Search results

An element frequently missing from organisations is that of team learning. While recognised as critical, attempts to capture and apply team learning often result in only partial success. This paper (based on work carried out within a major UK automotive manufacturer) explains a methodology for capturing team learning that brings together the contribution of individuals into a team context while maintaining a focus throughout the process on the need for innovative change.

This paper aims to present an investigation of the problems concerned with delivering a variety of differing change programmes in a logically structured, repeatable and measurable manner.

Case studies were conducted on a selection of significantly different manufacturing facility programmes at GKN Aerospace where the output was a generic model more explicit and illustrative than previous approaches taken at the company.

This paper supports the idea that a strategic and tactical planning process with transferable, common key issues, can be managed in an environment of rapid change. Furthermore, discreet tailoring of the model enables differentiation of each programme type to support a standardized, repeatable and synchronous approach to change management.

This was achieved through the compilation of a single change management process termed the “5 × 5 Model” incorporating a multi‐site working document containing quantifiable, value‐added activities.

The new model presented here has been developed from previous literature and tested in practice, but requires further application to validate its applicability in different industry sectors.

Some companies to aid the product development process have implemented a stage‐gate framework, as a high‐level representation of the activities required. Such a framework allows the development process to be closely monitored and controlled, using stages of work and review gates. Six different companies have been examined to show the variations in representation. Each approach was compared to a generic four‐staged framework. Companies which are organised mainly in cross‐functional teams adhere strongly to the four stages, namely a low‐phased approach. However, companies organised with a strong functional structure tend to have more phases and gates within each stage, i.e. a high‐phased approach. These additional phases tend to be placed late in the product development process rather than at the start where their effect would be greater. A generic representation of the product development process applicable to various organisations and industrial sectors, provides an architecture for carrying out any business process improvement project.