Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 625 – 630
49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016)
Recording Shop Floor Management Competencies – A Guideline for a Systematic Competency Gap Analysis C. Hertlea*; M. Tischa; H. Kläsa; J. Metternicha; E. Abelea a Institute of Production Management, Technology and Machine Tools, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Otto-Berndt-Straße 2, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-6151-1620212; E-mail address:
[email protected]
Abstract Shop floor management is one of the major management approaches in lean production. Through activating the potentials of the employees, shop floor management aims at continuously improving processes and developing competencies of the employees. It has established itself as a method to regularly inform, challenge and develop employees and processes alike, e.g. by tracking, analyzing, and systematically solving deviations. However, to fully use the potential of shop floor management the essential abilities and more specifically the competencies for it need to be developed through all hierarchical levels, i.e. workers and management alike. A solid plan for competency development must be based on an accurate analysis regarding the current status of the appropriate workforce competencies. Thus, this paper presents an approach for recording shop floor management competencies and comparing them against a set of target competencies in form of a practical and systematic gap analysis guideline. © Published by Elsevier B.V. This © 2016 2015The TheAuthors. Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems Keywords: shop floor management; competency development; lean production
1. Introduction Future trends shift manufacturing systems towards more flexibility and changeability. As a result, employees working within need to be developed towards knowledge workers [1] [2]. Out of the lean production philosophy the shop floor management addresses the challenges of creating flexibility and developing knowledge workers [3]. Studies show that tracking of key performance indicators (KPIs) on shop floor level is relevant in about 80% of the surveyed companies [4], thus an important aspect of shop floor management is already present in many companies. However, in order to fully exploit its potential the competencies for shop floor management need to be developed through all hierarchical levels, i.e. from operators to management. Since competency development is time and cost expensive and releasing operators for dedicated training is not always possible – especially for small and medium-sized enterprises [1] – it is important to know what competencies are available or need to be developed. Thus, this paper introduces a
competency recording approach for shop floor management to provide a tool for systematic gap analysis. Before the competency recording approach is presented the concept of shop floor management is explained briefly. 2. The concept of shop floor management With the release of Womack et al.’s “The machine that changed the world” the topic of shop floor management came on the agenda of lean literature [5]. Although it has not been mentioned literally in the early versions of the Toyota house [6], in some of Likers 14 principles of lean production [7] connections to shop floor management can be detected. The objectives of shop floor management found in research literature can be summarized to the following four major objectives [8]: 1. Development of leading personnel to methodical coaches [3] [9] [10] [11] 2. Utilization of workers‘ complete potential [3] [12] [13] [14]
2212-8271 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.108
C. Hertle et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 625 – 630
3. Sustainable support of other lean principles [11] [12] [15] [16] [17] 4. Optimization of KPIs towards set targets [10] [11] [13] [17] [18]
Technical and methodological competencies Professional knowledge
Personal competencies
Professional knowledge
Conceptual knowledge
Activity- and implementation oriented competencies
626
Specific action
Variable action
Socio-communicative competencies
While working towards its objectives, shop floor management makes use of methods and tools from lean management. Figure 1 shows a typical shop floor management process, starting with an initial standard (standardize), going through KPI tracking and performing the PDCA with highlighted topics. If applicable, continuous improvement efforts can be integrated. The whole process is tightly related to and dependent of lean leadership aspects.
Shop floor management process
Figure 1. Typical shop floor management process
Studies show that especially the competency development addressing the people working in the production environment is specified and systemized the least [8]. Therefore, competencies and methods to measure them are necessary. 3. Theoretical principles of identifying competencies Competencies can be defined as dispositions to act selforganized in a reflected manner. The term competency refers to linguistic [19] and psychological [20] approaches. Competencies are context-specific cognitive, emotional, and psychomotorical dispositions that enable individual selforganized actions [21] [22] [23]. In the context of this paper, the following statements on competencies are fundamental: First, competencies are manifested in single actions in specific situations. Those single actions are observable. They are also referred to as “performances” [19]. The characteristics of competencies and performances are not directly attributable to one another – the causality cannot be determined exactly, but there is a link between the two concepts [24]. Second, although used in a similar manner in everyday language, competencies are strictly distinguished from knowledge [21]. Though, as a basis for the disposition to act in unknown situations corresponding knowledge is a prerequisite [21] [23] [25]. Regarding this important requirement for competency (especially technical and methodological ones) it can be distinguished between professional (containing general expertise, process knowledge) and conceptual knowledge [25]. To generate the ability to vary the way to act, both types of knowledge are necessary, as shown in Figure 2 [26].
