• No results found

Research Paper for Pre-MSc TOM

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Research Paper for Pre-MSc TOM"

Copied!
26
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Research Paper for Pre-MSc

TOM

Research Project 1B: The role of managers in shaping work design By

R.A. Marteijn, S4104889 Supervisor: S.A. Waschull Address: Lopendediep 28, Groningen

Mail: r.a.marteijn@student.rug.nl Telephone number: +31681007332

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

1

Empowering work design concepts that lead to involved operators and

effective implementation of smart manufacturing technologies

Ruben A Marteijn, University of Groningen

ABSTRACT

Purpose – This paper aims to explore empowerment concepts that managers use to involve operators in the implementation process of smart manufacturing technologies.

Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory case study consisting of four companies that are operating in the manufacturing industry, which currently have or are implementing smart manufacturing technology, was conducted.

Findings – Key findings show how specific empowerment concepts (common goal, communication, information-sharing, learning and developing, giving feedback and autonomy to operators) can be used by managers to involve operators in the

implementation of smart manufacturing technologies. Which according to this research also contributes to the successful implementation of smart manufacturing technologies.

Originality/value – This study is one of the first to analyze operator empowerment when implementing smart manufacturing technologies, it adds valuable new insights from a management perspective, if not operational level. A series of propositions explain the specific empowering concepts that management can use to involve the operator in the implementation process, beyond a single organizational perspective.

Keywords Smart Manufacturing, Operator 4.0, Employee Empowerment, Work Design Paper type Case study

Supervisor S.A. Waschull

(3)

2

Introduction

The fourth industrial revolution, or Industry 4.0, is one of the most trending topics in both professional and academic fields (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016). This concept has Smart Manufacturing (SM) as its central element (Cagliano, Canterino, Longoni, & Bartezzaghi, 2019). SM relies on the adoption of digital technologies, so-called Smart Manufacturing Technologies (SMT), as the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud services, big data and analytics, which provide useful information to the manufacturing system (Davis, Edgar, Porter, Bernaden, & Sarli, 2012). Therefore, most smart manufacturing organizations (SMO) have very complex technological architecture. Many researchers have studied the impact of the SMT on the SMO (Judge & Zapata, 2015; Kaasinen et al., 2020; Kolus, Wells, & Neumann, 2018). In particular, the literature on the impact of SMT on the so-called operators, working with these technologies, is one of the main concerns in this new industrial stage (Romero, Stahre, & Taisch, 2020). Arguing that the work of operators will change drastically, requiring new qualifications to master the SMT implemented by SMO (Romero et al., 2020). In other words, SMT affects the design of operators’ work (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016). According to researchers, the impact of technology on work design is mediated by the decisions of managers (Parker, Van Den Broeck, & Holman, 2017). However, managers have a hard time to identify concrete fields of action in involving and motivating operators in the implementation of the SMT (Schumacher, Erol, & Sihn, 2016).

The concept of operator involvement (OI) links to the employee empowerment concept, stating that the employee is an expert in their field or job, so they should have an active role in the process of shaping their work (Heikkilä, Honka, & Kaasinen, 2018). Hence, in reality, empowerment practices are not widely adopted, mostly because current literature focuses too much on advocating the motivational and strategic value of such practices to the neglect of the cost-efficiency aspects (Yin, Wang, & Lu, 2019). Moreover, there is a lack of studies providing insights about the way SMT are implemented by managers and what role the operators have during the implementation. This raises an important question: Which

empowering work design concepts facilitated by managers lead to the involvement of operators when implementing smart manufacturing technologies? The literature on the

subject has stressed the importance of effective implementation of SMT (Frank, Dalenogare, & Ayala, 2019). However, the effect of OI on the implementation of SMT has not been studied. Therefore, we additionally aim to find out: What is the effect of operator involvement during

the implementation process of smart manufacturing technology?

(4)

3

Theoretical Framework

In this paragraph, the concepts of the research question are further elaborated. First, ‘Empowering work design decisions’ are explained. Secondly, the concept ‘Involvement of the operator’ is addressed. Which in turn is linked to the “Effects on the implementation process’’. The three concepts are linked to the implementation of the SMT theme and visualized by a conceptual model.

Empowering work design decisions

The concept of ‘work design’ refers to the content and organization of work tasks, activities, relationships, and responsibilities (Cordery & Parker, 2012; Parker et al., 2017). This also links to the empowerment concept, stating that employees are experts in their field or job, so they should have involvement in the process of designing their work (Heikkilä et al., 2018). From the literature, two key concepts of empowerment can be derived. The first concept is the psychological dimension, this focuses on how employees perceive empowerment (Yin et al., 2019). Secondly, the multi-dimensional perspective, which reviews the power relationship as an interactive process whereby empowerment consists of developing and increasing power by working with others (Greasley et al., 2005). This research focusses on the latter relationship, in particular on how managers empower their employees namely operators. However, when taking a closer look at the body of literature on empowerment, by comparing the underlying constructs and capabilities used by managers to empower employees, some overlap was found. In Table 1 similarities and differences in the conceptualization of empowerment towards employees in research to date are shown.

Table 1 Literature on employee empowerment Create Autonomy Development and Learning Encouraging Role Give Feedback Monitor Empowerment Room for Creativity Shared Responsibility (Heikkilä et al., 2018) X X X X X X X (Yin et al., 2019) X X X X X X (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) X X X X X X (Greasley et al., 2005) X X X X X (Parker & Grote, 2020) X X X X X X (Kaasinen et al., 2020) X X X X X X

(5)

4

Involvement of the operator

To involve operators successfully, it is necessary to examine the role of the manager, and in this context ‘empowering operators’ mean that the style of the manager is designed in such a way that operators are given power or involvement in their work (Romero, Bernus, Noran, Stahre, & Berglund, 2016). Literature state that, SMO typically need to improve the cooperation between work task, activities, and requires a rapid adaption of operators (Gorecky, Khamis, & Mura, 2017; Rauch, Linder, & Dallasega, 2020; Romero et al., 2020). Moreover, the complexity of implementing SMT is found to be linked to certain work design choices that managers make regarding operators (Longo, Nicoletti, & Padovano, 2017). Typically, actions and choices of managers influence the design of the work of operators, because they make decisions about the allocation of resources (Cagliano et al., 2019). However, managers in the SM industry seldomly let operators participate in decision-making processes related to their work design (Digmayer & Jakobs, 2018). Mostly because managers focus too much on the economic value and cost-efficiency of work to the neglect of work design aspects (Yin et al., 2019). This research aims to find out how managers involve operators in the work design process, by analyzing empowering concepts managers use towards operators. Providing that it is crucial operators believe themselves to be ‘capable’ and ‘involved’ in the implementation process (Romero et al., 2020), and empowerment is a key mechanism providing this reassurance (Greasley et al., 2005).

Effects on the implementation process

Empowering work design concepts are also theorized to lead to performance effects

(Knight & Parker, 2019), noting that timely empowerment of employees allows them to learn, problem-solve, and more efficiently complete tasks in the future. Studies also state that empowerment allows employees to deal with problems when they arise rather than deferring them to managers, resulting in fast decision making (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Therefore, suggesting that involvement through empowerment is an effective way to manage the implementation of SMT, as literature state: when operators are given the right resources by their management, they work more actively toward their goals and have the potential to be more productive (Psoinos & Smithson, 2002). However, managers find it hard to identify concrete fields of action on the involvement operators (Schumacher et al., 2016). Moreover, SMO experience problems regarding the implementation of the SMT, particularly, because managers demand new qualifications and different skills of operators working with these technologies (Digmayer & Jakobs, 2018). This is why it is important to understand which empowering concepts managers use to involve operators and if this involvement affects certain outcomes linked to a successful implementation of SMT.

Conceptual framework

(6)

5

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Method Section

Research Design

For this research, a multiple case study has been conducted. Hammarberg, Kirkman, & De Lacey, (2016) state that the main objective of qualitative research is: ‘creating a methodology for approaching, understanding, analyzing and explaining management phenomena at a social or company level’. The unit of analysis in this study is the link between the empowering work design decision of the managers and the involvement of the operator. The explanatory character and the different factors that are analyzed determine that a case study is an appropriate research method (Hammarberg et al., 2016). By using a case study approach a broad research scope is used to find explanations in a real-life context. For this study, four different companies are chosen, to explain how different managers involve operators in the implementation of SMT because this generalizes the case results (Hammarberg et al., 2016).

Research Setting and case selection

For this study managers were chosen, as interviewees, based on the following criteria (1) active incorporation of smart manufacturing technology within their organization, (2) including operators that work with these technologies, and (3) managers that actively influence operators’ job.

The four different companies (named X, Y, Z, and A) are all big manufacturing companies in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the management of all four companies is confronted with the implementation of SMT. Therefore, the case organizations are of particular interest for investigating how these managers facilitate empowerment during the implementation of SMT: Company X is a multinational manufacturing company that operates within the food industry, implementing a new production line to upscale the capacities of the plant; Company Y is a wooden and plastic window frame manufacturer, that implemented a new highly automized wooden window frame machine; Company Z is a manufacturing plant producing store displays, POS material, and consumer packaging, implementing a project to start logging all machine malfunctioning; Company A is also a multinational manufacturing company that operates within the food industry, implementing a new responsive maintenance plan.

(7)

6 Hereby, selecting specific managers that have different disciplines (project, maintenance, team/business unit manager) and are of great importance to the organization in terms of getting the SMT implemented (see Table 2). The different backgrounds that are analyzed make the validation of the case study an appropriate research method (Hammarberg et al., 2016).

Table 2 Company and interview data

Data Collection

All data for this research has been collected through semi-structured interviews were conducted at four organizations, resulting in a total of six interviews with managers, collected between 01-04-2020 and 17-04-2020. In Table 2, background information on the organizations and managers can be found. For each case, individual interviews were organized over distance, using a digital platform i.e. Skype or Microsoft Teams. The choice for semi-structured interviews was made because this type of interview evokes more detailed, elaborative answers and allows them to give examples to the interviewees. Moreover, it gives the possibility to compare answers, which preserves the reliability of the study (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). All interviews began with general questions about the background of the interviewee and their relationship with the implementation project. Afterward, participants were asked to recall specific contributions or decisions regarding the implementation of the SMT. Especially focusing on how the manager handled and facilitated empowerment towards operators. All interviews were voice recorded and transcribed word by word. Through this method all the interviews could be coded and transformed into a detailed database in excel, to filter out useful and essential information. Provided that the interviewed managers and their organization's identity would stay anonymous.

Company Case description Information smart

manufacturing project interviewee 1 Position of interviewee 2 Position of

A A multinational

manufacturing company that operates within the food industry.

A total new production line was produced to upscale the capacities of the plant.

Project Manager

X A multinational

manufacturing company that operates within the food industry. Developing and implementing a predictive maintenance model

Project Manager Process Licenser

Y Wooden/plastic window

frame and prefab walls manufacturer.

Implementing a full-automatic wooden window frame machine. Head of the Technical Department Director (CEO) Z Manufacturing plant producing paper/cardboard displays, POS material, and consumer

packaging.

Project to start logging all machine

malfunctioning.

(8)

7

Data Analysis

The interviews were analyzed following the three steps suggested by (Miles, 1994): data reduction, data display, and conclusion. First, by loading the data in a qualitative data analysis software tool ‘Atlas.ti’. From the interview data, a distinction on the relevance of the data regarding our research was made. Hereby, reducing the data to quotes or paragraphs that were relevant for answering the research questions (order codes). Secondly, all first-order codes were formed into descriptive second-first-order categories such as ‘Educational background of the Manager’; ‘Function of the manager’. Afterward, the data was examined from multiple different perspectives and grouped into seven overarching categories, third-order themes. This gave the first indication of aspects that a manager needs to take into account when implementing SMT. Lastly, the data was linked to the four empowerment concepts derived from table 1. Appendix A visualizes the in-depth analysis, demonstrating the progressed data reduction (first-order codes) to descriptive codes (second-order categories) in third-order themes grounded from the literature in the theory section. Next, the six interviews were independently analyzed through this method (see Appendix B for an example of the coding). At the start of the analysis, we concentrated on individual cases, to become intimately familiar with the distinct concepts. Followed by a cross-case analysis, here identifying patterns were sought that could explain why managers made empowerment decisions related to OI. Of particular interest was data that could be linked to a successful implementation, and similar empowerment decisions or reasoning that led to OI. Finally, resulting in answering the research question.

To validate this research, multiple measures were taken to ensure qualitative data analysis. The research has been an iterative process to first, relate the data and findings to the underlying theoretical frameworks and literature, and secondly, rule out alternative interpretations (Scholten & Schilder, 2015).

Findings

The findings are divided into the three concepts from the conceptual framework: ‘Empowering work design decisions’; ‘Involvement of the Operators’; ‘Effects on the implementation process’, and structured using the four empowering concepts drawn from the literature: (1) Encouraging role, (2) give feedback, (3) development and training, (4) create autonomy. In Table 3 the most important findings in a single case analysis on each manager are presented.

