The purpose of the Learner's Log Book

Question LearnerLogBook LLB I. INSTRUCTIONS The purpose of the Learner’s Log Book (LLB) is to document the achievements of the learner in a central repository that will be considered as evidence on the effectiveness of the learning process. It is a ‘monitoring tool’ that e-tutors use to report on individual learners’ progress and it is a way of ensuring that learners: ü Are engaged in their learning process. ü They are experimenting by doing the tasks subscribed to them by the e-tutor. ü Avoid plagiarism because learners have to be engaged on a continuous basis and the informal assessment can therefore be used to ensure consistency with the main formal assessment. ü Provide e-Tutors with the opportunity to get to know the learners evaluate them and mentor them properly. ü There are templates which will reflect whether learners read whether they understand whether they assimilate the knowledge whether they develop enquiry ability whether they have the potential to conduct critical thinking and whether they can reflect on the knowledge accumulated by relating to real situations. The onus is mainly on learners to furnish the required information in the templates after each unit based on the Read and Analyze Activity. After filling the information in the template they need to e-mail it back to the e-Tutor. e-Tutor will then comments on the work done and the involvement that takes place and give overall impressions on the learners at the end of the module. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Learner Name: ID Number: Course Title: Article Title: Date of Submission: ——————————————————— Date of Received Feedback: ———————————————— III. SUMMARY (100-200 words) Provide a summary in your own words on the article you requested to read and analyze in the following space. IV. KEY LEARNING POINTS Identify the key learning points in the read and analyze assigned activity. V. RELEVANT STATEMENTS TO THE SESSION While you reading identify the relevant statements to the session and insert them in order in the following space. VI. CRITICAL ANALYSIS This is the most important section in your analysis. To complete it sucessfully learner is to consider the following guiding steps: Present arguments coherently supported by evidence and facts to substantiate on why you may take a particular stance and/ or position towards a particular approach whether against or in support of it; Capable of bridging the gap between the theory and conceptual work with the application under consideration. VII. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS How could you apply the subject matter from the article in a real business case? VIII. LEARNING REFLECTIONS What have you learnt?Critical thinking is about lessons learnt to be drawn from the analysis. IX. e-TUTOR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK Mark: The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm Experiences of implementing process management: a multiple-case study Process management Klara Palmberg 93 Lulea? University of Technology Lulea? Sweden Abstract Purpose – Process management is becoming an essential part of contemporary organizations in all industries. However many organizations experience problems during the implementation of a process management approach. The purpose of this paper is to explore and describe the organizational implications when implementing process management how to handle the relationship between the functional organization and a process perspective and the roles of managers teams and individuals. Design/methodology/approach – A multiple-case study approach is used to get an extensive picture of and analyze how three Swedish organizations have worked with process management. Findings – The studied organizations have introduced a process management structure into their functional organizational structure including the introduction of new management positions such as process owners and process leaders. A discourse is identified in earlier research between those arguing for a full transformation from a functionally oriented to a fully process-oriented organizational structure and those promoting a more moderate transformation where a process management structure is “matrixed onto” the existing organization. The analysis could be interpreted as supporting the second line of reasoning where the functional and process structures co-exist in the organization creating a constructive dynamic. Originality/value – The paper provides two major contributions. First the empirical descriptions and analysis of implementing process management contribute to the knowledge and understanding among both practitioners and researchers. The second major contribution is the identified need of co-existence of a process and functional perspective and the implication that complexity is created rather than reduced in organizations. Keywords Process management Business process re-engineering Organizational structures Sweden Paper type Case study 1. Introduction Processes and process management are becoming an essential part of contemporary organizations in all industries. Quality management Six Sigma and Lean all build on components of working with and improving organizational processes (Anderssonet al. 2006; Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park 2006). The new ISO 9001:2008 standard is placing considerable emphasis on processes (ISO 2009) and process management is a significant part of most excellence models such as the Malcolm Balridge National Quality Award (NIST 2009) and the EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM 2009). When exploring if Six Sigma and Lean are new methods or if they are repackaged versions of previously popular methods – total quality management and just-in-time – Na¨slund (2008) emphasises the importance of placing organizational change and improvement methods in general under a process management umbrella. Zairi (1997) stated based on a literature review that the word “process” had become a part of everyday business language. Hammer and Stanton (1999) argued on the basis Business Process Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 1 2010 pp. 93-113 qEmerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154 DOI 10.1108/14637151011017967 BPMJ 161 94 of a study of IBM and Microsoft among others that for most companies there is no real alternative to shifting from a traditional business to a process enterprise. Organizations in Sweden have been working explicitly with process management since the end of the 1980s. The methodology