Evaluate and provide a roadmap to raise the cultural and social acceptability level for PLM implementation Pooja Taskar, Deepti Kolte Tata Consultancy Services, India (TCSL) 1. Introduction Product Life Management (PLM) is the activity of managing a product throughout its lifecycle – “from cradle to grave”, “from sunrise to sunset”. (Stark, 2005) PLM fulfils the increased need felt by today’s organizations for improvement in the productivity and of the process of product development. This in turn brings in the necessity for effective management of the activities throughout the product lifecycle. The introduction of PLM brings a huge change in the way the organization functions: right from changing the organizational structure to the way the data flows and is managed through this new PLM enabled structure. An organization is basically a group of people who work together. Thus a successful implementation of PLM would require a certain level of cultural maturity in the organization. In this paper, we look into pre implementation scenarios in an organization with the help of a questionnaire based on the lines of psychometric analysis. Based on the results of our survey, we would gauge the maturity level of this organization. The analysis of the gap thus identified between the current cultural maturity level of the company and that required will direct us to propose a roadmap for the organization to follow. Adopting this roadmap would help bridge the gap and lead to a more successful PLM implementation. These activities would also help evolve the Cultural and Social acceptability level of that organization. 2. Impact on organization’s culture due to PLM implementation CULTURE AND ORGANIZATION One of the well-documented findings from studies of individual and organizational behavior is that organizations and their members resist change. (Stark, 2005) The failure at the implementation phase has a direct correlation with the lack of cultural preparedness on the part of the organization and the consequent resistance to the change. It is therefore important not only to take the technological but also the organisational perspective of PLM into account. The culture of an organisation is an amalgamation of the values and beliefs of the people in an organization that support the organizational goals. It can be felt in the implicit rules and expectations of behaviour in an organisation where, even though the rules are not formally written down employees know what is expected of them. It is usually set by management whose decisions on policy set up the culture of the organisation. From organizational values develop organizational norms, guidelines or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towards one another. (Hill & Jones, 2001) Organizational culture is the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization. Organizational values are beliefs and ideas about what kind of goals, members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kind or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals. Things which can affect the organizational culture on an individual or personal level may be the levels of trust, risk taking, stress, fears, anxieties and social interaction among various others. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND PLM A PLM implementation brings changes in following areas in the organization’s culture. Transparency: The well defined and standardized processes and clear definition of roles makes the working environment very transparent. This helps the decision-makers to make more calculated decisions. The people naturally need to adapt to this transparency in their work. Better data management: PLM removes the interdepartmental barriers for better data management and gets rid of the control of people or department over the data. PLM ensures that the correct data is made available to the right person at the right time. This collaboration and sharing of data within the company, especially in the extended Enterprise, improves the existing processes and culture. Streamlined process structure: A successful PLM implementation makes product development faster and improves product quality too. People are very clear with their roles and responsibility and do not have to waste time on rework due to wrong referral of data. This helps in streamlining the processes and reducing time on non-value addition/duplication of work. Broadened team perspective: PLM makes it possible for the team to collaborate at global level. This changes the whole perspective of an organization. They can harness global talent and geographical location isn’t a barrier anymore. But this brings in the challenge of managing cross-cultural issues. A holistic implementation approach will therefore most likely result in process as well as cultural changes. For that reason, the success of PLM heavily depends on the willingness of the organisation to accept change. It especially depends on the people that must form interorganisational and cross-functional teams to collaboratively develop and manage products. People are not likely to change the way they have been successfully working. Resistance to change is therefore the natural reaction. Organizational Change Management deals with the emotional reaction to change and aims to provide an implementation friendly environment. Communication of the required changes and participation of people affected by change are common means of Organisational Change .The most critical success factors as well as potential problems are people related issues and thus human resource is one of the key factors in determining organisational coping and profitability. Sometimes, the employees may accept the change readily; at other times, the change is met with resistance and dissatisfaction. GOVERNING FACTORS FOR PLM IMPLEMENTATION According to Stephen Robbins the inertia in the organizational structure and that in the group do contribute to the resistance to any change that new systems like PLM would bring. Following are a few governing factors, which we have considered in the context of PLM implementation for our case study: Group Inertia & Threat to established decision making structure: Even if the individuals appreciate change, group norms may act as a constraint. Any redistribution of decision making authority can threaten long established power relationships within the organization. For example, a lot of product data is used by several departments. Many times it is defined differently, given different structures by each dept that owns it. Introduction of cross-functional approach to product data in this environment is likely to meet strong resistance from anyone who feels they will lose some power or they will add an extra bit of work to do. Limitation of existing organizational structure: Organizations are made up of a number of interdependent subsystems so one cannot be changed without affecting the