Performing changes in product development: A framework ... - CiteSeerX

Performing changes in product development: A framework with keys for industrial application Cecilia Beskow and Sofia Ritzén Department of Machine Design Royal Institute of Technology 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden Corresponding author: Sofia Ritzén, Dept. of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Short title: Performing Changes in Product Development Abstract Industrial product development requires continuous improvements in work procedures as a result of constantly changing demands. Support tools have proven to be an oft chosen way to meet new demands; however few research efforts have been made in how to implement new tools. This article is a contribution to knowledge on carrying out the implementation of support tools. The basis consists of four field studies performed during 1994-1999, containing 78 qualitative research interviews and focusing on the implementation and use of different support tools. A re-analysis has been performed of selected interviews from the field studies, in total 30 interviews. This resulted in recommendations for an implementation model with guidelines, i.e. an implementation framework, consisting of Implementation Cycle, Organizational Change Field and Managerial Consistence and five implementation keys: Goal Setting, Knowledge Development, Anchoring at All Levels, Suitable Resources and Focus on the Individual. Keywords: product development, support tools, continuous improvements, change 1.

Introduction

Industrial product development is an area facing continually changing conditions concerning environmental demands, quality demands, new technology etc. Furthermore, there are high demands for efficiency in performance, which is why an ability to adapt to these changing conditions is crucial. Work procedures in product development have therefore been the focus of companies as well as scholars in Engineering Design. To meet demands on product quality, cost and lead time, changes are carried out, ranging from large re-organizations, to the development of process models for product development, to the deployment of support tools1 for specific issues. As conditions change over time and complexity is increased in product development, companies must be able to quickly respond to new demands, and flexibility in work procedures is required.

1

In this article a method, support tool or system is an object that companies aim to implement in their product development activities to improve a certain activity or certain aspects. 1

Hart (1995) points out that activities and routines for ”continuous improvements” are needed since a stable condition in a business is not likely to apply to the industrial product development arena. Continuous improvement is characterized by a systematic, enduring search to find means to systematize and rationalize existing processes (Norrgren 1995). With increasing competence in performing continuous improvements radical changes are also more easily performed. In the Engineering Design discipline many theories, methods, and tools are being developed, with the objective to improve both products and processes. Finger and Dixon gives in a twopart paper (1985 a, b) a rich overview of research in the Mechanical Design area with conclusions on issues covered and non-covered. The issues on work methods and support tools are not covered from the perspective of the product developers daily situation. During the last decade research in performing product development has gained more interest and is also defined as an academic area (Norell 199X). However, the very performance of change has not been a highlighted issue and few research efforts on how to carry out a successful change in a product development context have been noted. The aim of this article is to contribute to this area by analyzing data empirically based in product development, and applying theories from several other areas such as management studies, organizational development and knowledge management. This has resulted in the definition of a set of guidelines presented in Section 5. 1.1 Research on implementation efforts As pointed out in the introduction there has been little research on the implementation of methods, systems or support tools2 in the product development area; the development of tools is still a wide area. In organization research, on the other hand, several sources show that the result of a change depends as much on how a change is performed as what is intended to be changed. Many efforts in industrial product development are aimed at getting new tools into regular use to support the many aspects of product development. This is why greater competence to efficiently implement support tools would be valuable. Here, implementation means the actions for obtaining usage of a specific tool. Four studies on the matter of tool implementation and use have been carried out at the division of Integrated Product Development (IPD), Department of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). Each study contains research questions on implementation activities and the use of support tools in industrial product development, though the focus of the studies varies between functionality, effects and implementation efforts. The product development investigated is both new product development and product care; however, support tools are mainly used in projects for new product development. The authors participated to a large extent in all the studies: in data collection and analyses as well as reporting. The four field studies concentrated on implementation and use of one specific tool each: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Product Data Management (PDM) systems, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS) (see Table 1). These tools were studied because they were thought to have an effect on the product development work procedures as well as a potential integrating effect (in addition to the primary effects described in Table 1). The studies were performed from 1994 to 1998. They all describe a planned change in an industrial environment and address issues related to implementation 2

There are differences in the meaning of ”method” or ”system”, which is why neither of these words can cover the other. However, since the authors find that ”support tool” is general enough to cover all ”implementation objects”, this word is used from now on. 2

performance. The methods and the purposes of the different studies are described in Table 1. Further reading about the specific studies can be found in LCA: Ritzén et al (1996), PDM: Sellgren & Hakelius (1996), QFD: Beskow et al (1998), EMS: Bäckmar et al (1999). Table 1 The support tools in and the purposes of the field studies. Description of support tool Purpose of the study LCA A method to assess the environmental load To map out the implementation and use of LCA, of a product ”from cradle to grave”. Material and to gain knowledge on how to widen an and energy input and output of the product implementation of LCA. The results are based system are investigated. on interview material concerning implementation activities and effects from the use of LCA on the product development process. To identify general obstacles and to gain PDM A tool that supports the management of data in the product development process. knowledge on how to avoid them in future PDM PDM systems keep track of the data and implementations. The results are based on information that are required to design, interview material concerning preparations for manufacture and support a product. and implementations of computer-based PDM systems and their effects on the product development process in terms of control, efficiency, work situation and collaboration. To map out the process of implementing QFD, QFD A tool that supports customer orientation and structuring of the product development and to identify factors of crucial importance for process. Through a cascade of QFD charts, the success of the change. The results are customer requirements are considered in a based on interview material concerning the structured way from the design of the activities in different stages of the product to the production planning. implementation process in the participating companies. To investigate the implementation process of an EMS A procedural approach to develop structured and documented environmental environmental management system, the ISO 14 work in a company. Today the most 001. Factors of crucial importance for a common EMS is the ISO 14 001, which has successful implementation were sought in an important characteristic: continuous particular. The results are based on interview improvement of the business’ material concerning the implementation activities environmental impact. in the participating companies.

During June-September 1999 a re-analysis was performed, including selected parts of the empirical material collected in the four field studies; see also Section 2.2. The results and conclusions from this comprehensive study are presented in this article. The purpose of the comprehensive study is to find out how to increase a company’s ability to implement new support tools and thus improve the performance of first order planned changes (see Section 1.3). An additional aim is to contribute to the general knowledge of how change is conducted in industrial product development. The goal of the study is to offer guidelines for the implementation of support tools, which are applicable for product developing companies. These guidelines are intended to provide a checklist of whether certain factors are paid attention to or not. The factors are identified as being important for successful implementation performances in the implementations studied. A large collection of empirical material constitutes the study, which is characterized by multifaceted descriptions of implementation efforts given by product developers. As a result, the findings from the empirical material are given a central part in the article, with influential theoretical sources discussed in direct connection with the examples selected from the different studies. The conclusions drawn from the findings are presented in a structure that was found to be logical and supportive for industrial change work. These sections are, however, preceded by a presentation of the theories that have been important influences in the analysis work and in the presentation of the details of materials collected and research 3

methods utilized. This results in the following structure for this article: Theoretical influences in section 2, Material and methods in Section 3, Empirical findings in Section 4 and Conclusions in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 gives some Final remarks on the findings and conclusions. 2.

Theoretical influences

This section will shortly describe what theories that have influenced both the study and the reanalysis presented in the paper. In a simplistic way the results of a change can be described as depending on two parameters: what and how (Sarv 1991). The research work reported in this article is focused on ”how”, where ”what” is the fixed parameter, ”usage of a support tool”. Several sources have been used as influences to explain, relate to and support the material in the analysis and synthesis (further described in Section 3). These sources are mainly in the areas: Organizational Development, Knowledge Management and Learning. Product development theories are however, not explicitly presented or discussed. A structured product development procedure as described by e.g. Ulrich and Eppinger (1995) is the basis for the research approach as well as the concept of Integrated Product Development, defined by Andreasen and Hein (1987) and later explored by Norell (1999). Porras and Robertson (1992) suggest a taxonomy for organizational change; see Table 2. Table 2 Taxonomy for organizational change by (Porras & Robertson 1992). Change Category Order of change Planned

Unplanned

First

Developmental

Evolutionary

Second

Transformational

Revolutionary

A planned change is a change that follows a decision in the organization to deliberately improve its general capabilities to deal with existing or anticipated environmental demands and typically affects many, often unforeseen, segments of the organization. An unplanned change is a change that is initiated outside the organization to which the organization adapts. A first-order change is linear and continuous in nature and involves alterations in the organization’s characteristics without any shift in fundamental assumptions or in basic paradigms. A second-order change is a multidimensional, multilevel, qualitative, discontinuous, radical organizational change involving a paradigmatic shift. In applying this taxonomy to the type of change focused on in this article - namely implementation of support tools – the most suitable category is first-order planned changes, i.e. developmental changes. Comparable to the taxonomy of Porras and Robertson, Norrgren (1995) defines a change as an improvement (first order) or a renewal (second order); see Table 3. The changes can also be characterized using change strategies: a learning strategy – with elements of commitment, empowerment and interaction – and a program strategy – with elements of heavy planning, imitation and a top-down approach. 4

Table 3 Different outcomes of a change effort (Norrgren 1995). Learning strategy

Program strategy

Renewal

Innovative changes

Restructuring

Improvement

Continuous improvements

Improvement campaigns

According to Table 3, a learning strategy should be chosen if the desirable outcome is continuous improvement, in which the implementation of a support tool could be a step. However, it is likely that elements in a program strategy can also contribute to a successful implementation. In order to develop an ability to change and continuously carry out efficient changes, learning is an essential part. Around 1990 the concept of learning organizations was established and said to be a means for creating a high level of competitiveness in businesses; it was even claimed that it was a prerequisite for the long-term survival of companies. Senge (1990) claims that to create a learning organization several components must be linked together, with a holistic view providing the most important component of a learning organization. The concept of learning organizations raises some interesting questions. In the development of guidelines for performing planned first-order changes, how is learning emphasized and used for carrying out an efficient change? A pedagogical approach to planned changes is action learning, i.e. learning from one’s own experiences gained in ”real life” projects. Action learning has two purposes (Forslin & Thulestedt 1993): to develop the organization and to contribute to individual learning. The purposes of Organizational Development are similar, according to Porras and Robertson (1992): • improvement in the organization’s ability to perform, • improvement in the development of the organization’s members. These purposes could be applied to the research described in this article, where a starting point for the re-analysis was that a change should affect conditions (implementation of a support tool should change work procedures) and individuals should be able to develop (support tools should be perceived as being useful on an individual level). Action learning is characterized by the cycle illustrated in Figure 1. The important characteristics of this cycle are the basis of a person’s own experience - which makes it easier to understand abstract concepts - and the feed-back process - which supports an on-going process of continuous improvements (Kolb 1984). Concrete experience Testing implications of concepts in new situations

Observations and reflections Formation of abstract concepts and generalizations

Figure 1 The learning cycle according to (Kolb 1984).

5

Another cyclical approach often mentioned in the literature is the PDCA cycle - the Plan - Do - Check - Act cycle (for example Hart 1995); see Figure 2. The PDCA cycle is a learning process, which when applied to a planned change could be described as in (Hart 1995): 1. Plan: How the change should be carried out. 2. Do: Test the plan with experiments. 3. Check: Evaluate the experiments. Reflect on the change. 4. Act: Perform the change on a larger scale.

Act

Check

Plan

Do

Figure 2 The PDCA cycle.

Knowledge management is a discipline that has become more influential over the last few years. Knowledge is defined by Davenport and Prusak (1998) as: a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provide a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the mind of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms.

Knowledge management has relevance in this context given that a planned first-order change is and should be a knowledge-creating process. Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) state that tacit knowledge of individuals is the basis of organizational knowledge creation. To create organizational knowledge, a knowledge spiral must be established, meaning that tacit knowledge is shared between individuals, then transformed into explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is then shared in the organization and finally internalized in individuals to form new tacit knowledge. The knowledge creation spiral starts at an individual level and expands to the group, organizational and inter-organizational levels. 3.

Material and methods

3.1 The four studies An overview of the empirical material is offered in Table 4 below. The interviewees were mainly operational product developers or operational support staff with a greater number of product developers spread among functions as design, market and production. The semistructured approach was preferred, since an unstructured interview would not support an investigation of the specific subject areas that were chosen (Westlander 1994). It was also understood that neither structured interview formats nor questionnaires would have provided the desired holistic, multifaceted picture that the studies were designed to achieve. This type of research method has thus been used given the characteristics and purposes of the field studies: (a) All the implementations studied had a limited empirical base and were a rather new phenomenon in industry; (b) the material should capture the complex and multifaceted picture that is the nature of a change in a product development environment; and (c) the results and conclusions were intended to reflect the subjective experience of the interviewees 6

(Kvale 1983), i.e. the central themes in the life of the interviewee to which he or she can relate. An interview guide provides structure for the researcher during the interview sessions, but it is not intended to place constraints on the discussion. The procedure is made up of selected sub-themes that are used to stimulate the interviewee during the course of the session. The interviewee is encouraged to expand upon each theme presented by the interviewer, who follow-up the answers with more detailed questions. One important aspect of the qualitative research interview, mentioned above, is that it is focused on the subjective experience of the interviewee. Therefore the themes in the interview guide must be central and relevant not only to the researcher and his or her project, but also to the interviewee. Hence, the sub-themes were often given more or less attention by the interviewees depending on their knowledge and experiences pertaining to the theme. The semi-structured research interviews used in each study were based on different interview guides; still, several question areas were the same, for example the context of the support tool (e.g. environmental work, quality work), the performance of product development (e.g. activities, actors), activities, and obstacles and successes in implementation performance. Table 4 Characteristics of the field studies, adapted from Blessing et al. (1998). Tools, Study LCA, Study I PDM, Study II QFD, Study III Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Data collection industry industry industry environment Field study Field study Field study Nature of the study Semi-structured Semi-structured Semi-structured Data collection research research research method interviews interviews interviews Subjects: Operations Operations Operations …hierarchical Specialists Specialists Project mgmt level Project mgmt Project mgmt Upper mgmt Upper mgmt Upper mgmt Design Design …main functions Environment Design Computer system Production Production Production Quality Marketing 5 6 4 # of companies

EMS, Study IV Manufacturing industry Field study

*

Semi-structured research interviews Operations Specialists Project mgmt Upper mgmt Environment Production Quality 5 ** 21 1998-99 Passive

20 21 # of interviewees 16 1994-95 1995-96 1997-98 *** Time of study Passive Passive Passive **** Role of researcher Certification of Results required Experimental use Fully implemented Routine use system ISO 14 001 from first implementation * All of the participating companies were large international companies with more than 500 employees. ** The number of companies was chosen separately in each field study. The decision was made according to an assessment of how many companies were needed in order to get a picture of the implementation and use of the specific tool. *** Time of study is the duration of the research, including preparation, interviews, analysis and reporting. **** The researcher did not affect the implementation efforts. The interviews were an interaction between researcher and “subject”.

The interviews were recorded on audiotape to simplify subsequent structuring and analysis of the material. 7

In the analysis process, the researcher’s initial task is to attempt to construct a comprehensive overview of the entire database. The focus subsequently changes to particular sub-parts of the material (the ”coding” task). The structuring of the material starts with open coding, which results in a list of codes, to be used during the rest of the structuring process. The entire material is then divided into these sub-codes and analyzed. There are both differences and similarities between the design of as well as the tools in the field studies, which are explained in Table 5 and 6. To have a high awareness of the differences during analysis has been the ambition of the authors since differences and similarities affect what conclusions could be drawn. Table 5 Differences and similarities between the field studies. Similarities Differences • • • • • •

A focus on product development work An empirical approach A focus on operations personnel Large Swedish corporations # of interviewees # of participating companies in each study

• Main emphasis • Interviewers • Interview guides

Table 6 Differences and similarities between the tools in the field studies. Similarities Differences described in the order (LCA; PDM; QFD; EMS)

• Affect product development activities • Support integration • Complex

• Change fields (few PD’s*; all PD functions; PD projects; entire organization) • Application areas (environmental issues in PD; structuring of PD, info. mgmt; quality issues; environmental issues) • Development level (under development, new in corp.; under development, new in corp.; existing tool, new in corp.; existing tool, new in corp.) * PD = product development

The results from each study concern similar issues, as descriptions of how the tool is implemented are given along with the functionality and purpose of the tool. Issues, which have been identified in analysis work in the field studies as being important for implementation and use are also reported and the effects of usage on the product, process and users are described in detail; see also Table 1. 3.2 The re-analysis The aim of the re-analysis was to focus on the implementation process and on obstacles and successes in implementation. Key factors for the efficient implementation of a support tool in industrial product development, according to people actively engaged in the implementation work and use of the support tool, have been explicitly sought. A selection from the total 78 interviews was made according to the following criteria: • completeness - both concerning facts about the events as well as personal opinions, • focus – emphasis on the areas that the re-analysis concerns. The number of interviews from each field study was determined on the basis of providing a critical amount of data to find patterns and connections in the material. The criteria established for the selection of interviews also placed a restriction on how many interviews were appropriate for another analysis. These criteria were more important than choosing 8

interviews from each company participating in the field studies. Nevertheless, the re-analysis includes most participating companies; see Table 7. There were in total 30 interviews selected, which were subsequently analyzed separately by the authors. According to Kvale (1996), the re-analysis was an “ad-hoc method”, meaning that different methods of finding patterns and connections were used. Such methods were among other condensations of sentences from the transcribed interview material, comparison of interviewee statements, and categorization of paragraphs in the material. However, the starting point for the re-analysis was a broad structuring of the entire interview material into the following codes: performance of implementations, ways of and means for successful implementation, and problems and obstacles in implementation. One set of interviews, from one study, was analyzed and discussed by the authors. From this analysis a more detailed coding scheme was set up, which was used in the further analysis carried out on sets of interviews. Each set originated from a certain field study. After each set of interviews the authors discussed the analysis and modified the coding scheme if necessary. Analyses were made on the complete transcriptions of the interviews.

1 8

20

∧

8

# of interviews in re-analysis

Σ

A B C D

4 9 6 2

∧ ∧ ∧

2 3 2

A B C D E

5 5 4 4 3

∧ ∧ ∧ ∧ ∧

2 1 1 2 1

Σ

21

∧

7

Σ

21

∧

7

# of interviews in re-analysis

2 1 2 1

# of interviews in company

∧ ∧

∧ ∧ ∧ ∧ ∧ ∧

Company

3 3

5 1 4 4 1 5

# of interviews in company

∧ ∧

A B C D E F

Company

Empirical findings

1 3

# of interviews in re-analysis

4.

∧ ∧

# of interviews in company

1 2 4 4 3 1 2 16

Company

# of interviews in company

A B C D E F G Σ

# of interviews in re-analysis

Company

Table 7 Participating companies and number of interviews in the field studies and in the re-analysis. LCA study PDM study QFD study EMS study

2

The re-analysis of the selected interviews resulted in eight different issues that were prominent in the implementation activities studied. These issues were identified from the problems and successes the interviewees had experienced. Some of these issues are on an overarching level, concerning the implementation process and organizational and managerial aspects. Other issues were found to be more specific. The findings are presented with three overarching issues first: process; organization; and management, followed by the more specific issues: goal setting; education and knowledge; anchoring; resource allocation; and resistance to change. The findings are presented through examples from the interview material that were found to be the most significant to the phenomenon described. When interesting differences are found between companies or studies, several examples are presented. By using examples the authors intend to provide a multifaceted picture in addition to the synthesized conclusions in Section 5. Furthermore, it is intended that the broad industrial empirical data can create commitment to perform implementation activities or other planned changes in a more conscious manner.

9

4.1 Process The starting point for the analysis work was the hypothetical change process in Figure 3, preaction, action and post-action. Pre-action

Action

Post-action

Figure 3 A generalized change process was used as a starting point for the study.

For all four studies it is identified that there is a need for a structured procedure for implementing a new support tool in the product development process. In one of the QFD companies several attempts to introduce QFD without a plan were made, but not until internal consultants were brought in to assist the implementation group in developing a structured procedure did the method start to be used. The end of an implementation process is difficult to define, given the continuous appearance of improvements, meaning that when a planned change is implemented in one part of the organization, wider implementation might directly follow. One QFD company started with a small group of people performing a limited part of the QFD method and during the other cycle, both the number of users as well as the extent of the method were increased. All of the EMS implementations started in one part of the company - one division - but the goal was to involve the entire organization. One of the PDM projects started with one module of a commercial PDM system and intended to implement further modules of the system in the future. These examples show the usefulness of a planned cyclical approach to the implementation. The learning cycle, plan-do-check-act (the PDCA cycle, Section 2), is well known to many people, although they have difficulties applying it to their jobs (Kano 1997). Even though the interviews show several examples of a cyclical implementation process, where new undertakings need to be made continuously to obtain improvements in the implementation and use of the tool, the cycle performed is rather a repetitive ”do” cycle, and no reflections are exchanged. However, an EMS integrates continuity to a high degree. Achieving and maintaining an ISO 14 001 certificate is a cyclical process, and includes continuous revision by a certification institution. Experience from the empirical material shows that the first cycle is considered to be the most difficult. It is for this reason the findings show that the initiation of change needs to be carefully considered. The initiation should come from someone close to the product development team who has the ability to use informal channels, even though management must have adopt a clear supporting role when the initiation is done. 4.1.1 Pre-action The majority of the material points to a lack of activities in the early phases, even though there is a widespread understanding of the importance of these early phases. There was, however, one example of pre-action activities found in one of the PDM companies that performed an in-depth analysis of their product development process prior to the actual action phase. This resulted in a rather structured road map for the continuation of the implementation process.

10

One step in a pre-action phase is the identification of the change field - the number of potential users and the organization segments - of the implementation. The change field varied considerably between the different studies as well as within each study. A first implementation cycle was often started with a pilot test in a smaller segment of the organization, e.g. a department or a project team. However, in a couple of companies the first implementation encompasses all of the potential users. This could result in problems arising from the difficulties that could occur in handling the regular organizational structure during a transition period (Nadler 1981), which is why other structures, like pilot projects, experimental units or special task forces, need to be developed. The pilots performed in the QFD and PDM projects encompassed a product development team or a group of people with product development tasks. The EMS companies started to implement the system in one division. In one company this decision was taken after a first attempt to include the whole organization was made and was found not to work. The EMS study questions whether ISO 14 001 actually contributes to successful environmental management. Conversely, the participating companies in the PDM study usually chose their PDM system with care, often involving a thorough benchmarking activity, which according to Nadler (1981) is one feature of a plan for an effective change process. This points to another step in the planning phase: the importance of choosing the correct tool for the purpose. 4.1.2 Action This section will describe the activities in the action phase in one company selected from each study. The examples are company-specific but contain information about the action representative for each study. 1. LCA: Specialists at the company were involved in the development of LCA methodology as well as PC tools for LCA performance (a national project for LCA development). The tools and methodology were implemented on an experimental basis in a product development group, with training, practical use and feedback meetings. 2. PDM: The PDM system was at first tested only in a detailed design phase, where the need was strongest. The modules used were those focusing on the management of formal information. The applications that were integrated in the PDM system were the low-end CAD system and the word processor. However, problems with this integration occurred on several occasions. The PDM system was used parallel to the old data storing systems. 3. QFD: The method was introduced and used for the first time in the early phases of a new project. The implementation group (a product development team) followed the written instructions that dictated the use of QFD. The group first listed the product demands themselves - from experience. Then an interview guide was constructed, followed by customer interviews. A competitor product analysis was also performed more or less separately from the rest of the QFD. Next the ”house” (a matrix) was filled in and target values were set. These activities were started during a two-day conference, which was arranged for this purpose. Meetings regarding QFD were held once a month throughout the project. 4. EMS: A decision to implement ISO 14 001 was taken at the corporate level. A team of 5 people was assigned to perform the implementation with the major activities being education and the inventory of energy and material flows in the company. There was a continuous information exchange between different divisions that were implementing ISO 14 001. An obvious similarity in the action phases in the field studies is that a small group of users performs the elements constituting the tool usage, following the specified methodology. There 11

are differences in actions between who the users are - see “change field”, Table 6 - and in what extension the usage is meant to be (LCA: experimental usage, few users in product development; PDM: pilot teams in product development; QFD: pilot projects in product development; EMS: starting division, all functions in the organization). 4.1.3 Post-action By reflecting on and discussing the change process performed, a base for the continuous improvement of the procedures in the company is established. This is based on learning being achieved, and needs follow-up (compare the PDCA cycle) or observation/reflection and conceptualization (compare experiential learning). However, the evaluation is often seen by the organization members as ”the boring part” of the implementation. In the studies many of the interviewees indicated a lack of time and inspiration after the ”action phase” had been carried out - they wished to quickly proceed with something new. In all of the studies there was a prevalent lack of evaluation activities; nevertheless there are a couple of examples: One QFD project evaluated the use several times through the duration of the pilot and questioned whether or not they should proceed, albeit in a very informal, nondocumented and superficial way. In another QFD company the importance of management requesting the results of an evaluation was emphasized. One experience was that there was some pressure to perform an evaluation, but the results were never requested. An EMS implementation project is evaluated through certification. However the implementation process itself was never evaluated or discussed in the participating organizations. Without evaluation, proper modifications of and additions to a continuation of the implementation process might not be made. Several interviewees experienced the knowledge transfer from project to project (whether it is a product development project or a change project) as being insufficient. One QFD company points out that they found it problematic using a tool because of the long time span between occasions of usage. No documentation from one usage to support a later one was made. There is an awareness of the need for an evaluation with reflective elements although this is only on an intellectual level. However, no concrete suggestions on how to perform an evaluation are made. 4.2 Organization The product development organizations represented in the material were matrix organizations, with mainly lightweight project leaders (Wheelwright & Clark 1992). Below, four examples of implementation organizations in the different field studies are described. 1. LCA: a specialist function within the company initiated and managed the implementation in several chosen product development teams. The specialists trained users and supported them during practical tests with the tool. The users were mainly designers, although Marketing and Manufacturing were also represented. 2. PDM: The pilot was performed and managed by the product development team, with support from the computer system personnel, who also had some assistance from the PDM system suppliers. Users from the Design and Manufacturing department were involved. The implementation was gradually enlarged in the organization. Furthermore, the implementation team used a reference group, whose task was to follow the implementation from ”the outside” and give opinions on different activities during the process. 3. QFD: The product development team itself performed the implementation based on the initiative of the project manager. The team consisted of people from the Marketing, Manufacturing, Design and Purchase departments. Consultants were called in to train and assist the team when needed. A reference group was formed to evaluate conceptual 12

solution put forward in the QFD analysis. This group consisted of product managers from different sales departments in the same corporation. 4. EMS: An EMS affected the entire organization in several ways although an “implementation group” performed the actual implementation. This group consisted of a project leader from Service and people from the Environmental and Quality department. A person dedicated especially to working with the EMS implementation was hired and carried out many of the time-consuming tasks. Several people were chosen and trained to educate colleagues in their own group. This shows two organizational focal points in an implementation process: internal and external. The PDM and QFD implementation examples have an internal focus in which the potential users themselves manage the implementation to a high degree, and the EMS and the LCA projects let a resource other than the potential users manage the implementation - a ”specialist function”. In a majority of the companies studied the implementation team is cross-functional. According to Norrgren et al (1996), this is a prerequisite for being able to perform an effective change. To handle a multi-faceted situation like a change process, it is necessary to gather relevant representatives from knowledge sources available in a company. Several interviewees pointed out the need for support from a specialist during routine use of the tool. LCA users thought that to maintain the use, a support person was needed besides the specialists, a person working in parallel with them. This person should be able to solve problems related to the computer tools and evaluate results. No such function existed, which is why a new function could be needed. Similar needs were also mentioned in other companies. One argument against the suggestion of a new function was that the cost might not be justified. The empirical material shows differences between who the first users and the intended users are. In the PDM and QFD study the intended users, the change field, are product developers. In the EMS study the change field is the entire organization and in the LCA study the change field was not clearly defined since the use was mainly on an experimental level. The starting field, the first users, was the cross-functional teams, described above. In several companies one individual or a few people were told to run the implementation. These people are called change agents, and they have an important role for a successful implementation, according to many interviewees. 4.3 Management The interviews performed in each study have mainly been with people on an operations level in product development. Few managers have been interviewed and, accordingly, the empirical material contains a ”bottom-up view”. Interviewees in the studies describe a number of management actions; nevertheless, the central issue is the lack of management action in implementation efforts. In a planned change, such as in the implementations in this study, management generally plays a large role in the initiation phase. Such involvement varies between the participating companies and between tools. Some differences are seen when it comes to initiation from upper management. Several of the EMS interviewees are content with the fact that management initiated the introduction of ISO 14 001 in the companies. The general opinion is that a large, overarching system like that must come from the top levels of the organization. Conversely, in the QFD companies where the use of QFD was requested from upper management, the interviewees were often skeptical about using the new tool. 13

There is a request for clear management actions in the early phases of an implementation, to give the implementation a flying start, which some of the interviewees believed gave a high degree of commitment to the implementation work. Two examples should be mentioned in this context: The PDM implementations required a large investment in the physical systems, which was seen by the interviewees that discussed this issue as a clear action from management to start working with implementing PDM in the organization. Furthermore, in one of the LCA companies, management encouraged all potential users to attend a training program, which was also seen as a clear action to endorse implementation of the tool. Apart from the first stage of an implementation, when management in several companies has been involved to some degree, upper management seems to have interfered only slightly or not at all in the implementation process and the use of the new tool. This lack of involvement is highlighted in one of the QFD companies, where management is said to neither oppose the implementation nor support the efforts made. Without quantifying the interview material it can be stated that ”receiving management’s support” is one of the most frequently mentioned factors for performing successful implementations. There is a need for support from management during all the different phases in an implementation process, but this means different things from phase to phase. It is most important, according to the users, however, to perceive consistent behavior from management giving support in all phases. One example from the QFD study, of a problem concerning consistency, is that product developers experienced great pressure from management to start using QFD and put a great effort into the implementation, after which management had no time to examine or even ask for the results. This type of behavior has been experienced in other companies as well, thus pointing to the importance of continuous follow-up of the implementation from management level. However, such a follow-up must be done according to the expectations put on the users from the beginning. In one of the PDM companies, the users felt that management was impatient with the results and had the wrong view of how fast an implementation could be performed. A good example is found in the one of the companies in the EMS study, where management was represented in a steering committee and had a continuous dialogue with the group that performed the implementation. 4.4 Goal setting A goal could be defined as: a description of a future state (Abrahamsson & Andersen 1996). In these studies the goals should mark the expected outcome of the implementation as well as lead to implementation efficiency, which is why realistic goals need to be set. A common scenario is that companies aim too high and set increasingly difficult goals, in response to which performance drops, probably because employees set an easier personal goal and reject the assigned one (Locke et al. 1988). One of the subject QFD projects had to lower their ambitions before they obtained sufficient goal commitment among the employees, and were able to carry the implementation through. In addition to the QFD team lowering their expectations of the outcome of the implementation, the management also accepted the lower goal level as being more in line with the allocated resources. A common team goal is critical in succeeding with an implementation. It was found in the PDM study that even a goal that was apprehended as clearly defined by project management was interpreted differently by the project members. In fact, there was in general no consensus on either the goal of the PDM project or the required functionality for a company-wide PDM solution among the intended PDM system users. Taking a holistic view and perceiving the organizational benefit of the implementation, it will be easier for the team to see in which 14

direction they should go and obtain a shared picture of the team goal. Some of the interviewees in the QFD study felt as if they had been ordered to use the method without an explanation. This was highly criticized by the interviewees, who valued team involvement in setting up goals that directly affected their daily work. The need for a certain goal setting procedure is clear from the empirical material. In the EMS study, a goal-setting cycle, where the goals are continuously overhauled, was suggested to achieve more realistic and current goals and also to incorporate a ”goal-setting routine” in the organization. Setting goals for the environmental work in the company is a part of the system – ISO 14 001 in these cases. A goal-setting routine plays a large part in making the goals clear to everyone involved. Locke et al. (1988) suggest that communicating the goals in a way that will be clear and compelling is a requirement for effective leadership, which is why this is seen as a management issue. Participative goals (where the implementation team has been included in setting the goals, as opposed to there being assigned goals) simplify the performance of this procedure. The EMS study in particular, but the LCA and PDM studies as well, shows that clear goals should be measurable and concrete. In ISO 14 001, goals to decrease environmental load are requested and goals like weight and volume of material reductions are found to be easy to express and monitor. Some interviewees noted that there is general satisfaction when monitoring is carried out and a decrease is actually recorded. 4.5 Education, training and knowledge In implementing a new method or tool, the importance of competence becomes evident. This is partly because securing an ability to use the tool is fundamental, but also because in the continuous improvement of a company process, individual learning and managing knowledge creation are important areas. In the companies investigated most efforts have been put into securing the ability to use tools. Education and training have been performed in various ways, with an intensity ranging from no training at all to the training of all employees. High intensity is found in the companies implementing the ISO 14 001, and the reason for this can be derived from the requirements established for an EMS: educating all personnel in order to increase environmental awareness. The empirical material also showed variation in the time allotted to training. A span from four hours (general training in EMS companies ) to several days (repetitive seminar days in the PDM companies) is identified. Another time aspect is when during the implementation phases the training took place. This varied among the different companies, which was made explicit in the QFD study. Four different types of education were identified (one in each participating companies), including ”who” are educated and ”when” during the implementation the training takes place: 1. a few people were given thorough training before the implementation was started, 2. the training was carried out alongside activities related to usage of the tool, 3. everybody in the implementation projects was given training in connection with the startup, 4. everybody in the department was given fairly good training - even though they were not involved in the use of the tool. The companies in the EMS study could be compared to the fourth type since the people trained were not just the users of the ISO 14 001. When LCA was implemented, training intensity was low, and for specialists the first type is typical with people generally gaining 15

knowledge as a result of their own research, and for product developers the second type is typical. In the PDM companies training was mainly of the second type Yet another time aspect is the frequency of training sessions. Several interviewees thought that training must be given repeatedly: in the EMS study because the subject develops over time and new knowledge is gained, in the QFD study because of the need for repetition and for further exploring the methods’ functions. The training in the EMS companies, which was fairly general, covered environmental concepts (i.e. background for an EMS), the environmental policy of the company (i.e. company goals) and the structure of the ISO 14 001 (i.e. function of the EMS). These general issues are important but for the users of tools, training should also be more specific, as was revealed in the QFD and PDM studies. In the PDM study it was shown that users asked for training that focused on their individual and immediate needs and consequently they needed instruction that was familiar with their specific environment and terminology. From several studies it emerges that training should contain practical elements. One training arrangement experienced in several companies was to start with general information and move on to more specific knowledge and practical tasks. These tasks might include jointly resolving problems in groups or using tools in real work. Many interviewees claim that using a tool in real work must be followed up with feedback, preferably given by specialists in groups of users. This is in accordance with experiential learning theory (Kolb 1984), presented in Section 2. Training partly ensures thatthe ability to use a specific tool and partly create knowledge of an implementation process in a more general sense. Another aspect of both these phenomena is where to find appropriate knowledge. In the implementation efforts that have been analyzed several different sources of knowledge are used. Training has been carried out by external specialists on a consultative basis or by internal specialists on the company staff. A project leader or a group member can also take the role of specialist by introducing a new tool and providing informal training. In one of the PDM companies users wanted to have an external specialist since the level of knowledge requested was high and internal specialists were not considered capable of catching up on the development of PDM systems. Another comment was that internal educators were preferred since they should be able to know and feel what the company and the users need. However, some expressed that there was a risk that internal specialists would go too deep into details. Moreover, external educators were more likely to have a routine in training, as well as be better teachers, than internal specialists. The need for a support person during regular use has been identified in all the material analyzed. This means that users request someone who can further develop tools or follow the development of tools, support them by solving problems more related to the functionality of tools than to product development (which can be the purpose of using the tool), and train on a continuous basis. Through a support person a source of knowledge is made explicit since people know who to turn to and know that someone has as an ongoing task to increase the level of knowledge. Such support could mean that a new function is developed for continuous improvement in the product development process. 4.6 Anchoring Anchoring means that the change field should be well acquainted with why a tool will be implemented and that people show an acceptance to the change that the implementation causes. In the LCA and EMS studies, the employees’ personal environmental interest facilitated the anchoring of the methods. In the EMS study the management identified 16

”change agents” in each implementation segment who had a personal interest in developing a more environmentally friendly company. These people worked successfully to transfer information regarding the EMS implementation, because of their position (on the same level as the rest of the group affected) as well as the outspoken support of management level; see Figure 4. In one of the LCA projects, the use of LCA was initiated by a person who had a genuine interest in environmental questions and saw the advantages of the method from a marketing point of view. This person could be considered a ”champion”, and created an interest in the method in the organization. management

change agent

product development team

Figure 4 The change agent’s position in the EMS implementations.

According to a couple of interviewees in the PDM study, specialists could restrain the anchoring process because of their distance from the implementation team’s daily work. Specialists could, however, be a starting point in an anchoring process, which was the case in an LCA implementation where the R&D company in the group actively spread information about the LCA tool, which initiated use in several companies. Training is identified as an important step in anchoring a new method or tool. In the PDM and the EMS studies, a training program stimulated interest in the method in other groupings in the organization, and therefore laid the basis for a widespread anchoring. This informal transfer of information (by people that, for example, have attended a course) is a beneficial way of transferring knowledge (Davenport & Prusak 1998). Furthermore, the cross-functional teaming mentioned in Section 4.2 supports the assurance of anchoring in several organizational functions affected by the change. There is an important aspect that could be foreseen in this context: anchoring on all organizational levels, including management. Unrealistic expectations from management is a problem identified in several companies, for instance how long the implementation is supposed to take (PDM) and how the use of a new tool will become yet another task in an already overloaded work situation (LCA). LCA is also used without a context, i.e. not used as a part of an expressed strategy, but rather as an experiment by specialists to test the method. 4.7 Resource Allocation Interviewees often mentioned in the empirical material that there have to be enough resources to perform an implementation of a new tool. Implementation efforts in the companies investigated typically have enough resources when it comes to investments for the actual tool, like the purchase of computer systems in the PDM and LCA companies. But when it comes to resources in the form of time and people, the picture is different; one persistent finding from the interviews is that there are often too little time and too few people involved. A common situation in implementing a new tool for product developers is that the training, testing and usage are expected to be added to the ordinary working tasks. This is clearly 17

described in one of the QFD companies but is also found in other companies. The effects of such a situation are first that the implementation can be delayed or not completed at all. Second, the ordinary task can suffer because of the implementation activities and third, which seems to be most common, product developers increase their working intensity and prolong their working days. The third effect might be dangerous in the long term since product developers in many companies already have a heavy work load and show stress symptoms (Zika-Viktorsson et al. 1998). Some interviewees claim that it is possible only during a limited time period to add the implementation activities on top of the ordinary tasks. During this time it is especially important to fulfill other requirements so that a certain critical implementation level and knowledge level can be reached. Such a ”flying start” has been tested in some companies with experiences such as that quick results produce enthusiasm and a reliance on the usefulness of the tool. This assumes that the results are directly useful in the users’ ordinary tasks; it simplifies their work or adds something that increases the quality level of their work. There is also the risk of delimiting too large a change field in implementing a new tool. One company in the EMS study started their work with all the divisions at the same time. This turned out to be too difficult to handle, which is why they changed their plans and took one division at a time. This also had a favorable effect on learning of implementation procedure that thereafter could proceed more smoothly in the later divisions. ”Enough people” has been identified as an important factor. In one of the QFD companies, attempts to use QFD were made in a project group. The attempts were not very successful and after a time a consultant was hired as a part of the project group. Once the consultant came to the company, as a professional in the field with time for only these tasks, the implementation process got off to a real start and a critical level of implementation soon could be reached. The EMS study shows similar experiences since the ISO 14 001 implementation, after minor attempts in several companies, started after one person had been hired full time. Four out of the five companies had hired a young person with training in the environmental area: a resource with new competence for the company. 4.8 Resistance to change Interviewees from all the studies indicate that a certain amount of resistance to change always occurs, and is something that the organization has to cope with. Yet the studies show a positive attitude to the implementation efforts in most companies and eagerness for development among people in general. Resistance to change may be described as a pyramid with three levels: not knowing, not able and not willing; see Figure 5 (Galpin 1996). When one level is satisfied, people move up to the next level. In implementing a support tool, these levels can be exemplified as in the figure below.

18

Not willing Not able Not knowing

I.e. people experience a heavy work load, do not experience the purpose of the tool. I.e. people can not use the tool in practice, have no training. I.e. people are not aware of the tool, do not experience a need.

Figure 5 Resistance to change can be described as a pyramid, where people move upwards when needs in one level are satisfied. In addition is an explanation to what this can mean in a tool implementation setting.

In the EMS companies the implementation has been met with a great deal of enthusiasm. Several interviewees explain that there is a shared environmental awareness among people and that changes in the company towards a more environmentally-friendly business are successful. People are positive about doing something in their job that they might try to do on a much smaller scale at home. The opportunity to have an influence on what the company does and how they do it increases the will of people to use new tools.

5. In the QFD study there was curiosity as well as skepticism among interviewees. Skepticism was explained by a feeling that QFD was something that caused an extra workload and just ”had to be done”. This, however, changed when the interviewees started to understand the tool and experience benefits from the tool. In both the LCA and the PDM studies users pointed out that in order to feel a commitment to the tool, to create a will to use it, certain knowledge was acquired. To use LCA the background to the tool must be understood, and to use PDM the tool has to be implemented to a certain level, meaning that a certain functionality must be reached before designers, in this case, are appointed to implement the system in regular work. The pyramid in Figure 5 supports these descriptions; to overcome resistance, interviewees claim they need knowledge and insight in functionality.

5.

Conclusions

When analyzing the important issues found in the empirical material, a structure for how to perform planned changes in product development was formed. This structure was divided in two parts as a result of the different characteristics of the issues that were found: • Implementation framework The implementation framework includes the issues which have a more overarching content. It consists of three important issues: (1) Implementation cycle, (2) Organizational change field, and (3) Managerial consistency. These are further described below in 19

•

5.1

Section 5.1. The framework poses limitations but also gives room for change, which allows a variety of solutions. If the framework is adapted and developed for a particular situation, it will form the prerequisites for the change. Implementation keys The implementation keys are issues that are more specific and focused to support certain areas in the change work. The identification of these keys is in line with the goal to give guidelines on how to perform planned changes in PD. This includes clarifying important factors - or keys - to consider in going through the change procedures. Five keys are identified in this context as being of utmost importance for a successful implementation and are further described below in Section 5.2. The keys are: (1) Goal setting, (2) Knowledge development, (3) Anchoring at all levels, (4) Adequate resources, and (5) Focus on the individual. Implementation framework

5.1.1 Implementation cycle An initiation is the actual start of a change process and needs to be successful, requiring management initiative in some regard (management initiating or supporting initiation) and commitment from, in this case, potential tool users. A flying start can give the desirable commitment, however, there is also a risk with a flying start that product developers become ”exhausted”, which can be avoided if activities are planned so that there is time for specific implementation activities. The emphasis on the “action” phase of the implementation process’s different stages (pre-action – action – post-action) must be broadened to also encompass the pre- and post-stages. Activities in the early phases (e.g. process analysis, time planning, budget, clarification of the needs and definition of the scope of the implementation) would make the subsequent implementation process more convergent. Activities in the poststages (e.g. evaluation, documentation) would support the transfer of knowledge between change projects and give indications of the needs for further improvements. To be able to expand implementation continuously until the desired level of usage is obtained (considering the user-group, the relevant organization segment or the level of the tool), an implementation process should be cyclical; see Figure 6. The evaluation of a first action cycle continues with the planning of a second, and so forth.

time

Figure 6 A cyclical approach to the implementation process.

5.1.2 Organizational change field A team-based project structure could successfully be applied to a planned first-order change. The recommendation is to perform the change as a project, in order to have a clear focus on 20

the goal and a high degree of flexibility, which are two of the characteristics of ideal project work. The project team should be a cross-functional team, with representatives from functions that are potential users of the new tool. Included in the activities in the pre-action phase are setting the scope of the implementation and therefore defining the change field. However, in the first cycle, the field should be a smaller segment of the actual change field – a starting field, still with the cross-functional characteristics described above. Establishing a starting field is a way to facilitate the management and evaluation of the first implementation cycle (sometimes called “pilot”). This is a strategy that is connected with a programmatic rather than a learning approach (see Section 2) but is in this context considered an advantageous way to proceed with an implementation. The establishment of new functions will facilitate the implementation. Champions and change agents are two new “change nodes” in an organization. A reference group in the organization can also be valuable support for the implementation teams. Resources outside the “implementation organization”, like consultants and vendors, should be called upon when needed, and not be considered a permanent part of the implementation actors because of their distance from the users’ ongoing business. In other words, the change should not be driven by outside players. 5.1.3 Managerial consistency There are three managerial factors that seem to cause problems in the implementations studied: lack of support, commitment and consistency. Whereas management support often consists of concrete means like resource allocation, management commitment is of a more abstract nature. By maintaining a dialogue with the product development team throughout the implementation and actively participating in certain parts of the implementation (e.g. seminars on the new method), a commitment to the implementation is clearly perceived by the potential users, which makes clear the priority and organizational importance of the implementation. However, to be able to give the support and have the commitment needed, management needs knowledge of the new tool and its use. Management staff should act consistently throughout the implementation process. They should set their demands from the beginning, together with the limits of the implementation. Instead of letting go of the process after an initial effort, management must continuously request results as well as evaluate them and give feed-back to the team. This gives the team support in focusing on their tasks and goals as well as getting directions on how to proceed with the implementation. 5.2

Implementation keys

5.2.1 Goal setting Working in a project form provides opportunities for a goal-focused work procedure. In implementing a support tool, the goals must include both corporate goals and implementation goals. That is, implementers as well as users of the tool should know why the tool is being implemented, what needs are driving the implementation in the organization. To create a convergent process, goals for the actual implementation project should be decided upon. These goals should be: clear, concrete, realistic and shared. Clear means that the goals should be easy to understand and have a content that people can relate their own work to. The 21

requirement concrete specifies assessment of whether those goals have been achieved. Measurements, even if numbers are not possible, are preferred. Goals also need to be realistic, often meaning that aims should not be set too high, because of the risk of negative effects on self-esteem, stress etc. Nor should goals be too low but should instead give people challenges and encourage personal development. Finally, goals must be shared; the understanding of and belief in goals must be shared by the entire change field. Setting goals also needs a certain routine. The first step is to formulate the goals based on the requirements defined above. The second step is to spread the goals to those involved, a prerequisite for creating common goals. Then a third step is to anchor the goals, to make sure people will identify with them and strive for fulfillment. Management’s involvement in these actions is a key to their success. 5.2.2 Knowledge development In implementing a support tool, an ability to use the tool must be secured. To secure this ability in an efficient way, and gain other benefits as well from the development of knowledge, this should be a learning process and part of a knowledge spiral. The starting point for education and training should be that opportunities to learn are provided so not only information is presented. Users should go through the cycle of testing new concepts, experiencing, observing and reflecting and conceptualizing to develop knowledge for using the tool. It is suggested that observation and reflection, as well as conceptualization, be performed in a group of users. People can share experiences, and the creation of a common language between people from different functions is also facilitated, which is also important for an efficient product development process. In practice, information is needed to implement a support tool, which means that, in relation to the experiential learning cycle, a phase of training precedes the activities in the cycle; see Figure 7. …usage... Concrete experience In team of users, cross-functional Test implications of concepts : In team of users, support from specialist

Use tool in exercise Use tool in project General info. Specific info.

Observations and reflections :

Exchange experiences Solve problems raised

Transfer information:

Education Formation of concepts/ generalizations :

New solutions to usage Modify implementation procedure Teams of users, Input to implementers, management

Figure 7 Experiential learning in practice, case: implementation of tool.

Recommendations concerning education are: 1. Start with general information about which context the tool should be used in and why it should be used and also background about aspects like methodology. Continue with more specific information. This information is then the input to experiential learning. 22

2. The change field identified is the basis for deciding how many and who should participate in education. All users must be trained, although if more people are to be affected by the usage, at least general information given to people outside the change field is beneficial. 3. Carry out training early in the implementation process. Learning could benefit from repetitive education sessions; this is also important if it deals with a changing subject. 4. Knowledge sources must be available in the company but could preferably be external experts for information on a deep level about support tools. Focus on users’ needs and daily conditions. 5.2.3 Anchoring at all levels Anchoring means that the change field should be well acquainted with why a tool will be implemented and that people show an acceptance to the change that the implementation causes. Anchoring must take place at all levels: • at management level to secure an understanding of possibilities and obstacles for the tool to secure proper resource allocation and an ability to set goals, • at operations levels to create enthusiasm and a will among implementers and users. An anchoring in management strongly supports an anchoring in operations levels. Anchoring is strongly linked to the transfer of information, which is why a change agent can be useful in the implementation of support tools. Change agents should preferably be selected from people with a personal interest in the support tool or in the issues the tools deals with and from people enthusiastic about tools, changes and working with people, for example in training matters. 5.2.4 Adequate resources An implementation project must budget the people and time needed in the organization for the actual implementation over and above the investments in the tool and any need for external support. Time and people can be the same resource, i.e. man hours, and should be honestly considered: how many people are needed and for how long time? Planned time limits must be realistic since optimistic time plans can cause stress and resignation about plans and managerial actions. Resignation towards changes is most disadvantageous in an organization striving for a flexible product development process. The need for people must take into account the entire change field but also possible positive side effects in the organization when e.g. information is spread outside the change field. Positive side effects are, for example, anchoring and the sharing of experiences between employees inside and outside the change field. One recommendation is to get off to a flying start, allocate people and give them opportunities during a limited time to reach a certain level of usage of the tool. During a limited time it is also possible to add implementation activities on top of the ordinary tasks, although this carries the risk of exhaustion in a work situation that already has a heavy load. 5.2.5 Focus on the individual Finally, the issue of implementers and users in an implementation performance clearly shows that a focus on the individual is important, and includes the factors described below. • Possibility to influence implementation and use: Planned users must be able to participate in determining how the implementation should proceed. This could mean selecting a training program, taking part in time planning, etc. but also planning who should use the tool and when it should be used. 23

•

Opportunities for personal development: Change with a support tool will be much easier if it includes personal development and not just increase in the workload. Personal development can come from developing knowledge from using the actual tool but also from responsibilities for different activities in the implementation and use. • Experiencing a need and support in regular work: The will to use the tool requires that a need for the tool is individually experienced and usually that it actually supports regular work. • A feeling of commitment and enthusiasm: This factor has a lot to do with the preceding ones but can also be generated by a clear prioritizing from management and enthusiastic change agents. By fulfilling these factors, the highest level in the resistance pyramid is overcome: “not willing”. Anchoring and knowledge development can satisfy “not knowing” and “not able”; see Figure 5. 6.

Final remarks

The empirical base for the conclusions and results presented above is quite large, which is why a certain number of generalizations are made. One comprehensive generalization is that the conclusions could be expanded to encompass not only support tool implementations, but also other types of first-order planned changes, because of the abstraction level of the guidelines. The context of such changes is however, product development and due to the empirical material the results can be said to be valid for new product development. Still, these generalizations should not be seen as universal solutions for performing successful changes. The framework and keys must be adapted to fit the business they are applied to. However, together, these keys and the framework could be of use both in performing a planned change and in evaluating one that is already completed when for example conducting continuous improvements in a product development setting. By considering all the elements, illustrated in Figure 8, and adapting them to the company in question, the change has a greater potential of becoming more successful than in a more ad-hoc and intuitive process. Further research could provide even higher degrees of generalizations to be made in order to encompass change work in general.

K de now ve led lop ge me nt

e n th us o Foc ividual ind

Organizational Change field

Anc hori ng

al o G

ing t t se

Adequate resources Figure 8 Implementation framework with underlying keys.

24

7.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to take the opportunity to thank ENDREA, Engineering Design Research and Education Agenda, for their financial support. ENDREA also contributes with a network of researchers that is used in sharpening research aims. We would also like to express our gratitude to our supervisor Professor Margareta Norell for her revision of the article as well as Professor Gunnela Westlander for her revision and for sharing experiences from other disciplines. Finally, we will always be grateful to the people in industry, taking precious time to participate in interviews. 8.

References

Andreasen M.M., and Hein L. (1987) Integrated Product Development. IFS Publications Ltd, U.K. Abrahamsson B and Andersen JA (1996) Organization – To describe and understand organizations (In Swedish: Organisation - att beskriva och förstå organisationer). Liber AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Beskow C, Johansson J and Norell M (1998) Implementation of QFD: Identifying Success Factors. In proceedings of IEMC ’98 International Conference on Engineering and Technology Management, October 11-13. San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA. Blessing LTM, Chakrabarti A and Wallace KM (1998) An overview of Descriptive Studies in Relation to a General Design Research Methodology. In: Frankenberger E, Badke-Scahub P and Birkhofer H (eds) Designers - The Key to Successful Product Development. SpringerVerlag, London, UK, pp.42-57. Bäckmar J, Ritzén S and Norell M (1999) Implementation of Environmental Management System in Swedish Industry, 1st International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, EcoDesign 99, February 1-3, 1999, Tokyo, Japan. Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998) Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA. Finger S and Dixon J.R. (1985a) A Review of Research in Mechanical Engineering Design, Part I: Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Computer-Based Models of Design Processes, Research in Engineering Design – Theory and Application, p. 51-68. Finger S and Dixon J.R. (1985a) A Review of Research in Mechanical Engineering Design, Part II: Representations, Analysis, and Design for the Life-Cycle, Research in Engineering Design – Theory and Application, p. 121-137. Forslin J and Thulestedt B-M (1993) Learning Organization, to develop competence together (In Swedish: Lärande organisation, att utveckla kompetens tillsammans). Publica, Stockholm, Sweden. Galpin TJ, (1996) The Human Side of Change, a practical guide to organization redesign, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA. Hart H (1995) The modern work organization (In Swedish: Den Moderna Arbetsorganisationen). In: Rendahl JE (ed) Att Förändra och Leda Morgondagens Arbete. VIS Strategi AB, Stockholm, pp 47-82.

25

Kano N (1997) A Perspective on Quality Activities in American Firms. In: Tushman, ML and Anderson, P (eds) Managing Strategic Innovation and Change. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 402-416. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential Learning - Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA. Kvale S (1996) InterViews, Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA, USA. Kvale S (1983) The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp 171196. Locke EA, Latham GP and Erez M (1988) The Determinants of Goal Commitment. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp 23-39. Nadler DA (1981) Managing Organizational Change: An Integrative Perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol 17, No. 2, pp 191-211. Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. Norell, M. (1999) Managing Integrated Product Development. In: Mortensson, N.H., and Sigurjónsson, J. (eds.) Critical Enthusiasm – Contributions to Design Science, Department of Product Design Engineering, Norwegian University of Technology and Natural Science. Norell M (1998) Competitive Industrial Product Development Needs Multi-disciplinary Knowledge Acquisition, In: Duffy A.H.B. (ed.) The Design Productivity Debate, Springer, London, UK, p.100-109. Norrgren F (1995) Strategies of change (In Swedish: Förändringsstrategier). In: Rendahl JE (ed) Att Förändra och Leda Morgondagens Arbete. VIS Strategi AB, Stockholm, pp 11-46. Norrgren F, Hart H and Schaller J (1996) The efficiency of change strategies (In Swedish: Förändringsstrategiers Effektivitet). Research report, CORE WP 1996:3, Center for Research on Organizational Renewal, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenborg, Sweden. Porras JI and Robertson PJ (1992) Organizational Development: Theory, Practice and Research. In: Dunnette MD & Hough LM (eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2nd Ed, Volume 3. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Ritzén S, Hakelius C and Norell M (1996) Life-Cycle Assessment, Implementation and Use in Industry, Proceedings Nord-Design ´96, 1996, Helsinki, Finland. Sarv H (1991) Behind success – on change work in companies (In Swedish: Bakom framsteg - om förändringsarbete i företag). Trygghetsrådet SAF-PTK, Stockholm, Sweden. Sellgren U and Hakelius C (1996) A Survey of PDM Implementation Projects in Selected Swedish Industries. In Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers in Engineering Conference, August 18-22, Irvine, CA, USA. Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline - The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Century Business, London, U K. Ulrich, K.T., and Eppinger, S.D. (1995) Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill Incorporated, New York, NY, USA. Westlander G (1994) The KIBA Inventory. 2nd revised edition. Sweden’s National Institute of Occupational Health, Stockholm, Sweden. Wheelwright SC and Clark KB (1992) Revolutionizing Product Development - Quantum Leeps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. The Free Press, New York, NY, USA. 26

Zika-Viktorsson A, Nordqvist S and Hovmark S (1998) Psychosocial work environment, management and efficiency in project teams (In Swedish: Psykosocial arbetsmiljö, ledning och effektivitet i projektgrupper). Report no. 99, Institute of Psychology, University of Stockholm, Sweden.

27