has been used in order to reduce lead times and increase customer focus both inside and outside the organization and this development has been attributed to escalating demands from customers regarding quality (Egnell 1995). Even though process management is a common approach today many organizations express concerns about problems with implementing and maintaining a process management approach. In a study of quality award recipients in Sweden Hansson (2003) found that many small organizations perceive work with process management to be problematic. Based on a survey of the application of process management in Swedish organizations Forsberget al. (1999) state that the expectations for results are unreasonably high. Implementing process management appears to be rather demanding: “In practice however the process approach seems difficult to understand and to put into action” (Rentzhog 1996 p. 13). In a paper on the definitions and models of process management the Palmberg (2009) concludes that in both research and in applications in organizations there is a string focus on the technical parts of process management; the definitions of a process the levels and categorizations of processes and the techniques for mapping and documenting processes on an activity level (Palmberg 2009). Many organizations devote extensive resources to web-based documentation systems presenting their processes in several levels from main processes down to individual tasks without achieving the planned effects. This is combined with the often seen confusion and discontent among senior management regarding the perceived lack of clear results from implementing process management. Through a literature review of the area Hellstro¨m and Peterson (2005) conclude that the literature is foremost built on theoretical reasoning resulting in a large number of how-to-do checklists. Furthermore they argue that there is a lack of empirical research into the effects of process management. Hellstro¨m and Peterson (2005) believe that “despite a decade of experience of practicing process-oriented management certain fundamental problems still beset its successful application and causes practitioners concern.” Based on a literature review O’Neill and Sohal (1999) reach the same conclusion and state that more empirical research is needed. Several empirical articles covering tools and methodologies for mapping and improving single processes have been identified (Ku¨ng and Hagen 2007; Sandhu and Gunasekaran 2004; Ongaro 2004 among others). However few empirically based articles have been found on the organizational issues of implementing process management how to handle the relationship between the functional organization and a process perspective and on the roles of managers teams and individuals. Based on the arguments above that process management is becoming essential in organizations that many organizations experience problems during implementation and the expressed need for empirical research the purpose of the paper is to explore and describe the organizational implications when implementing process management. It describes the experiences of introducing process management in three different organizations. The overarching questions have been: . What was the purpose and what were the results of implementing process management? . How is the ability to drive improvement affected when implementing process management? . What are the effects experienced by individuals when implementing process management? . How are organizational structures roles and responsibilities affected when implementing process management? The paper is displayed as follows: as a part of a further introduction of process management the next sections present definitions of process management the purposes and results of implementing process management found in the literature and different process maturity models. The next section describes the methodology used when performing the case studies followed by case descriptions of the organizations studied. The case descriptions are then summarized and analyzed. Finally conclusions are drawn and a discussion of the implications is presented. 1.1 Definitions of process management The concept of process management is not something entirely new. Shewhart (1931) was one of the first to argue for process control in favor of product control. During the 1970s methodologies for working with processes were developed under labels such as just-in-time and lean production (Schonberger 1986). In the 1980s and 1990s the scope of process control was expanded to encompass a corporate emphasis including all functions of an organization. A great deal of attention was focused on business process re-engineering as described by for example Hammer and Champy (1993). Process management has been on the agenda since the early 1980s but unlike that of many other management concepts the interest in process management has remained high (Hellstro¨m 2006). A recent literature review on process management (Palmberg 2009) covering 77 articles indicates that there are no common definitions of the concepts of processes and process management. A process definition is presented as “A horizontal sequence of activities that transforms an input (need) to an output (result) to meet the needs of a customer or stakeholder” (Palmberg 2009 p. 207). When it comes to a definition of process management two different movements are identified. The first movement (A) focusing on the management and improvement of single processes is summarized as: “A structured systematic approach to analyze and continually improve the process” (Palmberg 2009 p. 210). The second movement (B) shares a more holistic view on process management as a part of managing the whole organization and is defined as: “A more holistic manner to manage all aspects of the business and as a valuable perspective to adopt in determining organizational effectiveness” (Palmberg 2009 p. 210). 