Complete Business Systems Memo to Instructor NO PLAGIARISM

User Generated

ubzrjbexpbafhgyvat

Business Finance

Description

I've attached my pervious weeks memo as an example...please use the attachments of resources to incorporate in this weeks memo to the instructor on how you will use what you learned for the final project paper.

Assignment: Final Project—Business Memo—Organizational Structures and Processes

This week you will continue to work on your Final Project, which is due in Week 7. By Day 7, you will submit a business memo, written to your Instructor that explains how you plan to incorporate your learning from the week into your Final Project. This will not be a "perfect" synopsis at this point, but it should capture the main themes and important ideas from the week. Your memo should include the following:

  • Your ideas and recommendations on how your organization (Walmart) can modify its present organizational structures to be more efficient and effective in the future, making better use of information and information systems for decision making
  • Your recommendations for alternative approaches the organization might take to promote and implement better processes to support better decision making within the current organizational structure(s)
  • Other relevant recommendations or issues that you identified, as they relate to the content and your learning from the week

Be sure to record good notes in your Final Project Portfolio, including a brief analysis of why your recommendations are important. Please make sure you describe the type of organizational structure(s) and processes that your organization is currently utilizing, as well as any assumptions you have made.

Note: If you are unable to find relevant information, you may want to look for similar information at/for other similar publically traded companies. You may find relevant information that will enable you to make appropriate inferences about your organization and make reasonable assumptions so you can proceed with your project.

If you have questions about how to apply what you are learning, or how to find the most relevant information for your organization’s needs, please discuss your choice with your Instructor using the Contact the Instructor link in the classroom.

General Guidance on Assignment Length: Your Week 5 Assignment will typically be 1.5–3 pages (0.75–1 pages if single spaced), excluding a title page (not required for this Assignment) and references.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Special Section: The Impacts of Business Process Change on Organizational Performance VARUN GROVER AND WILLIAM J. KETTINGER Guest Editors is an Associate Professor of Information Systems in the Management Science Department at the University of South Carolina. He holds degrees in electrical engineering, business administration, and a Ph.D. in MIS from the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Grover has won a number of teaching awards and has been involved in intemational and domestic executive seminars and teaching engagements. His current areas of interest are business reengineering, electronic commerce, strategic information systems, telecommunications and inter-organizational systems, and the organizational impacts of infonnation technologies. He has published extensively in the information systems field, with over seventy publications in refereed journals such as Information Systems Research, Journal ofManagement Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Communications of the ACM, Decision Sciences, IEEE Transactions, Califomia Management Review, Database, Information and Management, and others. He recently coedited a book entitled Business Process Change: Concepts, Methods and Technologies. Dr. Grover is the recipient ofthe 1992 Outstanding Achievement Award from the Decision Sciences Institute. He is on the Editorial Board ofthe Journal of Information Technology Management, Joumal ofManagement Information Systems, Intemational Journal of Electronic Commerce, and Joumal of Market Focused Management and is a special editor/coeditor for issues of Journal ofManagement Information Systems, Database: Advances in Information Systems, and Decision Sciences. VARUN GROVER J. KETTINGER is Director of the Center for Information Management and Technology Research at the University of South Carolina. He teaches in the Master's of Intemational Business Studies program and in executive development programs both domestically and abroad. Dr. Kettinger has over eighteen years' professional consulting experience in both the public and the private sectors. Between 1992 and 1994 he assisted AT&T's Software Division in developing a business process management strategy. More recently he has been advising the Business Gateway of the Enterprise Development Institute in building Intemet-based electronic bid matching and EDI capabilities for small businesses. His current consulting and research focuses on electronic commerce strategy, business process change, and IS service quality. He has published extensively in such joumals as MIS Quarterly, Decision Sciences, Joumal ofManagement Information Systems, Communications ofthe ACM, Public Administration Review, JSIS, Database, and Information & Management. He has served as a past special coeditor for Joumal ofManagement Information Systems and coedited the Business Process Change: Concepts, Methods and Technologies. He was a 1995 recipient ofthe Society of Information Management's Best Paper Award. WILLIAM Journal ofManagement Information Systems I Summer 1997, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 9-12. © 1997 M.E. Shaipe, Inc. 0742-1222 /1997 $9.50 + 0.00. 10 VARUN GROVER AND WILLIAM J. KETTINGER HINDSIGHT IS 20/20. Now, WITH A CRITICAL MASS of business process change (BPC) projects concluded, it is appropriate to take a retrospective look at the implications, prescriptions, or lessons we can extract from these collective experiences. Assimilated in these experiences is the realization that reengineering's operative word is not "radical" but "process," with the directive to create end-to-end value for the customer. In doing so, the "obliterate and rebuild" mentality of earlier years is giving way to more sober, deliberate, and often moderate approaches to BPC and process management. More recently, there have been attempts to study the contingent nature of BPC and factors leading to its success. Paramount among the emerging themes is the importance of change management, as contrasted with earlier emphasis on technology management. Other lessons include strong top management sponsorship, strategic alignment with corporate goals, sound methodology, and line ownership. Most of these factors are not new and have been examined in prior studies of technology implementation, organizational change, and innovation. What is new is the relevance and interaction of these among themselves and their infiuence on the nature of BPC outcomes. To extract individual variables with generalizability across diverse contexts and examine them in the positivist tradition of research is extremely challenging. However, to ignore the rich repository of real-world experiences would be foolish. This Special Section makes a significant attempt at leveraging organizational experiences with BPC and translates them into actionable guides. It is evident that, while we are making progress, our tools are still blunt and our conclusions are not as definitive as we would like. However, each paper included here focuses on aspects of BPC that are critical and yet understudied. As such, they add to the collective wisdom of the "how," "when," "what," and "why" of BPC. The papers included in this Special Section were selected from a large number of submissions from around the world and epitomize the study of global phenomena in a global world. Five aspects of BPC and its impact on organizational perfonnance are examined: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The virtualization of the physical; The reinvention of organizational control; The efficacy ofempowerment and teams; The harmonization of change; and The facilitators of and inhibitors to major change initiatives. In the first article, Akemi Takeoka Chatfield and Niels Bjem-Andersen use a generic framework of BPC to describe the successful transformation of Japanese Airlines (JAL) from a physical to a virtual value chain. The impact of the interorganizational system on key business processes resulted in positive business outcomes including growth, competitiveness, response time, and cycle time of joint product irmovation. What is particularly interesting is the ability of JAL to exploit the interaction between business processes and technology. The authors conclude that the traditional keiretsubased organizational form with the focal point of the firm at the center, which has been SPECIAL SECTION: INTRODUCTION 11 a source of competitive advantage for Japanese industries, is not sufficient for today's time-based competition. Instead, keiretsu-hased interfirm collaboration has to be augmented with interorganizational systems (IOS)-enabled virtual value chains to facilitate flexible, nonhierarchical communication across network members. In the next paper, Brian D. Janz, James C. Wetherbe, Gordon B. Davis, and Raymond A. Noe assess the effects of empowered teams on BPC outcomes through an empirical assessment of 231 IS professionals from 27 IS development projects. Using Kettinger and Grover's model of business process change management as an overarching framework, these authors examine the extent to which reengineered ISD organizations using autonomous teamwork, in organizations with higher capacities for leaming and higher levels of cultural readiness, result in greater improvements in process outcomes and Quality of Work Life (QWL). Like the fmdings in Guha et al. (also in this issue), these fmdings reinforce the importance of double-loop leaming and of creating a "leaming organization." It would be prudent for management to consider the multidimensional nature of BPR and stress the importance of, and provide ample opportunity for, cooperative leaming while teams address their work objectives. Siew Kien Sia and Boon Siong Neo focus on a topic that has received little research attention—organizational control in the context of major BPC. They argue that a lack of focus on control issues can expose reengineered systems to excessive risks and long-term failure. The paper conceptualizes organizational control and reports on an intensive case study of successful reengineering at the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). In addition to well-documented outcomes of this initiative, the IRAS's commissioner was presented the Meritorious Service Medal, one of Singapore's highest honors, for his role in leading reengineering. Of particular interest are the four stages of evolution of control systems in IRAS ranging