Search results

As companies are facing an increased need for knowledge creation, innovation, improvement, and change, the processes that enable these matters should be identified. The purpose of this paper is to identify and find a way of classifying these processes.

The paper conducted literature studies to identify what could be the tactical processes. This has then been exemplified through a case study in the automotive industry where the focus has been on the formal process descriptions and how decisions and roles are distributed.

From the case study the paper can identify processes that could be classified as tactical, as they are not only “something between” the strategic and operational processes, but also different by nature, as they are related to certain dynamic elements of a company, such as knowledge creation, innovations and improvements.

To some extent the research is based on formal descriptions in systems and documents from a case in the automotive industry. Interviews have been conducted but more cases and interviews would provide a better picture of the tactical processes and how they are designed and implemented.

The paper argues that there is a level of processes that could be classified as tactical as well as strategic and operational. These processes are increasingly important as they represent activities within R&D and improvement, which are important aspects of, for example, lean strategies. Design, responsibilities and ownership of these tactical processes are important strategic decisions.

The original value of the paper is that introducing the tactical level could facilitate the identification, analyses and decisions regarding the processes that play an increasingly important role in manufacturing strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the range of benchmarking applications that can be used in a principal‐agent relationship setting often found in the public sector.

Collection and critical analysis of secondary data from relevant publications addressing applications of benchmarking in the public sector. Extraction of knowledge from several research projects where the authors have been involved in studying and developing benchmarking approaches for different public sector organizations. Induction of new theory about the use of benchmarking in principal‐agent relationships in the public sector, grounded through empirical evidence from case studies.

A number of new approaches to benchmarking in the public sector have been identified and described, some of which are already used in real life cases, others which need further development before being implemented. All of these can introduce benefits to both principals and agents involved in such benchmarking efforts.

The paper explores benchmarking applications that are almost exclusively relevant in a public sector setting, although some of them might be adapted to certain private sector conditions.

Whereas most work on benchmarking in the public sector tend to view only improvement‐oriented, voluntary benchmarking as relevant and useful, this paper demonstrates how many different imposed benchmarking schemes with other purposes can be useful.

The work presented aimed at developing an integrated framework for holistic performance management.

The research was carried out using an action research approach. A case study was used as the basis for developing a pilot framework for performance management, involving both employees in the case organization and researchers. The research is based on theoretical contributions within performance management, total quality management, and trend analysis.

A generic holistic performance management framework is outlined, encompassing diverse areas that need to play together and reinforce each other to give full effect to an organization. The main focus is a case study of a bank office, where a tailored version of the performance management framework was developed to give a setting where all these elements now are harmonized and work together.

The framework must be viewed as a pilot that should be further tested in other types of industries/organizations to verify its validity on a broader basis.

The generic framework for integrated performance management is novel and seems suitable for adaptation to many different industries and types of organization and can function as a guideline to avoiding launching concepts and programs that ultimately do not cancel each other out as their inter‐linkages have not been understood.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a methodology aiming to improve the process of prioritizing among projects, focusing on the strategic impacts. The methodology is expected to have a particular relevance for companies operating in a distributed organizational environment.

The methodology has been developed within the PROMISE project, where ten applications and eight corresponding companies (application owners) represent the cases where the methodology has been developed and tested.

The paper has documented a need for a methodology that links projects and initiatives to overall the overall company strategies. Through the PROMISE project such a method business effect evaluation methodology (BEEM) is developed. The structure of the method and the process of using it are described.

This paper presents a methodology, BEEM, proven relevant in different contexts when projects and units need to be evaluated, compared, prioritized and coordinated according to strategies and key business drivers. BEEM is also a methodology that could guide projects and units in a distributed organizational environment according to overall strategies. Thus, the methodology might also be used by projects and units to improve the strategic position and/or business development.