1.2 Purpose and results of implementing process management The purposes found in the literature review of implementing process management (Palmberg 2009) include: to remove barriers between functional groups and bond the organization together (Jones 1994; Llewellyn and Armistead 2000); to control and improve the processes of the organization (Melan 1989; Pritchard and Armistead 1999; Process management 95 BPMJ 161 96 Biazzo and Bernardi 2003; Sandhu and Gunasekaran 2004); to improve the quality of products and services (Melan 1989; McAdam and McCormack 2001; Sandhu and Gunasekaran 2004); to identify opportunities for outsourcing and the use of technology to support business (Lindsayet al. 2003; Lock Lee 2005); to improve the quality of collective learning within the organization and between the organization and its environment (Bawden and Zuber-Skerritt 2002); to align the business process with strategic objectives and customer needs (Lee and Dale 1998); and to improve organizational effectiveness and improve business performance (Jones 1994; Elzingaet al. 1995; Armisteadet al. 1999). Sentaninet al. (2008) present a case in a Brazilian public research center where the purpose of implementing process management was to understand its core processes in order to continue operating effectively and gaining competitive advantage. A survey from manufacturing plants in the USA shows that process management is one of the core quality principles that have significant impacts on quality (Zu 2009). Armistead and Machin (1998) present a description of the adoption of process management at Royal Mail UK where the driver was declining market shares and dissatisfied customers and employees. The result described was that the process view allowed for a genuine understanding of what quality is from the viewpoint of the customer and that the employees in the operations understand where they fit (Armistead and Machin 1998). The results achieved from implementing process management in a Swiss bank are described by Ku¨ng and Hagen (2007) as reduced cycle time increased output per employee and increased quality of work products. Process re-engineering and management logic and techniques are used as enablers for the successful introduction of one-stop shops in a number of Italian municipalities; the approach resulted in reduced throughput times and a single interface with entrepreneurs was established and empowered (Ongaro 2004). Empirical research at Volvo Cars between 1994 and 2000 (Hertzet al. 2001) describes the results of the work with process management as decreased inventory cost shorter lead times increased delivery precision and higher customer satisfaction. Forsberg et al. (1999) found based on a survey of the application of process management in Swedish organizations that the introduction of process management gave positive results in the following areas: common language cooperation customer orientation cost lead time learning abilities holistic view and standardization. Findings similar to those of Forsberget al. (1999) have also been reported by Garvare (2002). Telephone interviews with managers of 62 Swedish small and medium-sized enterprises revealed that in their opinion the general response from the personnel when implementing process management had been positive or very positive. A majority of the respondents claimed that since the introduction of process management their company had improved its financial result recognized increased customer satisfaction increased its customer base become more efficient and had reached a higher level of delivery accuracy. The main problem areas due to the implementation of process management included bureaucratic documentation procedures and difficulties when trying to involve older personnel and middle managers. DeToro and McCabe (1997) state that a change towards process management requires not just the use of a set of tools and techniques but a change in management style and way of thinking. According to Rentzhog (1996) the implementation of process management includes both structural and cultural changes to the organization. 1.3 Process maturity models organizational structures and roles Several models of process maturity have been described in the literature; see examples in Table I. Sentaninet al. (2008) present a maturity model developed by Goncalves (2000) describing five stages (A-E) of companies moving towards a process-based organization from a strictly functional model to a stage essentially based on processes (the original article has not been used because it is written in Spanish). Sentaninet al. (2008) use this model to identify the process maturity level of their case a Brazilian public research center that is placed in the second stage (B). The second process maturity model is presented by Lockamy and McCormack (2004) describing the stages from anad hoc to an extended maturity level. The third model is based on empirical research at the Swedish car company Volvo between 1994 and 2000 (Hertzet al. 2001). Hertzet al. (2001) present a three-level model combining the orientation (production cost and network) with the organizational focus (functional project and process). The first two maturity models by Goncalves (2000) in Sentaninet al. (2008) and Lockamy and McCormack (2004) argue for a full transition from a traditional functional organization (Stage A orad hoc) to an organization fully based on the processes (Stage E or extended); see Figure 1 and the transition all the way from Stage I – a strictly functional organizational structure – to Stage III – a strictly process-based organizational structure. Hertzet al. (2001) describe a conflicting more moderate transformation where a process management structure is “matrixed onto” the existing organization as in Stage II – a matrix with both a process and a functional organizational structure – of Figure 1. In the same line of reasoning Ongaro (2004) concludes that process management should not be seen as a question of all or nothing but as a continuum between better process-related knowhow of the employees to an organizational and technological solution. Also supporting a more moderate line ares Ku¨ng and Hagen (2007 p. 86) who state that: “Process management does not entail the absence of traditional hierarchical relations [. . .] Process management usually leads to a matrix framework.” Hammer and Stanton (1999) argue that most companies overlay new processes on established functional organizations with possible negative consequences since the traditional organization – with job definitions performance measurement systems and managerial hierarchies – do not always support the performance of processes. Hammer (2007) states that the horizontal processes pull people in one direction and the traditional vertical management system might pull them in another. There is possibly a danger if working too hard on building a prominent process management structure within an organization a new hierarchical structure going horizontally through the organization instead of top-down could be created. Silvestro and Westley (2002) present an analysis of functional and process structures and conclude that both structures have both benefits and limitations. A similar discourse can be seen in the area of roles and responsibilities. On one side Ongaro (2004) argues that the process owner must have authority over process aims and staff resources. On the other side Hertzet al. (2001) identify process managers Process management 97 Process ITable maturity . models 98 161BPMJ Goncalves (2000) in Sentaninet al. (2008 p. 485) Lockamy and McCormack (2004 p. 275) Hertzet al. (2001 p. 138) Stage A:no decisive steps towards a process- Ad hoc: processes are unstructured and ill defined. Production orientation/functional organization: based organization. Can only perceive their Organizational structure is based on traditional focus on labor productivity delivery to stock and manufacturing/core process functions product quality Stage B:identified processes and sub-processes Defined:basic processes are defined and but focuses on functions. Started reducing documented. Organizational structure includes a bottlenecks process aspect Stage C:identified and improved core processes. Linked:process management is employed with a Cost orientation/project organization: focus on Functional mentality with power in the functional strategic intent. Broad process structures are put delivery speed total quality management and units. Might add technology to core processes and in place outside traditional functions process reengineering eliminate non-value-adding activities (breakthrough level) Stage D:distribution of resources in core Integrated:organizational structure is based on processes. Appointment of process owner processes; traditional functions begin to responsible for managing each core process. disappear. Process measures and management Traditional organizational structure. Success in systems are deeply embedded in the organization. improving isolated processes Cooperation with suppliers and customers on process level Stage E:organizational structure designed based Extended: multi-firm networks with collaboration Network orientation/process organization: focus on the logic of core processes between legal entities built on trust and mutual on speed and precision customer satisfaction and dependency network effectiveness without formal authority. Hammer and Stanton (1999) argue that the process owner Process has to be a permanent role and must have the responsibility for and authority over; management designing the process measuring its performance and training the frontline workers. From the case of a Brazilian research center Sentaninet al. (2008) present a reason for resistance to a process organizational structure among managers as they lose authority and power as well as their financial losses caused by the reductions of hierarchical levels in the organization. The same line of reasoning is presented by Hammer and Stanton 99 (1999) who argue that it is usually senior functional executives who are the biggest opponents to process management because of their loss of autonomy and power. Another type of maturity model is presented by Hammer (2007) who describes the features of process enablers and enterprise capabilities. The process enablers determine how well single processes are able to function over time and are presented as: design performers owner infrastructure and metrics (Hammer 2007 p. 113). Organizations that are able to put the enablers in place are described to possess enterprise capabilities presented as; leadership culture expertise and governance (Hammer 2007 p. 113). Further Hammer (2007) presents four levels of maturity within each enabler and capability. In an earlier paper Hammer and Stanton (1999) preset the infrastructure of the process enterprise to be; measurements compensation facilities Training & Development and career paths. As presented above there are several possible perspectives to be used when studying the implementation of process management in organizations. The focus of this study as stated earlier is the organizational structure roles and responsibilities – corresponding to the enabler “owner” and the capabilities of “leadership” and “governance” according to Hammer (2007). 2. Methodology The purpose of this paper and study is to explore and describe the implementation of process management in order to increase understanding among practitioners and researchers. A case study approach is used as it is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin 2003). 2.1 Purposeful selection The selection and execution of the case studies were made in collaboration with a study examining organizations using the SIQ Model for Performance Excellence as a tool for quality improvement (Eriksson and Garvare 2005). A multiple-case strategy was used to get a more extensive picture of how the organizations have worked with process management. I – A strictly functional organizational structure II – A matrix with both a process and a functional organizational structure III – A strictly process based organizational structure Notes:Three different organizational structures from a strictly functional organizational structure. (Stage I) to a matrix structure with both a process and a functional organization (Stage II) and finally a strictlyFigure 1. process-based organizational structure (Stage III) BPMJ Both managers and employees have been chosen as informants. The managers have 161 foremost been those responsible for the process management initiative. The employees have been selected based on recommendation from the managers because it eases the sampling process but with the awareness of risk of bias. This is a kind of triangulation in social sciences described by Johannessen and Tufte (2003) as looking at a phenomenon from different perspectives. 100 2.2 Data collection The primary sources for data collection in these studies have been interviews and observations. This choice was made on the basis of wanting to hear the “stories” of the organizations and wanting to hear these stories from different angles. Before each study the organizations were contacted and agreed to participate in the study. A date was set for the visit and the organization received information about the areas that would be investigated. The interviews were prepared through tests of the questions with colleagues. Case study protocols stating what areas to investigate and questions to ask were used to ensure that the same procedures were followed at all the organizations. This strengthens the reliability of the study according to Yin (2003). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from different hierarchical levels both managers responsible for the work with process management and employees who had been involved in the work. The visits to the organizations were extended to one day which gave time to observe and understand the environment in the organizations. In addition Organization C has been closely examined over a period of two years following the multiple-case study. For a period of three months in 2003 and between September 2004 and February 2006 I was partly positioned at the company actively participating in the development of their process management work through action research. This is important as it enables access collection analysis and validation of empirical material. 2.3 Data analysis When conducting data analysis Yin (2003) suggests that there are two general strategies when approaching the material: relying on theoretical propositions and developing a case description. In this paper case descriptions were developed (see the next section) as a means of presenting the material for the readers. The case descriptions are based on transcripts of the interviews and notes from observations. Coding has been used in the text analysis with codes that evolved during the work (Miles and Huberman 1994). The case descriptions have been analyzed using the frame of reference presented in the earlier sections with results from previous mainly empirically based research. A summary of the analysis is presented in Table II. 3. Results – case descriptions 3.1 Organization A Organization A is a logistic company owned by the organizations whose products they are transporting. In 2003 the turnaround was almoste1700 million and they had about 400 employees in Sweden. In 1994 the company was the first organization in their branch of trade that received an ISO 9001 certification. At the time of the study they had a market share approaching 50 percent. Organization A Organization B Organization C Purpose of process management Initiated by declining results and Wanting to develop the organization Aiming for 25 percent growth and 25 demands for improved results from not because of (external) pressure or percent saving on total cost new owner crisis Organizational structure Process organization in parallel to Process and competence organization A matrix of functional organization and functional organization instead of functional organization process organization Roles and responsibilities First approach: Process leaders soon renamed process First approach: Process owners.Working with flows owners. Former department managers Functional managers.Responsible throughout the company an “honorary with new titles responsible for for results budget and staff title” operations and performance of Process owners.Working part time Functional managers. Budget and processes on improving the processes staff Competence owners.Responsible for Process developer.Part time Second approach: personnel the whole individual supporting the process owner on Functional manager also process Process leaders.Reporting to process specific problems owner.Responsible for staff budget owner aided by improvement teams Second approach: and performance that might include customers Functional managers.Same as above In each department: Process owner.Full time without Team leaders.Responsible for staff process developer. Responsible for how Process leaders.Responsible for operations are performed and long-term development of processes facilitating development process improvement groups of Team leaders.Coaching employees employees day-to-day short perspective Changes at team level Very few changes at team level N/A Autonomous teams were tested with mixed employees from different market areas with the objective of aligning procedures and the ability to learn from each other Difficult to realize because of the need to be placed closely with those working with the same products to share knowledge Back in specialized teams (continued) Table II. A summary of the case studies of Organizations A-C 101 managementProcess Table II. 102 161BPMJ Organization A Organization B Organization C Experienced results of process Increased strategic understanding A more effective use of employees A unified way of working between management A shared responsibility A better general picture market areas standardization of work Sharper economic control procedures enabled the targeted cost Increased understanding between co- savings workers from different departments Increased customer focus – clear what Easier to drive improvement should be delivered to the customer Experienced effects on structure Second approach resulted in Sometimes difficult to find the The matrix between functional and and roles clarification of responsibility relationship between different positions process organization is difficult but The responsibility is given to one Answers about organizational creates a dynamic person to avoid parallel agendas and structure depend on who you ask in the Those working in the matrix are in work organization control Risk of sub-optimization of staff with It is experienced as a challenge for separated responsibilities between employees to understand it business areas Answers on organizational structure depend on who you ask in the organization Experienced effects for A majority of employees find work A raise in well-being in employee A risk in the new structure that some individuals with process management positive surveys individuals take on too much Frustration requesting clearer responsibility commands Increase in sick leave due to stress caused by larger responsibility for each individual 3.1.1 Incitements and implementation. Already in 1994 the company started working with the criteria of the Swedish Quality Award which includes parts of process management. In 1996 a new CEO was hired who had previously been working with process management in other organizations: The new CEO was the catalyst [for process management] she brought the toolbox (Process leader Organization A). The reorganization that followed was initiated by declining sales and a new owner who demanded improved results. The reorganization was carried out with the help of external consultants who worked with the top management team but who also held workshops with middle management and employees on a team level. According to one of the process owners the existence of slack i

Order Similar Assignment Now!

  • Our Support Staff are online 24/7
  • Our Writers are available 24/7
  • Most Urgent order is delivered within 4 Hrs
  • 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.

GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: