Understanding the Influence of Cognitive Biases in Production Planning and Control

  • Julia C. Bendul
  • Melanie ZahnerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)


Production Planning and Control (PPC) requires human decision making in several process steps like production programme planning, production data management and performance measurement. Thereby, human decisions are often biased leading to an aggravation of logistic performance. Exemplary, the lead time syndrome (LTS) shows this connection. While production planners aim to improve due date reliability by updating planned lead times the result is even a decreasing due date reliability. In current research in the field of production logistics the impact of cognitive biases on the decision-making process in PPC remains at a silent place. We aim to close the research gap by combining a systematic literature review on behavioral operations management as well as cognitive biases and applying the Aachen PPC model. Based on a case study from the steel industry we show the influence of cognitive biases on human decision making in several phases of PPC.


Cognitive bias Human behavior Production Planning and Control PPS 


  1. 1.
    Arnott, D.: Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Inf. Syst. J. 16, 55 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barron, G., Leider, S.: The role of experience in the gambler‘s fallacy. J. Behav. Decis. Making 23, 117–119 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bendul, J., Knollmann, M.: The human factor in production planning and control: considering human needs in computer aided decision-support systems. Int. J. Manufact. Technol. Manage. 30(5), 346–368 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner, L.A., Koehler, D.J., Liberman, V., Tversky, A.: Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgements: a critical examination. Organisational Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 65, 212–219 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carter, C., Kaufmann, L., Michel, A.: Behavioral supply management: a taxonomy of judgment and decision making biases. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logistics Manage. 37(8), 631–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellsberg, D.: Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75(4), 643–669 (1961)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hogarth, R.M.: Judgment and Choice: The Psychology of Decision (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman, D.: Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lect. 8, 449–489 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., Seppi, D.: The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. J. Risk Uncertainty 38, 95 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luczak, H., Eversheim, W., Schotten, M.: Produktionsplanung und-steuerung Grundlagen, Gestaltung und Konzepte. Springer Verlag (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nelson, M.W.: Context and the inverse base rate effect. J. Behav. Decis. Making 9, 23–40 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nyhuis, P., Wiendahl, H.-P.: Fundamentals of Production Logistics: Theory, Tools and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ordonez, L., Benson, L.: Decisions under time pressure: how time constraint affects risky decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 71, 121 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russo, J.E., Medvec, V.H., Meloy, M.G.: The distortion of information during decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 66, 102–110 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selçuk, B., Adan, I., de Kok, A., Fransoo, J.: An explicit analysis of the lead time syndrome: stability condition and performance evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47(9), 2507–2529 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F.: Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav. Brain Sci. 23(5), 645–726 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor, S.E., Thompson, S.C.: Stalking the elusive ‘vividness’ effect. Psychol. Rev. 89, 155–181 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teng, B.-S., Das, T.K.: Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: an integrative Perspective. J. Manage. Stud. 36, 757 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tokar, T.: Behavioural research in logistics and supply chain management. Int. J. Logistics Manage. 21(1), 89–103 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yates, J.F., Curley, S.P.: Contingency judgement: primacy effects and attention decrement. Acta Psychol. 62, 293–302 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair for Management of Digitalization and AutomationRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations