Coordination within the Arriva bus
maintenance system
Redesigning the coordination of maintenance
between OV region GGD and Techniek
Master Thesis
W.J. Kersbergen
Groningen, June 4, 2009
Coordination within the Arriva bus
maintenance system
Redesigning the coordination of maintenance
between OV region GGD and Techniek
Master Thesis Author W.J. Kersbergen Student number s1499246 E-Mail wj.kersbergen@gmail.com University of Groningen Faculty Economics and Business Specialisation Technology Management (MSc)
Supervisors RuG drs. W.A. Prins dr. M.J. Oosterhuis
Preface
This master thesis describes my research at Arriva, a public transport company. It also marks the end of a period of studying and the beginning of a period of working.
When I started my research at Arriva the problem situation seemed very complex. However, I found it interesting to see how applying what I had learned in the previous years made this situation more understandable and manageable.
I would like to thank my supervisors at Arriva, Ietze van der Meer and Kees de Jonge, for the opportunity to do the research. It was a very interesting subject to study and a nice opportunity to dig deeper into an organisation. I would also like to thank the other Arriva employees for their cooperation, especially Jack Hoving.
I would like to thank my supervisor of the University of Groningen, W.A. Prins, for his support and advice during my research. I would also like to thank M.J. Oosterhuis as co-assessor. Finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend Laurie for her support and for correcting my clumsy English.
Summary
Introduction
The departments involved in this research are the departments Techniek and OV (public transport services) region Groningen City, Groningen and Drenthe. Both are part of the public transport operator Arriva Netherlands. A public transport company like Arriva has as its main process the transit operations. A major component of transit operations is maintenance. Maintenance is a necessary secondary function, besides the primary function of production, because it keeps the primary function operating. Maintenance can be seen as a function that operates parallel with production and therefore affects the production performance by increasing or decreasing the production capacity and the quality and quantity of the output.
Problems of Part Maintenance System Researched
- Availability of buses: Multiple problem holders of both departments complained about the availability of the buses for either the operations or the maintenance. The morning and afternoon departure is not guaranteed. The buses scheduled for maintenance are not always in the garage waiting.
- Malfunctions are not repaired properly: OV mentioned that the malfunctions are not properly repaired which causes unnecessary breakdowns. Breakdowns are a problem because the trips cannot be completed and passengers will not reach their destination.
- Malfunctions are not or badly reported: The returning malfunctions are, according to Techniek, partly caused by the lack of (good) malfunction reports.
- Repairs are not done within reasonable time: The reparation of the buses sometimes takes too long in the opinion of OV. While waiting to be repaired, the buses are used for the operation, because the amount of buses is limited.
- Frustration about present functioning of maintenance system: During the interviews with members of both departments frustration was expressed about the present situation. Both departments have the feeling that they have to solve problems caused by the other department.
Conclusion: The complaints mentioned above are real existing problems regarding the functioning of the maintenance system mentioned by multiple members of the organisation. In the present situation the lack of efficiency and effectiveness creates frustration about the maintenance system among these members.
Theoretical Background
mechanism can differ depending on the complexity of the task and the situation. The way these tasks are divided and coordinated defines the structure of the organisation. Mintzberg (2000) distinguishes five coordination mechanisms; the coordination mechanisms mutual adjustment, direct supervision, and standardisation of work processes are similar in the way that the organisational structures are more or less based on a unitary vision. The coordination mechanisms standardisation of output and standardisation of skills are similar in the way that the organisational structures are more based on an autonomous vision. Standardisation of output and standardisation of skills give autonomy to the divisions and to the professionals, respectively.
The term coordination excludes the assumption of the existence of one shared goal and includes the possibility of conflicts. In case of cooperation there is a collective goal. This goes together with a unitarist view of organisations; this means that although sub-groups exist, they can be regarded as one organisation aimed at achieving collective goals. The sub-groups have to regard the cooperation as positive in order to be motivated to work together and to value the shared goal higher than the individual goal. The perception of the interdependence determines the way the coordination is accomplished, because people will act according to their perception. For example, when interdependence is perceived as high, people prefer and use more personal communication. Therefore both departments and their members must have the same perception and vision on how to coordinate the interdependence or else it will lead to conflicts. Conflicts can harm the coordination and thereby the reaching of the objectives of the departments and the organisation.
Model of Managed System
Based on theory and the organisation of Arriva, two different concepts of managing and organising interdependence activities can be worked out in two system models. Both departments must have the same perception of the interdependence and vision on how to manage it.
The first model is named the Unitary-Model; the departments are perceived as a unitary organisation with one shared goal. The primary coordination mechanisms used are mutual adjustment, direct supervision, and/or standardisation of work processes. The departments have different tasks but work together or independently in order to achieve the collective objectives. Agreements are made about the input and obligations of both departments in the unitary organisation. The second model is named the Garage Workshop-model; the departments are perceived as autonomous and independent. They have their own goals and organise their activities independently. The primary coordination mechanisms used are standardisation of output and standardisation of skills. The interdependence is organised and managed by agreements and contracts about the output.
Diagnosis to Explain the Problem
The agreement between the departments OV and Techniek is an inter-company agreement between two subsidiaries of Arriva Nederland. This means that the organisational structure for managing dependencies between tasks of departments is in line with the Garage Workshop-model. Research made clear that the Garage Workshop-model is not used and applied unambiguously. This is caused by a defect on the design level. In the present situation it is not clearly defined how the coordination has to be accomplished. The departments did and do not make clear agreements on information exchange, delivery and pick up time, or the use of substitute and spare buses. The departments agreed that Arriva has to be ensured that service and repair are accomplished in such a way that the timetable can be accomplished completely and without disturbance. The agreements are not in line with the model, because the specification and execution of the contract is more in line with the unitary-model, assuming a collective objective, which is not the case according to the organisational structure. The perception of the interdependence and vision on how to manage it changes often, leading to differences in perception and to conflicts.
Redesign
Table of Contents
1 Introduction... 9
1.1 Arriva ... 9
1.2 Maintenance Production Relation ...10
1.3 Outline of Research ...11
1.4 Diagnosis Design Transformation Method...12
2 Diagnostic phase ...13
2.1 Introduction ...13
2.2 Diagnostic Phase ...13
2.3 Diagnosis to Determine Problem...14
2.4 Research Data ...15
2.5 Problem Holders-analysis ...15
2.5.1 Introduction ...15
2.5.2 Problem holders and problem owners ...16
2.5.3 Manager Techniek...16
2.5.4 Manager OV region GGD ...17
2.5.5 Other problem holders...18
2.6 Problems of Part Maintenance System Researched ...20
2.6.1 Introduction ...20
2.6.2 Availability of buses not guaranteed ...20
2.6.3 Malfunctions are not repaired properly ...21
2.6.4 Malfunctions are not or badly reported ...21
2.6.5 Repairs are not done within reasonable time...21
2.6.6 Frustration about present functioning of maintenance system ...22
2.6.7 Conclusion ...22
3 Problem Statement and Research Design ...24
3.1 Introduction ...24 3.2 Problem Statement ...24 3.3 Research Model...24 3.4 Theory ...26 3.4.1 Introduction ...26 3.4.2 Interdependence ...26 3.4.3 Coordination...29 3.4.4 Cooperation...32 3.5 Effective Management ...36
3.6 Conceptual Model of Maintenance System ...38
3.7 Research Question ...41
4 Diagnosis to Explain the Problem ...42
4.1 Introduction ...42
4.2 Arriva Maintenance System ...42
4.3 Arriva Maintenance System and Model...43
4.4.1 Introduction ...44
4.4.2 Model vs Reality...44
4.4.3 Malfunctions are not or badly reported ...46
4.4.4 Malfunctions are not repaired properly ...46
4.4.5 Repairs are not done within reasonable time...46
4.4.6 Availability of the buses is not guaranteed...47
4.4.7 Frustration about present functioning of the maintenance system ...47
4.4.8 Conclusion ...48 4.5 Conclusion ...49 5 Design Phase ...50 5.1 Introduction ...50 5.2 Results Diagnosis ...50 5.2.1 Introduction ...50
5.2.2 Final judgement of functional complaints and the cause...50
5.3 Concept Statement ...51
5.4 Redesign...52
5.4.1 Introduction ...52
5.4.2 Redesign model – graphical version...53
5.4.3 Redesign model – textual version...54
1 Introduction
1.1 Arriva
Arriva Netherlands, one of the three major public transport operators in the Netherlands, has bus and train services in the north of the Netherlands and in the area around Rotterdam. Arriva Netherlands is part of the international company Arriva plc, which is located in the UK. The organisation is divided into Business Units and departments. The departments involved in this research are department Techniek and department Openbaar Vervoer (public transport services) region Groningen City, Groningen and Drenthe (Figure 1). In this report the latter will be referred to as department OV.
Arriva Netherlands NV
Arriva Holding NV
Techniek
Facility Management Arriva Openbaar Vervoer BV
Arriva Groningen BV Arriva Touring BV Arriva Taxi BV
Region Drenthe Region Friesland Region Groningen Region Overijssel/ Flevoland BV OV Reisinformatie Bedrijfsbureau Financiele administratie Workshops
Figure 1, Organisational Chart Arriva Netherlands
and cleaning and washing the buses are not part of this contract. These tasks are outsourced to an external organisation.
The department Techniek is responsible for the repair and maintenance services of all the rolling stock (rijdend materieel) of Arriva OV. Techniek has its own workshops and parts warehouses in northern Netherlands (Drachten, Meppel, Groningen, Emmen, and Winschoten). Outside the North, repair and maintenance are outsourced to external service companies. The Business Office (Bedrijfsbureau), which is part of the Techniek department, assists the workshops, inside and outside the company, with planning, technical support, logistics, settling warranty issues, and automation. Moreover, Techniek provides technical support to OV in the buying process of buses.
OV denominates the present maintenance system as the Workshop-model (in Dutch: Garage-model). OV is like a customer that brings his car to the workshop in order to get maintenance. Techniek is in this model the workshop that provides the maintenance.
1.2 Maintenance Production Relation
A public transport company like Arriva has as its main process the transit operations. For this process the network of routes has to be designed, the vehicles need to be scheduled, and the drivers have to be assigned to the buses. Another major component of transit operations is maintenance. By maintenance is meant both the service and the repair of the buses. Maintenance is an important function because of its role in keeping and improving the reliability and safety of the transit system (Etschmaier, 1985). These requirements in the transit system depend on the functioning of the maintenance system (Haghani and Shafahi, 2002). Maintenance may not be the primary function of the organisation, but it is a necessary secondary function because it keeps the primary function operating. Maintenance can be seen as a function that operates parallel with production, responding to the secondary output of the production process, which is a demand for maintenance (Ben-Daya and Duffuaa, 1995). And the output of maintenance, which is production capacity, is an input for production (Figure 2). Therefore maintenance affects the production performance by increasing or decreasing the production capacity and the quality and the quantity of the output.
Figure 2, Production-maintenance relationship (Ben-Daya and Duffuaa, 1995)
1.3 Outline of Research
The research assignment given by Ietze van de Meer (Manager Techniek) and Kees de Jonge, (OV Region Manager GGD), focuses on the processes between the departments OV and Techniek. Both managers think that improvements can be made in the processes between the departments in order to improve the functioning of the whole system. The objective of the assignment is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the processes in relation with the availability of the buses and preventative and corrective maintenance. The management problem the clients are dealing with is the dysfunction of the maintenance system. The research has to determine the cause of the problems and provide a solution. The secondary output of production and the output of maintenance from the model of Ben-Daya and Duffuaa (1995) is the basis for a model of the system, used in the research (Figure 3).
Figure 3, Part of maintenance system researched
The processes between these departments are: scheduling maintenance, the actual delivery of the buses from OV to Techniek and vice versa, and sharing information about the state of buses between OV and Techniek. The maintenance system not only consists of the department Techniek, but also of the combination of activities of the departments OV and Techniek. The research therefore focuses on the processes between the departments and on the activities within the departments that are directly connected with these processes.
Production (Department OV) Maintenance (Department Techniek) Production capacity (availability of buses) Demand for maintenance and source for input
1.4 Diagnosis Design Transformation Method
The method used to structure the research activities in order to solve the problem is the Diagnosis, Design, Transformation method (in Dutch: Diagnose, Ontwerp en Verandering methode). This method gives a sequence structure for the research activities (De Leeuw, 2002: 291). The Diagnostic phase is the transformation of a problem situation into a management problem (Figure 4). The problem situation is the signal for starting the problem solving process. The Design phase comprises the development of a solution based on the problem found. The Transformation phase comprises the implementation of the developed solution. This design is a model of the future system that in its particular future environment has to show the desired behaviour. Each phase of the method will be explained further in the specific chapters and paragraphs.
Figure 4, Diagnosis, Design, Transformation
The DOV-method is a functionalist system approach. This means that the analysis of the problem situation is conducted in systems terms. Models are used to capture the nature of the situation and to gain knowledge of the real world. By using (theoretical) models insight is gained into how best to improve the real world. The models are also used for the purpose of design. This means that by finding out how the system works and how it should work according to the models, the problems can be solved.
The method is regarded as containing an objective assumption. The social reality is perceived as having a hard objective existence, external to the individual, making it possible to take quantitative measurements in reality. It also has subjective influences considering the Problem Holder-analysis. The method is characterised by the vision that problems are not isolated from the problem holders. Problems are defined as the differences between the existing system or situation and the desired system or situation. They are regarded as normative judgments about aspects of reality. The question arises: problems according to whom? Because a problem is not standing apart from its holder, each problem holder has its own perception on problems of the output of the system. A problem holder is an actor with his or her own goals and a subjective reality definition. Therefore the problem holders can be used as sources of information, but only if there is consensus about the problem.
Diagnosis Design Transformation
2 Diagnostic phase
2.1 Introduction
This chapter contains the first phase of the DOV-method, the diagnostic phase. This means that the problem situation will be transformed into a management problem.
First the diagnostic phase will be explained. The second part of this chapter contains the problem holder analyses. The chapter concludes with the management problems.
2.2 Diagnostic Phase
The objective of the diagnostic phase is to address what the problem is. The Longman Dictionary (2002) defines the word problem as “a difficult situation or person that has to be dealt with or thought about.” De Leeuw (2002, 35) argues that a problem is more than an unwanted difference between the actual state and the desired state. A problem is not objective characteristics of phenomena and therefore a problem needs an actor who addresses the problem. The perspective of the actor influences the way the problem is perceived.
A model can be used to classify the organisational problems and to get grip on the abundance of perspectives. The model used is the triptych of Haselhoff, because the triptych will give a broad and useful classification of the problems of the maintenance system at Arriva. Haselhoff states that an organisation has to be looked at from three different points of view. These points of view on the organisation are: the organisation as a technique-economic system, as an open system, and as a social system. Each of these points of view is connected with different evaluation criteria.
Point of view Evaluation criteria
Technique-economic system Efficiency
Open system Viability / Effectiveness Social system Meaningfulness
Figure 5, Triptych of Haselhoff
From the technique-economic view the organisation is evaluated on the basis of efficiency, on finding the right means to achieve goals. Efficiency is defined as the proportion between the means and the benefits (De Leeuw, 2002). Therefore inefficiency can be defined as a disproportion between the means (for example time, material, money, and labour) and the benefits. When the amount of means, given a certain level of benefits, is too high, the organisation works inefficiently. From the open system view the organisation is evaluated on the basis of its effectiveness. The system is evaluated on the basis of viability, on how the organisation is maintaining itself in the environment. If the goals are not reached the viability of the organisation is threatened. From the last point of view on the organisation, the social system view, the organisation is evaluated on the basis of the meaningfulness on the part of the stakeholders. The employees are not only working for money, but also for self-realization (De Leeuw, 2002: 32).
input and the system can be changed in order to solve the original problem. In order to do so the diagnostic phase is divided into three sub-phases:
1. Diagnosis to Determine Problem
2. Problem Statement and Research Design 3. Diagnosis to Explain the Problem
In the first sub-phase, research is done to find the actual problem as addressed by the problem holders in the organisation. The second sub-phase defines what problem will be researched and how the research will be done. The last sub-phase explains the problem and what input and system characteristics cause the undesired outcome. The central questions in the diagnostic phase are: what are the complaints, why is that a problem, and what is the cause?
2.3 Diagnosis to Determine Problem
The purpose of the first sub-phase is to identify problems as experienced by the members of the system that is the subject of the research. More specifically, the complaints of OV and Techniek about the organisation of the present maintenance process have to be analysed.
Figure 6, Instrumental complaints and functional complaints
The complaints of the members of the organisation can be divided into complaints about the output of a process (functional complaints) and complaints about the internal process of a department or the system quality (instrumental complaints) (Figure 6). In this sub-phase the focus will be on the functional complaints. When the output of the system is not the desired output it means that the system does not give the output it was designed to give. The output of a system has to correspond to the purpose of the system. For the research it is important to make this distinction, because the functional complaints are the complaints that have to be solved. The output of the processes is important for the other department, whereas how the output is created is not important for the other department. After determining what the problem regarding the output is, research will be done to find out what is causing this
Instrumental
Complaints
Characteristics
of the system
Characteristics
of the output
1. Causes
2. Caused by
1. Why is that a problem?
2. What is the cause? = DIAGNOSIS
Functional
Complaints
problem. Not every mentioned complaint is about a real existing problem. As mentioned before, a problem is an unwanted difference between the actual state and the desired state from the perspective of an actor, the problem holder. This definition assumes that there are certain goals and a perspective. De Leeuw (2002: 282) therefore distinguishes three kinds of problems: a goal problem, a perception problem, and a reality problem. A goal problem is a problem that exists because the problem holder has unrealistic and not feasible goals. The problem holder wants to realise something that is not possible. This problem can be solved by changing the goals of the problem holders. A perception problem occurs because of an incorrect perception of reality. The problem holder has an incorrect perception due to, for example, wrong information about the organisation. Such a problem can be solved by changing the perception, for example by giving the right information. Reality problems are the problems where a change of the reality is needed. These problems are caused by “an appearance in reality” (De Leeuw, 2003: 176). By changing the reality the undesired situation can be changed into the desired situation.
2.4 Research Data
For this stage of the research the information that is used comes from members of both departments. Multiple personal interviews with members of both departments (Manager Techniek, Region manager, Service managers, and (Assistant) Depot managers) were held. The interviews were unstructured, encouraging the participants to share as much information as possible about the topic. I tried to use a minimum amount of prompts and guiding questions after starting the interview with a short introduction of the research topic. Most times the introduction was enough to get people to start talking about their situation and perception. In other cases I had to ask a greater amount of neutral questions. The response was written down during the interview and worked out afterwards. The mentioned perceptions and judgements were bundled and were verified by looking at the perceptions judgements of other members, by using my own observations, and, if possible, by using data like malfunction figures. Peer-reviewed literature is used as support of the research and the analysis.
