Experiences of implementing process management: a multiple-case study Klara Palmberg Lulea ? University of Technology, Lulea ?, Sweden
Experiences of implementing process management: a multiple-case study Klara Palmberg 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 identi?ed 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 identi?ed 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 improvingorganizational processes (Andersson et 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 signi?cant 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
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Process management
93
Business Process Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 1, 2010 pp. 93-113 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154 DOI 10.1108/14637151011017967
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). Eventhoughprocessmanagementisacommonapproachtoday,manyorganizations 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 Forsberg et 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 dif?cult to understand and to put into action” (Rentzhog, 1996, p. 13). Inapaperonthede?nitionsandmodelsofprocessmanagement,thePalmberg(2009) concludes that in both research and in applications in organizations there is a string focus on the technical parts of process management; the de?nitions 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 discontentamongseniormanagementregardingtheperceivedlackofclearresultsfrom 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 identi?ed (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:
BPMJ 16,1
94
. 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,thenextsectionspresentde?nitionsofprocessmanagement,thepurposes 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 De?nitions of process management The concept of process management is not something entirely new. Shewhart (1931) was one of the ?rst 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 de?nitions of the concepts of processes andprocessmanagement.Aprocessde?nitionispresentedas“Ahorizontalsequenceof 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 de?nition of process management, two different movements are identi?ed. The ?rst 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 de?ned 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 andArmistead, 1999;
Process management
95
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 (Lindsay et 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; Elzinga et al., 1995; Armistead et al., 1999). Sentanin et 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 signi?cant 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 dissatis?ed 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 ?t (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). EmpiricalresearchatVolvoCarsbetween1994and2000(Hertzetal.,2001)describes the results of the work with process management as decreased inventory cost, shorter leadtimes,increaseddeliveryprecision,andhighercustomersatisfaction.Forsbergetal. (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. FindingssimilartothoseofForsbergetal.(1999)havealsobeenreportedbyGarvare (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 implementingprocessmanagementhadbeenpositiveorverypositive.Amajorityofthe respondents claimed that since the introduction of process management their company had improved its ?nancial result, recognized increased customer satisfaction, increased its customer base, become more ef?cient and had reached a higher level of delivery accuracy. The main problem areas due to the implementation of process management includedbureaucraticdocumentationproceduresanddif?cultieswhentryingtoinvolve 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
BPMJ 16,1
96
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. Sentanin et al. (2008) present a maturity model developed by Goncalves (2000), describing ?ve 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). Sentanin et 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 an ad hoc to an extended maturity level. The third model is based on empirical research at the Swedish car company Volvo between 1994 and 2000 (Hertz et al., 2001). Hertz et al. (2001) present a three-level model combining the orientation (production, cost, and network) with the organizational focus (functional, project, and process). The ?rst two maturity models by Goncalves (2000) in Sentanin et al. (2008) and Lockamy and McCormack (2004) argue for a full transition from a traditional functional organization (Stage A or ad hoc) to an organization fully based on the processes(StageEorextended);seeFigure1andthetransitionallthewayfromStageI – a strictly functional organizational structure – to Stage III – a strictly process-based organizational structure. Hertz et al. (2001) describe a con?icting, 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 de?nitions, 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 bene?ts 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, Hertz et al. (2001) identify process managers
Process management
97
Goncalves(2000)inSentaninetal.(2008,p.485)LockamyandMcCormack(2004,p.275)Hertzetal.(2001,p.138)
StageA:nodecisivestepstowardsaprocess- basedorganization.Canonlyperceivetheir manufacturing/coreprocess
Adhoc:processesareunstructuredandillde?ned. Organizationalstructureisbasedontraditional functions
Productionorientation/functionalorganization: focusonlaborproductivity,deliverytostock,and productquality
StageB:identi?edprocessesandsub-processes, butfocusesonfunctions.Startedreducing bottlenecks
De?ned:basicprocessesarede?nedand documented.Organizationalstructureincludesa processaspect
StageC:identi?edandimprovedcoreprocesses. Functionalmentalitywithpowerinthefunctional units.Mightaddtechnologytocoreprocessesand eliminatenon-value-addingactivities
Linked:processmanagementisemployedwitha strategicintent.Broadprocessstructuresareput inplaceoutsidetraditionalfunctions (breakthroughlevel)
Costorientation/projectorganization:focuson deliveryspeed,totalqualitymanagementand processreengineering
StageD:distributionofresourcesincore processes.Appointmentofprocessowner responsibleformanagingeachcoreprocess. Traditionalorganizationalstructure.Successin improvingisolatedprocesses
Integrated:organizationalstructureisbasedon processes;traditionalfunctionsbeginto disappear.Processmeasuresandmanagement systemsaredeeplyembeddedintheorganization. Cooperationwithsuppliersandcustomerson processlevel
StageE:organizationalstructuredesignedbased onthelogicofcoreprocesses
Extended:multi-?rmnetworkswithcollaboration betweenlegalentitiesbuiltontrustandmutual dependency
Networkorientation/processorganization:focus onspeedandprecision,customersatisfactionand networkeffectiveness
Table I. Process maturity models
BPMJ 16,1
98
without formal authority. Hammer and Stanton (1999) argue that the process owner has to be a permanent role and must have the responsibility for and authority over; designing the process, measuring its performance, and training the frontline workers. From the case of a Brazilian research center, Sentanin et al. (2008) present a reason for resistancetoaprocessorganizationalstructureamongmanagers,astheyloseauthority andpoweraswellastheir?nanciallossescausedbythereductionsofhierarchicallevels in the organization. The same line of reasoning is presented by Hammer and Stanton (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 featuresofprocessenablers andenterprisecapabilities.Theprocess 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 thatare ableto put theenablersin place aredescribed to possessenterprise 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. Aspresentedabove,thereareseveralpossibleperspectivestobeusedwhenstudying theimplementationofprocessmanagementinorganizations.Thefocusofthisstudy,as statedearlier,istheorganizationalstructure,rolesandresponsibilities – 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.Acasestudyapproachisused,asitisanempiricalinquirythatinvestigates 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.
Figure 1.
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 strictly process-based organizational structure (Stage III)
Process management
99
Both managers and employees have been chosen as informants. The managers have 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.
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 thatwouldbeinvestigated.Theinterviewswerepreparedthroughtestsofthequestions withcolleagues.Casestudyprotocols,statingwhatareastoinvestigateandquestionsto ask,wereusedtoensurethatthesameprocedureswerefollowedatalltheorganizations. 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 nextsection)asameansofpresentingthematerialforthereaders.Thecasedescriptions arebasedontranscriptsoftheinterviewsandnotesfromobservations.Codinghasbeen usedinthetextanalysis,withcodesthatevolvedduringthework(MilesandHuberman, 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 almost e1,700 million and they had about 400 employees in Sweden. In 1994, the company was the ?rst organization in their branch of trade that received an ISO 9001 certi?cation. At the time of the study, they had a market share approaching 50 percent.
BPMJ 16,1
100
OrganizationAOrganizationBOrganizationC
PurposeofprocessmanagementInitiatedbydecliningresultsand demandsforimprovedresultsfrom newowner
Wantingtodeveloptheorganization, notbecauseof(external)pressureor crisis
Aimingfor25percentgrowthand25 percentsavingontotalcost
OrganizationalstructureProcessorganizationinparallelto functionalorganization
Processandcompetenceorganization insteadoffunctionalorganization
Amatrixoffunctionalorganizationand processorganization
RolesandresponsibilitiesFirstapproach: Processowners.Workingwith?ows throughoutthecompany,an“honorary title” Functionalmanagers.Budgetand staff Secondapproach: Functionalmanageralsoprocess owner.Responsibleforstaff,budget andperformance Ineachdepartment: Teamleaders.Responsibleforstaff Processleaders.Responsiblefor developmentofprocesses,facilitating processimprovementgroupsof employees
Processleaders,soonrenamedprocess owners.Formerdepartmentmanagers withnewtitles,responsiblefor operationsandperformanceof processes Competenceowners.Responsiblefor personnel,thewholeindividual Processleaders.Reportingtoprocess owner,aidedbyimprovementteams thatmightincludecustomers
Firstapproach: Functionalmanagers.Responsible forresults,budgetandstaff Processowners.Workingparttime onimprovingtheprocesses Processdeveloper.Parttime, supportingtheprocessowneron speci?cproblems Secondapproach: Functionalmanagers.Sameasabove Processowner.Fulltime,without processdeveloper.Responsibleforhow operationsareperformedandlong-term development Teamleaders.Coachingemployees day-to-day,shortperspective ChangesatteamlevelVeryfewchangesatteamlevelN/AAutonomousteamsweretestedwith mixedemployeesfromdifferentmarket areaswiththeobjectiveofaligning procedures,andtheabilitytolearn fromeachother Dif?culttorealizebecauseoftheneed tobeplacedcloselywiththoseworking withthesameproductstoshare knowledge Backinspecializedteams (continued)
