JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Vol. 2, No. 3. May 1982

A Study of the MRP Implementation Process

Edna M. White*
John C. Anderson*
Roger G. Schroeder*
Sharon E. Tupy*

ABSTRACT process and where major problems can be

This paper reports on a large-scale survey of
companies involved in MRP implementation. Sur-
vey responses are used to develop a profile of
problems typically encountered during the imple-
mentation process. Discriminant analysis is used
to determine which of those problems, and addi-
tional factors, appear to affect the success orfail-
ure of MRP implementation. Finally, compari-
sons are made between the problems encountered
during implementation and problems which were
found to significantly discriminate between suc-
cessful and unsuccessful MRP implemen tars.
Materials requirements planning (MRP) is prob-
ably the most rapidly growing system area in oper-
ations today. Hundreds of companies have imple-
mented or are in the process of implementing an
MRP system. Many more companies are evalu-
ating the applicability of MRP for their operations.
MRP literature gives many impressive testimoni-
als as to the results of successful implementation.
Unfortunately, case histories of unsuccessful
implementation efforts are also common [3, 41.
The potential MRP implementor may well be more
discouraged by difficulties than encouraged by
benefits.
Even in successful attempts, the implementa-
tion of an MRP system is a major undertaking for
any company. Cost, both in resources and in time,
is high. Additionally, since an MRP system inter-
faces with most functional areas, some degree of
turmoil within the company is probably unavoid-
able [6]. Any company attempting or considering
implementation of an MRP system needs infor-
mation on how to manage the implementation
*Operations Management Program, Graduate School of Business
Administration, University of Minnesota.
This study was partially supported by a grant from the APICS Edu-
cational and Research Foundation.
expected to occur.
A great deal of information is currently available
as to the best way to implement an MRP system.
Most of this research is in the form of personal
experience or case studies [e.g., 1, 131. The
detailed description of the implementation pro-
cess provided by these studies is certainly valu-
able. However, a wider perspective is also desir-
able. This report provides that perspective by
reporting on and analyzing the results of a survey
of MRP implementation.
A six-page survey was developed to explore the
current status of MRP in companies today. The
survey included questions about the respondent
companies, the current status of MRP at the com-
pany, the benefits and costs incurred, the nature
of the implementation process used and the prob-
lems faced during implementation. Question-
naires were sent to approximately 1,700 members
of the American Production and Inventory Con-
trol Society (APICS) in the Upper Midwest. Of
this population, 679 (40%) of the companies
responded. Of the respondents, 422 (62%)
reported an MRP system in some stage of devel-
opment. This is the largest and most comprehen-
sive survey on MRP undertaken to date. A full
report on the survey is found in MRP: A Study of
Implementation and Practice, a manuscript
funded by and available through APICS.
This paper will deal specifically with the reasons
why MRP is being adopted, the problems encoun-
tered during implementation, and the impact of
these problems on the implementation process.
All results are based on the responses from the
survey described above. Although large, this is
certainly not a random sample; it is confined to
the Upper Midwest, it is undoubtedly biased
towards production-oriented firms and towards
firms in the process of implementing an MRP sys-
tem. There seems to be little reason, however, to
assume that the implementation strategy used and
the problems faced by this sample are unique to
these 422 companies. Table 1 shows the industry

Journal of Operations Management 145

 TABLE 1 questionnaire: (1) What was your major reason for
INDUSTRY REPRESENTATION implementing an MRP system? and (2) What was
the major problem you encountered during imple-
Number of mentation? The responses to these questions
Industry Companies (summarized in Table 2) give an excellent over-
view of the MRP implementation process.
Food a Most of the reasons given for MRP implemen-
Lumber and Wood 1 PROCESS
tation are specific to the MRP system and centered
Paper 4
Chemicals a in Production and Inventory Control. Only two of
Petroleum and Coal 1 the categories, management practices and growth,
Rubber and Plastic 7 seem to center around more general issues. The
major problems encountered, however, show an
Fabricated Metals 49 METAL entirely different pattern. Few of the respondents
Machinery 65 emphasized problems with the technical installa-
tion of the MRP system. Most problems center
Electric-Electronic 76 ELECTRICS around issues of effective implementation, such
Instruments 71 ELECTRONIC as education, acceptance and top management
support.
Transportation
Equipment
Although 60% of the respondents implemented
75 TRANSPORT
their MRP systems for control of inventories, pro-
Misc. Manufacturing 75 duction and costs, only 9% reported their major
Apparel 40 MISCELLANEOUS problem to be in the area of inventory control and
Furniture 50 record accuracy. It has frequently been stated that
Printing and the technical problems in MRP implementation
Publishing 50 have been solved. The remaining problems in
Stone, Clay, Glass 50 implementation are “people problems” [2, 3, 71.
Other 44 Generally, the survey results support this view,
although technical problems such as forecasting
Industry Not Reported 14
demand were reported as major problems by some
companies. This point will be discussed in more
breakdown for the companies in the survey. As detail later. However, it should be noted here that
can be seen, a wide variety of industries is repre- the companies surveyed reported that manage-
sented. ment of the implementation process was more
important than the exact specifications of the sys-
IMPLEMENTATION OF MRP SYSTEMS
tern being implemented.
Two open-ended questions about the MRP Many articles have debated the merits of spe-
implementation process were included in the cific features of MRP systems (e.g., net change

TABLE 2
MAJOR REASON FOR MRP IMPLEMENTATION AND MAJOR PROBLEM ENCOUNTERED

Major Reason Percent Major Problem Percent

INVENTORY CONTROL 31% EDUCATION OF PERSONNEL 23%

PRODUCTION CONTROL 16% LACK OF TOP MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 20%
IMPROVE MANAGEMENT 14% IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH 15%
(Lack of time, personnel)
IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE 13% PROBLEMS WITH MRP SYSTEM 15%
(Lack of technical expertise)
COST CONTROL 13% GAINING ACCEPTANCE 1 1%
COMPANY GROWTH 13% INVENTORY CONTROL AND RECORD
~___ ACCURACY 9%

109% FORECASTING DEMAND 7%

100%

146 American Production and Inventory Control Society

versus regenerative systems) and have attempted TABLE 4
to define the conditions for selecting the “right” EXTENT OF PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
methods [4, 111. None of the respondents, how-
ever, mentioned selection of such features or Confidence
selection of the wrong feature as a major problem. Problems with Data Accuracy Average* Interval
It appears that companies implementing MRP sys-
Bill of Material 2.2 2.07-2.33
tems do not find that the selection of features is of Vendor Lead Times 2.2 2.09-2.31
major importance. Production Lead Times 2.2 2.09-2.31
As would be expected from the reasons given Master Production Schedule 2.4 2.27-2.53
for MRP implementation, the process is most Inventory Records 2.5 2.37-2.63
often reported to have been initiated by produc- Capacity Data 2.7 2.56-2.84
tion and inventory control management, either Shop Floor Control Data 2.7 2.56-2.84
alone or in combination with top management Market Forecasts 2.8 2.67-2.93
(Table 3). It appears that top management support
is commonly found in MRP implementation. The Problems with Management
importance of top management support for any Support
successful implementation effort has been fre-
Lack of Support from Finance 1.6 1.50-1.70
quently stressed. Further results, discussed in the
Lack of Top Management
next section, give additional support for this view. Support 2.0 1.87-2.13
Lack of Manufacturing
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN MRP Management Support 2.1 1.98-2.22
IMPLEMENTATION Lack of Support from
A series of questions, exploring in more detail Marketing 2.2 2.08-2.32
Lack of Foreman Support 2.3 2.18-2.42
the extent to which various problems were
encountered, were included in the survey. Problems with System
Respondents were asked to indicate how much
each area had been a problem to them during High Cost of MRP System 1.8 1.69-1.91
implementation by marking one of four categories: Constraint of Computer
little/none, some, much or very much. For anal- Hardware 1.9 1.77-2.03
ysis, the categories were scored from one to four, Lack of Suitability of Software 2.0 1.87-2.13
respectively. A list of these questions, their aver- Lack of Clear Goals 2.1 1.98-2.22
age problem score, and confidence intervals for Lack of Company Expertise 2.5 2.37-2.63
the averages are shown in Table 4. Examination Lack of Communication 2.5 2.37-2.63
of these problem areas gives a profile of the extent
“Scoring Code
to which various problems can be expected during 1 = “Little/Some” 3 = “Much”
the MRP implementation process. 2 = “Some” 4 = “Very Much”
Since a materials requirements planning system
demands an extremely high standard of accuracy
of input data, record accuracy has frequently been Looking at the intervals shown in Table 4, it can
mentioned as a major problem in the implemen- be readily seen that the areas with most problems,
tation of the system. Responses to questions con- capacity data, shop floor control data and market
cerning all types of problems with data accuracy forecasts, show significantly higher mean problem
averaged between “some” and “much.” Since scores than the lowest four. These areas can be
groups of variables are considered, Bonferroni viewed as the problem areas of data accuracy for
family confidence coefficients [lo] were used to the MRP implementation process: the areas in
give 95% family confidence level for each group. which problems can be expected in MRP imple-
mentation.
TABLE 3 Problems with management support were also
INITIATOR OF MRP IMPLEMENTATION considered in detail. Again using Bonferroni con-
fidence intervals, lack of support from marketing
Production and Inventory Control 31%
and foremen were significantly higher, on the
Both Top and P&IC Management 3 1%
average, than from finance. In interpreting these
Top Management 18%
Data Processing 10%
results, it must be remembered that the responses
Other 10% are from companies who have at least begun the
implementation effort. Lack of support from