Figure 2. Competencies, knowledge, and the ability to act self-organized based on [21] [26].
In general, methods to record competencies can be classified into the following five categories [21] [27] [28]: Quantitative measurements like tests, questionnaires, interviews or systematic observations see competencies rather as qualifications. In contrast, unstructured observations or biographical methods have their origins in the social research and can be characterized as qualitative methods focusing on the social features of the individual. To another category belong comparative descriptions, e.g. competency biographies highlighting retrospective events that are relevant for a professional competency development. In the fourth category, real experiments to record competencies are replaced by the use of a simulative device. Lastly, work samples are used in order to focus on the individual and its work environment. A useful approach combines quantitative and qualitative methods, thereby incorporating the advantages of several methods into a hybrid method [27] which is a starting point for the subsequent approach in this paper. 4. A research approach to record competencies The research approach for recording shop floor management competencies (see Figure 3) is based on the approach in [29]. Phase 1: Requirements definition Defining requirements for a method to record shop floor Management competencies. Phase 2: Design of target state Defining the target state regarding roles in and competencies for shop floor management. Phase 3: Application Recording the current state regarding the competency level of shopfloor management roles based on observations and interviews. Phase 4: Evaluation Evaluating based on the requirements.
List of requirements
Roles of shop floor management Competency transformation: Operationalization of actions and knowledge Observations Interviews
Data analysis
Quality criteria
Results
Figure 3. Research approach to record shop floor management competencies.
The approach is divided into four phases: requirements definition, design, application, and evaluation. The phases are described in the following sections.
627
C. Hertle et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 625 – 630
4.1. Requirements definition
4.2. Design of target state
Before developing a method for recording shop floor management competencies, criteria need to be defined. These criteria based on [28] [30] are listed in Table 1.
In order to record the current state of shop floor management competencies, first shop floor management roles and the target competencies for these roles are needed – only with this target it can be derived what to record. The concept of shop floor management presented in this paper defines five typical roles that can be found in industrial practice (but with a variety of different titles): (1) Shop floor operator: The shop floor operator is fully involved in the production process and supports process improvements by bringing in work process knowledge. (2) Team leader: The team leader is the professional superior of the shop floor operator. Tasks within the shop floor management are preparing, carrying out and following up the shop floor meetings. In addition, team leaders are responsible for problem solving and improvement processes within the own sphere of influence by identifying, reacting, and anticipating problems and deviations during the shift. (3) Manager: This role incorporates managerial responsibilities for operators and team leaders. The manager is attending (and moderating) the shop floor meetings with team leaders and other managers regularly. Another task is to coach and empower the hierarchy beneath. (4) Shop floor management expert: This person has deep methodical experience in all aspects of shop floor management. The shop floor management expert is essential in supporting the implementation of shop floor management and the training of people involved. (5) Supporting function: This person can be an employee from quality management or maintenance and is by that not directly linked to the production process. The research approach in this paper focuses on the basis of the hierarchy including shop floor operators and team leaders. As mentioned in section 3, competencies cannot be recorded directly, whereas performances facilitated by technical and professional competencies can be observed. In combination with the necessary knowledge to initiate that specific performance, a conclusion to the existence of the corresponding competency can be drawn. This link between a competency (C) and the performance (P) and knowledge elements (K) can be described using propositional logical operators [31]:
Table 1. Criteria for recording shop floor management competencies. #
Criteria
1
Applicability to The method is applicable to the shop floor shop floor management environment, i.e. to a real work situation in which the employee is confronted with a challenge management and solving this requires technical and methodological competencies.
Description
2
Manageability
Applying the method does not require a high effort, high training, large equipment or a lot of personnel.
3
Economy
The benefit of the results exceeds the necessary effort.
4
Transferability
The method has a broad applicability and can be transferred to other departments or hierarchical levels.
5
Acceptance
Different participating groups in shop floor management accept the method and its results.
6
Perspective of recording
The method is conducted as an external assessment.
7
Temporal dimension
Focus of the recording is the status quo of the shop floor management competencies.
8
Objectivity
The method applied by different people will lead to same results.
9
Validity
The method fulfills the purpose of accurately recording shop floor management competencies.
10 Interrater reliability
The analysis and the results have a high degree of agreement among analysts.
11 Transparency
The results are transparent and comprehensible.
Even though there are many different methods to record competencies [21], the evaluation of a selection of methods based on the defined criteria shows that none is suitable to record shop floor management competencies (see Table 2). In conclusion, a new method needs to be developed and evaluated with experts in the field. Table 2. Evaluation of selected methods to record competencies.
Criteria #
KCM
becobi
Methods smk NE
CeKom
KODEX
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 5 3 3 2 1 1 2 6 2 2 0 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 1 1 2 8 2 2 2 n/a 3 3 9 2 2 1 n/a 1 n/a 10 3 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a 11 1 1 2 1 1 2 Total 22 / 33 15 / 33 17 / 33 10 / 33 15 / 33 19 / 33 (3) agree strongly (2) agree rather (1) agree rather not (0) does not agree KCM - Kassel Competency Matrix, becobi - becobi® competency check, smk - assessment check smk72, NE - nextexpertizer, CeKom - CeKom® system, KODEX - KODE®X competency explorer (n/a - not available)
P ՜ ՜ P ՜ ՜
ሺͳሻ ሺʹሻ ሺ͵ሻ ሺͶሻ
In summary, a competency is seen as given, when the corresponding performances and knowledge elements are detected. On the contrary, are either both elements or even one of the two elements lacking it is concluded that the corresponding competency is not given. Consequently, a standardized and precise description of actions and knowledge elements are elementary for an accurately recording of shop floor management competencies. For that reason, specific performances and necessary knowledge are assigned to the shop floor management
628
C. Hertle et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 625 – 630
competencies. These elements are combined in a competency transformation [32] which contains six competencies for the shop floor operator and eleven competencies for the team leader. Firstly, a corresponding set of performances is added to every competency. This set represents a variety of actions that are elementary for a well performing shop floor management. The competencies of the shop floor operator are complemented by 16 performances whereas the team leader competencies are described by 40 performances. Secondly, the competency transformation includes a knowledge basis with the levels general, process and conceptual knowledge (see Figure 2). On all levels, 30 knowledge elements for the shop floor operator and 59 for the team leader are defined. Based on a typical shop floor management process (see Figure 1) the competencies are clustered into the modules (1) KPI, (2) participation (shop floor operator) or leadership (team leader), (3) problem solving, and (4) continuous improvement (CI). Table 3 shows an extract of the competency transformation for module 1 and the role shop floor operator. Table 3. Extract of competency transformation for the “shop floor operator”.
Performance
Knowledge Base General Knowledge Process Knowledge
The shop floor operator recognizes dependences of and between KPIs. The shop floor operator recognizes his influence on KPIs …
Knowledge about KPIs (e.g. quality, cost, delivery, safety) | Knowledge about set points of KPIs | Knowledge about deviations and disturbances. …
Conceptual Knowledge
Knowledge and awareness of the own influence on KPIs.
Knowledge of KPIs as the reflection of the reality.