Table II. A summary of the case studies of Organizations A-C
Process management
101
OrganizationAOrganizationBOrganizationC
Experiencedresultsofprocess management
Increasedstrategicunderstanding Asharedresponsibility Sharpereconomiccontrol Increasedunderstandingbetweenco- workersfromdifferentdepartments Easiertodriveimprovement
Amoreeffectiveuseofemployees Abettergeneralpicture
Auni?edwayofworkingbetween marketareas,standardizationofwork proceduresenabledthetargetedcost savings Increasedcustomerfocus–clearwhat shouldbedeliveredtothecustomer
Experiencedeffectsonstructure androles
Secondapproachresultedin clari?cationofresponsibility Theresponsibilityisgiventoone persontoavoidparallelagendasand work Riskofsub-optimizationofstaffwith separatedresponsibilitiesbetween businessareas
Sometimesdif?cultto?ndthe relationshipbetweendifferentpositions Answersaboutorganizational structuredependonwhoyouaskinthe organization
Thematrixbetweenfunctionaland processorganizationisdif?cult,but createsadynamic Thoseworkinginthematrixarein control Itisexperiencedasachallengefor employeestounderstandit Answersonorganizationalstructure dependonwhoyouaskinthe organization
Experiencedeffectsfor individuals
Amajorityofemployees?ndwork withprocessmanagementpositive
Araiseinwell-beinginemployee surveys Frustration,requestingclearer commands Increaseinsickleaveduetostress causedbylargerresponsibilityforeach individual
Ariskinthenewstructurethatsome individualstakeontoomuch responsibility
Table II.
BPMJ 16,1
102
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 in the organization has been important since it provided openings for improvement work and learning. 3.1.2 Organizational structure. Since 1997, there had been a cross-functional process organization present in parallel with the old functional organization. In the process organization, the process owner was working with different ?ows through the company, and the functional managers were responsible for budget and staff:
Process owner used to be a bit of an honorary title, with no large responsibilities, given to those who worked in the process and was very engaged. These process owners did not have that much power; the power still lay within the functional organization (Process leader, Organization A).
In 2000, top management at Organization A reached to the conclusion that it would be better to work the opposite way, and a new reorganization was initiated. Two years later, this reorganization had led to the following organizational structure: the head of the department is also the process owner, responsible for staff, budgets and process performance. One of the interviewed said that: “it was new titles, but no new people.” This gave the process owners more responsibility, with higher demand from the top management. One positive factor mentioned with the reorganization was the clari?cation of responsibilities:
The organization has given the responsibility to one person to avoid that work made on many different, but parallel tracks, with different agendas. [...] You do not [have to] discuss who should be doing what (Process leader, Organization A).
Undereachprocessownertherearenowteamleadersresponsibleforthepersonnel,and processleadersresponsibleforthedevelopmentoftheprocesses.Theprocessleadersact as facilitators within the department and the groups when working with improvement. There are, however, some adjustments between the different departments that mainly depend on the size of the department. To aid the process leader in the work with improvements, there are also process improvement teams with employees from different parts of the department. These groups are given some theory background and they become a forum for improvement. The members have been recruited to the group through recommendation or by application:
There has to be someone who grabs hold of the ideas and makes them happen. Now we have the process improvement groups which do that (Member of a process improvement group, Organization A).
Process management
103
3.1.3 Effects. According to the interviewed, the process orientation in Organization A had several effects on the company. The strategic understanding of the business increased because of the process approach. One of the employees described how before the change, one could blame someone else when things went wrong, but how there was now a shared responsibility and also much stricter economic control. The process orientation also increased the mutual understanding between co-workers of different departments, and there was a desire to deepen that understanding by performing an internship at other departments. A majority of the employees found the work with process management to be a positive experience, but the increased productivity control that followed was causing stress for some of the employees. It had become easier to drive improvement when working in a process organization. However, according to one of the process owners, it had also become more dif?cult to build commitment among employees. One of the interviewed suspected that the organization might be losing some of the links across the company when working with process management:
There can be a bit of sub-optimization of the staff. The different business areas keep their own staff who can be working in parallel with someone at a different business area (Process leader, Organization A).