other. Organizations have built-in mechanisms like their selection processes and formalized regulations to produce stability. When an Organization is confronted with change, this structural inertia acts as a hindrance to this change. Since PLM is cross-functional, it doesn’t belong to any one of the functional departments. As a result it isn’t clear who is responsible for it. To answer, where an organization stands in terms of its cultural maturity, depends on the context in which its culture is viewed so as to be able to answer the questions as proposed by Wilkins & Patterson ➢ Where are we now as a culture and where we should be? ➢ Where do we need to be going strategically as an organization? ➢ What is our plan of action to close those gaps? In consequence, we based our approach in the case -study on parameters affecting the same in the context of PLM introduction in one of the divisions of the company - Crompton Greaves Ltd. With the help of this study we could arrive at the existing level where the organization was. The primary factors we considered are mentioned below. We have tried to segregate them in some broad categories. Factors considered for PLM Implementation Cultural Maturity at the time of evaluation (On a scale of 1-10) Organizational Level Problems: Project Management Problems Failure to define objectives Information Technology (IT): 7 8 Extend of use of IT in the company Organization level: 7 CMM PCMM Team Factors: 7 8 Leadership Motivational Level Organizational structure: 7 8 Transparency Hierarchical Structure Communication: 8 Method of internal communication. Interdepartmental data flow 7 7 7 3. Case Study SELECTION OF COMPANY/DEPARTMENT FOR THE CASE STUDY The case study for this paper was conducted in the STAMPING division a Manufacturing company Crompton Greaves Ltd (CG). The reason for choosing this department of CG is as follows: Having implemented Product Data Management (PDM), in their TRANSFORMER division, and wanting to extend the PDM implementation to other manufacturing departments of the company, this was best suited for our case study. Managing product data with the help of a PLM tool was the real challenge. Since TCSL had only implemented PDM in the TRANSFORMER department of CG, we already had a fair amount of idea about some of its business processes. With this background in mind, and the fact that the STAMPING department would be one of the next departments to go in for a PLM implementation, this department was selected to do our case study. APPROACH TO ARRIVE AT THE QUESTIONNARE The process used to arrive at these questionnaires is as follows: 1. We told a little background about CG to a few of our associates (50 in number) working in TCS L and asked them to come up with at least 2-3 questions to ask to a company going in for PLM implementation. We also asked them to give as many responses they thought would be appropriate for that particular question. At the same time we asked them to grade the answers they had come up with in a sequence they thought was appropriate for PLM to be actually implemented for CG. The experience of our associates ranges from a fresh trainee with 4-5 months of experience to a senior consultant within the Engineering Services (EIS) group of PLM with up to 10 years of experience in PLM. 2. We started our case study by asking the senior management of the STAMPING Department as to what was their view point on the type of study we were conducting. In addition to making a comfortable start we also wanted to gauge the management's approach to the whole exercise of doing a Pre-implementation study and then actually implementing any of the suggestions/recommendations procured as a result of this study. 3. With the help of a post graduate in Industrial Psychology we tried to understand the basics of Industrial psychology, when it comes to organizational behavior and change management. With this approach and a ready to review questions database of about a hundred questions, we did our analysis and came to the final set of 10 questions. The task of getting to the final 10 questions was not as easy as we had anticipated. Most of the questions were on the similar lines, addressing the same area. Since these similar questions were drafted by different people we focused on them. Secondly we included the questions based on the existing business process prevalent in the STAMPING department where the case study was to be done. These questions were selected such that each was a representative of the type of change PLM would bring into the organization. They represented the gist of the questions of our database. SAMPLE QUESTIONS Following are a couple of questions from the questionnaire for our case study: 1. How would you like to store the information about die designs in your department? Is keeping the information in the form of AUTOCAD files better than making them accessible with a software that allows editing and simulation of the dies? a. We are OK with creating the same old designs again as and when any new die design is required. Using another tool on the computer is an unnecessary headache. b. Retrieving the data from the computer is OK, but the files should get loaded quickly and should be easy to use. c. I think it hardly matters. I think I can manage by getting information from the computer and using it on a day to day basis. d. That would be just great. I needn't go back to those file cabinets again. e. That's a good idea. In fact please try that even other data like employee information/leave applications forms for later reference can be made available to us through the company intranet. 2. Once the die design is ready from the DESIGN department, how would you like to get the approval in case of any change from your supervisors? a. It's best to take the design for approval to my supervisor early in the morning when he/she is fresh and in a good mood and not in the evening when he/she is irritated with some or the other problem. b. Let my supervisor take that responsibility of getting the formal approval. My job is done once the design is finalized. Why should that be my headache? I have other things to worry about, let the supervisor also do some work for a change. c. The above option 'b' is ok, but on second thoughts just leave the whole idea. If the supervisor and manager are not on good terms my work is the one that will get affected. The existing process is better. d. I think we should have an electronic process of approval for this. We could send out a mail for approval and then keep the hard copy of mails of approval attached to the die designs as evidence. e. The best would be to keep it automated. The moment I hit a button called 'Get Approval', the system should send out mails on my name and send it to the concerned person. Let’s say after the supervisor approves it, then after he hits the 'Get Approval' button, it goes to our senior manager for final approval. A copy of the approval mail gets automatically saved so that I don’t have to save any hard copies. THE GRADING SYSTEM The questions have 5 multiple answers to choose from. All responses are graded on a scale of 010 with '0' being assigned to a response which is completely against any kind of change to the existing process and is not at all in favor of any PLM implementation. A response can be graded as 10 if it is in favor of PLM implementation and in addition to that can identify changes to other existing processes. Following are the grades assigned to above responses. Question 1: a - 0 b - 3 c - 5 d - 7 e - 10 Question 2: a - 0 b - 1 c - 5 d - 9 e - 10 Following are the general guidelines we have used for grading: 1. A complete 'NO - NO' for any PDM implementation. Not even willing to listen to anything. 2. Still a 'NO' and will explain how the new process will fail miserably. 3. Gives responses in a contradictory manner. Even if they think it is OK, will put up a brave front to go against the actual implementation. 4. Still 'NO' for PDM implementation but gives another workaround. 5. Borderline Cases, still not sure what exactly is better. 6. Willing to try out the new process as a result of PDM implementation 7. Going in with a positive frame of mind to try out the new process as a result of PDM implementation. 8. In complete favor of PDM techniques for processes. 9. In addition to Point No 8 above, even suggest there an approach to achieve an objective. 10. In addition to Point No 9 above, even suggest an area of improvement for existing process. FINAL EVALUATION The score a subject (employee of CG in this case) could get was in the range of 0-100. Since this case study was done for 10 people from the department, the mean value arrived was taken as the final score for that department. 4. Roadmap Depending on the range of score, we divided the responses into 3 groups. The roadmap suggested was as per this range which actually was an indicative of the gap existing between current cultural cum social acceptability level and the minimum required for an organization to go in for a successful PDM implementation. Score in the range of 0-30: This range indicates almost complete reluctance to any kind of change in the existing process. The reasons would range from the common barriers of little or no focus on customers, lack of sound understanding of product development as a process, having functional departments in place, developing complete new products from as far as starting a complete new sheet, having a pyramidal organizational structure. There can be only one as-is situation, but the company might have more than one option to define its to-be situation. For a company at this stage, a step by step approach would be good while it readies itself to accommodate the cultural change that PDM would bring to the organization. The roadmap suggested (depending on the reasons for reluctance) would aim at creating an open communication and collaboration culture i.e. a boundary less organization and remove the barriers in interdepartmental data flow or any such factor. Following could be the focus areas in case an organization falls in this range: -There should be a realization/identification the parts/assemblies are reusable. -The strategic importance of product data management should be realized. -Well defined processes and a well defined organization to manage the processes. -Should be able to share data with customers and partners. -Initial programs to develop human resources. -Communicate product data electronically between departments -Ensure a secure environment. -Should bring in place the use of lifecycle practices and techniques. Score in the range of 30-60: This is the stage from where the organization can turn either ways, towards or against PLM .The roadmap here would essentially be targeting the points which are at present a roadblock to going in for an implementation. Most of the roadblocks would be similar to the ones mentioned above. The only difference would be that the problem persists at the lower scale. Score in the range of 60-90: This is indicative of the organization’s readiness for a PLM implementation. The roadmap here would be to identify changes to existing processes that help in a smoother rollout of PLM. The STAMPING department of CG scored 78 on a scale of 100. Following the approach of the psychometric analysis, was greatly instrumental in bringing out the precise responses from the employees of the department under consideration. 5. Conclusion With the ever increasing need for implementing PLM solution in all industry domains, there is a greater emphasis on understanding the cultural and social perspectives prevalent in that organization which are essential for a smooth and successful PLM implementation. Through this paper we have attempted to present a technique for evaluating the current level of cultural and social acceptability in an organization going for PLM implementation. The scope of the industry domains where this technique can be applied is not limited. Secondly the sample size for the survey is also scalable for better accuracy. We propose that a similar technique be included in the evaluation process by various organizations going in for PLM implementations or similar Enterprise wide implementations. Company culture is a reflection of behavior and activities of individual people. The employees along with the senior management should own a culture which is mature enough to go in for any kind of implementation. A company culture that contradicts the introduction of a new system will not survive very long. 6. References 1. Dr Diwan Nandini, & Ms Lobo Aninha (2001). Laboratory MANUAL For Practicals in Cognitive Processes And Psychological Testing [3rd Ed] 2. Hill Charles W. L. & Gareth R. Jones (2001). Strategic Management, Houghton Mifflin, Means Business, Inc. [5th Ed] 3. Stark John (2005). Product Lifecycle Management: 21st Century Paradigm for Product Realisation 4. Robbins Stephen P (2005). Organizational Behavior [11th Ed] 5. Wilkins, A. L. & Patterson, K. J. (1985) You Can’t Get There From Here: What Will Make Culture- Change Projects Fail Acknowledgements There are a quite a few people we would like to thank for their continual support while writing this paper. First of all we would like to thank all our family and friends for their constant encouragement. We would like to thank Robins Mathew, Nilanjan Mukherjee, Anuja Marathe, Shraddha Kakade, Ravi Biyala and Avinash Chaudhari for their valuable suggestions. We would also like to thank Sachin Mirashi, Aashish Pradhan and Rajeev Potnis for having allowed us to visit their company setup and understand the scope of PLM implementation in the various industry segments. Last but not the least we would like to thank Parag Khot, Vipin Nair and V Srinivasan from CG for having extended their full support while we were doing our case study.
