Master Thesis Executive Program in Management Studies
Strategy and Organization
October 2016
Studentname: Jan Janssen Studentnumber: 10499628
Supervisor: Dr. ir. J. Kraaijenbrink
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School
The Lower Level Cross-functional Alignment Between
Primary and Supportive Departments
A research to gain insights of improving the lower level, cross-functional alignment in order to develop a competitive and sustainable advantage for container terminal Rotterdam World Gateway
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Jan Janssen, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of contents
Prolog Prolog Prolog Prolog ... 4 Abstract Abstract Abstract Abstract ... 5 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1. Introduction ... 6 1.1 Background ... 6 1.2 Research question ... 8 2 Theoretical foundations 2 Theoretical foundations 2 Theoretical foundations 2 Theoretical foundations ... 102.1 Container handling industry ... 10
2.2 RBV and competitive and sustainable advantage ... 11
2.3 Horizontal and vertical deficiencies ... 13
2.4 The concept of alignment ... 13
2.5 Criticism of alignment ... 14
2.6 Alignment based on operational priorities ... 15
2.7 The lower level of cross-functional alignment ... 16
2.8 Practical implications of alignment ... 17
3. Methodology 3. Methodology 3. Methodology 3. Methodology ... 19 3.1 Research design ... 19 3.2 Data collection ... 19
3.3 Measurement of variables and reliability of scales ... 19
3.4 Respondents ... 21 3.5 Interviews ... 21 4. Analysis 4. Analysis 4. Analysis 4. Analysis ... 23 4.1 Demographics ... 23
4.2 Comparison of means per department ... 23
4.3 Levene’s test ... 24
4.4 Analysis of Variance, operational priorities ... 25
4.5 Analysis of Variance, operational items ... 26
4.6 Least Significant Difference-test, operational priorities ... 27
4.7 Least Significant Difference-test, operational items ... 28
4.8 Involvement and perception ... 30
4.9 Value chain ... 31
4.10 Indirect Alignment ... 32
4.11 Department characterizations ... 33
4.12 Key Performance Indicators ... 34
4.13 Forced to make decisions ... 35
4.14 Improving the alignment ... 35
5. Conclusion and Recommendations 5. Conclusion and Recommendations 5. Conclusion and Recommendations 5. Conclusion and Recommendations ... 37
5.1 Conclusion ... 37 5.2 Recommendations RWG ... 39 5.3 Recommendations Research ... 40 References References References References ... 42 Appendix I Operati Appendix I Operati Appendix I Operati
Appendix I Operational Priorities and Itemsonal Priorities and Itemsonal Priorities and Itemsonal Priorities and Items ... 45 Appendix II The means of operational items per department
Appendix II The means of operational items per department Appendix II The means of operational items per department
Appendix II The means of operational items per department ... 46 Appendix III Questionnaire
Appendix III Questionnaire Appendix III Questionnaire
Appendix III Questionnaire ... 50 Appendix IV
Appendix IV Appendix IV
Appendix IV Interview Head of ITInterview Head of ITInterview Head of ITInterview Head of IT ... 53 Appendix V Interview Manager of Equipment
Appendix V Interview Manager of Equipment Appendix V Interview Manager of Equipment
Appendix V Interview Manager of Equipment ... 58 Appendix VI Interview Resource Planner
Appendix VI Interview Resource Planner Appendix VI Interview Resource Planner
Appendix VI Interview Resource Planner ... 61 Appendix VII Interview
Appendix VII Interview Appendix VII Interview
Prolog
Prolog
Prolog
Prolog
This research is the final project of several years of studying. Following a master study next to my career, family, social life and my enjoy of active sports is a huge challenge. A lot of discipline was needed to have a constant focus on the study. However, from the career perspective it was a good combination. The lessons learned me to approach business related issues from multiple perspectives. During this course I used the theories and literature in my own organization, I was able to help the organization to get business items more clear and structured. This delivered my organization, my colleagues and myself several handless to have a better
understanding of the business world around us.
I would like to thank my Supervisor dr. ir. J. Kraaijenbrink for his help, support and specially his flexibility. During my conversations with Jeroen he was always enthusiast and very friendly. Therefore my sincere thanks.
Finally I would like to thank my partner, Wendy van Poelgeest and my son Jan Liewe Janssen. My partner has always supported me in doing this. I made the decision for this study but we did it together, because in relationship studying is a challenge for both. To my son, we did not always spend a lot of time together because of my study but one day I hope that I can share my lessons learned with you.
Jan Janssen,
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Container terminals in the range van Le Havre-Hamburg faces an high competitive industry and so Rotterdam World Gateway. This container terminal is operational since 2015 and is a terminal equipped with state-of-the-art technology. However, outperforming your competitors, in a small niche market and with customers who are only interested in container handling for economic prices, is a serious challenge for RWG.
The resource based view gives a good starting point to find a way to deal with the high level of competition. Regarding to this theoretical foundation a competitive and sustainable advantage can be achieved by an excellent cooperation between operational involved departments to create an outstanding performance for the customer. A perfectly intertwined cluster of activities is almost impossible for competitors to imitate. However, alignment about the operational strategy is needed for creating such an advantage. In the literature alignment is defined by a consensus of operational priorities reliability, flexibility, costs and quality. To examine the consensus of these operational priority on a lower organizational level and in a cross-functional matter a questionnaire was conducted within the organization. Furthermore, four interviews were also conducted to gain more insights of the results of the statistical analyses and the practical implications of alignment. The data to carry out the research has been obtained with a web survey. In total 85 respondents within Rotterdam World Gateway from departments which are directly involved by the operational process participated this survey. The research results show that there was no significant evidence of alignment based on the four operational priorities. However, the interview gave insights why there was a lack of alignment; there was no explicit operational strategy known within the organization, the framework of KPI’s seems to be inconsistent and was not overarching the three most important departments of the organization. Furthermore, it seems that differences in characteristics of departments and employees are a major issue, which needs to be overcome in order to enhance the alignment. Thus developing an sustainable and competitive advantage by creating an intertwined cluster of internal activities requires strong leaders to overcome differences of characteristics of departments and employees, just as an integral and overarching KPI framework extracted from an explicit operational strategy.
1.
1.
1.
1. Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
1.1 Background 1.1 Background 1.1 Background 1.1 Background
Rotterdam World Gateway (henceforth RWG) is a new container terminal, which is built on the Tweede Maasvlakte as an extension of the Port of Rotterdam. RWG is an international consortium consisting of terminal operator DP World and four global shipping lines: APL, MOL, HMM and CMA CGM. RWG is currently working hard to develop a new container terminal, equipped with state of the art technology in order to set a new standard of efficiency in container handling. This new level of efficiency is necessary to beat the challenges in competition with other terminals nearby. In Rotterdam alone there are already four other massive container terminals and there are even more rivals in the field. Abroad within the ‘Container Belt’ of North West Europe (Gahdia et al., 2011), we will find more terminals that we can label as competitors of RWG. So the organisation is confronted with competitors in a range from Le Havre to Hamburg. It is a challenge of grabbing the main lines of container flows into and out of Europe. Whoever wins this challenge will be a major hub of the international container handling industry.
A way to obviate the competition and to build a sustainable customer relationship is to construct collaboration between a global shipping lines and a terminal operator. This is exactly how RWG has being composed; the best of both worlds together in one consortium. The customers, the global shipping lines, will have a dedicated container terminal in North Western Europe. This point can help them to optimize their vessel schedules and enhance the performance of their loops between Far East, North and South America. On the other hand, as an investor, they will also grab a part of rewards of the terminal incomes. However, this is not a guarantee for a long-term collaboration. In only a few days shipping lines are able to remove their complete loops1 to another terminal in Rotterdam or to another port of call in the Le
Havre-Hamburg range to enter European market. But why should they do this?
In the recent years the shipping lines have faced tremendous financial problems partly raised from the financial crisis. The shipping industry experienced a ‘golden age’ before the financial crisis in 2008. The customer need for containerised trade
1A number of vessels, which are sailing in a constant loop and putting a number of ports to offer the customers of the shipping lines a precise and frequent liner schedule for transporting their goods.
was exceeding the container carrying capacity. This has led to an enormous expansion of new orders for building new vessels with more capacity. Shipping lines were very focused on economy of scale. However, after the beginning of the financial crisis the capacity of container carriers had already surpassed the demand containerised trade. The turndown of the world wide economy had fortified this effect (Bomboma et al. 2016). It resulted in a huge overhang of capacity and the shipping lines were forced to reduce the prices for container shipping in order to defend their market share and increase their utilization degree. They created an aggressive market between the container carriers but this has also a huge impact for container terminals. They were also confronted with a decrease of container flows and subsequently the shipping companies were not acquiescent anymore to pay premium prices. Nowadays, when the negotiations, between shipping lines and terminals, about productivity, services and especially the prices are not sufficient, liners can decide to remove cargo whether complete or partly to other terminals or even other to ports. Container terminals are confronted with the risks of losing clients, the loyalty of customers cannot be taken for sure (Notteboom, 2002)
The services and productivity provided by the terminals are no longer the major issues to beat the competitors. Today there is a focus on the combination between price and productivity, because the shipping industry is mainly interested in strong economies of scale and high level of cost efficiency (Notteboom 2002). The competitiveness of container terminals is therefore based on two success factors, the time of port stay in combination with economic prices for discharging and loading (Steenken, 2004) Stevedores are forced to redesign new innovative terminals in order to challenge the competition. Technological innovation is necessary to reduce labour costs and to smooth the cargo operation to increase productivity. So as a container stevedore there are less other options to expand their services by investing in state-of-the-art technology.
Aside of this strategy are the huge investment costs and the long pay-off time. Today terminals are working with the most advanced technology but tomorrow it will be obsolete and gradually it will be very expensive and time consuming to redesign and innovate the terminal again. So what else can a container terminal as RWG undertake to outsmart their competitors. This thesis addresses the challenge of how terminals can outperform their rivals today and in the future in a tough and hostile environment to simultaneously gain and defend market share
1.2 1.2 1.2
1.2 Research questionResearch questionResearch questionResearch question
Nowadays container terminals are confronted with a huge amount of competition in a niche market. However, it is important to develop a certain level of advantage to outperform your direct rivals. Unfortunately, the market of container handling is very homogeneous and the competitive options are rare (Gadhia, 2011). The external environment does not provide a sufficient possibility to distinct the organisation from their competitors. The organisation has to be focused internally. Therefore I believe that the Resource Based View offers a good starting point to outperform your competitors. This theory attributes the competitive advantage of a firm to the organisational capability of managing the internal resources (Barney, 1991). Part of the organisational resources is managed by different departments, which should work as a value chain regarding to Porter (1985). However, cross-functional alignment is required to develop a tightly connected chain of value creation. Regarding to Ruffini (2000) alignment is needed to ensure a certain level of outstanding output. Mistakes, misunderstandings or misalignment between different departments is disastrous when the organisation is forced to focus on efficient container handling operations. Despite the number of research that has been done in the field of operations strategy, operations management and operational alignment there seems to be a lack of research about the alignment of the operational activities on the lowest level of the organisation. This is remarkable because it is precisely the lowest level employees who are directly involved in gaining efficiency. Object of this paper is to shine a light on the virgin field of improving the alignment between the lowest levels of operations between different departments. This lead to the following research question:
‘’How can Rotterdam World Gateway improve their lower level, cross-functional alignment in the organisation to develop an competitive and sustainable advantage?’’
To answer this question I started with the theoretical foundations that will be described in chapter two. In the theoretical foundation I found little clear evident about the practical implications of alignment. To gain more insight of subject I used four operational priorities, which can be used to measure whether there is operational alignment or not within the organisation. To investigate this I set up a questionnaire and distributed this to all the lower level employees of Rotterdam World Gateway. This process and methodology is written in chapter three. The main objective of this questionnaire was to examine if there is alignment between different departments regarding to the four operational priorities. Next to the
questionnaire I had four interviews to explain the results of the statistical runs and to gain more insight about alignment on this lower organisational level. In chapter four the statistical analysis are discussed and followed by the findings of the interviews. In the last chapter I will describe my conclusion and the recommendations as a result of my research.
2
2
2
2 Theoretical foundations
Theoretical foundations
Theoretical foundations
Theoretical foundations
This chapter consists of eight paragraphs to unravel the subject alignment and the questions why this so important for the organization. Therefore I will start with a description of the container handling industry followed by the suggestion to overcome the competition by developing a competitive and sustainable advantage from a resource based view. In the third paragraph the first conditions of alignment will be described and the next step is to give a full insight of the concept of alignment in paragraph four. However, alignment is not the ‘holy grail’ regarding to several critics. Some people believe that alignment could have negative consequences for organizations. Despite the criticasters I believe that alignment can help the organization and found a proven framework to measure the alignment within the organization. This framework will be discussed in paragraph six. In the seventh paragraph I will add the last dimension to my research namely the importance of cross-functional alignment. This is the precise part of the organization in which I will do my research. In the last paragraph I will discuss the practical implications of alignment in the literature because that is where my research question started.
2.1 2.1 2.1
2.1 Container handling iContainer handling iContainer handling iContainer handling industryndustryndustryndustry
The very first start is a description of the characteristics of the container terminal industry with both aspects external and internal. Regarding to the article of Miles et al (1978) container terminals can be compared with the definition of Miles’s ‘defender’; an organisation which is looking for a stable environment in their pursuit to the highest level of efficiency. The terminals have an entrepreneurial problem, which can be defined as, how to block off a part of the total market to create a stable realm. This specific market consists of shipping lines, which enjoy strong economies of scale and high level of cost efficiency (Notteboom, 2002). The terminal tries to meet the constant demand for decreasing the costs. Most container terminals have to fight against their competitors in a small niche market and it is difficult in this to distinguish as an organisation because the competitive options are limited (Gadhia, 2011). So container terminals are forced to handle containers in a highly cost-efficient manner and their strategies exhibited similarities, which are described by Treacy et al. (1993) as Operational Excellence or by Porter (19850 as the Cost Leadership theory. In both theories efficiency plays a fundamental role to become a provider of a reliable services for a competitive prize without ’frills’. ‘’However, unless one firm can gain cost leadership position and ‘persuade’ others to abandon
their strategies, the consequences for profitability can be disastrous’’ (Porter, 1985 p. 13).
In this industry there are not a lot of other options to establish a competitive advantage. For example, it is not possible to enter a new market neither it is possible to set up new products or services. Container terminals which use a differentiation strategy may grab some advantages, but the additional costs are hard to recover as the customer are not willing to pay premium prices (Gadhia, 2011). From a customer perspective; they have only an advantage by calling in at reliable and highly productive terminal for an economical rate. However, conducting this strategy of lowering the cost and increase the efficiency are incompetent goals for production (Skinner, 1974). Terminals are mainly focused on the development of technology, to optimize the production in relation with the costs. This technological advance will not remain a long period because the disadvantage of technology is the short life time cycle, one day the technology will become obsolete. Another problem of technology is the degree of copying. Every terminal in the world could be able copy the finest technology; it is only an issue of financial means. State-of-the-art technology itself can be competitive for a short time period but is not sustainable. The example of technology should be placed in a broader perspective. A high degree of technology, highly automated equipment, a set of product features or a well performing commercial department, these are all examples of advantages but they are not by definition competitive neither sustainable. All these examples are vulnerable for imitating. Generally speaking the advantages of an organisation are competitive and sustainable when they are hard to imitate or difficult to copy over a certain infinite time-period. Moreover, a competitive and sustainable advantage of a firm consists of resources, which are rare, valuable, imperfect inimitable and non-substitutable regarding to Barney (1991).... So if the answers cannot be found in the industry or market than the organisations should be focused on the internal resources to approach the market. Thus, to perform better than the competitors in the above-described market environment the appropriate answer for this impasse should be found in the strengths of the firm. These strengths should be considered as malleable rather than the fixed market process in the ‘highly efficiency focused world’ of discharging and loading containers.
2.2 2.2 2.2
2.2 RBV andRBV andRBV andRBV and competitive and sustainable advantagecompetitive and sustainable advantagecompetitive and sustainable advantagecompetitive and sustainable advantage
Core business of RWG is discharging and loading containers and they need to be extremely good in it. Thus the resources of the organisation could play a major role
in outperforming the competitors. In the literature there is a certain school that handles the internal resources called the Resource Based View. The essence of the theory is how valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable are the resources and capabilities of the organisation. Furthermore it is important that the organisations can apply the resources and capabilities in such a way (Barney, 1991) Due to the internal organisational focus of the RBV the theory can be useful to explain the differences in performance between organisations in the same industry (Kraaijenbrink et all, 2010). Next to the RBV theory, the literature of manufacturing is practical and useful for this research question. This literature gives insights of the definition of competitive advantages and is complement to the RBV theory. The organisation Rotterdam World Gateway is not a typical manufacturer but the manufacturer literature is useful because it can deal with the homogeneous, standardized and highly efficient container flows. Furthermore the operational process on a container terminal is characterised by a psychical supply of goods and has similarities with a production plant of a manufacture. Furthermore manufacturing and container handling are both characterised by a real-time operation. In this specific literature, manufacturing is mentioned as a serious and simple option to compete with the organisations’ own manufacturing capabilities (Voss, 2005). In the past, the theme, ‘’how to beat the competitors’ is more often described in the manufacturing literature. The manufacturing function can be a source of competitive advantage for the firm (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1985). A plant, which is focused on their core business, will have a serious competitive weapon. This is because the whole organisation is focused to accomplish the particular manufacturing task demanded by the company’s strategy and marketing objectives. (Skinner, 1974). The manufacturing function can be seen as an advantage, which is competitive but not sustainable. Porter (1996) makes this issue more explicit by stating; if all the different areas within an organisation are highly coordinated and connected with each other, only than the firm could have a competitive and sustainable advantage. Because it is far more difficult for competitors to imitate a cluster of perfectly intertwined activities. So it is not only an issue related to the manufacturing function itself. It is the combination of all functions within an organisation that are responsible for a competitive and sustainable weapon. The sum of all these tightly connected activities is more valuable than all the same activities working separately, because they are working in the same direction, are complement to each other and mutually supportive.
