IJOPM
35,10
The role of hierarchical
production planning in food
manufacturing SMEs
1362 Seamus O’Reilly
Received 7 April 2014
Department of Food Business & Development,
Revised 30 October 2014 University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Accepted 8 January 2015

Anita Kumar
Amity Business School, Amity University, Noida, India, and
Frédéric Adam
Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems,
University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – In recent years there has been an increasing interest in make-to-stock and make-to-order
combined strategies in food manufacturing operations. However, most scholarly work to-date has
neglected the role of hierarchical production planning (HPP) in guiding small- and medium-sized
enterprise (SME) implementation of such strategies. The purpose of this paper is to address food SME
manufacturers’ readiness to adopt such strategies, in terms of internal integration and their capability
to adopt formalised planning approaches.
Design/methodology/approach – This study adopted an action research methodology to explore
the potential impact of HPP in SME food manufacturers. Selected companies had identified product
variety management as a challenge and also had recognised the need to enhance internal integration.
Given this, the research team, from a theoretical perspective, proposed the use of HPP set within a
broader decision-making conceptual framework to improve internal integration and planning.
Findings – This paper adopts the fundamental position that HPP provides a useful framework in the
establishment of strategic and tactical level constraints and priorities which then act as specific guides
at the operational level, and presents empirical evidence in a food SME manufacturing context. In the
cases the authors studies, the cascading effect of this decision-making framework focused attention on
key metrics, encouraged greater internal integration and delivered tangible, significant improvements
in performance. This was greatly facilitated by the provision of new key data on the cost of certain
managerial trade-offs which these firms faced.
Originality/value – SMEs are of a scale that requires a formalised planning approach; however
production planning systems are typically designed for large scale enterprises. This paper addresses
the need of SMEs in this regard. Well-established supply chain metrics were used to establish the
benefits of both HPP and resulting improvement in internal integration and beyond, in terms of
improvement in the quality of planning decisions.
Keywords Action research, Combined MTO-MTS, Hierarchical production planning (HPP),
Quality decision making, SME food manufacturing
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Manufacturing processes have traditionally been described in terms of a volume/
International Journal of Operations
variety continuum with low-variety, high-volume production at one end and high
& Production Management variety, low volume at the other end (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984). Given the positive
Vol. 35 No. 10, 2015
pp. 1362-1385
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
The authors gratefully acknowledge research fellowship funding from The Lauritzson Foun-
DOI 10.1108/IJOPM-04-2014-0157 dation, Ireland.
relationship between low variety and forecast accuracy the dominant production Hierarchical
strategy for this category is based on speculation and hence make-to-stock (MTS) production
prevails. Given the uncertainty associated with high variety, production strategies are
based on postponement with variations of make-to-order (MTO) employed for this
planning
category (Alderson, 1950). However, in recent decades combined MTO-MTS production
strategies have become increasingly commonplace as production planning and
scheduling complexity has increased due to demand for product variety, short product 1363
lifecycles, shorter customer order lead times and unpredictable consumer demand
(Van Donk and Van Dam, 1996; Soman et al., 2007). Thus combined strategies are now
more the norm than the exception, particularly in fast moving consumer goods
industries, such as food (Soman et al., 2004, 2007; Akkerman et al., 2007).
A hierarchical approach to production planning has been adopted for many years to
deal with the complexities inherent in the production planning and scheduling process
and this approach has therefore been employed frequently in the increasingly complex
manufacturing environments that have arisen in fast moving industries. Hierarchical
Production Planning (HPP) includes long- (strategic), medium- (tactical) and short-term
(operational) horizons and is typically supported by mathematical modelling and,
sometimes by decision support systems. However, HPP-based approaches are often
unsuitable for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who do not have the
technical and financial resources required to implement such complex solutions (Vicens
et al., 2004; Vaaland and Heide, 2007). Moreover, the tactical level in the HPP approach
typically deals with capacity allocation decisions across a number of plants (Steinrücke
and Jahr, 2012), rather than single production facilities. In comparison SMEs have
unique organisational structures and intrinsic, often organic ways of doing business
that are not ideally suited to the effective implementation of HPP models (Persona et al.,
2004). Thus both scholarly work and applications have been mainly restricted to large
organisations, with some notable exceptions, such Soman et al. (2004, 2007). The aim
of this paper is to address this gap and contribute to the emerging literature on the
application of HPP by food SMEs. In doing so we adopted an action research approach
that focused on the needs of a number of SMEs and we investigate the actual and
potential roles of strategic, tactical and operational decision making in supporting
combined MTS-MTO production strategies in the food industry.
From an action research perspective we were concerned with the development and
implementation of a decision support framework to support efficient and responsive
order fulfilment in food manufacturing SMEs. Given our focus on order fulfilment we
adopted a supply chain management (SCM) perspective where the focus is explicitly on
creating flow and developing cross-functional processes at firm level, as well as a cross-
functional awareness and collaborative behaviours amongst managers (El Amrani
et al., 2006) in response to wider supply chain demands. Thus in the tradition of good
action research we sought not only to solve a practical problem but also to contribute to
scholarly literature.
This paper is organised as follows. The next section reviews two parallel streams
of literature. We consider how SCM frameworks inform order fulfilment processes at
firm level. We then consider seminal and recent contributions in the use of decision
support frameworks to support production planning and scheduling, with a concluding
section reviewing application in the food industry. Section 3 presents an overview of
the methodology adopted, including the research protocol. Section 4 reports research
findings, both pre and post intervention and in Section 5 we discuss the contribution
of key findings to theory and consider practical implications.
IJOPM 2. Literature review
35,10 2.1 SCM
The field of SCM has received considerable attention from academic researchers and
industry practitioners in recent decades. While there is much interest in SCM and the
prospect of benefits derived from supply chain integration, there is a lack of consensus
on its definition and scope (Stock and Boyer, 2009). In this regard Mentzer et al. (2001)
1364 provides useful guidance, in that they identify three key characteristics of a SCM
philosophy: first, a systems approach; second, a strategic orientation; and third,
a customer focus. The systems approach has its roots in Forrester’s (1958) thinking on
the management of flow of materials, finance and information along the supply chain.
These flows cuts across traditional functional and firm boundaries and thus require a
process-management approach. The seminal work of the Global Supply Chain Forum
(GSCF) did much to popularise this approach. The GSCF framework (Lambert et al.,
1998) includes eight key processes and, for each of these, illustrates cross-functional
interaction across supply chain tiers. Furthermore, related work (Croxton et al., 2001)
investigates and illustrates the intra-firm cross-functional activity associated with each
of these supply chain processes. Similarly the Supply Chain Operations Reference
model emerged from the work of the Supply Chain Council and AMR research in 1996.
This model rests on four key supply chain processes: plan, source, make and deliver,
plus return and enable processes. This “community of practice” continually updates the
model to promote its relevancy as a practical tool that supports performance and
benchmarking analysis (www.supply-chain.org). The metrics employed are framed
as external or internal facing and reflect those that are established in operational
management literature – cost, quality, delivery and flexibility (Skinner, 1969; Hill, 1985).
While there is broad consensus on “supply chain flows” and process management
there is less clarity on the scope of SCM. The level of management, both in terms of
number of tiers and level of integration (i.e. internal or external integration),
is influenced by the firm’s “strategic orientation”. Mentzer et al. (2001, p. 11) define
strategic orientation as “the recognition of the systemic, strategic implications of
tactical activities involved in managing the various flows in the supply chain”.
Thus orientation is influenced by the level of awareness of strategic opportunities, but
an interactive SCM approach requires that a number of firms along the supply chain
adopt such a SCM orientation. For example Mentzer et al. refer to disjointed supply
chain tactics where some firms are more supply chain oriented than others. Frohlich
and Westbrook’s (2001) comprehensive study found that the broadest level of
integration (i.e. with both supplier and customer) was associated with the higher levels
of performance across the four well-established operations measures: cost, quality,
delivery and flexibility. Since their study was published, many other studies have also
argued for and found empirical support for the performance benefits of integration
(Vickery et al., 2003; Childerhouse and Towill, 2003; der Vaart and von Donk, 2008;
Schoenherr and Swink, 2012). However, others have found that many firms struggle to
put this level of integration into practice (Leenders et al., 2002; Storey et al., 2006; Fabbe-
Costes and Jahrre, 2007). Thus some scholars have been led to distinguish between
intra and inter firm integration, notwithstanding the ultimate goal of seamless integration
across functions along the supply chain (Cousins and Menguc, 2006), whereby internal
integration capability is found to be a prerequisite to external integration (Stevens, 1990;
Lambert, 2004; Newman et al., 2009; Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Kotzab et al., 2011).
This internal integration capability spans the firm’s planning, information and control
systems and is facilitated by top management support, dedicated resources and education
and training (Das et al., 2006). In this regard Schoenherr and Swink’s (2012) work is Hierarchical
particularly interesting as they investigated the impact of internal integration on production
the firm’s ability to absorb and apply the knowledge gained from external integration.
They revisited Frohlich and Westbrook’s (2001) work and cross-validated the hypothesis
planning
that the greater the level of integration the greater the performance across all four
measures. They also extended the original study and investigated the moderating impact
of internal integration on external integration. They found a positive relationship with 1365
delivery and flexibility but not with cost and quality. This supports earlier work, for
example Stank et al. (2001), which suggests that internal integration enhances the
potential benefit of external integration and more recently Kotzab et al. (2011) who refer
to internal supply chain readiness, including the implementation of human, financial

and IT-systems to facilitate supply chain level relationships and data exchange.
They recommend that organisations develop their own internal processes before
embarking on external integration. Thus where firms appear to be in the early stages of
this integration journey, a case study-based, firm-centric analysis may be the most
appropriate combination of unit of analysis and methodological approach. Our study
focuses on this type of focal firm and adopting a SCM perspective, we investigate the
impact of HPP in a high product variety manufacturing environment.
2.2 HPP
The need to consider the alignment between strategic and operational decision making
is well established (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984, Berry and Hill, 1992; Vollmann et al.,
2000). For many years HPP (Hax and Meal, 1975; Bitran and Hax, 1977) has been
applied to large multi-site firms to address the complexity inherent in production
planning and scheduling across multiple time horizons – e.g.: the year, the quarter,
the month, etc. Such complexity arises from multiple products, a wide variety of
equipment and processes across several production plants and warehouses (Bitran and
Tirupati, 1989). The hierarchical nature of HPP is informed by Anthony’s (1965) three-
level decision-making taxonomy: strategic planning, tactical planning and operations
control. Given the long-term orientation of strategic planning (i.e. major decisions in
response to opportunities/threats in the external environment and supporting internal
policy) the design of production facilities, such as number and location of plants,
investment in equipment and processes, and product range, are decided at this level.
The role of tactical planning is to allocate resources or capacity in more details;
hence from a production planning perspective this is typically concerned with capacity
allocation in terms of plants, equipment or production lines, workforce, etc. The tactical
level is typically characterised by medium-term decisions, whereas operational control
deals with the short-term production planning decisions, which managers take on a
weekly or even daily basis. Operational decisions can even occur at the level
of production runs, with varying levels of disruptions resulting for the organisation of
work on the factory floor. Thus the HPP approach follows the organisation’s hierarchy
with decisions at the higher levels imposing constraints on the lower levels and the
lower levels providing feedback in order to evaluate the higher level models.
In terms of aggregation and disaggregation, HPP adopts, at the strategic level,
a product family approach with stock keeping units (SKUs) or items (in HPP
terminology) aggregated into families and families grouped into product types.
A product type is “a group of items that have similar unit costs, direct costs, holding
costs per unit period, productivities (labour hours per unit of product) and seasonality”,
while a product family is defined as “groups of items that belong to the same product
IJOPM type and share similar setups. That is, whenever a machine is prepared to produce an
35,10 item in a family, all other items in the same family can be produced with minor change
in setups” (Bitran and Tirupati, 1989, p. 8). Thus the HPP approach addresses a number
of key issues: product classification; planning horizons; and the relationship between
strategic and operations decision making, enabled by the decision making that takes
place at the tactical level.
1366 Product classification has received considerable attention since the pioneering days
of HPP. Much of this work has extended the product and process characteristics used
to identify SKUs in the HPP approach with an additional focus on the customer,
including parameters such as lead times, demand predictability and order volume
(Fisher, 1997; Christopher et al., 2006; Christopher and Gattorna, 2005). There is also
more explicit attention given to the product life cycle to capture increased frequency of
new product introduction and, often related, shorter product lifecycles (Fisher, 1997;
Aitken et al., 2003). Van Kampen et al. (2012) provide a comprehensive review of
literature on SKU classification and they identify four commonly used classification
characteristics at this level: product, customer, timing and volume. The also identify
three environmental influences: product, process and product life cycle.
A key strength of the HPP approach is that it breaks down large complex tasks into
various phases with each in turn providing a basis for decision making at the next
level. Crucially, the HPP approach also aligns timescale to data availability. The timing
of data availability, in particular demand data, has emerged as a key factor over recent
decades. Earlier work in speculation and postponement (Alderson, 1950) provides
a theoretical underpinning for many analytical frameworks that have emerged in
recent years. These frameworks have been devised to support decision making for
different categories of products based on availability (including predictability) of data.
Thus while a sequential, top-down approach to the disaggregation problem is
fundamental to the HPP approach, in recent years attention in the operations
management literature has been more focused on alignment between strategic and
operational decision making and less attention given to the role played by the tactical
level in achieving this, Hill’s (1985) use of market qualifiers and market winners is one
of the earliest explicit links between marketing strategy and operations strategy.
Hill’s work highlights the need for trade-offs and the use of key performance indicators
(sometimes captured in such popular management idioms as “deciding what you are
not doing is as important as deciding what you are doing”). More recent contributions,
largely from a supply chain perspective, provide useful taxonomies and analytical
frameworks based on key parameters that support firm’s endeavour (and capability
building) to achieve the key performance metrics (e.g. cost, quality, delivery and
flexibility).
In sum, decision-making parameters used can be generally classified into customer
(e.g. lead time and demand predictability) and product/process characteristics
(e.g. standard or specialised). Godsell et al. (2011) provide a useful review of this
literature and describe two schools that have emerged: the lean-agile school and the
strategic alignment school. These schools expand on Fisher’s (1997) dichotomy
(standard product with efficient production vs innovative/specialised product with
agile production), which indeed reflects the long-standing low to high variety
continuum in operations management, and provides normative-based matrices.
For example Christopher et al. (2006) advise lean (plan and execute), continuous
replenishment, agile and postponement/leagile strategies based on lead time and
demand predictability parameters. Similarly Christopher and Gattorna (2005)
prescribes lean, continuous replenishment, agile and fully flexible strategies. Thus Hierarchical
these frameworks aim to leverage competitive advantage through alignment of production
corporate (and where relevant business) strategy with operations strategy (Hayes and
Wheelwright, 1984). In so doing they highlight the contingent nature of operations
planning
strategy (Hill, 1993) and incorporate best practices. However, this literature pays little
attention to the role of the “tactical level”, as considered in HPP, and thus our action
research explored the potential role that this level can play in setting appropriate 1367
constraints (based on higher level strategic decisions related to customer and product
classifications) to guide operational planning.
2.3 Food industry characteristics and a production planning framework

Changing market demands challenge many food manufactures to achieve both supply
chain efficiency and responsiveness, as market qualifiers often include customer service
and quality with market winners centred on cost and variety/flexibility. Over recent
decades the industry has evolved from the traditional “product-oriented push” to the
“consumer-oriented pull”. Folkerts and Koehorst (1997) call this phenomenon “chain
reversal”. The industry is now characterised by: first broad product variety; second
significant variability in the supply and demand; third short product life cycle and
customer lead time; and fourth reduced profit margins. Food manufacturing also differs
from other process industries in terms of production process (several intermediate
stages with shared production lines and resources); market characteristics (frequent
replenishment and unpredictable demand) and seasonal availability of raw material
supplies and production control (sequence dependent setups) (Akkerman et al., 2007).
In addition, food manufacturers often supply both retail and industrial sectors and
each of these have very different demand patterns, product sizes and packaging needs.
The retail industry, on one hand, is organised and works on continuous replenishment
based on the use of information systems such as Vendor Managed Inventory,
Electronic Point of Sales data and Radio Frequency Identification Tags. In recent years,
“joint retailer/supplier initiatives” such as product category management and efficient
consumer response have helped food manufacturers to deliver customer required
solutions to the end user. These initiatives rely on comprehensive analysis of store and
market-level data to support a wide range of strategic and tactical decisions regarding
product variety and availability (Bourlakis and Weightman, 2004). The food
service sector, on the other hand, is often fragmented, more cost sensitive with
significantly lower order volumes, underdeveloped forecasting techniques and very
diverse lead times.
This environment emphasises the need for alignment of strategy and operations in
food supply chains in order to minimise the operational costs and provide enhanced
customer responsiveness, essential to gaining and maintaining market share. We argue
that this is precisely the type of operational alignment with business strategy which the
three-level HPP approach supports. In recent years some studies have applied HPP in
food manufacturing environments, however most of this work has relied on mathematical
modelling (e.g. Christou et al., 2007; Omar and Teo (2007). Thus, while the impact of
specific characteristics of food processing on production planning and scheduling has
received some attention, these studies rely on mathematical frameworks (Kopanosa et al.,
2012) and are often underpinned by advanced (and therefore costly) Manufacturing
Execution Systems (MES) and ERP systems (Wauters et al., 2011). For example in recent
years mainstream ERP software packages have included Advanced Planning Systems
that are based on three-level HPP models. As argued earlier, the application of
IJOPM mathematical models may not suit the needs of SMEs, as such firms lack the expertise
35,10 required to develop and apply such models and furthermore their organisational structure
varies greatly from the large scale multi-plant firm for which such HPP models were
initially developed. Furthermore, advanced use of MES and ERP is beyond the reach of
small- and medium-sized food companies in terms of both cost and expertise. Since our
interest lies in production planning by food SMEs operating in high product variety
1368 markets, we considered the role of HPP in framing decision making at food manufacturer
SME level. In this regard we find the contribution of Soman et al. (2004, 2007) of particular
interest.
Given the applicability of a combined MTO/MTS production strategy in food
manufacturing, Soman et al. (2004, 2007) explore the usefulness of a hierarchical

planning framework in this environment. They recognise the dynamic nature of food
manufacturing activities and consider the appropriate level for specific activities and
associated decision making. The MTO/MTS partition decision is made at the highest
level and is considered a long-term decision. Strategic decisions encompass product
range, production lines and new product development (NPD) policy. SME decision
making on type and number of production lines is analogous to larger firm decision
making on the number and location of plants. The product line decision is informed by
“product types” which in turn is the outcome of marketing strategy. Thus, at this level,
the firm decides on target customers and product types and hence product variety
management is a key consideration. Both demand and supply conditions impact on it,
for example product extensions are considered in the context of product families.
Therefore, “new product development policy” is also set at this level (e.g. business case
for the use of a new ingredient) as this impacts on inventory holding and production
scheduling decisions at lower levels. Products are classified as MTS or MTO based on
order parameters (lead time, predictability and volume) and production parameters
(lead time and variety).
Moving to tactical considerations, capacity is coordinated at the medium-term
(monthly production plan) level based on orders on-hand, forecasted orders, stocks
and the available capacity. For MTO products order acceptance policy and due date
delivery service levels are decided, as are lot sizes for MTS products. Thus production
run and cycle times are set at the medium-term level while weekly scheduling and
control decisions are made at the operational level. At this level product family
membership guides sequencing of SKU production in terms of change-overs and set
up time.
While there is evidence that the implementation of robust decision-making
processes in the area of production planning and scheduling have a strong influence
on the ability of firms to perform well (El Amrani et al., 2006; Dewhurst et al., 2001),
the role and design of decision-making processes are only implicit in HPP framework
development and application. However, there is a rich literature in the decision making
and decision support field that supports the use of rules or constraints to set solution
boundaries at lower levels. Humphreys and Jones (2006) have proposed a useful
characterisation of the process whereby firms converge towards increasing levels
of understanding of the decision problems they face, with managers using their
experience and trial-and-error efforts in tackling them. The output of this process,
which begins at a highly abstract level initially (even “beyond language” as illustrated
in Humphreys and Berkeley, 1985), can be coded in a set of rules or constraints that set
boundaries for acceptable solutions at the lower levels. Humphreys (1989) proposed the
concept of representation levels to chart five key levels in the evolution of managers’
thinking as they learn about the reality that surrounds them, based on: first, the degree Hierarchical
of abstraction of the representation they have of the problems to be tackled in their production
minds; and second, the degree of formalisation of the representations of the proposed
solutions that can thus be proposed. The process described by Humphreys is a
planning
top-down process whereby the problems investigated are refined from one level to the
next. Problem solving is viewed as a development process passing through the five
representation levels, from more to less abstract. The process takes place at the level of 1369
individual managers, but ultimately leads to a debate within the organisation, where
shared meaning is constructed (Phillips, 1984). Thus managerial teams can “make
decisions” by developing a single, collectively agreed, representation of “the problem”,
progressively strengthening the constraints on how the problem is represented until

only one course of action is prescribed. As noted by Lévine and Pomerol (1995), levels 5
and 4 are generally considered as strategic levels handled by top executives (problem
defining), whereas the remaining three levels correspond to more operational and
tactical levels (problem solving). Humphreys and Jones (2006) have observed that the
process is characterised by a decrease in discretion matching the increase in the set
of constraints which are imposed on the representation of problems, until a clear
organisational preference emerges and the daily implementation of solutions becomes
logical, such that it can be delegated to lower level management. We feel that this
is an apt theoretical frame to operationalise our investigation into the potential of the
HPP framework.
Figure 1 presents an adapted HPP framework as applied to food manufacturing
SMEs. The key strategic decisions are influenced by production (illustrated on the left)
and market (illustrated on the right) parameters. These decisions set the constraints
for decision making at the next level which in turn cascade to the lowest level.
This framework encompasses internal supply chain capability across planning,
information and control systems. The alignment between each successive level reflects
well-established metrics (cost, quality, delivery and flexibility), for example MTO-MTS
based on production parameters based on lead time, volume and demand variability
Product Range
Strategic -Product variety management Demand
Product Types Annual
Planning Level Management
-NPD Policy
-MTO/MTS classification
Tactical Capacity Coordination

Product families Customer
Planning Level Monthly
-MTS+FG inventory policy Service Level
-MTO+RM inventory policy
-Surprise order policy
Figure 1.
Operational Planning and Scheduling HPP framework
Order
SKUs -Cross-functional planning Weekly
Planning Level fulfilment applied to food
process manufacturing SMEs
-Daily monitoring
IJOPM partitioning at the strategic-level reflects customer requirements and process
35,10 characteristics, these guide customer service levels and inventory holding policy at
the tactical level. As suggested earlier a key strength of the HPP approach is that it
breaks down large complex tasks into various phases with each in turn providing
a basis for decision making at the next level and, crucially, also aligning timescale to
data availability. In this context we have a particular interest in internal and external
1370 information flows. Following an action research approach, we tested the above
framework in the field and explored the impact of “best practice” frameworks, which
have been developed over the last decade or so within the SCM area, in firm-level
strategy formulation and implementation.
3. Research methodology
We adopted an action research methodology to test the efficacy of this HPP framework
in real world settings, because of its focus on change, learning and critical reflection.
Action research requires the active participation of the researcher and results in change
or improvements (Checkland and Holwell, 1998; McDonagh and Coghlan, 2001;
Gummesson, 2000). This research methodology has become popular in recent years for
conducting SCM research because complex networks of interrelated activities within
and between organisations make it difficult for managers to identify and understand
the problems and hence find solutions (Näslund et al., 2010).
The outcome of action research is of both scholarly and practical value.
Thus the dual objective of practical problem solving and generating knowledge
provides a “win-win” scenario for both researchers and participants in an action research
study (McKay and Marshall, 2001). Hence the adoption of a theoretical framework (in our
case HPP decision-making framework as applied to food manufacturing SMEs) is
essential. This is similar to Yin’s case study approach as he advocates theory
development prior to the data collection phase.
Thus our framework for operationalising action research is informed by case study
research methodology, in particular Yin (2003, 2009) and his adherents. This provides
explicit guidance with regard to the role of a theoretical framework, case selection, data
collection and data analysis. Thus a participant-observation approach based on action
research case study methodology was adopted. The opportunity to achieve process
improvements in real companies required the active participation of the researcher and
management and workforce of the case companies. According to Yin (2003) reliability
can be improved by developing documented protocols. The research protocol is
presented in Table I.
This research was conducted in three phases. Case companies were selected during
the first phase. As indicated above, SMEs present particular requirements in the
context of production planning, as their activity is beyond the scope of hands-on
management but at the same time is not large enough to warrant advanced information
systems. Thus SME Case companies were of particular interest for this study. Company
selection was based on two main criteria: first, problem recognition (i.e. company
management identified the need to improve the production planning process); and
second, company willingness to engage in the action research project and understanding
of what was required. Potential companies were identified in consultation with an
industry expert employed by a state run enterprise development agency. This expert had
knowledge of a large population of companies and identified a list of companies that were
challenged by increasing product variety (evident in the number of product families
and SKUs) and thus were interested in improving their production planning processes.
Phase Activity Time line
Hierarchical
production
Phase 1 Case company selection planning
Presentation of scope of the project by UCC research team to case 1 day
company’s management
Phase 2 Current state data collection and analysis
Data collection Understand current state of the production 7 days
Semi structured interviews 1371
Process activity mapping
Historical records
Data analysis Identify issues 30 days
Propose solutions
Present report to the company's senior management and conduct 1 day
informal discussions regarding implementation of solutions
Phase 3 Implementation of solutions by the company 60 days
Data collection Track progress and record changes 3 days
Semi structured interviews
Company Documents Table I.
Data analysis Analyse data and write case study report 30 days Research protocol
The research team, working with the agency expert, identified a list of potential case
companies. Three case companies were sought for the action research project as this
provided a good basis for cross-case analysis. Thus a purposive sampling approach
(Patton, 1990) was adopted, however the team randomly contacted SMEs from the list
until three companies agreed to join the project.
As action research involves detailed analysis of the before and after “states”, choice
of case company is key, hence time and effort was invested to ensure a good match
between researchers and companies. To this end an on-site one-day workshop was
organised with each company that expressed an interest. The purpose of the workshop
was to ensure that the company was fully aware of the requirements of the action
research process and that the research team were satisfied that the company
was a suitable candidate for the study. In summary the workshop included: first, a
presentation of the business by the company management as well as a site tour; second,
a presentation by the research team on action research methodology and its application
in this project; and third, a detailed discussion of the research protocol including
timescale, data requirements, and commitment to implement proposed improvements;
and fourth, a decision as to whether to proceed or not, in some cases this was delayed
for a short time to ensure that the company made a considered decision. In this way the
team ensured a good match between the research objectives and the company’s
objectives. In total six companies were visited. Two of these declined to participate in
the action research project and the research team found that one of the SMEs
shortlisted was not suited to this study as it became evident that the company’s
challenges did not arise from production planning problems rather these were rooted in
poor industrial relations.
The second phase included understanding the current state of the production
planning process and order fulfilment process in each of the three firms. One of the
researchers spent one week on-site observing activity and conducting semi structured
interviews with the production manager, general manager and heads of such other
departments as purchasing logistics and sales. Company documents such as daily
production plan, customer orders and despatch records, inventory records were
IJOPM analysed to assess the number of SKUs in product portfolio and customers demand
35,10 variability. There was a high level of interaction between the researcher and company
staff, including iterative cycles of data collection and analysis. For example, data on
production plan adherence led to data collection on raw material inventory levels,
machine uptime, etc. Thus the multiple data sources approach adopted, including
semi structured interviews, analysis of historical data and informal discussions
1372 with company’s senior management, enhanced the validity of the research findings
(Yin, 2003).
Thereafter, the research team prepared a report that captured these iterative data
collection and analysis cycles and also proposed solutions/course of action to address
the problems identified. Finally this report was presented and discussed with company
management.
The third phase included implementation of the recommendations by the company
over a two-month period and a follow-up three-day visit from the research team. Again
open-ended interviews were conducted with managers of various departments
to record the changes. The case study report was then finalised within a month of this
follow-up visit.
Thus this intervention study approach followed the key stages associated with
action research: problem recognition; consideration of the problem (disruptive stage);
identification of key decision-making parameters and constraints; behavioural change;
and measure of impact.
4. Findings
An overview of the case studies is outlined below. The findings are presented in line
with the action research approach adopted. The pre-intervention phase is presented at
case study level, while the intervention and post-intervention phases adopt a cross-case
analytical approach in order to draw out key findings.
4.1 Overview of case companies

The key characteristics of the case study companies are presented in Table II. All three
case companies identified quality and delivery reliability (i.e. OTIF – on time in full) as
order qualifiers. Cases A and B identified cost and flexibility as order winners while
Case C identified cost and speed of delivery as order winners. Thus, in addition to cost,
order fulfilment cycle time was a key metric for Case C whereas flexibility emerged as a
key metric for Cases A and B.
4.2 Pre-intervention phase

Production planning in the case companies was considered a weekly activity,
with more long-term planning carried out in a periodic but haphazard manner. This
indicates the dominance of operational decision making and the lack of clarity at
the tactical level of decision making in the area of planning. In the detail of the cases,
the production function was primarily involved in weekly production planning with
some input from sales/order desk and warehousing. In Case C the owner manager
adopted a rather hands-on approach and he was directly involved in weekly production
planning. Long-term planning involved all three functions (sales, production and
warehousing) and relied on excel spreadsheets for analysis of raw material stocks and
sales at product/SKU level. SKUs were classified into general product families based
on ingredients and processing/recipe characteristics. These excel sheets were reviewed
Case Case A Case B Case C
SME characteristics
Years in business 50 21 20
Number of employees 26 100 (+50 seasonal) 25
Products and customers
Type of products Yellow fats Seafood Confectionary
Number of SKUs 150 900 (314 in stock) 161
Customers Multiple retailers, international and domestic food Multiple retailers, international and Domestic food service, independent
service, small bakeries domestic food service, manufacturers retailers
Market
Order winner Price and product variety (flexibility) Price and product variety (flexibility) Price and delivery speed
Order qualifier Quality and delivery reliability Quality and delivery reliability Quality, product variety and
delivery reliability
Supply chain
Procurement Main ingredients delivered weekly with weekly 13-17 months forecast for main seafood Large quantities delivered
rolling weekly forecast. Minor ingredients and ingredients periodically with flexible lead times
packaging in large quantities delivered periodically Minor ingredients and packaging in large
with 4 to 5 week lead times quantities delivered periodically with 4 to
5 week lead times
Production Single stage Multiple stage Multiple stage
Operational elements Small-lot production, quick change over between Batch processing, multiple stage Continuous and batch production,
batches, manpower and equipment flexibility, 4 processing, high number of production large batches, manpower
production lines (one high throughput line, two small lines, poor manpower flexibility flexibility, two high throughput
throughput lines, one specialist line) lines
Logistics Third party service providers Company-owned vans for food service and Company-owned vans
to retail distribution centres
Third party service providers for exports
production
planning
characteristics
company
1373
Hierarchical
Key case study

Table II.
IJOPM on a periodic basis but in all cases this was not a well-defined process, for example
35,10 there was an absence of clear decision rules and in the main the sales department in all
three case companies responded to customer requests for product range extensions,
with fulfilment only considered at the weekly planning level. This resulted in an ever
expanding product range as little consideration was ever given to removal of SKUs.
Thus, from a hierarchical planning perspective, it was apparent that there was
1374 confusion between levels with strategic decisions taken at operational level and little
consideration given the “tactical level decision-making”. Therefore, the Bill of Materials
(BOM) for new SKUs was heavily influenced by sales people/customer requests.
This was particularly evident for minor ingredients and packaging (including size).
Thus while business was primarily built on a core raw materials/product offering
(e.g. fish species in Case B), the addition of bespoke product characteristics increased
SKU specificity and this increased planning complexity and ultimately led to high
finished goods inventory, especially in Cases B and C.
While product family classifications were used to guide the weekly production plan,
and mitigate some planning constraints associated with SKU specificity, customer
order lead times and stock levels emerged as key parameters across all three cases.
Thus all three cases displayed a tendency towards high “customer service”, not only in
terms of response to demand for new products but also product mix and order lead time
flexibility. This came at a high production costs in terms of poor production plan
adherence and high inventory levels. Thus when order winners (cost and flexibility) are
considered, all three cases displayed a bias towards flexibility. On further analysis both
product order mix flexibility and product variety (including rapid NPD and customised
products) were evident. Furthermore, while delivery was considered an order qualifier
for two of the three cases, it was evident that both of these companies responded to
numerous surprise orders (product order mix and volume flexibility) and variability
in lead time. Therefore, in practice there was a strong link between product order mix
flexibility and delivery (OTIF).
The impact of this approach was assessed in terms of production plan adherence,
inventory holding and product variety management.
Production plan adherence was poor across all three cases but this was most
pronounced in case A. In this case, the plan changed numerous times each week, largely
in response to open acceptance of surprise orders, stock outs due to poor raw material
inventory (especially packaging) and poor finished goods stock control. Thus poor plan
adherence was a symptom of more fundamental problems.
Poor inventory management was also problematic in Cases B and C. In the former
this was largely due to a commodity “push” culture within the company. The volume
of raw material (fish) purchased was opportunistically based on price rather than
forecasted demand. Thus purchasing had little interaction with sales and this resulted
in very a large inventory of raw material. Case C held large quantities of both raw
material and finished good. Their key metrics were operational efficiencies based on
large batch sizes and high OTIF based on high finished goods stock. In both cases, little
consideration was given to inventory holding costs. Our analysis indicated that their
use of a biased set of metrics was not based on rational trade-offs but rather on
functional perspectives and preconceived ideas.
In many respects, product variety emerged a root cause of both the poor production
plan adherence and high inventory holding. Fulfilment of all customer requests was the
dominant logic with little consideration given to its cost implications. For example, high
levels of customisation were evident (e.g. size of pack and packaging in Case A and
bespoke ingredients in Case C) with little consideration of alternatives. The case Hierarchical
companies did not engage with their customers in a proactive manner, hence customers production
often had little idea of the additional cost their requests imposed. All case companies
had poor data management systems resulting in poor data integrity and lack of visibility
planning
on the high level of SKU redundancy. Thus overall these were very busy companies that
had neither the time nor the data management capability to identify and address key
production plan adherence, inventory and SKU management problems. 1375
4.3 Intervention phase

At the end of the analysis period each company was presented with an improvement
plan based on the adapted HPP framework and tailored to the particular challenges
identified in their case. In the interest of synthesis, both improvement proposals and the
outcomes of implementation are presented in this section.
First and foremost, case companies were advised to carry out a SKU analysis to
identify redundant (i.e. duplicates) and non-performing (i.e. low sales level) SKUs.
Maintenance of SKU data was established as an ongoing activity with annual review in
terms of variety management decisions. Some of the “redundant SKUs” were as a result
of poor data management, thus a data cleaning project was conducted in each company.
Once this was complete, management could see “the wood for the trees” so to speak and
embark on a SKU rationalisation programme based on the BOM. The first step entailed
analysis of similar BOMs and then consideration of the demand for each. The second
step entailed the establishment of “a business case for a new BOM” in the NPD and
sales processes. The latter was assessed as during the post-intervention study phase.
The former was completed as part of the diagnostic phase as this put in place the
baseline for analysis. This analysis resulted in a considerable reduction in the number of
SKUs for Cases A (20 per cent) and C (15.5 per cent). In Case B attention was directed at
reduction of raw material inventory.
Product classification introduced at the strategic level used the “Runners, Repeaters,
Strangers” (RRS) technique. This technique introduced analysis of order patterns in
terms of both demand predictability and volume and thus informed the manufacturing
strategy (MTO/MTS). Table III presents the number of SKUs and associated
manufacturing strategy.
This analysis informed SKU rationalisation. For example in Case A the initial
classification identified 86 “stranger” products. This company removed 58 non-performing
SKUs from their portfolio and this enabled implementation of a MTO manufacturing
Products Manufacturing
/customers Characteristics Case A Case B Case C strategy
Runners High volume 28 86 (seasonal) 27 MTS

Low FG Inventory 77 (all year)
1-7 days customer lead time Table III.
Repeaters Medium to high volume 34 93 90 MTS/MTO Alignment of
Medium FG Inventory product and
1-21 days customer lead time customer
Strangers Low volume 28 65 12 MTO characteristics with
Raw material Inventory manufacturing
Lead time to be negotiated strategy
IJOPM strategy for stranger products. This reduction was mainly achieved through “conversation
35,10 with the customer” that resulted in a reduction in the variety of package sizes, move
to more generic packaging (especially for industrial customers) and minor changes to
ingredients in the BOM. Agreement proved impossible with just one customer and the
company ceased to supply this customer. This decision signalled a major change in
mindset from a subservient interpretation of “customer is king” to a more mature approach
1376 to customer engagement. This activity also prompted interaction with suppliers,
in particular their key packaging supplier who reduced lead time from four/five weeks to
three weeks. This negotiation was facilitated by the reduction in the demand for
customised packaging; hence the benefit of SKU rationalisation work with the customer
enabled improvements upstream with the supplier.

While non-performing SKU reduction was most pronounced in Case A, it was also
evident in the other cases. In Case C increased awareness of the cost associated with
the introduction of bespoke ingredients was of particular importance in terms of
mindset change to NPD and product range extension by salespeople. This company
put in place a policy of 12 new product additions to the portfolio each year, with a
corresponding policy of removal of poor performing SKUs. This was not presented as a
one-in-one-out approach but rather focused attention on the need to remove products
in the declining stage of the product life cycle. These policies prompted a change of
mindset in relation to range extension at the strategic level and also provided the basis
for a new stock planner model to monitor buffer stock levels and safety stocks at
the tactical level. Purchasing was streamlined to respond to the seasonal demand
fluctuations. In total 15.5 per cent SKUs were withdrawn from the company’s
portfolio due to lack of sales and difficulty in processing:
We have instituted a stock planner model for production scheduling and a snapshot of it
might look high (buffer stock inventory of runners) but this is in response to seasonal
demand. We are in the very busy part of the year. So buffers have been adjusted accordingly.
Although our inventory levels are lower than last year, we have fewer stock-outs – Owner,
Manager (Case C).
In Case B there was a more fundamental change of mindset as the analysis of inventory
levels exposed the commodity push strategy and its inherent costs. Prior to this they
had considered themselves as an innovative customer-oriented company, but this
analysis showed the impact speculative commodity purchasing had on the business:
Earlier, there was a tendency to buy everything that was coming from the boats to build up
inventory for the non fishing season but now we have to be careful – Purchasing Manager
(Case B).
The demand profile was segregated into base demand which represented a constant
level from January to August and seasonal demand showing a cyclical variation from
September to December, this resulted in more accurate forecasting for inventory
planning. RRS was applied to these categories, as presented in Table III. Overall there
was a 25.6 per cent reduction in the value of inventory. This was deemed to be very
significant by top management in Case B.
Thus the RRS classification at the “strategic level” provided a basis for analysis and
decision making and reference framework to support discipline with respect to SKU
variety management decisions. This also set in place a framework for the tactical-level
decision making in terms of allocating capacity to MTO and MTS products. This was
based on policies or rules at this level, such as inventory management policy as briefly
illustrated above. Similarly decision making at the strategic level guided customer Hierarchical
service-level policy at the tactical level, for example, while all case companies provided production
protected capacity for surprise orders in the weekly schedule, specific rules applied
to different product families and certain customers, such as the policy in Case B not to
planning
accept surprise orders for delivery on Thursday (as most export orders were filled on
this day), however if their largest retail customer made a surprise order this was
escalated from the sales/order desk to the account manager. It is interesting to note that 1377
this behaviour also communicated the costly impact of surprise orders to customers
who previously had given this little thought.
The implementation of MTO, MTS and surprise order policies at weekly
schedule/operational level greatly increased production plan adherence. For example in

Case B, as part of the revised production planning system, MTS retail orders were
processed based on short-term forecast and MTO export orders were processed
one day before dispatch to prevent variations and fluctuations in the production
schedule:
Products in the frozen category can be processed very quickly but fresh products take time.
Now we do not break the production chain to accommodate last minute orders unless the
order is very urgent. Instead we try to negotiate the lead time with the customer but we still
do not say no to any customer – Export Manager (Case B).
In case C, as the repeaters (70 per cent) formed the bulk of the product portfolio, they
put in place a decision rule to make them to stock or order depending on their
production volumes and customer lead time:
We are now processing in smaller batches (2 to 3 batches per month). It gives better visibility
into products actually needed based on customer demand. Manpower utilisation is better.
Flexibility to accommodate more products has improved. We have not experienced stock-outs
in the last few months. At the same time no extra pallet space is occupied with excessive
inventory – Operations Manager (Case C).
Table IV summarises tactical-level rules for each product classification.
For Case A the biggest change for staff was from a functional to supply chain
orientation. The visibility of information flow between departments in the company
improved considerably after implementation of improvements suggested by the research
team. The reasons for non-adherence to the production plan such as equipment
breakdown, shortage of raw material and packaging defects were circulated to all
departments on a daily basis. Root cause analysis involving cross-functional teams
resulted in both quick fixes (use of information boards in production and warehouse
areas) and more strategic (e.g. generic packaging) solutions. The production planning
Repeaters
Parameters Runners High volume Low volume Strangers
Production Strategy MTS MTS MTO MTO

Batch Size Medium-Large Large Medium Small
Inventory holding 30 days 45 days On order On order Table IV.
Buffer inventory 25% of average 50% of average Generic raw Generic raw Tactical level rules
monthly demand monthly demand materials materials for each product
Customer lead time 2-7 days 2-7 days 7-15 days 15 days + surprise classification
orders (Case C)
IJOPM process was revised to include various heads of departments. This facilitated an easy
35,10 exchange of information and greater coordination between departments:
Mary [purchasing], Jack [production] and Mike [logistics & warehouse] are now part of the
[weekly] planning process, so knowledge to develop the plan is spread through planning,
production and logistics – Operations Manager (Case A).
1378 Adherence to the weekly production plan was greatly improved. Production schedules
were frozen for the duration of one week. This included an allocation of capacity for
surprise orders. Interaction along the supply chain also improved, as indicated above
an initiative with a packaging supplier resulted in the reduction of lead time from
five to three weeks. Similarly interaction and flow of information with downstream
partners improved:
We now have daily reports from [a major customer’s 3PL warehouse] and this helps us to
anticipate orders and plan our production. As a result our customer service level for this food
service client has been 100% over the past month – Operations Manager.
The key findings are summarised in Table V.
Post intervention Case A Case B Case C
Strategic level (annual)

Product variety 58 SKUs removed Generic packaging for 15.5% SKU stock
management retail customers) clearance
New product Yes (ongoing) Yes (ongoing) 12 new products/year
development
MTS/MTO Classification on the basis of Classification on the Classification on the
classification RRS and (production and order) basis of RRS and basis of RRS and
lead time (production and order) (production and order)
lead time lead time
Tactical level (monthly)
Capacity Surprise order policy within Surprise order policy Surprise order policy
coordination MTO/MTS framework within MTO/MTS within MTO/MTS
framework framework
Inventory Finished goods levels based in Finished goods levels Finished goods levels
Management MTS plan based in MTS plan based in MTS plan
Raw material levels based in Raw material levels Raw material levels
MTO plan based in MTO plan based in MTO plan
Packaging material inventory 25.6% reduction in 25% reduction in raw
rationalised – supplier lead time inventory level material and finished
reduced from 5 to 3 weeks goods inventory
Process level (weekly)
Scheduling control Improved production plan Formal weekly Lot size in weekly
adherence production plan production plan
100% customer service level 100% customer servicereduced
level 100% Customer service
level no stock out
Table V. Interdepartmental Daily exchange of e-mails, Formal documentation Involvement of all
Key findings coordination and reasons for production plan procedure introduced departments in
summarised by information flow non-adherence communicated production related
case company daily to all departments decision making
5. Discussion and conclusions Hierarchical
This research reveals the need for a hierarchical decision-making framework to production
support planning and scheduling of combined MTO-MTS products in the case study
companies. We find implementation of a more formalised and detailed planning and
planning
scheduling framework, based on product and customer segmentation, improved
efficiency and effectiveness. An improvement in operational efficiency was also
achieved as measured by reduced inventory levels, rationalisation of product variety 1379
and weekly levelled scheduling.
The study also shows very clearly that before behavioural changes can be achieved,
cognitive changes must also be sought, whereby managers, as well as customers and
suppliers, are aware of the root causes of the problems they face and the implications of
some of their everyday decisions. The availability of appropriate data and the visibility
on operational costs are fundamental to the implementation of any change programme
in the area of production planning.
This study purposefully chose food SMEs that needed to address internal supply
chain integration. While these SMEs used well-established metrics to evaluate their
performance they lacked an overall decision-making framework. This was evident in
the lack of clear decision-making parameters (such as the use of order lead time and
predictability) to inform product segmentation at a strategic level and inventory
planning and customer service parameters at the tactical planning level. Thus they did
not use a hierarchical decision-making approach to production planning. The lack of
constraints at higher levels, such as SKU proliferation controls and “surprise order”
rules, resulted in unstructured/ad hoc decision making at weekly planning level, where
one would expect rule-based decisions. These problems were compounded by the lack
of certain key data on the trade-offs facing the firm, quite common in SMEs, which
obscured the vision of managers.
Following the adoption of HPP well-established supply chain metrics (cost, quality,
delivery and flexibility) and decision-making parameters (such as lead time (customer
and production), volume, demand predictability and process characteristics), underpinned
by proper information on KPIs, guided the implementation of best practice approaches. Of
particular interest is the clarity that application of these best practice approaches (e.g.
product variety management, cross-functional planning, combined MTS/MTO) brought to
the use of metrics. For example, the bias these case SMEs had towards customer facing
metrics was misplaced. This study points to the need to consider such strategic decisions
at the appropriate level of decision making and thus the resulting scorecard falls in line
with this strategic intent, of course this may be a biased (Gattorna, 2006) or balanced
scorecard.
On investigation, the bias towards customer facing metrics stemmed from a
rather subservient interpretation of “customer is king” rather than a proactive
approach to engaging the customer in “conversation” in order to achieve cost
reduction and add value. Immediate findings from these case studies resulted in cost
savings as customers were unaware of the added costs created by their demands.
Previous studies have identified the need for internal integration in readiness
for external integration initiatives (Stank et al., 2001; Kotzab et al., 2011), our findings
support this in that it was imperative that these SMEs developed a structured
approach to decision making, but these findings also add an interesting dimension
in relation to engagement with the customer as well as an improved ability to absorb
and use knowledge from external partners (Schoenherr and Swink, 2012).
Subsequent to HPP deployment, these SMEs were found to leverage the new
IJOPM knowledge gained from management of their internal supply chain to improve
35,10 their communication with customers, and ultimately offer a more efficient and
effective service.
The findings also support the argument that in some cases internal integration
capability is a prerequisite to external integration (Cousins and Menguc, 2006; Newman
et al., 2009). While the action research team may have been the catalyst, in these cases
1380 the impetus for change originated with SME management, as they were identified as
companies that were interested in enhancement of internal supply chain capability. Thus
this was of their own volition rather than in response to specific requests or supportive
initiatives from external supply chain partners. As with the biased vs balanced scorecard,
the contention here is not that one should always precede the other, rather it is recognised
that it may be initiated internally, as in these cases, or externally. Moreover substantive
findings illustrate that increased internal supply chain capability yields benefits and may
be leveraged to the wider supply chain (Stevens, 1990; Newman et al., 2009).
The findings are interesting from an action research perspective as both problem
solving and theoretical contributions are evident. Action research methodology was
selected because of its focus on change, learning and critical reflection (Coughlan and
Coghlan, 2002). The SMEs were selected on the basis of an identified problem and
engaged with the research team throughout the project. Problems were addressed in an
iterative fashion, with each “solution” leading to the next problem solving iteration.
For example, the use of metrics to identify major costs prompted a change of mindset in
all three cases, but most notably in Cases A and B. This is of particular interest as
action research has its roots in Lewin’s (1946) seminal work which focused on problem
solving and sustainable change. In our context the unstructured nature of these
problems, from the company perspective, proved fertile ground for an action research
methodology as contrary to this the theoretical approach hypothesised a structured
approach at the operational level. Notwithstanding this the research team also learned
from the iterative problem solving process. For example, lack of data management
capability emerged as a key stumbling block for the SMEs. This required specific
problem solving cycles (e.g. SKU labelling conventions, data cleaning and building
a relational database), indeed this learning prompted a subsequent study and this
is reported in Sammon and O’Reilly (2013). Hence both practitioners and scholars
benefited from iterative cycles which in turn provided the impetus for further initiative.
This reflects Lewin’s action research philosophy. It is hoped that the findings from the
study reported here will prompt further work involving more food SMEs and thus add
to the empirical veracity of the HPP framework. For example, further work could focus
on the strategic level of decision making and, in particular, the interplay between
unstructured and structured decision making, especially in relation to customer
selection and segmentation.
References
Aitken, J., Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D. (2003), “The impact of product life cycle on supply
chain strategy”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 127-140.
Akkerman, R., van Donk, D.P. and Gaualman, G. (2007), “The influence of capacity – and time –
constrained intermediate storage in two-stage in the food production systems”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 13, pp. 2955-2973.
Alderson, W. (1950), “Marketing efficiency and the principle of postponement”, Cost and Profit
Outlook, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 15-18.
Anthony, R.N. (1965), Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Graduate School Hierarchical
of Business Administration, Harvard University, MA.
production
Berry, W.L. and Hill, T. (1992), “Linking systems to strategy”, International Journal of Operations planning
& Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 3-15.
Bitran, G.R. and Hax, A.C. (1977), “One the design of hierarchical production planning systems”,
Decision Science, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 28-55.
Bitran, G.R. and Tirupati, D. (1989), “Hierarchical production planning”, MIT Sloan School 1381
Working Paper No. 3017-89-MS, Boston .
Bourlakis, M.A. and Weightman, P. (2004), Food Supply Chain Management, Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, UK.

Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply
chain agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 119-140.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998), “Action research its nature and validity”, Systems Practice
and Action Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-21.
Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D.R. (2003), “Simplified material flow holds the key to supply chain
integration”, Omega, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 17-27.
Christopher, M. and Gattorna, J. (2005), “Supply chain cost management and value-based
pricing”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 115-121.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D. (2006), “A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain
strategies”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 277-287.
Christou, I.T., Lagodimos, A.G. and Lycopoulou, D. (2007), “Hierarchical production planning for
multi-product lines in the beverage industry”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 367-376.
Coughlan, P. and Coghlan, D. (2002), “Action research: action research for operations
management”, International Journal for Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 220-240.
Cousins, P. and Menguc, B.B. (2006), “The implications of socialization and integration in supply
chain management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 604-615.
Croxton, K.L., García-Dastugue, S.J., Lambert, D.M. and Rogers, D.S. (2001), “The supply chain
management processes”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 13-36.
Das, A., Narasimhan, R. and Talluri, S. (2006), “Supplier integration – finding an optimal
configuration”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 563-582.
der Vaart, T.V. and van Donk, D.P. (2008), “A critical review of survey-based research in supply
chain integration”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 42-55.
Dewhurst, F., Barber, K. and Rogers, J.J.B. (2001), “Towards integrated manufacturing planning
with common tool and information sets”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1460 -1482.
El Amrani, R., Geffroy-Maronnat, B. and Rowe, F. (2006), “The effects of ERP implementation
strategy on cross-functionality”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 79-104.
Fabbe-Coste, N. and Jahre, M. (2007), “Supply chain integration improves performance: the
Emperor’s new suit?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 835-855.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your product?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 105-116.
IJOPM Folkerts, H. and Koehorst, H. (1997), “Challenges in international food supply chains: vertical
coordination in the European agribusiness and food industries”, Supply Chain
35,10 Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Forrester, J.W. (1958), “Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 37-66.
Frohlich, M. and Westbrook, R.R. (2001), “Arcs of integration: an international study of supply
1382 chain strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 21, pp. 185-200.
Gattorna, J. (2006), Living Supply Chains; How to Mobilize the Enterprise Around Delivering What
Your Customers Want, Financial Times Prentice Hall, London.
Godsell, J., Diefenbach, T., Clemmow, C., Towil, D. and Christopher, M. (2011), “Enabling supply
chain segmentation through demand profiling international”, Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 296-314.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Hax, A.C. and Meal, H.C. (1975), “Hierarchical integration of production planning and
scheduling”, in Geisler, M.A. (Ed.), Studies in Management Sciences, Logistics, North
Holland-American Elsevier, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp. 53-69.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1984), Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through
Manufacturing, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hill, T. (1985), Manufacturing Strategy: The Strategic Management of the Manufacturing
Function, 1st ed., Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Hill, T. (1993), Manufacturing Strategy: The Strategic Management of the Manufacturing
Function, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London.
Humphreys, P. (1989), “Intelligence in decision support – a process model”, in Doukidis, G.I.,
Land, F. and Miller, G. (Eds), Knowledge-Based Management Support Systems, Hellis
Hovwood Ltd, Chichester, pp. 22-51.
Humphreys, P. and Berkeley, D. (1985), “Handling uncertainty: levels of analysis of decision
problems”, in Wright, G. (Ed.), Behavioral Decision-Making, Plenum Press, New York, NY,
pp. 257-282.
Humphreys, P. and Jones, G. (2006), “The evolution of group decision support systems to enable
collaborative authoring of outcomes”, World Futures, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 193-222.
Kopanosa, G.M., Puigjanera, L. and Georgiadis, M.C. (2012), “Efficient mathematical frameworks
for detailed production scheduling in food processing industries”, Computers and Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 206-216.
Kotzab, H., Teller, C., Grant, D. and Sparks, L. (2011), “Antecedents for the adoption and execution
of supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 231-245.
Lambert, D.M. (Ed.) (2004), Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance,
Supply Chain Management Institute, Sarasota, FL.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998), “Supply chain management implementation
issues and research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Leenders, M.R., Fearson, H.E., Flyn, A.E. and Johnson, P.F. (2002), Purchasing and Supply
Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Lévine, P. and Pomerol, J.-C. (1995), “The role of the decision Maker in DSSs and Representation
Levels”, paper presented at the Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Wailea, HI.
Lewin, K. (1946), “Action research and minority problems”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 2 No. 4, Hierarchical
pp. 34-46.
production
McDonagh, J. and Coghlan, D. (2001), “The art of clinical inquiry in information technology- planning
related change”, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds), Handbook of Action Research, Sage,
London, pp. 372-378.
McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (2001), “The dual imperatives of action research”, Information
Technology & People, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 46-59. 1383
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Näslund, D., Kale, R. and Paulraj, A. (2010), “Action research in supply chain management –
a framework for relevant and rigorous research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 331-354.
Newman, R., Hanna, M., Gattiker, T. and Huang, X. (2009), “Charting supply chain management
integration and initiatives: a framework to guide implementation”, American Journal
of Business, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Omar, M.K. and Teo, S.C. (2007), “Hierarchical production planning and scheduling in a
multi-product, batch process environment”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1029-1058.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, SAGE Publications, Inc., London.
Persona, A., Regattieri, A. and Romano, P. (2004), “An integrated reference model for production
planning and control in SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15
No. 7, pp. 626-640.
Phillips, L.D. (1984), “A theory of requisite decision models”, Acta Psychological, Vol. 56 No. 1,
pp. 29-48.
Sammon, D. and O’Reilly, S. (2013), “A conceptual data model to enhance SKU management in
food SMEs”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 265-282.
Schoenherr, T. and Swink, M. (2012), “Revisiting the arcs of integration: cross-validations and
extensions”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 99-115.
Skinner, W. (1969), “Manufacturing-missing link in corporate strategy”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 136-145.
Soman, C.A., van Donk, D.P. and Gaalman, G.J.C. (2004), “Combined make-to-order and make-to-
stock in a food production system”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90
No. 2, pp. 223-235.
Soman, C.A., van Donk, D.P. and Gaalman, G.J.C. (2007), “Capacitated planning and scheduling of
combined make-to-order and make-to-stock production in the food industry: an illustrative
case study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 108 Nos 1/2, pp. 191-199.
Stank, T., Keller, S. and Daugherty, P. (2001), “Supply chain collaboration and logistical service
performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Steinrücke, M. and Jahr, M. (2012), “Tactical planning in supply chain networks with customer
oriented single sourcing”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 259-279.
Stevens, G.C. (1990), “Successful supply-chain management”, Management Decision, Vol. 28
No. 8, pp. 25-30.
Stock, J. and Boyer, S. (2009), “Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management:
a qualitative study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 690-711.
IJOPM Storey, J., Emberson, C., Godsell, J. and Harrison, A. (2006), “Supply chain management: theory,
practice and future challenges”, International Journal of Operations & Production
35,10 Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 754-774.
Vaaland, T.J. and Heide, M. (2007), “Can the SME survive the supply chain challenges?”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
van Donk, D.P. and van Dam, P. (1996), “Structuring complexity in scheduling: a study in a food
1384 processing industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 54-63.
van Kampen, T.J., Akkerman, R. and van Donk, D.P. (2012), “SKU classification: a literature
review and conceptual framework”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 850-876.

Vicens, E., Alemany, M.E., Andres, C. and Guarch, J.J. (2004), “A design and application methodology
for hierarchical production planning decision support systems in an enterprise integration
context”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Vickery, S.K., Jayaram, J., Droge, C. and Calantone, R. (2003), “The effects of an integrative supply
chain strategy on customer service and financial performance: an analysis of direct versus
indirect relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 523-539.
Vollman, T.E., Berry, W.L. and Whybark, D.C. (2000), Manufacturing Planning and Control,
Down-Jones Erwing, Burr Ridge, IL.
Wauters, T., Verbeecka, K., Verstraetec, P., Vanden Berghea, G. and De Causmaecker, P. (2011),
“Real-world production scheduling for the food industry: an integrated approach”,
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 222-228.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, London.
Further reading
Akkerman, R., van der Meer, D. and van Donk, D.P. (2010), “Make to stock and mix to order:
choosing intermediate products in the food-processing industry”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 12, pp. 3473-3492.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management. more than a new
name for logistics”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, pp. 1-13.
Fabbe-Costes, N., Jahre, M. and Roussat, C. (2009), “Supply chain integration: the role of logistics
service providers”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
Simon, H. (1967), “Information can be managed”, Think, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 9-12.
About the authors

Dr Seamus O’Reilly is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Food Business & Development,
University College Cork, Ireland, where he is an Academic Director of supply chain management
programmes. His research interest focuses on supply chain networks, including logistics,
lean and agile manufacturing, procurement and selling processes, relationship management and
network analysis. He has a particular interest in the role of Continuous Improvement (CI)
approaches, such as lean, in the food manufacturing environment and the extension of CI
approaches from operations/supply chain processes to new product design and sales/value
creation processes. He has published a number of articles related to supply chain management,
marketing and network analysis in journals such as: Journal of Production, Planning and Control;
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management; Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica
C – Food Economics Journal; Journal of Chain and Network Science; Journal of International Food
& Agribusiness Marketing and the British Food Journal. Dr Seamus O’Reilly is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: s.oreilly@ucc.ie
Dr Anita Kumar teaches Supply Chain Management, International Marketing and Retail Hierarchical
Supply Chain Management across various functional and specialised MBA programmes at the
Amity Business School, India, where she is a Head of the Department of International Business.
production
She was a Recipient of a Lauritzson Research Fellowship, Ireland and Overseas Development planning
Agency Shared (ODASS) Scholarship sponsored by the UK governments. Her research interests
include internationalisation of food SMEs, Indian agri-food supply chains and closed loop supply
chain management. Prior to her academic career, she worked for ten years in industry at the
middle/senior management level in marketing, distribution, retail and supply chain management 1385
in FMCG, food and pharmaceutical industries.
Frédéric Adam is a Professor in Business Information Systems and a Head of the Graduate
School of the College of Business and Law at the University College Cork (UCC) in Ireland.
Professor Adam holds PhDs from the National University of Ireland and the Université Paris VI
(France), and an Habilitation Thesis from the Université Paris VI (France). His research interests
are in decision making, decision support and in analytics. Recently, he has also been active in
researching the potential impact which IT, for instance mobile computing, data analytics or big
data can have on the delivery of key healthcare services. In 2013, he became one of the Principal
Investigators in the SFI funded INFANT Research Centre at the UCC. He has over 25 journal
papers published in international journals including Information and Management, the Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Decision Support Systems and the Journal of Information
Technology. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Decision Systems (Taylor & Francis) and
the Chair of the Working Group 8.3 on DSS of the International Federation for Information
processing (IFIP).
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

2 Planificacion Jerarquica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Planificacion Jerarquica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

The role of hierarchical production planning in food manufacturing SMEs

Permanent link to this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Accepted 8 January 2015

to internal supply chain readiness, including the implementation of human, financial

2.3 Food industry characteristics and a production planning framework

manufacturing, Soman et al. (2004, 2007) explore the usefulness of a hierarchical

progressively strengthening the constraints on how the problem is represented until

Tactical Capacity Coordination

4.1 Overview of case companies

4.2 Pre-intervention phase

Case Case A Case B Case C

Key case study

4.3 Intervention phase

Runners High volume 28 86 (seasonal) 27 MTS

enabled improvements upstream with the supplier.

schedule/operational level greatly increased production plan adherence. For example in

Production Strategy MTS MTS MTO MTO

Post intervention Case A Case B Case C

Strategic level (annual)

Publishing Ltd, UK.

chain segmentation through demand profiling international”, Journal of Physical

Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 850-876.

About the authors

You might also like