| Course | BUS 721 Issues in Optimizing Operations (BUS/721) |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Doctoral implementation analysis |
| Length | about 1,158 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | DBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 721 Week 4
Why Tri-State's Last Two Improvement Projects Failed and What Research Says Will Make the Next One Stick
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
BUS/721: Issues in Optimizing Operations
Week 4 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Tri-State Cabinet Company and all project histories are composites written for a model paper.
Tri-State Cabinet Company, the composite three-plant cabinet maker, is about to begin a $4.5 million ERP implementation. Employees remember two earlier initiatives. Five years ago, a finite scheduling system was installed at York; schedulers stopped using it within a year and returned to spreadsheets. Three years ago, a lean program trained supervisors and launched improvement events; after the champion left, events stopped and most changes faded. An organization's track record with past initiatives is the best predictor of its next one, unless leaders learn why the earlier efforts failed. This paper analyzes implementation success and failure at Tri-State.
Implementation as a Distinct Stage
Adoption, the decision to introduce a system or practice, is quite different from implementation, the process of getting people to use it consistently and well. Many initiatives succeed at adoption and fail at implementation, which is exactly what happened twice at Tri-State.
Implementation Climate
Klein et al. (2001) studied the implementation of computerized manufacturing technology in many plants and found that implementation effectiveness depended on implementation climate, employees' shared perception that using the technology was expected, supported and rewarded. Climate was shaped by policies and practices such as training, user support, time to learn and management encouragement, and by financial resources and management support.
Success Factors and Context
Netland (2016) studied lean implementations and found that commonly cited success factors, such as management commitment, employee involvement and training, mattered but that their importance varied with contextual factors such as plant characteristics and stage of implementation. Generic lists of success factors must be adapted to the organization.
Lessons From ERP Research
Markus et al. (2000) found that ERP implementations faced different problems in each phase and that success at go-live did not guarantee business improvement afterward. Implementation must be managed through the period of use, not only installation.
Diagnosing the Scheduling System Failure
Schedulers received a one-day vendor training session. The system required accurate routing data that did not exist, so its schedules were often wrong, and schedulers lost trust. Plant managers continued to judge schedulers on spreadsheet-based measures. No one supported schedulers when problems arose. In Klein et al.'s terms, the climate did not expect, support or reward use.
Diagnosing the Lean Program Failure
The lean program began well: supervisors were trained, events produced quick improvements and enthusiasm rose. But it depended on one champion. When she left, no leader took ownership, events stopped and plant measures, still based on cost per unit, did not reinforce lean practices. Netland's emphasis on sustained management commitment applies directly.
What Employees Remember
Interviews with 18 schedulers, supervisors and operators who lived through both initiatives added detail. Schedulers said the scheduling system was "built for a plant we don't have," because routings did not match how work actually flowed. Supervisors said lean events were fun but that the next month's cost targets always won when they conflicted with improvement work. Several operators said they stopped suggesting ideas once they saw earlier suggestions ignored. These memories confirm and enrich the documentary record.
The Cost of the Failures
The scheduling system cost about $600,000, and the lean program about $400,000 in training and consultant time. Less visible costs were larger: lost confidence in new initiatives, which now shows in the readiness survey, and years of delayed improvement in delivery. Failed implementations make the next one harder, which raises the stakes for the ERP.
Design Versus Execution Problems
The scheduling system also had a design problem: it was chosen without involving schedulers and assumed data that did not exist. The lean program's design was sound but its execution faltered. Distinguishing these helps target remedies: the ERP needs user involvement in design and data preparation, and its execution needs sustained leadership.
Common Patterns
Both failures share patterns: weak training and support, measures and incentives that ignored the new practice, dependence on individuals rather than systems and leaders who moved on to other priorities. These patterns, not resistance by employees, explain the failures, and they are all within leaders' control to change.
Assessing Readiness for ERP
A readiness survey of 120 managers and staff found high agreement that the old system must be replaced but low confidence that leaders would stay committed and that training would be adequate. Data quality, identified in Week 2, is weak. These results signal risk unless addressed early and visibly.
Involving Users in Design
Users who help design a system are more likely to trust and use it. Schedulers, supervisors and customer service staff from each plant will join ERP design workshops, test configurations with real orders and sign off on processes before go-live. Their involvement addresses the scheduling system's design failure and builds a group of informal champions across plants.
Policy One: Training and Practice
Training will be role-based, use Tri-State's own data and processes and include practice in a test environment before go-live, with refresher sessions after.
Policy Two: Support
Super-users in each plant, trained early, will provide on-the-floor help, and a support desk will respond within hours during the first months after go-live.
Policy Three: Aligned Measures and Rewards
Plant scorecards will include on-time complete delivery and system data accuracy, so using the ERP well helps managers meet their goals. Recognition will go to teams that adopt new processes quickly.
Policy Four: Visible, Sustained Leadership
The chief operating officer will sponsor the project and review progress monthly for two years after the last go-live. Ownership will be shared among several leaders, so the initiative does not depend on one champion.
Policy Five: Data Readiness
Data cleanup will begin six months before configuration, with plant data owners accountable for accuracy, addressing the cause of the scheduling system's failure.
Measuring Implementation
Measures include system use rates by role, data accuracy, climate survey scores on expectation, support and reward and help-desk trends, reviewed monthly. These reveal problems before business results suffer.
Early Warning Signs
The monthly measures will be watched for warning signs seen in the earlier failures: falling use rates after the first month, schedulers keeping parallel spreadsheets, rising help-desk tickets about data errors and managers skipping project reviews. If one appears, the steering group will meet within two weeks to find the cause and respond.
Limits of the Analysis
The diagnosis relies on interviews and records and may reflect hindsight. Research findings come from different industries and times. Tri-State's own measures during the ERP rollout will test whether these policies work.
Research Questions
The case suggests questions about how implementation climate develops across multiple plants and whether distributed leadership ownership sustains initiatives better than single champions.
Conclusion
Tri-State's earlier initiatives failed because the organization did not create a climate in which using new systems was expected, supported and rewarded, and because leadership commitment faded. Research on implementation climate and success factors explains these failures and guides policies for the ERP: training, support, aligned measures, sustained shared leadership and data readiness.
References
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811-824. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.811
Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D., & Tanis, C. (2000). Learning from adopters' experiences with ERP: Problems encountered and success achieved. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4), 245-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960010008944
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
What the BUS 721 Week 4 instructions ask
Week 4 of BUS 721 has DBA students study why some operational initiatives take hold while others fade. Typical requirements include reviewing research on implementation, analyzing past or comparable initiatives, distinguishing adoption from effective use, identifying organizational, technical and human factors, assessing readiness and recommending implementation practices and measures. Some prompts ask for a comparison of successful and failed cases. Use research to frame the analysis, apply it to specific evidence from the organization, explain causes rather than symptoms and document sources in APA style. Distinguish problems in the initiative's design from problems in how it was carried out, since the remedies differ.
How this BUS 721 Week 4 example is built
A company about to launch a major ERP project has seen two earlier initiatives fail, and the paper asks why before repeating the pattern. Research on implementing technology finds that success depends on an implementation climate in which employees see use as expected, supported and rewarded, shaped by policies such as training, user support and management encouragement. Lean research identifies success factors and shows that context changes their importance. Diagnosis finds that the earlier scheduling system lacked training, data and incentives and the lean program lacked leadership persistence, patterns confirmed by employees who lived through both. A readiness assessment guides practices for the ERP, including role-based training, super-users, aligned measures and visible leadership.
BUS 721 Week 4 grading rubric: where the points go
Strong implementation papers explain failures with research-based causes and use them to design better implementation. Faculty credit accurate use of research on implementation climate, success factors and context, a careful diagnosis of past initiatives with evidence, a distinction between adoption and effective use, a readiness assessment and specific practices tied to identified causes. Recognizing that the same factors can matter differently by context shows sophistication, as does naming the warning signs that would show a new initiative slipping. Logical organization and accurate APA references finish the analysis. Faculty also credit papers that test their diagnosis against the views of the people who lived through the earlier initiatives, since managers and front-line staff often remember causes that documents miss, and that design measures of implementation itself, not only of business results.
BUS 721 Week 4 help: mistakes to avoid
A frequent shortcut is blaming failures on resistance without asking what made resistance reasonable. Look at training, incentives, support and leadership. Another frequent gap is listing success factors without applying them. Use them to diagnose specific cases. Students also measure success by installation rather than use and results. Distinguish them. Avoid treating each initiative as unique; look for patterns that repeat across projects and across plants. Assess readiness before recommending. Finally, propose measures of implementation itself, such as use rates and climate surveys, so problems are seen early. Interview people who lived through earlier initiatives; their memories of what went wrong are evidence.
Related BUS 721 sample papers
Other BUS 721 week samples
- BUS 721 Week 1: Operations and Corporate Strategy
- BUS 721 Week 2: Business Intelligence
- BUS 721 Week 3: Enterprise Resource Planning
- BUS 721 Week 5: Process Improvement
- BUS 721 Week 6: Data and Decision Making
- BUS 721 Week 7: Research on Operations Excellence
- BUS 721 Week 8: Optimizing Operations Recommendations
More DBA sample papers
- BUS 700 Week 4: Applying Critical Thinking
- BUS 733 Week 4: Leading Transformational Change
- FIN 711 Week 4: Venture Valuation Methods
- MGT 711 Week 4: Macroeconomic Factors
BUS 721 Week 4 questions, answered
What does BUS 721 Week 4 usually cover?
It usually covers why operational initiatives succeed or fail: implementation research, critical success factors, context, diagnosis of past initiatives, readiness and practices for effective implementation.
Where can I find a free BUS 721 Week 4 sample paper?
A complete implementation analysis of a manufacturer's past failures and upcoming ERP, with notes, is shown above with notes. Students preparing their own analysis can ask for a complimentary draft.
What is implementation climate?
Employees' shared perception that using a new technology or practice is expected, supported and rewarded in their organization, which research links to effective implementation.
Why do improvement programs often fail?
Common reasons include weak leadership commitment, insufficient training and support, misaligned incentives, lack of employee involvement and a focus on installing tools rather than changing work.
What is the difference between adoption and effective use?
Adoption means an organization has introduced a system or practice; effective use means people use it consistently and well enough to produce the intended results.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All BUS 721 week samples · All courses