Search results

Hunter Harrison, CEO of the railroad company CSX, died on December 16, 2017. Harrison, known as the railroad transformation guru, was a controversial person. While his transformations were applauded by investors, they were also subject to significant criticism. The author changes triggered service disruptions, customer complaints and federal scrutiny. The purpose of this paper is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the transformation at CSX and to develop a framework for the analysis of organizational transformation projects.

The authors critically analyze the transformation at CSX – known as precision scheduled railroading (PSR). The authors base the initial analysis on the Lean approach to organizational change the authors compare and contrast the two approaches and the authors highlight both positive and negative aspects. The empirical data was collected via two rounds of interviews with employees at CSX – the first informal, the second structured. The lack of academic articles dealing with PSR, the authors focused on the review on trade and newspaper articles.

First, while many transformations are conducted under the assumption that they will improve both effectiveness and efficiency, they are in reality often mainly efficiency improvement programs that can, in fact, hurt both effectiveness and employee morale. Second, the paper presents a framework for the analysis of transformation projects.

The authors identify factors for analysis of transformation programs and the authors develop a framework, which structures significant change aspects into three categories, namely, purpose, process and people.

Organizations can use the framework to understand the requirements for successful transformation, to analyze if the chosen method matches the organizational strategy and to facilitate successful implementation in the companies.

This is the first research paper on PSR and the first paper contrasting PSR with other transformation methods.

Agile is the new popular management change method and agile has lots of momentum. Management consulting firms are promoting agile via articles and newsletters. While history does not repeat itself, it often rhymes, and thus agile will probably be a successful change effort in some organizations. On the other hand, there is a high probability that agile will not deliver the expected results for most organizations. History reveals that about two-thirds of the change efforts are deemed unsuccessful – regardless of the actual change method. In this paper, we present the results of a systematic literature review on agile and we compare and contrast it with other similar organizational change methods. The purpose of this paper is to explore what one may learn from the history of the earlier change methods in terms of how organizations may succeed in their agile efforts.

The paper is based on a structured literature review of the agile concept – including agile transformation, and with a specific focus on critical success factors.

In addition to presenting the state of the art on agile in general, we identify, structure and categorize critical success factors (CSF) for agile. From the 13 categories, we form three clusters, which constitute a 3P framework (purpose, process and people). We also compare and contrast the CSF literature regarding agile with CSFs for organizational change in general. history indicates that most organizational change efforts are not successful. Based on the framework and the discussion, we provide recommendations to hopefully increase the probability of successful agile implementations.

Given the relative novelty or at least the renewed interest in agile, a structured literature review of the current status of this “new” method provides value as it may help organizations and managers to not repeat old mistakes – once again.

The purpose of this paper is to develop, implement, test and further enhance a framework for measuring organizational change initiatives.

The conceptual part of the framework is based on the structured analysis of existing literature. The framework was further developed during an action research (AR) study where the authors developed, implemented, evaluated and improved the measurement system for organizational change initiatives.

The academic literature is rich in conceptual articles providing required characteristics of a “good” measurement system and frameworks for how organizations should measure performance. However, academia provides less empirical evidence of how these performance measurement systems can be implemented, evaluated and improved. In this paper, the authors present a study where the developed measurement system has been implemented, evaluated and improved. The results in terms of how the actual framework worked as well as the response from the case organizations are equally positive.

The framework has been implemented in two different, major change initiatives in one case organization. While the results are truly encouraging, the framework needs to be further tested and refined in more organizations.

There is a gap between academic perception and practical reality regarding how organizations should measure performance in general as well as measuring organizational change initiatives. The presented, and empirically tested, framework measures both the results of the change initiative (effectiveness) the actual change process (efficiency) as well as the perception of the change initiative and process from different key stakeholders.

This is the first developed, implemented and further improved measurement system for organizational change which measures both the efficiency and effectiveness of the change initiative (process).

While big data creates business value, knowledge on how value is created remains limited and research is needed to discover big data’s value mechanism. The purpose of this paper is to explore value creation capabilities of big data through an alignment perspective.

The paper is based on a single case study of a service division of a large Danish wind turbine generator manufacturer based on 18 semi-structured interviews.

A strategic alignment framework comprising human, information technology, organization, performance, process and strategic practices are used as a basis to identify 15 types of alignment capabilities and their inter-dependent variables fostering the value creation of big data. The alignment framework is accompanied by seven propositions to obtain alignment of big data in service processes.

The study demonstrates empirical anchoring of how alignment capabilities affect a company’s ability to create value from big data as identified in a service supply chain.

Service supply chains and big data are complex matters. Therefore, understanding how alignment affects a company’s ability to create value of big data may help the company to overcome challenges of big data.

The study demonstrates how value from big data can be created following an alignment logic. By this, both critical and complementary alignment capabilities have been identified.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for measuring the S&OP process performance.

The method used is a multiple case study of five companies from different industries based on data from 12 structured interviews.

The main result is a framework to measure the S&OP process. It includes concrete suggestions for organizations when developing measures to increase effectiveness and efficiency of the process. It will also help organizations to standardize measures and to enhance organizational transparency. Our results include measures for every step of the process as well as for the outcome of the process. The authors highlight the importance of cross-functional measures along with measures that focus on how to conduct the process. The framework is founded on a set of criteria on appropriate measures such as comprehensiveness, internal process efficiency, horizontal and vertical integration, internal comparability, and usefulness. The study contributes to performance measurement literature and the S&OP literature.

Validation of the framework is desirable in similar as well as other contexts. Implementation challenges should also be investigated.

The framework provides guidelines in order to measure, analyze and improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the process.

This is the first framework for measuring the S&OP process that includes detailed measures for each step of the process, for the outcome of the process as well as how to conduct the process itself.

This paper aims to assess the quality of the case study based research approach as documented in articles published during the past 13 years, based on a synthesis of indicators for the quality criteria truth‐value, transferability, and traceability.

Content analysis of 134 case study‐based articles published in six leading logistics and supply chain management (SCM) journals between 1998 and 2010 is used to assess and evaluate the quality of the case study‐based research approach as documented in these publications.

This research provides an overview of the quality of the case study‐based research approach. Results show that the quality is generally low, supporting the ongoing, but empirically unsupported criticism on the quality of case study‐based research. The results also highlight which specific aspects authors and reviewers need to address to ensure high quality of the case study‐based research approach in published articles.

This study is limited to the analysis of published articles in six logistics and SCM journals. Further research should investigate different journals in logistics and other disciplines, and the relationship between the rigor of case study based research and its contribution to the field.

The findings give guidance to authors and reviewers in developing articles with a high‐quality case study‐based research approach and help reviewers and readers to evaluate the quality of the described approach.

The paper verifies the validity of ongoing claims for more rigor in case study‐based research and identifies areas of improvement.

The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of supply management coordination among a prominent contact lens company (customer), its carton supplier (first tier), and paperboard supplier (second tier). Adopting concepts within the theory of swift and even flow, the authors integrate the physical (material) and information flow among these supply partners to ensure higher productivity through timely production and distribution of the cartons, which reduced the lead-times and inventory levels at the three companies in this supply chain.

This study uses a longitudinal case study (action research (AR)), which combines qualitative and quantitative analyses. Observations over time, documents such as contracts, joint agreements, meeting agendas and minutes, personal conversations, and in-depth interviews were mainly used, with quantitative measurement of operational performance.

The complete solution to eliminate waste and improve the existing system is provided, as well as the ordering process solution in the form of service level models. The results of the study proved supply management coordination to be a pioneering approach in reducing inventory, reducing the safety stock at the buyer’s facility, improving the forecasts, lowering the product delivery lead-times, and establishing an information system throughout the three tiers of the supply chain.

The paper draws upon real-life data from a three echelon supply chain in the manufacturing industry. Combining this triadic focus with action-based research makes it a unique opportunity to reveal insights into the issue of coordination among supply chain members and consequent performance outcomes.

While the importance of measuring customer satisfaction levels is well established, less research exists on how organizations operationalize such knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to describe an action research (AR) case study resulting in a workshop model to operationalize the concept of value. The model facilitates organizational learning and mindset changes in order to remove both cultural and structural barriers to change.

The model is based on AR in three case organizations. The research, over four years in the primary case organization, included phases of planning, action (implementing), observing (evaluating), and analysis and reflection as a basis for new planning and action. By using secondary case organizations the results and methods from the primary case organization were validated and further developed.

The model includes methods to help organizations understand and define what customer value is for any given specific organization, tools to change the employee outlook from a functional/feature oriented mindset into a process/values oriented mindset, and tools to help organizations design and manage the value‐adding core processes. The results after implementation clearly indicate that cutting costs and eliminating waste does not necessarily mean that the processes will be less effective. On the contrary, customers are significantly more satisfied than before while the processes cost less and take less time. Furthermore, throughout the project, the employee satisfaction index improved.

The model presented expands the steps of understanding, creating and delivering value by changing internal processes and employee mindsets.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the critical success factors (CSF) for lean and six sigma and an analysis of these CSF as compared to previously popular change methods.

The paper uses a literature search and comparative analysis complemented with examples from previous case studies.

With only slight variations, the critical success factors are similar for all the change methods. Furthermore, the critical success factors seem to be relatively constant over time. Another important finding is that the CSF tend to relate more to how an organization approaches the change effort versus change method specific factors. The issues of management support and organizational culture are often emphasized as especially critical. The paper highlights and discusses three additional important CSF: strategic alignment, project management and training.

The awareness of CSF, in combination with an awareness of similarities between the methods, can potentially guide organizations in implementations of existing change efforts, and also prepare them for the next widely popular change method – when it arrives.

The paper presents the comparison of such aspects as goals, approaches, structure and tools and a detailed analysis of critical success factors.

The purpose of this paper is to explore if six sigma and lean are new methods, or if they are repackaged versions of previously popular methods – total quality management (TQM) and just‐in‐time (JIT).

The study is based on a critical comparison of lean with JIT and six sigma with TQM, a study of the measure of the publication frequency – the number of academic articles published every year of the previous 30 years – for each topic, and a review of critical success factors (CSF) for change efforts.

The more recent concepts of lean and six sigma have mainly replaced – but not necessarily added to – the concepts of JIT and TQM. lean and six sigma are essentially repackaged versions of the former, and the methods seem to follow the fad (product) life cycle. The literature offers fairly similar and rather general CSF for these methods, e.g. top management support and the importance of communication and information. What seems to be missing, however, is the need for a systemic approach to organizational change and improvement.

A prediction is, given the fad or product life cycle phenomenon, that there will be a new method promoted soon, something perhaps already experienced with the borderline preposterous concept of lean six sigma. On the other hand, based on the gap in time between both JIT and lean, and TQM and six sigma – a gap filled by BRP/reengineering – the next method will be process oriented. This paper concludes with the discussion of the need for a process‐based approach to organizational improvement efforts.

This paper is of value in that it analyzes what lessons can be learnt from organizational change and improvement efforts. The analysis includes a comparison of CSF for any change project before discussing the need for a process (systems) perspective for successful organizational improvement efforts.