Description: Setting Strategic Change Priorities

Transcription

1 Date: 28 October :00-16:00 Activity: Post-Conference Seminar for World Quality Forum Location: Budapest, Hungary Program: One Day Seminar (lunch included) [four sessions of 1.5 hours each] Title: Setting Strategic Change Priorities Presenters: Part 1: Establishing the Strategic Change Agenda Gregory H. Watson, IAQ Honorary Member Description: Part 2: Prioritizing Among Competing Alternatives Glenn H. Mazur, IAQ Academician All change in organizations influences the performance of its daily management system. Kaizen types of change provide incremental improvement or evolutionary change to the daily system of management while the strategic change generated by hoshin kanri projects generates more revolutionary change or organizational transformation which requires resources beyond what individual organization sub-units normally possess and may also necessitate that a crossfunctional collaboration be coordinated to implement the change. While incremental improvement can be managed at the organization grass roots level, strategic change requires attention of the entire business. Organizations are not able to address many such changes at the same time, so it is essential that choices be made to focus change efforts on those few actions that management truly believes will create the transformations necessary for assuring its future. Hoshin kanri management systems have two major components: (1) formulation of a strategy that results in establishment of strategic change projects which focus action on agreed-upon policy for change (a small set of hoshin projects), and (2) hoshin tenkai or the deployment of the policy through implementation of these projects. This seminar will focus on the first topic which is perhaps the least understood component of Japanese Total Quality Management. This seminar will describe a state-of-the-art approach to define and prioritize critical change initiatives. The first part of this seminar will address how hoshin kanri works to set the change objectives using a collaborative approach across functions and how to present the set of proposed strategies for management decision. The second part will describe a methodology for setting rules that support organizational choice among competing strategies. These rules will provide an objective perspective for making business judgments about the complex situation of evaluating benefits and risks among alternative management directions. 1

2 Hoshin kanri systems begin with the end in mind as they seek to achieve the long-term policy, strategic intent or strategic direction of the organization. The objective is to coordinate the use of an organization s scarce resources to maximize its potential for transforming its approach to perform value-adding work that meets the expected requirements of future markets. This task requires coordination of business improvement strategy with product improvement strategy which is a typical application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD). In such a system the routine administration of work is managed by the supervisory function in response to customer demand while the management function of the organization seeks to keep routine operations competitive in the future. Management has many alternative choices that it can make to achieve future competitiveness and transition its current daily management capability and capacity into what it expects will be required in the future state. This requires that management understand the current state of its daily management system s performance ability and that it searches for enablers of performance breakthrough that can supplement the continual improvement efforts of the supervisory function to achieve the desired future state. Part 1: Setting the Strategic Change Agenda This first part of the seminar will consist of two portions. In the first a set of change alternatives is generated based on the considerations of the best information available about technology, economy, markets and social trends. This portion of the seminar will describe the approach of Professor Hiroshi Osada which is called Strategic Management by Policy (SMBP) and is focused on management methods for formulating strategic direction and selection and identification of hoshin projects. This approach will be blended with a behavioral economics approach in the second lecture to demonstrate how to design a project portfolio to achieve strategic change. The logical integration of potential projects in a coherent decision choice requires that a multi-criteria decision approach be developed that will integrate the objective and subjective decision methods and cause management to think more deeply about how to achieve its strategic direction. In the final analysis management s choice of strategic direction and plans to achieve future performance objectives must rely on the judgments of the executive function. However, sound decision support can illuminate the possibilities of choice. This will be the focus of the afternoon workshop. Part 2: Prioritizing Among Competing Alternatives The second part of the seminar will demonstrate how to construct a decision model portfolio that will allow an objective assessment of these alternatives using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which was developed by University of Pittsburg Distinguished University Professor Thomas L. Saaty while he taught at the Wharton Graduate School of Business in the 1970s. This seminar will introduce the AHP methodology and provide a tutorial on its mathematical approach. It will describe how to build a prioritization model for project selection and how to apply this model using the information presented during the morning s lectures. Illustration of how to apply the AHP process will be provided using four different types of prioritization 2

3 criteria for four different projects. Participants are encouraged to bring to the seminar an Excelcapable personal computer for which a file with the mathematics will be provided. The four criteria to be presented include: Criteria type 1. Countable (objective) where bigger is better. Ex. Revenue potential. Criteria type 2. Countable (objective) where smaller is better. Ex. Cost. Criteria type 3. Expert judgment (subjective) where there is an acceptable scale. Ex. Risk. Criteria type 4. Relative judgment (subjective) where there is no acceptable scale. Ex. Reputation. Blending of these diverse criteria to establish a ranking of using best overall judgment will be addressed as a final step in the logical analysis of decision alternatives. Biographical Information: Gregory H. Watson IAQ Honorary Member, Fellow of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and the Institute of Industrial Engineers, Mr. Watson was the first non-japanese to receive the W. Edwards Deming Medal from the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE). Dr. Yoji Akao requested that he write the introductory chapter to the first book published in English on the subject of hoshin kanri in 1991 describing his experience in implementation of hoshin kanri at Hewlett- Packard, Compaq Computer and Xerox. In 2001 Mr. Watson delivered the first public lectures on Six Sigma to the trustees, councilors and advisors of JUSE on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of Dr. Deming s initial management lectures in Japan. Glenn H. Mazur An IAQ Academician and Executive Director of the QFD Institute, Mr. Mazur has been translator of Japanese quality methods since the early 1980s and has developed into the world s leading expert on the application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD). He is the convener of the ISO TC69/SC8 project on QFD and a primary author of ISO on Application of statistical and related methods to New Technology and the Product Development Process. Mr. Mazur is a long-time colleague of Dr. Yoji Akao, and he is considered an expert in the methods of Japanese Total Quality Management and is largely responsible for the application of Professor Saaty s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology for QFD Prioritization applications. 3