from "automated" control to "humanistic" control. The challenge is one of implementing proper controls within the traditional control culture. The authors suggest a risk-management approach for the assessment of control systems. The notion of "fit" is very popular, particularly in strategic management studies. Ard Huizing, Esther Koster, and Wim Bouman examine the fit among breadth, depth, planning, and coordination of business reengineering efforts in thirty-three firms. They define three archetypes or ideal pattems of change based on their level of ambition. Successful organizations are hypothesized to have fewer "misfits" within the archetype. Their results indicate that organizations that achieved a fit generally outperformed those that changed in an unbalanced way. They suggest that achieving fit is a fragile process that needs to be managed explicitly and constantly. Finally, Subo Guha, Varun Grover, William J. Kettinger, and James T.C. Teng present a multicase comparison of three BPC efforts ranging in success from high to low. A BPC management model was applied to compare and contrast "facilitators" and "inhibitors" of the outcome. The successful project consistently showed positive facilitators in all of the BPC management framework's dimensions. At the other extreme, the least successful project had the greatest clustering of inhibitors in the areas of cultural readiness and change management. Also, the often-stated position that IS should not drive major BPC projects, and that change management requires 12 VARUN GROVER AND WILLIAM J. KETTINGER effective consideration of balance, continuous leaming, and consideration of interdependencies, was reaffirmed. The broad conclusions from these studies are that successful BPC requires explicit consideration of virtualization of physical processes, careful redesign of organization control to manage the changed context, creation of "learning-friendly" environments, a balance between aspirations and the conduct of change, and recognition that change is complex, interdependent, and should not be promoted by a group with parochial interests. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the many reviewers who critiqued articles and provided valuable advice to this project. Their sincerity and dedication to the work they undertook are highly appreciated. We also express our special thanks to Christy Anderson, who was instrumental in keeping this project on track. TOTAL QUAUTY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 6, NO. 2, 1995 187 A change process for adapting organizations to a total quality management strategy LEIF KENNERFALK* & BENGT KLEFSJO Division of Quality Technology and Statistics, Luled University, S-95187 Luled, Sweden Abstract The structure of the organization is often a major obstacle for organizations that want to adopt a total quality managemeni (TQM) strategy. A process-oriented organization is more suitable for a TQM strategy than a function-oriented organization. Modem methods for improvements, such as QFD, process management, policy deployment and benchmarking, can help organizations to adapt to a process orientation. Organizational aspects of quality As early as in the 1940s, Joseph Juran pointed out that the technical aspects of quality control had been thoroughly discussed, but companies still did not know how to achieve and handle quality. Juran had, according to Oakland (1989), identified a number of problems, such as: • • • organization; communication; coordination between functions. These three problems are all organizational aspects on work related to quality. Total quality management (TQM) is a strategy that, if used in a correct manner, has proved to help organizations solve these organizational problems. A TQM strategy Bergman and Klefsjo (1994) claim that, based on top management commitment, a successful TQM strategy in an customer focused-organization must contain some basic elements. These are: • • • • base decisions on facts; improve continuously; focus on processes; let everybody be committed. These main elements are briefly discussed below. Top management commitment. It is not enough to have the involvement of top management in quality efforts. The management also has to show, in actions, that quality is *To whom correspondence should be addressed. 0954-4 i 27/95/020187-11 ij 1995 Journals Oxford Ltd 188 L. KENNERFALK & B. KLEFSJO important. The management is responsible for implementing and maintaining a quality awareness in the organization, and ensuring that this awareness corresponds to the objectives and goals of the organization, for instance in a quality policy. To be able to fulfil these obligations, the structure ofthe organization has to support and facilitate the management in its work. Base decisions on fads. As customer demands and expectations constantly change, it is imponant to base all decisions in an organization on facts, information from customers is as imponant as information from managers. As today's products, both goods and services, are becoming more and more complex, the imponance of adapting to horizontal communication in organizations will increase, to ensure that everyone in the organization can base decisions on facts. Improve continuously. The rapid development of business society emphaEises the importance of continuous improvements to keep a competitive position. Furthermore, it is always possible to achieve better quality at a reduced cost by continuously developing new methods and tools and learning from earlier mistakes. Thus, devotion and a capacity to change in an organization is necessary in the future. Focus on processes. Almost all activities in an organization can be regarded as processes. The objective for these processes is to produce goods and services that will satisfy the customers, using the smallest possible amoimt of resources. To get more and increasingly satisfied internal and external customers, it is imponant that the processes are maintained and improved to satisfy and preferably to exceed the expectations ofthe customers. Ensure that everyone is committed. It is important to allow all members of an organization to be involved in a quality effort. Everyone is responsible for some process in an organization and everyone is responsible for constantly improving this process. If every member is to be involved and feel committed to quality improvements, it is necessary for the members to have possibilities, responsibility and authority, and also suppon from the management for this. In this example of a TQM strategy, the organizational aspects of quality can clearly be seen. But is there still a problem with these aspects, as Juran's statement implies? Powers (1993) shows in a survey that companies identify problems with organizational structure as an obstacle to world-class quality. Organizational aspects of quality are still a problem in many organizations. What is an organization? The idea behind every organized activity is that the total activities of people will achieve common goals using fewer resources, i.e. cooperation will lead to better effectiveness. The strength and effectiveness of people working together in an organization is far greater than the sum of the individual activities. According to Shein (1988), some basic requirements have to be fulfilled to organize activities. These basic requirements are: • • • division of labour and specialization of the activities; coordination and control of the activities in the organization; all members of the organization have visible and common goals for their activities; ADAPTING ORGANIZATIONS TO TQM 189 the organization has an integrative function ensuring that all elements are working towards the common goal. Organizational structure Division of labour and specialization requires cooperation. An organization does not become effective until labour has been divided in some sort of specialization. But this specialization requires cooperation, coordination and control. Coordination and control are certainly important tasks for management, but the most important task for modem management is to support and facilitate the achievement of the common goals of the organization. To be able to support and facilitate, it is important for management to understand bow work is affected by the structure of the organization, and wbat kind of methods tbe organization uses to achieve the common goals. According to Kennerfalk (1993), tbe division of labour, responsibility and authority and the coordination of activities describe the structure of an organization. Different descriptions of the organizational structure Wben an organizational structure is described, different types of structures are often mentioned. Hierarchic versus flat structure. Wbetber tbe organizational structure is bierarcbic or flat is dependent on tbe degree of decentralization and tbe levels of decision ofthe structure. In a hierarchic structure tbere are more levels of decision than in a flat structure. Tbe number of levels of decision will of course depend on the size of tbe organization. A large organization might need more levels of decision than a small organization does, but not necessarily so. Bureaucratic versus organic structure. Structures can also be described by referring to bow tbey react to cbanges in tbe surrounding worid. According to Shein (1988) the reaction of tbe organization in a bureaucratic structure will be predetermined and predictable, even standardized. In an organic structure, tbe actions of tbe organization lack standardization. An organic structure is tbus more flexible in its reactions to cbanges in tbe surrounding world tban a bureaucratic structure. Formal versus informal structure. Tbe formal structure is often visualized in a organizational chart. Tbese charts are often hierarchic matrices where eacb box represents a function in the organization and tbe lines between the boxes represent bow responsibility and authority are deployed. Tbe informal structure can only be found in tbe minds of tbe members of tbe organization. It is tbeir picture of bow labour, responsibility and autbority are divided and coordinated. Tbus, tbe informal structure will be a part of tbe organizational culture. Tbe organizational culture can be defined as the total of tbe collective and shared thoughts, attitudes and actions of tbe members of tbe organization (see Sbein, 1988). In an ideal situation tbe formal and the infonna! structures coincide. If tbat is not tbe case, members of the organization will probably act according to tbe informal structure ratber tban tbe formal. 