The reorganization towards process management led to few changes at the team and team leader levels of the company:
This does not change our assignments. My group leader is still the same, and neither did nor do we now see much of the management above him. [...] We do not notice that much difference; it does not change our tasks (Employee, Organization A).
3.2 Organization B Organization B is an energy producer owned by a larger European energy group. In 2003, the turnover for the company was e200 million and they had about 100 employees. 3.2.1 Incitement and implementation. The process orientation at Organization B started when one of the top managers attended a seminar about process management and found it to be interesting:
We started working with process management because we wanted to develop the organization, not because of [external] pressure or crisis (Process owner, Organization B).
In the middle of the 1990s, the company took on working with the Swedish Quality Award. In 1999, a new CEO was appointed and the company went through a major reorganization. The implementation of process management took place through seminars and workshops with all employees, assisted by external consultants. The process owners and process leaders, who all came from the old organization, attended courses in process management, leadership, and personal development. 3.2.2 Organizational structure. To start with there were process leaders appointed in the organization, but soon they were renamed process owners. These persons were the old department managers who got new titles and became responsible for the operations and performance of the processes of the company. New competence owners were appointed, responsible for the personnel:
BPMJ 16,1
104
Some employees are working in three or four different processes with different process owners. Therefore, it is important that the competence leader takes the whole responsibility for the individual (Process owner, Organization B).
After the reorganization the process owners categorize the competence they need for their processes and demanded this competence from the competence owners. At Organization B there were now again process leaders, which reported to the process owner and were aided by improvement teams. The teams sometimes included representatives of the customers. The position of a process leader was not de?ned within the organizational chart:
It is a bit dif?cult to ?nd the relationship between the different positions [...] The answer about our organizational structure depends on who you ask in the organization (Process owner, Organization B).
3.2.3 Effects. According to employee surveys, there has been an increase in well-being among the employees as a result of the work with process management:
The work with process management could be a way to achieve commitment from everyone (Process owner, Company B).
The new organizational structure has allowed a more effective use of employees. The process orientation has also given a better general picture. Both process owners and processleadersindicatedthatitwashardworktomaketheneworganizationalstructure work. One frustration was mentioned, where some of the employees had wanted clearer commands about what to do:
There is no one telling you what to do when you get to work in the morning [...] In the beginning it was hard to know who to ask about what in the organization (Process leader, Organization B).
A downside discussed by both the process owner and the process leader is sick leave due to stress caused by the larger responsibility put on each individual in the new organizational structure:
Working in an organization of process management demands a lot of the individual, to take own initiatives. There is no one telling you what to do [...] This way of working does not suit all people (Process leader, Organization B).
The process leader argues that the number of sick leave days is clearly higher after the organizational restructuring.
3.3 Organization C Company C is a wholly owned subsidiary of a larger Swedish insurance organization. It has about 150 employees who serve 360,000 customers. The turnover in 2003 was about e90 million and the market share was about 60 percent. In 1998, Organization C was the ?rst insurance company in Sweden to receive an ISO 9001 certi?cation. 3.3.1 Incitements and implementation. In 1992, a new CEO was appointed at CompanyC.Threeyears laterhesetupagoal: thecompanyshallgrow25percentwhile saving 25 percent on total costs. As a part of its strategy to reach this goal, Company C started working with the Swedish Quality Award. As a result, process management became a part of Organization C’s quality improvement efforts.
Process management
105
3.3.2 Organizational structure. At Organization C, a matrix model has been used when organizing for process management. Process owners have been working full time improving the performance of the processes at the company. These process owners have all been recruited from within the organization:
There have not been any exact calculations on the pro?le for being a process owner; there is a slightly different focus in the different processes (Former process owner, Organization C).
The full-time arrangement for process owners was a later development. In the beginning, all process owners worked part time with the process manager matters and parttimewiththeiroldsettings.Theprocessownerthenhasaprocessdeveloperathand when working with speci?c problems. Later, this role disappeared. There have been some different turns on the way the organizational structure is presented at the time of the study. Earlier, the process owners of the core processes had been working full time with the processes, while the support process owners had been the old functional managers from the support departments, which had only been working part time with the management of process performance. In the fall of 2004, the ?ve part-time support process owners were replaced by one full-time support process owner for all the support processes:
Those of us who work in the matrix are in control of it. But it can be a challenge to explain the structure for the employees. [...] The organizational structure, it depends on who you ask what picture you will get (Process owner, Organization C).
