a b s t r a c tPlanning and scheduling significantly influence organizational performance, but literature that pays attention to how organizations could or should organize and assess their planning processes is limited. We extend planning and scheduling theory with a categorization of scheduling performance criteria, based on a three-stage survey research design. Particularly, the results show that, next to schedule quality, the planning process factors timeliness, flexibility, communication, and negotiation are important performance criteria, and especially so in organizations that are faced with high levels of uncertainty. The results suggest that organizational and behavioral aspects of planning and scheduling cannot be mitigated with advanced models and software that solely focus on good schedules. Rather, high quality schedules and high quality scheduling processes need to be facilitated simultaneously to attain high planning and scheduling performance.

No abstract

This article discusses the influence of organizational and behavioral variables on coordination between planners during plan adaptation. Fast communication and mutual alignment are necessary to maintain schedule feasibility in a situation with several schedulers. Therefore, coordination modes are required that facilitate communication and joint problem solving. Moreover, building on interdependence theory, we hypothesize that the schedulers' perceptions of task interdependence influence rescheduling performance. Experimental results indicate that a group decision‐making coordination mode enforcing cooperation outperforms a distributed decision‐making coordination mode involving emergent alignment. The level of perceived task interdependence explains this better performance. Therefore, perceptions of task interdependence are put forward as an important behavioral factor influencing rescheduling performance, with several important implications for theory and practice. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the importance of physical proximity between schedulers and operators within manufacturing firms. In literature, a small distance between interdependent employees is assumed to be a prerequisite for a high level of coordination. This study investigates this assumption empirically for the relationship between scheduling and manufacturing and shows effects of proximity that are only partly in line with literature.Design/methodology/approachConsequences of relocating the scheduling department within a production firm are studied using a longitudinal case study approach. Data have been collected within three phases: before, three months after, and one year after the relocation.FindingsFindings show that schedulers and operators communicate more face‐to‐face and less by phone after the relocation, especially during rescheduling. Furthermore, schedulers and operators perceived positive changes in ease of coordination and performance due to the relocation.Research limitations/implicationsScheduling and rescheduling are usually treated in literature as a mathematical puzzle to be solved. The authors do not contest this in itself, but the findings indicate that communication and collaboration are important aspects as well. In the case company, the possible negative aspects of close proximity, such as more interruptions, are offset by the advantages for rescheduling such as fast response and improved quality of communication. As the study was done in only one manufacturing firm, further research is needed to determine what firm characteristics specifically determine the appropriate location of the scheduling department.Practical implicationsThe paper demonstrates the need to carefully design, manage, and facilitate the interface and critical task interdependencies between scheduling and manufacturing departments.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to operations management literature by providing a detailed empirical analysis concerning the effects of physical proximity between schedulers and manufacturing operators, including behavioural and organizational factors.

No abstract