Interventions for redesign. Is it time to move up a gear? A systematic analysis of the applicability of the QRM and L-STSD theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures

(1)

1

Interventions for redesign

Is it time to move up a gear?

A systematic analysis of the applicability of the QRM and L-STSD

theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures

Manouk I. Nijhof Student number: 4661087

Radboud University Nijmegen Business Administration

Organisational Design & Development

Supervisor: Dr. Ir. Lekkerkerk, L.J. (Hans) Second examiner: Dr. Moorkamp, M. (Matthijs)

(2)

2

Interventions for redesign

Is it time to move up a gear?

A systematic analysis of the applicability of the QRM and L-STSD

theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures

Manouk Inga Nijhof

Masterthesis Business Administration 2017 – 2018

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

This Master thesis is the end result of my final research project in order to successfully graduate from the master Organisational Design & Development at the Radboud University in Nijmegen. During the last year of my amazing and valuable study years at the university, I learnt a lot, both research-oriented and personally. For this, I received the necessary support from a variety of people. Therefore, I would like to express my gratitude to the following people.

First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Ir. Lekkerkerk, whose office door was always open whenever I ran into trouble or when I needed a sparring partner. Thank you for your expertise, critical notes, and insightful ideas. Additionally, I would also like to thank my second examiner, Dr. Moorkamp, who critically reviewed my research proposal and concept version, and thereby motivated me to rethink my decisions when setting up the research project and writing the final version.

Also, I would like to thank my colleagues of the HAN Lean-QRM Center for their involvement during this research project. Based on your experiences in practice, you provided me with the need for this research and therefore the relevance of this research for practice. Especially, I thank Menno Herkes for his endless support, motivation, knowledge, and expertise which challenged me during every phase while conducting this research.

Then, I acknowledge the contribution of the respondents who participated in my research project. Hans Gerrese, Jannes Slomp, Aldert van der Stoel and Vincent Wiegel, thank you for your participation and valuable input. Then, Rajan Suri, it was an honour to meet you as the founding father of the QRM theory and to participate in your workshop. Thank you for your openness and enthusiasm which resulted in our interesting discussions.

Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my family and friends for their continuous support during the period of conducting this thesis. You always believed in me and provided me with the necessary distractions from research. Thank you all for your support that made me more successful during my academic career!

Then it is time for me to move up a gear as well. I am looking forward to immerse myself in new challenges. By writing this, it only remains me to say, enjoy reading my thesis, and spread the word.

Manouk Nijhof,

(4)

4

Abstract

Organisations are expected to be able to cope with the changing business requirements of the 21st Century. Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) and Lowlands’ Sociotechnical System Design (L-STSD) are two theories that emphasize the importance of, among others, flow and cellular manufacturing to meet those needs. Adopting these theories requires an intervention for redesign of the organisational structure. However, if the theories are not clear about the way how to diagnose, design and change organisational structures, this could significantly influence the success of the intervention and the ability to realize the intended strategy. Therefore, this research aims to advance our knowledge to what extent the QRM and L-STSD theories are applicable to diagnose, design and change organisational structures and what can be learned from a comparison between both theories. For this part, original materials and recent manuals of both theories are studied in depth.

Furthermore, first insights from practice stimulated to advance our knowledge about the pragmatic challenges when implementing QRM. Therefore, in addition, four semi-structured, open-ended interviews took place with QRM professionals.

The results show that the QRM theory contains theoretical gaps regarding the design activity of organisational structures, whereas the L-STSD theory contains theoretical gaps regarding the actual change of organisational structures. The study shows that the similarities between both theories provide a rationale to mutually learn from each other’s principles. Despite the fact that the QRM professionals confirmed the identified gaps within the theory of QRM, they typically find ways to deal with these in practice. Their opinions differ about the practical impact of these gaps and whether it is desirable and possible to fill these gaps. However, from a scientific perspective, it is desirable to provide clear, essential criteria to support the design activity and to provide guidelines for practical implementation.

This study extends existing literature and knowledge about theoretical gaps within the theories of QRM and L-STSD. The outcome of this study is an incremental step in the overall goal to further mature both theories. Based on the outcome and insights, multiple follow-up studies can be started. Besides, the outcome is relevant for practical deployment in organisations considering the adoption of QRM.

Keywords: Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) – Lowlands’ Sociotechnical System Design (L-STSD) – Interventions for redesign – Systematic analysis of design related theories – Diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures

(5)

5

List of figures and tables

Figure 1 - 3D-model for episodic interventions (Achterbergh & Vriens, 2016, synopsis

Lecture 1: course Interventions in Organisations) 11 Figure 2 - Research framework part 1 (based on Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010) 12 Figure 3 - Research framework part 2 (based on Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010) 14 Figure 4 - Framework with assessment criteria 27 Figure 5 - Response Time Spiral for make-to-order (Suri, 2003, p. 10) 34 Figure 6 - Example of an MCT-map (Suri, 2014, p. 29) 35

Table 1 - References used for desk research 29 Table 2 - Participated QRM professionals 30 Table 3 - Concluding scheme of the diagnostic activity 37 Table 4 - L-STSD’s set of essential variables (based on De Sitter, 2000, p. 42; Achterbergh &

Vriens, 2010, p. 242) 39

Table 5 - Concluding scheme of the essential variables 40 Table 6 - Concluding scheme of the structure parameters 44 Table 7 - Concluding scheme of the relation between essential variables and structure

parameters 47

Table 8 - Concluding scheme of the design principles 50 Table 9 - Design situations (Christis & Soepenberg, 2014, p. 16) 53 Table 10 - Concluding scheme of the design precedence rule(s) 55 Table 11 - Concluding scheme of the change activity 58 Table 12 - Summarizing scheme results desk research 59 Table 13 - Summarizing scheme results of interviews with QRM professionals 66 Table 14 - Concluding scheme applicability of both theories regarding the diagnosis, design

(8)

8

List of abbreviations

FTMS : Focused Target Market Segment

HL/MRP : High Level MRP (Material Requirements Planning) L-STSD : Lowlands’ Sociotechnical System Design

MCT : Manufacturing Critical-path Time

POLCA : Paired-cell Overlapping Loops of Cards with Authorization QRM : Quick Response Manufacturing

SMEs : Small and medium-sized enterprises TBC : Time-Based Competition

(9)

9

Chapter one: Introduction

“The 21st Century – a period in which organisations are searching for new ways to stay ahead of the competition to ensure their viability. A period, in which new strategies are developed and promoted as a competitive advantage for organisations. But can they be successful if the underlying theory exposes significant gaps?”