Journal of Operations Management 147

finance or top management may well be much
more prevalent among companies where the effort
was never undertaken.
The highest mean problem score in the area of
management support was in lack of foreman sup-
port. It appears that the attitude of line personnel,
or secondary users, frequently do result in prob-
lems during the process of implementation. These
results suggest that, once the commi~ent to an
MRP system has been made, user involvement of
foremen and other personnel should be empha-
sized. Additionally, communications between
departments, particularly those including the mar-
keting department, should be encouraged.
The above results appear to highlight the impor-
tance of education during MRP implementation.
Regretably, the complexities of the education
process (e.g., type, amount, and timing) make it
unamenable to detailed study by mail survey tech-
niques. This is particularly true in the present case
where a broad range of notation was collected.
Although the evidence from the present study cer-
tainly supports the concept of the importance of
education, additional research exploring the edu-
cational process remains to be done.
Finally, problems with the system are shown in
Table 4. Again, it is found that problems such as
lack of communitiations and of company expertise
are sign~cantly more prevalent than such highly
technical problems as computer hardware and
software. A surprising finding is the relatively low
problem score on lack of clear goals, often a major
problem in implementation. The low score is prob-
ably due to the nature of the MRP system itself.
As was discussed previously, respondents were
able to supply specific reasons for MRP imple-
mentation. Difficulties arise, then, not in speci-
fying goals, but in achievement of those goals.
This section has highlighted various problem
areas in implement~g an MRP system. The ques-
tion of how important the problems actually are
during the process of implementation still remains.
A completely problem-free implementation
ideal, but probably an unattainable ideal. The
important issue is the end result of the implemen-
tation process: successful implementation of an
MRP system. The remainder of this paper
describes an analysis to determine which factors
and problems appear to significantly affect the
success or failure of an MRP implementation.
mentation studies have typically measured suc-
cess by attitudes, intentions or behavior of users.
Intended use, rather than actual use, is often
selected as a measure of success because of dif-
ficulties in obtaining measures of actual use [9].
Actual pe~o~ance measures of MRP systems,
however, can be readily specified and quantified.
Successful implementation in this paper is
defined along two dimensions: (1) improved per-
formance, and (2) user satisfaction. Rather than
attempting to combine these two dimensions, a
simultaneous criterion was used: companies high
on both dimensions were defined as successful
implementors and companies low on both as
unsuccessful. Other companies were left unde-
fined.
Tables 5a and 5b show the questions in the sur-
vey relating to performance measures and to user
satisfaction. For those areas shown under perfor-
mance measures 5A, respondents were asked to
give a “pre-MRP” estimate, a current estimate
and a future estimate, all in terms of the current
economic environment. It was thought that since
some companies undoubtedly have more room for
improvement than others, a measure of improve-
ment in performance would not be sensitive
enough to identify successful implementation. A
measure of progress towards expected perfor-
TABLE 5A
BENEFIT MEASURES
For each of the characteristics below (a-f) state (in column
II) the current experience given your stage of MRP devel-
opment. Then state (in column I) the experience that you
would expect operating in today’s economic environment
with your Pre-MRP production system. Finally, state (in
column hi) the future experience that you anticipate given
total completion of your MRP development plans.
I II Ill
“Pre-MRP” Current Future
Estimate Estimate Estimate
is a. Inventory turnover
b. Delivery lead time (days)
c. % of time meeting delivery promises
d. % of orders requiring “splits” because of unavailable
material
e. Number of expeditors
PROGRESS = ; 2 -$$$I,:bqre-f$;:’

DEF~~ION OF SUCCESSF~ AVERAGE FIGURES

~PLE~NTATION All companies .48
“Successful” companies .78
The first step in exploring reasons for successful ‘Unsuccessful” companies .15
implementation must be to define success. Imple-

148 American Production and Inventory Control Society

 TABLE 58 questions used a Likert-type scale to collect data,
USER SATISFACTION the data should be interpreted as expressing user
perceptions of the success of MRP implementa-
To what degree have the following benefits been achieved tion, or user satisfaction. A measure of user sat-
from your MRP system? isfaction was obtained by summing over the coded
Degree of Improvement scores shown in Table 5B. The satisfaction score
Little/ could, thus, range from 9 to 36.
None Some Much Very Two distinct groups of companies were then
formed: those high on both performance and sat-
Coded Values- (1) (2) (3) (4) isfaction and those low on both. The average
a. Improved competitive
scores for all companies and for successful and
position unsuccessful implementors are displayed in
b. Improved customer sat- Tables 5A and 5B. As can be seen, the average
isfaction scores are well separated in the two groups. Three
c. Better production hundred and fifty-seven companies had both mea-
scheduling sures completed. Out of this number, 193 com-
d. Improved plant effi- panies were selected for further analysis: 109 were
ciency low on both measures (unsuccessful implemen-
e. Reduced safety stocks tors) and 84 were high on both measures (suc-
f. Better cost estimating
cessful implementors). The remaining 164 com-
g. Better control of inven-
panies were omitted from further analysis.
tory
h. Improved coordination
with marketing and ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSFUL AND
finance UNSUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTORS
i. Improved morale in pro-
Discriminant analysis was selected as the
duction
appropriate technique to determine which of the
Satisfaction = 1 Reported Coded Values variables collected in the survey were important
in distinguishing between the successful and
AVERAGE FIGURES unsuccessful implementors. Variables which reli-
ably discriminate between the two groups can be
All Companies 22.1
interpreted as important attributes in the success
“Successful” Companies 27.3
14.5
of MRP implementation [8].
“Unsuccessful” Companies
Stepwise discriminant analysis was employed
to select variables for inclusion in the final model.
The BMDP stepwise discriminate program was
mance was constructed which measured each employed to screen potentially useful variables
company’s current progress against its own [5]. All variables which were included in the pre-
expected future performance: liminary search are listed in the framework shown
Prog- Current Estimate - “Pre-MRP” Estimate in Table 6. Before detailing the analysis and
ress = Future Estimate - “Pre-MRP” Estimate results, a brief description of these variables will
be given.
Progress for each of the five performance mea- The first major category is that of the indepen-
sures were summed to give a measure of overall dent variables. These are variables considered to
performance for each company, then divided by be outside of, or previous to, the implementation
five to show average progress in performance. process. The independent factors are further
This summary variable, therefore, includes fifteen divided into two main classes: (1) company or
individual responses for each company. As is environmental conditions, and (2) the features of
common with survey data, many companies did the MRP system being implemented.
not respond to every question. In cases where less Environmental conditions include the industry,
than half of the individual responses were missing, the percentage of employees in P&IC, the present
missing values were replaced with their mean accuracy of data, size of company and comput-
value. The estimates and real values were then erization of company. Numerous questions in the
used in calculating all summary variables. survey related to company characteristics. Factor
Table 5B shows the questions which comprise analysis was performed on these questions and
the dimension of user satisfaction. Since these two important factors identified: “size” and

Journal of Operations Management 149

 TABLE 6
FRAMEWORK OF IMPLEMENTATION VARIABLES

INDEPENDENT INTERVENING RESPONSE

VARIABLES VARIABLES VARIABLES
Company/ Implementation
Environmental Process
Company size Initiator
Computerization Industry Formality of project
Industry Source of information
Prior conditions -outside people Successful or
Percent of employees in P& IC -software vendors Unsuccessful
Data accuracy -consultants Implementation
-computer vendors
-APICS {
-books/periodicals

System Features Problems with Data Accuracy*

. Pegging Problems with Mgmt. Support*
l Update frequency
l Length of MS.
l Cycle counting

0 Automatic lot sizing

I Length of Time Since Implementation

‘See Figure 3 for full description.

“computerization.” The company size factors
was heavily weighted by facility sales, total com-
pany sales, total number of employees and num-
ber of employees in P&C. The computerization
factor was most heavily weighted by the extent to
which various modules of the MRP system were
computerized and the integration of the separate
modules. These two factor scores were included
in the discriminant analysis. Prior condition of
company refers to a question as to what type of
system was used previous to the MRP system.
The other variables in this classification have been
discussed previously or are self-explanatory.
System features of the particular MRP system
have been classified as independent variables.
Although decisions must be made about selection
of features, this selection is viewed here as sepa-
rate from the actual implementation process.
The intervening variables are those factors
which relate directly to the process of implemen-
tation. In addition to the problems encountered
(discussed in previous sections) length of time
since the implementation of MRP and information
about the process used are considered as poten-
tially important.
The first step in the actual analysis was the
construction of a hold-out sample. As in all anal-
ysis, there is the possibility of “over-fitting” the
data: the analysis may describe the data being
analyzed, but be inappropriate for other data. To
test the predictive power of the fitted model, it
was decided to hold back one-fourth of the data
from the analysis. A stepwise discriminate anal-
ysis was performed on the remaining three-fourths
of the data to discover the most promising vari-
ables from the developed framework. The analysis
was performed on 116 complete cases, 52 suc-
cessful implementors and 64 unsuccessful imple-
mentors.
Table 7A shows the results of the final discrim-
inant analysis. Of the 116 cases used to fit the
model, 90 percent of the successful companies and
86 percent of the unsuccessful implementors were
correctly classified. Overall, classification was 88
percent correct.
The jackknifed classification is also shown in
Table 7B. In a jackknifed classification, each case
is classified as either successful or unsuccessful
using a discriminate function computed from all
other cases. The jackknifed classification both
tests the predictive power of the model and gives
a more robust measure than the simple classifi-
cation [5, 91. As can be seen, the jackknifed clas-
sification is close to the simple classification, with
85 percent of all cases correctly classified. The
discriminant analysis, therefore, is very reliable
in identifying successful from unsuccessful imple-
mentors.
The hold-out sample contained 44 complete
cases: 21 successful and 23 unsuccessful compa-
nies. To further test the predictive power of the
model, the discriminant function was used to clas-

150 American Production and Inventory Control Society

sify these cases into the two groups. Seventy-four TABLE 8
percent of the successful companies and 86 per- DISCRIMINATE FUNCTION VARIABLES AND
cent of the unsuccessful ones were correctly clas- STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS
sified (Table 7C). Thus, the model developed in
the discriminant analysis is also reliable in pre- independent Intervening
dicting success or lack of success in implementa- Variables Variables
tion. Company/Environmental lmplemen ta tion Process
The standardized coefficients of the variables Condition
in the final discriminant function are shown in +.48 Computerization -t .36 Source of
Table 8. The size of the coefficient shows the +.23 Prior Conditions information
relative weightings of the variables. The sign (No Systematic (Hiring outside
shows the direction of the effect. For example, Inventory System personnel)
Previously) Problems with Management
data accuracy was found to be the most heavily
+.28 Percent Employees Support
weighted variable, with higher levels of accuracy in P&IC
associated positively with successful implemen- -.39 Top Management
+.78 Data Accuracy (sum) -,33 Marketing
tation. (Inventory records Management
The following section discusses the implications market forecasts
of the discriminate function for MRP implemen- System Problems
capacity plan)
- .44 Sum of problem scores
tation by discussing each of the variables in detail. System Feature (Lack of expertise
(None) Lack of suitable
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS computer hardware)
The most heavily weighted of the selected vari- Problems with Data
ables is data accuracy. This variable is the sum of Accuracy
the scores of current accuracy of data. This sup- (None)
ports the contention that accurate information is Length of Time of
a necessity for successful implementation of MRP Implementation
systems. Current accuracy is a more reliable pre- +.44 Year before MRP
dictor of success than problems encountered with
data accuracy during the implementation process. rather than responses to individual questions. This
Accuracy of information is a summary variable. was done primarily since summary variables tend
When possible, summary variables were selected to be more normally distributed. After the analysis
was completed, however, the separate compo-
TABLE 7 nents of each summary variable in the model were
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION entered into discriminant function in place of the
summary variable to determine which, if any, of
A. SIMPLE CLASSIFICATION the components were particularly important. In
Actual Classified by Model as Percent the case of data accuracy, only three of the items
Group Successful Not Successful Correct were found to have separate discriminatory
Successful 47 5 90.4 power: accuracy of inventory records, market
Not Successful 9 55 85.9 forecasts and capacity plan. Market forecasts and
Total 87.9 capacity data, as discussed previously, were also
prevalent problems encountered during the imple-
B. JACKKNIFED CLASSIFICATION
mentation process.
Actual Classified by Model as Percent The next most important variable is computer-
Group Successful Not Successful Correct ization. The implication here is that computeriza-
Successful 45 7 86.5 tion and successful implementation of MRP are
Not Successful 10 54 84.4 closely intertwined. Higher levels of computeriza-
Total 85.3 tion appear, at least, to increase the chances for
C. HOLDOUT SAMPLE successful implementation.
Actual Classified by Model as Percent The last two independent variables included in
the discriminant model have relatively low
-___ Group Successful Not Successful Correct
weights. The percent of employees in P&IC has
Successful 17 6 73.9
Not Successful 3 18 85.7
a positive effect on implementation success. This
Total 79.5 implies that production-oriented firms are more
likely to successfully implement MRP. The rela-

Journal of Operations Management 151

tively low weight, however, suggests the MRP
may well be usefully and successfully imple-
mented in firms which are less production-
oriented. Finally, having no systematic inventory
policy previous to MRP implemen~tion was
found to improve chances of successful imple-
mentation. Previous use of a manual parts explo-
sion system or an order-point system had no
effect.
None of the system features were found to have
significant discriminatory powers in this analysis.
It might be argued that selection of features can
help to “fine-tune” an MRP system, resulting in
the highest possible benefits. Success or failure of
the implementation effort, however, does not
appear to depend upon any specific features of the
system.
The intervening variables, since they relate
directly to the implementation process, are of pri-
mary interest. Of the variables specifically
describing the process, only use of personnel hired
from outside the firm as a source of expertise was
found to be important in the discriminate function.
In the area of problems with management sup-
port, two items were found to be significant: prob-
lems with lack of top management and/or market-
ing management support. Lack of support from
marketing management was reported as a preva-
lent problem, while lack of top management sup-
port was not. It appears as though lack of support
from marketing management is a prevalent and
serious problem which should be expected,
planned for and overcome. Problems with lack of
top management support are not so prevalent (see
Figure 4 for average problem scores). If top man-
agement support is lacking, however, this problem
appears to cripple an ~plementation effort.
Lack of support from foremen, although
reported to be the highest problem area, is seen
not to be a key area in eventual implemen~tion
success. It seems likely, however, that support
from foremen would be extremely useful for a
rapid and relatively smooth implementation.
A summary variable consisting of problems
encountered with the system was found to be sig-
nificant. Further analysis showed that the two
most impo~ant components of this summa~ were
lack of company expertise and constraints of com-
puter hardware. Lack of expertise had a high prob-
lem score; it was perceived as a common problem
in the implementation process. Constraints from
the computer hardware was a much less prevalent
problem. It appears that, like top management
support, computer hardware is seldom a problem,
but if it exists, the problem is a serious one.
152
Finally, amount of time since the implementa-
tion effort was first begun significantly increased
the chances of successful implementation. This is
encouraging, since it suggests that success is likely
to reward continued efforts. Additionally, this
finding supports the view of MRP implementation
as a continuous process rather than a goal to be
reached.
In summary, disc~minant analysis has been
used to select those factors which most reliably
distinguish between successful and unsuccessful
implementors of MRP systems. These significant
factors are often not the same factors which were
reported to have the most severe problems during
implementation.
It cannot be concluded with certaintly, how-
ever, that variables which did not enter the dis-
criminant analysis model are not important in suc-
cessful implementation. Many of the variables are
intercorrelated. For example, company size did
not show signi~cant disseminator power. Size,
however, is highly correlated with length of time
of implementation and with computerization. If
these two variables were not included in the anal-
ysis, company size would appear to influence
implementation success. In this analysis, how-
ever, length of the effort and computerization
have been found to be more reliable discriminators
of successful and unsuccess~l ~plementors than
company size.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparing average problem scores reported by
the companies to the results from discriminant
analysis gives insight into how the implementation
process should be managed. In general, areas with
high problem scores tended to be important in the
analysis. Accurate capacity data and market fore-
casts, support from marketing and company
expertise on MRP have been shown to be impor-
tant and common trouble spots in MRP imple-
mentation. Preventive action and management
during implementation in these areas are crucial
for success.
Other problem areas, although reported as prev-
alent, were found not to be impo~ant in the dis-
criminant analysis between successful and unsuc-
cessful implementors. Shop floor control data,
problems with foremen and lack of communica-
tion should be expected and averted, if possible,
for a more effective and problem-free implemen-
tation. However, avoiding these problems does
not appear to be crucial for eventual implemen-
tation success.
American Production and hventwy Control Society
 Continuing effort over a period of time tends to 3. Andrews, Charles G. “Leadership and Motivation: The People
Side of Systems Implementation,” American Production and
produce success, suggesting that MRP implemen- Inventory Control Society Conference Proceedings, 1978, pp.
tation should be viewed as a long-term project. 352-387.
Computerization is apparently necessrsy for suc- 4. DeSantis, Gerald F. “Implementation Considerations in Sys-
cessful implementation. A final specific sugges- tems Design,” American Production and Inventory Control
tion is that hiring outside people with experience Society Conference Proceedings, 1977, pp. 210-217.
5. Dixon, W. J. and Brown, M. B. (eds.) BMDP-79: Biomedical
in MRP is the most effective way to deal with the Computer Programs P-Series, University of California Press,
problem of lack of expertise in the company. Berkeley, 1979, pp. 71 l-733.
Because of the nature of survey-based research, 6. Hall, Robert Ward and Vollmann, E. E. “Planning Your Mate-
many important details are missing from this pic- rials Requirements,” Harvard Business Review (September-
ture of MRP implementation. Much more research October, 1978), pp. 105-l 12.
7. Hoyt, George. “Successes and Failures in MRP User Involve-
is necessary to explore the best ways of introduc- ment,” American Production and Inventory Control Society
ing MRP into a particular company, the develop- Conference Proceedings, 1977, pp. 204-209.
ment of training and education programs and, per- 8. Maxwell, A. E. Multivariate Analysis in Behavioral Research,
haps most importantly, specific ways of managing Chapman and Hall, London, 1977, pp. 94-105.
the change process. The broad framework and 9. Mosteller, Frederick and Tukey, J. W. Data Analysis and
Regression, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading,
results provided by this report should prove useful Mass., 1977, p. 133ff.
in organizing future work on MRP implementa- 10. Neter, John, and Wasserman, William. Applied Linear Statisti-
tion. cal Models, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Ill., 1974, pp.
153-154.
11. Peterson, Leroy D. “Design Considerations for Improving the
Effectiveness of MRP,” Production and Inventory Control
REFERENCES (Third Quarter, 1975), pp. 48-68.
12. Schultz, Randall L. and Sleven, D. P. “Implementation and
1. Amdur, Nicholas. “Getting Started in Materials Requirements Management Innovation,” in Zmplementing Operations Research1
Planning,” American Production and Inventory Control Society Management Science, Schultz and Sleven (Editors), American
Conference Proceedings, 1973, pp. 137-145. Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1975, pp. 14-15.
2. Anderson, John C. and Narasimhan, R. “Assessing Project 13. Zeszutka, Jerome and Dixon, D. K. “Tailoring an MRP System
Implementation Risk: A Methodological Approach,” Manage- to Company Needs,” Journal of Purchasing and Materials Man-
menf Science (June, 1979), pp. 512-522. agement (Winter 1978), pp. 2-8.

Journal of Operations Management 153