BUSI 650 Week 8 ILP: Final Example

Parts That Work the First Time: An Operations Portrait of Blue Ridge Precision Molding as a Successful Organization

Abstract

Blue Ridge Precision Molding, a composite Virginia supplier that molds plastic parts for medical-device makers, has grown steadily for a decade by delivering parts that meet strict quality requirements on time. This paper describes the company's mission and uses the concepts of operations and supply chain management to explain its success. It argues that Blue Ridge succeeds because its operations fit a deliberate strategy: quality as a nonnegotiable qualifier, delivery dependability and engineering support as order winners and cost as a priority to match rather than lead. The paper examines the company's process design and capacity, lean practices, quality system and Six Sigma program, supply chain and sourcing risk, tooling project management, forecasting and planning and management systems, testing each against peer-reviewed research. It finds strengths in quality, delivery and continuous improvement and weaknesses in changeover-driven capacity losses, single-source resin exposure, optimistic tooling schedules and the uneven discipline of improvement teams. Five recommendations address those weaknesses.

Introduction

A medical device is only as reliable as its smallest part. A glucose monitor with a cracked housing, an inhaler with a sticking valve or a surgical stapler with a misformed trigger can fail a patient at the worst moment, and behind each of those parts stands a supplier. Blue Ridge Precision Molding is one such supplier: a composite company of about 220 employees in Forest, Virginia, that molds roughly 400 components for 14 device manufacturers and earned about $48 million in revenue last year. Its mission, set out in full in the project's organizational setting paper, commits the company to components that perform correctly on the first use and on every use after, so that the clinicians and patients who rely on finished devices can trust them.

This paper describes Blue Ridge as a successful organization and explains, using the concepts of operations and supply chain management, why it succeeds. Success here has concrete meaning. Across the last five years the company has grown revenue by an average of 7 percent a year, retained every major customer, maintained its ISO 13485 certification without a major finding and kept customer-reported defects near 140 parts per million. Its argument is straightforward: Blue Ridge succeeds because its operations are designed around a clear strategy and because its management systems keep improving those operations. Meredith and Shafer (2016) argue that operations create value when they are aligned with the organization's competitive strategy; Blue Ridge offers a working example of that alignment and of the places where it is incomplete.

The company's history helps explain its current position. It was founded in 1994 as a general-purpose custom molder serving appliance and automotive customers, and for its first decade it competed mainly on price. A downturn in those markets in the late 2000s pushed the founders to pursue medical work, which required a clean room, a certified quality system and a culture of documentation that the company did not then have. The transition took about five years and cost several customers who did not value the new capabilities, but it also changed the company's economics: medical customers place long-term programs, pay for validation work and rarely switch suppliers once a part is qualified. Today, medical components account for about 90 percent of revenue. That history matters for an operations analysis because it shows a strategic choice preceding operational change, the sequence the course readings recommend.

The paper proceeds through nine areas: operations strategy, process design and capacity, lean production, quality management, supply chain management, project management, forecasting and planning, management systems and performance measurement. Each section describes what the company does, applies the relevant concepts and examines research on whether such practices work. A final section offers recommendations.

Operations Strategy and Competitive Priorities

In the textbook's treatment, an operations strategy is the consistent pattern of choices about facilities, processes, people and suppliers that makes a firm good at what its customers value, and those choices are usually described by the priorities of cost, quality, delivery and flexibility (Meredith & Shafer, 2016). A central idea is that customers choose suppliers on the basis of order winners, the attributes that win business among acceptable competitors, while order qualifiers are attributes a supplier must have simply to be considered.

Blue Ridge's choices follow from its market. In medical devices, quality failures carry regulatory and human consequences, so any supplier without a strong quality system is excluded from consideration; quality qualifies but does not distinguish. What distinguishes suppliers, according to the company's customer surveys, is whether parts arrive when promised and whether the supplier's engineers help solve problems early. Blue Ridge competes on those, and it accepts that some lower-cost competitors in Mexico and Asia will win business where price dominates.

The strategy also shapes which customers the company pursues. Its sales team declines requests for quotes on high-volume commodity parts, such as simple caps and closures, where customers buy almost entirely on price and where a domestic molder's labor and overhead costs put it at a disadvantage. It actively seeks programs that involve tight tolerances, multiple materials, clean-room assembly or demanding validation, because those are the programs where engineering support and delivery reliability matter most. In effect, the company uses its operations strategy as a filter on its sales pipeline, which keeps its mix of work consistent with what its operations do well.

The question of trade-offs is central to this strategy. If a plant could improve every priority at once, choosing would be unnecessary. Boyer and Lewis (2002) put the question to supervisors and shop-floor workers at 110 plants that had invested in advanced automation, the very technology some writers said would make trade-offs obsolete. Respondents still saw priorities competing with one another, the authors reported, though the gaps were small and managers and operators did not perceive them in the same way. Blue Ridge's experience fits: its newer presses and automation narrowed the gap between flexibility and cost but did not close it, because every mold change still costs capacity and start-up scrap. The company's strategy of leading on delivery while matching on cost is therefore a genuine choice rather than a slogan, and it explains decisions elsewhere in the operation, such as holding finished-goods buffers for key customers that a pure cost leader would avoid.

Process Design and Capacity

Meredith and Shafer (2016) classify transformation processes along a spectrum from project and job shop through batch and flow to continuous processes, with the appropriate choice depending on product volume and variety. Blue Ridge uses two process types side by side. Its 15 highest-volume parts run in dedicated cells, each combining a press, a robot for part removal and automated vision inspection, close to a flow process. The remaining parts run in batches on 23 shared presses, where molds are changed according to the production schedule.

This hybrid design is a sensible response to the product-process relationship. High-volume parts justify dedicated equipment because the volume spreads the cost of automation; low-volume parts cannot, so they share equipment and accept changeovers. The design also creates the company's principal capacity problem. The textbook defines capacity as the maximum rate of output and distinguishes it from utilization and efficiency. Blue Ridge measures capacity through overall equipment effectiveness, the product of availability, performance and quality rates. Dedicated cells average about 80 percent; shared presses average about 60 percent, and the gap is almost entirely availability lost to changeovers and the start-up period after each change.

A simple calculation shows the scale. The shared presses undergo about 160 changeovers a month, averaging two hours each including start-up, which consumes roughly 320 press-hours. Across 23 presses running two shifts, that is about 7 percent of available time. Reducing average changeover time to one hour would return about 160 press-hours a month, the equivalent of adding nearly two presses without buying any.

Capacity planning at Blue Ridge also involves a strategic choice about cushion. The company deliberately keeps the clean-room presses at no more than about 85 percent planned utilization, accepting idle time in exchange for the ability to absorb urgent orders and engineering changes without missing delivery dates. That choice reflects the textbook's point that capacity decisions should support the competitive priorities: a cost leader would run equipment closer to full, but a delivery-focused supplier needs slack. The company's weakness here is that its capacity cushion is set by habit rather than analysis; it has not studied how much cushion its delivery performance actually requires.

Layout is a further consideration. The plant was laid out by press size, with small presses in one area and large presses in another, a functional arrangement typical of job shops. As dedicated cells were added, they were placed wherever floor space allowed, so materials for some cells travel the length of the building from receiving and finished parts travel back to shipping. The textbook's discussion of layout suggests that product-oriented arrangements reduce handling and lead time for high-volume items. A modest relayout that places the dedicated cells near the receiving and shipping docks, with resin drying and packaging alongside them, would shorten material movement and free space in the central area for the shared presses. The company has deferred this change because it would interrupt production for several weekends, but the savings in handling and the reduction in damaged packaging would likely justify the disruption within two years.

Capacity also depends on people. The dedicated cells require one operator for every three cells and a technician on call, while the shared presses require a technician for every changeover and frequent adjustment during start-up. As a result, the shortage of technicians described later in this paper is also a capacity constraint: on second shift, when fewer technicians work, changeovers are sometimes delayed until morning, idling presses for hours. Any plan to expand capacity therefore needs to address technician staffing alongside equipment.

Lean Production and Flow

Lean production, as Meredith and Shafer (2016) present it, seeks to eliminate waste in all its forms, including overproduction, waiting, transportation, excess processing, inventory, motion and defects, and to make work flow in response to demand. Blue Ridge began formal lean efforts four years ago with 5S in the clean room and has since added quick-changeover projects on two presses, total productive maintenance on the dedicated cells and visual production boards in every area.

