HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 HRM: Work process design Overview

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Managing uncertainty in organizations (Grote, 2004) * Uncertainties may stem from the system environment and/or from the transformation processes within the system.

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Loose couling: How to achieve concurrent stability and flexibility  Enabling bureaucracy Adler et al., 1999: car model changeovers through meta-routines, units specializing in routine vs. non-routine tasks, job enrichment  Semistructures Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997: IT project management based on decision latitude combined with extensive communication, probing the future, and clear project transitions  Ambidextrous organization Benner & Tushmann, 2003: Parallel organizations for exploitation and exploration  Mastery of opposites and paradox in leadership Kaplan & Kaiser, 2007: Concurrent directive and enabling, strategic and operational ledership

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Managing uncertainties in organizations (Grote, 2004)  Minimizing uncertainties –Complex, central planning systems –Minimal operative degrees of freedom due to procedures and automation –Disturbances as to be avoided symptoms of inefficient system design  Dependence; feedforward control  Coping with uncertainties –Planning as resource for situated action –High operative degrees of freedom due to complete tasks and lateral cooperation –Disturbances as opportunities for competence development and system change  Autonomy; feedback control

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Planning = How to get from the present state to a desired future state  Basic issues: –Knowing/agreeing on the desired state –Knowing the present state –Learning from past states  Basic obstacles: –Uncertainty = lack of knowledge/ambiguous knowledge –Complexity = Multiple interdependencies

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Multiple approaches to planning  Feed forward versus feedback –hierarchical versus opportunistic –blueprint versus resource  Loosening versus tightening interdependencies –autonomy for reducing uncertainties –cooperation for coping with uncertainties –power for transfering uncertainties –increasing uncertainty as an unexplored option

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Bridging the planning-implementation divide: Cooperation between planners and frontline workers  Distribution of autonomy and control as basic conflict (Grote, 2000)  Explicit communication of goal structure and rationale of plans (Hoc, 1988)  Perspective taking and linking (Zölch, 1997)  Willingness for mutual constraining (McKay, 1992)  Linking primary (implementation) and secondary (planning) work systems through shared and higher-order autonomy (Wäfler, 2001, 2002)  Interpersonal and informational role of schedulers (Jackson et al., 2004)

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 The elusiveness of the common goal: Collaboration among planners  Overcoming power gradients (Jarillo, 1988)  Balancing autonomy-related losses and interdependence-related gains through risk-sharing (Scott, 1981)  Exchanging uncertain information (Loch & Terwiesch, 2005)  General quest for collaborative planning (Danese, 2006)

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Model of collaborative planning (Windischer, 2003; Windischer et al., in press)  Plan creation –Communication of anticipated events –Knowledge of reference field characteristics –Lateral goal agreement –Negotiation of alternatives –Recognition of planning adequacy  Plan execution –Monitoring and diagnosis of errors in common plan –Coordination of individual opportunistic planning –Common reflection/decision on plan cancellation

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Characteristics of collaborative planning: Plan creation

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Characteristics of collaborative planning: Plan execution

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Examples of positive and negative factors in inter-departmental planning (Windischer, 2003) Knowledge about the reference field Examples for reported hindering aspects: - A salesman feeds a big order into the ERP without knowing that many employees on the shop-floor are on holidays. -A purchaser complains that the salesman did not inform her about a large order which he had been anticipating for weeks. Examples for reported positive aspects: -Information is available on which tasks people involved in the planning process work. -A salesman provides information about the importance of a client to poduction in order to increase the priority of this client`s order.

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Examples of positive and negative factors in inter-departmental planning (Windischer, 2003) Lateral goal agreement Examples for reported hindering aspects: -The R&D-department replaces components of a product without co-ordination with the purchasing department which has already ordered the old components. - The purchasing department starts an order in the ERP and notices being unable to keep the delivery date before even having started to work on the order. Examples of reported positive aspects: -A salesman contracts purchasing during his negotiations with a client in order to assure an adequate delivery date. -As production cannot deliver the whole order at once an agreement is reached between salesperson, client, and production to deliver predefined suborders.

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Examples of positive and negative factors in inter-departmental planning (Windischer, 2003) Coordination of individual opportunistic planning Examples for reported hindering aspects: - Customer service frequently changes the delivery dates which hampers the management of critical components for the purchaser. -The production department does not inform the sales department when they are not able to keep a delivery date. Examples for reported positive aspects: -A salesman continuously monitors the production process of an order through a database and informs the client proactively of the status including anticipated delays.

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Organizational design influences information flow (Windischer, Mathier & Grote, 2002) More information exchange with external partners in companies...  with high decentralization of inter-organizational planning (delegation of planning tasks to the supplier and possibilities for participation)  with a high degree of interorganizational linkages (common projects; employee exchanges)

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Links between organizational design, planning, and outcomes (Windischer, 2003; in press)

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 The puzzle of the cooperative free spirit: Collaborative planning in networks  Multi-directional influences by multiple power centers in heterarchic networks (Stadtler, 2005)  Interdependence as asset and threat (Gulati & Sytch, 2007)  Collective versus individual autonomy as match to task interdependence (Langfred, 2005)

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Example Supply Chain in Forestry (Günter, 2007)

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Forest ranger Transportation contractor 29: 3PL providers do not provide transportation contractors with long- and medium term information on planned harvesting processes, hence transportation contractors do not have the opportunity for long- and medium term scheduling of resources. 30: Information on delivery volume or quality is missing or underspecified which affords transportation contractors to get more detailed information from forest rangers and reconfirm information. 31: Truck drivers load timber in accordance with orders given to them by the transportation contractor but do not confirm the quality of the timber – it is not always clear whether truck drivers are responsible for assessing quality of timber at all.

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Linking planning – autonomy – interdependence (Günter, 2007)

HRM: Work Process Design – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall08 Remaining puzzles in planning  Intricate relationship between autonomy, interdependence and cooperation  Acknowledging limits of planning "at the edge of chaos" (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995) versus Revival of centralized planning as "more technology allows more management" (e.g. ATM, RFID)  Goal coupling in multi-x networks (x=profession, unit, organization, culture etc.)