The 21st Century is characterized by customers demanding more customized products in lower volumes, higher quality and variability, lower costs and faster delivery (Filho & Saes, 2012; Powell & Strandhagen, 2012; Suri, 2003, 2010). In 1996, Drolet, Abdulnour and Rheault described the need for organizations to increase their responsiveness and flexibility, lower their work-in-process inventory and shorten set up times, while remaining efficient. Attention towards several management strategies and production systems increased, such as Total Quality Management, Six Sigma and seru production (Nijholt, Bezemer, & Reinmoeller, 2015, Table 2; Yin, Stecke, Swink, & Kaku, 2017). But still nowadays, there are plenty of theories that prescribe how organisations should be structured to fulfil the needs of this 21st Century. Theories that focus on flow, cellular manufacturing, autonomous teams or group based manufacturing for example. A short list of theories that focus on these aspects and that you might come up with possibly include Business Process Re-engineering (BRP) (Hammer & Champy, 2001), the Theory of Constraints (Goldratt & Cox, 2004), the configuration theory (Mintzberg, 1980), the contingency theory (e.g. Thompson, 2007), the theory by Christensen (and Grossman and Hwang) (2009), Lean (Womack & Jones, 2003), (Lowlands’) Sociotechnical System Design (e.g. De Sitter, 2000) or Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) (Suri, 1998). In many cases, an intervention for redesign of the organisational structure is required when organisations decide to adopt one, or a combination of these design related theories. However, the question arises whether these theories are applicable to perform such interventions for redesign and to make them successful.

Within this thesis, it is decided to take a closer look at the following theories: Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) and Lowlands’ Sociotechnical System Design (L-STSD).

QRM is a company-wide strategy, which suggests that lead time reduction serves as the basis to meet the business requirements of the 21st Century (Suri, 2010). Not all existing manufacturing strategies are capable to cope with a changing environment. For example, several authors (Gómez & Filho, 2016; Powell, Strandhagen, Tommelein, Ballard, & Rossi, 2014) argue that Lean, to which Suri (1998, 2010) often refers in his theory, was not able to

(10)

10

deal with the full range of production types, and the majority of its successful applications still occurred in organisations that produce high volumes of standardized products in rather low varieties. Therefore, in the late 1980s, Rajan Suri started to develop the first principles of QRM, based on the Time-Based Competition (TBC) strategy introduced by George Stalk Jr. (1988) (Suri, 1998). After the introduction of Suri’s first book about QRM in 1998, his second book was launched in 2010 and contained new developments to convince and teach executives, managers and employees about the principles of QRM and to support them during their implementations (Suri, 2010, p. xvii-xviii). However, conversations with several practitioners within the field reveal that they, or organisational managers, still experience difficulties regarding the implementation of QRM (for example: M. Herkes, personal contact, 18 April 2017; G. Oversluizen, personal contact, 20 January 2017; W. Knol, personal contact, 11 May 2017; J. Slomp, personal contact, 20 January 2017). Their reasoning suggests that parts of the theory of QRM regarding an intervention for redesign are insufficiently described. This stimulated to study this theory in more depth. Part two of this thesis specifically focuses on the pragmatic challenges during the implementation of QRM. Therefore, section 1.2 will address the reasoning of these practitioners in more depth.

In contrast to the theory of QRM, which is interesting because of the first insights from practice, the theory of L-STSD is selected because it is focused on organisational design in particular (Christis, 2011). According to Achterbergh and Vriens (2010, p. 288), it is even more detailed on it than work of other authors. Van Eijnatten and Van der Zwaan (1998) argue that original ideas of STSD appear to be copied in approaches such as Business Process Reengineering and Total Quality Management. Furthermore, in addition to the corresponding focus on flow and cellular manufacturing, both theories of L-STSD and QRM emphasize the importance of flexibility to deal with variety. Additionally, the heterogeneous and semi-homogeneous order flows to which the theory of L-STSD refers in their distinction of order flows (Kuipers, Van Amelsvoort, & Kramer, 2010) seem to correspond with the high-variety, low-volume order flows that QRM deals with.

Looking at scientific literature, much attention is paid to the performance of Suri’s material control strategy (POLCA) and its shortcomings (see for example: Pieffers, 2005; Riezebos, 2010, 2013; Thürer, Stevenson, & Protzman, 2016), but no detailed analysis of both the QRM and L-STSD theories regarding interventions for redesign can be found. Additionally, no comparison between both theories is made, while Suri (1998, 2010) does compare QRM with strategies such as Lean, Six Sigma, and SMED (single-minute exchange of dies).

(11)

11 Figure 1 - 3D-model for episodic interventions

(Achterbergh & Vriens, 2016, synopsis Lecture 1: course Interventions in Organisations)

1.1

Part 1

–

Systematic analysis of the QRM and L-STSD theories

The first part of this thesis aims to advance our knowledge about the potential shortcomings within the theory of QRM and L-STSD, regarding interventions for the redesign of organisational structures. Does both theories meet the requirements, or is it possible to achieve results faster, at lower cost or with a higher quality?

1.1.1 Research context and research objective

Organisational structures are defined in this study as: “the grouping and coupling of transformations into tasks and the resulting relations between these tasks relative to orders” (Achterbergh & Vriens, 2010, p. 240). According to Achterbergh and Vriens (2010), the organisational structure is one of the three classes of “infrastructural conditions” that should be met by organisations in order to realize transformation processes (from inputs to outputs), and to regulate them operationally. The other two classes are human resources and “technological means” (Achterbergh & Vriens, 2010, p. 13). Although both theories might have flaws in their theoretical description about these latter two classes, these are not included in the scope of this study.

In previous studies, often, the focus on interventions is overlooked. However, a single look at the design of organisational structures would be too superficial. Therefore, this thesis studies the design of organisational structures in a broader context, by using the new 3D-model for episodic interventions by Achterbergh and Vriens (forthcoming). Within this model, a distinction is made between a functional dimension, which has the goal to optimize as much as possible the quality of the design and its implementation, a social dimension, which has the goal to accept and integrate the intervention in organisational behaviour in social practices, and an infrastructural

dimension, which has the goal to support the realization of both goals of the functional and social dimensions (see figure 1). All three dimensions are essential for the success of any intervention. However, this thesis distinguishes between organisational design and organisational change. Organisational design is about the “what” of an intervention, and organisational change is about the “how” of it (Christis, 2011, p. 99). Therefore, to Infrastructural dimension: infrastructure of the intervention R C U D D I E Social dimension: Unfreeze Change Refreeze Functional dimension: Diagnose, Design, Implementation, Evaluation S HR T

(12)

12

create explicit focus, the study of this thesis focuses on the “what” of an intervention, and thus the functional dimension.

The functional dimension of this 3D-model is further subdivided into four activities, which corresponds with the activities of an intervention cycle, namely diagnose, design, implementation/change and evaluation. This thesis refers to activities instead of phases, since iteration and recurrence are part of interventions and consequently the strict sequential order between those activities may be “broken” (Achterbergh & Vriens, forthcoming). The four activities show that the design of organisational structures is just one step within the overall process of intervening. For this reason, to maintain a broad perspective when analysing the theories of QRM and L-STSD in relation to organisational structures, both the diagnostic, design and change activity will be addressed. The evaluation activity is considered to be a more generic component of any intervention, and is therefore not included within this study.

According to above reasoning, the objective of part 1 is to determine whether the theories of QRM and L-STSD are applicable to diagnose, design, and change organizational structures and what insights can be provided after comparing both theories.

1.1.2 Research question and research framework

This makes the following research question central to the first part of this thesis:

To what extent are the theories of QRM and L-STSD applicable to diagnose, design and change organisational structures and what can be learned from a comparison between both theories?

Based on this research question, the research framework of part 1 looks the following:

Figure 2 - Research framework part 1 (based on Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010) Literature on the intervention cycle Theory of L-STSD Theory of QRM Applicability (and results of comparison) of the QRM and L-STSD theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures. Literature on organisational design Framework consisting of assessment criteria Results of analysis Results of analysis Literature on comparisons of organisational theories (a) (b) (c) (d)

(13)

13

This research framework can be described in the following way: (a) Based on a literature study about comparisons of organisational theories, organisational design and the intervention cycle, a framework is developed consisting of a list of assessment criteria. (b) Based on this framework, both theories will be analysed on their applicability to diagnose, design and change organisational structures. (c) A systematic analysis provides the possibility to compare both theories. (d) Eventually, the results of the systematic analysis and comparison give insight into the applicability of the QRM and L-STSD theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures and what can be learned from a comparison between both theories.

The research consists of theoretical, empirical and analytical parts. Therefore, the central research question is divided into the following set of sub-questions:

1. Which framework, consisting of assessment criteria, will be used to systematically analyse the theories of QRM and L-STSD on their applicability to diagnose, design and change organisational structures?

2. What is the applicability of the QRM theory regarding the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures, based on the assessment criteria developed by answering sub-question one?

3. What is the applicability of the L-STSD theory regarding the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures, based on the assessment criteria developed by answering sub-question one?

4. What can be learned from a comparison of both theories about the similarities, differences, and potential gaps regarding their applicability to diagnose, design and change organisational structures?

1.2

Part 2

–

A study within the field of QRM

Due to the first insights from practice, the second part of this thesis aims to advance our knowledge of the pragmatic challenges when implementing QRM. How does practice experience the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures?

1.2.1 Research context and research objective

In 2010, the first QRM Center outside the United States of America (USA) was launched in Europe at the University of Applied Sciences of Arnhem and Nijmegen (HAN)(“QRM Center Europe”, n.d.). This was partly on the initiative of Vincent Wiegel and Jannes slomp, both lecturer at the Lean-QRM Center at the HAN. About two years ago, responsibility of the QRM Center moved to Prof. Dr. Jan Riezebos from the University of Groningen (V. Wiegel,

(14)

14

personal contact, 12 July 2017). Both QRM Centers within the USA (launched in 1993) and Europe are of major importance for the development of QRM, and led to an increasing number of successful implementations, in more than 220 organisations worldwide (“About the QRM Center”, 2015). These successful implementations demonstrate the potential added value of QRM. However, as introduced in the beginning of this chapter, several conversations highlighted difficulties regarding the implementation of QRM. The practitioners indicate that it seems that the theory of QRM insufficiently describes some key aspects about the design of organisational structures, although these are of major importance for the success of the QRM strategy. For example, the professionals refer to the design of multifunctional QRM cells and Suri’s so called “Focused Target Market Segment (FTMS)”. Based on the theory of QRM, they argue that no founded solutions can be given to questions such as “which tasks should or should not be included within the QRM cell”, or “How should we divide our order flows” (M. Herkes, personal contact, 18 April 2017). Additionally, during a conversation with a managing director, the question arises where they should start when implementing QRM (D. Groesbeek, personal contact, 3 October 2017).

The goal of this second part is to get more insights from practice about the pragmatic challenges during the implementation of QRM, regarding the intervention within organisational structures.

1.2.2 Research question and research framework

This makes the following research question central to the second part of this thesis:

What are the pragmatic challenges during the implementation of QRM regarding the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures?

Based on this research question, the research framework of part 2 looks the following:

Figure 3 - Research framework part 2 (based on Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010) The functional dimension used in

part 1(consisting of diagnose, design and change activity)

Pragmatic challenges during the implementation of QRM regarding the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures

(a) (b)

(15)

15

This research framework can be described in the following way: (a) Based on the three activities of the functional dimension, the theory of QRM will be studied in the practice of interventions. (b) This study results into insights of the pragmatic challenges during the implementation of QRM regarding the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures.

1.3 Theoretical and practical relevance

Today’s organisations are expected to be able to cope within new business environments, such as the high-variety, low-volume manufacturing environment, requiring for flexibility. Design related theories, such as the theory of QRM and L-STSD argue that its implementation contributes to viability of the organisation. However, if such theories are not clear about the way to diagnose organisational structures, if they lack a proper structural design idea and/or a change idea, this could significantly influence the success of the intervention and the ability to realize the intended strategy. Furthermore, if those theories contain gaps, and these can be enhanced or complemented with insights from other theories, this is of added value and contributes to the overall goal of further maturing these design related theories. The study within this thesis is a continuing step in this direction. The outcome of this study contributes to organisational theory by determining potential shortcomings within both theories of QRM and L-STSD regarding the diagnosis, design or change of organisational structures, and enhancing this with principles of the complementary theory. Consequently, mutual learning is encouraged. Additionally, since both theories are not compared in literature previously, the outcomes might be complementary to the insights that can be derived from the comparisons that Suri made between QRM and other strategies.

Next to the theoretical contribution, the outcome of this research may be relevant for practical deployment in organisations considering the adoption of QRM. As already addressed, practitioners in the field are struggling with elements during the QRM implementation. The outcomes of this study show if, and where the theory of QRM contains gaps. Besides, since the study addresses how the application of principles of one theory could enhance the other theory, practitioners within both fields of QRM and L-STSD can use these insights in their practical environment, or might start to study the complementing theory in more depth. This further matures the implementation processes, in order to achieve results faster, at lower cost and potentially with higher quality.

(16)

16

1.4 Outline of the thesis

This thesis is divided into multiple sections. First, in the next chapter, the theoretical background is summarized. This chapter provides a short introduction of the QRM and L-STSD theories. Besides the framework is presented, which is used to systematically analyse both theories. Chapter three addresses the methodological choices, which are made within the study of this thesis. This chapter describes in more detail the research strategy, data collection methods and analyses, research ethics, and the assessment criteria for qualitative research. In chapter four, the findings of the systematic analysis and comparison between both theories are presented (part 1). Within chapter five, the findings of the practical challenges of QRM in practice are addressed (part 2). The results are followed by the conclusion in chapter six in which a reflection is made on both parts of this research. This is followed by the discussion in chapter seven. This final chapter addresses the theoretical and practical contribution, limitations of the research, suggestions for further research and a reflection on the research process. Finally, references and appendices follow.

(17)

17

Chapter two: Theoretical framework

This chapter provides an answer to the first sub-question addressed in the introduction:

Which framework, consisting of assessment criteria, will be used to systematically analyse the theories of QRM and L-STSD on their applicability to diagnose, design and change organisational structures?

Before going into detail about this framework, the chapter starts with a short introduction of the QRM and L-STSD theories. Thereafter, an introduction is given how different organisational theories are analysed and compared in literature previously. These insights are, among others, used to describe the diagnostic, design and change activity of the intervention cycle in more depth. The chapter ends with the framework in which all assessment criteria are summarized.

2.1 Short introduction of the QRM and L-STSD theories

The next sections provide some background information about the history and core ideas of both the QRM and L-STSD theories.

2.1.1 QRM’s background

As mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, development of the first principles of QRM by Rajan Suri started in the beginning of the 1990s, in order to deal with 21st Century markets (Suri, 2010, p. 3). Next to insights derived from literature on the subject of competing on speed, such as the TBC strategy, QRM’s principles are to a large extent developed on practical insights (Suri, 1998, p. xxi-xxviii; Suri, 2010, p. xv, xviii). According to Suri (2010), the strategy is not a replacement of existing theories or strategies used in organisations, but it helps to complement and build further on them. This is confirmed by other authors (Gómez & Filho, 2016; Powell & Strandhagen, 2012).

QRM distinguishes between two types of variability, namely “dysfunctional variability” and “strategic variability” (Suri, 2010, p. 4). Organisations should get rid of the first type, since dysfunctional variability is caused by errors, ineffective systems and poor organisation. The second type should be exploited by organisations, since strategic variability is used to become competitive, e.g. due to the ability to cope with fluctuating and unexpected demands, without degradation in quality or production time. In order to achieve this and operate in the high-variety, low-volume manufacturing environment successfully, Suri argues the main focus within every organisation should be on the reduction of lead time. He describes four core concepts that comprise the QRM strategy. These are the power of time,

(18)

18

the organisation structure, system dynamics, and an enterprise-wide application (Suri, 2010, p. 3). As a result of good implementation, practice demonstrates that organisations are able to reduce their lead times and work in progress (WIP) with 75% to 95%, floor space reduction of 30% to 50%, productivity improvements of ≥50%, and overhead costs reduction of ≥30% (Suri, 2010, p. 18 ff., 66; Tubino & Suri, 2000).

2.1.2 L-STSD’s background

L-STSD is also referred to as the Modern Sociotechnical Theory (MST), Dutch Socio-Technical System Design (Dutch STSD), or Integral Organisational Renewal (IOR) (Van Eijnatten & Van der Zwaan, 1998). The theory is based on a critical reception of the classical approach of STSD, which started with research by the Tavistock Institute in the coalmines of Durham in the 1950s (see for example: Mumford, 2006; Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Trist, Higgin, Murray, & Pollock, 1963). Researchers found that problems in the social system were caused by the technological system, and vica versa. Therefore, for the first time in this field, the need for “joint optimization” between the technological and social system became emphasized. However, the classical approach experienced a lot of criticism, which resulted in the development of different versions of STSD within different continents. For example, Scandinavian countries emphasized the importance of a “Democratic Dialogue” between employer and employee, while Australia focused on the participative nature of (re)design projects (Van Eijnatten, 1993). Van Eijnatten (1993) conducted a comprehensive research on the history of STSD and dinstinguished three development trajectories within STSD. This thesis will not address these in more depth. This also applies to a description of STSD in a broader perspective, i.e. in relation to other streams, such as Human Relations. Interested readers are referred to Van Eijnatten (1993) or Kuipers et al. (2010).

Meanwhile in the Netherlands, Ulbo de Sitter started with a system theoretical reformulation of the classical approach of STSD (Christis & Soepenberg, 2014; De Sitter, 2000). He came up with a new paradigm for sociotechnical organisational (re)design of production and control structures, to achieve both economic and social goals (Van Eijnatten, 1993; De Sitter, Den Hertog, & Dankbaar, 1997). De Sitter (2000, p. 7), who defines organisations as social interaction networks, argues that the way organisations are structured influences the amount of disturbances within organisations and the capability to deal with these disturbances. In addition, he categorizes his theory as an integral design theory since the complete organisational structure is taken into consideration, instead of a focus on specific aspects only (Kuipers et al., 2010, p. 37; De Sitter, 2000, p. 2). De Sitter’s theory can be seen

(19)

19

as conceptual theory based on insights and principles from system dynamics, such as cybernetics (Achterbergh & Vriens, 2010, p. 228; De Sitter, Hertog, & Dankbaar, 1997, p. 498).

2.2 Previous comparisons of organisational theories in literature

The large amount of existing organisational theories illustrates that opinions differ about the key drivers to realize organisational objectives, such as a complete focus on dynamic capabilities (Felin & Powell, 2016), process constraints (Goldratt & Cox, 2004), or lead time reduction, as suggested by Suri (1998, 2010). Due to this wide range of opinions and organisational theories, it sound likely that organisations are struggling with the most effective choice and the definition of requirements impacting organisational structures. This thought is supported by several authors in literature, who compared, or even complemented different organisational theories with each other (see for example: Chow & Moseley, 2017; Christis & Soepenberg, 2014; Gómez & Filho, 2016; Nave, 2002).

Nave (2002) argued that within the American business community a large amount of different process improvement strategies (he refers in his paper to “champions”) are striving for leadership attention. He argued that almost all improvement strategies claim business problems will be solved, when adopting the specific tools of the strategy or follow their way of thinking (Nave, 2002, p. 73). In his study, Nave made a comparison between Six Sigma, Lean and the Theory of Constraints, based on the main theory behind the strategy, application guidelines, the main focus point, assumptions, primary and secondary effects, and criticisms. Chow and Moseley (2017) compared Six Sigma, Lean, and Human Performance Technology/ Performance Improvement. They took the same approach as Nave did, first describing the theories separately before comparing them, but used some other concepts: the origins of the theory, the principles and methods/tools. In addition, Gómez and Filho (2016) went one step further and complemented Lean with insights derived from QRM. In their research, they used two different case studies in which Lean was implemented in the organisation first, and QRM second. However, within this study, as well as within both comparisons of Nave, and Chow and Moseley, the main focus was on the key insights of the different methods (a high level description), and less on the, for this thesis relevant, critical aspects about the applicability of the theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures.

Christis and Soepenberg (2014) described L-STSD (they refer to STSL, Lowlands’ Sociotechnical Design Theory) as theoretical foundation of Lean. In contrast to previously addressed comparisons, Christis and Soepenberg emphasized the design of organisational

(20)

20

structures. They described the theory of L-STSD according to six criteria: its design object, design goal, functional design requirements (or criteria), design strategy, sequence rules, and design parameters. Although they did not describe Lean in relation to each of these criteria, they captured the important similarities and differences (in)directly in their conclusion and discussion (Christis & Soepenberg, 2014, p. 15-17).

These six criteria used by Christis and Soepenberg (2014) can partly be recognized in earlier work of Van Laar (2010) and Van Wezel (2013). Both developed a theoretical framework, consisting of several assessment criteria, which served as basis to analyse and compare organisational design theories. Van Laar based her framework on literature about “metatheory” and “designing” in general. Van Wezel added additional literature about organisations and organisational design theories. Although the work of both authors is not publicized or peer reviewed, a combination of both frameworks, in relation to the work of Christis and Soepenberg (2014), is appropriate to use for this specific thesis. The design of a framework of assessment criteria is not a goal of this study, but will leverage the results of above studies. The frameworks of both studies are derived from general theories from Ashby (An Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956) and Simon (The Sciences of the Artificial, 1981), who both developed fundamental theories about design and structures. A comparison between the general theories resulted in a metatheory (explained in section 2.4), consisting of principles and methods, which applies to the design of all kinds of mechanisms within various scientific disciplines that are dealing with designing (Van Laar, 2010, p. 52; Van Wezel, 2013, p. 29). This makes it also applicable to organisational design in specific.

In the next sections, the assessment criteria for the diagnostic, design and change activity will be addressed in more detail. A combination of the frameworks by Van Laar (2010) and Van Wezel (2013), together with the work of Christis and Soepenberg (2014) is included in the section about the design activity (section 2.3).

2.3 Diagnostic activity

In the work of Christis and Soepenberg (2014), Van Laar (2010) and Van Wezel (2013), no assessment criteria can be derived that is related to the diagnostic activity. However, in literature, several authors pay attention to this specific activity (see for example: Achterbergh & Vriens, forthcoming; Caluwé & Vermaak, 2003; Block, 1981). To derive at assessment criteria for this diagnostic activity, work of Achterbergh and Vriens (forthcoming) is used, since they focus on episodic interventions in organisational structures in particular, and additionally identify more granular sub-activities. According to Achterbergh and Vriens

(21)

21

(forthcoming), every intervention presupposes an activity which identifies problems and provides rough indications of possible solutions for these problems: the diagnostic activity.

The first step of this diagnostic activity is to identify problems in the functioning of “something” (for example an organisation), in relation to the desired goal (for example the strategic goal(s) of the organisation) (Achterbergh & Vriens, forthcoming). In other words, an evaluation of the actual versus intended status, as reflected in e.g. the organisational strategy. Therefore, Achterbergh and Vriens argue it is important that the goal is clearly defined. Ultimately, it is the difference between the desired and actual status, which determines the adequacy and ability of a functional process to realize target goals. It defines the problem statement.

The second step is the cause analysis. According to Achterbergh and Vriens (forthcoming), the goal of the cause analysis is to find out what it is in the current condition that hinders the optimal functioning of “something”, or (according to their main focus) what it is in the current organisational structure that hinders the optimal functioning of the organisation.

The last step specifies the solution space (Achterbergh & Vriens, forthcoming), potential solutions to overcome current organisational bottlenecks. To specify the solution space, all identified causes of the second step, which could be eliminated without major changes, should be separated from the causes that cannot be eliminated or are too hard to eliminate without fundamental changes in organisational design. Eventually, the solution space comprises the causes of the organisational structure that should be eliminated in order to improve the functioning of the organisation in relation to its goal(s).

These three described sub-activities will be included in the framework as assessment criteria, to analyse and compare the theories of QRM and L-STSD what they describe about this problem identification, cause analysis, and solution space.

2.4 Design activity

According to Achterbergh and Vriens (forthcoming), the goal of the design activity is to define an appropriate organisational structure, which eliminates the problems of the functioning of the organisation in order to meet operational performance targets. Work of Van Laar (2010), Van Wezel (2013), and Christis and Soepenberg (2014) addresses this activity in more detail, and is therefore used to derive at appropriate assessment criteria. Both Van Laar and Van Wezel describe their framework as a “metatheory”. Although the theoretical background of both frameworks will not be repeated completely, the section starts with a

(22)

22

short introduction about metatheory to explain how Van Laar and Van Wezel derived at their framework. Thereafter, five different assessment criteria for the design activity are addressed in more detail.

2.4.1 Metatheory

Van Laar (2010) and Van Wezel (2013) labelled their framework as a metatheory. In literature, several definitions of metatheory and their key ideas can be found (see for example: Anchin, 2008; Bondas & Hall, 2007; Ritzer, 1988). Wallis (2010), who explored the complete field of metatheory, ranging from 1988 to 2010, came up with the following definition: “Metatheory is primarily the study of theory, including the development of overarching combinations of theory, as well as the development and application of theorems for analysis that reveal underlying assumptions about theory and theorizing” (p. 78). Van Laar and Van Wezel used literature about metatheory to explore specific requirements for the framework that they were going to design. Both concluded that their framework should contain a number of universal criteria about designing, focused on concepts, the relation between those concepts and additional elements within designing, as well as criteria that focus on the process of design (Van Laar, 2010, p. 52; Van Wezel, 2013, p. 14). Therefore, they made a distinction between assessment criteria related to “design as product” and “design as process”. Based on Ashby’s insights (1956), “design as product” is about the design of a system that has the desired behaviour in relation to the goal of that system, and “design as process” is about the different steps each designer should take to derive at the desired end result. The five assessment criteria which are addressed in next sections can be divided into these two categories. The first three assessment criteria, described in sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.4, relate to “design as product”. The last two assessment criteria, described in sections 2.4.5, and 2.4.6 relate to “design as process”.

2.4.2 Determine essential variables

The first assessment criterion states that organisational design theories should address essential variables of the system and their related desired norms (Van Laar, 2010; Van Wezel, 2013). In the context of this thesis, the term systems can be seen as a synonym for organisations. According to Ashby, a system is a set of variables (Ashby, 1956, p. 40). These variables are features that should be taken into account related to a particular goal (Ashby, 1956, p. 40). Some of these features are essential for the system to stay viable. Ashby (1956) calls these features “essential variables”. The value of these essential variables can differ. When essential variables are kept within a specified norm, the system will perform the desired

(23)

23

behaviour (Van Wezel, 2013). Christis and Soepenberg (2014) uses the term functional design requirements (or critera) to describe these essential variables.

Van Wezel (2013) studied work of four important persons in history who influenced the development of organisational theory, namely Augusto Comte, Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber. He studied the transition from traditional functional organisational structures, with clear lines of control and specific employees appointed to positions, to flexible organisational structures. During his studies, he focused on the essential variables within these periods and came up with a diverse list. The different essential variables that he noticed were the following: continuity, viability, the social function of the organisation, effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility and valuable products (Van Wezel, 2013, p. 58).

2.4.3 Determine structure parameters

As indicated in previous section, essential variables can differ in value. This leads to potential changes in the behaviour of the system. However, the cause(s) for these changes are not yet determined. Therefore, the second assessment criterion states that organisational design theories should say something about parameters that influence the value of these essential variables (Van Laar, 2010; Van Wezel, 2013). As described by Achterbergh and Vriens (2010), some variables are not part of the list of essential variables that determines the viability of a system, but still influences the behaviour of that system. These variables, or “input” as called by Ashby (1956), are parameters. Van Laar (2010, p. 53) defines parameters as characteristics of the mechanism that should be designed, and therefore are identified as means to realize the objective of the intervention. The behaviour of a system is determined by the parameter values (Achterbergh & Vriens, 2010). Ashby described two types of input, namely disturbances and regulatory actions. Input is disturbing when the value of a parameter causes the wrong value of essential variables and thus undesired behaviour (Achterbergh & Vriens, 2010). In case of regulatory actions, the value of parameters cause proper behaviour since the system should be able to deal with disturbances (Achterbergh & Vriens, 2010). Christis and Soepenberg (2014) uses almost the same term to describe these parameters, namely design parameters.

The study of Van Wezel (2013) resulted in a list of six organisational parameters. He refers to differentiation, specialization, coordination, division of tasks, quality of work and quality of leadership. Since Van Wezel argued he only focused on organisational structures, and not on human resources or technology (Van Wezel, 2013, p. 56), it is confusing that not all of these organisational parameters are related to the organisational structure, for example

(24)

24

the quality of work and leadership. Therefore, to prevent confusion, this thesis makes use of the term “structure parameter”. Structure parameters are features of an organisational structure that influences/affects the behaviour of essential variables.

2.4.4 Determine the relation between essential variables and structure parameters

The third assessment criterion is the last criterion that belongs to “design as product”. This assessment criterion deals with the relation between essential variables and structure parameters. Ashby (1956) and Simon (1981) argue that every design theory should consists of some basic concepts or hypotheses about this relation. The relation can be seen as a kind of mechanism that describes why a particular parameter value has a particular effect on the value of the essential variable. According to Van Laar (2010) and Van Wezel (2013), the relationship can both be empirical and conceptual, which means that the relation can be experimentally determined or logically reasoned from theory. In contrast to previous assessment criteria, Christis and Soepenberg (2014) do not refer to any relation in their work.

2.4.5 Determine design principles

The fourth assessment criterion is the first one that belongs to “design as process”. This assessment criterion states that every organisational design theory should determine design principles (Van Laar, 2010; Van Wezel, 2013). Design principles describe the norm values of structure parameters that are perceived as appropriate, and the norm values of essential variables that result in desirable behaviour (Van Laar, 2010; Van Wezel, 2013). Whereas the relation between essential variables and structure parameters is described as a kind of mechanism, the design principles and related norm values are the appropriate implementation of this specific mechanism.

According to Ashby (1956), every design theory should describe the strategy of attenuation and amplification within the context of their specific design theory. Achterbergh and Vriens (2010) describe the terms attenuation and amplification in relation to the mechanism described above:

The selected “mechanism” in the first place should decrease as much as possible the variety of the disturbances the regulator must face (attenuation) and in the second place it should increase as much as needed the regulatory variety of the regulator (amplification). (p. 57)

(25)

25

The amount of regulatory potential of the regulator provides the possibility the deal with the remaining disturbances within the system. Simon (1981, p. 209) refers in his theory to “nearly decomposable systems”. Near decomposability refers to a technique to design complex systems by decomposing the system into subsystems in which the dependency between different subsystems is as low as possible and the dependency within a subsystem is as high as possible (Christis & Soepenberg, 2014 ; Simon, 1981). According to Simon (1981), it is a condition for the reduction of complexity. As remarked by Van Laar (2010), near decomposability corresponds with Ashby’s term of attenuation. Christis and Soepenberg (2014) also recognize this assessment criterion and refer to the design strategy.

2.4.6 Determine design precedence rule(s)

The final assessment criterion that organisational design theories should meet is about the design precedence rule(s). Design precedence rule(s) are propositions that tells exactly in what order (steps) the process of designing organisational structures should be carried out in order to increase the probability of a good design (a system that performs the desirable behaviour) (Van Laar, 2010; Van Wezel, 2013). This assessment criterion is also recognized by Christis and Soepenberg (2014), who refer to sequence rules.

The five previously addressed assessment criteria are already logically ordered. According to the theory of Ashby (1956) and Simon (1981), every design theory should start with determining the goal of the system that is going to be designed. Christis and Soepenberg (2014) describe this as the design goal. In order to achieve this goal, essential variables and desired norms should be selected (assessment criterion 1). Thereafter, structure parameters and the related norms should be determined that influence these essential variables (assessment criterion 2). This step is continued by the determination of the mechanism that describes the relation between different norms of structure parameters and norms of the essential variables (assessment criterion 3). Finally, the design principles should be applied when appropriate norms are determined for the desired mechanism between structure parameters and essential variables. It should be able to relate the design principles to the attenuation and amplification terms of Ashby and Simon (assessment criterion 4).

2.5 Change activity

Where previously discussed design precedence rules were only focused on the design process in particular, this change activity is about the actual implementation of the proposed changes of the organisational structure. In literature, a lot of information can be found on

(26)

26

organisational change and important aspects that should be taken into account by organisations, such as the concept of resistance (e.g., Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Piderit, 2000), the role of the middle manager (e.g., Balogun, 2006; Gatenby, Rees, Truss, Alfes, & Soane, 2015), or participation (e.g., Caluwé & Vermaak, 2004; Kanter, 1983). However, these topics will not be discussed in more detail, since these are more related to change management in general, and the social dimension of the 3D-model by Achterbergh and Vriens (forthcoming). Therefore, this section only focuses on the change activity in the context of intervening in organisational structures as described in literature.

According to Achterbergh and Vriens (forthcoming), the output of the design activity is the input for the change activity (they refer to implementation activity). They argue this activity tends to change the current organisational structure of an organisation, which does not function well in terms of achieving its strategic goals, into the new designed organisational structure that does allow the organisation to function well. To reach this goal, Achterbergh and Vriens (forthcoming) argue the difference between the proposed changes of the organisational structure and the current organisational structure should be defined first. Second, based on this gap, the organisation should make an implementation plan by dividing the intended intervention to the organisational structure into manageable and feasible portions. Last, the implementation plan should be executed. These latter two steps are related to the last two phases of change processes by Caluwé and Vermaak (2003), who also refer to the development of an intervention plan and the intervention itself. According to them, the intervention plan helps the implementation and describes how the intervention should be segmented into an integral, consistent, feasible, and relevant package (Caluwé & Vermaak, 2003, p. 141). All three sub-activities are considered to be assessment criteria of the change activity.

2.6 Concluding framework

Combining above addressed literature results in the framework illustrated on the next page (figure 4). To recap, this framework gives an answer on the first sub-question:

Which framework, consisting of assessment criteria, will be used to systematically analyse the theories of QRM and L-STSD on their applicability to diagnose, design and change organisational structures?

The framework can be read as follows: Based upon a literature search and preliminary research, the study within this research will systematically analyse and compare the theories of QRM and L-STSD regarding their applicability of the diagnostic activity (including the

(27)

27

problem identification, cause analysis, and solution space), design activity (including the assessment criteria related to “design as product” and “design as process”) and change activity (including the difference between the current and desired organisation structure, and development and execution of an intervention plan).

“Design as product”

• Does the theory determine essential variables?

(For example: continuity, viability, social function of the organisation, effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, or valuable products)

• Does the theory determine structure parameters?

(For example: differentiation, specialization, coordination, or division of tasks)

• Does the theory determine a relation between essential variables and structure parameters?

“Design as process”

• Does the theory determine design principles? (Related to attenuation and amplification) • Does the theory determine design precedence rule(s)?

Diagnostic activity

What does the theory describe about the diagnostic activity? Related to the: • Problem identification

• Cause analysis • Solution space

What does the theory describe about the change activity? Related to the: • Difference between the current and desired organisational structure • Development of an intervention plan

• Execution of the intervention plan

Design activity

Change activity

(28)

28

Chapter three: Methodology

This chapter elaborates on the methodological choices made, to conduct the research and to derive at a proper answer of the research questions of part 1 and 2. This chapter addresses the research strategies, data collection methods, data analysis techniques and research ethics. In addition, the qualitative assessment criteria, proposed by Guba and Lincoln (cited in Symon & Cassell, 2012, p. 207), are integrated within these sections. These assessment criteria are the following: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

3.1 Research strategy

As mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, the research consists of two parts. To provide an answer to the two central research questions, a combination of research strategies is used. In order to determine if, and where the theories of QRM and L-STSD contain theoretical gaps regarding the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures, the research strategy of desk research is chosen. Verschuren and Doorewaard (2010) define desk research as “a research strategy in which the researcher does not gather all empirical data herself or himself, but uses material produced by others” (p. 194). Undoubtedly, the most desirable way to get more insights from practice about the pragmatic challenges would be to follow one or more QRM implementations. However, due to scope and time limits of a master thesis trajectory, this is not feasible. Therefore, this study makes use of the experience of QRM professionals, who have been involved in multiple QRM implementations. Thus, within part 2, empirical data is gathered by performing several interviews with QRM professionals.

For both parts, a qualitative research design is used. Qualitative research fits best to develop an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomena (Symon & Cassel, 2012; Vennix, 2011). The particular phenomena within this study is the diagnosis, design and change of organisational structures. In contrast, quantitative research provides insight into objective truths (Van de Ven, 2007). Since the goal of this study is not to provide objective truths, but to get insights in the applicability of QRM and L-STSD to intervene in organisational structures and pragmatic challenges during the implementation of QRM, scientific literature needs to be studied and knowledge and experiences of QRM professionals need to be interpreted. Both data is not based on quantifiable metrics.

3.2 Data collection

Data collection took place within a period of approximately six months, from January 2017 until July 2017. As addressed in the previous section, to derive at a proper answer of the

(29)

29

research questions, different research strategies are used. Therefore, also different data collection methods are used: gathering existing material and semi-structured interviews. The next sections describe these methods for the specific parts in more detail.

3.2.1 Part 1 – Systematic analysis of the QRM and L-STSD theories

According to Verschuren and Doorewaard (2010), three categories of existing material can be used for carrying out desk research: literature, secondary data, and official statistical material. The study within this thesis makes use of literature, such as books and articles, and secondary data (empirical data compiled by other researchers), such as previously performed master theses by Van Laar (2010), and Van Wezel (2013). To achieve credibility of the research, it is important to gather and use qualitatively appropriate literature. Therefore, mainly original materials and the most recent manuals are used to analyse the theories of QRM and LSTSD. In addition, articles are used in which the theory of L-STSD is addressed or assessed according to corresponding assessment criteria. The table below provides a list of the main literature that is used for the desk research (listed on year of publication).

Table 1 - References used for desk research

Author Title Year of

publication

Quick Response Manufacturing Suri Quick Response Manufacturing: A companywide

Approach to Reducing Lead Times 1998 Suri It’s About Time: The competitive Advantage of Quick

Response Manufacturing 2010 Suri MCT Quick Reference Guide 2014

Lowlands’ Sociotechnical System Design De Sitter Synergetisch produceren: Human resource mobilization in

de productie: een inleiding in de structuurbouw (3e_ed.) 2000

Kuipers, Amelsvoort, and Kramer

Het nieuwe organiseren: Alternatieven voor de

bureaucratie 2010

Achterbergh

and Vriens Organisations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments 2010 Van Laar Het sociotechnische en het multidimensionale

organisatieontwerp: Een vergelijkend onderzoek 2010

Van Wezel

Ontwerpen met structuurconcepten: Een studie naar de gebruiksmogelijkheden van structuurconcepten als ontwerptheorie voor organisaties.

2013

Christis and Soepenberg

Lowlands Sociotechnical Design Theory and Lean

(30)

30

3.2.2 Part 2 – A study within the field of QRM

To get more insights into the pragmatic challenges during the implementation of QRM, semi-structured interviews are conducted with QRM professionals. First of all, there are several types of interviews possible when doing research, such as structured interviews with closed questions, or unstructured interviews with one overall topic (Vennix, 2011). For this study, semi-structured, open-ended interviews are used. Within semi-structured interviews, the structure can be based on literature that is prepared beforehand, but still provides the possibility to ask further on questions given by respondents (Symon & Cassell, 2012; Verhoeven, 2014). This fits within this study, since the results of the desk research are used as input for structuring the interviews. In addition, the questions were open-ended to gather an in-depth understanding of the perspectives of the QRM professional.

In total, four semi-structured, open-ended interviews of one to one and a half hours long are conducted with QRM professionals. The QRM professionals were chosen on a couple of criteria.

1. The QRM professionals have multiple experiences with QRM implementations to reduce the chance of context specific responses.

2. The QRM professionals worked or still work as external consultants, since it is expected that their knowledge and experiences are again less context specific than that of internal organisational consultants or managers.

3. The QRM professionals are chosen from at least two different “QRM (advisory) centers”, to decrease the effect of one overall opinion influenced by the working environment.

4. The QRM professionals are accessible. This is due to the time limits of a master thesis trajectory.

These criteria resulted in the following QRM professionals that participated within the study of this thesis1:

Table 2 - Participated QRM professionals

1 _{All QRM professionals have given permission and preferred to use their full names within this} master thesis.

Participated QRM professionals Date of interview

Hans Gerrese 18 July 2017

Jannes Slomp 5 July 2017

Aldert van der Stoel 10 July 2017

(31)

31

All QRM professionals work or worked within known QRM centers within the Netherlands and collaborated with Rajan Suri. Hans Gerrese is owner of QRM Management Center and Leanteam. Since 2006, Hans Gerrese focuses with his company on the implementation of QRM principles within organisations, and the dissemination of QRM knowledge through the QRM Management Center. Jannes Slomp and Vincent Wiegel are both lecturer at the HAN Lean-QRM Center, and initiated the first QRM Center outside the USA in 2010 (as addressed in the introduction chapter). Aldert van der Stoel is a former colleague of the HAN Lean-QRM Center, and participated in a project, which took place from 2012 to 2015, to experiment with QRM principles within ten SMEs. Currently, he is responsible for the implementation of, among others, QRM principles within a German company.

The broad knowledge and experiences of the four QRM professionals described above, in combination with objectively analysing and comparing the qualitatively appropriate literature within the desk research result in transferability of the outcomes of the research, since the outcomes are less context specific and suitable to multiple QRM implementations.

Each interview started with a short introduction in which the main topic of the study received attention. Thereafter, the QRM professionals were asked to introduce themselves, and to describe their experience and difficulties during QRM implementations. To remain consistent with the desk research, the interviews continued by discussing the different activities of the functional dimension in more detail. The results of the desk research are integrated in this part of the interview, i.e. questions were asked about shortcomings within the theory of QRM that were identified during the desk research. Due to time limits, the interviews were mostly focused on the theory of QRM. Only in two interviews, the theory of L-STSD received some attention. The complete interview format can be found in appendix I. This appendix does also provide the general roadmaps that were used during the interviews, in which steps, described by Suri, were divided over the diagnostic, design and change activity. In the second and third interview, my choices to divide specific steps over these intervention activities gained attention. After critically reviewing the theory of QRM, I decided to slightly change the QRM roadmap, to prevent from additional discussions in the last interview. Fortunately, within this last interview, this was no longer an element of discussion.

All interviews are recorded. However, no complete transcripts of the interviews are made, since the subjects of the interviews were not discussed in the pre-structured order most of the time. Besides, all participants argued at the end of the interview that they did not want to read a “15 pages” long transcript. Therefore, the recording was sufficient to write a summary of the interview, based on the same topics that were addressed in the desk research.

Interventions for redesign. Is it time to move up a gear? A systematic analysis of the applicability of the QRM and L-STSD theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures

Interventions for redesign

Is it time to move up a gear?

A systematic analysis of the applicability of the QRM and L-STSD

theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures

Interventions for redesign

Is it time to move up a gear?

A systematic analysis of the applicability of the QRM and L-STSD

theories to diagnose, design and change organisational structures

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of figures and tables

List of abbreviations

Chapter one: Introduction

1.1

Part 1

Systematic analysis of the QRM and L-STSD theories

1.2

Part 2

A study within the field of QRM

1.3

Theoretical and practical relevance

1.4

Outline of the thesis

Chapter two: Theoretical framework

2.1

Short introduction of the QRM and L-STSD theories

2.2

Previous comparisons of organisational theories in literature

2.3

Diagnostic activity

2.4

Design activity

2.5

Change activity

2.6

Concluding framework

Chapter three: Methodology

3.1

Research strategy

3.2

Data collection