In the other dimension of the matrix there were functional managers who had the responsibility of the results and the employees. Team leaders, responsible for coaching the employees, were placed below the functional managers:
A team leader is working in the operations with a perspective of a couple of months. My task as a process owner is to have a more strategic picture. I am responsible for the system, not the staff, and I have more of a development perspective (Process owner, Organization C).
The management at Organization C has tried to take the organizational restructuring one-step further and form mixed, autonomous teams. The idea has been to mix employees from different market areas, and thereby have them work in the same way. However, this idea turned out to be dif?cult to realize, and therefore the organizational structure went back to specialized teams. The employees had a need to be placed close to those working in the same area to be able to ef?ciently transfer knowledge:
We were mixed teams with a combination between different competences. We did not connect or work across the borders in those groups so now we are back in our specialized teams. It is good because now my manager knows about the things that I do (Employee, Organization C).
3.3.3 Effects. Beforetheprocessorientation,thedifferentmarketareashadbeenworking in different ways. One of the biggest gains of the work with process management was, according to the former process owner, that a uni?ed way of working at Organization C was developed, a way of working that was not dependant on which market area was looked at. The standardization of work procedures has been an important contributor to the cost savings achieved. The goal of 25 percent growth with 25 percent reduction in cost was reached in 1999, four years after it was set:
BPMJ 16,1
106
Our work got more systematic, we documented what we were doing and structured it. It got obvious all those not important things we where doing (Former process owner, Organization C).
Oneplacewherecon?ictsstilloccurredatthetimeofthestudywasinthematrix,where the process owner is responsible for how the operations are run, and the functional managerisaccountablefortheresult.However,inOrganizationC,manypeopledescribe this as a dynamic which has been a positive and contributing part of the success:
Process management has made it clear what should be delivered to the customer. To produce what the customer wants you have to calculate the activities and processes you need to accomplish that. [...] Customer focus has got a deeper meaning. It got obvious that my process delivered something directly to the customer (Former process owner, Organization C).
According to the interviewed, there was a risk in the new structure that some individuals could take on too much responsibility, more than they had time for.
4. Analysis The analysis has been guided by the purpose and research questions of the paper, by earlier empirical results described in the introduction, and by the empirical material of the studied cases. The analysis has been performed on an organizational level, not on the individual level. A summary of the cases, using the initial questions posed in the introduction as variables, is shown in Table II.
4.1 Changes on organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, and the experienced results All three organizations have chosen to implement some kind of matrix-organization, saving parts of the old functional structure, and then adding new positions to a process overlay superimposed on this structure. The organizations have chosen different paths when implementing the process overlay. All three have used internal recruitment for the positions as process owners, but have given this position different status and responsibilities. The role of giving day-to-day support to staff has principally been kept by the team leaders or competence leaders in Organization B. This role had seldom been affected by the reorganizations, even though there had been changes of role names and titles. Daily support and direction were given to the employees by their immediate superior, regardless of organizational type. Thedifferentpathsthecompanieshavetakenseemtohavedelivereddifferentresults. When,aswasthecaseinOrganizationsAandB,functionalmanagerswithalonghistory within the organization enter the role as process owners, there is a risk that little really changes.Ontheotherhand,therecanalsobedif?cultieswhenappointingotherpersonsas process owners, as was the case in Organization C and also initially in Organization A. Inexperienced managers can have dif?culties with legitimacy and authority towards the more senior functional managers, leading to the status of the process organization becoming lower that that of the functional organization. To try to prevent this, strong supporthastobegivenfromthetopmanagementtotheprocessownerssothattheyhave the knowledge and authority to stand up to the functional managers. According to the process maturity model by Goncalves (2000) presented in Sentanin et al. (2008), all three organizations studied meet the requirements of Stage C
Process management
107