4 Date: October 28, :00 12:00 Activity: Post-Forum Seminar of IAQ World Quality Forum Location: Budapest, Hungary Program: 1/2 Day Seminar (lunch not included) Title: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE ENTERPRIZES (SMEs) Presenter: Dr. Marcos E. J. Bertin, IAQ Honorary Member and Chairman of the Quality in Governance Think Tank, Member of the Private Sector Advisory Group on Corporate Governance of the International Finance Corporation. Description A professional business approach is a key success factor in small to medium size companies(sme), many family owned. SMEs have distinctive characteristics from which they can derive a significant competitive advantage. A long term perspective coming from building a business for future generations while especially the strength of most family firms founding values give them a clear identity in an increasingly faceless corporate world. On the other hand there are risks associated with this type of firm, most notably the dissension that might arise within families particularly between those working in the business vs. those that are only shareholders. Extensive research in different countries and with family companies and SMEs operating in a wide variety of businesses showed that the successful ones that are owned by the same family for many generations, including some over 100 years old, have most of the following well documented governance structures which include Family Council Board of Directors that includes independent External Directors or an Advisory Board. Professional Management One of the most interesting findings of a survey conducted in several countries with CFOs by the Association of Chartered Accountants (London, UK) is that the application of Corporate Governance Best Practices with the participation of non executive independent directors in Small and Medium Size Enterprises improves profitability and strategic and organizational effectiveness. Therefore Corporate Governance is not only for major corporations or a bureaucratic burden dealing with structures and regulations. As a result, better management. Issues related to Governance included in this workshop : drivers and barriers Board organization Board processes Board and management Quality of Governance Board evaluation Activities and role of International Organizations The Quality in Governance Think Tank of the IAQ The Seminar includes the following steps: Presentation on the Governance & Secrets of the successful SMEs Group Discussion on Barriers & Drivers to Corporate Governance in SMEs and possible solutions. Group Conclusions on the adoption and implementation of the subjects presented.

5 Date: October 28, :00 16:00 Activity: 3rd Post-Forum Seminar of the IAQ World Quality Forum Location: Budapest, Hotel Kempinski Hungary Program: One Day Seminar (lunch included) Title: THE NEW ISO 9001:2015 STANDARD FROM AMERICAN, EUROPEAN AND JAPANESE VIEW Presenter: The American, European and Japanese Lecturers will be announced later Description The final version of the new ISO 9001:2015 Standard will be probably published already before the IAQ World Quality Forum, but the final content will be in every case known. The interest is very high in all countries relating to the most applied standard in the world. With more than 1 million registered users, content improvement with special attention to trends within international trade and how modern business operates are of paramount importance. For this reason many conferences, seminars and expert meetings as well as publications reported on the preparation of the revision and discussed the proposed changes of this standard. ISO 9001 was initially released in The process of periodic review is embedded in all International Organization for Standardization (ISO) management systems standards and requires that member bodies (country committees) examine the relevance of a given standard every five years. The choices are to continue publication without revision, revise or discontinue issuance. The obvious benefit is to ensure relevance, and in the case of ISO 9001, relevance is of utmost importance. The new version of ISO 9001 always provokes some level of trepidation, but this one in particular, ISO 9001:2015, due to this year, has really got people on the edge of their seats, itching to know how it will affect their organization s operations given the significant changes being made to it. This revision includes major definitional shifts, and other additions and deletions. Maybe the most important change that risk has been introduced into ISO 9001 in this revision. The addition of the concept of risk ( risk-based approach ) within the 2015 version is often credited to several sector-specific concerns voiced in recent years. Users of these similar sector-specific standards have significant interest in the outcome of any revision to ISO 9001 simply because when it changes, they are subject to adoption or abandonment of their foundational content. Changes in ISO 9001:2015 are also the by product of a further ISO requirement to survey the user base to determine needed areas of improvement. It took years to amass the results of thousands of respondents, and many quality experts may have contributed to the input. The net result was a series of recommendations that eventually found their way to the design specification for the writing group to follow. Another important input to the 2015 revision came from groups that use ISO 9001 as the foundation for their standards. The telecommunications standard, TL 9000, aerospace s AS 9100 and medieval devices ISO are examples. Representatives of each of these and other standards have routinely attended drafting committee meetings and offered comments through-out the ISO 9001 life cycle. Of course, also the new ISO 9001 international standard will be valid overall in the word. However, we could find differences between the regions in its recognition and application also in the last years. Maybe it is interesting to learn what the expectations are relating to ISO 9001:2015 in America, Europe and Japan. What are the opinions and expectations of the quality experts on the new version of ISO 9001 from different regions of the world?