…
…
4.3. Application – Recording the current state As mentioned, observed performances correspondent to a competency Ci in combination with a solid knowledge base are indicators for the existence of the competency Ci. Consequently, the application of the recording approach is divided into three steps: 1. Observations of performances during shop floor meetings. 2. Interviews to identify the knowledge base. 3. Analysis of the data. The setting of a shop floor meeting fulfills the criteria for data gathering listed in Table 1, in that several roles are present and different challenges and objectives of shop floor management are covered. In each shop floor meeting, at least two functions are present. First, there is a moderator conducting the meeting, and second, other employees participate in the meeting. On the lowest hierarchical level these functions are resembled through the team leader and shop floor operators. Actions and behavior patterns can be documented by observation, and can be structured by surveillance sheets [33]. Non-standardized sheets allow a free recording of actions of the participants. Consequently, one surveillance sheet is used for each role. In addition, a standardized surveillance sheet covers general conditions of the meeting, such as number of participants, information on and about the shop floor board as well as topics being discussed during the meeting. This third
sheet helps to understand how shop floor management is implemented in the corresponding department. In general, an audio recorder documents the conversations between the attendees. In a second step, interviews are conducted to identify the participant's knowledge of shop floor management. An interview guideline for the role shop floor operator and team leader respectively, helps to structure the interview. Standardized questions make it possible to assess the shop floor management knowledge basis. In order to keep the interviews within a reasonable length, only particular relevant knowledge elements are included. Consequently, the interview guideline includes 13 questions for shop floor operators and 17 questions for team leaders. However, the range of questions covers all four competency modules. The form of the interview allows an open dialog between interviewer and interviewee. The guideline provides a framework for the interviews, which enables comparable analysis [33]. The interviews can be conducted by one interviewer and an audio recorder is applied as well. To prepare the data for analysis, all audio-files are transcribed. The transcribed audio-files of the shop floor meetings supplement the surveillance sheets in order to fully reflect the shop floor meetings. In general, the analysis follows the approach for a qualitative content analysis by Mayring which is a systematic, rule-guided interpretation of the transcripts [30]. The analysis' objective is to classify the transcripts with the help of predetermined criteria. The basis for the classification is a competency indicators catalogue [34]. This catalogue includes four categories for each performance and knowledge element of the corresponding competency. The categories rate the quality of the observed action or inquired knowledge element. Table 4 shows an extract of the catalogue for the knowledge element KPI. Table 4. Extract of the catalogue for the knowledge element KPI. Question Which KPIs in the context of shop floor management do you know? ...
Category 4: high quality
Category 3: medium quality
Category 2: low quality
Category 1: no quality
The interviewee names the relevant elements
The interviewee names some elements / uses alternatives, e.g. process performance, etc.
The answer of the interviewee is related to the question.
The answer of the interviewee is not related to the question.
...
...
...
...
Category 4 complies with a high quality and implies a knowledge that is necessary for a successful shop floor management. The other categories are downgrades from this category whereas category 1 implies the individual does not have any knowledge. In order to quantify these categories, they are categorized proportionally: category 1 (0%), category 2 (133%), category 3 (34-66%), and category 4 (67-100%). In conclusion, the gathered data is categorized to the corresponding category of the competency indicators catalogue. The analysis results in a distribution of the assigned categories which is converted from a category value into a percentage value. In a subsequent step, an arithmetic mean is calculated in order to represent each role. Hence, the interim
629
C. Hertle et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 625 – 630
(5)
The geometric mean also takes the gap between the performance and knowledge value into account. By that, a multipliable instead of a summative causality is assumed – see also logical conclusions (3) and (4) in section 4.2 of this paper. At last, competency levels Ci are calculated (see (5)) for each role.
100
100
100
23%
4.4. Evaluation
38%
47%
77%
Step 1 Step 2
Ki of shop floor operators
in %
59
53
66
54
59
67
62 33
20
4: CI
3: Problem Solving
66
2: Leadership
1: KPI
91
4: CI
3: Problem Solving
54
not observed
2: Participation
1: KPI
0
20 0
Pi of shop floor operators
80
73
not observed
in %
40
not observed
100
60
73%
68%
Recorded competency value Ci
4: CI
As illustrated, the highest competency level for shop floor operators is with C3=77% the problem solving module and a lower C2=53% for the participation module. In contrast, the competency values for team leaders lie in the same range. Table 6. Evaluation of the presented competency recording approach.
40
80
100
32%
Figure 5. Resulting Ci and ΔCi for shop floor operators and team leaders.
Ki of team leaders
60
3: Problem solving
1: KPI
Identified competency gap ΔCi
100 80
2: Participation
Serial production > 500 6 3 26 3 8 3 5 2
62%
53%
Table 5. Overview of the data gathering to evaluate the recording method.
100
27%
n/a
n/a
In order to evaluate the method, it is applied in a company with direct observations of shop floor meetings as well as conducting interviews. Information about the data gathering is given in Table 5.