of having identi?ed and improved their core processes. Organizations A and B could be categorized as having a functional mentality (Stage C), where the old functional managershavebeenrenamedprocessowners.OrganizationChasappointednewprocess owners that exist in parallel to the functional organization, and can therefore be placed in Stage D. The process maturity model of Lockamy and McCormack (2004) places all three organizations into the third “Linked” stage, where process management is employed with strategic intent, and process structures are put into place outside the traditional functions. None of the three organizations reaches the higher levels of the ?rst two process maturity models. This could be interpreted as supporting the argument that process management is not all or nothing (Ongaro, 2004), does not require the absence of a functional organization (Ku ¨ng and Hagen, 2007), and that a process structure can be matrixed onto a functional structure (Hertz et al., 2001; see Stage II in Figure 1). AnothersupportingargumentforthematrixstructurecanbefoundinOrganizationC when testing mixed teams based only on the process structure, leaving the functional structure of the market areas. It was dif?cult to develop the mixed teams because of the needtobeplacedcloselywiththoseworkingwiththesamefunctionalresponsibilityand specialty. This might be interpreted as an indication of the need to keep a functional structure while, at the same time, adding a process structure to the organization. However, in all three studied organizations there seems to be a challenge to ?nd a balance in the matrix between the functional and process perspective. Organization B describesitasdif?cult to?nd the relationships betweendifferent positions. Organization A has chosen a path where the complexity is reduced when both perspectives of the processandthefunctionisgatheredinoneposition.Someoftheinterviewedstatethatthis has resulted in a clari?cation of responsibility, but also in a risk of staff sub-optimization when the managers do not work closely together between departments. Organization C describes the matrix as dif?cult, but also as contributing with a constructive dynamic. In the beginning of implementing process management, one of the process owners loudly claimed the dif?culties as a process owner being responsible for the operations without having the responsibility or authority over budget and staff. After two years, he was one of the strongest promoters for the matrix structure. He then argued that the discussions he was forced to have with the functional managers (responsible for budget and staff) made them reach better decisions together than if one of the perspectives (process or function) dominated. This is in line with Hammer and Stanton (1999) who argue that the matrix structure separates the control over work from the management of the people who perform thework.Further,theystate thatthissplitofauthoritymakescooperationunavoidable. “Traditional styles of management, to sum up, have no place in a process enterprise. Managerscan’tcommandandcontrol;theyhavetonegotiateandcollaborate”(Hammer and Stanton, 1999, p. 114).
5. Summary and conclusion It seems that all three organizations have found ways to use process management not just as an approach for improving single processes (movement A in Palmberg (2009) and the process enablers in Hammer (2007)), but also as a perspective for managing the whole organization (movement B in Palmberg, 2009, and the enterprise capabilities in
BPMJ 16,1
108
Hammer, 2007). The purpose of this paper is to explore and describe the organizational implications of implementing process management. The results will be summarized below: (1) What was the purpose and what were the results of implementing process management? To summarize, there seems to be almost as many purposes of implementing process management as there are organizations attempting it. The results found in the three studied organizations cover: . increased understanding among employees of strategies and customer needs; . standardization of work procedures, enabling cost savings; . more effective use of employees; . sharper economic control; and . easier to drive improvement. (2) What are the effects experienced by individuals when implementing process management? People at the organizations studied express an increase in well-being and that the employees ?nd the work with process management positive. But this is combined with a concern about the risk of stress caused by increased individual responsibility among employees. (3) How is the ability to drive improvement affected when implementing process management? In all three organizations, the process organizational structure, with process owners and process leaders as facilitators and process improvement teams of employees driving change, has strengthened the organizations’ capability to change and improve. (4) How are organizational structures, roles and responsibilities affected when implementing process management? All three 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. The relationships between the process organization and the functional organization differ between the three organizations, but all match Stage II in Figure 1.
6. Discussion and implications There appears to be a con?ict when the old functional and more hierarchical structure, whereyouaretoldwhattodo,meetsthenewprocessorganization,wheretheindividual has alargerresponsibility for taking his or herown initiatives.Thecompanies question itifit,forthosewholiketotakeonchallenges,presentstoomanyopportunities.Itisalso re?ecteduponwhetherthiswayofworkingdoesnotsuiteveryoneorifitisaquestionof the individual having the right support to handle the new responsibility. In the introduction of this paper, two different discourses were identi?ed. On one hand, a full transformation from a functionally orientated organizational structure (Stage I in Figure 1) to a fully process-oriented organizational structure (Stage III in Figure1)isfavored;ontheotherhand,amoremoderatetransformationwhereaprocess managementstructureis“matrixedonto”theexistingorganizationispreferred(StageII in Figure 1). The analysis of the three studied cases could be interpreted as supporting the second line of reasoning, where the functional and process structures co-exist in the
Process management
109
organization, creating a constructive dynamic. The implication of this line of reasoning isthatcomplexity iscreatedrather than reduced in theorganizations to handle theneed of several parallel perspectives on the business. How to manage complexity instead of reducing it could be seen as a challenge for the management of contemporary organizations. This is in line with Silvestro and Westley (2002) who promote the matrix structure because of its relative strengths of both the horizontal and vertical structure. But, they also highlight the risk that the matrix structure becomes complex and unwieldy. They suggest that viewing the organization as a network of activities may be more realistic than the matrix. The contribution of this paper is two-folded. First, the empirical descriptions and analysis of the three organizations that have implemented process management. This contributes to the knowledge and understanding among both practitioners and researchers.Secondistheidenti?edneedfortheco-existenceofaprocessandfunctional perspective, and the implication that complexity is created rather than reduced in the organizations. The implication for practitioners could be interpreted as instead of trying to control the functional and process structure separately, the challenge is to collaborate and negotiate between the functional and process perspective. To put it in another way: the solution is not functional or process management, but functional and process management.Itcouldbesuggestedthatthiscallsforimprovedmanagementapproaches withinareassuchasleadershipandculture.Forexample,OrganizationCgatheralltheir managers,onedayamonth,todiscusscurrentissuestogether,withtheobjectivetounite and align managers from different perspectives. This is an example of creating an arena for negotiation and collaboration. See further descriptions of approaches from Organization C in Palmberg and Garvare (2006). Theimplicationforresearcherscouldbetheindicationofaneedtofurtherexplorethe issuesof managingcomplexity,asa suggestionin relation totheknowledgeof complex adaptivesystems.A suggestionforfutureresearch istofurtherexplore therelationship between the functional and organizational perspective, and structure in organizations working with process management, both empirically and theoretically. A suggestion is to use the framework of Hammer (2007) to further investigate empirical cases. Possibly with an interactive research approach where the researcher work with the management team of the organization under study, including process owners, and coaches the organization to increase their process management maturity according to the framework, while simultaneously exploring their process management initiative.
References Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006), “Similarities and differences between TQM, Six Sigma and lean”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-96. Armistead, C. and Machin, S. (1998), “Business process management: implications for productivity in multi-stage service networks”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 323-36. Armistead, C., Pritchard, J.-P. and Machin, S. (1999), “Strategic business process management for organisational effectiveness”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 96-106. Bawden, R. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002), “The concept of process management”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 132-8.
BPMJ 16,1
110
Biazzo, S. and Bernardi, G. (2003), “Process management practices and quality systems standards: risks and opportunities of the ISO 9001 certi?cation”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 149-69. Dahlgaard, J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006), “Lean production, Six Sigma quality, TQM and company culture”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 263-81. DeToro, I. and McCabe, T. (1997), “How to stay ?exible and elude fads”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 55-60. EFQM (2009), “The EFQM excellence model”, The European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels, available at: www.efqm.org/en/Home/aboutEFQM/Ourvalues andmodels/TheEFQMEcellenceModel/tabid/170/Default.aspx (accessed March 26, 2009). Egnell, P. (1995), Processledning en arbetsmodell samt erfarenheter fra ?n svenska organisationer (Process Management: A Model and Experiences from Swedish Organizations), Division of Quality Technology and Statistics, Lulea ? University of Technology, Lulea ?, Sweden. Elzinga, D., Horak, T., Chung-Lee, L. and Bruner, C. (1995), “Business process management: survey and methodology”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 119-28. Eriksson, H. and Garvare, R. (2005), “Organizational performance improvement through quality award process participation”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 894-912. Forsberg, T., Nilsson, L. and Antoni, M. (1999), “Process orientation: the Swedish experience”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 540-8. Garvare, R. (2002), Process Management and Sustainable Development in a Quality Perspective – Implementation and Measurement Realted to Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Division of Quality Technology and Statistics, Lulea ? University of Technology, Lulea ?. Goncalves, J. (2000), “Processo, que processo?”, Revista de Administracao de Empresas, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 8-19. Hammer, M. (2007), “The process audit”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 111-23. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifest for Business Revolution, HarperCollins, New York, NY. Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1999), “How process enterprises really work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 6, pp. 108-18. Hansson, J. (2003), Total Quality Management – Aspects of Implementation and Performance: Investigations with a Focus on Small Organizations, Division of Quality and Environmental Management, Lulea ? University of Technology, Lulea ?. Hellstro ¨m, A. (2006), “Conceptions of process management – an anlysis of the discourse in the management literature”, paper presented at the 9th International QMOD Conference, Liverpool, August 8-10. Hellstro ¨m, A. and Peterson, J. (2005), “Becoming process-oriented – a study on organizational transformation”, Proceedings from the 8th QMOD Conference, Palermo, June 29-July 1. Hertz, S., Johansson, J.K. and de Jager, F. (2001), “Customer-oriented cost cutting: process management at Volvo”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 128-41. ISO (2009), “The ISO 9001:2008 standard”, The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, available at: www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_ iso_14000/iso_9000_essentials.htm (accessed March 26, 2009). Johannessen, A. and Tufte, P.A. (2003), Intorduktion till samha ¨llsvetenskaplig metod (Introduction to Methods in Social Sciences), Liber, Malmo ¨.
Process management
111
Jones, R. (1994), “Improving your key business processes”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 25-9. Ku ¨ng, P. and Hagen, C. (2007), “The fruits of business process management: an experience report from a Swiss bank”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 477-87. Lee, R. and Dale, B. (1998), “Business process management: a review and evaluation”, Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 214-25. Lindsay, A., Downs, D. and Lunn, K. (2003), “Business processes – attempts to ?nd a de?nition”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 45 No. 15, pp. 1015-9. Llewellyn, N. and Armistead, C. (2000), “Business process management: exploring social capital within processes”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 225-43. Lockamy, A. III and McCormack, K. (2004), “The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 272-8. Lock Lee, L. (2005), “Balancing business process with business practice for organizational advantage”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 29-41. McAdam, R. and McCormack, D. (2001), “Integrating business processes for global alignment and supply chain management”, Business Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 113-30. Melan, E. (1989), “Process management: a unifying framework for improvement”, National Productivity Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 395-406. Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Na ¨slund, D. (2008), “Lean, Six Sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process improvement methods?”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 269-87. NIST (2009), “The Criteria for Performance Excellence 2009-2010”, The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, available at: www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_?les/2009_ 2010_Business_Nonpro?t_Criteria.pdf (accessed March 26, 2009). O’Neill, P. and Sohal, A. (1999), “Business process reengineering: a review of recent literature”, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp. 571-81. Ongaro, E. (2004), “Process management in the public sector: the experience of one-stop shops in Italy”, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 81-107. Palmberg, K. (2009), “Exploring process management: are there any widespread models and de?nitions?”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 203-15. Palmberg, K. and Garvare, R. (2006), “Sustained quality management: how to receive the Swedish quality award twice”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42-59. Pritchard, J. and Armistead, C. (1999), “Business process management: lessons from European business”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 10-32. Rentzhog, O. (1996), Core Process Management,Division of Quality and Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linko ¨ping University, Linko ¨ping. Sandhu, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (2004), “Business process development in project-based industry”, Business Process Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 673-90. Schonberger, R.J. (1986), World Class Manufacturing, The Free Press, New York, NY. Sentanin, O.F., Almada Santos, F.C. and Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. (2008), “Business process management in a Brazilian public research centre”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 483-96.
BPMJ 16,1
112
Shewhart, W. (1931), Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Products, D. van Nostrand Company, New York, NY. Silvestro, R. and Westley, C. (2002), “Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a case-study analysis of a BPR implementation”, Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 215-25. Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Zairi, M. (1997), “Business process management: a boundaryless approach to modern competitiveness”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 64-80. Zu, X. (2009), “Infrastructure and core quality management practices: how do they affect quality?”, International Journal of Quality & Reliabilty Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 129-49.
About the author Klara Palmberg, in 2005, presented her licentiate thesis on “Experiences of Process Management.” Since then, she has shared her time between research and management consulting. Her doctorial thesis on “Beyond process management” (working title) is planned for August 2009. Within both her research and management consulting practice, she is working with organizations exploring process management and the challenge of complexity – how to manage organizations as complex adaptive systems. Klara Palmberg can be contacted at: klara.palmberg@mementor.se
Process management
113
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Furtherreproduction
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:
? Are engaged in their learning process.
? They are experimenting by doing the tasks subscribed to them by the e-tutor.
? 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.
? Provide e-Tutors with the opportunity to get to know the learners evaluate them and mentor them properly.
? 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 app