2.5 Problem Holders-analysis 2.5.1 Introduction
answer on the research question: Who has what problems with the functioning of the system?
Several problem holders are involved in the relation between the departments OV and Techniek, each with their own opinions, thoughts, and goals. It is important to identify all the problem holders and their position in the project and the relevance of involving them in the project.
2.5.2 Problem holders and problem owners
Problem holders who are also problem owners are Ietze van de Meer, Manager Techniek, and Kees de Jonge, OV Regio manager GGD. Both are responsible for the activities and results of the departments involved. The well-functioning of the whole system as presented in Figure 3 is important for the functioning of both departments separately. The problems of the whole system are therefore the responsibility of both managers, which makes them problem owners. They are also problem holders in the definition of De Leeuw. Their personal goals as actors in the maintenance system are affected by the dysfunctioning of the maintenance system. The goals of OV can only be reached if the maintenance system is functioning properly. The goals of Techniek derive from OV’s need for safe and working buses.
2.5.3 Manager Techniek
The Manager Techniek, Ietze van de Meer, is responsible for all the technical aspects of vehicle management. He has to guarantee OV the availability of reliable and safe buses. This is worked out in a service contract between Techniek and OV. In the contract is set down the overall targets and the costs per bus per kilometre. The technical manager has to use the income from the contract for the direct costs like parts and labour hours but also for the investments in the department Techniek like training of service technicians and equipment.
Problems with the actual functioning of the maintenance system were expressed by the manager Techniek in multiple interviews and conversations. The present bad functioning of the department Techniek is, according to him, partly due to the internal problems. Actions to solve the problems of the department itself are being taken presently, and will continue to be taken in the coming months. But he also got signals that there are problems in the cooperation between Techniek and OV. Multiple complaints and frustration were expressed by members of the departments Techniek and OV. In order to improve the results of Techniek, action is needed to solve the cooperation problems.
Drenthe. The broad diversity causes knowledge problems, inefficiency in the workshops, and problems with having enough of the right spare parts in the warehouses.
Another problem is the feedback to the bus drivers. The bus drivers report malfunctions, but they get insufficient information about the action that is taken on the basis of their reports. This has caused bus drivers to believe that reporting a malfunction is useless, which made some of them stop reporting malfunctions altogether.
2.5.4 Manager OV region GGD
The manager OV region GGD, Kees de Jonge, is responsible for the operational aspects, which is the use of the buses for public transport, in the region Groningen City, Groningen area and Drenthe (region GGD). He is also responsible for the availability of the buses for the operations. The maintenance is outsourced to department Techniek. The filling up of the fuel tank, and the cleaning and washing of the buses are outsourced to an external organisation. The Region manager is aware that there are problems in the relation between Techniek and OV. In multiple interviews and conversations he expressed his complaints about and frustrations with the actual functioning of the maintenance system. His subordinates uttered many complaints and frustrations about the department Techniek. For example, it is not always certain that enough buses are available for the morning and afternoon “pull out”. This causes a lot of extra work and stress for the people responsible for guaranteeing the “pull out”. According to the manager OV, Techniek is not able to adhere to the contract that it has agreed to in the past. There is great frustration within OV, because its members have the impression that Techniek does nothing with the complaints of OV about the present functioning of the maintenance system. The complaints may be heard, but the problems are not solved. Many of the bus drivers have the feeling that reporting a malfunction is useless, because nothing happens if they do report it. According to OV it often happens that a reported malfunction is not repaired. OV thinks that the reason for this is that Techniek does not consistently use the maintenance software system MP5. It happens that a certain expert technician, for example of the destination display system, has a day off when his expertise is required for a bus that is in the workshop for maintenance. As a result, the bus either stays out of order until the required expert technician is available to repair it, or the bus is used without being repaired.
Another big issue of OV is that they do not understand that Techniek cannot take into account the schedule of OV. Techniek starts with maintenance at a time that OV starts riding. In the perspective of the Region manager, OV is a customer of Techniek like in a normal customer-garage relationship. This so called “Garage-model” is worked out in the contract between OV and Techniek, but the manager believes that Techniek does not keep to it. According to the manager, Techniek does not see OV as its customer; it does not listen to the complaints and does not cooperate the way it should. It does not support OV in the main task of Arriva; transporting people.
calculated by using historical data. Therefore the Region Manager does not understand why Techniek is not able to control the scheduling.
2.5.5 Other problem holders
To find other problem holders the model of the system researched (Figure 3) is used.
Persons of one department who are connected with the other department can possibly be problem holders in the organisation. They can have a problem as an actor, as an individual who acts with personal goals and views. Therefore interviews were held with multiple persons within both departments. These persons were selected on the basis of their position within the maintenance system; each having a connection with the other department.
(Assistant) Depot managers
The Depot manager is responsible for the public transport operations and is accountable to the Region Manager. He or she has to secure that there are enough bus drivers and buses to execute the timetable. The right buses have to be on the right rounds as agreed with the principal OV-Bureau. A lack of availability of enough buses for the operations or break-downs due to technical issues will be spotted by the Depot manager. The Assistant Depot manager is responsible for the human resource management of the location. Besides that, he or she also takes care of the daily availability of the buses for the trips and the actual delivery of the buses to the workshops. He or she also processes the malfunction reports of the bus drivers by putting it into the software system MP5. The targets for the (Assistant) Depot manager and Region manager are: reducing workplace absenteeism, reducing damage, and reducing unfinished trips.
Service Managers
The Service managers are responsible for all the operations in the workshop. They create the work orders for the service technicians based on the kind of service the bus needs, the bus type, and the reported malfunctions. They have to monitor if the buses are available for the service technicians. There is direct contact with the Assistant Depot manager for the exchange of the maintenance schedule and if necessary about the malfunctions. They also have contact about the duration of the maintenance. The bad functioning of the maintenance system, such as problems with availability of buses for maintenance, affects their daily work and their goals; therefore they can be regarded as problem holders.
2.6 Problems of Part Maintenance System Researched 2.6.1 Introduction
The functional complaints about the system and parts of the system mentioned by the problem holders can be categorised by and are reflected in the triptych of Haselhoff (Figure 7). The three categories that can be created are: complaints about efficiency, complaints about effectiveness, and complaints about meaningfulness. These three categories or views are not isolated. If problems are made visible by for example the social system view, these problems are probably connected with problems found in one of the other categories. Dissatisfaction or frustration can be connected with inefficiency or a lack of effectiveness. For example, people can be frustrated because they cannot reach their goals or because their efforts have to be higher than necessary. The triptych can, in this way, be used to give a rough sketch of the nature of the problems in the organisation (De Leeuw, 2002: 322).
Figure 7, Triptych of Haselhoff and complaints about the maintenance system 2.6.2 Availability of buses not guaranteed
Multiple problem holders of both departments complained about the availability of the buses for both the operations and the maintenance. The morning and afternoon departures are not guaranteed. In the perspective of OV, OV has to wait every day for the signal that there are enough buses for the operations. If there are not enough buses, OV has to find a solution to
this problem. It can, for example, do this by asking Techniek if the maintenance of a bus is already finished. Techniek has more or less the same complaints about the availability of buses. The buses scheduled for maintenance are not always in the garage waiting. It happens that a bus is in use for the operations. In that case the service technician has to change the bus on the bus station in order to be able to execute the maintenance. The lack of availability not only harms the effectiveness of the both departments but also the efficiency. It results in an extra effort of the departments to solve this problem. Most of the time both departments eventually succeed in getting the buses, but a lot of effort is put into getting this result.
2.6.3 Malfunctions are not repaired properly
OV mentioned that the malfunctions are not properly repaired, which causes unnecessary breakdowns. Breakdowns are a problem because the trips cannot be finished and passengers will not reach their destination. Too many unfinished trips threaten the viability of the organisation as a whole, because the concession can get lost. In the period from January 2008 until 24 May 2008, the region Groningen was one of the five regions of Arriva with the highest score with the highest number of break-downs and unfinished trips.
Of all trips, 0.28% could not be done, because of, according to OV, the malfunctioning of the maintenance system. Research of the malfunction reports makes clear that four buses were responsible for thirty separate malfunctions reports about the cooling system. Every time the buses were returned to and accepted by OV without being properly repaired.
2.6.4 Malfunctions are not or badly reported
The returning malfunctions are, according to Techniek, partly caused by the lack of (good) malfunction reports. On the other hand, OV complains that Techniek does not use the malfunction reports, resulting in the breakdowns. The malfunction reports have to be filled in by the Assistant Depot manager in the MP5-software system. The Assistant Depot manager also decides if the reparation has to be done at short notice or at the next scheduled service. Some bus drivers feel that reporting a malfunction is useless, because nothing happened when they did report it in the past. If a malfunction is not reported the bus can break down, because Techniek does not know that it has to fix the malfunction. A bus gets maintenance every eight weeks. If a service technician does not find the problem, the bus is used until it breaks down or gets the next service. Breakdowns that could be prevented by (early) reports create unnecessary extra work for both departments. The bus either has to be repaired on the spot, or be replaced and taken back to the garage. If the bus cannot be fixed on the spot the bus has to be scheduled for service. This functional complaint about the output of the malfunction report system – that malfunctions are not or badly reported – causes inefficiency and frustration. When the necessary information that is available in the maintenance system is shared within the whole maintenance system, it will be more efficient and effective.
2.6.5 Repairs are not done within reasonable time
were used for the operation, because the amount of buses is limited. In another particular situation a bus was standing still for more than six weeks, waiting for a new fuel tank to arrive from England. Luckily, this was during the holidays so the execution of the operation was not threatened.
The lack of sufficient spare parts is mainly caused by the high diversity of brands and models among the buses. Having a normal level of spare parts for all these buses would be too expensive, so choices had to be made. Sending the broken buses back into the operations during the waiting period causes frustration among bus drivers and creates a higher chance of breakdowns. Another point that makes clear why the reparations are not done within the expected time is the extra work that was discovered during the service. A normal short maintenance (A-beurt) would take two hours, but most of the time extra work was discovered so the scheduled time was exceeded with another two hours. Extra work takes more time and necessitates rescheduling for both OV and Techniek.
2.6.6 Frustration about present functioning of maintenance system
During the interviews with members of both departments frustration was expressed about the present situation. Members of both departments have the feeling that they have to solve problems caused by the other department. Buses are not brought to the workshop; buses are not or badly repaired etcetera. People expressed that they feel that the other department fails at doing its job, causing problems which they have to fix. So they feel that extra unnecessary effort is needed to solve the problems caused by the other department. OV also intervenes in the maintenance system when it feels this is necessary. An extreme example is one incident when the bus was taken from the hydraulic lift by OV. Of course this is not the normal practice, but it shows a little bit of the actions taken that are driven by frustration. The low efficiency level and the effectiveness of the other department create frustration about the maintenance system among the problem holders. (Assistant) Depot managers expressed that they feel that Techniek does not recognise the problems OV mentions. These frustrations must not be underestimated, because they have affected the relationship between the two departments and the relationships between individuals. It negatively affects the everyday pleasure of working.
2.6.7 Conclusion
The complaints mentioned in the paragraphs above are real existing problems about the functioning of the maintenance system mentioned by multiple problem holders. In no particular order the problems are:
• Availability of buses not guaranteed • Malfunctions are not repaired properly • Malfunctions are not or badly reported • Repairs are not done within reasonable time
• Frustration about present functioning of maintenance system
problems become visible. The technique-economic view makes clear that the maintenance system has efficiency problems. To guarantee the availability of the buses for both operations and maintenance demands a lot of extra effort of the departments. Extra effort is also needed due to badly or not reported malfunctions. And because the system does not function well, the repairs takes more time than scheduled, causing disruption of the processes and disproportion between means and benefits. The open system view makes clear that the goals on decreasing breakdowns and improving the availability of buses are not reached. This threats the viability, creating difficulties with the next tender and ultimately the organisation can lose the concession. The social system view makes clear that there is frustration about the maintenance system among the members of both departments. The employees do not understand why they have to drive in broken buses or have to solve problems caused by others.