Table 3 Single Case Analysis Important findings for each manager

Empowering work design decisions

Involvement of the Operators Effect on the

implementation process Project

Manager (Company A)

- Common goal: increases involvement;

- Give feedback: based on gut feeling; operators get direct performance feedback from SMT; - Training and development: software training to work with the SMT;

- Autonomy: manager does not stimulate autonomy, focus on results

- Reduces resistance and ideas of operators get used in the implementation process;

- It is important operators develop along with the implementation process

(9)

8 Project

Licenser (Company X)

- Common goal: no information; - Give feedback: no monitoring; - Training and development: no extra training and development, basic skills are needed;

- Autonomy: give decision autonomy to more senior operator

- Low involvement: SMT takes over error-detection and give clear error messages to operators, they only have to act exactly as described by the SMT

- Involvement made that the implementation went smoothly, especially when compared with previous projects where was no involvement, this resulted in friction and low motivation

Project Manager (Company X)

- Common goal: increases involvement;

- Give feedback: no monitoring; - Training and development: give training and development early on in the implementation process; - Autonomy: give autonomy decision to more senior operators

- Early training of operators creates involvement, this training and early

involvement is important for error detection along the implementation process

- Early error detection saved, the company a lot of money during the implementation process and especially after

CEO

(Company Y)

- Common goal: increases involvement;

- Give feedback: yearly performance update; - Training and development: retrain older operators to work with the new technology; - Autonomy: no information

- Try to involve everybody to the implementation process, with the old-line low

involvement led to friction; - Keeping young

knowledgeable operators involved after the

implementation is hard

- Through training and involvement, the SMT possible remarks from the operators could be taken into account;

- The knowledge of the operator is key for the success of the implementation Head of Technical Department (Company y)

- Common goal: increases involvement;

- Give feedback: operators get direct performance feedback from the SMT;

- Training and development: training to work with the SMT; - Autonomy: rotate operators from workstations to stimulate more autonomy

- Operators themselves enhance the SMT and have to work with the technology, so, involvement is key; - Create more autonomy through rotation and this creates more motivation

- Operator involvement can save the company a lot of money;

- In the previous

implementation process, low involvement cost the

company a lot of money

Manager Production & Assembly (Company Z)

- Common goal: increases involvement;

- Give feedback: operators feedback session during training about the SMT;

- Training and development: training to work with the SMT; - Autonomy: the manager shares responsibility on the progress of the implementation process with operators

- Operators are involved by making them partly responsible for the implementation process

- Giving decision autonomy could have a reverse effect: an operator was given decision autonomy, but he couldn’t cope with the responsibility and ended up calling in sick for weeks.

Secondly, a cross-case analysis was conducted. The findings are divided into two elements of the conceptual framework: ‘Involvement of the Operators’; ‘Effects on the implementation process’, and structured the same way as in the single case analysis, using the four

(10)

9

Involvement of the operators

Encouraging role

Our findings on an encouraging role highlight the importance of a common goal, which mangers communicate and share with operators, this increases OI:

''By giving training to operators from the start […] this involved them very much’’

– Company X (Project manager)

Involvement by information-sharing

In addition to an encouraging role, information-sharing is identified as an important involvement mediator. By linking the data from different cases, we found that this led to a supportive base and less friction regarding the implementation of SMT:

"You've got so much more support […] in the past if it hadn't happened enough, they'd fall over small issues’’

– Company Y (CEO)

Give feedback

We did not find significant data on direct feedback to operators, all six managers said they had no planned feedback moments and approached operators based on a gut feeling:

‘I'm just thinking if that was monitored at all […] No, there was no specific monitoring for that […] sometimes problems had been going on for weeks, and then they're telling me it suddenly, all out of the blue’’

– Company X (Project manager)

Involvement by feedback

However, the implementation of SMT also played an important role in giving operators feedback, Company Y (Head of the Technical Department and CEO). In the past operators criticized about small changes and operators expressed they wanted more feedback, which when given, resulted in a more supportive base:

'The quality of the people is very important [...] as is training and development [...] it would have cost us a lot of money if we hadn't trained our operators'' – Company Y (Head of the technical department)

Development and training

Our findings showed that through development and training, operators got the opportunity to generate ideas and act on those ideas which in turn creates a support base and OI:

"Allowing everyone to share their ideas, and you'll get a lot more people on the same side’’

– Company A (Project manager)

Hence, we observed that there is a big dependency on the knowledge of operators. Operators knowledge is crucial for the implementation process; it is directly linked to the success of the implementation:

‘We have noticed […] that we're limited to the capabilities of our staff ‘’

– Company Y (Head of the technical department)

''you see that quality and knowledge of the people determines the success of an implementation project''

(11)

10 Moreover, managers said it was important to keep operators challenged, as it keeps them interested in the work they do. Most managers struggled to attract and maintain skilled operators because of the easy and monotonous work operators had to perform after the implementation of the SMT:

“We can’t get higher educated guys in here. And we need to have that level of knowledge” – Company Y (CEO)

Create Autonomy

The findings indicate that the operators’ decision autonomy had no priority. Managers' main focus was on a higher degree of automatization and said their organization strives for the complete removal of human errors. Furthermore, after the implementation, the SMT had affected the decision-making autonomy of the operators, as observed in all cases:

‘’Operators only have to do what is asked of them […] Low autonomy […] Above all, I think it’s about removing people's mistakes, to take it out human-error sensitivity’’ – Company X (Project Manager);

’’Machines are taking over the human-thinking’’ – Company Y (Head of Technical Department) "We're trying to automate as much as possible […] to run the factory with as few operators as possible’’

– Company Z (Manager Production & Assembly)

Involvement by Autonomy

Low autonomy had a controversial effect on the implementation of SMT and resulted in resistance from operators, negatively affecting their involvement and willingness to change. Therefore, responsibility should be shifted towards the operators a manager claims, this creates a supportive base and contributes to a successful implementation:

‘’"I also think that by making them co-responsible, they carry the project [...] as long as everyone is involved and motivated, it will always become a success" – Company A (project manager)

However, in one case an operator couldn’t cope with this responsibility and caused the operators to report in sick due to stress for several weeks:

‘"On operators was a little shocked by the given responsibility […] that shock acutely caused him to call in sick’’

– Company X (Process Licenser) Effects on the implementation process

Effect of trained and knowledgeable operators

Interestingly, the findings showed that development and training are not only related to involvement but also, lead to more knowledgeable operators, which reduces mistakes and errors, improving the overall effectiveness of the implementation process.

‘This makes them actively involved in identifying all kinds of errors [...] with late or no involvement those errors stay there for many years''– Company X (Project manager

Moreover, our findings show that the improvement of knowledge is also linked to a decreased implementation cost:

'The quality of the people is very important [...] the training [...] it costs a lot of money when we didn't do that''

(12)

11 However, skilled and knowledgeable operators became bored after the implementation of SMT because the machines did all the work, which negatively affected their willingness to work with the implemented technology:

“There have been conversations with operators that said their work had got too simple for them, and then we temporarily moved them to another workstation, if they want to" – Company Y (CEO)

Some operators even lost their job because they couldn’t cope or agree with the implementation. This harmed the progress and even resulted in malfunctioning plant because of a loss in knowledge and skills:

‘’At one point we did have to throw some operators out [...] therefore, we had to start with a team of operators that was inexperienced. As a result, the complex machines just didn't function properly anymore''

– Company X (Process Licenser)

Effect of information-sharing

Furthermore, low levels of information-sharing and collaborative communication reduced the supportive base. This led to less knowledgeable operators and resistance towards the implementation, and adaptation of SMT, which resulted in significantly higher implementations cost.

Effect of autonomy

Our finding showed that early involvement and decision autonomy of operators during the implementation process leads to error-detection, less friction during the implementation, and more motivated operators after the implementation. Low autonomy and involvement had a controversial effect on the implementation of the ST, this resulted in resistance from the operators and lead to much higher implementation costs as stated below:

“With the experience at the previous line, late involvement had cost a lot of money [...] most people were not involved until the line was already running’’– Company Y (Head of the technical department)

Discussion

As the impact of managerial action on work design decisions remains high (Lee & Koh, 2001), there are several empowerment concepts managers can use to involve the operator during the implementation of SMT. Which is especially useful according to our research, since this involvement contributes to the successful implementation of SMT. Therefore, this paper contributes valuable empirical insights into the concept of managers that facilitates empowerment towards operators. Hereby, extending Greasley et al., (2005) findings. Managers that engaged in the four identified empowerment concepts improve OI, operators learning capabilities, and the overall performance of the organization.

(13)

12 Interestingly, our findings also indicate that the early involvement of operators improves their knowledge development on processes and procedures, which in turn increases error detection and reduces implementation costs. Moreover, early information sharing stimulates the operators’ willingness to change, so that over-reactions, unnecessary interventions, and ineffective decisions can be reduced or even prevented. Furthermore, individual specialization may increase how fast work tasks are performed (Knight & Parker, 2019). All these factors have a positive effect on the implementation cost. Which leads to our first proposition:

P1. Early involvement of operators through information-sharing and training activities during the implementation of SMT stimulates their involvement and increases error detection.

- A common goal and early information-sharing creates a supportive base that stimulates OI and positively affects their willingness to change;

- Early training of operators makes them more knowledgeable on the processes and procedures of the implementation process, this increases error detection and reduces costs

Hence, some managers struggled to maintain knowledgeable operators within the organization. The main reason for this was the easy and monotonous work the operators had to perform after the implementation of the SMT. In all cases, the managers needed knowledgeable operators for their problem-solving ability, thus we propose that:

P2. To maintain knowledgeable operators within the organization it is important to keep challenging them.

- SMO need skilled operators for their problem-solving ability, as their knowledge on procedures and processes

Furthermore, our findings showed that creating decision autonomy had no priority. Consequently, most organizations were focused on a higher degree of automatization and strive for the complete removal of human errors. This is in line with literature on SMO and empowerment concepts (Fernandez, 2013; Greasley et al., 2005; Kaasinen et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2019). However, one manager said that decision autonomy led to more involvement. This is in line with the study of Hales (2020), stating involvement is advocated as both an effective program of organizational change and as a necessary component of successful changes within a manufacturing organization. By combining the latter study with our findings, we propose:

P3a. Responsibility regarding the implementation process should be shifted towards the operators, giving them substantial decision autonomy.

- This helps to create a supportive base, leads to more involvement and importantly, contributes to a successful implementation

Moreover, a manager needs to anticipate the operator’s willingness and capability to bear autonomy (Parker & Grote, 2020). However, our results showed that some employees cannot cope with this responsibility, and we additionally propose:

(14)

13 In uncertain conditions, quick response and effectiveness are more likely to be realized if timely feedback about performance is present (Knight & Parker, 2019). This promotes faster learning, allowing individuals to reevaluate work methods, problem-solve, and change their methods sooner rather than later, leading to optimal performance (Heikkilä et al., 2018). Although we did not find significant results on feedback towards operators, managers said the implemented SMT gave operators the possibility for real-time performance feedback. Therefore, we propose:

P4. Managers need to invest in ways to provide quick and efficient feedback, possibly integrating this feedback in the SMT operators use.

Conclusion

Although the positive effects of operator empowerment and involvement are known in certain theory and practice, our insights identify specific concepts that give answers to the question: Which empowering work design concepts facilitated by managers lead to the

involvement of operators when implementing smart manufacturing technologies? Four

concepts of empowerment have been recognized as a facilitating element of OI. Interestingly, a combination of concepts had the best result, in particular an encouraging role & learning and development. Resulting in not only more involved and motivated operators, but it also leads to more knowledgeable operators. Furthermore, we answered: What is the effect of

operator involvement during the implementation process of smart manufacturing technology?

Our findings showed in the first place that OI contributed to a successful implementation of SMT. Secondly, it reduces implementation costs and resistance from operators, and thirdly contributing to a more knowledgeable organization. Consequently, reducing the impact of possible problems and errors occurring in stages after the implementation of the SMT.

Managerial implications

(15)

14

Limitations and research implications

(16)

15

References:

Cagliano, R., Canterino, F., Longoni, A., & Bartezzaghi, E. 2019. The interplay between smart manufacturing technologies and work organization: The role of technological

complexity. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 39(6): 913–934.

Cordery, J., & Parker, S. K. 2012. Work Design: Creating Jobs and Roles That Promote Individual Effectiveness. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0009.

Davis, J., Edgar, T., Porter, J., Bernaden, J., & Sarli, M. 2012. Smart manufacturing, manufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 47: 145–156.

Digmayer, C., & Jakobs, E. M. 2018. Employee empowerment in the context of domain-specific risks in industry 4.0. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.

Fernandez, S. 2013. Employee Empowerment_Testing Causal Model. The American Society for Public Administration, 73(3): 490.

Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. 2019. Industry 4.0 technologies:

Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 210(January): 15–26.

Gorecky, D., Khamis, M., & Mura, K. 2017. Introduction and establishment of virtual training in the factory of the future. International Journal of Computer Integrated

Manufacturing, 30(1): 182–190.

Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Soetanto, R., et al. 2005. Employee perceptions of empowerment. Employee Relations, 27(4): 354–368.

Hales, C. 2020. Management and Empowerment Programmes Author ( s ): Colin Hales Published by : Sage Publications , Ltd . Stable URL :

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23747597 Management and Empowerment Programmes, 14(3): 501–519.

Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. 2016. Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3): 498–501.

Heikkilä, P., Honka, A., & Kaasinen, E. 2018. Quantified factory worker: Designing a worker feedback dashboard. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 515–523. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. 2016. Digitalisierung industrieller Arbeit: Entwicklungspfade und

Perspektiven. Journal for Labour Market Research, 49(1): 1–14.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5): 1332– 1356.

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. 2015. The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal.

Kaasinen, E., Schmalfuß, F., Özturk, C., Aromaa, S., Boubekeur, M., et al. 2020. Empowering and engaging industrial workers with Operator 4.0 solutions. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 139(January 2019): 105678.

Knight, C., & Parker, S. K. 2019. How work redesign interventions affect performance: An evidence-based model from a systematic review. Human Relations.

(17)

16 Kolus, A., Wells, R., & Neumann, P. 2018. Production quality and human factors engineering:

A systematic review and theoretical framework. Applied Ergonomics, 73(May): 55–89. Lee, M., & Koh, J. 2001. Is empowerment really a new concept? International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 12(4): 684–695.

Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., & Padovano, A. 2017. Smart operators in industry 4.0: A human-centered approach to enhance operators’ capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory context. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 113: 144–159.

Miles, M. A. 1994. Miles and Huberman (1994)- Chapter 4.pdf. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):

Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1321–1339.

Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. 2020. Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World. Applied Psychology, 0(0): 1–45.

Parker, S. K., Van Den Broeck, A., & Holman, D. 2017. Work design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the design of jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 267–308.

Psoinos, A., & Smithson, S. 2002. Employee empowerment in manufacturing: A study of organisations in the UK. New Technology, Work and Employment, 17(2): 132–148. Rauch, E., Linder, C., & Dallasega, P. 2020. Anthropocentric perspective of production before

and within Industry 4.0. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 139(January 2019): 105644.

Romero, D., Bernus, P., Noran, O., Stahre, J., & Berglund, Å. F. 2016. The operator 4.0: Human cyber-physical systems & adaptive automation towards human-automation symbiosis work systems. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication

Technology, 488: 677–686.

Romero, D., Stahre, J., & Taisch, M. 2020. The Operator 4.0: Towards socially sustainable factories of the future. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 139(November 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106128.

Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. 2015. The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Management, 20(4): 471–484.

Schumacher, A., Erol, S., & Sihn, W. 2016. A Maturity Model for Assessing Industry 4.0 Readiness and Maturity of Manufacturing Enterprises. Procedia CIRP, 52: 161–166. Yin, Y., Wang, Y., & Lu, Y. 2019. Antecedents and outcomes of employee empowerment

(18)

i

Appendix A coding scheme

3# Link to theory section (third-order theme) #2 Descriptive code (second-order categories) Link to Empowerment Actions

A Background information on the change project A1 Background information on the reason for the change project (3) Team development and training A2 Educational background of the Manager

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training A3 Function of the manager

A4 Organisational culture within the company (1) Creating a common goal and communication, (4) Decision autonomy A5 Personality characteristics manager

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (4) Decision autonomy

A6 Project team internal commumication, connectivity and envolvement (1) Creating a common goal and communication A7 The managers previous experience on change projects

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (4) Decision autonomy

A8 The managers responsibilities on a daily base A9 Work presure on the manager (Mental/Physical)

B Impact of the change project B1 Changes in working method for the user of the smart technology

(3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy B2 Impact of the problem(s) on the project (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy B3 Impact of the project on the work design

B4 Implementation problem(s) that needed to be solved

(3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy B5 Job dissapears because of the new adopted smart technology (4) Decision autonomy B6 Operators/Maintenance engineers responsibilities Change

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training B7 Who is responsable solving problems occuring regarding the implementation of the change project

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (4) Decision autonomy

C Employee empowerment C1 Celebrating succeses with the implementation of the change project

C2 Employee Autonomy (4) Decision autonomy

C3 Employee responsible for their own work design within the project

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy C4 handing over the responsibility

C5 Manager measuring employee involvement regaring the implementation (2) Give feedback, (4) Decision autonomy C6 Managers responsibility in communication and stiring the project team

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (2) Give feedback, (4) Decision autonomy

C7 Results of Employee Empowerment, User/Operator Involvement

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy

C8 User of the smart technology recieve feedback (from new technology)

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (2) Give feedback

C9 User/Operator training and developement of skills with new implementation

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy C10 Way of measuring the criterea and goals set regarding the change project

(2) Give feedback, (3) Team development and training

D Information on the manager D1 Educational background of the Manager D2 Function of the manager

D3 Personality characteristics manager

D4 The managers previous experience on change projects

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy

D5 The managers responsibilities on a daily base D6 Work presure on the manager (Mental/Physical) E Work Design E1 Impact of the smart technology regarding work design

E2 The role/working method of the user of the implemented technology (4) Decision autonomy E3 Job complexity operators (3) Team development and training E4 New skills the user of the (new) smart technology has to obtain (3) Team development and training

E5 The view of the manager regarding the progress of the change project

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy

E6 Creating involvement of the user in the implementation plan (1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training

E7 Involvement of the user in the implementation plan

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy

E8 Involvement of the user of the smart technology (1) Creating a common goal and communication, (4) Decision autonomy F Background information on the change project F1 Information on the implementation of the change project

F2 Background information on the reason for the change project

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (3) Team development and training F3 Explanation of the (new) smart technology (4) Decision autonomy F4 Handing over the responsibility (3) Team development and training F5 People/Functions involved in the change project (4) Decision autonomy F6 Similar change projects within the organization

F7 Technology problem that needs to be solved

F8 User of the smart technology recieve feedback (from new technology) (2) Give feedback G Successes of the change project G1 Celebrating succeses with the implementation of the change project

(19)

ii

Link to theory section (third-order theme) #2

Descriptive code

(second-order categories) Data reduction (first-order codes)

Link to Empowerment Actions Case

Employee empowerment C2 Employee Autonomy

Die vrijheid stimuleer ik niet perse. Wel dat ze resultaat halen in wat ik graag zou willen zien. In dit project zal ik dan vooral vragen hoeveel is er al gebeurd? Wat voor voortgang heb je?

Welke acties lopen er, dat soort zaken. (4) Decision autonomy A (Project Manager)

veel zelfmanagement, ook bij de maintenance engineers. [00:49:38] Manager Ja maar dan wel met de vraag elke keer van wanneer ga je wat opleveren dan ook. Dan ook vragen van loopt het ook en zo niet waar loop je dan tegenaan. Of

waarom heb je toen geen hulp gevraagd bijvoorbeeld. (4) Decision autonomy A (Project Manager)

Hebben jullie ook rekening gehouden met de kennis die de operators moesten hebben en de autonomie? (Hoeveel ze zelf hun werk mochten indelen). Is daar ook rekening mee gehouden?. Deelnemer [00:36:45] Ja, zo min mogelijk dus. Wat we daarvoor ook al hebben gezegd. ‘Ze mogen eigenlijk qua settings, mogen ze niet veel veranderen, ze moeten ook

echt doen wat er van hen wordt gevraagd. Weinig autonomie’. (4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

Maar is er ook nog iets aan, hoe ze zelf toch nog wat meer autonomie kunnen krijgen op een andere manier, omdat jullie dat ook hebben? Deelnemer [01:18:11] Dat hebben we vooral via de teamleider gespeeld, die had wat meer autonomie. Die heeft ook echt wel wat structurele problemen met de andere afdelingen, maar dat is niet. Dat was niet een project deliverable, dus dat is gewoon een jonge vent die ambitieus

begint aan een nieuwe baan. (4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

Geïnterviewde: Er wordt voor de medewerkers gedacht als hun iets verkeerd doen stopt de machine. Eigenlijk wordt het denken overgenomen van de mens. Deze mensen rouleren ook met dit soort controle werk omdat je dat niet dag in dag uit 8 uur per dag doen, dat gaat niet, dan moet je wisselen. In andere werkzaamheden kunnen ze nog wel meer hun autonomie kwijt, waar ze zelf nog wel meer keuzes kunnen maken. Daar werken ze nog vanaf een tekening en bij de

kozijnenlijn heeft de machine dat overgenomen. (4) Decision autonomy

Y (Head of the Technical Department)

Ja die hebben, ja. Met name met dat performance bord. 'Dit is jullie machine, ik stel jullie verantwoordelijk voor alles wat eraf komt. Dus julie zijn verantwoordelijk voor het product, dus als dat fout is dan weet ik jou te vinden.' Heel plat gezegd. Dat is de andere uitleg hè. Ik zeg ik eis dat namelijk van jou, dus als je op dat bord zet dat alles rozige maneschijn is, je hebt geen problemen, alles is groen zeg maar, en je genereert rommel? Ja, dat is jouw probleem. Dus ja de verantwoording zit wel knoeihard bij hun. Dat was vroeger niet. De machine is kapot, er was altijd wel iets, het weer is niet goed, weetikveel wat ze allemaal hebben. Eh ja, dus ze hebben wel daadwerkelijk echt de verantwoordelijkheid. Jij bent de machinevoerder, dus jij bent verantwoordelijk voor het product dat er af komt. Jij bent

zels eigenaar van de machine op het moment dat je er staat. (4) Decision autonomy

Z (Manager Production & Assembly)

C3

Employee responsible for their own work design within the project

En die werkverdeling, die rolverdeling. Ja, dat hebben we aan de teams van operators zelf overgelaten.

(1) Creating a common goal and

communication X (Project Manager)

Dus ze hadden niet echt volledige inspraak. Alleen wel dat er kennis vanuit hun geworven werd. Deelnemer [00:48:49] Daar werd de afstemming mee gedaan en in die vorm hebben zij zeker inspraak gehad, maar geen veto.

(3) Team development and training, (4)

Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

C5

Manager measuring employee involvement regaring the implementation

Dat is een onderbuikgevoel. [00:45:33] Ruben Het is niet dat je, laat ik zeggen elke maand met een engineer om tafel gaat zitten om te vragen hoe het staat met het project? [00:45:48] Manager Naja dan zou hij een mooie verhalen ophangen. Maar het is meer dat ik kort binnen loop om even polshoogte te nemen van hoe loopt het en heb je die al eens gesproken of laat eens zien wat je hebt. En stel dan die drie keer achter elkaar krijg je niks. Ja dan prik je er zo door heen en dan kan je vragen waarom lukt het niet? Waar loop je tegenaan? Of wat

houd je tegen? (2) Give feedback A (Project Manager)

Ja, ze hebben inspraak gehad bij de afstemming. Er is gebouwd waar zij instemming mee hebben gegeven, dus wat zij hebben gevraagd. Dat wordt vastgelegd in een document en wij toetsen daartegen.

(2) Give feedback, (4)

Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

ook niet gecheckt of de operators zelf dat gevoel hadden dat ze betrokken waren? Deelnemer [01:15:56] Ja, dat ging altijd op dat gesprek. Er werd dan gezegd van joh," dit probleem speelt er al weken" en ik zeg "Dan hoor ik het nu voor het

eerst". Dus ja, ook echt in gespreksvorm. (2) Give feedback, X (Project Manager)

[01:39:29] Ik zit even te denken of dat uberhaupt werdt gemonitord. Euh, de betrokkenheid. Nee, daar was geen specifieke monitoring voor. Wij gaven natuurlijk wel een signaal af als wij merkten van hé er gebeurt niks of de acties worden niet opgevolgd, zal ik maar zeggen. Maar dan was het meer dat wij zelf merkten van dingen die niet goed worden opgepakt dan dat we zeiden dat het... Dat zij aangaven... Dat we gezien hadden van hé we zien dat de operator interactie afneemt. Dus eigenlijk als de eigen punten mislukken, niet opgepakt worden

en daardoor reageren wij (2) Give feedback, X (Process Licenser)

(20)

iii

C6

Managers responsibility in communication and stiring the project team

Nee je je hebt de doelstelling van de maintenance engineer, weggezet over de tijdspan van dit jaar. Ze moeten bijvoorbeeld een x aantal installaties al zo ver hebben om een implementatie bij te doen. En zelf ben ik meer verantwoordelijk om even de vraag stellen hoe loopt het? Hoe ver sta je. Waar loop je tegenaan? Wat vind je lastig? Welke uitdagingen heb je. Heb je

hulp nodig? (2) Give feedback, A (Project Manager)

Ja, en na die start-up fase en met name ook tijdens die ramp-up fase werd het eigenaarschap om die punten op te lossen,

meer en meer bij operations en bij onderhoud gelegd. (4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

Hoe is dat gecommuniceerd? Deelnemer [00:47:27] Wij hebben die afdeling gevraagd een vertegenwoordiger te sturen in het project. Dus, van de afdeling onderhoud, automatisering en operations. Die hebben vanaf het moment van ontwerp tot en met het laatst meegelopen in het project en die moesten de belangen van hun afdeling vertegenwoordigen. En zij moesten

hun achterban ook op de hoogte houden. (4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

Hoe is dit gecommuniceerd naar de operators of naar de afdelingen? Deelnemer [01:14:08] Zij hielden tijdens het werk zelf zogenaamde kaartjes bij op een whiteboard. Dus als er wat was, dan schreven ze een magneetkaart op een whiteboard. Dat werd verzameld door een vertegenwoordiger en die koppelde dat naar het project terug, zodat wij snapten wat er opgelost moest worden. En wij waren betrokken bij de implementatie van de oplossing. Dus dan werd daar ook

uitgelegd of training on the job. (4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

[00:54:12] Er zijn verscheidene keren zijn er bijeenkomsten geweest waarbij grotere groepen operators betrokken zijn geweest. Dat ze bij de review rondes aanwezig waren. Dat we op het eind ontwerp, wat we dan wilden, lieten een grote groep komen en die konden daar naar kijken. Een zegje doen en dan werd er gekeken wat we er aan konden doen. En er werd ook teruggekoppeld van deze opmerkingen zijn gekomen. Deze

opmerkingen kunnen we meenemen. (4) Decision autonomy X (Process Licenser)

Ik heb ze met name laten inzien hoe dit bij andere bedrijven werkt. Bijvoorbeeld zijn we naar Scania in Zwolle geweest, die zijn heel erg ver in dit soort dingen. Toen hebben we een groep mee laten doen. Ik vertelde over dat lasbedrijf. Daar werkte een stel boeren, de zoemer ging om 4 uur en dan liep iedereen de tent uit. Je hebt Heerema in Rotterdam, die maken kraanschepen. Ik heb de hele fabriek in de bus naar dat schip gebracht. Dus die jongens liepen op dat schip en zeiden: dit kunnen we ook zo doen, en dit kunnen wij veel beter lassen. Ik zei dat is prima jongens, maar dat betekent wel dat we soms niet om 4 uur naar huis kunnen. Dat zijn vaak schepen die komen even de haven in, dat zijn producten daar kun je grof geld aan verdienen. Dat is goed voor de boterham. Maar als dat ding morgen de haven uit gaat varen maar he werk is nog niet af, dat kun je drie keer doen maar daarna is je bedrijf failliet. Als je die mensen zelf laat zien wat het voordeel is, dan heb je ze binnen. Dat gold voor hier ook. Andere fabrieken laten zien, als we dit inzichtelijk kunnen maken komen we van die storing af waar je de hele tijd last van hebt. De kunst zit hem erin om met name de etters in de fabriek, de informele leiders, mee te krijgen. Dus die moet je herkennen en met een bak koffie gaan investeren. Jij met je grote bek altijd. We hebben hier veel van die kampers rondlopen, gigantische bek. Als je die aan boord hebt, dan heb je de helft van het werk al gedaan. En dat is het leuke. Dat vind ik het leukste aan het vak hoor. Je hebt aan de bovenkant met de CEO te maken, en soms zit je ook met de kamper op de hoek een bak koffie te drinken om het gedaan te krijgen.

(1) Creating a common goal and communication, (4) Decision autonomy Z (Manager Production & Assembly) C7 Results of Employee Empowerment, User/Operator Involvement

De weerstand wordt verminderd en de ideeën die ze hebben worden ook gebruikt in het hele proces. Ook zodat ze achteraf niet kunnen zeggen ja, maar zo ben ik het ermee eens. Of dit wil ik anders duidelijk.

(1) Creating a common goal and

communication, (4)

Decision autonomy A (Project Manager)

Door training te geven, door ze heel erg te betrekken bij het opstarten, waarbij er dus bij het identificeren van allerlei fouten. We hebben ze heel erg gemotiveerd om zolang het project er nog is om zoveel mogelijk fouten aan te dragen, want dan konden we ze nog oplossen. Want als het project eenmaal weg is dan blijven die fouten er soms al veel jaren inzitten.

(1) Creating a common goal and

communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision

autonomy X (Project Manager)

Dus ze hadden niet echt volledige inspraak. Alleen wel dat er kennis vanuit hun geworven werd. Deelnemer [00:48:49] Daar werd de afstemming mee gedaan en in die vorm hebben zij

zeker inspraak gehad, maar geen veto. (4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

over de vaardigheden die de operators moesten leren en dus wat voor taken ze uiteindelijk kregen? Dat het anders is dan dat het was? Deelnemer [00:45:26] Ja, dat is wel een leuke. Daar is eigenlijk niet zo heel veel mee gedaan eigenlijk. De regel is eigenlijk dat een operator of operators moeten eigenlijk multifunctioneel zijn, dus overal inzetbaar. In zekere zin snap ik dat, maar bij een opstart met nieuwe technologieën vind ik dat eigenlijk geen goed idee. Want dan moet je eigenlijk eerst hebben dat één of twee mensen... Eerst moeten die kennis en vaardigheden opgebouwd hebben. Daarna moet je dat gaan delen.

(3) Team development

and training X (Process Licenser)

[01:42:23] Dat is. Voor een deel is dat spontaan gegaan. Eén iemand zou de lead moeten nemen. Dat was die operator die niet zo heel goed was, zou ik maar zeggen. Daar hebben we van teruggegeven, die moeten we niet hebben, we moeten een ander hebben. Toen kregen wij iemand die het op zich zou moeten kunnen. Alleen die schrok een beetje van de verantwoording, zal ik wel zeggen, die hij kreeg. Dus, die schoot acuut in de ziektewet, dus dat schoot niet echt op. En toen hadden wij dus eventjes geen voormannen.

(3) Team development and training, (4)

Decision autonomy X (Process Licenser)

Geïnterviewde: De hoofdreden was dat we met de vorige lijn, de ervaring hadden dat het heel veel geld gekost heeft toen we dat niet gedaan hebben. Want toen werden de meeste mensen er pas bij betrokken op het moment dat de lijn er al stond. En daarom hebben we dit nu al voortijdig gedaan en dat werkte veel beter.

(1) Creating a common goal and

communication, (3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy

Y (Head of the Technical Department)

Geïnterviewde: Er zijn wel een gesprekken geweest met jongen die zeggen dat het werk te simpel wordt voor hun en dan komen ze tijdelijk op een andere plek te staan als ze dat willen. Ze komen er gelukkig ook zelf mee.

(3) Team development and training

Y (Head of the Technical Department)

Geïnterviewde: Ja met name door de operator worden er verbetering doorgevoerd. Wat kan er beter en was is de volgorde van de bewerkingen. Ze hebben veel meer kijk daarop dan wij en als ze ergens mee komen, dan wordt er gebeld met de leverancier of we die aanpassingen doen. Veel zijn dan softwarematige aanpassingen.

(3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy Y (Head of the Technical Department)

Geïnterviewde: De trainingen werden gewoon hier bij het bedrijf gedaan vaak door de leverancier. De vragen die de operators hebben moeten ze opschrijven en om de zoveel tijd kom er iemand van de leverancier die dan 2 dagen aan de slag gaat met de vragen van de operators en waar nodig aanpassingen doen aan de machine.

(21)

iv

Link to theory section

(third-order theme) #2

Descriptive code

(second-order categories) Data reduction (first-order codes)

Link to Empowerment

Actions Case

Impact of the change project B1

Changes in working method for the user of the smart technology

Ik denk van de operator niet maar die van de maintenance engineer zeker wel. De manier van onderhoud en het moment waarop gaat anders zijn als nu. Maar de operator moet gewoon zorgen dat zijn installatie draait, op het moment dat zijn installatie draait, hoef hij niks te doen. Het enige wat hij zou moeten merken is dat die minder bonnen aanmaakt voor storingen of verzoeken omdat dit automatisch gemeten wordt en geregistreerd wordt, het heeft wel effect op hem.

Maar het zou weinig veranderen. (4) Decision autonomy A (Project Manager)

Het is en blijft één geheel, want de actie komt eruit op een ander moment. Maar je hebt wel dat de monteur nog steeds de actie moet doen. En de maintenance engineer bepaald nog steeds wat zijn de grenzen. Zeg maar wanneer iets wel en niet onderhoud moet krijgen?[00:28:34] Ruben Duidelijk. Ontstaat er hierdoor meer zelfstandigheid bij de maintenance ingenieurs? Want nu wordt er vooral een misschien al vooraf bepaald. Welk onderhoud wordt gedaan. Dat ze meer kunnen kiezen vanuit een groot scherm of tablet, van dit ga ik eerst doen?

(3) Team development and training,

(4) Decision autonomy A (Project Manager)

Wat het nu is, vind ik het te veel 'precies doen wat er moet gebeuren met te weinig kennis van hoe het zou moeten zijn'. dus veel meer proceskennis zouden ze moeten hebben. Interviewer [00:34:53] Ja oké en wat zou je willen zien? Deelnemer [00:35:05] Ik heb dat bij mijn vorige werkgever gezien. Daar waren de operators, die hebben eigenlijk de lijn ontworpen, getest en in gebruik genomen. Dus dat was echt de... Dat was de uitvoerende laag van het project. Interviewer [00:35:19] Dus daar waren de operators, zelf, ook veel meer betrokken bij het project? Deelnemer [00:35:22] Ja

(3) Team development and training,

(4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

Hebben jullie ook rekening gehouden met de kennis die de operators moesten hebben en de autonomie? (Hoeveel ze zelf hun werk mochten indelen). Is daar ook rekening mee gehouden?. Deelnemer [00:36:45] Ja, zo min mogelijk dus. Wat we daarvoor ook al hebben gezegd. ‘Ze mogen eigenlijk qua settings, mogen ze niet veel veranderen, ze moeten ook echt doen wat er van hen wordt gevraagd. Weinig autonomie’.

(3) Team development and training,

(4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

In ieder geval bij de vorkheftruckchauffeurs, wat er met hen gebeurt is dat weet ik niet. Die veranderingen worden toch meestal wel binnen die afdelingen opgevangen en op andere plekken. Weet je er komt toch een lijn bij die twee keer zoveel produceert als andere lijnen. Dus dan heb je die mensen alsnog nodig om andere transportbewegingen te doen. Dus op zo'n manier is dat een beetje weg gemasseerd

volgens mij. (4) Decision autonomy X (Project Manager)

Voor de operators is het dus dat ze veel minder aan de machines zelf mogen veranderen. Voor onderhoud is, ja er zijn machines toch echt met nieuwe technologieën gebruikt, vision systemen, een vuller bijvoorbeeld die met een andere technologie werkt. En voor de afdeling automatisering, ja die hele automatiseringslaag van SAP naar MES, naar de lijnbesturing dus naar de machine besturing, die hele integratie en de afstemming tussen al die machines dat is een hele

grote verandering. (3) Team development and training X (Project Manager)

Precies, dus je kan eigenlijk zeggen dat voor onderhoud en automatisering wat ik hieruit haal is: ‘Dat hun skills aan hun kennis

verbreed moet worden. tenminste hun skill gebruik. (3) Team development and training X (Project Manager)

Ja, voor de operators geldt dat ze veel meer bij de... Bij de andere verpakkingslijn zijn ze werkplek georiënteerd en dan bedienen ze gewoon de machines. En hoe gek dat ook klinkt, zijn ze veel minder onderdeel van de van de hele keten van die lijn van machines. Bij de PKV is die lijn zo ontworpen, dat als de ene machine slecht draait gaat de andere machine wat langzamer draaien. Dus, die de hele lijn ademt in de capaciteitssnelheid. En dus worden de operators gedwongen ook om na te denken, als dit hier bij mij fout gaat dan heeft dat eigenlijk direct gevolg, ook voor de andere werkplekken. Interviewer [00:55:36] Ze zijn dus veel meer afhankelijk van elkaar.

(3) Team development

and training X (Project Manager)

Ja, nou in de zin van, nou zelfsturend. Ja, op zich de onderlinge snelheden en zo dat regelt de lijn zelf. Dus dat. En er zitten dus ook bijvoorbeeld een aantal dingen in, dat is een andere manier van werken dan dat operators gewend waren. Bijvoorbeeld, als bij het einde van de order, dan willen ze natuurlijk niet te veel lege blikken op de lijn hebben gezet. Want blikken die op de lijn staan als het over is, dan moet het weggegooid worden. Dus dat willen ze dan optimaliseren. Voorheen gebeurde dat, doordat de operator die de lege blikken op de lijn zet en de operator die aan het storten is, die praten dan met elkaar. "Hoeveel poeder heb je nog? Ja zoveel. Oh… dan gooi ik er nog zoveel op" Zo stemmen ze dat een beetje af. Wij hebben het in deze lijn zo ontworpen, dat het automatisch gaat gebeuren. Maar dat is bijvoorbeeld wel iets, waar we heel veel discussie over hebben gehad met de operators, want die waren dat gewend om dat allemaal lekker zelf te doen en een beetje heen en weer te roepen met mekaar. En dat gaat nu automatisch.

(3) Team development

and training X (Process Licenser)

er zijn inderdaad een aantal heftruckers... Ik denk dat daar een mix is geweest van natuurlijke afvloeiingen als je met pensioen gaat, zou ik maar zeggen. Natuurlijk verloop, dat zocht ik. En een combinatie met wat andere functies die binnen W&T gedaan moeten worden. Volgens mij zitten, zaten er ook een hoop flexwerkers altijd in. En dat is natuurlijk makkelijk af te schalen. Maar inderdaad in die hoek... Dat is

wel een goed punt. Dat is... daar zijn werkzaamheden gewijzigd. (4) Decision autonomy X (Process Licenser)

Geïnterviewde: We hadden de mensen hard nodig en we konden zelf slecht aan mensen komen. De mensen die over waren konden we gebruiken op andere plekken in de fabriek. Drie machine operator van de vier staan ze nu ook aan andere installaties waar meer kennis wordt gevraagd. Met de oude machine had je twee ploegen nodig en nu maar 1 voor dezelfde productiecapaciteit. Op de werkvloer was de kozijnenlijn de moeilijkste machinale techniek. Maar nu hebben we ook andere technieken waar die mensen naar toe zijn gegaan. Het menselijke perspectief wordt dus daadwerkelijk wel in acht genomen en worden er geen mensen ontslagen.

(3) Team development and training, (4) Decision autonomy Y (Head of the Technical Department)

op een geven moment zijn er ook wel operators uitgegooid. Daar hebben we wel ja, we hebben wel moeten opstarten met eigenlijk een ploeg met operators die eigenlijk onervaren was. We hadden dan twee ervaren mensen en de rest was eigenlijk vers van de straat geplukt. Uitzendkrachten.

(3) Team development and training,

(4) Decision autonomy X (Process Licenser)

[00:49:25] Waar ze wel tegen aanlopen is, dat het onderhoud op onvoldoende mate goed wordt uitgevoerd, waardoor complexe machines gewoon helemaal van de leg raken en gewoon niet goed functioneren. Op simpele apparaten kun je makkelijk zelf eventjes onderhoud plegen. Complexe apparaten is gewoon lastiger. En dat hebben ze soms niet helemaal goed gedaan. onderhoud is denk ik wel één van de dingen wat ze, dat wat onvoldoende goed is gegaan.

(3) Team development

and training X (Process Licenser)

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

If the transition to a truly holistic approach of individual sustainability competences and uncertainty competences were to be made, a systemic approach, in which competences

tensor decompositions, blind source separation, sparse component analysis 13.. AMS

Based on the literature reviewed in chapter 4 and the interviews with HR managers of the Corporate HR department of Sara Lee/DE it can be concluded that the training programs as

A fine-grained and transversal analysis of the academic nomenclature for describing and analyzing the qualities of urban play would allow game designers to communicate

The point of departure in determining an offence typology for establishing the costs of crime is that a category should be distinguished in a crime victim survey as well as in

Our case study, based on five healthcare providers, shows that the use of technology limits the loss of patient information and facilitates collaboration between

Different battery sizes can be used to utilize peak shaving strategies within groups of households that can be configured in various group sizes and the size of the household based

Managers that are under high workload engage in limited research to make choices (Hambrick et al., 2005), which could constrain enriching work design behaviour.. Because of