190 L. KENNERFAIJC & B. KLEFSjO Structure Focus Culture Communication Personnel Technology Products Function oriented Process oriented Hierarchic Bureaucratic Centralized Functions Preserving Short-term thinking Individualistic Vcnical Manager-Operator Narrow competence Special Simple Standardized Flat Organic Decentralized Processes Change Support Teamwork Horizontal Supplier-Customer Broad competence Flexible Complex Adopted to customer Figure 1. Differences between function-oriented organizations and pracess-onented organizations. Differences between function-oriented and process-oriented structures Tbe differences between organizations witb process-oriented structures and organizations with function-oriented structures can be summarized as in Fig. 1. The differences concern extremes regarding tbe two types of organization. Tbese extremes probably do not exist. Most organizations are somewbere between tbe extremes, and some organizations migbt be closer to eitber of tbe extremes. Tbe differences between function- and process-oriented organizations are further explored below. Division of labour, responsibility and authority The primary difference in bow division of labour, responsibility and authority is done in function-oriented and process-oriented organizations is in tbe unit grouping. Traditionally, labour bas been divided into units with responsibility for a common function. As Melan (1993) explains, management has, for some time, divided labour on a functional basis by skill, speciality or work activity. Grouping by function enables resources to be pooled among different work activities in tbe organization, and allows and promotes specialization as well as efficient management of similarly skilled personnel. Tbe responsibility of tbe unit is to manage tbe result of tbe unit in tbe best possible way. Tbis often leads to sub-optimization for tbe total organization. Tbe goals for tbe results of one unit do not correspond to tbe common goals for tbe organization. The autbority is often connected to one or a few persons in tbe unit. Tbese persons are often the only ones in tbe unit witb a complete view of the unit's role witbin tbe organization. Many of today's successful companies divide labour into units formed along processes instead of functions. According to Meian (1993), this type of organization avoids some weaknesses that exist in the function-oriented organization. Tbose weaknesses include an ADAPTING ORGANtZATIONS TO TQM 191 empbasis on nurturing and sustaining skill specialities, which often detracts attention from tbe basic obiective of tbe function, namely work output. Management and workers witbin the function tend to focus on tbeir own means ratber than the broader ends of tbe organization. Tbe responsibility for tbe unit is to satisfy tbe customers of tbe process, using the least possible amount of resources. This leads to a more comprehensive view on goals if tbe overall goal of tbe organization is total customer satisfaction. Tbe authority is deployed witbin tbe unit, to facilitate and support cbanges and improvements in tbe process. Coordinating mechanisms Coordination of tbe activities of people in an organization is vital to achieving the common and overall obiectives of tbe organization. Coordinating mecbanisms tbat can be used depend on bow responsibility and autbority are deployed witbin tbe organization. If responsibility and autbority are centralized to a few people in the organization, as is often tbe case in a function-oriented organization, tbe coordination is often carried out tbrougb direct supervision or standardization of the output. The supervisor tells tbe members of tbe unit wbat sbould be done or wbat result is expected, and tbus coordinates tbe activities of the people. As tbe degree of deployment of responsibility and autbority increases as tbe organization becomes more and more process-oriented, coordination tends to be carried out tbrougb standardization of skills (inputs) or tbrougb standardization of the work process itself. In a totally process-oriented organization, coordination is done tbrougb communication between tbe members and different parts of tbe organization. Tbis is called coordination through mutual adjustment. Organizational focus In a function-oriented organization tbe focus is on results. Tbe overall result is seen as being maximized tbrougb maximization of tbe results of all tbe unit's results. Hence, the focus of eacb unit is on the result of tbat unit. This does not support cooperation and teamwork. This migbt also lead to units bolding information back from otber units, to maximize tbeir own result, and thus destroying all possibility of basing decisions on facts. In a process-oriented organization tbe process, and the satisfaction of tbe process's customers, is tbe main focus. Tbis focus supports communication, botb cross-functional communication and communication along processes, to fmd out about customer requirements and also to inform suppliers of tbe process's own requirements. In fact, it makes communication a vital part ofthe organization. The focus is also on continuous improvement of eacb process to satisfy tbe customer even more tomorrow. Culture If the formal structure does not work in an organization, tbis does not necessarily mean tbat the organization does not work. An informal structure develops in tbe organization and makes it work, but less efficiently. Tbis working structure becomes a part of tbe culture of tbe organization, no matter wbetber it is a formal or informal structure. Tbis is one reason wby tbe organizational structure is difficult to cbange. Tbe culture of a function-oriented organization is dominated by tbe belief tbat change is a threat to tbe organization. All members or units of tbe organization want to keep status quo. Information is not sbared between units in tbe organization. In a process-oriented organization, bowever, tbe culture is dominated by tbe belief tbat cbange is something tbe 1 92 L. KENNERFALX & B. KLEFSjO organization needs, and that cbange provides an opportunity to acbieve the common goals more efficiently. All members of tbe organization constantly look for opportunities to improve the performance of the processes. Information is sbared within tbe organization, and also between organizations, to improve business. Tbis strengthens tbe support culture in a process-oriented organization. To cbange a traditionally function-oriented structure towards a process-oriented structure can be hard work. If tbe process-oriented structure is not seen as an improvement by tbe members of tbe organization, the members will, because of tbe organizational culture, still work as if the organization was liinction-oriented. Communication In a function-oriented organization, tbe information is communicated vertically within tbe organization. Communication witb tbe customer is a business for tbe marketing and sales departments. In tbis organization, securing power is more important tban sbaring information througb communication. In process-oriented organizations, information is communicated mostly along processes, borizontally witbin tbe organization. Communication witb customers permeates all communication witbin tbe organization. In this organization, communication is tbe primary goal and securing power is a secondary goal. Continuous improvement In function-oriented organizations, continuous improvements are virtually impossible, because ofthe fear of cbange. Improvements by employees can be seen as an attempt to break the power of managers. Process-oriented organizations look for cbanges, and as tbe focus is on processes, tbe cbanges are aimed at improving tbe processes. Tbis improvement work goes on continuously, as the organizational culture supports tbis kind of activity. Tbe communication between processes and between organizations facilitates exchange of information to improve business. Organizing for a TQM strategy Tbe above discussion implies tbat an organization fit for a TQM strategy sbould be process-oriented. If management decides to adopt a TQM strategy in tbe organization, appropriate cbanges bave to be made in tbe organization to benefit tbe most from this strategy. Methods for improvements Examples of metbods management can use for implementing a TQM strategy are quality function deployment (QFD), process management, policy deployment and bencbmarking. Wben a modem and proactive awareness of quality is to be implemented in an organization it is important tbat management has an understanding of connections between different metbods in a quality effort and bow tbese metbods are affected by the structure of the organization. ADAPTING ORGANIZATIONS TO TQM 193 Quality Junction deployment QFD is, according to Akao {1990), defined as follows: Quality function deployment provides specific methods for ensuring quality throughout each stage of the product development process, starting with design. In other words, this is a method for developing a design quality aimed at satisfying the consumer and then translating the consumers' demands into design targets and major quality assurance points to be used throughout the production stage. QFD is a tool used to manage and control the product development process. To be able to work with QFD it is not necessary to work with process management, but it will be easier to benefit from QFD if the organization has a process-oriented approach. QFD teams though, are often formed for specific projects. This allows for only a small pan of continuous improvement, as the people involved in the process change with each project. Process management According to Harrington (1991), the objectives of process management are to make processes more effective, more efficient and more adaptable. The main processes that have to be managed are the business processes. The business processes are those processes that cut horizontally through the organization and whose fmal result provides the organization with its profit. According to Melan (1993), the basic elements of process management are: organize for improvement; identify the process; control the process; improve the process. Policy deployment Policy deployment, according to Akao (1991), provides management with an opportunity for consensus dialogue about significant system change. Akao (1991) explains policy deployment as the means by which both the overall control system and TQM are deployed. The ultimate purpose of implementing policy deployment is to create company-wide quality assurance, which is based on the philosophy that quality is supreme and which takes a market-in (customer-oriented) approach. Benchmarking Benchmarking is, according to Bergman and Klefsjo (1994), a way of finding opportunities for process improvements. The basic idea is to make a careful comparison of a process ofthe company with the same or a similar process at another company or another division of one's own company and benefit from the comparison. To be able to benefit from benchmarking, the organization has to be process-oriented. Responsibility for process improvements and authority to make these improvements have to be divided within the organization. The structure in an organization must support processes and improvements in processes rather than functions and the result of the functions. 194 L. KFNNERFALK & B. KLEFSjO Changes in two dimensions Changes are rapid in today's world. Markets are opened and closed, new technologies for both products and production are developed and more and more organizations want to compete on the market. Thus, organizations that want to be competitive have to react quicker and be more flexible. They have continuously to listen to and anticipate the customer's needs and expectations and be able quickly to adapt to these new needs and expectations in terms of new products and processes. The change from a function-oriented organization to a process-oriented has to start with a change in the culture of the organization. Because the informal structure is a pan of the organizational culture, it will be difficult to change the formal structure without changing the culture. Changes in culture The greatest change in culture will be the change in management style. This has to be a change in the behaviour ofthe managers and a change in their attitudes to other members of the organization, suppliers and customers. The manager has to change from a 'hero' to a 'coach'. The hero is a manager who knows everything and does everything. The hero plans, solves problems and forms objectives. This behaviour leads to the alienation of the leader from the team. The coach, however, knows what everyone in the team can do and wants to do. The coach supports the members ofthe team, who themselves plan, solve problems and form objectives. The coach becomes a part of the team. The view of an employee has to change from that of a resource, where only one desired quality is used to achieve the objectives ofthe organization, towards a comprehensive view ofthe employee, where all skills and knowledge are used. Saraph and Sebastian (t993) give an example of a quality culture with four dimensions: management values, employee values, supplier-related values and customer-related values. This culture is consistent with the philosophy of Deming (1986). Changes in structure The change in culture helps the organization change its structure. The cultural change will work as a lever. As the culture is changed from individualistic to team-thinking, the function-oriented structure will change towards a more process-oriented structure. The number of decision levels will decrease and the structure will be flatter. Focus will be more on work flows and processes than on departments and functions, and the importance of horizontal communication will increase. Facilitating change To speed up the change process, organizations can use modem methods of management. Examples of such methods are QFD, process management, policy deployment and benchmarking. To benefit the most from these methods, organizations have to be more or less process-oriented. QFD could be used in a function-oriented organization, where the commitment to and interest in changing the structure towards a more process-oriented one exist. Benchmarking, however, will probably not benefit much in an organization with little or no process orientation. These methods could also be used to support and facilitate a change process in the organization, from a function-oriented structure to a process-oriented one. In ADAPTING ORGANIZATIONS TO TQM 19 5 Change Culture 4. Benchmarking 3. Policy Deployment 2. Process Management Structure Hierarchic Functions JDepartments Rat Work Flow Processes 1. Quality Function Deployment Preserving 'Do-my-job' Individualism Figure 2. The change process from afiinciion-oriented towards a process-oriented structure (after an idea by Lars-Christer Jonson). an organization with a function-oriented structure and an individualistic culture, an emphasis on QFD can help the organization to change the culture towards a one more focused on teamwork. The interest and commitment to make work more process-oriented increase, because more people will be involved in the product development process. The next step in the change might be to start working with process management in greater parts ofthe organization. The process view is emphazised in the entire organization, and labour, responsibility and authority is divided along processes in the organization. The focus ofthe organization shifts from results towards improvements in processes. The internal customer-supplier relations are also strengthened, A focus on the common goals ofthe organization is vital to achieve efficiency. To get an organization focused on the common goals, these goals have to be communicated and deployed in the organization. Policy deployment is an effective tool to achieve this focus. The coordination of activities will also tend to be accomplished more by mutual adjustment as communication becomes a natural process within the organization. Finally, to start the vital work on continuous improvements in business, it is possible to use benchmarking. Focus on the improvements will be on external comparisons to improve internal processes. These four methods can help an organization to change from function orientation and an individualistic culture towards process orientation and a culture of teamwork. The change starts with a change in the culture of the organization, and goes on, with the help of the cultural change, to change the structure of the organization. The change process could be described as in Fig. 2. 196 L, KENNERFALK & B. KLEFSjO Table I. Modem managemem tools and methods supporting change from a fimctian-orienred to a process-oriented structure Step 1: Quality function deployment Step 2: Process management Step 3; Policy deployment Step 4: Benchmarking Division of labour, responsibility and authority Functions Functions/ processes Processes Processes Coordination Standardization of the work process Standardization of the work process Mutual adjustment Mutual adjustment Organizational focus Customer satisfaction through functions Customer satisfaction through processes Customer satisfaction through processes Customer satisfaction through processes Customersupplier relation External Internal/external Internal/external Intemal/extemal Continuous improvement Internal Internal Internal External Conclusions Organizational structures have a fundamental impact on the efficiency of an organization. If the members do not know what to do, and what other members are supposed to do, chaos will arise and coordination ofthe activities will fail. The consequences of this will be that the organization cannot achieve the common and overall objectives. The organization will lose its ability to achieve what it was created to achieve. Management methods can help organizations adopt process-oriented structures. Process-oriented organizations support the TQM strategy of Bergman and Klefsjo (1994), explained above. The change process To facilitate the change process from a function-oriented to a process-oriented structure, organizations can use modern methods and tools for management. The tools and methods discussed previously are QFD, process management, policy deployment and benchmarking. One possible change process could start with QFD. Division of labour, responsibility and authority are still in function, but coordination is made through standardization of the work process, in this case in the product development process. It also increases the importance of horizontal communication. A second step could be to involve more people in processes by using process management. This method utilizes maximum advantage ofthe functions ofthe old organization, but puts the focus more on processes and improvements of these processes. Horizontal communication and internal customer-supplier relationships are created. A third step could be to start coordinating the organizational activities through mutual adjustment. To be able to do this, policy deployment could be used to deploy and get organizational support for the objectives. As a last step, focus on external information for continuous ADAPTING ORGANIZATIONS TO TQM 1 97 improvement could lead to the use of benchmarking. Possible steps in the change process could be described as in Table 1. This is a theoretical model for a change process. Tlie advantages described in these methods make it possible to say that this is a suitable model for the use of these methods to help organizations to change their structure towards a more process-oriented one. The order ofthe steps might be discussed. In an article by Conti (1989) the relationship between QFD and process management is discussed. It is therefore possible to assume that step 1 and step 2 might occur at the same time in some organizations. In Bergman and KJefsjb (1994) the relation between process management and policy deployment is discussed. All these discussions further emphasize that the order in which the steps in the change process are to be taken can and must be further investigated and discussed. Acknowledgement The financial support from the Swedish Institute for Quality, SIQ is gratefully acknowledged. References AKAO, Y . (ed.) (1990) Quality Function Depbyment. Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design (Massachusetts, Productivity Press). AKAO, Y. (ed.) (1991) Hoshin Kanri, Policy Deployment for Successful TQM (Massachusetts, Productivity Press). BRRGMAN, B . & KI.I-:RSJO, B . (1994) Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction (New York, McGraw-Hill). CONTI, T . (1989) Process management and quality function deployment, Quality Progress, December, pp. 45-48, DEMING, W . E . (1986) Out of the Crisis (Boston, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). HARRINGTON, H.J. (1991) Business Process Improvement. The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness (New York, McGraw-Hill). KENNERFALK, L . (1993) Relations between organizational structure and continuous improvements. Research Report 1993:10, Division of Quality Technology and Statistics, University of LuleS. MELAN, E . H . (1993) Process Management. Methods for Improving Products and Service (New York, McGrawHill) OAKLAND, J. S. (1989) Total Quality Management (Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann). POWERS, V. J. (1993) Quality hurdles; barriers that keep organizations from world-class, mature quality. Continuous Journey, August/September, pp. 16-19. SARAI'H, J.V. & SHBASTLfkN R.J. (1993) Developing a quality culture. Quality Progress, September, pp. 73-78. SHKIN, E . H . (1988) Organizational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall Intemational).
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Surname 1

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Memo
To: Instructor
From:
Date: 11th February 2018
Subject: How I will incorporate Week’s into Final Project
Dear Sir/Madam,
Here in class, I am so excited to learn about ways in which organizations can improve their
management strategy through process change. My final project on Walmart Inc company. This
week, I have learned about h...


Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags