221 Pages
English

On the model-based introduction of new organizational processes in an industrial system [Elektronische Ressource] / Markus Hoppe

Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more

Description

Technische Universität MünchenLehrstuhl für RaumfahrttechnikOn the Model-based Introduction of New Organizational Processes in an Industrial SystemDipl.-Ing. (Univ.) Markus HoppeVollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Maschinenwesender Technischen Universität Münchenzur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einesDoktor-Ingenieursgenehmigten Dissertation.Vorsitzender: Univ.-Prof. Dr. rer. nat. U. WalterPrüfer der Dissertation: 1. Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. E. Igenbergs (i. R.)2. Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. B. HeißingDie Dissertation wurde am 12.01.2006 bei der Technischen Universität München eingereicht und durch die Fakultät für Maschinenwesen am 27.02.2007 angenommen.Meiner FamilieABSTRACTDue to the increasing pressure on companies to change, the introduction of new processes in product development is required. Although studies show that the majority of change projects fail, often because of a lack of planning, no approach for determining what should be done (and when should it be done) to introduce the processes can be found in literature.Thus, the objective of the present dissertation is to provide an approach for defining the 1optimal introduction procedure for a new concept , while considering all relevant boundary conditions. Since the boundary conditions and the systems to be considered (strategy, people, process, and organization) have complex relationships, a formal approach is necessary.

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Published 01 January 2007
Reads 14
Language English
Document size 2 MB

