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