The company's product mix shapes how lean applies. With hundreds of parts and irregular demand, a kanban card for every part would create small inventories that sit unused for months. Hopp and Spearman (2004) offer a way through this problem. Their paper contends that everyday usage had flattened both terms, and it offers tighter meanings: a system pulls when it puts a ceiling on the work allowed into production, and it is lean when it spends as little as possible on the inventory, idle capacity or extra time needed to absorb variability. Under those definitions, Blue Ridge can practice pull by capping the number of jobs released to the shared presses, and it practices lean whenever it reduces the variability, such as long changeovers or unplanned downtime, that forces it to hold buffers. Last year the company introduced such a cap, limiting released jobs on the shared presses to about 20. With throughput of roughly six jobs a day, Little's law implies an average flow time of a little over three days, compared with about five days before the cap, and the company's measured lead times fell accordingly.

Research supports treating lean practices as a system. Shah and Ward (2003) analyzed data from IndustryWeek's Census of Manufacturers on 22 lean practices and showed that the practices hang together in four groups, covering material flow, quality, equipment upkeep and workforce management, which jointly accounted for about 23 percent of the variation in plants' operational performance after accounting for other factors. Larger plants adopted more of the practices, they added, while union status and plant age made less difference than managers tend to believe. For Blue Ridge, the lesson is that its lean efforts are uneven across the bundles: maintenance and quality practices are mature, while just-in-time practices are limited to the work-in-process cap and human resource practices, such as cross-training operators across cells, remain informal.

Implementation research suggests that the company's product mix is not an excuse. Asking 432 lean practitioners across 83 plants of two multinational groups what managers must do for lean to take hold, Netland (2016) learned something reassuring: the same core success factors were endorsed almost everywhere, whatever the parent company, plant size, maturity of the effort or country. The study's respondents worked in large multinationals, but its finding that success factors are largely general implies that Blue Ridge should follow the same core practices other plants use rather than inventing an approach for its circumstances. The company's visual management also supports lean flow. Each shared press has a board showing the current job, the next two jobs in the queue and the time the next changeover is due, so technicians can prepare molds, materials and tools before the changeover begins rather than after the press stops. That simple practice, one of the first steps in any setup reduction effort because it moves work from the time the machine is down to the time it is running, has already cut about 20 minutes from the average changeover on the presses where it is used consistently.

The principal weakness in this area is changeover time: only two of 23 shared presses have been through quick-changeover projects, so most of the variability that drives buffers remains.

Quality Management and Six Sigma

Quality is the company's foundation. Its quality management system is certified to ISO 13485, which governs design controls, process validation, document control, training and corrective action for medical-device manufacturers. Every new part goes through installation, operational and performance qualification of its molding process before production, and each production lot is traceable from resin lot to shipment. Meredith and Shafer (2016) describe quality in terms of conformance to specifications, statistical process control and process capability; Blue Ridge monitors critical dimensions with control charts on every dedicated cell and requires a process capability index of at least 1.33 for critical features before releasing a part to production.

Beyond conformance, the company runs a Six Sigma program, now in its fourth year, with three trained black belts and about 20 green belts drawn from molding, quality, maintenance and engineering. Schroeder et al. (2008) used a grounded theory approach to propose a definition and theory of Six Sigma. Their conclusion was that Six Sigma's statistical toolbox is largely inherited from older quality programs, and that what is genuinely new is the way it organizes people: assigned roles and a fixed project sequence give management tighter control over improvement work while still letting staff from different departments investigate problems as a team. Blue Ridge's experience bears this out. Its most valuable projects, such as one that traced short shots in an inhaler component to a worn check ring and cut defects by more than half, succeeded because a black belt led a cross-functional team through a disciplined sequence of definition, measurement, analysis, improvement and control, not because of any single statistical technique.

The program also reveals a weakness. This year, a new plant manager set a target for every improvement team to halve defects within six months. Linderman et al. (2006) studied the tension between such goals and quality management traditions that distrust numerical targets. Ambitious targets, their data showed, paid off for teams that worked the method carefully and backfired for teams that treated it casually. At Blue Ridge, teams led by trained black belts responded well to the target, while two newer teams skipped measurement steps and reported improvements that later disappeared. The company's quality results are strong, but its improvement program depends heavily on a few experienced leaders, and stretch goals applied uniformly risk eroding the method's discipline.

The cost of quality offers another way to view the company's performance. The textbook distinguishes prevention and appraisal costs, spent to keep defects from occurring and to find them, from internal and external failure costs, incurred when defects are caught in the plant or reach the customer. Blue Ridge spends heavily on prevention and appraisal: process validation, automated inspection, control charting and training together cost an estimated 6 percent of revenue. Its internal failure costs, mainly scrap and rework, run about 3 percent of revenue, much of it start-up scrap after changeovers, and its external failure costs, including returned lots and customer-requested sorting, are under half a percent. That profile suits a medical supplier, for which a single external failure can cost far more than its direct expense by damaging customer trust, but it also shows that changeover scrap is a quality cost as well as a capacity loss, reinforcing the case for setup reduction.

Supply Chain Management and Risk

Meredith and Shafer (2016) treat supply chain management as the coordination of materials, information and money across the network of suppliers, manufacturers and customers, and they emphasize that supply chain design should fit the product and the strategy. Blue Ridge's supply chain has three main parts: resin suppliers and distributors upstream, toolmakers who build and repair molds and customers downstream who generally provide forecasts and place weekly releases against blanket orders.

Its most significant exposure is resin. Roughly seven in ten of its parts may be molded from only one specified resin, because each customer validated its device with that exact material and would need new testing, and perhaps a regulatory submission, to approve a substitute. Two polycarbonate grades account for nearly half of purchases, and each is produced at only one or two plants worldwide. Looking at hundreds of publicly announced supply failures, Hendricks and Singhal (2005) found that the companies involved trailed their benchmarks by close to 40 percent in stock performance over the surrounding three years, recovered slowly and became riskier in the market's eyes. Blue Ridge is privately owned, but the study's lesson that disruptions cause lasting damage applies to a supplier whose customers could not easily replace it.

Craighead et al. (2007) offer a framework for judging how severe a disruption would be. In their propositions, a disruption hurts more when the network is dense and complex and when the failing link is one the rest depend on, and it hurts less when the firm can see trouble coming and bounce back quickly; they also question practices such as aggressive supply base reduction and sourcing from clusters. Blue Ridge's resin supply is a critical node with limited recovery options, which by their reasoning makes a disruption potentially severe. Tomlin (2006) adds decision logic. In a model where a buyer can split purchases between a cheap but failure-prone supplier and a dependable but pricier one, he showed that, for a given supplier uptime, the less frequent but longer the disruptions, the more the firm should favor sourcing from the reliable supplier over holding inventory; mixed strategies and contingent rerouting can also be valuable. Resin plant outages are rare but long, so Tomlin's analysis points toward qualifying second sources rather than relying solely on inventory.

Blue Ridge has begun to act on this logic. It holds six to eight weeks of safety stock on the two critical grades and has started working with its two largest customers to qualify an alternative grade for their highest-volume parts. It also has a standing allocation agreement with its main distributor that gives it priority during shortages. The weakness is that qualification is slow and covers only a fraction of the exposed parts; most single-source parts still have no recovery path short of the customer's own requalification.

Downstream, the company's relationships with customers show both strengths and risks. Most customers share rolling forecasts and release orders weekly against blanket purchase orders, an arrangement that gives Blue Ridge visibility several months ahead. Two of its largest customers have gone further, sharing their own inventory levels of Blue Ridge parts each week, which lets the company plan production to keep those inventories within agreed ranges, a form of vendor-managed inventory. That collaboration has reduced emergency orders from those customers almost to zero. Other customers still send orders with little warning when their own forecasts prove wrong, and those orders account for most of the company's expedited production and overtime. Extending inventory sharing to more customers would reduce that volatility, although it requires customers willing to share data and systems that can exchange it.

The company's toolmaker relationships carry a different risk. Several molds are maintained only by the overseas toolmaker that built them, which means a major repair can take weeks while the mold is shipped abroad. Blue Ridge has begun bringing more mold maintenance in-house and building relationships with domestic shops that can repair molds built elsewhere, a recovery capability in the language of the disruption research.

Project Management for New Tooling

New business at Blue Ridge arrives as projects. When a customer awards a new part, the company manages the design, build and qualification of a mold, typically over 16 to 20 weeks, coordinating the customer's engineers, an outside toolmaker and its own process engineers. Meredith and Shafer (2016) present project management through the definition of activities and precedence relationships, critical path analysis, time-cost trade-offs and the management of risk and uncertainty. Blue Ridge schedules each tooling project with a critical path network, and the critical path almost always runs through mold fabrication and the first-article sampling that follows it.

The company's record on these projects is mixed: about 60 percent finish within two weeks of the date promised, while the rest slip by a month or more. Research on large projects helps explain why. Flyvbjerg (2014) reviewed megaproject research and described what he calls an iron law: large projects are consistently delivered over budget and behind schedule, and he contends that because rosy estimates help projects win approval, the ones that proceed tend to be the ones whose costs were most understated. Blue Ridge's tooling projects are small by comparison, but the mechanism is similar: schedules are quoted during competitive bidding, when there is pressure to promise short lead times, and they are built from the toolmaker's best-case estimates. The company's project management also has strengths. Each project has a single project engineer accountable from award to production release, weekly status reviews with the customer and a standard set of phase gates: design review, mold build, first-article inspection, process qualification and production release. Those gates make the work visible and give customers confidence that problems will surface early. Where projects slip, the cause is usually not poor execution within a phase but an unrealistic date for mold completion promised before the toolmaker's schedule was confirmed.

The weakness is an estimating process that does not learn from history. The company has records for more than 80 completed tooling projects but has never compared their actual durations with their quoted schedules to calibrate future estimates.

Forecasting and Planning

Customers send Blue Ridge rolling twelve-month forecasts and firm weekly releases, which feed a sales and operations planning meeting each month and a master schedule for the presses. Meredith and Shafer (2016) emphasize that forecasts are always wrong to some degree and that the planning system should measure forecast error and plan for it. Blue Ridge tracks forecast accuracy by customer and has found that customer forecasts beyond eight weeks are often inflated, especially for new products.

The company's planners adjust customer forecasts before they enter the schedule, using their knowledge of product launches, customers' inventory positions and past bias. Fildes et al. (2009) studied more than 60,000 forecasts from four supply chain companies and reported that managers changed forecasts often, that bold changes grounded in particular knowledge usually made them better, that minor tweaks rarely did and that upward revisions leaned toward wishful thinking. Blue Ridge's planners have applied this finding informally by adjusting only when they have specific information, but the company does not record the reasons for adjustments or measure whether they help. That gap matters because the master schedule, and therefore resin purchasing and press capacity, rests on the adjusted figures.

The monthly sales and operations planning meeting brings sales, operations, purchasing and finance together to reconcile demand with capacity and materials over a rolling six-month horizon. It is the place where the company's strategic choices become concrete: decisions to protect capacity for a key customer's launch, to build inventory ahead of a planned press overhaul or to decline an order that would jeopardize delivery to others. The meeting works well when attendance is complete and data are current, but it sometimes becomes a review of last month's problems rather than a plan for the months ahead. Keeping the agenda focused on the future, with past performance reviewed in the weekly operations meeting instead, would strengthen it.

Information Systems and Technology

Blue Ridge runs an enterprise resource planning system for orders, purchasing, inventory and costing, and a separate manufacturing execution system that collects cycle times, downtime reasons and scrap counts directly from the presses. The connection between them is the company's most important information asset, because it lets planners see actual press performance when they build the schedule and lets quality engineers link a customer complaint to the exact press, mold cavity, shift and resin lot that produced the part. Meredith and Shafer (2016) emphasize that information flows are as much a part of the supply chain as material flows, and traceability is where that principle is most visible in medical manufacturing: when a customer reports a problem, Blue Ridge can usually identify the affected lots within an hour.

The company's use of data is uneven, however. Downtime reasons are recorded for every stop, but they are reviewed mainly when a press performs badly, not systematically to find the largest losses across the plant. A monthly Pareto analysis of downtime by cause, which the existing data already support, would point improvement teams to the problems that cost the most capacity and would connect the information system more directly to the lean and Six Sigma programs.

Management Systems and People

Underlying the practices described above is a set of management routines. Each morning, area supervisors meet at visual boards showing the previous day's output, scrap, downtime and safety incidents, and problems are assigned owners and dates. Weekly operations reviews compare performance against targets, and a monthly business review links operational results to customer satisfaction and financial performance. Process technicians, the company's scarcest skill, are developed through a two-year apprenticeship with a community college, and supervisors are mostly promoted from their ranks.

Research suggests these routines matter. Through structured interviews with plant managers, one study rated how 732 mid-sized manufacturers in four countries monitored operations, set targets and managed people (Bloom & Van Reenen, 2007). Better practices were strongly associated with productivity, profitability, market value and survival, and the authors found a long tail of badly managed firms, especially where competition was weak or family firms passed management to the eldest son. Blue Ridge's daily boards, structured reviews and attention to developing technicians correspond to the practices that distinguished well-managed firms in that study. Safety is part of the same management system. Molding involves hot material, heavy molds, hydraulic presses and robots, and the company tracks safety incidents on the same daily boards as output and quality. Its recordable injury rate has been below the industry average for five consecutive years, a result the company attributes to treating near-misses as learning opportunities rather than occasions for blame. That culture of reporting problems without fear also supports quality, since operators who are comfortable stopping a press for a suspected defect prevent the defect from reaching a customer.

