Socio-Technical Implementation as a Political Process: The Case of Team Based Cellular Manufacturing

Copyright@ 1996IFAC

6a-Dl 4

13th Triennial World Congrel;l;, San Francisco. USA

SOCIO-TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION AS A POLITICAL PROCESS: THE CASE OF TEAM BASED CELLULAR MANUFACTURING R_J. Badham and A.Majchrzak Centre for Managing lntegrated Technical alld Organizational Change, University of Wo//ongong, Wol/ongong, NSW 2522. A "stmlia Institute of Safety and Systems Management, University of Southern Cal~fornia

Abstract: Team based cellular manu fac turing combines the technical 'product' based grouping of equipment with the development of self~managing work teams. This paper outlines a new 'frontiers of autonomy' model for descrjbing the alternative form.s .of te~wor~ and guiding the cbolce between (hem. The model adopts a multIdimensIOnal VIew of the tasks performed hy teams . In analYSing the influences on the fonn taken by team s, the model develops on views of the workphl",.:e as a political struggle over 'frontiers of control'. Keywords: Cellulars; work groups; teams ; self-managing; autonomy: sociotechni cal: organizational politics; work organization

I. INTRODUCTION

International reviews of technol ogy implementation reveal consistently high levels of underperformance or failure.(Badham, 1993). Change programs in many areas are also characterised by a similar lack of success.(Pfeffer,)993). This is partially attributable to the inability of companies to appropriately configure technologies and systems for their own specific requirements. On the onc hand thi s is due to the lack of skill and und erstanding on the part of organisalions and their employees. On the other hand. and most importantly, it is the result of political failure i.e. the inability to secure scarce organisational resources and effectively mobili se the time and e nergy of organisational employees necessary to 'make innovation happen'. If the success ratc of innovation projects is to he improved, a belle/' understanding is required or eITective innovation and the political actions and techniques required Lo elTeclively carry out this configurational process.

In the case of team based cellular manufacturing. we have examined elsewhere the nature of the technical configuration process. This involves, in particular, the local resolution of such issues as viable part/machine groupings and the range of tools and equipment required by cell teams in order thal they possess all the 'necessary ' ;(echnical support for carrying out their group task. In this paper our central concern is with the nature of the selection and customisation process of self-managing teams. It is argued that (he tasks allocated to teams vary considerably between enterprises. dependi ng on technical, economic and political conditions, and that their position on a range of 'frontiers of autonomy' needs to be explicitly planned and evaluated. The 'frontiers of autonomy ' mode1 presented in this paper has been developed to help in this task.

784

2. FRONTIERS OF AUTONOMY IN DIFFERENT TEAM CONFIGURATIONS

2.1

Journey to Autonomy

It is commonly assumed in the research on self managing work teams that a continuum of selfmanagement can be drawn up and that teams can be identified through their location on this continuum. From Gulowsen (Gulowsen, t 979) to Manz (Manz,1992), numerous typologics have been developed identifying types of teamwork as stages in the development of work group autonomy, selfmanagement or empowerment. Common to all such models is the assumption that the indirect or control tasks to he carried out by the learn can be bundled together in a package, and the level of development of this package identified, or that there is a fixed sequence of tasks with 'higher' level tasks premised on the prior perfonnance of 'lower' level tasks. Accompanying such a perspective is frequently a view of the implementation and development of self-managing teams as an evolutionry team progress from a 'low level' towrds a 'high level' goal.

2.2

MultUlimensional View of Team Autonomy

In contrast to this view, this paper adopts a multidimensional perspective on team development. Teams are viewed as possessing different levels of autonomy on a series of 'frontiers'. Teams vary considerably in the range and depth of tasks that they undertake. Even within similar production conditions in the same company, different teams have taken up different tasks and developed their level of expertise in different task areas, This has been shown to be the case, for example, within Volvo plants, as well as between plants.(Thompson and Wallace,forthcoming). The 'frontiers of autonomy' model presented below makes it possible to capture such diversity and examine the influences upon and effects of different team profiles. What is of importance is not only the existence of team variants but also their significance. Some critics focus on the need for different task configurations appropriate for different production conditions if teamwork is to effectively contribute to performance. Thus Adler and Cole, for example, argue that in automobile assembly work. a greater contribution by assembly line teams into task design should be accompanied by severe restrictions on task execution (through standardised work procedures, short cyc1ed work, tight kan han systems etc.) if high levels of productivity and improvement are to be obtained (Adler and Cole.1994). Other critics focus on quality of working life issues, addressing the fact that lhe

autonomy of work groups in ditIerent areas has a direct impact on the ability of employees to retain desired levels of individual work autonomy or control over their working conditions. This is a key issue where, for example, operations have become more standardised and peer surveillance is increased, group participation in continuous improvement is restricted in degree and scope, or the group's ability to exert negotiating power in detennining new fonns of work or output is severely limited. In order to guide research on different types of teamwork and the selection amongst alternatives. Figure 1 provides a comprehensive outline of the possible set of tasks that can be carried out by work groups in operating and controlling production operations. This model focuses on the 'bundle' of tasks that are allocated to teams and is based on a logical analysis of 142 generic production tasks identified in the ACTION research project,(Majchrzak and Gasser,1992}. Research is being performed elsewhere on the nature and significance of different forms of task distrihution within the team.(Weber, 1995).

In the frontiers of autonomy model the range of tasks are grouped into 10 frontier sections. and different indicators may be used to measure the depth of task perfonnance e.g. a scale marking off low, medium or high complexity such as that provided by the VERA job analysis tool.(Weber,1995). Individual teams may clearly vary in both the set of tasks that they carry out and the level or depth of task performance that they attain in any of these areas. The tasks performed by the team are, therefore. represented by the range and depth of responsibility on each 'frontier'.

Figure 1

785

Task Frontiers: A One Dimensional View

2.3

Frontiers of Autonomy: Execution, Design and Governance

Variations and conflicts over the autonomy given to teams are not, however. restricted to the level of lask execution - even when these incorporate the wide range of indirecl control tasks represented in Figure I. Two additional dimensions of autonomy ha ve received widespread attention and debate: firstly, the design of the tasks performed by the team a nd. secondly. the degree to which the team has gov ernance over its operation and design activities. Figure 2 introduces these two additional dimensions. Consequently, the au tonomy of the team on each of its ]0 task fronti ers is assessed along 3 dimensions: task exec ut i o n ~ design and impro ve me nt; and governance. In Ihe area of design , team s ma y be involved in minor improvements, majo r improvements or radical redesign.. The introduction of design as a separate dimension is due to: the psychological significance of designing the working conditions within which one operates, the qualitative difference between 'single loop' and 'double loop ' learning. the organ iza lional significance of uniti ng design and execution so as 10 enable direct prod uctio n experience to be incorporated into new work designs, and , the ce ntrality placed upon the loca tion of des ign compared to exec ution in contemporary debates o ver the desirability of Japanese and self-managing form, of teamwork (Klein.1 99 l). On the governance dimension. groups may be informed, consulted o r play a co-determining role in choosin g the range and depth of tasks they perform. The introduction of a governance dimension is essential if the ce ntral issue of power is to be appropriately addressed. Groups may be given extensive se l f~

Span and Degree of Power Scope and Level of Design Expertise

Governance

Task Execution

Figure 2

Range and Depth of Tasks

Auto nomy Frontiers: A Three Diml:nsional View

regu lation or control over task execution, and even a significant role in the des ign of their tasks, without any power to choose the nature and degree of selfregulation and design that it shou1d take. These issues are raised directly by those who criticise the intrusive nature of teamwork upon individual autonomy and the use by management of tea ms to undermin e the nego tiating powe r of a united workforce in the determination of working conditions (Barker, 1993). The inclusion of a governance dimension also clearly focuses the attention of both management and workforce on what is meant by the 'empowerment' of work teams and allows the open discussion of the desired degrees of empowerment and their implications. In s um. Figure 1 allows the location of any team on 10 task frontiers and Figure 2 make possible a 3 dimensional view o f each frontier on the dimensions of task exec ution , design and governance.

