Effektivisering, rationalisering,
nedskärning
Johann Packendorff
1
Delivery performance is 87%
Is this good, bad, or indifferent ?
Absolute performance = 100%
100
Customer expectation = 98%
Target performance = 95%
Percentage of deliveries on-time
90
X
X
80
70
X
60
X
X
Competitor performance = 81%
X
Performance against customer expectations is POOR
Historical performance is GOOD
Performance against target is POOR
Performance against competitors is GOOD
Absolute performance is POOR
50
Now
2
Cumulative
improvement
Continuous and breakthrough improvement
Breakthrough
improvement
Continuous
improvement
Time
3
Performance
Intended performance
improvement with breakthrough
improvement
Breakthrough
improvements
Time
4
Performance
Actual performance improvement
with breakthrough improvement
Actual improvement
Time
5
Performance
Performance improvement with
continuous improvement
Standardize and maintain
Improvement
“Continuous”
improvement
Time
6
Define
Plan
Do
Measure
Control
Act
Check
(a)
Improve
Analyze
(b)
(a) The plan-do-check-act, or “Deming” improvement cycle, and
(b) The define-measure-analyze-improve-control, or DMAIC six sigma
improvement cycle
7
Performance
PDCA Cycle repeated to
create continuous
improvement
Plan
Act
Do
Check
“Continuous”
improvement
Time
8
Common techniques for process improvement
Input/output analysis
Flow charts
Scatter diagrams
x
Input
Out put
x
x
Cause-effect diagrams
Pareto diagrams
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Why-why analysis
Why?
Why?
Why?
9
”Japanska sjön”
som förändringsfilosofi
- Höj ambitionsnivån i ett avseende,
och låt konsekvenserna av detta slå
igenom fullt ut!
10
Processförbättring innebär
organisationsförändring!
11
Organizational Change
• Managing today would be more
accurately described as long
periods of ongoing change,
interrupted occasionally by short
periods of stability.
12
Why People Resist Change
• Habits – We are creatures of habit.
• Fear of the unknown.
• Security – The higher the need for security,
the stronger the resistance.
• Economic factors.
• Selective information processing – We all
have our own ideas of what is right.
13
Why Do Organizations Resist
Change?
•
•
•
•
•
Group inertia – Peer pressure, group norms.
Security.
Threat to established power relationships.
Threat to established resource allocations.
Limited focus of change – Change affects others
in the organization.
• Poor communication.
• Threat to expertise.
14
Techniques for Change
Implementation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establish a sense of urgency for change.
Establish a coalition to guide the change.
Create a vision and strategy for change.
Find an idea that fits the need.
Develop plans to overcome resistance.
Create change teams.
Foster idea champions.
15
What Can Change Agents
Change?
• Structure – Change agents can alter one or more of the key
elements in an organization’s design.
• Technology – Competitive factors or innovations within an
organization often require change agents to introduce new
equipment, tools, or methods.
• People – Change agents help individuals and groups within
the organization work more effectively together.
• Physical Settings – Change agents can affect their
environment.
16
Organizational Change
• Resistance is not all bad. Resistance:
– forces management to check and recheck the proposals.
– helps identify specific problem areas where change is
likely to cause difficulty.
– gives management information about the intensity of
employee emotions on the issues.
– provides a means of release of emotions. This causes
employees to think and talk more about the changes.
17
Organisationens storlek
- en fråga om förändringsledning!
18
Change through re-sizing
the organization
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Downsizing
Compressing
Consolidating
Contracting
Demassing
Dismantling
Downshifting
Rationalizing
Reallocating
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reassigning
Rebalancing
Redesigning
Resizing
Retrenching
Redeploying
Rightsizing
Streamlining
Slimming down
Leading up
Background and Practical
Importance
• Assumptions: 1980s
– Bigger is better
– Growth in employee base is natural and
desirable
– Slack resources allowed adaptability and
flexibility
– Consistency is a hallmark of effectiveness
Background and
Practical Importance
• Events: 1980s & 1990s
–
–
–
–
Recession in early 1980s
Recession in early 1990s
Decline in our global competitiveness
US business press said “American businesses are fat,
dumb, happy & starting to lose!”
– Virtually all major firms downsized between 1985 and
1990
– Assumptions of early 1980s challenged. The new
model: “Lean is mean!”
Background and Practical
Importance
• 1990s and 2000s
– The “recession” of 2000-2003
– Tendency to lay off only blue-collar workers
challenged; white-collar layoffs multiply
– Research shows most layoffs damage productivity and
morale
– Crisis precipitated by the burst of the IT bubble (March
2000) and terrorist action (September 2001)
• Leads to “Organizations must downsize to survive the crisis!”
• Massive, concurrent layoffs implemented quickly
Today (2010)
• Major financial crisis preceded by forceful
growth period
• Companies do not want to repeat the
mistakes from 1998-2001
• Productivity improvements by process
innovation rather than capacity
improvements by expanding org size
• Outsourcing debate
23
How Managers Conceptualize
Downsizing
• Reinforcement
– Overall objective is to perpetuate the current
mission, strategy, and systems with a focus
on adapting to current circumstances
• Reorientation
– Overall objective is to change the current
mission, strategy, and systems with a focus
on discontinuing previous activities
How Downsizing Is Implemented:
Three Types of Strategies
• Workforce reduction strategy
– Most common approach
• Organization redesign strategy
– About 27% of cases
• Systemic strategy
– About 21% of cases
Workforce Reduction
Strategy
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on workers
Eliminates people
Quick implementation
Goal: Short-term payoff
Inhibits: Long-term adaptability
Organization
Redesign Strategy
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on jobs and units
Eliminates work
Moderate pace of implementation
Goal: Moderate-term payoff
Inhibits: Quick payback
Systemic Strategy
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on culture
Eliminates status quo processes
Extended implementation process
Goal: Long-term payoff
Inhibits: Short-term cost savings
Common Impacts of Downsizing
• For the “across the board, grenade approach”
–
–
–
–
Organizational dysfunction
Ineffectiveness
Lack of improvement
Lack of development of quality culture
• For the systemic analysis approach
–
–
–
–
Improvement in performance
Improved involvement and communication
Development of quality culture
Organizational survival
Best Practices in
Downsizing
• Implemented top down and initiated from bottom
up (i.e., let the right people pick which jobs are
eliminated)
• Across-the-board downsizing sent message to
stakeholders, but selective downsizing enhanced
effectiveness
• Successful downsizing involved managing the
transition for those who lost jobs and managing
the transition for survivors
Cont.
Best Practices in
Downsizing (Cont.)
• Focused on internal efficiency barriers and
relationships outside the organization
• Focused on creating small, semiautonomous
units within large integrated organizations
• Downsizing was “means to end,” not just
end in itself
• Other?
Sammanfattning
• Produktionsledning innebär en ständig aktiv
processförbättring, snarare än stora reaktiva kliv då och då
• Produktionsledningen måste utsätta produktionssystemet
för förändringstryck på egen hand
• Förändringsmotstånd är naturligt, och måste användas på
ett konstruktivt sätt
• Hantering av organisatorisk storlek har blivit allt viktigare
• Alla förändringar av organisatorisk storlek måste dock
hanteras som långsiktiga organisationsförändringar,
förutsatt att organisationen inte står inför sin undergång
32