Industry sector Company size Number of shop floor meetings Number of team leaders observed Number of shop floor operators observed Number of observers Number of interviews Number of team leader in interviews Number of shop floor operators in Number of interviewers
Ci of team leaders
Ci of shop floor operators
Ci target value
σ
n/a
and ܭ ൌ
4: CI
3: Problem solving
σ
2: Leadership
ܥ ൌ ඥܲ ܭ כ with ܲ ൌ
[30]. The program allows including the competency indicators catalogue for the analysis. Figure 4 shows Pi and Ki results of the analysis for the roles shop floor operator and team leader. The arithmetic mean is highlighted in red and surrounded by the box representing 50% of the average deviation. PKPI and PCI are not given, because no actions are shown or observed in the shop floor meetings that can be assigned to these modules. Based on these values, the resulting competency levels Ci for the roles shop floor operator and team leader are calculated. Figure 5 visualizes the recorded Ci values and the resulting competency gap ΔCi. In some cases, because of lacking performance values, corresponding competency levels can’t be calculated.
1: KPI
results are the arithmetic mean for every module i (i = modules 1-4) with the performance and knowledge elements pin and kim resulting in the performance value Pi and the knowledge value Ki. The final step includes connecting the performance value Pi and the corresponding knowledge value Ki within the module. The geometric mean is used to express the propositional logical operators and for calculating the competency level (Ci) [35]:
Pi of team leaders
Figure 4. Assessed Pi and Ki of shop floor operators and team leaders
After gathering data, the qualitative content analysis is usefully implemented in the computer program MAXQDA
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Criteria Applicability to shop floor management Manageability Economy Transferability Acceptance Perspective of recording Temporal dimension Objectivity Validity Interrater reliability Transparency Total
Evaluation
3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 26 / 33 (3) agree strongly (2) agree rather (1) agree rather not (0) does not agree
The criteria in Table 1 help to evaluate the developed method to record shop floor management competencies. Based on the assessments of experts in the field, Table 6 shows the overall evaluation. Especially the applicability to the shop floor management environment is agreed strongly. The overall
630
C. Hertle et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 625 – 630
evaluation shows a positive result. The presented method outranges all other evaluated methods in Table 2. 5. Conclusion and outlook The idea of this project is to create an applicable guideline to record shop floor management competencies for the manufacturing industry. Experts in the companies can define the target state whereas with the help of the presented method in this paper, the current state of shop floor management competencies can be recorded and reveals a gap between those two states. This gap-analysis highlights then the need for a competency development of the shop floor management employees. The research described in this paper builds the foundation for assessing the state of the shop floor management from the human perspective. With this method companies are able to identify skill gaps and hence facilitate the development of the competencies needed. Further research will be focused on: 1. Channeling the used instruments of competency recording in an audit like structure. 2. Making the guideline applicable for more production related companies.
Acknowledgements Funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research the project “ZielKom” aims at establishing such a competency development system through shop floor management. The Technische Universität Darmstadt undertakes this project together with three German manufacturing companies as well as the Technology Consulting of the German Confederation of Trade Unions. References
[12] D. Kudernatsch, „Eine Lean-Kultur im Unternehmen verankern,“ Wissensmanagement, Nr. 3, pp. 48-9, 2013. [13] M. Riegger, „Grosser Qualitaetssprung durch Shopfloor Management,“ MaschinenMarkt, Nr. 27, pp. 32-5, 2011. [14] C. Standard und D. Davis, Running today's factory: A proven strategy for lean manufacturing, Cincinnati: Hanser Gardner Prublications, 1999. [15] J. Drew, B. McCallum und S. Roggenhofer, Journey to lean: Making operational change stick, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. [16] A. Grundnig und S. Meitinger, „Führung ist nicht alles - aber ohne Führung ist alles nichts,“ ZWF, Bd. 108, Nr. 3, pp. 133-6, 2013. [17] T. Heinen, Shopfloor-Management hilft uns, die Fabrik auf Topniveau zu betreiben, Garbsen, 2013. [18] H. Illing, „Shopfloor-Management: Besser führen in der Fabrik,“ Management und Qualität, Bd. 47, Nr. 9, pp. 23-4, 2012. [19] N. Chomsky, Explanatory models in linguistics, Stanford Calif: [Stanford Univ. Press], 1962. [20] R. White, „Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence,“ Psychological Review 66, pp. 297-333, 1959. [21] J. Erpenbeck und L. v. Rosenstiel, Handbuch Kompetenzmessung, 2., überarb. und erw. Aufl. Hrsg., Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, 2007. [22] E. Klieme und D. Leutner, „Kompetenzmodelle zur Erfassung individueller Lernergebnisse und zur Bilanzierung von Bildungsprozessen,“ Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 52, pp. 876-903, 2006. [23] F. E. Weinert, Leistungsmessungen in Schulen, Weinheim, Basel: Beltz, 2001. [24] R. Rhein, „Kompetenzorientierung im Studium?!,“ in Fachbezogene und fachübergreifende Hochschuldidaktik und Studiengangsentwicklung, Bielefeld, Bertelsmann, 2011, pp. 215-226. [25] D. Pittich, „Diagnostik fachlich-methodischer Kompetenzen,“ Fraunhofer IRB Verl, 2013. [26] R. Tenberg, „Lerndiagnostik im kompetenzorientierten Unterricht,“ Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik 108, Heft 4, pp. 481490, 2012. [27] D. Münk und E. Severing, Theorie und Praxis der Kompetenzfeststellung im Betrieb - Status quo und Entwicklungsbedarf, Bielefeld: Bertelsmann, 2009. [28] M. Kaufhold, „Kompetenz und Kompetenzerfassung,“ VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss, 2006. [29] C. Schlick, R. Bruder und H. Luczak, Arbeitswissenschaft, 3., vollst. überarb. und erw. Aufl. Hrsg., Berlin u.a.: Springer, 2010. [30] P. Mayring, Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, 12., überarb. Aufl. Hrsg., Weinheim u.a.: Beltz, 2015.
[1] E. Abele und G. Reinhart, Zukunft der Produktion, München: Hanser, Carl, 2011.
[31] C. Beierle und G. Kern-Isberner, Methoden wissensbasierter Systeme, 3., erw. Aufl. Hrsg., Wiesbaden, 2006.
[2] D. Mavrikios, N. Papakostas, D. Mourtzis und G. Chryssolouris, „On industrial learning and training for factories of the future,“ Journal of Intell Manufacturing, Bd. 24, Nr. 3, pp. 473-85, 2013.
[32] M. Tisch, C. Hertle, J. Cachay, E. Abele, J. Metternich und R. Tenberg, „A Systematic Approach on Developing Action-oriented, Competencybased Learning Factories,“ Procedia CIRP, Bd. 7, p. 580–585, 2013.
[3] K. Suzaki, The new shop floor management, New York: Free Press, 1993.
[33] J. Bortz und N. Döring, Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation, 4., überarb. Aufl. Hrsg., Heidelberg: Springer-Medizin-Verl., 2006.
[4] M. Roessler, D. Spiertz und J. Metternich, „Lean production and willingness to change,“ TU Prints, Darmstadt, 2014.
[34] J. Hambach, R. Tenberg und J. Metternich, „Guideline-based video analysis of competencies for a target-oriented continuous improvement process,“ Procedia CIRP 32, pp. 25-30, 2015.
[5] J. Womack, D. Jones und D. Roos, The machine that changed the world, New York: HarperPerennial, 1991. [6] C. Marchwinski und J. Shook, Lean lexicon, Brookline: Lean Enterprise Institute, 2003. [7] J. Liker, The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. [8] C. Hertle, C. Siedelhofer, J. Metternich und E. Abele, „The next generation shop floor management (to be published),“ TU Prints, Darmstadt, 2016. [9] H. Hölzl, „Eine bunte Truppe führen,“ Personalwirtschaft, Bd. 5, pp. 45-7, 2014. [10] J. Lowe, „Manufacturing reform and the changing role of the production supervisor,“ Journal of Management Studies, Bd. 30, Nr. 5, pp. 739-58, 1993. [11] R. Peters, Shopfloor-Management: Führen am Ort der Wertschöpfung, Stuttgart: LOG_X, 2009.
[35] J. Bortz und C. Schuster, Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 7., vollst. überarb. und erw. Aufl. Hrsg., Berlin u.a.: Springer, 2010.