The company's weakness is in people management at the supervisor level: supervisors promoted for technical skill receive little preparation for managing people, and turnover among technicians, four of 22 last year, threatens the skill base on which quality and delivery depend.

Performance Scorecard

The table summarizes Blue Ridge's operating performance against its own targets.

The pattern is consistent with the strategy. The measures tied to the company's qualifiers and order winners, quality and delivery, are at or near target, while the measures that lag, shared-press effectiveness, tooling schedules and technician retention, are the areas the preceding sections identified as weaknesses.

Recommendations

Five actions would strengthen Blue Ridge's operations while preserving its strategy. They are ordered by their effect on the company's order winners: the first two protect delivery dependability, the third protects the credibility of the company's promises to new customers and the last two sustain the improvement capability on which quality and delivery depend. Together they require modest capital, mainly for quick-changeover equipment and qualification testing, and a larger commitment of management attention.

• Extend quick-changeover projects to the ten shared presses with the most mold changes during the coming year, aiming to bring average changeover time down from two hours to one. Owner: operations manager. Measure: shared-press OEE rising toward 70 percent.
• Qualify a second resin grade for the parts that make up the top half of revenue from single-source materials, working with customers in order of exposure, and maintain safety stock on critical grades until qualification is complete. Owner: supply chain manager. Measure: share of revenue with a qualified second source.
• Calibrate tooling quotes using the company's history of 80 completed projects, adding a contingency based on the actual distribution of overruns. Owner: engineering manager. Measure: share of projects finishing within two weeks of the quoted date.
• Require that improvement teams with stretch goals be led by trained black belts and pass a measurement-system review before their goals are set; give newer teams learning goals instead. Owner: quality manager. Measure: share of project gains still in place one year later.
• Create a supervisor development program covering coaching, feedback and scheduling, and review technician pay and career paths to reduce turnover. Owner: human resources manager. Measure: technician turnover below 10 percent.

Each recommendation targets a measure that lags while leaving the company's strategy unchanged.

Conclusion

Blue Ridge Precision Molding is a successful organization because its operations are aligned with a clear strategy. Its mission of components that never let a device down defines quality as the requirement for staying in the business, and its choice to compete on delivery dependability and engineering support explains its process design, its capacity cushion, its lean and quality programs and its supply chain practices. The course concepts, from competitive priorities and process types to lean flow, Six Sigma and supply chain risk, describe the company well, and research generally supports its practices. The same analysis reveals where the company has not yet followed its strategy through: changeovers that limit flexibility, single-source materials that threaten delivery, tooling schedules that promise too much and a dependence on a few skilled people. Addressing those weaknesses would let Blue Ridge keep the promise in its mission as it grows.

The analysis also suggests a broader lesson about operations management. Much of what makes Blue Ridge successful is not visible in any single practice: it is the consistency among practices, the way the capacity cushion, the quality system, the safety stock on critical resins and the morning boards all serve the same few priorities. The research reviewed here repeatedly points in the same direction, whether in the bundling of lean practices, the organizational structure of Six Sigma or the link between management practices and performance. Successful operations, on this evidence, come less from adopting the right tools than from building a system in which the tools reinforce one another and from managers who keep that system aligned with what customers value.

References

Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1351-1408. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2007.122.4.1351

Boyer, K. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2002). Competitive priorities: Investigating the need for trade-offs in operations strategy. Production and Operations Management, 11(1), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00181.x

Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The severity of supply chain disruptions: Design characteristics and mitigation capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x

Fildes, R., Goodwin, P., Lawrence, M., & Nikolopoulos, K. (2009). Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: An empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2008.11.010

Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409

Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). An empirical analysis of the effect of supply chain disruptions on long-run stock price performance and equity risk of the firm. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00008.x

Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. (2004). To pull or not to pull: What is the question? Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 6(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1030.0028

Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Choo, A. S. (2006). Six Sigma: The role of goals in improvement teams. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 779-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.08.005

Meredith, J. R., & Shafer, S. M. (2016). Operations and supply chain management for MBAs (6th ed.). Wiley.

Netland, T. H. (2016). Critical success factors for implementing lean production: The effect of contingencies. International Journal of Production Research, 54(8), 2433-2448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1096976

Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S. (2008). Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of Operations Management, 26(4), 536-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.06.007

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00108-0

Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks. Management Science, 52(5), 639-657. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0515