offer a certain fonn or functionaJit.y (e.g. Nielsen, 1993), whereas questions concerning the necessary ..... Ergonomie. Munchc.n, W1en: Carl Hanser Verlag.
II UMAN FAC'l'ORS JN ORGAN li'.11 '/'IONAL DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT - VJJ I I. Luczak and K. J. link (Edit on..) 2003.
Participative Design of JT..System Implementation - exemplified by Digital Production Planning in the Automobile Industry l lenning BRAU, Dr. lfati.mut SCHULZE, Dr. Michael WEYRICH, Dr. Siegmar 1-JAASIS
Daimler Ch1J1sler AG, 1/lilhelm-Runge·Str. 1.1, D-89081 Ulm, Germany Abstract The systematic and participative design of implementation is an important foclor lor U1c successful introduction of lT systems. Based on researches in liteniturc and on experiences made at DairnlcrChrysler, first the charadcristjc features of a systematic and participative design of implcmcntalion ~m~ presented. Considering as example 1.he Digital Factory's implcrncntntion into the engineering processes . of · DaimJcrChI) sler, some observable challenges are demonslraicd tlwt . occur wj1J1 the introduction of complex systems into distributed work processes. In conclusion, solutions arc brought up for discussion. Keywords: Participation, lmpicmcntation Design, lT Systems, Djgitul J•actory, Process Analysis, Usability, Evaluation, Training 1
1. Introduction The implemcnwlion of I'! . systems into the industrial work world has for a long time been focussed on a tcclmoJogy-ccnlcrcd approach. The sysicms were primarily aligned to offer a certain fonn or functionaJit.y (e.g. Nielsen, 1993), whereas questions concerning the necessary rcquircmenli;; for tJ1cir systcrnalic imp1cmcntation and tl1eir acceptance on the part of 1he users were neglected. Thcrcforc, lT system implcmcnt.ations often used lo resemble a "bomb release" (Roscnsticl , 1987). With tJ1e progressive undcrnlanding of the human-computer-interaction O~lCJ) as part of a socio-technical system (e.g. Rohmert, 1993; Eason, 2001) and the development of tl1c approach of the Business Prm.:ess Rccngincering (e.g. Gailanidcs, 1998) 1hc nccds of the future users conlinuaJly have been given piiority in recent years. Consequently, the necessity of a careful design for rr system implcmcnt.ation at work places has widely been agreed upon. Eurly parLicipalion of future users has proved itself as a crucial factor for a successful introduction (Damodaran, 1996; Rosson & CmToll, 2002). Yct, un appropria{c user-integration into tl1e implementation process turned out to be everything but trivial (Tudhopc, Beynon-Davies & Mackay, 2000). The presented contribution describes possible methods of resolution for some of the observed challenges.
2. Ideal type of implementation design characteristics 'Ibe team ,,Psychology in Engineering", department Research Product, Process, Resources Integration (RTC/EP) al DnirnlcrChrysler canies out a. support function during t11c introduction of new IT syslcms into engineering processes, e.g. within ihc ranges of construct.ion and production planning. Such systems seriously change the work proceedings as well Hs the organizational structure and therefore require a particularly thorough preparation and pJunning. The design of the introduction process is based on a model of a participative and holistic 11rocccding, us detailed below. An emphasis during U1e activitlcs Jies on the integration of users in the introduction of IT systems us early as possible. This aims at U1c rntegration of user requirements, mapping and optimization of work processes and at a technological IT system planning perspective ihat considers soft- and hm·dwmc-crgonomic aspects (e.g. regarding the fulfilment of ergonomic defaults of U1e European Union guideline 90/270, 1990) as well as requirements for trillning conceptions. 'l11c close co-operation with the developmental team and the so-called "Key Users" as representatives of U1c employees is stipulated wiU1 a.II these actions. A positive side effect, from the Key Users inclusion, is the associated generation of multiplicators for future training intentions. Figure I shows an idcaJ type of implcmcnlalion design as an iterative process.
Flgure 1: ideal type of iterati11e i111plemenlatio11 design ofIT systems.
Already in tl1e early design swgc, U1C ./\s-ls processes of every-day work arc recorded, for cxmnplc by parlicipatory observations, workshops and interviews. As-ls processes arc Oien mrnJy1.cd in order lo dclinc optimized To-Be processes. Hereby different user groups and tlH.:ir spccific needs arc identified from the work context (User Profiles). Once ihcy urc defined, forccasfs concerning I.he consequences of the planned system on 1he workproccsscs and workers' roles cnn be made. 'J11c following development st.age places special emphasis on usabiliLy and !he mapping of work processes in U1c system. Jn the early
·nlC
evaluation hcurislic expert methods nre used. such as Heuristic Evaluation (Nielsen & Molich, "I 990) and Cognitive Walkhrough (Lewis, Polson, Wharton & Rieman, J 990). ln the following sLcp the evaluation or lhe fulfillment of ergonomic demands according to DIN EN ISO 9241-1 I (1998) is pcrfonned, using formative and sumrnativc evaluation procedures, e.g. JsoMetrics (Gcdiga, Hamborg & Duentsch, l 999) and Evadis 11 (Oppennann, Murcbncr, Rcilcrcr & Cook, 1992). User tests under cxpcrimentnl conditions as an intennediate step U1en serve lo validate 1hc results of earlier evaluation st.ages as well as to accumulate specific user requirements. '111e findings from U1c design stugc and the development stage are consolidated in the pre-implementation slage, in order to identify qualification profiles and to define rcguircmenL'\ for training concepts and manuals. The evaluation of manuals and training concepts in co-operation with Key Users ii> a furU1cr emphasis of the participative design of impJcmcnlation. 'foe introduction process is not rcgurdcd as being completed after 1hc system is introduced: since evaluations concerning lhe quality of 1hc implementation process will foJJow. By making use or U1c evaluations, system optimization chances and tl1c acceptance of U1c users arc arndyzed, rcgardi ng both: The lT system itself and the design of U1c impJemen1aiion j)roccss. J\llcr I.his the findings are made available for following implementation projects as well as for the inlroduction of new versions offue same syslcm. Some components of tl1e mentioned model (Fig. 1) of a syslcrnatic and participative implementation design arc cviduatcd and used within concrete introduction projects. One example concerns the introduction of U1c so-called "Digital Factory". On this occasion it refers to a major change project withj11 U1c entire automobile industry (Vcrband dcr J\utomobilinduslrie, 200J ), which aims al IJ1e digitalization of processes for development, production planning und manufocl111ing. Important sub~goals are the complete digit.a] data consistency of the pre-development stage up to 111c data illustration and the simulation of the e11tire production course. ln the coming ycurs the Digital foaciory is going to replace 1he st.ill to a !urge cxlcnl paper-based procedures in development, product.ion planning and manufacturing as well as U1c divcrsiucation of already assigned IT systems (Unger_, 2002). Jnslcad, a standardiz.cd duia flow between separate but mutually tuned systems witllin the meta-system Digital Faclory over a joint database is going 1.o be installed, i.e. a central relevance is aUached to the data interface organi:t.11.tion.
3. Observed challenges
or
ln U1c context past m1d cuncnt participative introduction projects, central challenges couJd be noticed, which arose drning tJ1c implementn.tion of digital production planning systems: •
Suitability of U1e Key Users as pilot users: Apart from the problem of selecting suitable people, U1e Key Users who are merged in core teams increasingly lose their suitability as pilot users. On tJ1c one hund U1cy arc scl free to different extents from their operational plaiming tasks h1 order to work wiU1in the core team, on the 0U1cr hand a progressive idcnliricalion wiU1 U1c core team lakes place. Both nspects enforce an alienation from the requirements of the employees (Brau, Antz & Schulze, 2003).
• Mediating .common understanding of complex actual work processes: 'TI1e entire opcrnlionu1 sequence of planning new product.ion plants covers multi-st.aged and widely dislributcd planning activities, in which numerous pJanning-divjsions and cxtcmaJ suppliers nrc involved. The challenges of systematic data-collection and the representation of highly complex work processes arc pJaccd in an interdisciplinary and cn1eIJ1risc-sprcuding developing environment.. • Transfer of ihc actual. As::-J.s processes into practical To-Be processes: The sumdardizaLion and optimiY11tio11 oftl1e distributed work processes Wlder consideration of tl1e individual division ' s requirements is a highly complex and also entcrprisc-poJiticully explosive venture. Obviously it cannot be achieved in a linear way. Instead, first rr prototypes enable a lirsL model of tl1c new workflow. This model again puts new rcquircmcnl
