5.a.operation Management in ERM Perspective 15-Jan-3155-1

Strad Research https://doi.org/10.37896/sr8.
1/015 ISSN: 0039-2049
ROLE OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT FROM THE

PERSPECTIVE OF ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT IN
INDIAN INDUSTRIES FOR EMERGING MARKET
Mr. Nagarajan Muthukrishnan

PhD Research Scholar
Alagappa Institute of Management
Alagappa University,KaraiKudi
VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 139 http://stradresearch.org/

Strad Research https://doi.org/10.37896/sr8.1/015 ISSN: 0039-2049

ABSTRACT
Innovations in Operations Management is an optimal solution for pricing strategy to run any
successful business for long-term. Operation Management also plays a vital role in Enterprise
Risk Management. Since, it involves various operations like selection & procuring the raw
material in competitive rate, processing the raw material for production, resource management,
material & waste management, Manufacturing operations, Quality checking, Storage solutions,
optimized transportation logistics and delivery issues till the products reach customer hands.
The performance of Operation management can be explored through Profit & Sales ratio per
product. However, the pricing and profit decided by gamechangers of business market. This
Research paper involves in the study of attributes contributing in operation management and
factors that influencing the enterprise through financial risk. The structured questionnaire
survey has been conducted and response received from 100 Firms from multi-diversified Indian
industries across various region. The profile of respondents & their demographic information,
attributes were analysed with their statistical data and tabulated. Further, Groups were
classified with two variables and relations of each attributes identified through Karl’s Pearson
correlation Coefficient method. Comparative graph &Trend chart were analysed to validate the
results. The results indicated high positive correlation between Group A – Salary Increment
versus Sales and Profits r1 – 0.785, Group B - Risk Policy Versus Procurement Policies r2- 0.990.
Moderate correlation in Group C- Quality policies versus Supply Chain and Sourcing Process
r3- 0.454 , Group D- On-Time Delivery committment versus customer relationships r 4 – 0.937,
Group F - Company Sales & Profits versus Performance and Operation Excellence r 6 – 0.962
shows high positive correlation. Group E - Customer Feedback response versus encouraging
process innovation r5 – 0.202 show a positive correlation but value is less than moderate thus
no correlation. Hence, it shows the process innovations are encouraged for pricing competitive
advantage of enterprise to increase sales, performance, profit & Enterprise Risk Management.
Keywords: Operations Management, Resources, Supply Chain, Enterprise Risk Management


1. Introduction:
Operations are the backbone for any kind of business and Managing
the operations calls for a setup of procedures with Operation Management. Getting a
raw material from supplier, pre-productivity quality screening of the raw material,
production process strategy, post-productivity quality, sales & service operations,
marketing and business development, Research & Development for products and Price
reduction, On-time Delivery, Production & Wastage Cost control, Overhauling of
machineries, Preventive and Breakdown Maintenance, handling of logistics, production
& pollution control, Resource management and safety operations everything comes
under an umbrella called Operations Management. Hence, Operation Management
plays a vital role in Enterprise Risk Management. For Instance, if the raw material is not
delivered on time, if machineries stuck with frequent failures, if right man has not
deployed in right place, if right equipment is not used for logistic handling, if quality
inspecting machines becomes faulty, if packing materials are not available in stock, if
storage area has already occupied with the loss of moving average stock , if there is a
failure on delivery of finished product, if transportation of finished goods end-up with
an accident, if sales or service person fail to address the customer’s issue, if Stock based
production and production based raw material are not controlled, if supplier payment
not cleared on time, If supplier delay the supply of materials, any of the above scenario
can be huge threat to the enterprise as an imminent risk on production, branding, sales,
profits and reputation. This is applicable to all range of firm either it is a corporate or
private or public listed or government enterprise. The supply chain may be interlinked
to various industries. For Example, An Automobile industry receives N numbers of item
from various suppliers or manufacturers, in case there is an issue in the spares
manufacturing company who provides essential item in cheapest price to the automobile
company, the impact within the spares manufacturing firm will affect the automobile
company sales indirectly. It is essential to increase the reliable operation capabilities.

2.Review of Literature
Asif, Muhammad & Fisscher, Olaf & Bruijn, Erik & Pagell, Mark. (2010) were
proactively carried out the research on integrating management system through 3 steams
and 4 cases (Pharmaceutical, Textile, automobile, Diary Plant) on Process along with
cross case analysis for operational excellence and strategic flexibility. They have
proposed Four Proposition based on their research.
Grobler, Andreas. (2010) has done an exploratory paperwork through

longitudinal study with International Manufacturing Strategy Survey Questionnaire to
find the relationships of Manufacturing Companies Strategic capabilities in developed
& emerging market.
Eric Rolland, Raymond A. Patterson, Keith Ward and Bajis Dodin (2010) were
mapped the multiple resource-constrained project scheduling problem (MRCPSP) and
Disaster response scheduling Problem (DRSP). They have proposed the adaptive
reasoning techniques (ART) to address challenging issues in operations.
Goodale, John & Kuratko, Donald & Hornsby, Jeff & Covin, Jeffrey. (2011)
were investigated in 177 companies on corporate entrepreneurships and innovation
performance. They have identified five antecedents interacts one with other influencing
the key factors of performance and innovation. Out of Five antecedents two has more
impacts and significance they are management support and organization boundaries.
Nachiappan Subramanian and Ramakrishnan Ramanathan (2012) have reviewed

the application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Operation Managements. They
have pointed out the gaps based on qualitative and Quantitative factors from 291 peer
reviewed journal articles published from 1990 to 2009 immensely. They have touched
almost all areas of operation management and indicated the distribution in Pie Charts.
Hiroyasu Shigemori (2013) has proposed a new quality and operation

management method in production of steel in the process plants. He proposed a method
to deduct the deviation in manufacturing conditions in order to reduce the defects in
manufacturing through multivariate statistical Process control in commercial Plants.

David F. Drake and Stefan Spinler (2013) have reviewed Paul Kleindorfer works
and presentation of Morris Cohen. They have discussed more in detail about sustainable
growing interest, business Implications and operation management lens contribution.
Julia Hartmann and Sabine Moeller (2014) both conducted a detail study to focus
antecedents in interlinking relation with supplier’s supply chain liabilities and the
consequences of consumer responsibility attributions. They have analyzed the impacts
& significance to construct a structural equation model with dimension (severity,
stability, controllability, locus) & Reaction (responsibility attribution, anger, boycott).
Shailesh S. Kulkarni, Uday M. Apte and Nicholas E. Evangelopoulos (2014)

were illustrated & explained the use of Latent Sematic Analysis Technique to review
Operation Management Trends through published research articles from 1980- 2012,
they have focused on Operation strategy, supply chain management, Production lot
sizing , inventory management, Operations Modelling analysis, Job Shop scheduling.
Xiang Li (2014) had done a review on Operations Management. He addresses

the hot issues on logistics and Supply chain Management especially on transportation,
Sourcing, Behavior operations & inventory management. He concluded his insights in
three directions approach based on his analysis with future scope of multimethodology.
Helleno, Andre, Pimentel, Carina, Ferro, Rodrigo, Santos, P, Oliveira, Maria and
Simon, Alexandre. (2015) were implemented Value Stream Mapping (VSM) & Discrete
Events Simulation as decision-making tool for Brazil’s metal industries. They provided
an outlook to the management in decision making through this methodology from
production process data calculation to unit pricing conversion even it is dynamic nature.
Philip Bromiley and Devaki Rau (2016) were worked in different view on
Operations Management in spite most of researchers focusing on Resource Based View
(RBV) for having sustained competitive advantage in business market. They proposed
Practice-Based View (PBV) as a better alternative way and simple solutions.
Michael A. Hitt, Kai Xu and Christina Matz Carnes (2016) were suggested and
concluded to use Resource Based Theory (RBT) & its Further Applications in operation
Management based on their reviews and evaluation of various Journal papers articles.