Exrait

Technische Universität München
Lehrstuhl für Raumfahrttechnik
On the Model-based Introduction of New Organizational
Processes in an Industrial System
Dipl.-Ing. (Univ.) Markus Hoppe
Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Maschinenwesen
der Technischen Universität München
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines
Doktor-Ingenieurs
genehmigten Dissertation.
Vorsitzender: Univ.-Prof. Dr. rer. nat. U. Walter
Prüfer der Dissertation: 1. Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. E. Igenbergs (i. R.)
2. Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. B. Heißing
Die Dissertation wurde am 12.01.2006 bei der Technischen Universität München eingereicht
und durch die Fakultät für Maschinenwesen am 27.02.2007 angenommen.Meiner FamilieABSTRACT
Due to the increasing pressure on companies to change, the introduction of new processes in
product development is required. Although studies show that the majority of change projects
fail, often because of a lack of planning, no approach for determining what should be done
(and when should it be done) to introduce the processes can be found in literature.
Thus, the objective of the present dissertation is to provide an approach for defining the
1optimal introduction procedure for a new concept , while considering all relevant boundary
conditions. Since the boundary conditions and the systems to be considered (strategy, people,
process, and organization) have complex relationships, a formal approach is necessary. This
formal approach is the Introduction Procedure Model, which enables the user to optimize the
transition from the current process state (initial state), i.e. before the concept introduction, to
the intended process state (target state), i.e. after the concept introduction.
The concept introduction can be considered as a decision process. After the problem
definition, the different alternatives for the introduction are modeled. Concurrently, an
objective system has to be defined, which is the basis for assessing the identified alternatives.
Finally, on the basis of the assessment a decision can be taken. It is not the intention of the
defined quantitative model to substitute this decision process, but in fact the Introduction
Procedure Model supports the decision process in the areas modeling, definition of the
objective system, and assessment.
For the modeling, an information flow perspective is applied. The criteria stability,
modularity, and practical constraints determine the possible introduction procedures. To
evaluate the performance of a concept introduction procedure, the aspects cost, duration, and
quality are applied. Introduction quality is defined as consisting of the aspects performance
sustainment, introduction speed, company operability, introduction acceptance, and concept
benefit. Finally, to derive a quantitative assessment system, axioms and according metrics are
defined and attributed to the objectives of the concept introduction. With this relation between
the axioms and the objectives, an assessment system for the concept introduction in a
company is established.
To proof its applicability, the Introduction Procedure Model was verified in a case study with
Tetra Pak Carton Ambient, a system developer in the liquid food packaging industry.
Since the phase schemes and procedures of the implementation process from literature only
provide a high-level view on the implementation procedure, a process model of the
implementation was developed. This Introduction Process Model describes the activities that
should be conducted, the products that should be produced by the individual activities in the
process (outputs), and the inputs that are used by these activities to produce those outputs.
Moreover, an approach for tailoring this generic Implementation Process Model to the
project-specific needs is presented.
Although personnel-related implementation activities (information, motivation, and
qualification) are widely treated in literature, they are only treated qualitatively. Therefore, a
quantitative approach (Personnel-Related Activity Model) was defined to support determining
the right strategy for information, motivation, and qualification of the personnel. Its main
1 Since the present dissertation deals with method and process implementation in companies, the relevant
characteristics of a new process or method to be introduced are its elements (activities), relations, and the
responsibilities. From this high-level point of view, there is no difference between method and process.
Therefore, the term concept is used throughout the present dissertation, comprising method and process.objective is to determine the cost-value-ratio of the personnel-related implementation
activities and thus to allow an optimization of cost versus effects.
Each of the developed models (i.e. the Introduction Procedure Model, Implementation
Process Model, and Personnel-Related Activity Model) provides a different view on the
implementation process. The (joint) application of these models can yield significant benefits
and savings.CONTENT
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1
1.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of this Dissertation........................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Dissertation Objective............................................................................................................................. 9
1.3.1 Objective Description........................................................................................................................... 9
1.3.2 Method Definition .............................................................................................................................. 11
1.3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 12
1.4 Definition and Classification of Implementation................................................................................ 12
1.5 Difference between Strategy, Process, and Method ........................................................................... 21
1.6 Synopsis.................................................................................................................................................. 22
2 Process Model of the Implementation............................................................25
2.1 Phases and Procedure of the Implementation .................................................................................... 25
2.2 The Implementation Process Model .................................................................................................... 38
2.3 Tailoring of the Implementation Process Model ................................................................................ 47
2.3.1 Tailoring Parameters .......................................................................................................................... 48
2.3.2 Tailoring Heuristics............................................................................................................................ 51
2.3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 58
2.4 Synopsis.................................................................................................................................................. 58
3 Quantitative Model of Personnel-related Implementation Activities ...........60
3.1 Model Elements ..................................................................................................................................... 62
3.2 Qualitative Relationships...................................................................................................................... 66
3.3 Quantitative Relationships ................................................................................................................... 72
3.3.1 Information......................................................................................................................................... 72
3.3.2 Calculation Example for an Information Strategy.............................................................................. 73
3.3.3 Qualification....................................................................................................................................... 76
3.3.4 Motivation .......................................................................................................................................... 77
3.3.5 Calculation Example for a Motivation Strategy ................................................................................. 79
3.3.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 81
3.4 Synopsis.................................................................................................................................................. 82
4 Quantitative Model of the Introduction Procedure........................................84
4.1 Model Objectives and Structure .......................................................................................................... 84
4.2 Modeling Approach .............................................................................................................................. 874.3 Objective System of an Introduction ...................................................................................................96
4.3.1 Introduction Objectives ......................................................................................................................96
4.3.2 Introduction Axioms and Metrics.......................................................................................................98
4.3.3 Assessment System...........................................................................................................................140
4.3.4 Summary...........................................................................................................................................145
4.4 Evaluation of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................147
4.5 Verification of the Introduction Procedure Model...........................................................................161
4.5.1 Case Study Description.....................................................................................................................161
4.5.2 Evaluating the Applied Introduction Approach................................................................................166
4.5.3 Determining the Best Introduction Alternative.................................................................................177
4.5.4 Summary...........................................................................................................................................184
4.6 Synopsis ................................................................................................................................................185
5 Summary and Outlook .................................................................................. 188
6 Bibliography................................................................................................... 193FIGURES
Figure 1: Triggers for organizational change (adopted from Robbins 2003, p. 556).................2
Figure 2: The shifting composition of investments in high technology products (adopted from
Kohen 1990, p. 2). ..............................................................................................................4
Figure 3: Difference between implementation and introduction..............10
Figure 4: Different scope and dimension of implementation and introduction........................12
Figure 5: The difference between implementation and introduction. ......................................14
Figure 6: Relation of the quantitative model with the implementation process.......................14
Figure 7: Difference between the terms Change Management and implementation ...............17
Figure 8: Lewin’s three phases of organizational change. .......................................................17
Figure 9: The three types of learning (adopted from Argyris 1998) ........................................18
Figure 10: A classification of different approaches for change................20
Figure 11: Implementation procedure on the macro level (adopted from Zeyer 1996, p. 82). 26
Figure 12: General model of a change process (adopted from Beskow et al. 1999, p. 438)....27
Figure 13: Implementation process for concurrent engineering (adopted from Usher 1996, p.
42).....................................................................................................................................28
Figure 14: Generic PACE implementation framework (adopted from Driva and Pawar 1997,
p. 17).29
Figure 15: Three models for a holistic method implementation (adopted from Dobberkau and
Rauch-Geelhaar 1999, p. 605)..........................................................................................31
Figure 16: The method lifecycle and intermediate results during the method implementation
(adopted from Dobberkau and Rauch-Geelhaar 1999, p. 608).........................................33
Figure 17: Layers of the implementation process (adopted from Stetter 2000, p. 34).............34
Figure 18: Sub-models of the method introduction model (adopted from Viertlböck 2000, p.
102)...................................................................................................................................34
Figure 19: Model supporting the strategic planning of the method introduction (adopted from
Viertlböck 2000, p. 106)...35
Figure 20: The operative sub-model of the method implementation (adopted from Viertlböck
2000, p. 114).....................................................................................................................36
Figure 21: The implementation process according to Tarlatt (adopted from Tarlatt 2001, p.
95).....................................................................................................................................37
Figure 22: Procedure for determining the Implementation Process Model..............................39
Figure 23: Literature sources of the Implementation Process Model activities. ......................40
Figure 24: Schematic representation of the implementation process.......................................41
Figure 25: Graphical representation of the Implementation Process Model. ...........................42
Figure 26: Inputs, activities, and outputs of the implementation process45
Figure 27: Implementation process functions and assigned activities. ....................................47
Figure 28: Discriminating parameters of the implementation task and typical values. ...........48
Figure 29: Differences between revolutionary and evolutionary change (adopted from Krüger
1994, p. 204).....................................................................................................................49
Figure 30: Different strategies for the transition between current and new elements..............50Figure 31: Programmatic risks of an implementation initiative .............................................. 50
Figure 32: Concept characteristics that influence the implementation process. ...................... 51
Figure 33: Tailoring heuristics for different planning approaches.......... 52
Figure 34: Tailoring heuristics for different implementation strategies. ................................. 53
Figure 35: Tailoring heuristics for different transition strategies............ 53
Figure 36: Tailoring heuristics for different concept scopes. .................................................. 54
Figure 37: Tailoring heuristics for different context scopes.................... 55
Figure 38: Tailoring heuristics for critical concepts. ............................................................... 56
Figure 39: Tailoring heuristics for complex concepts............................. 57
Figure 40: Tailoring heuristics for innovative concepts.......................... 57
Figure 41: Confrontation of current weaknesses and proposed quantitative approach for
personnel-related implementation activities. ................................................................... 60
Figure 42: Adapted Entity-Relationship notation for the developed model. ........................... 62
Figure 43: Confrontation of model objectives and elements. .................................................. 62
Figure 44: Information – Entity and attributes......................................... 63
Figure 45: Qualification – Entity and attributes....................................... 64
Figure 46: Motivation – Entity and attributes.......... 64
Figure 47: Individual – Entity and attributes. .......................................... 65
Figure 48: Activity – Entity and attributes............................................... 65
Figure 49: Entity-Relationship diagram for the personnel-related implementation activities. 67
Figure 50: Information – Calculation procedure...................................... 68
Figure 51: Relationship between information topic and activity task/position. ...................... 68
Figure 52: Relationship between information topic and distribution means. .......................... 69
Figure 53: Qualification – Calculation procedure.................................................................... 69
Figure 54: Relationship between required capability and activity task/position. .................... 70
Figure 55: Mitigation measures for resistance trigger factors. ................................................ 71
Figure 56: Motivation – Calculation procedure....................................... 71
Figure 57: Qualitative assessment scale and assigned quantitative measures. ........................ 78
Figure 58: Dependency of resistance on the qualification level and the unreadiness for
qualification. .................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 59: Relationship between the qualitative assessment and the expected resistance
reduction........................... 80
Figure 60: Comparison of provided information and objectives of the proposed quantitative
approach. ................................................................................................ 82
Figure 61: Concept introduction as decision process and supported areas.............................. 85
Figure 62: Chapter structure of this section. ............................................................................ 86
Figure 63: Matrix to determine the implementation areas (adopted from Daniel 2001, p. 162).
.......................................................................... 88
Figure 64: Concept introduction in different company areas / departments............................ 89
Figure 65: Checklist for determining the module importance. ................................................ 91
Figure 66: Steps in the concept introduction. .......................................... 92
Figure 67: Initial and target state of the modeling example.................... 92
Figure 68: The path of one possible introduction procedure. .................................................. 93