Shortcomings and

benefits associated
with the
implementation of MRP
packages: a survey
research
Marcello Braglia and
Alberto Petroni

The authors
Marcello Braglia is a Lecturer in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear and Production,
University of Pisa, Italy.
Alberto Petroni is a Lecturer in the Department of
Industrial Engineering, University of Parma, Italy.
Keywords
MRP, Materials management, Packaging industry,
Implementation, Logistics
Abstract
This paper present the results of a study of material
requirements planning (MRP) implementation in the
packaging machinery-building industry. The research, in
particular, has addressed such issues as management and
employee responses and the actual versus expected
financial and production/logistics benefits. Some of the
findings are that, generally, benefits of MRP packages
include higher productivity and product quality, that
attitudes towards the installations before installation
were positive, that the majority of larger companies
would purchase more advanced and integrated systems
(MRP II and ERPs) in the future and that supplier
involvement and project planning (this latter for larger
firms) were important components of the effective
management of MRP packages introduction.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . pp. 428438
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0957-6053

Introduction
Over the last decade, there has been a
widespread concern among academicians and
practitioners about the increase of performance associated with the introduction of
material requirements planning (MRP) within the manufacturing environment (Hsieh and
Kleiner, 1992; Ang et al., 1994). Such a
formal production and inventory control
process, has become invaluable to many of
the organizations that have adopted it. It is
attracting renewed attention as more managers recognize its merits as a foundation for
just-in-time, total quality management and
computer-integrated manufacturing.
This paper presents the findings of a
research project exploring the organizational
conditions which are a support or an obstacle
to sound adoption and implementation management of MRP packages.
MRP packages help manufacturers determine precisely when and how much material
to purchase and process based upon a timephased analysis of sales orders, production
orders, current inventory and forecasts. They
ensure that firms will always have sufficient
inventory to meet production demands, but
not more than necessary at any given time.
MRP will even schedule purchase orders and/
or production orders for just-in-time receipt.
MRP modules take the guesswork out of
purchasing by automatically calculating material requirements, and coordinating
purchase orders and production orders for
timely receipt. Unrealistic manufacturing
plans can be easily identified, which may arise
when there is not enough time to manufacture
an intermediate for a target production date,
or if a vendor is unlikely to deliver materials
by the time they are required.
Since MRP determines requirements based
on a master production schedule, the modules
offer several ways to help keep the schedule
current. For instance, production orders may
be scheduled based upon current customer
orders and/or inventory levels, thus accommodating both ``make to order'' and ``make to
stock'' procedures. The master production
schedule can also include product forecasts,
which may be calculated automatically using
data from sales or production history.
This paper has been supported by CNR and INFM
funding. Dr Braglia is a member of INFM section
of Parma.

428

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

Despite the growth in MRP systems sales

worldwide, their implementation is often a
cumbersome process (Manthou et al., 1996;
Ritter, 1992). There are still, in fact, many
problems involved with the effective running
of MRP/MRP II (Smith, 1993; Turnipseed et
al., 1992) and a general lack of confidence in
the system is frequently reported (Clode,
1993). The investment costs are seldom
higher than the expenses associated with
training, consultancy and support. There are
many reasons for this.
First of all there is the complexity of the
MRP, which, of course, is a relative concept
varying according to the level of knowledge
and experience available inside the firm prior
to implementation (Wortmann, 1998; Wilson
et al., 1994; Luscombe, 1994). There are
usually several parameters to be initiated
when implementing standard software (Bancroft et al., 1997).
Second, a considerable amount of intensive
training is required. In fact, even though endusers are usually trained on a limited amount
of functionality, key-users need to acquire
considerable technical competence.
Also, a critical factor making implementation a hard task is that the implementation of
MRP packages is often combined with restructuring of business processes. It is a
feature common to large as well as smaller
firms that adoption of advanced logistics
techniques are coupled with an increased
integration of different functional areas and
organizational units, according to the firm's
work flows.
One of the issues which is largely felt to be
critical is the resistance of managers and
personnel to organizational change. In this
regard, several authors have underlined the
importance of a sound involvement of shopfloor workers (Sommer, 1990, Weill et al.,
1991). The success of MRP in a job-shop
environment is greatly dependent on the
attitudes of executive and middle-level management that operate any company, especially
job shops (Brucker et al., 1992).
In general terms, many re-implementations
of manufacturing resource-planning systems
are the result of a failure to implement
business changes along with the software.
Going from a basic to a more modern system
is fraught with the initial danger that people
will not understand the capabilities and will
simply map the same processes onto the new
system.

One of the principal reasons why MRP and

other large technologically sophisticated systems fail is that organizations simply
underestimate the extent to which they have
to change in order to accommodate their
purchase. The effective management of technological change requires transformational
leadership (Brown, 1994).
Based on the themes outlined above, a
survey has been carried out within the
packaging machinery industry, which was
chosen for the vitality shown over the last
years in the adoption of such systems. The
choice of this specific industry is motivated by
the following reasons:
.
These manufacturers represent the backbone of some regional economies of
northern Italy. In fact Italian machines
are in use in over 150 countries, mostly in
European markets, the USA and Japan,
as well as in the newly industrialized
countries of Asia. In recent years, the
Italian trade balance in the industry has
been positive for all major countries
(including Germany and Japan), reaching
a record of over 1.7 million US dollars.
While about 85 per cent of production is
sold abroad, the industry is still able to
fulfil more than 60 per cent of demand on
the national level.
.
That the machinery-building manufacturing environments are gaining in terms
of production planning issues. The problems which arise with this respect are so
relevant that most of the major MRP and
ERP commercial packages (see for instance BAAN IV) tend to include
modules specifically devoted to these
types of firms.
It is worth noting that both the research
framework and the results obtained may
generally be representative of any firm belonging to the machinery-building industries
(e.g. machine tools, wood machinery manufacturers and so on). On the other hand, when
dealing with other types of production (e.g.
process, one-of-a-kind, batch etc.) the emphasis placed on some of the items considered
in our study will probably vary. For example,
the problems relating to the complexity and
management of the bill of materials and/or the
job order are different in a packaging
machinery manufacturer to a chemical firm.
The structure of the paper is as follows. The
next section presents an overview of the

429

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

context investigated, the following section is

about the method of research, the penultimate illustrates the major findings and the
final section is finally devoted to the managerial implications of the research.

Industry overview
The Italian Packaging and Packing Machinery Manufacturers have set up production
systems capable of designing and producing
machinery for every phase of the packaging
process through careful specialization in all
facets of manufacturing, whether for complete or semi-finished systems.
The foundation of this success is the great
tradition in precision mechanics which the
companies active mainly in the industrial
district of Emilia-Romagna have inherited.
The industrial district is characterised by a
low level of vertical integration, which has
caused the existence of complex interorganizational relationships to be established.
In recent years, Italian manufacturers did
not let themselves be dragged along in the
blind rush for technological innovation. It was
rather the simplification of production processes, which led to a renewal of the industry.
The trend towards the research and development of new automation techniques for the
purpose of increasing the efficiency of the
machines and reducing changeover times was
the decisive one. While about 70 per cent of
production is sold abroad, the industry
remains the main supplier for Italian manufacturers since it is still able to fulfil more than
80 per cent of demand at a national level.
A full 60 per cent of employees in the
industry work in the areas of planning and
testing, as opposed to 40 per cent working
directly in production.
We can also observe the use of original
technology at every level of the production
process. A major part of planning is devoted
to developing machines and systems for
automatic packaging.

Industry structure
Over the years, members of the packaging
machinery industry have created a pyramidshaped structure (the three-tiered system)
dominated by a small group of larger firms
referred to as prime contractors (Table I).

