19 – Structural Intervention

Introduction

The term socio-technical system, or STS, is most closely connected with studies conducted by the Tavistock Institute in the United Kingdom. STS theory is founded on two fundamental ideas. One is that “effective work systems must optimise the relationship between their social and technical components jointly.” The second premise is that “such a system must successfully control the border that separates and connects them to the environment.”

19.1 Specified Structural Intervention

Theory of Socio-technical Systems (STS)

It is centred on the collaborative optimization of an organization’s social and technological processes. Furthermore, the boundary between the organization and its environment should be managed so that effective exchanges can occur while being protected from external disruptions. STS implementation should be highly participative, and the creation and development of self-managed teams is an important factor in it (Cummings and Worley; Trist, Higgin, Murray, and Pollock; and others).

Self-managed Team Formation

Providing teams with a grouping of tasks that constitutes a significant unit of the overall work to be produced; Training group members in many skills, including team-effectiveness skills; Delegating many aspects of how the job is done to the team;

Providing a large amount of information and feedback for self-regulation of quality and productivity, resolving the problem of first-line supervisor dislocation, and rethinking the role of managers, emphasising mentoring, expediting, and coordinating (Walton, Lawler, and others).

According to work redesign theory, redesigning jobs to increase skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job can improve motivation and performance. The concept can be extended to the formation of self-managed teams, and third-party assistance in the development and monitoring of group norms can be beneficial (Hackman and Oldham).

MBO Theory

It assumes the need for systematic goal setting that links superiors’ goals to subordinates and that objectives or targets should be stated in quantitative terms whenever possible. Goal setting and appraisal should be one-on-one dialogues between superiors and subordinates. MBO can vary on an autocratic-participative continuum and feature a participative team approach (French and Hollmann, Likert and Fisher).

Circles of Excellence

At least the participative, problem-solving versions are based on the assumptions that many, if not most, employees are willing to work collaboratively in group settings-both natural work teams and cross-functional teams on problems of product quality and system effectiveness, and that they can learn to effectively utilise both technical and process consultants if they are:

Programmes to Improve Workplace Life Quality (QWL)

The content of these programmes varies, but they frequently include restructuring of several dimensions of the organisation, such as increased problem-solving between management and the union, increased participation by teams of employees in shop floor decisions about production flow, quality control, and safety; and skill development through technical skill training, job rotation, and team problem-solving training (Fuller, Carrigan, Bluestone, Goodman, Lawler, Ledford, Walton, and others).

Structures of Parallel Learning (or Collateral Organisations)

Parallel learning structures are organisations that have been developed within existing organisations and contain the following characteristics:

A mandate to deal with complex, non-routine, future-oriented challenges and to coordinate large-scale system change; the development of alternative norms and cultures to improve creative problem solving and to create a model organisation from which the organisation can learn (Z, Bushe, and Sham).

Physical configurations or arrangements

It can be the focal point of interventions compatible with OD approaches and concepts (Steele).

Programmes for Total Quality Management (TQM)

It is a long-term endeavour that centres all an organization’s activities on quality. It was trendy in the United States in the 1990s. TQM decentralises decision-making power in the business, disseminates pertinent information to all employees, connects pay to performance, and increases workers’ knowledge and abilities through comprehensive training. It is often referred to as continuous quality improvement. A mix of organisational improvement techniques and practices, such as using quality circles, statistical quality control, statistical process control, self-managed teams and task groups, and substantial use of employee participation.

Total Quality Management (TQM) is a strategy for improving quality and performance to meet or exceed customer expectations. This can be accomplished by unifying all organisational quality-related tasks and procedures. TQM examines a company’s total quality measures, such as managing quality design and development, quality control and maintenance, quality improvement, and quality assurance. TQM considers all quality initiatives implemented at all levels and engages all corporate employees.

Total Quality Management (TQM) programmes combine several approaches, including a strong focus on customers, including internal customers; the use of statistical quality control and statistical process control techniques; competitive benchmarking; participative management; a focus on teams and teamwork; and a focus on continuous training (Peters and Peters, Ciampa, Sashkin, and others).

W. Edwards Deming (also known as TQM) created total quality management. It is a management concept that strives to reduce errors made during manufacturing or service, increase customer happiness, streamline supply chain management, and modernize equipment. TQM aims to keep faults to one per million units produced. Total Quality Management is frequently related to the creation, deployment, and upkeep of organizational systems required for diverse business operations.

TQM is essentially a description of a company’s culture, mindset, and organisation that tries to offer and continue to provide its customers with products and services that meet their demands.

Organizations confront numerous challenges when implementing TQM. According to consulting firm surveys, only 20–36% of enterprises implementing TQM have seen significant or tangible gains in quality, productivity, competitiveness, or financial return.

TQM’s Key Characteristics

TQM’s primary goal is to enhance all operations and activities continuously. Once it is realised that a high-quality product is the only method to obtain customer satisfaction, ongoing improvement of the product’s quality is considered the only way to maintain a high level of customer satisfaction. Recognising the relationship between product quality and client happiness is also critical. TQM also acknowledges that product quality is a by-product of process quality. As a result, the company’s processes are being continuously improved. This will result in a higher level of process quality. This, in turn, will lead to a rise in product quality and customer satisfaction.

Waste removal must be a fundamental component of the continuous improvement method. There is a greater emphasis on prevention than detection, and quality is also emphasized at the design stage. The customer-driven strategy aids in the prevention of errors and the achievement of defect-free production. When issues arise during the product development process are usually recognised and fixed before they reach the next internal client.

Employee Engagement

A thriving TQM environment requires a committed and well-trained workforce that participates completely in quality improvement initiatives. Such participation can be boosted via reward and recognition systems. As a result, the attainment of quality objectives will be emphasised. All staff’s ongoing education and training contribute to the quality drive. Employees are encouraged to take on greater responsibility, to communicate more effectively, to act creatively, and to innovate. TQM connects remuneration to customer satisfaction measures, recognising that people behave in the manner in which they are measured and compensated.

A Culture of TQM

It is not easy to implement TQM. Management must build an open, cooperative culture to do this. Employees must be made to believe that they are accountable for client pleasure. They will not experience this if excluded from creating visions, strategies, and plans because employee participation in these activities is critical. They are less inclined to act appropriately if they witness management acting irresponsibly—stating one thing and doing the opposite.

Product Development in a TQM Setting

Product development in a TQM context differs from that in a non-TQM environment. If developed in a TQM setting, a product is typically designed in a conflicting context where each department functions autonomously. Because short-term results drive behaviour, scrap, adjustments, workarounds, waste, and rework are commonplace. The management’s primary focus is monitoring individuals, and firefighting is required and rewarded.

A TQM environment for product development is customer-driven, with a strong emphasis on quality. Teams are process-oriented and work with internal customers to achieve the desired objectives. Management emphasizes overseeing the overall process and rewarding teamwork.

Reengineering

It is the fundamental rethinking and drastic rebuilding of business processes to produce significant gains in essential, modern performance measures such as cost, quality, service, and speed. Reengineering is concerned with visualising and streamlining any or all of the organization’s business processes. It tries to improve the efficiency of such processes by combining, removing, or restructuring activities without regard for existing hierarchical or control methods. Reengineering is a top-down approach that does not assume an upward participation or consensus decision-making flow.

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is defined as follows:

Radical scrutiny, questioning, redefinition and redesign of business processes to eliminate all activities not central to the process goals… and automating all activities not requiring human judgmental input or facilitating that judgement at a reduced cost (Thomas 1994, p. 28).

Michael Hammer and James Champy (1994) advocated for BPR in the book.

‘Reengineering the Corporation’ in which they advocated that old systems be discarded and replaced with new, more innovative and effective processes. BPR demands lateral thinking that extends beyond the current boundaries to achieve a more effective organisation.

In the literature, BPR has been highly criticised. One critique is that BPR is more concerned with implementing new technology than improving business processes. IT corporations sell solutions to business problems and promote the presence of the issues solely to increase sales of their products and services (Thomas, 1994). BPR has also been chastised for being connected with downsizing and cost-cutting, with little concern for quality or long-term corporate goals (Mumford & Hendricks 1996). However, Hammer has defended BPR, claiming that it was not designed to reduce labour expenses but rather to streamline work processes, eliminate bureaucratic procedures, and boost productivity (cited in Mumford & Hendricks 1996).

BPR begins with a vision or a concept. Ideas, on the other hand, can only come from three places: they can be copied from other organisations (benchmarking), bought (from an IT company or consultancy), or they can be original ideas (Thomas 1994). Benchmarking does not provide a competitive advantage, and purchasing the idea is costly and frequently leads to the acquisition of a ‘solution’ irrelevant to the organisation to which it is sold. While original ideas may appear to be the only option to generate distinctive and relevant solutions, they are frequently developed within existing and restrictive frameworks to maximise their chances of acceptance. Indeed, Thomas criticises original ideas, believing acceptance is “inversely connected to its radicalness, especially when associated, as it is so often, with major reduction” (1994, p. 30).

Perhaps the lack of restrictions has led many BPR projects to occur in greenfield locations. Indeed, giant corporations have established new organisations with new employees, new regulations, and new ways to compete with the parent company. This ‘starting again’ avoids the issue of organisational change and transformation, which is complicated in BPR due to the alterations’ frame-breaking character (Thomas 1994). Patching (1995) contends that using the vision is feasible for gaining commitment and motivation during reengineering.

Although BPR’s radical nature can present numerous obstacles, it also appears to be capable of providing numerous benefits when implemented correctly. Furthermore, according to research, around 80% of organisations that apply BPR are satisfied with the results (O’Neill & Sohal 1997). An organisation embracing BPR and creating a unique idea is likelier to be the industry leader than the follower. This can result in a competitive advantage and have a favourable and significant impact on organisational performance.

Employees frequently find their jobs harder but also more gratifying. They are expected to accomplish a variety of duties and understand the overall operation. They have greater autonomy and empowerment, but they are also held more accountable for their actions. Furthermore, they must often work with people who have very different skills than they do. Increased interdependence facilitates teamwork and necessitates the development of strong interpersonal skills (Finlay, 1997).

In summary, re-engineering is rethinking and redesigning organisational processes to achieve significant gains in cost, quality, service, and speed (Hammer & Champy 1994). This can be hampered if those implementing BPR feel constrained by the existing framework within which the organisation operates. Reengineering as currently conceptualised (Hammer and Champy): Focuses almost entirely on streamlining business processes and appears to pay little attention to the human-social system.

However, it looks theoretically viable for reengineering efforts to adopt OD methodologies in which collaborative organisations are heavily used, and organisational members are heavily involved and adequately safeguarded.

How Reengineering Takes Place

• Step 1: Begin from the top.
• Step 2: Determine the strategy
• Step 3: Determining key business operations
• Step 4: Gaining a thorough understanding of the process
• Step 5: Identifying areas for improvement
• Step 6: Identifying world-class, best-of-breed products and client needs
• Step 7: Develop a new process design
• Step 8: Put the new process into action

The following steps are detailed:

Step 1: Begin from the top.

Reengineering is a multidisciplinary strategy. Customer service is provided horizontally. Only top management can provide the necessary cooperation and resources. Business processes should be reengineered.

Step 2: Determine the Strategy

Reengineering should get to the strategy without deviating from it, such as determining the vision, goal, plan, or essential success criteria.

Step 3: Identify the Critical Business Processes

They identify fundamental business processes and leverage the value chain to examine suppliers, customers, and customers’ customers. Customer benefits must also be considered.

Step 4: Gain a thorough understanding of the process.

This can be accomplished by assessing current performance and employing process mapping to comprehend all low-level processes, linkages, information needs, and interfaces with customers and suppliers.

Step 5: Identify Potential Improvements

This can be accomplished by identifying reasons for low performance and employing creative, unconventional thinking strategies. Hammer’s Seven Principles, the forced analogy technique, and the intrinsic value technique will be used.

Hammer’s seven guiding principles:

1. Build automation on results rather than chores and delegate all processes to one person.

2. Have those using a process’s results undertake the process.

3. Incorporate information processing activities into the work that generates the information.

4. Treat resources that are spread geographically as though they were centralised.

5. Connect parallel activities rather than integrating their outcomes.

6. Place the decision point where the task is done and include control.

7. Gather information only once, at the source.

Step 6: Determine World Class and Customer Needs

This must be accomplished through the use of benchmarking, quality function deployment methodology, surveys, and other such methods.

Step 7: Design a New Process

This can be accomplished by stressing end-to-end solutions, assuring control at the source, and reforming the reward and incentive system, among other things.

Allow clients to set performance goals. Only value-added procedures will be included.

Step 8: Put the New Process in Place (Manage the Change Process)

Finding out who will be affected by the change will help with this first. People should not be forced to change. Effective communication is essential. People must be notified ahead of time. The decision-making process must involve the affected parties. Change takes a long time to be accepted. Reengineering should be done before it is required. It is intended to foster a culture of creative transformation.

Large-Scale System Transformation

Large-scale system change (including organisational transformation) with a limited OD impetus often necessitates some interventions over a long period. Among these are a rethinking of the business’s nature; the use of a parallel learning structure; a reduction in hierarchical levels, team creation and development, including the use of cross-functional teams; survey feedback; extensive use of task forces; and intensive leadership training (Nadler, Ackerman, Porras and Silvers Cummings and Worley, Weisbord, and others).