Point of view Evaluation
criteria Complaints
Technique-economic system
Efficiency • Availability of buses for operations and/or maintenance is realized by extra effort • Badly or not reported malfunctions • Repairs are not done within reasonable
time Open system Viability /
Effectiveness •
Breakdowns
• Availability of buses is not guaranteed Social system Meaningfulness • Frustration about functioning of
maintenance system • Driving with broken buses
3 Problem Statement and Research Design
3.1 Introduction
The reason for this research is a management problem concerning the output of the maintenance system. The focus of the management of both departments was initially on the functioning of their own departments within the maintenance system. Now they want research on the processes between the two departments, in order to find out if adjustments to the maintenance system regarding the processes between the departments can improve the functioning of the whole maintenance system.
First a problem statement will be formulated, followed by the research model. Theories about interdependence, cooperation, and coordination are used to make a conceptual model. This conceptual model is used to determine the cause of the problems in the maintenance system, which will be discussed in chapter 4. The chapter will be concluded with the formulation of research questions.
3.2 Problem Statement
According to De Leeuw (2002, 291), there are at least two problem statements in a problem solving process. The first problem statement focuses on the question: what is the problem? The second problem statement focuses on the question: how can the system be redesigned in such a way that these problems will not occur? The second problem statement is part of the design phase.
The problems that were determined in the first sub-phase, Diagnosis to Determine Problem, are:
• Availability of buses not guaranteed • Malfunctions are not repaired properly • Malfunctions are not or badly reported • Repairs are not done within reasonable time
• Frustration about present functioning of maintenance system
On the basis of the problems that are identified and on the objective of the research, the problem statement can be formulated as:
What is the cause of the problems of the processes between the departments OV and Techniek in the maintenance system?
3.3 Research Model
knowledge of real world. By using the theoretical model and the research questions, knowledge about the problem situation can be gained. The research questions have to be based on the theory and the conceptual model. (Figure 9)
Figure 9, Problem Statement and Research Design
The problem statement deals with the processes between the departments OV and Techniek. The model of Ben-Daya and Duffuaa (1995) shows that these processes are characterised by the interdependence between production and maintenance in case of Arriva between the departments OV and Techniek (Figure 10).
Figure 10, Production-maintenance relationship Arriva
The relation between OV and Techniek can therefore be described as an interdependence relationship. Literature on different topics is studied to find out what the consequences of the interdependence are for the relationship between the departments. In addition, theory on how the interdependence can be managed by coordination and by cooperation will be discussed. On the basis of this theory a conceptual model will be constructed which forms
the basis for the research questions. In the next phase and chapter, Diagnosis to Explain the Problem, the research questions, theory, and conceptual model will be studied in reality in order to find out what causes the problems.
3.4 Theory 3.4.1 Introduction
In this chapter theories about interdependence, coordination, and cooperation will be discussed. Some of the literature that is used was provided by the University of Groningen for educational purposes. The other literature was obtained by using the databases Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, JSTOR, and SpringerLink, which have subject-indexed articles. The search terms used for interdependence are: interdependence, interdependence and inter-unit, and interdependence and intra-group. The search terms used for coordination are: coordination, coordination and interdependence, coordination and structure, and coordination and conflict. The search terms used for cooperation are: cooperation, cooperation and interdependence, and cooperation and conflict. All articles were screened by looking at their title, abstract, and conclusion.
3.4.2 Interdependence
In this paragraph relevant literature on the concept of interdependence will be discussed. It discusses the definition of interdependence in general, diverse types and forms of interdependence, and the perception of interdependence in relation to conflicts. Finally, a conclusion is drawn based on the relevant literature.
Interdependence is described by Daft (2004, 264) as “the extent to which departments
depend on each other for resources or material to accomplish their tasks”. McCann and
Ferry (1979) explain interdependence as a situation in which the actions of one reference system affect the actions or outcomes of another reference system. This corresponds to the view of Ben-Daya and Duffuaa (1995, 22) on the relationship between production and maintenance: “…maintenance affects the equipment life cycle and its failure patterns, which
in turn have an effect on production, quality and the next maintenance action”.
departments must work closely and will have frequent communication. Planning will not solve every problem; interaction and mutual adjustments between the departments are required. The latter two forms of organising the interdependence are based on a unitary form of organising; the first is based on a more independent form of organising. The relation between the structure of the organisation and the primary means to achieve coordinate is set down in Figure 11. It makes clear that the type of coordination must be adjusted to the structure of the organisation and the level of interdependence between the departments. When the interdependence changes the coordination also has to change.
Figure 11, Primary means to archive coordination for different levels of task interdependence (Daft, 2004: 268).
Wageman (1995) and Van der Vegt, Emans, and Van de Vliert (1999) distinguish two forms of interdependence: task and outcome interdependence. Task interdependence exists when the actors or groups of actors of a system “must share materials, information, and advice in
order to achieve the desired output of performance” (Van der Vegt et al, 1999). Outcome
interdependence exists when the actors perceive that their goals are related. Negative outcome interdependence means that the actor feels that the achievement of a goal by another actor means that he cannot achieve his own goal. Positive outcome interdependence exists when the actor feels that the achievement of a goal by the other facilitates the achievement of his or her own goal. Their research points out that a high level of task interdependence along with a high level of negative outcome interdependence reduces effectiveness. “Both decreasing positive interdependence and increasing negative
interdependence exacerbate the problems of coordination and cooperation associated with higher levels of task interdependence” (Van der Vegt et al, 1999). Their research makes
clear that increasing the task interdependence irrespective of the outcome interdependence will not increase effectiveness.
mean “disagreements and disputes which require changes in established patterns of
coordinative behaviour to achieve a mutually satisfactory resolution”. The degree of
interdependence has to be managed with corresponding behaviour. For example, perceived high interdependence needs in the communication an initiator to control the mode and frequency of the communication. In case of perceived low interdependence people prefer and use impersonal modes of coordination. In case of perceived high interdependence they prefer and use more personal communication. Difference in perception of the interdependence leads to differences in the way people want to coordinate, which can lead to conflicts. Therefore it is important that departments have the same perception of interdependence and the same vision on how to coordinate it.
The research of Nauta, Welker and Wijngaard (2002) makes clear that the perceived level of interdependence can differ between the actors in the interdependence relation. This difference in perception can be an important stumbling block for the coordination between departments. They also argue in their article that a positive perception of the outcome interdependence leads to better cooperation between departments. In other words, the cooperation is better when both participants perceive their goals as congruous. On the other hand, high task interdependence can lead to more frequent and severe conflicts. (Figure 12)
Author Theory
Daft (2004) • Departments depend on each other to accomplish their tasks
McCann and Ferry (1979) • Actions or outcomes of system affect actions or outcomes of another system
Thompson (Daft, 2004) • Three degrees of interdependence: o Pooled interdependence o Sequential interdependence o Reciprocal interdependence Wageman (1995)
Van der Vegt et al, (1999)
• Two forms of interdependence:
o Task interdependence: sharing materials, information, and advice to achieve the desired output
o Outcome interdependence: perceive goals as related
McCann and Ferry (1979) • Difference in perception of interdependence possible source of conflict, because difference in perception leads to different ways people want to coordinate
• Interdependence perceived as low people prefer and use impersonal modes of coordination • Interdependence perceived as high people
prefer and use more personal communication Nauta, Welker and Wijngaard (2002) • Difference in perception is negative for
coordination
• Positive perception of outcome interdependence positive for cooperation
• Task interdependence perceived as high more frequent and severe conflicts
To conclude, interdependence exists when departments depend on each other for resources or materials to accomplish their tasks and the actions of a department affect a) the actions of the other department (task interdependence) or b) the outcome of the other department (outcome interdependence). The organisational structure and the primary means of coordination are influenced by the interdependence level. In case of pooled interdependence the organisational structure is divisional and the type of coordination is standardisation (rules and procedures). If the interdependence is sequential the organisational structure is more horizontal and the type of coordination is planning. In case of reciprocal interdependence the organisational structure is horizontal and the type of coordination is mutual-adjustment. Difference in perception of the interdependence level can lead to conflicts, because people want to coordinate differently. Therefore the conclusion can be drawn that in case of interdependence coordination is needed and the perception of the interdependence determines the way the coordination is accomplished. The organisation structure and the type of coordination have to correspond with the level of interdependence. The perception of both departments and their members on the interdependence and the vision on how to manage it has to be the same.
3.4.3 Coordination
The theory about interdependence made clear that coordination is needed when departments depend on each other to accomplish their task. There is a relation between the organisation structure and the coordination of the interdependence. In this paragraph further research will be done on the concept of coordination and the relation between coordination mechanism and organisation structure. Therefore, relevant literature on the concept of coordination will be discussed. I will discuss the definition of coordination in general, the coordination mechanism and the relation between coordination and conflicts. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn.
Coordination is regarded by Mintzberg (2000, 2) as one of the two fundamental requirements for the organisation of activities. The other requirement is the division of labour; the division of tasks that has to be accomplished. In order to be able to arrange the tasks between departments coordination is necessary. The definition of coordination is, according to The Longman Dictionary (2002), “the organisation of people or things so that they work together
well”. Malone (1987) defines in his article a coordination structure as “a pattern of decision-making and communication among a set of actors who perform tasks in order to achieve goals”. This means that coordination consists on the one hand of decision-making and on the
other hand of communication between actors about tasks in order to achieve goals. Decisions and agreements have to be made about what tasks have to be done, with what purpose, and with what result. Besides that, communication is necessary to synchronise the tasks in time. This definition does not define whose goals are meant, the individual goals of the actors or shared goals. According to Symon, Long and Ellis (1996), coordination excludes the assumption that the departments have shared goals, as it is included in
Malone and Crowston (1994) argue that it is difficult to define coordination, partly due to the broad direction of the researches, which results in a broad diversity of definitions. Their condense definition of coordination is “managing dependencies between activities”. This definition is derived from the notion that if there is no interdependence, coordination is not necessary. The authors perceive different kinds of dependencies and identify different coordination processes to manage them. For example, in case of dependency on shared resources the coordination process that can be used is market-like bidding. Symon et al. (1996) state in their article that the definition of Malone and Crowston (1994) allows for the consideration of conflict in the workplace. Coordination is therefore regarded as a broader term than cooperation; coordination includes the possibility of conflicts between the people that work together. Conflicts appear in situations in which the actors are trying to achieve different goals. The actors performing the interdependent activities can have conflicting interests; therefore negotiation between the participants is needed. The research of Nauta, Welker and Wijngaard (2002) makes clear that when participants feel frustrated in reaching their goals, this mutual conflict can have a negative impact on the coordination. A serious conflict will lead to a situation in which only one of the parties can reach its targets at the expense of the targets of the other party, possibly harming the shared organisational objectives.
As mentioned before, Mintzberg (2000, 2) regards coordination as a fundamental requirement of the organisation of activities. The structure of the organisation is defined as the total of different manners in which work is divided into tasks and the way these tasks are coordinated (Mintzberg, 2000: 2). Mintzberg distinguishes five coordination mechanisms: mutual adjustment, direct supervision, standardisation of work processes, standardisation of output, and standardisation of skills and knowledge. Simple tasks are coordinated by mutual adjustment. When the tasks become more complex the primary coordination mechanism changes with it (Figure 13). In certain circumstances an organisation will favour one mechanism over the other mechanism. Important to mention is that an organisation does not use one coordination mechanism, but will always use a combination of mechanisms. However, the primary coordination mechanism has to be consistent with the organisation’s structure.
Mutual adjustment is used as a coordination mechanism in organisations with a very simple
structure or in an ad-hocracy. The members of the organisations work, in both situations, closely together in teams, which work on the same job, task or problem.
Direct supervision is used in an organisation which has a simple structure and has as its key
part the strategic top of the organisation. Important decisions are centralised and are made top-down. In an organisation in which the primary coordination mechanism is standardisation
of processes, the key part is the technostructure. This organisation structure is called
Figure 13, Coordination mechanisms and complexity of tasks
Standardisation of output is used as a coordination mechanism by organisations that have a
divisional structure. The divisions in the organisation are quasi-autonomous, coordination between the divisions is not necessary. Every division can have its own structure, its own primary coordination mechanism and makes it own decisions. The division structure is an extra structure above structures of the division. The head office controls more or less only the results of the divisions; the coordination mechanism is standardisation of output and therefore supervision of the results is important.
Standardisation of skills is the primary coordination mechanism in organisations in which the
professionals have control over their own work that they perform relatively independently from their colleagues. The professionals work closely together with their customers. Their skills are a kind of standardised tools which the professional can use after making a diagnosis.
The first three coordination mechanisms are similar in the way that the organisational structures are more or less based on a unitary vision with one direct supervisor. Mutual adjustment is used in very small companies and in organisations with teamwork. Organisations with direct supervision have a centralized top. The latter two coordination mechanisms are similar in the way that the organisation structures are more based on an autonomous vision. Standardisation of output or skills gives autonomy respectively to the divisions and to the professionals. (Figure 14)
Author Theory
Mintzberg (2000) • Coordination is a fundamental requirement for the organisation of activities
• Structure of organisation defined by manner tasks are divided and coordinated
Longman Dictionary (2002) • Coordination is the organisation of people or things so that they work together well
Malone (1987) • Pattern of decision making and communication to achieve goals
Symon, Long and Ellis (1996) • Coordination excludes the assumption of shared goals
• Coordination includes possibility of conflicts between people that work together
Malone and Crowston (1994) • Managing dependencies between activities Nauta, Welker and Wijngaard (2002) • Participants feel frustrated in reaching their
goals this mutual conflict has negative impact on the coordination
• Serious conflicts lead to a situation in which targets are reached at expense of the targets of the other party
Figure 14, Theory about Coordination
The researched literature makes clear that coordination is managing dependencies between tasks of departments, a fundamental requirement for the organisation of activities. Actors make agreements about the tasks that have to be done and manage and synchronise these tasks by using coordination mechanisms in order to achieve goals. The coordination mechanism can differ depending on the complexity of the task and the situation. The way these tasks are divided and coordinated defines the structure of the organisation.
Mintzberg distinguishes five coordination mechanisms; the coordination mechanisms mutual adjustment, direct supervision, and standardisation of work processes are similar in the way that the organisational structures are more or less based on a unitary vision with one direct supervisor. The coordination mechanisms standardisation of output and standardisation of skills are similar in the way that the organisation structures are more based on an autonomous vision. Standardisation of output or skills gives autonomy respectively to the divisions and to the professionals.
The term coordination excludes the assumption of the existence of one shared goal and includes the possibility of conflicts. Conflicts can harm the coordination and can thereby impede the reaching of the objectives of the departments and the organisation.
3.4.4 Cooperation
relation between cooperation and conflicts, and cooperation as a dynamic process. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn.
Cooperating is an important activity that takes place within and between many organisations and individuals in order to be successful. Wageman and Baker (1997) argue that the use of groups has grown because organisations search for greater flexibility, responsiveness, and learning ability. Teams may be a good mechanism for reaching these outcomes, because cooperation is more common in interdependent tasks than in individualistic tasks.
That cooperation is important for the success of organisations is, according to Chen, Chen and Meindl (1998), recognized by many scholars. The way these scholars conceptualize cooperation is different, however. The Longman Dictionary (2002) shows this in its description of cooperation: “1. the act of working with someone else to achieve what you both
want” and “2. willingness to work with other people”. The first description emphasizes the
joint activity; the second description emphasizes the motivation for working together. These definitions can also be found in the article of Kreitner, Kinicki and Buelens (2002: 336). They argue that “individuals are…co-operating when their efforts are systematically integrated to
achieve a collective objective”. In other words, individually working people agree with each
other to integrate their efforts in order to reach goals they all want to reach. This means that activities can be done together and independently, but these activities are all part of the cooperation and are done to achieve a shared goal. De Cremer and Van Knippenberg (2002) support this by writing that cooperation is regarded as “the contribution of individual effort,
time, and resources to collective projects”. Members in an organisation often have to execute
interdependent tasks that benefit the organisation. Cooperation, in this article, is a collective effort with social aspects required to achieve collective goals.
In the eyes of Wagner (1995), cooperation is essential whenever people have to coordinate activities among differentiated tasks. He defines cooperation “as the wilful contribution of
personal effort to the completion of interdependent jobs”. His research focuses on the effects
of individualism and collectivism on cooperation between groups. The situation in which persons in a group give precedence to a personal interest rather than to the needs of the group is called individualism. The opposite, when de demands of the group are valued higher than the needs of individuals, is called collectivism. In the latter case it can occur that the well-being of the group requires that personal interests are brushed aside. In the article of Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, and Ilgen (2003) cooperation is used as the opposite of competition. When competing, individuals place their own goals above the goals of the organisation, while cooperative systems emphasize group accomplishments. Both articles emphasize that within the context of cooperation interdependence means putting effort towards a collective goal and valuing this shared goal higher than individual goals.
connected with each other: horizontally or vertically. Vertically linked individuals cooperate with their subordinate or superior, horizontally linked individuals cooperate with their colleagues in or outside the organisation. These distinctions influence the organisational structure differently.
Symon, Long and Ellis (1996) argue that the several definitions in literature agree that “the
focus of concern is on people working together to achieve a joint goal”. They argue that the
term cooperation presumes a unitarist view of organisations. Furthermore, they claim that the term cooperation excludes the consideration that conflict between the people working together is possible. This can be connected with the research of Smith, Carroll and Ashford (1995). They make clear in their article that an immediate determinant of cooperation is trust. Trust in the good will of the other participants to put effort into achieving the group’s goals is a basis for cooperation. Absence of trust creates conflicts and a lack of cooperation. An important requirement for effective cooperation is therefore that departments mutually regard the cooperation as positive (Nauta, Welker and Wijngaard, 2002; McCann and Ferry, 1979). In case of negative outcome interdependence (incompatible goals) the cooperation will be harmed, because a positive outcome for one means a negative outcome for the other (Nauta, Welker and Wijngaard, 2002). When negative outcome interdependence is experienced in a relation between departments, the cooperation is regarded as bad and conflicts occur. In other words, the basis of a relationship that is made up of interdependence and cooperation is the presence of a collective goal.
Chen et al (1998) write that Tjosvold (1988a) identifies four dimensions of interaction: “(1)
exchanging and combining information, ideas and other resources; (2) giving assistance; (3) discussing problems and conflicts constructively; and (4) supporting and encouraging each other.” This determination of interaction dimensions of a cooperative goal relationship shows
that there are several aspects of cooperation. This is supported by the article of Wageman and Baker (1997). In their article they mention communication, helping, and information sharing as forms of cooperation. The cooperation efforts towards the collective objective consist besides of independent activities, of interaction activities like communication, sharing information and ideas, and helping each other. Cooperation is not static, according to Smith, Carroll and Ashford (1995). They point out that cooperation can be a dynamic process, since individuals react to the behaviour of other individuals. It will only continue when the outcomes meet the present goals and give individual satisfaction.