3. SELECTING FRONTIERS OF AUTONOMY Where a team is, or should be. located on this 'frontiers of autonomy' map is the result of botb the objectives of teamwork and the condilions under which it is designed, implemented and operated. As illustrated in Figure 3, the core of any selection process should be the key production varianecs in the area of team responsib ility. Thc dclegation of tasks to the team is undertaken in order to bring about a quick and effective response to production variances. and. if possible, an elimination of undesirable variances over time. The main tasks to be delegated to the team arc those that are related to the key variances that have the most impact on the time. resource and flexibility costs of the production area. In addition to key variances. however, (he full range of individual. social and organisationalproduction objectives of the learn project shou ld be involved in selecting the ideal team profile.

An ideal team profile will inevitably be modi fied to address a variety of technical and social constraints before it is selected as a realistic and implementable team solution. Of key importance are such constrai nts as the degree of co upling of the work team to the workflow (restricting the ra nge and degree of indirect tasks it is able to take on) and the organisationa l power conflicts surrounding the extent to which the group is allowed to extend its fronti ers of autonomy. It should be noted th at the 10 ta sk execution frontiers match onto fundamental organisalional areas - directly raising the political issues s urrounding the control of s uch (asks and the location of the 'frontier' of conleo!. The process of selecting 'frontiers of autonomy' profiles is inevitably an iterative one as ideal profiles are outlined that address key variances and objective~> feasible alternatives are created once tcchnical and social

786

constraints are taken into account, and then variances, objectives and constraints are reassessed in the light of the conclusions of such an analysis. As a rough guide

Benefits of Clwnge (e.g. variances, realised objectives etc.) X Degree of Risk

(&

Tangible Resource Costs (c.g. training, pay, equipment)

when and how

to cope with them)

\

+

Technical constraints

Imangible Change Management

Costs (e.g. time and energy, legitimacy, negotiation, favours)

(task mterdependence human·workflow coupling complexity)

t

4. CONCLlISION In the course of team change projects. opinions about teamwork often hecome polarised between 'supporters' and 'resistors'. Evolutionary models of teamwork as a journey to autonomy encourage such a view and hinder analysis and discussion of the real options available. The (rontiers of autonomy model provides a general conceptual framework that makes the range of choices explicit and guides a more systematic and focused analysis of teamwork options..

I Obje<:tives (. individual . social . organi:;ationall production)

REFERENCES Adler, P. and R.Colc (1994), A Talc of Two AUlO Plants',ln Beyond Lean Production, (Badham, R. Ed.), 98-120, Australian Manufacturing Council. Melbourne.

Social constraints Uob classifications

and payment

organisational red istribution of power and positions cultural ethos)

Figure 3

Badham, R. (1993). Systems, Networks and Configurations: Inside the Implementation Process. Imemationni Journal of Human Factors ill Manufacturing, 4, 1-11 .

Selecting Frontiers of Autonomy

for selection, an overall solution should

positive evaluation of the following:

be based on a

Barker, J.R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage. Conccrtive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437 Gulowsen, lA. (1979). A Measure of Work-Group Autonomy. In: Desigll of Jobs (Davis, L.E. and I.CTaylor, Eds.), 113-127. Goodyear. Santa Monica. Klein, I.A. (1991). A Reexamination of Autonomy in Light of New Manufacturing Practices. Human Relations. 41.21-38.

787

Majchrzak, A, and L.Gasser (1992). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Specifying Manufacturing Workgroups Congruent with Technological Change, lnternational Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 5, lIS-l3l Manz, c.c. (1992). Self-Leading Work Teams: Moving Beyond Self-Management Myths. Human Relations, 45, 1119-1140 Pfeffer, J. (1993). Managing with Power.. Heinemann,

New York Thompson, P. and T.Wallace (forthcoming). Redesigning Production Through Teamwork. International ]ourlUl[ of Operations and Production Management, Special Issue on 'Lean Production and Work Organization', 118

788