2.3 2.3 2.3
2.3 Horizontal and vHorizontal and vHorizontal and vHorizontal and vertical deficienciesertical deficienciesertical deficienciesertical deficiencies
An organisation can be seen as a cluster of departments with different but mutual supportive activities, which should work together to generate a valuable output for the customer. All these different parts of the organisation should pull the whole organisation in the same direction. Thus it is important to start from the same perspective. Lingle and Schiemann (1996) state that effective organisations are organic integrated entities in which different units, functions and levels support the company strategy and one another. Thus in theory the various levels of strategy and strategic priorities are consistent, linked and mutually supporting. It is the responsibility of the top management to define the goals and objectives and to decide the use of appropriate resources, whereas the lower-level employers are responsible to achieve these goals and objectives (Yon Hee Kim, 2014). However, there is always certain room to interpret the strategy from another perspective than foreseen or conceived by the top management. So the span between the top management and the lowest level of execution creates a gap between the strategy intension of the top of the firm and the actions of the lower level employers. This causes the difference between the intended strategy and the realized strategy (Yon Hee Kim, 2014). In an earlier research they found strategic areas with a substantial disagreement between different hierarchical levels of the firm (Boyer, 1999). In this study the authors try to examine whether the individuals of an manufacturing organisation do their work in the same way, even if the functions has a different hierarchical positions in the organization. So based on these results, disagreements about strategic topics between hierarchical positions are slightly destructive when constructing a perfectly intertwined organisation, because the deficiencies had a negative impact on the performance. Besides these vertical deficiencies there are also horizontal deficiencies. These horizontal deficiencies exist between departments within an organisation and can be describe as a difference in interpretation of the strategy by the managers of every department. Every department is set up regarding to the idea of managers’ interpretation of the organisation strategy (Menda and Dilts, 1997). So if an organisation wants all the levels and departments to be tightly connected and working highly coordinated with each other, in order to create a competitive weapon, not only vertical alignment but also horizontal alignment is needed.
2.4 2.4 2.4
2.4 The concept of alignment The concept of alignment The concept of alignment The concept of alignment
As with any organisation, wrong decisions, counteracting activities between departments or employees have an impact on the output of the organisation. A mismatch between the various choices in manufacturing will severely impair a
company’s ability to be competitive (Voss, 2005). It is important to achieve a certain level of internal consistency between all choices in manufacturing. The management of the firm plays a major role in the outstanding creation of products of service operations because they are responsible, among other things that all the decisions within a firm are based on the overall strategy and are aligned properly (Ruffini, 2000). Regarding to the statement of Ruffini (2000) alignment is a proposed condition for the creation of exceptional output. The concept of alignment is a central theme in the fields of research and has many pseudonyms, fit, consensus, integration and harmony. Alignment is the understanding of the organization’s objectives (Boswell, 2007). It is a major requirement to have a shared understanding of organizational goals and objectives by managers at various levels and within various units of the organizational hierarchy (Maheshkumar, 2007, pp 504). Alignment can be defined as a consensus on organisational priorities by decision-makings groups at all the hierarchical levels in the organisation (Kellermanns et all, 2005). A logical result of achieving alignment is presumed to be enhanced the performance of the firm. The other way around is that misalignment will negatively influence the performance (Ward and Bickford, 1996). In another empirical study the authors try to examine the alignment between manufacturing and business strategy. They concluded that the performance goes up due to the manufacturing function increases as the alignment increases (Sun and Hong, 2002). Thus to create a competitive and sustainable advantage or in other words a perfectly intertwined cluster of activities, the firm needs to achieve certain level of alignment about the strategy of the organisation as well as vertical as horizontal.
2.5 2.5 2.5
2.5 Criticism of alignmentCriticism of alignmentCriticism of alignmentCriticism of alignment
There are also criticisms of alignment in the literature. They believe that too much alignment can be considered as ‘groupthink’ and can lead to tunnel vision; this will be resulted in poor quality of decision-making because of the shrinking capacity of critical thinking (t’ Hart, 1991). Fit, consensus or alignment will decrease the ambition of the organisation because it is a compromise or equilibrium and that will be contra productive (Pascal, 1999). If alignment is managed the organisation will not fully use their possibilities (Prahalad, 1994). The critics can be summarized that alignment can be destructive in a very dynamic external environment. You need criticasters in the organisation to look past the blinkers. However, the external environment of container terminals is relative static, in this niche market of transportation the major objective is to discharge and load containers for an economical prize at certain productivity level. So alignment should not be applied to
the external environment but rather to the internal organisation to avoid misunderstandings between employees.
2 2 2
2.6 .6 .6 .6 Alignment based on operational prioritiesAlignment based on operational prioritiesAlignment based on operational prioritiesAlignment based on operational priorities
One of the major characteristics of an automatic terminal is the incredibly high standard of efficiency. There is no room for mistakes during the operational execution without direct negative influences in the productivity. As stated earlier due to the highly efficiency focused operation, the hierarchy, the structures and the procedures within the organisation are very strict. RWG displays resemblance with the machine bureaucracy configuration of Mintzberg (1979). A strict policy from the top management, highly degree of formalization and work is most of all standardized. However, I believe there is still enough room to have your own perceptions or making different decisions even with these tight policies. For example there is no scenario what tell the employees what to do when the operation is hampered by unforeseeable interruptions. So apart from the overall strategy of the organisation it is important to have an operational strategy. This operational strategy is a useful foundation for employees to take the right decisions. Thus, to enforce the alignment in the organisation a shared understanding of the operational strategy between all the directly involved departments is required. The operational strategy should at least contain a specification of the competitive priorities and objectives. This should be in line with the overall strategy of the firm and resulting in a consistent pattern of actions (Yoon Hee Kim, 2014). Thus, the operational strategy is important to create alignment or a shared idea of competitive priorities, objectives and actions. Everett and Swamidas (1989) have studied the content of operations strategy. Important part of the strategy is the so-called manufacturing variables, which can be seen as the operational priorities, which are related to the operational objectives. In spite of the great number of variables, some variables are more frequently mentioned and examined. The variables that were most often identified in the manufacturing literature are quality, cost, flexibility and technology. However, Boyer and McDermot (1999) do not mention technology as an operational priority. They replaced technology as a priority by delivery and state that the operational alignment is achieved and enhanced when all the employees of the organisation at different departments and levels are in agreement with each other about the importance of cost, quality, delivery and flexibility. Therefore the operations strategy should be clearly defined and understood by the whole organisation (Boyer, 1999).
2 2 2
2.7 The l.7 The l.7 The l.7 The lower level of cower level of cower level of crossower level of crossrossross----functional alignmentfunctional alignmentfunctional alignmentfunctional alignment
In the limited numbers of studies, which discuss the alignment regarding to operational priorities there was more attention for vertical alignment instead of horizontal alignment. Vertical alignment deals with the composition of strategy, goals and objectives throughout different levels within the organisation. Contrary is the horizontal alignment, focused on the lowest level of the organisation. It is about the alignment regarding to the strategy between different departments but at an equal hierarchical level (Maheshkumar et all 2003). Regarding to another study of Maheshkumar (2007) there are two different ways of horizontal alignment, the cross-functional alignment and the intra-functional alignment. The first mentioned form of horizontal alignment is focused on the consistency between different departments. The intra-functional form of alignment is defined by the consistency between different functional tasks. However, Porter (1996) emphasised the importance of horizontal alignment between all the different departments of an organisation, the cross-functional alignment. This horizontal alignment or more precise cross-functional alignment should absolutely take place in the lowest layers of the organisation. At this level employees of different departments are responsible the final output of the firm. These different departments should work together as a value chain. Porter (1985) stated; every organisation is a bundle of different departments with their own responsibilities regarding to the final product or service. All these departments together are representing the value chain. In this definition of the value chain one can distinguish three different levels, the primary activities (ongoing operation), the support activities and the activities that support the value system of the industry. The department of the primary department is in the lead, because they are responsible for the final output. The operational department is directly linked to the ongoing operation and is responsible for the performance and thus leading in decision making to enhance these performances. The decision-making is based on the operational priorities and should be supported by Engineering and IT. An important condition of an outstanding performance is the cross-functional alignment between the operational, engineering and IT. This will avoid mismatches between various choices of different departments what could lead to a less competitive organisation. Especially when the organisation has similarities with the theoretical generic competitive strategy as Cost leadership and the theoretical value proposition of Operational Excellence. There is simply no room for mistakes, because this will immediately affect the performance of cutting the costs.
2.8 Practical implications of alignment 2.8 Practical implications of alignment 2.8 Practical implications of alignment 2.8 Practical implications of alignment
So if all the individuals of the different departments share the same perspective and knowledge of the operational priorities than the departments are able to tightly connect their activities as a perfectly intertwined cluster of activities in order to create a sustainable and competitive advantage. The question that arises is; how can the organisation create such a perfectly intertwined cluster of departments in a horizontal matter? This question has received relatively little explicit research in the field of operational management and so there is a lack of practical knowledge of alignment despite the importance of this subject. Many organisation struggles to execute the strategy correctly due to interdivisional. Pfeffer et al. (2000) describe this matter of misalignment as the ‘Knowing-doing gap’. Misalignment about the priorities of the organisation leads to frustrations, counter-effective behaviour and conflicting approaches of problem solving (van Hoek, 2006). In the field of supply chain management the subject alignment has always been a major discussion. The need for alignment within a supply chain is incontestable (Wong, 2012). In this field alignment not only required for an internal fit but also for the external fit between the suppliers. Alignment of several organisations is more difficult because the interest of the involved organisations is even broader. Next to supply chain management also multinational corporations has to deal with alignment. For multinationals it is an important requirement to have the ability to manage alignment between their internal business strategy and the ever-changing external and international marketplaces with complete different conditions (Rondinell et al., 2001). So what can we learn about alignment of these two disciplines. First of all creating a certain level of alignment is a long and continues process, which is not systematic or rational. It seems to be a complex issue that cannot be tackled as a rational process. Secondly, strong leaders are necessary to overcome cross-functional conflicts, infighting and maintain the big picture (Rondinell et al, 2001). Furthermore Wong (2012) stated that is also important that the management layers of the organisation participate in the operational issues and enhance an open and transparent way of communication. According to Christopher et al. (2005) the lack of transparency and visibility across supply chains is an obstacle for internal and external alignment. As a solutions Rondinelli (2012) give the example of a buy-in, a dialogue between hierarchical layers is an important condition of alignment on a corporate level. A last manner to create to more alignment is the use of a performance management system (PMS). PMS is able to align people or departments with the strategy or objectives of the organisation by incentives (Morgan, 2004).
Therefore it is important to have a general agreement and a shared understanding of an overarching PMS framework from the users. Especially when more departments are involved (Chenhall, 2005). However, all these so-called ‘enablers of alignment’ seems to be necessary to overcome the hurdles of alignment, but we don’t know what is behind these ‘enablers’ or in other words what are exactly the hurdles? An more in-depth research of alignment within the organisation can be useful to find out what is behind the ‘solutions’, which are described in the literature, to provide more practical implications of the subject. To unravel the subject alignment on a lower level and in a cross-functional matter, this examination will start with a measurement of alignment between the operational involved departments in the organisation. Therefore I will use the four operational priorities of Dermott and McBoyer (1999). Thus, based on the findings from the literature review I can define the following hypotheses to test whether there is a horizontal, lower level alignment regarding to four operational priorities reliability, flexibility, costs and quality. Hypothesis 1: There is a difference in alignment regarding to the operational priorities of the organization between the department of Operations, Engineering and IT
Hypothesis 1.1: There is alignment regarding to the operational priority ‘cost’ between the departments of Operations, Engineering and IT.
Hypothesis 1.2: There is alignment regarding to the operational priority ‘flexibility’ between the departments of Operations, Engineering and IT.
Hypothesis 1.3: There is alignment regarding to the operational priority ‘reliability’ between the departments of Operations, Engineering and IT.
Hypothesis 1.4: There is alignment regarding to the operational priority ‘quality’ between the departments of Operations, Engineering and IT.
3.
3.
3.
3. Methodology
Methodology
Methodology
Methodology
3.1 3.1 3.1
3.1 Research designResearch designResearch designResearch design
In order to conduct this research the following research model will be used. This model is based on the theoretical research in chapter 2. With the help of a questionnaire I would like to examine the cross-functional alignment regarding to the four operational priorities flexibility, costs and quality and technology between the departments of Operation, Engineering and IT
3.2 Data collection 3.2 Data collection 3.2 Data collection 3.2 Data collection
The data was collected within the firm, Rotterdam World Gateway. The sample group can be defined as all the departments, which are directly related with the ongoing loading and discharge operation. In general these are de departments of Operations (including Data Control, as a part of operation), Technical Engineering, IT. These three departments will be established as the sample group. The research is focused on alignment between the lowest levels of employees; therefore managers and staff, which are responsible for set up and guard the policies of the organisation and so less involved with direct output of the terminal, will be excluded.
3.3 3.3 3.3
3.3 Measurement of variables and reliability of scalesMeasurement of variables and reliability of scalesMeasurement of variables and reliability of scalesMeasurement of variables and reliability of scales
The questionnaire is build up from several different parts. The first part is devoted to the general information of the participant. The second part is concerned with the organizational factors. For example all the participants will be asked for the number of years of individual working experiences and skills of working at a container terminal. The third part is dedicated for the examination of the four competitive priorities Cost, Quality, Flexibility and Delivery. These items were already used in former studies (Boyer and Mc Dermott, 1999). There is general consent regarding the configuration of the key competitive priorities, which includes the content of a corporation’s operations strategy (Adam et all, 1989). These priorities have been divided into thirteen more specific operational items (Appendix I) to gain more
IT Operations Engineering Reliability Alignment regarding to operational priorities Flexibility Quality Costs
insight of where we can find deficiencies in horizontal alignment. These operational items were drafted from a discussion with the Director Operations of Rotterdam World Gateway. This person is very experienced in the operational process of a container terminal and has had various functions over the years from planner, supervisor, operations manager, director operations and he was often closely involved with the commercial departments. These operational items are aligned with all the different customers’ demands. All the measures are written down as statements, thus all the respondents even with little experience of container terminal experience should understand the questionnaire. The corresponding measures to rate the importance of each operational item, has been used by Boyer (1998). These measures were originally developed by prior research in the Boston University Manufacturing Future Survey (Miller, Vollmann 1984). The departments of operations, engineering and IT should rate all these statements (13 in total) on a scale with values from 1 to (not at all important) to 7 (absolutely critical). The scales used to measure each of these four priorities are based on those used by the Boston University Manufacturing Futures Survey. These scales have previously been shown to be reliable in several studies (Boyer and Dermott, 1999). The last part of the questionnaire is concerned with the relative importance of the four competitive priorities. The respondents must use the sliders to indicate the importance of costs, flexibility, reliability and quality in relation to each other. The respondent were forced to divide 100 points to the four priorities to grade their importance otherwise they could not finish the questionnaire. For example, if an priority is very important for the respondent he or she can give that specific priority 80 points and divide the rest of the points to the other three priorities. To answer the question properly there was only one condition divide minimal and maximal 100 points, the respondents were free to move the sliders in any numerical position.
One of the main disadvantages of this survey regarding to Boyer and Pagell (1999) is the absence of a limitation to the number of items that can be given the highest priority. The first adjustment to minimize this imperfection is set up all the statements randomly. The respondents might not have an idea of how these propositions are related with each other to make sure that a certain bias is avoided. Furthermore, the respondents were asked to bear in mind the trade off between all these propositions. It is not realistic to offer the same level of importance to all these different items. Furthermore the participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire according to their own opinion, not those of their colleagues. Finally the last question was divided in four sliders, which the respondents could use to give an importance to
each competitive priority, cost, flexibility, reliability and quality. All the participants have used the sliders in the questionnaire to indicate the importance of the priority in relation to each other. They were able to divide at least and maximal 100 points over four priorities. The answer was only accepted if all these points were dispensed. 3.4 Respondents
3.4 Respondents 3.4 Respondents 3.4 Respondents
The questionnaire was sent to 160 employees of RWG in the three lowest layers of the organisation. The level of management and top management were excluded from this sample group. For collecting the data and to set up a questionnaire the software of Qualtrics was used. After finalizing the questionnaire an Internet link was provided and could be distributed by email to give the participants access to the online survey. All the 160 employees have their own email account and thus received an email personally. This email included a brief introduction about the researcher, the examination, and the question whether the recipient would participate in the study by filling in the questionnaire. Furthermore, an important condition was emphasized; that the answers of the questionnaire are strictly confidential and anonymous. After two weeks all the recipients received a reminder and were again requested to participate in the study.
3. 3. 3.
3.555 Interviews5InterviewsInterviewsInterviews
Next to the questionnaire I conducted four interviews to gain more insights about the results of this examination. Using statistical data only would be too limited to answer the research question properly. These interviews were conducted after running the statistical computations. The results were shown to the four respondents. To gain inside about the results accordingly I selected a respondent from every involved department (IT, Engineering and Operations) and one additional respondent in the function of resource planner. This last mentioned person is involved with resource planning of Operations and so has to deal daily with these three departments. These people were selected because on the one hand they all have a great experience in the world of container handling an on the other hand they have a leading roll in managing their department and thus have an indirectly influence on the grade of alignment. Furthermore, to ensure the answers of the questions are as honestly as possible all the respondents will be handled most confidentially. Thus their names will be omitted and in the specific report for the organization the functions will be omitted to. However in this report the name of the function is used to refer to the correct person and will give insights in the way departments experience alignment.
The function of the first respondent is Head of IT. This person has gain experience by two other (semi) automatic container terminals (Amsterdam Container Terminal and Abu Dhabi Terminals) and worked his entire carrier with counterparts as Operations and Engineering. The second respondent has a role in the organization as Operations manager. Before his profession as Operations Manager he has worked at another terminal named Uniport Multipurpose Terminals ltd. situated near the city centre of Rotterdam. He started as a personnel member of operations and had several more functions before he became operations manager for example dispatcher, vessel planner, resources planner and assistant terminal manager. The third person is working at the department of Engineering as a manager of equipment. Started as a second engineer and worked one’s way up as a manager by functions as first engineer, lead engineer and supervisor. The last respondent is working his entire life in de Port of Rotterdam in several different functions but always involved with the resources of the organization in particular the container cargo operation. With Rotterdam World Gateway he found his way as a resource planner indeed. These interviews were conducted in a structured way, I used the same questions and the exactly the same sequence of questions for each conference. These interviews were recorded and write out afterwards for further analyses by coding and labeling. The second step was to order all the differences parts of the interviews that could be parts of speeches, sentences or certain words. In the final stage of analyses I examine the parallels, similarities, agreements and contrasts in order to gain further insights for a certain conclusion.
4. Analysis
4. Analysis
4. Analysis
4. Analysis
4.1 Demographics 4.1 Demographics 4.1 Demographics 4.1 DemographicsThe questionnaire was sent to 160 employees of RWG in the three lowest layers of the organisation. Finally 85 employees of RWG have been participated this research and filled in the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 53%. The sample group has some specific characteristics. The group consists of 85 individuals including 74 male and 11 female. The female minority is not surprising. Traditionally, men predominate in all the functions port area, the majority of the jobs used to be dirty and tough in the past. In recent years more and more female participate in the employment of the port industry. More surprising is that the age structure shows us that the majority of the participated employees are relatively young. The largest group is between 20 and 29 years old and has little experience in working at a container terminal. Almost 50 percent of the respondents have only 4 years or less work experience in this particular container industry. Furthermore, the most participants, 47 individuals, are working at the operational department, 17 individuals are working at the Engineering department and 21 are working at the IT department. These figures are reasonably in line with the size of de departments. It is quite obvious that Operations department is significant larger in relation with Engineering and IT.
4.2 4.2 4.2
4.2 Comparison of means per departmentComparison of means per departmentComparison of means per departmentComparison of means per department
The first results are extracted from the statistically analysis of the four competitive priorities. As noted earlier, the priorities form a basic framework to test the degree of alignment between the three vital departments, which are directly involved with the primary organisational process. All the participants have used the sliders in the questionnaire to indicate the importance of the priority in relation to each other. They were able to divide at least and maximal 100 points over four priorities. The very first start is calculating the means of these four operational priorities to display the difference per department in grading the importance (table 4.2.1). The operational priority reliability can be ranked as the most important priority (total m; 34,924 sd; 13,567). The priority is followed by quality (total m; 27,482 sd; 12,681), costs (total m; 19,953 sd; 10,450) and flexibility (total m; 18,270 sd; 8,675). However, if we compare the means per department and priority we see that none of the means is egual. To prove statistically whether the difference per department regarding to the operational priorities are significant I will run an Anova test
Tabel 4.2.1
4.3 4.3 4.3
4.3 Levene’s testLevene’s testLevene’s testLevene’s test
To indicate the degree of alignment based on the operational priorities the One-way Anova was conducted. This test is based on a comparison of the means. As a part of the Anova test the Post-hoc test LSD is used to demonstrate the differences of importance between various departments.
Table 4.3.1
Before we start conducting the One-way Anova, we first run the Levene’s test for Equality of Variance (table 4.2.1). This test is necessary to examine whether there is
For which department you are working Mean N Std. Deviation Operations 31,723 47 13,408 Engineering 39,765 17 15,373 IT 35,619 21 11,303 Total 34,294 85 13,567 For which department you are working Mean N Std. Deviation
Operations 19,809 47 8,510 Engineering 19,177 17 7,844 IT 14,095 21 8,700 Total 18,270 85 8,675 For which department you are working Mean N Std. Deviation
Operations 17,809 47 8,843 Engineering 20,059 17 10,831
IT 24,667 21 12,277 Total 19,953 85 10,450 For which department you are working Mean N Std. Deviation
Operations 30,660 47 13,802 Engineering 21,000 17 9,533
IT 25,619 21 10,072 Total 27,482 85 12,681
Operational Priority, Reliability
Operational Priority, Flexibility
Operational Priority, Costs
Operational Priority, Quality
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
The grade of importance of the operational
priority reliability 0,308 2 82 0,736
The grade of importance of the operational
priority flexibility 0,076 2 82 0,927
The grade of importance of the operational
priority costs 0,997 2 82 0,373
The grade of importance of the operational
priority quality 0,187 2 82 0,83
a same or a different amount of variability between the outputs of the three groups studied. In this test we can conclude regarding to the outputs (sig. 0,736 0,927 0,373, 0,83) that there is no significant evidence to state that there is a same amount of variability between the scores of the departments of operations, engineering and IT. So there is enough difference between the variances to conduct a One-Way Anova. 4.4
4.4 4.4
4.4 Analysis of Variance, operational prioritiesAnalysis of Variance, operational prioritiesAnalysis of Variance, operational prioritiesAnalysis of Variance, operational priorities
Table 4.3.1 exhibits the results of a One-way Anova test. The question was; is there a difference in the grade of importance of the operational priorities between different departments within the organisation RWG. In the first column one can read the four operational priorities. Regarding to this Anova test we can conclude that there is a difference in three of the four priorities.
Table 4.4.1
The first priority is reliability. The results of the tests show that there is no significant difference in alignment regarding to the importance of reliability, F(2, 82) = 2,404, p > .05. However the rest of the results show us a contrary output. There is a statistical difference in the grade of importance of the operational priority flexibility, F(2, 82) = 3,455 p < .05. So we can conclude that there is a difference. The results do not tell us where to find the difference expect the fact that there is a difference between the groups of operational employees, engineering employees and the employees of the IT department. The difference in the grade of importance is also applied by the results the priorities costs and quality. So there is a statistical difference between the sample group regarding the grade of importance of the operational priority costs, F(2, 82) = 3,298 p < .05 and the last priority is quality, F(2, 82) 4,224 = p < .05. After showing all these results we can notice that there is a discrepancy between three of the four items. The employees from the sample group do think variously about the importance of these items. However it is not possible
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 856,232 2 428,116 2,404 0,097 Within Groups 14605,415 82 178,115 Total 15461,647 84 Between Groups 491,22 2 245,61 3,455 0,036 Within Groups 5829,557 82 71,092 Total 6320,776 84 Between Groups 682,927 2 341,464 3,298 0,042 Within Groups 8488,884 82 103,523 Total 9171,812 84 Between Groups 1261,718 2 630,859 4,224 0,018 Within Groups 12245,506 82 149,335 Total 13507,224 84 ANOVA The grade of importance of the operational priority reliability The grade of importance of the operational priority flexibility The grade of importance of the operational priority costs The grade of importance of the operational priority quality
with this specific output to examine where to find that difference. Therefore further examination is required.
4.5 4.5 4.5
4.5 Analysis of Variance, operational itemsAnalysis of Variance, operational itemsAnalysis of Variance, operational itemsAnalysis of Variance, operational items
These four priorities were divided into thirteen different but more concrete operational items. First of all I calculated all the means of these operational items per department (Appendix II). This gives an indication of the average score per department and will display the differences in score.
Tabel 4.5.1
For these items I conducted a same Anova run as for the operational priorities. From the thirteen items there were only three items, which show a significant result in their output. Below one can see the three items, offering Data Control Services F(2, 82) = 3,853 p < .05. Increase the productivity of equipment F(2, 82) = 6,036 p < .05 and execute the operations regarding to the national and international regulations F (2, 82) = p < .05. The perspectives of the three departments show a significant difference in the grade of importance. The other ten items are omitted, because there was not enough evidence (not strong enough) to notice a significant difference. With other words it is not statistically proved that the three departments are in disagree with each other about these ten items (Appendix II). In table 4.5.1 you will find the means of the three operational items that show a significance different based on the Anova tests. Between groups 8,547 2 4,273 3,853 0,025 Within Groups 84,289 82 1,109 Total 92,835 84 Between groups 7,031 2 3,516 6,036 0,004 Within Groups 43,099 82 0,582 Total 50,13 84 Between groups 9,762 2 4,881 4,479 0,015 Within Groups 77,373 82 1,09 Total 87,135 84
Mean Squares F Sig. Offering Data Control Services
Increase the productivity of equipment
Execute the operations regarding to the national and international applicable health, safety and
security regulations
Tabel 4.5.1
4.6 4.6 4.6
4.6 Least Significant DifferenceLeast Significant DifferenceLeast Significant DifferenceLeast Significant Difference----testtesttesttest, operational priorities, operational priorities, operational priorities, operational priorities
In order to extract additional information from the data, I did also run the multiple comparison test LSD, Least Significant Difference-test. Next to the Anova test and the results of a significance differences, this table will show where one can find this differences exactly. In other words where can we find the significant differences between the departments of operations, engineering and IT. The first priority is the operational reliability. Regarding to table 4.4.1 there is a difference between the department of operations and IT. In this multiple comparison test it is clearly viewed that there is a significant difference in how employees rate the importance of reliability as an operational priority. Operations have rate the importance of reliability not as high as the department of Engineering. The difference in rating is on average 8 points (Ops – Eng Mean difference -8,04130, Sig. 0,036). In contrast with the department of IT this difference is smaller and not significant as well between IT and Engineering as between IT and Operations.
The second priority is the importance of the operational priority flexibility. In this case there is a difference between the departments of operations and IT. Operations have rate the importance of flexibility of a container terminal higher than IT. The mean difference is almost 6 points, which is a significant output. But next to the difference between both departments Operations and IT, we can also notice a difference between Engineering and IT. However this is not a significant result but it
For which department you are working Mean N Std. Deviation
Operations 5,790 47 1,020
Engineering 5,120 17 0,993
IT 5,380 21 0,669
Total 5,550 85 0,970
For which department you are working Mean N Std. Deviation
Operations 6,170 47 0,761
Engineering 6,650 17 0,493
IT 5,810 21 0,873
Total 6,180 85 0,789
For which department you are working Mean N Std. Deviation
Operations 5,980 47 1,151
Engineering 6,000 17 0,707
IT 5,050 21 1,203
Total 5,750 85 1,154
Offering Data Control Services
Increase the productivity of equipment
is worth to mention because there is a difference in grading the importance of flexibility but not strong enough to call it significant.
Table 4.6.1
The third priority is the importance of costs. Regarding to these outputs it is the department of IT that gives the importance of costs a higher significant higher rate than operations (Ops – IT, mean difference -6,85816, sig 0,012). The other way around is that the department of Operations finds the costs of a container terminal less importance in comparison with the perspective of the IT department. The last priority is quality. This priority is rated higher by the department of operations than Engineering and IT do. The largest difference, which is also significant, is between Operations and Engineering (Ops – Eng, mean difference 9,65957, sig 0,006). Based on this Multiple Comparison Test we can state that the department of Operations has an other opinion of what is an important priority during the operation than Engineering a IT. These last two departments do not have these large differences in numbers, however not as significant as with Operations.
4.7 4.7 4.7
4.7 Least Significant DifferenceLeast Significant DifferenceLeast Significant DifferenceLeast Significant Difference----test, operational items test, operational items test, operational items test, operational items
Next to the four operational priorities, I will also run the Multiple Comparison LSD test for the three operational items. This test will demonstrate where we can find the differences between the three divisions. The results are shown below in table 4.6.1.
Operations Engineering -8,04130* 3,77717 0,036 IT -3,89564 3,50305 0,269 Engineering Operations 8,04130* 3,77717 0,036 IT 4,14566 4,35419 0,344 IT Operations 3,89564 3,50305 0,269 Engineering -4,14566 4,35419 0,344 Operations Engineering 0,63204 2,38631 0,792 IT 5,71327* 2,21313 0,012 Engineering Operations -0,63204 2,38631 0,792 IT 5,08123 2,75086 0,068 IT Operations -5,71327* 2,21313 0,012 Engineering -5,08123 2,75086 0,068 Operations Engineering -2,25031 2,87962 0,437 IT -6,85816* 2,67063 0,012 Engineering Operations 2,25031 2,87962 0,437 IT -4,60784 3,31953 0,169 IT Operations 6,85816* 2,67063 0,012 Engineering 4,60784 3,31953 0,169 Operations Engineering 9,65957* 3,45858 0,006 IT 5,04053 3,20758 0,12 Engineering Operations -9,65957* 3,45858 0,006 IT -4,61905 3,98693 0,25 IT Operations -5,04053 3,20758 0,12 Engineering 4,61905 3,98693 0,25 The grade of importance
of the operational priority quality
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Multiple Comparison LSD
(J) For which department within the organization you are working? Dependent Variable
(I) For which department within the
organization you are working? Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
The grade of importance of the operational priority
reliability
The grade of importance of the operational priority
flexibility
The grade of importance of the operational priority
The first item is offering Data Control services. The largest gap of difference is between Operations and IT (Ops – IT, mean difference 0,826, sig. 0,008). With this outcome it is significantly demonstrated that the department of Operations gives the importance of offering data control services a higher rate. The second operational item shows a significant difference between Engineering on the one hand and Operations and IT on the other hand. The department of Operations gives a higher rate of importance to increasing the productivity of equipment than the department of IT. However engineering surpasses on their turn the rate of operations. With this result we can demonstrate significantly that IT has given the lowest priority to increasing the productivity of equipment followed by Operations and Engineering (Ops – Eng, mean difference -0,469, sig. 0,038) (Ops – Eng, mean difference 0,468, sig. 0,038). The last item that shows a significant difference in rating the importance is executing the operations regarding to national and international applicable health, safety and security regulations. In this case there is a difference between IT on the one hand and Operations and Engineering in the other hand. IT does not rate this item as high as operations and engineering. On average they think that this issue is less important than the other items in comparison with the perspectives of the Operations and Engineering (IT – Ops, mean difference -0,903, sig. 0,006) (IT – Engineering, mean difference -0,982, sig. 0,012). The mean difference between IT and Engineering is even larger than between IT and Operations. Based on these outcomes one can notice that Engineering rates the importance of this item as highest. However, a difference in rate between Operations and Engineering is not proved or in other words significantly demonstrated.