Companies of this first tier typically manufacture products of high complexity and
operate on the global market. Their competitive environment is very tough since tenderbased competition forces these firms to be
evaluated not only on the quality of the final
product (which has to be fairly customised)
but also on the overall process. Their distinctive competence is mainly related to the
ability to undertake large project and calls for
capabilities in integrated product design,
manufacturing development and product
support.
Second-tier companies have responsibilities
which include the provision of proprietary
products or complete subsystems such as
machines for different uses. Second-tier firms
typically develop moderately complex products or standardised components to be
assembled further on into final packaging
lines. A peculiar feature is that such companies feel a strong pressure to reduce time-tomarket, although their ability to manage the
product development is low, since no true
development responsibility is usually assigned
to them.
Third-tier firms are manufacturers of basic
electronic and mechanical components and
service-providing firms. Because of the less
specialized nature of the work required, the
pool of firms capable of providing products
and services is usually larger at this level and
many companies involved therein are also
active in other industries. For the most part,
however, this structure tends to foster specialization among the firms and ensures
stronger relationships.

The research
The results presented in this paper are derived
from a broad research program. The research
consisted of a postal survey which was carried
out by using self-administered questionnaires
addressed to each firm surveyed.
The initial target population (590 firms)
was obtained from listings provided by the
Italian Association of Automatic Packing and
Packaging Machinery Manufacturers
(UCIMA) and from the CIBUS database (an
international food exhibition annually held in
Parma, Italy). These were carefully verified
and cross-checked to ensure complete and
up-to-date information. A follow-up letter
and a telephone call were also used to

430

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

Table I Industry structure and production types

Companies

Products

First-tier
firms
Second-tier
firms

Aseptic packing complete lines, tray packing complete lines, form-fill seal lines, bombs filling
complete lines
Packaging: pallet wrappers, blister packers, automatic net loaders, clipping machines, bar code
systems, coders and markers, counters, sewing machines, chemical absorption dehumidifiers, labelling
machines (automatic, semiautomatic), bundling machines, cartoning machines, glueing machines,
weighing, pricing machines, thermo-forming machines, conveyors (for containers, packages, food
products in bulk)
Packing: storing plants, caps feeders, aligners (for cans, bottles, jars), containers opening and
emptying (aseptic and not, drums), cans openers, boxing machines, capping machines for jars and
bottles, filling machines (vacuum and various), packing machines (various, vacuum, net), deep
freezing (air, plates, cryogenic gas, cabinets, cells, tunnels), deep freezers, de-aerators, dosing
machines (for liquid, semiliquid, pasty and various products), forming machines, pouches fillers,
wrapping machines, whole meat packing machines (vacuum), tubes filling machines, washing plants
for containers, metal detector, straw applying machines, sterile air modules, pasteurises after packing
(high pressure, steam, microwave, mixed), coolers after packing (rotating can, various), portioning
machines, pre-forming machines, cooling and stabilization after packing: units, drums hot filling,
closing and cooling, aseptic filling groups for various containers, tapping machines
Scales, chains, components (mechanical, oleodynamic, pneumatic, magnetic), steam injectors,
infusors, electronic measurement equipment, springs, motors (electric, pneumatic), transmission
gears, pumps (positive displacement, vacuum, feeding, motor driven), control boards, pressure,
temperature, capacity regulators, speed reducers, geared motors, control instruments, conveyors,
rubber and plastic pipes, nozzles, valves (aseptic, safety, pneumatic, electronic)

Third-tier
firms

maximize the response rate. A total of 119

firms were identified as MRP users and 61
responded resulting in a response rate of 51
per cent.
Within the sample we find companies large
enough to offer a complete range of products
on all world markets, alongside smaller firms
that are able to fill in the smaller niches in the
market, but also in a global frame of
reference. Considering that the problem of
packaging and packing food, chemical, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and industrial products
arises at the end of a manufacturing process
and for market gardening produce at harvesting, the machines and equipment,
whether single or inserted in a line, are part of
the following segments:
.
machines and equipment that carry out
sorting and cleaning operations as well as
preservation processing operations on the
products before or after primary packaging;
.
machines and equipment that carry out
cleaning and microorganism protection
operations on primary packing and on
closures before or after primary packaging;
.
machines and equipment for handling
products before primary packaging and
for accessory operations on them;

machines and equipment for handling

primary, secondary, shipping, empty and
full packing as well as closures, accessories and packing materials;
machines and equipment for primary
packaging of products including forming,
filling, closing and wrapping machines;
machines and appliances for secondary
packaging and for shipping packing including forming, filling, closing and
wrapping machines;
machines and equipment that carry out
image and identification operations on
packing and on products such as marking, printing and labelling;
machines and equipment that carry out
other operations on packing and on
products end of line machines and
equipment.

The objectives of the survey were to determine the following:

.
Whether and to what extent the expectations of management were being met by
the introduction of MRP packages.
.
The workforce response to MRP implementation.
.
The strengths and weaknesses of the
packages under manufacturing conditions.

431

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

.

The likely future orientations towards

more advanced solutions (like MRP II or
ERP).

Results
The major findings of the survey can be
referred to the main areas investigated. The
results were found to vary by the firm's size
rather than production type (``make to order''
versus ``make to stock'' procedures). This
suggests that the management of MRP
introduction has a common set of functional
characteristics which is independent of the
manufacturing environment. Accordingly,
separate analysis is illustrated for smaller and
larger organizations. To this purpose, it was
conventionally decided to include in the
former class those firms (n = 39) staffing less
than 99 employees and the remaining (n =
22) were considered as ``larger'' firms.
Rating of initial expectations against
actual experience after implementation.
Gold (1988) found that, when evaluating new
technologies, managers tend to underestimate
the time needed for effective use and, at the
same time, to overestimate the gains in
efficiency. Furthermore managers do not
usually consider the costs of gaining labour
acceptance of major innovations and make the
implicit assumption that the company would
convert all reduction in unit costs to profits.
This apparently does not occur in relation to
the adoption and implementation of MRP
packages, perhaps because of the level of
investment that these types of projects require.
Figure 1 rates the correlation of initial
expectations of management against the postinstallation experiences.

In larger firms, even though the relative

majority of the managers' expectations
were met, the degree of satisfaction is
generally lower than in smaller firms, with
only 8 per cent of the respondents of this class
being disappointed with the outcome. These
findings support the increase in positive
attitudes towards MRP packages after their
installation. Larger firms, furthermore,
found that they had more operating troubles
than predicted after the installation, but
the payback periods experienced were
shorter than forecasted. This finding and the
fact that most of the larger companies had
also had experience with management
packages before implementing MRP suggest a
positive view of MRP packages before installation which was, after all, maintained
after installation.
As for the decision-making process, it
is worth noting that in smaller companies,
80 per cent of the final decisions were made
by the board of directors, while in only 25 per
cent of the cases a feasibility analysis was
carried out prior to purchase. The majority
of these firms (62 per cent) found some
difficulty in justifying their investment project
and a good 72 per cent encountered resistance to their proposal. These findings
suggest that in smaller firms, senior management closely scrutinizes capital investment in
technology.
The situation is fairly unlikely for larger
organizations, where the percentage of cases
conducting a preventive feasibility analysis
rises to 53 per cent and the percentage of
firms encountering strong resistance to investment falls to 50 per cent. Again, for larger
firms there is an increasing concern among
managers that investment in MRP packages
must be able to stand on its own in regard to
return on investment.

Figure 1 Initial expectations rated against experiences after MRP implementation

432

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

Workers' response
The successful implementation of MRP
requires the support and appreciation of
shop-floor workers; and as the majority of the
cases did appear to be successful (see the
benefits and payback period discussions
below), it is likely that the managers did have
the opportunity to gain a true appreciation of
the workers' perspective. Figures 2 and 3
show management perceptions of the attitudes of workers towards the introduction of
MRP in their organization, before and after
their implementation respectively.
In general terms, management believes that
the majority (69 per cent) of workers have a
positive attitude towards such an innovation.
Larger firms report that the most commonly
perceived worker response was neutral before
installation (45 per cent) and favorable after
implementation (71 per cent). These figures
drop, respectively, to 30 per cent and 60 per
cent for smaller organizations. The earlier
lack of appreciation of the impact of MRP
tools may explain why there was a shift in
attitude after implementation, as workers
became more certain of their views. A greater

understanding of the impact of these tools

might have influenced the expectations of the
workers.
When interpreting these results, data
should be treated with caution since the
survey only addressed the management perceptions of employees' responses.
Involvement of shop-floor personnel
The introduction of MRP procedures will
ultimately result in a higher skilled and
generally remunerated staff. The modification
of the individual competencies associated
with the implementation of MRP techniques,
even if slow, is generally drastic. It may be of
interest, to this regard, to investigate whether
and to what extent, the workforce was
involved and consulted prior to the investment.
The degree of involvement of shop-floor
personnel is, a bit unexpectedly, extremely
low for both larger and smaller units of
analysis.
A total of 55 per cent of smaller firms report
that people affected by the innovation were
informed and consulted, or were involved in

Figure 2 Workers' responses before implementation

Figure 3 Workers' responses after implementation

433

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

working groups. This figure rises to 60 per

cent for larger firms. This finding can be
perhaps attributed to the fact that, at least in
the Italian context, it is not yet a usual
managerial practice to hold advance discussion with workers regarding future
rationalization plans.
Rating of suppliers' technical advising.
In a study of planning for the adoption of
advanced manufacturing techniques, Sohal et
al. (1992), found that one of the most
important sources of information was information gained from suppliers. Figure 4 shows
the perception of the quality of the technical
support provided to the respondents from the
chosen suppliers. This variable was measured
by asking respondents to make an evaluation
along a seven-point Likert scale.
The mean value is 4.38 (4.41 for larger
firms and 4,32 for smaller ones), and variance
3.21 with the majority of the companies (61
per cent), placing a value higher than or equal
to 5 to the level of supplier support, and only
19 per cent of them claimed it was ``poor''
(value less than or equal to 2).
What has been pointed out by more than
half of the respondents is that they had
frequent meetings with their suppliers during
the feasibility study stage.
Choosing the right vendor one who is
willing to act as a ``partner'' throughout
implementation and beyond is an important
aspect of making the switch from homegrown
software to an off-the-shelf MRP II product.
As far as the vendors' selection procedure is
concerned, it is worthy of note that several
criteria are more usually adopted (Table II).
Among these, the considerable importance
placed on technical capacity and follow-up

Table II Vendors' selection criteria most often cited

Criterion

Technical capacity
Degree of diffusion of the package
Follow-up service
Financial strength and size
Price
Delivery and installation time
ISO 9000 certification
Higher product customization
Geographical location
Others
Notes:

a
b

Smaller
meanb

Larger
mean

4.8
1.3
5.8
2.5
5.1
1.4
1.5
4.7
3.5
0.3

5.7
4.3
6.7
4.4
3.5
1.9
3.4
5.3
1.5
0.5

multiple answers were possible;

measured on a seven-point Likert scale

service is a further confirmation of the

relevance attributed to supplier support.
Future orientation
In the questionnaire a further area of research
concerned the future orientation of managers
towards the implementation of more sophisticated logistics package tools.
In Sohal et al.'s (1991) study of planning for
the adoption of advanced manufacturing
technologies, over 90 per cent of the respondents indicated that there had been more than
one AMT investment in their company.
In our study, it was found that over 48 per
cent of the respondents are considering
expanding standard MRP software through
either complementing them with more sophisticated features, or even their integration
with additional modules. Larger firms are, as
expected, more inclined to do so than smaller
ones (68 per cent versus 36 per cent).
The need for more functionality is in fact
widespread. Among the major areas of required improvement are (in order of assigned

Figure 4 Rating of supplier support (on a seven-point Likert scale)

434

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

importance): the integration of logistics solutions over more plants and warehouses
(multi-site applications), shop-floor scheduling and control, distribution and
transportation, financial services, items'
tracking and tracing, fixed asset management,
product data management and finally electronic data interchange (EDI).
For an increasing number of manufacturers, MRP II implementation means
replacing an old system, rather than introducing IT to the manufacturing control
function. Installing MRP II from fresh, at a
so-called greenfield site, is a tried and tested
procedure. Most of the large MRP systems
suppliers have well-established implementation procedures. But where a system is already
in place, the way forward is not always clear.
In only a few sporadic cases was a proper
extension in decision support of business
processes in an integrated way (which can be
gained through ERP systems) found. Also, a
few larger firms expressed their concern for a
generalized revision of the whole manufacturing philosophy (aiming to shift towards JIT
and OPT architectures).
Shortcomings and pitfalls
Table III shows the frequency of identification of some of the more commonly identified
shortcomings associated with the implementation of MRP systems.
Table III Shortcomings associated with the implementation of MRP
systems

N
Valid Missing

Size
Larger

Mean

Initial cost
Available service
Implementation time
CRP lacks
BOM explosion
Interfacing problems
Ancillary hardware equipment
End-users capabilities

22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3.64
3.18
4.36
4.86
4.41
3.59
2.16
4.95

Smaller Initial cost

Available service
Implementation time
CRP lacks
BOM explosion
Interfacing problems
Ancillary hardware equipment
End-users capabilities

39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4.54
4.79
5.26
3.18
3.18
2.72
3.85
5.90

Note: Perceptual measures on seven-point scale

The need to enhance the professional level of

individual skills is by far the greatest shortcoming signaled. This factor is, evidently,
strongly associated with implementation time,
which, not by chance, is the second (in order
of importance) factor mentioned. Respondents do usually report that the average time
required for successful implementation ranges
between six to 24 months.
Relevance has been placed on technological
problems, such as the unsuitability of MRP
systems to optimize the internal workflow (the
abbreviated statement in the table refers to
the lack of capacity in the Requirements
Planning functionality). In fact frequent
changes in schedules, a problem referred to as
nervousness, is an obstacle to successful
implementation of MRP systems.
One of the items, which has been investigated in the questionnaire, is the so-called
``Bills-of-material explosion''. Such a problem
is by its very nature fairly common, especially
among assemblers of products consisting of
interconnected or interwoven parts with lots
of variants. Apparently, such a shortcoming is
felt more in larger firms.
Again, interface with other existing systems
(i.e. MRP II, accounting, personnel management, CAD/CAM, etc.) is considered an
extremely low priority. The same conclusion
can be drawn for the presence of ancillary
hardware equipment.
Paradoxically, even though smaller firms
place lower importance on follow-up service
when selecting vendors, they tend to complain of a lack of support much more than
larger organizations.
Initial costs (this concept excluded explicitly the investment in training following
purchase) were cited most frequently by
respondents of smaller firms. As a matter of
fact, our study has witnessed that those firms
keeping an excessively worried eye on purchase price, are also those regarding MRP
packages with skepticism. More specifically,
in these cases, it is probable that the decision
to adopt MRP often simply follows standards
set by parent companies or by customer
companies and has not resulted in a complete
usage.
Benefits
Table IV depicts the perceived benefits
associated with the implementation of MRP
systems.

435

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

A host of different performance measures

have been hypothesized and submitted based
on the evaluation of respondents. In particular we have tried to follow the indications
derived from the literature review and common sense, which both indicate that benefits
may be circumscribed to three main areas:
cost, time and quality. It is evident that the
perceptions of the respondents mainly focus
on the first two factors, even though it is
interesting to note the unexpected emphasis
placed on the quality of products.
As expected, the strongest relevance is
placed on the reduction of both stock levels
and work in progress. There is a slight
difference between larger and smaller units of
analysis, which can be interpreted in terms of
the latter's concern for aspects that go beyond
the mere reduction of investment in circulating capital.
It is also evident that there is different
consideration for the delivery date. This fact
may be interpreted in view of the circumstance that smaller firms are generally
components manufacturers supplying a few
larger customers. They typically develop
moderately complex products or standardized
components to be assembled later. Furthermore, as far as the structure of supply is
concerned, these firms are granted long-term
exclusive contracts on each product but not
on each product family. In this way, competition between suppliers takes place for each
new product development project and not on
a day-to-day basis. Hence, the delivery date is
a vital condition for them.
The concept of productivity has been
logically split into the ideas of labor and
machine productivity. Results are aligned for

both these categories irrespective of the firm's

size.
Increased quality is associated (at least in
larger firms) with the reduction of defective
items. Also, MRP packages are considered to
be tools enhancing the firm's overall capacity
to keep under control the whole logistics
system in terms of:
.
higher items' traceability;
.
possibility of carrying out re-scheduling
of interventions;
.
possibility of making adjustments to
production planning over time;
.
urging an increase in the level of informatization of warehouses.

Managerial implications
Several insights can be gleaned from the
study's results, which have important implications for MRP systems management
One major issue is, in our view, that most
large manufacturers report that the support
available to them from suppliers is adequate
for their needs. This would suggest for these
kinds of firms that the main avenues for
improvement in the application of MRP
systems lie in effective technology management (interfacing, capacity requirement
planning features etc.).
Manufacturers developing effective management of MRP systems are advised that the
essential components of their strategy would
include a balanced mix of ingredients.
Some other insights can be gained from the
study:
.
Firms introducing MRP systems will
benefit from them provided that they had

Table IV The benefits associated with the implementation of MRP packages

Descriptive statisticsa

Mean

Lower stock level

Lower WIP
Respect of delivery dates
Quality control
Productiviy of machinery
Productivity of workforce
Planning adjustments
Increased technology awareness
Item traceabilty
More effective leadership
Valid N (listwise)

39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39

5.74
5.08
4.82
4.59
4,05
4.00
2.41
2.21
2.15
1.62

Notes:

a
b

Descriptive statisticsb

Mean

Lower stock level

Lower WIP
Productivity of machinery
Productivity of workforce
Item traceability
Planning adjustments
Increased technology awareness
Respect of delivery dates
Quality control
More effective leadership
Valid N (listwise)

22
22
22
22
22
21
22
22
22
22
21

6.27
5.55
4.73
4.27
3.95
3.95
3.05
2.95
2.86
2.77

size = smaller, value on seven-point scale;

size = larger, value on seven-point scale

436

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

some experience prior to making the

decision.
The implementation of MRP systems
proves a learning experience which is
useful in the implementation of more
sophisticated advanced logistics tools
(such as MRP II or ERP).
Personnel training is a practice which is
spread more in larger organizations than
smaller ones.
The higher the firm's level of training and
technical knowledge, the faster it will
recoup its investment.
Feasibility studies should include all
organizational and technical features in
the logistics context.
Vendor selection should be based mainly
on three factors: technical competence,
the functionality required by the system
and the availability of a follow-up service.
Even if, in the vast majority of cases
surveyed, the decision-making process
was typically a top-down one, a more
complete personnel involvement from
project inception is advisable, since the
success of MRP implementation is largely
dependent on the effectiveness perceived
by the workforce (which, has been shown,
is subject to strong resistance to change).
In other words, worker opposition to the
implementation of MRP systems is reduced when those who are affected are
consulted or brought into the decisionmaking process prior to the acquisition of
this technology.
Finally, support from top management
for MRP projects proved to be greater in
small organizations than in large organizations.

From the analysis of the benefits associated

with this technology, it can be concluded that
MRP packages have a substantial impact on a
variety of dimensions, which go beyond the
traditional performance of cost and time.
Investment in MRP systems may have a
number of less identifiable benefits which are
not usually factored into payback analyses.
Among these, a bit unexpectedly, we have
found that increased product quality is well
considered. An element of reflection is that
the cultural and organizational aspects associated with adoption of advanced logistics
techniques are still too underestimated. More
effective leadership, increased technology
awareness, diffusion of managerial culture are

still not perceived. Therefore, the importance

of a broader awareness of these aspects too
emerges quite clearly.

Conclusions
Generally the respondents to the survey found
that the expectations of management were
realized by their MRP systems. The managers
participating in the survey believed that the
reactions of the process workers were also
generally positive. This suggests that MRP
systems are moving into the mature phase of
their technology life cycle for the industry
represented by the participants. This observation is further supported by the fact that the
integration of MRP into the manufacturing
process was usually found to be acceptable.
There were some barriers to the implementation of MRP systems of which the most
significant are traced back to the effort in
terms of training and some technology-related
aspects.
The research presented in this paper aims
to go beyond a mere descriptive discussion of
the findings which the survey has revealed to
be relevant in describing firms' process of
adoption/implementation of MRP systems. In
particular, we are challenged to formulate
hypotheses of interpretation of the empirically
found phenomena.
The major evidence of this study is that the
sets of logistics techniques have little value per
se, but their potential is inherent to the firms'
capabilities. In other words, the sound adoption of MRP systems depends upon which
package is perceived to be suitable by the
company itself, since a number of factors
restrict the choice.
But the managerial perception of which
available systems are suitable for the company
and of their potential is, in turn, influenced by
factors such as the experience and competencies accumulated. The availability of
competencies and a positive cultural attitude
towards innovation is, in our view, the factor
most affecting implementation.
In fact, firms, which do not have such
strong skills and cultural openness, tend to
adopt techniques in a more confused manner,
drawn by external pressure rather than
pushed by internal commitment. The danger
is, in this case, that these types of firms may
look at logistics support techniques as turnkey
appliances and therefore, fail to understand

437

Shortcomings and benefits associated with MRP

Logistics Information Management

Volume 12 . Number 6 . 1999 . 428438

Marcello Braglia and Alberto Petroni

the importance of their implementation process and the necessity of integrating all
aspects that together make effective the
implementation of MRP systems.
Based on the considerations about the
generalization of the findings, future research
extensions will aim to adapt the research
framework to the analysis of other types of
production (e.g. make-to-stock, process industries, etc) in order to investigate possible
differences and peculiarities.

References
Ang, J.S.K., Yang, K.K. and Sum, C.C. (1994), ``MRP II
company profile and implementation problems: a
Singapore experience'', International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Bancroft, N.H., Seip, H. and Sprengel, A. (1997),
Implementing SAP R/3: How to Introduce a Large
System in a Large Organization, Manning, Greenich,
CT.
Brown, A.D. (1994), ``Implementing MRPII: leadership,
rites and cognitive change'', Logistics Information
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 6-11.
Brucker, H.D., Flowers G.A. and Peck R.D. (1992), ``MRP
shop-floor control in a job shop: definitely works'',
Production and Inventory Management Journal,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 43-6.
Clode, D.M. (1993), ``A survey of UK manufacturing
control over the past ten years'', Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 53-6.
Gold, B. (1988), ``Charting a course to superior technology
evaluation'', Sloan Management Review, Fall,
pp. 19-27.

Hsieh, P.J. and Kleiner B.H. (1992), ``New developments in

inventory and materials management'', Logistics
Information Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 32-5.
Luscombe, M. (1994), ``Customer-focused MRPII'',
Logistics Information Management, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 22-9.
Manthou, V., Vlachopoulou, M. and Theodorou, P. (1996),
``The implementation and use of material requirements planning systems in Northern Greece: a case
study'', International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 45 Nos 1-3, pp. 187-93.
Ritter, P. (1992), ``Making MRP work", Beverage World,
Vol. 111 No. 1519, pp. 64-8.
Smith, D.A. (1993), ``It's the implementation, not the
software!'', Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11
No. 10, pp. 46-52.
Sohal, A., Samson, D. and Ramsey, L. (1992), ``Manufacturing strategy implementation in Australia'',
International Operations, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Sohal, A., Samson, D. and Weill, P. (1991), ``Manufacturing and technology strategy: a survey of planning
for AMT'', Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 71-9.
Sommer, D.W. (1990), "The Swedes know how to do it'',
Industry Week, Vol. 240 No. 14, pp. 48-52.
Turnipseed, D.L., Burns, O.M. and Riggs, W.E. (1992), ``An
implementation analysis of MRP systems: a focus on
the human variable'', Production and Inventory
Management Journal. Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Weill, P., Samson, D.A. and Sohal, A.S. (1991), ``Advanced
manufacturing technology: an analysis of practice'',
International Journal of Technology Management,
(special issue on Manufacturing Strategy), Vol. 6
Nos 3/4, pp. 335-53.
Wilson, F., Desmond, J. and Roberts H. (1994), ``Success
and failure of MRP II implementation'', British
Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 221-40.
Wortmann, J.C. (1998), ``Evolution of ERP systems'',
Proceedings of the Conference of the Manufacturing
Value-Chain, Troon, Scotland.

438