Emma Brandon-Jones, Marie Dutordoir, Joao Neto and Brian Squire (2017)
were conducted the business research from the shareholder wealth perspective in case
of change in location globalization or localization. The Global operations and its impact
on stock price & returns has been analyzed by them through 37 reshoring decisions.
Amy V. Benstead, Mark Stevenson and Linda C. Hendry (2017) were carried
out two stage approach method, Systematic Literature Review (SLR) & Single case
study for identify the contingency factors, reshoring process, reshoring drivers &
considerations of implementation involved in conceptual framework of reshoring
decisions. Onshore & offshore case study from 1991 to 2015 with case evidences have
been reviewed and refined conceptual framework proposed by them.
Sunil Babbar, Ravi S. Behara, Xenophon A. Koufteros, Baofeng Huo (2017)

were carried out a literature review based on the 2001- 2015 published articles from
Asia Pacific regions and Australia. They found that most of Operation Management
researches focusing on manufacturing, Quality, supply chain management.
Riikka Kaipia, Jan Holmstrom, Johanna Smaros and Risto Rajala (2017) were
developed a collaborative sale integrated with actionable design propositions, moving
average of stocks & sales index. They proposed practice of Production based on Sales
& operations (S&OP) by gathering sales and sharing of data for feedback references.
Lennart Soderberg, Lars Bengtsson and Matti Kaulio (2017) were carried out
the case study and empirical analysis based on 4 buyer’s firms and 4 Supplier Firms.
They built and proposed a conceptual framework model for outsourcing and
maintenance governance addressing core- close and core distance maintenances cases.
Naoum Tsolakis & Jagjit Singh Srai (2018) were worked on standardization
based on multi-stage & Multi-layer methodology for finding & mapping the level of
supply dynamics. They identified that market requirements & regulatory conformance,
assessment of system level feasibility with renewable feedstocks, volume demand of the
market targeted are the three main key drivers majorly which decides performance.
Marcel F. van Assen (2018) has investigated effects & relationships between
some important lean & management actions through survey data of 178 Dutch firm’s
responses, he concluded more lean results in high level of process improvement.

Khaled Medini, Ann-Louise Andersen, Thorsten Wuest, Bjorn Christensen,

Stefan Wiesner, David Romero, Ang Liu and Fei Tao. (2019) were on Customer driven
Operation Management and Industry 4.0. They analyzed the published articles from
2010-2019 including Journal Papers- 20 Nos, published articles -53 Nos and Conference
Papers -10 Nos addressing the Collaborative Manufacturing Model, value chains,
engineering network and Industry 4.0 environment necessity and requirements.
Fuqiang Zhang, Xiaole Wu, Christopher S. Tang, Tianjun Feng and Yue Dai
(2020) were investigate papers published from 1997 to 2018 using machine learning
tools especially on five Operation management journals in three perspective topics US-
china trade war, Covid 19 Pandemic and Future of Operation Management in an
approach of Finical flows, Information and Material. They approached three C’s
Connectivity, clarity and continuity for upcoming new normal operation capabilities.
3.Objectives of the Study
i. To identify the response of respondent by conducting field survey and risk

attributes along with the factors influencing the Enterprise Financial Crisis.
ii. To find correlations between the attributes & factor of operation Management
which impacts Enterprise Risk Management.
4. Methodology
Operation
Management
Suggestion,
Primary Percentile
Enterprise Risk Data Discussion based
Management
Statistics on Summary of
Collection Karl Pearson
from Survey Correlations Response &
Response Analysis
Financial
Impacts
Literature Review Data collection & Analysis Summary of Results
Figure 1. Research framework
The present study carried out across India in various regions, with the Factory/
Production Managers who were involved in Operations management. Firms were
selected through random sampling method. Sample Data’s were collected through
Survey with Structured questionnaire from 100 Firms. Statistical formula’s and Karl’s
Pearson correlations methods used to analyze the data & calculation to obtain the results.

5.Results & Findings

5.1 Summary of the Survey Questionnaire Responses
Figure 2. Sector Pie Chart
15 Respondent responded from agricultural products firm respondents; 12 respondent

responded from pharmaceutical & Chemical products firm; 11 Respondent responded
from Oil, Gas, Energy & Power sector; 11 Respondent responded from Textile &
Garment Industry; 9 respondent responded from cement & ceramic Industry; 9
Respondent from Pulp & Paper and 9 Respondent from Transport rail products,
automobile industries; 9 respondent responded from water and irrigation products; 9
respondent responded from Plastic & rubber industries; 6 respondent responded from
sugar industries across North, South, East & West Regions of Indian Nation.
Figure 3. Number of Respondent (Y-axis) versus Their Experience (X-axis)

Figure 4. Percentage & Role of respondents
Figure 5. Region of Respondents in Percentage
Figure.5 Indicates respondent Regions - 31 respondent belongs to southern region and

26 respondent belongs to Western region, 22 respondent belongs to eastern region and
20 respondents belongs to Northern region, 1 respondent responded without specifying.
Figure 6. Plant Process - Automation and Manual Modes of Operations

Figure 7. Percentage of respondent Anticipated COVID 19 Crisis
31 respondents anticipated the COVID crisis and 69 Respondents didn’t anticipate.
Figure 8. Raw Material Shortage Response analysis
7 Respondents often experience the block of raw material supply chain; 19 respondents
occasionally experienced the raw material supply blockage and 15 Respondents has
experienced blockages in availability of raw materials for production. However, 59
respondents not experienced the discontinuity of raw material supplies in their firms.
Figure 9. Frequency of failure
17 respondent faced frequent failure/ breakdown of machineries in their firm and 83

respondents has responded that their firm run with less frequency of breakdown.

Figure 10. Frequency of Power failure
74 Respondent has not experienced the frequent power failures in their firms, 25
Respondent has experienced frequent power failures which causes delay in productions.
Figure 11. Payment issues with Vendor/ Suppliers
17 respondents often face issues with supplier/ vendors and 58 respondents occasionally
face problems with vendors/ suppliers; 25 respondents never experienced any problem
with supplier or vendors shows their vendor relationship and reliability of supply chain.
Figure 12. Delay in supply of materials by supplier/ vendor
16 respondents often have supply delays and 59 respondents occasionally facing supply
delays and 25 respondents never experience the delay of material supply from vendors.

Figure 13. Failure of operation inefficient workers & accidents
6 respondent often facing interruption in operation with inefficient employees, 46

respondent occasionally facing such kinds of issues. 48 respondent never experienced
such issues and 2 respondents has responded ocassionally & never experienced before.
Figure 14. Occurrence of labor strike (salary, overtime, bonus, safety, accident) issues
8 respondents often experience labor issues and 47 respondents occasionally faced labor
issues in their firm for anyone of these issues, 44 respondents never experience issues.
Figure 15. Production Scale range
10 respondent rates for high production; 54 rates average and 36 respondents rate their
firms for low production. Major firms have average productions.

Figure 16. Annual Increment Scale range for employees
48 respondents rated 3(Average) for annual increment; 1 respondent rated 5(Very high)
while 32 respondents rated 2 (Low) and 12 respondents rated (Very Low) while 7
respondent rate 4 (High) for their scale ratings in yearly increment or salary appraisal.
Figure 17. Company Sales & Profit ratings
38 respondent’s rates 3 (Average) for their company sales & profit; 32 respondent rate
4 (high); 6 respondent’s rates 5 (very high) where 1 respondent rates 1 (Very low); 23
respondent’s rates 2(Low) for their firms profit Scale & Sales.
Figure 18. Company Risk Policies ratings & range
40 respondent’s rates 3 (Average) for their company risk polices strength and 33
respondent’s rates 4(High), 15 respondent rates 5(Very high) while 2 respondent rates
1(Very Low) and 10 respondent’s rate 2 (Low).

Figure 19. Company Procurement Policies ratings & range
35 respondents rates 3(Average) for their company procurement policies strength where
34 respondent rates 4( High); 18 respondents rate 5 (Very High); while 9 respondents
rates 2 ( Low) when 1 respondent rates 2 (very low) and 2 respondent not responded.
Figure 20. Company Quality Policies ratings & range
49 respondents rates 5(Very high) about their firm’s quality policies standards; 34
respondent rates 4 (High) while 14 respondent rates 3( Average); 2 respondent rates 2
(Low), 1 respondent unanswered to this question.
Figure 21. Company Supply chain and Sourcing process ratings & range
46 respondent’s rates 3 (Average) for their firm Supply Chain & Sourcing process;
where 38 respondents’ rates 4(High), 7 respondent rates 5(Very high), 6 respondent rate
2 (Low) and 3 respondent rates 1 (very low) about the efficiency of sourcing process.

Figure 22. Company On-time Delivery ratings
67 respondent’s rates 5 (Very High) their company for timely deliveries; 25 respondents
rate 4 (High), 8 respondents rates 3(Average) while no respondent rates 1 & 2.
Figure 23. Company Customer Relationship Ratings
49 respondent’s rate 5 (very high) about their customer relationship; 39 respondent’s

rates 4(High); 10 respondent’s rate 3(Average) and 2 respondent rates 2(Low).
Figure 24. Customer Feedback response Ratings
62 respondent’s rates 5(very high) for responding customer’s feedback; 27 respondent’s

rates 4( High); 10 respondent’s rate 3( Average); 1 respondent rate 1( Low).

Figure 25. Company ratings on Encouraging innovation
28 Respondent’s rates 3 (Average) about their company encouraging innovations for

competive advantage; 12 respondent’s rate 5(Very High); 17 respondent’s rate 4 (High);
27 respondent’s rate 2 (Low) and 16 Respondent’s rate 1 (Very Low) for innovations.
Figure 26. Company ratings on its Performance and Operation Excellence
34 Respondent’s rates 3 (Average) about their company performance & Operation

Excellence; 11 respondent’s rate 5(Very High); 38 respondent’s rate 4 (High); 15
respondent’s rate 2 (Low) and 2 Respondent’s rate 1 (Very Low) for operations.
The Survey data has been summarized and tabulated in the Table 1 which indicates the
demographic information of the firms and Respondent profiles. The percentage of firms
and respondent against each each element has been captured in detail for segregations
and computing the statistical data based on the survey responses received from the
respondents indicated in Table 2. Further Operation Management & Risk Management
attributes based on score/ ratings has been tablulated in Table 3. The Coeffient of
Correlation with in the group of attributes were identified through Karl’s Pearson
Simple Correlartion Method and results indicated in table 4.

5.2 Demographic Information of Respondents & Firms

Table 1. Executive Summary of Respondents Profiles with Percentages
Profile of Respondents Percentage
Number %
Working Sector
Agricultural Products 15 15%
Cement & Ceramics 9 9%
Oil, Gas, Energy &Power sector 11 11%
pharmaceutical & Chemical products 12 12%
Plastic & rubber industry 9 9%
Pulp & Paper Industry 9 9%
Sugar Industry 6 6%
Textiles and Garments Industry 11 11%
Transport - Rail Products, Automobile, spares
9 9%
manufacturing
Water process and irrigation products 9 9%
Respondent Experience in Operations
0 - 3 years 5 5%
4 -6 Years 25 25%
7-10 Years 65 65%
Unanswered 5 5%
Role of Respondents
Factory Manager / Unit Manager 39 39%
Operation Manager / Head of Operations 20 20%
Plant Manager / Plant in Charge 15 15%
Production Manager / Production in Charge 24 24%
Unanswered 2 2%
Region of Respondents
Northern 20 20%
Southern 31 31%
Eastern 22 22%
Western 26 26%
unanswered 1 1%
Plant Automation /SCADA/DCS/PLC in Operations
Available 55 55%
Not available 45 45%
Scale of Production
High 10 10%
Average 54 44%
Low 36 36%

Table 2. Statistical Calculation Results Continued…
Attributes
Descriptive Statistics Range of Salary Company Company Company Company

Key Factors Experience Increment Sales and risk Procurement Quality
Profit Policies Policies Policies
Sample total, Σx 713 253 319 349 351 427
Sample size, n 100 100 100 100 98 99
Sample mean, Σx/n 7.13 2.53 3.19 3.49 3.58 4.31
Sample variance, s2 7.51 0.70 0.80 0.88 0.93 0.63
Sample standard 2.74 0.83 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.79

deviation, s
Mean squared 7.43 0.69 0.79 0.87 0.92 0.62

deviation
Root Mean Squared 2.73 0.83 0.89 0.93 0.96 0.79

Deviation
Corrected sum of 743.31 68.91 79.39 86.99 89.85 61.29

squares, Sxx
Raw sum of squares, 5827 709 1097 1305 1347 1903

Σx2
Minimum Value 0 1 1 1 1 2
Maximum Value 10 5 5 5 5 5
Range 10 4 4 4 4 3
Lower quartile, Q1 6 2 3 3 3 4
Median, Q2 8 3 3 3 4 4
Upper Quartile, Q3 10 3 4 4 4 5
Interquartile range, 4 1 1 1 1 1
IQR
Mode 10 3 3 3 3 5

Table 2. Statistical Calculation Results Continuation...
Attributes
Descriptive Statistics Supply On-Time Customer Customer Encouraging Performance

Key Factors Chain & Delivery Relations Feedback process & Operation
Sourcing response response Innovation Excellence
Process
Sample total, Σx 340 459 435 450 282 341
Sample size, n 100 100 100 100 100 100
Sample mean, Σx/n 3.40 4.59 4.35 4.50 2.82 3.41
Sample variance, s2 0.69 0.41 0.55 0.52 1.54 0.89
Sample standard 0.83 0.64 0.74 0.72 1.24 0.94

deviation, s
Mean squared deviation 0.68 0.40 0.55 0.51 1.53 0.88
Root Mean Squared 0.82 0.63 0.74 0.71 1.24 0.94

Deviation
Corrected sum of 68 40.19 54.75 51 152.76 88.19

squares, Sxx
Raw sum of squares, 1224 2147 1947 2076 948 1251

Σx2
Minimum Value 1 3 2 2 1 1
Maximum Value 5 5 5 5 5 5
Range 4 2 3 3 4 4
Lower quartile, Q1 3 4 4 4 2 3
Median, Q2 3 5 4 5 3 3
Upper Quartile, Q3 4 5 5 5 4 4
Interquartile range, IQR 1 1 1 1 2 1
Mode 3 5 5 5 3 4

Table 3. Operation Management Key Attributes and Score Ratings
No of Respondents based on Score Ratings
Attributes No Very Low -2 Average -3 High-4 Very

Response Low -1 High-5
Salary Increment 0 12 32 48 7 1
Company Sales and Profit 0 1 23 38 32 6
Company risk Policies 0 2 10 40 33 15
Company Procurement Policies 2 2 9 35 34 18
Company Quality Policies 1 0 2 14 34 49
Supply Chain and Sourcing 0 3 6 46 38 7

Process
On-Time Delivery Commitment 0 0 0 8 25 67
Customer Relationship 0 0 2 10 39 49
Management
Customer Feedback Responses 0 0 1 10 27 62
Encouraging Process Innovation 0 16 27 28 17 12
Performance & Operation 0 2 15 34 38 11

Excellence
Figure 27. Relations & Trends (Sector/Region/ Experience/raw material Shortage)

5.3 Karl Pearson Coefficient - Simple Correlation
Table 4. Karl Pearson Coefficient – Simple Correlation Results within Groups
Group A Salary Increment (X) 0 12 32 48 7 1 r1
Company Sales and Profit (Y) 0 1 23 38 32 6 0.785
Group B Company risk Policies (X) 0 2 10 40 33 15 r2
Company Procurement 2 2 9 35 34 18 0.990

Policies (Y)
Group C Company Quality Policies 1 0 2 14 34 49 r3
Supply Chain and Sourcing 0 3 6 46 38 7 0.454

Process
Group D On-Time Delivery 0 0 0 8 25 67 r4

Commitment
Customer Relationship 0 0 2 10 39 49 0.937

Management
Customer Feedback 0 0 1 10 27 62 r5
Responses
Group E
Encouraging Process 0 16 27 28 17 12 0.202
Innovation
Group F Company Sales and Profit 0 1 23 38 32 6 r6
Performance & Operation 0 2 15 34 38 11 0.962

Excellence
The Simple correlation using Karl’s Pearson Method helps to find the coeffficient of
correlation between two variables X & Y for calcualtion and Obtain results to identify
the coefficient r1,r2 ,r3,r4,r5,r6.
Figure 27 & Figure 28 Indicates actual direct relationships based on the survey response
along with trendlines, whereareas table 4 displays the calculation results of Karl’s
Pearson Simple correlation coeffient between two variables of each Groups.

Figure 28. Relation Comparison Bar chart & Trend Analysis
6.Conclusions
The correlation coefficient of Group A – Salary Increment versus Sales and Profits r 1 –
0.785 which is high & positive. correlation coefficient of Group B Risk Policy Versus
Procurement Policies r2- 0.990 also seem high & Positive. correlation coefficient of
Group C Quality policies versus Supply Chain and Sourcing Process r 3- 0.454 seems
neither less nor high still it is positive greather than less & below moderate. Correlation
coefficient of Group D On-Time Delivery commitement versus customer relationships
r4 – 0.937 shows high positive correlation. The coefficient of Correlation in Group E
Customer Feedback response versus encouraging innovation r5 – 0.202 show a positive
correlation but value is less than moderate thus no correlation between Group E
attributes. Correlation coefficient of Group F Company Sales & Profits versus
Performance and Operation Excellence r6 – 0.962 indicates high postive correlation
between two variables on stratified data’s. And each attributes contributes it’s impact of
Financial Risk in various ascpects which serves as Opportunity & threat for Enterprise.
Nevertheless, the results show positive correlation may vary with the size of sample &
Percentage. This results has definite limitation since the sample size count is only
limited to 100 firms in distributed regions across the Indian Nation & accuracy of data
provided by the respondents were limited to firms confidencial data, balance sheet’s or
financial statement are not scrutinized and remains open for further and future Research.

7.References
Asif, Muhammad & Fisscher, Olaf & Bruijn, Erik & Pagell, Mark. (2010). Integration
of management systems: A methodology for operational excellence and strategic
flexibility. Operations Management Research. 3. PP 146-160.
Babbar, Sunil & Behara, Ravi & Koufteros, Xenophon & Huo, Baofeng. (2017).
Emergence of Asia and Australasia in Operations Management Research and
Leadership. International Journal of Production Economics 184 (2017) 80–94.
Bromiley, Philip & Rau, Devaki. (2016). Operations management and the resource-
based view: Another view. Journal of Operation Management 41, 95-106.
Brandon-Jones, Emma & Dutordoir, Marie & Neto, Joao & Squire, Brian. (2017). The
impact of reshoring decisions on shareholder wealth. Journal of Operations
Management, 49-51, 2017, 31-36.
Benstead, Amy & Stevenson, Mark & Hendry, Linda. (2017). Why and how do firms
reshore? A contingency-based conceptual framework. Operations Management
Research. 10, 85–103
Drake, David & Spinler, Stefan. (2013). OM Forum —Sustainable Operations

Management: An Enduring Stream or a Passing Fancy? Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, Vol.15, No.4, PP.689-700
Größler, Andreas. (2010). The development of strategic manufacturing capabilities in

emerging and developed markets. Operations Management Research. 3. PP 60-67.
Goodale, John & Kuratko, Donald & Hornsby, Jeff & Covin, Jeffrey. (2011). Operations
management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations
control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation
performance. Journal of Operations Management. 29. 116-127.
Hartmann, Julia & Benoit (nee Moeller), Sabine. (2014). Chain Liability in Multitier
Supply Chains? Responsibility Attributions for Unsustainable Supplier Behavior.
Journal of Operations Management, Vol 32 (2014), 281–294.
Helleno, André & Pimentel, Carina & Ferro, Rodrigo & Santos, P. & Oliveira, Maria &
Simon, Alexandre. (2015). Integrating value stream mapping and discrete events
simulation as decision making tools in operation management, The International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 80.
Hitt, Michael & Xu, Kai & Carnes, Christina. (2015). Resource Based Theory in
Operations Management Research. Journal of Operations Management 41, 77-94.
Kaipia, Riikka & Holmström, Jan & Småros, Johanna & Rajala, Risto. (2017).
Information sharing for sales and operations planning: Contextualized solutions and
mechanisms. Journal of Operations Management 52, 15-29.

Kulkarni, Shailesh & Apte, Uday & Evangelopoulos, Nicholas. (2014). The Use of
Latent Semantic Analysis in Operations Management Research. Decision Sciences, A
Journal Decision Science Institute, Vol 45. No.5, 971-994.
Medini, Khaled & Andersen, Ann-Louise & Wuest, Thorsten & Christensen, Bjørn &
Wiesner, Stefan & Romero, David & Liu, Ang & Tao, Fei. (2019). Highlights in
Customer-driven Operations Management Research. Procedia CIRP 86 (2019) 12–19.
Rolland, Erik & Patterson, Raymond & Ward, Keith & Dodin, Bajis. (2010). Decision
Support for Disaster Management. Operations Management Research. 3. PP 68-79.
Subramanian, Nachiappan & Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan. (2012). A review of

applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management. International
Journal of Production Economics. 138. 215–241.
Söderberg, Lennart & Bengtsson, Lars & Kaulio, Matti. (2017). A model for
outsourcing and governing of maintenance within the process industry. Operations
Management Research 10, 20–32.
Shigemori, Hiroyasu. (2013). Quality and Operation Management System for Steel
Products through Multivariate Statistical Process Control. Proceedings of the World
Congress on Engineering 2013 Vol I, WCE 2013, July 3 - 5, 2013, London, U.K.
Terwiesch, Christian & Olivares, Marcelo & Staats, Bradley & Gaur, Vishal. (2019). A
Review of Empirical Operations Management over the Last Two Decades.
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 22, Issue 4.
Tsolakis, Naoum & Srai, Jagjit. (2018). Mapping supply dynamics in. renewable
feedstock enabled industries: A systems theory perspective on ‘green’ pharmaceuticals.
Operations Management Research 11, 83–104
Xiang Li (2014). Operations Management of Logistics and Supply Chain: Issues and
Directions, Hindawi Publishing Corporation Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society.
Volume 2014, 1-7.
Zhang, Fuqiang & Wu, Xiaole & Tang, Christopher & Feng, Tianjun & Dai, Yue.
(2020). Evolution of Operations Management Research: from Managing Flows to
Building Capabilities. Production and Operations Management, June 2020.
*****

5.a.operation Management in ERM Perspective 15-Jan-3155-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

5.a.operation Management in ERM Perspective 15-Jan-3155-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strad Research https://doi.org/10.37896/sr8.

1/015 ISSN: 0039-2049

ROLE OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT FROM THE

Mr. Nagarajan Muthukrishnan

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 139 http://stradresearch.org/

ROLE OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT FROM THE

Keywords: Operations Management, Resources, Supply Chain, Enterprise Risk Management

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 140 http://stradresearch.org/

ROLE OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT FROM THE

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 141 http://stradresearch.org/

Grobler, Andreas. (2010) has done an exploratory paperwork through

Nachiappan Subramanian and Ramakrishnan Ramanathan (2012) have reviewed

Hiroyasu Shigemori (2013) has proposed a new quality and operation

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 142 http://stradresearch.org/

Shailesh S. Kulkarni, Uday M. Apte and Nicholas E. Evangelopoulos (2014)

Xiang Li (2014) had done a review on Operations Management. He addresses

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 143 http://stradresearch.org/

Sunil Babbar, Ravi S. Behara, Xenophon A. Koufteros, Baofeng Huo (2017)

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 144 http://stradresearch.org/

Khaled Medini, Ann-Louise Andersen, Thorsten Wuest, Bjorn Christensen,

3.Objectives of the Study

i. To identify the response of respondent by conducting field survey and risk

Literature Review Data collection & Analysis Summary of Results

Figure 1. Research framework

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 145 http://stradresearch.org/

5.Results & Findings

Figure 2. Sector Pie Chart

15 Respondent responded from agricultural products firm respondents; 12 respondent

Figure 3. Number of Respondent (Y-axis) versus Their Experience (X-axis)

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 146 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 4. Percentage & Role of respondents

Figure 5. Region of Respondents in Percentage

Figure.5 Indicates respondent Regions - 31 respondent belongs to southern region and

Figure 6. Plant Process - Automation and Manual Modes of Operations

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 147 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 7. Percentage of respondent Anticipated COVID 19 Crisis

31 respondents anticipated the COVID crisis and 69 Respondents didn’t anticipate.

Figure 8. Raw Material Shortage Response analysis

Figure 9. Frequency of failure

17 respondent faced frequent failure/ breakdown of machineries in their firm and 83

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 148 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 10. Frequency of Power failure

Figure 11. Payment issues with Vendor/ Suppliers

Figure 12. Delay in supply of materials by supplier/ vendor

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 149 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 13. Failure of operation inefficient workers & accidents

6 respondent often facing interruption in operation with inefficient employees, 46

Figure 15. Production Scale range

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 150 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 16. Annual Increment Scale range for employees

Figure 17. Company Sales & Profit ratings

Figure 18. Company Risk Policies ratings & range

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 151 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 19. Company Procurement Policies ratings & range

Figure 20. Company Quality Policies ratings & range

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 152 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 22. Company On-time Delivery ratings

Figure 23. Company Customer Relationship Ratings

49 respondent’s rate 5 (very high) about their customer relationship; 39 respondent’s

Figure 24. Customer Feedback response Ratings

62 respondent’s rates 5(very high) for responding customer’s feedback; 27 respondent’s

VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1, 2021 153 http://stradresearch.org/

Figure 25. Company ratings on Encouraging innovation