Talk:Operations management

Explain Gamma

In the Metrics section, an author specifies "Flexibility: mix, volume, gamma" without explaining what those three terms mean. If someone around here knows what they are, please explain or replace with non-jargony terms.

Resolved

--Mrflip (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of sub topics may need to be listed

These include:

Root cause analysis

Cause-and-effect analysis

Benchmarking

Statistical Process Control Charts

Customer-driven Processes

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

Mistake-Proofing

Poka-Yoke

Process re-engineering

Change Management

TQM

Malcolm Baldridge Criteria

Workflow analysis

Management by fact

Setup reduction

Work breakdown structure etc

Linear Programming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.150.118 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

DoneLbertolotti (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest that many of these "sub-topics" are independent methods and/or techniques in their own right and deserve their own separate Wikipedia page with brief mention and link under Operations Management. "Linear Programming" for example as a standalone mathematical technique that just happens to be used in OM. Similarly TQM could be included under the banner of Quality Management just as easily (and separately) from Operations Management. Work Breakdown Structures can be considered a technique of Project Management just as much as Operations Management. And so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Glossop (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Glossop Blue links indicate pages that already exist, red links the reverse. However we can redirect some pages as well.Lbertolotti (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have modified the "See also" section

If a separate page of "List of Operation Management Topics" is needed, welcome to relocate this section

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operations management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131113190247/http://atmae.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=227&Itemid=48 to http://atmae.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=227&Itemid=48

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Coverage of service sector

@Lbertolotti, Three-quarter-ten, and Trackteur: I am working with an editor who is very new to Wikipedia, but who has substantial experience in the field of operations management, especially with respect to that concept is applied to service industries.

The editor reached out to Wikimedia through the OTRS system and I offered to help. The editor noted that this existing article has fine coverage of operations management but it is almost completely restricted to the manufacturing world and has almost no coverage of the service world.

One obvious approach would be to expand the current article to include coverage of services. However given that the current article is 57K, Adding substantial coverage of the service sector would come close to doubling it, which would move it to the size that we recommend splitting, so rather than integrating the material and then figuring out how to split it out, I suggested working on a draft article that emphasized operations management in the context of service industries.

That draft can be found here: User:Rgschroeder12/sandbox

I am looking for feedback on what we should do next. We obviously cannot move that draft into mainspace with the title operations management. One obvious option is to create an article with the title "Operations management for service industry". However, that would leave us with the asymmetry of an article with a simple title "operations management" which emphasizes manufacturing, and a nonparallel title for the service industry. If we did that, I think this article should have a hat note.

Another option is to convert this title into a dab page. This article would be moved to "operations management for manufacturing", and a page would contain links to both articles.

There may be other options, but my current thinking is that this last suggestion is the best option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC) A similar option would be to make "Operations management" the dab page, change this article to "Operations management (manufacturing)" and make the draft "Operations management (services)" --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, in keeping with WP:Summary style and WP:SPINOFF, the best path is to have a parent article titled Operations management that is short and overview-level, take much/most of the content that is currently here and split it off into a new child article titled Operations management in manufacturing, and then put the new/draft content in another sibling article titled Operations management in the service sector. The "in" naming follows a classic pattern in WP articles of "Parent topic" article with sections overviewing for {{Main|Parent topic in context X}}, {{Main|Parent topic in context Y}}, etc. — ¾-10 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This issue is similar to the logistics article: business logistics and military logistics end up being too large for being in the same article. The best solution is ¾-10 solution. Big disciplines end up being structured as the chemistry, biology and the economics articles. Lbertolotti (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)