Learning to be lean. An exploration of the drivers toward successful lean management adoption.

Questa ricerca di dottorato \ue8 stata svolta in stretta collaborazione con la Lean Experience Factory, centro di formazione sul Lean Management e sull\u2019Industry 4.0, istituita da Unindustria Pordenone e McKinsey & Company con partner come l'Universit\ue0 di Udine. L'obiettivo principale di questo studio \ue8 quello di mettere le persone al centro dei processi di cambiamento verso un'organizzazione lean. La letteratura mostra una scarsa attenzione sull'argomento, in quanto si \ue8 concentrata principalmente sul lato \u201ctecnico\u201d della trasformazione, dando meno attenzione, invece, al ruolo delle persone. In particolare, questa tesi mira a colmare questo divario strutturando e spiegando il ruolo delle persone nel processo di adozione di una trasformazione lean. La tesi \ue8 strutturata in tre studi distinti che condividono questo obiettivo comune, ma indagano argomenti diversi con metodologie diverse. I tre studi possono essere raffigurati come tre cerchi concentrici che rappresentano il tipo di interconnessione tra di essi. Il primo studio \ue8 il cerchio esterno in quanto \ue8 una raccolta di tutti i driver che incidono su un'adeguata gestione del lean management. Il primo studio consiste in un\u2019analisi della letteratura sul lean management e sulla management innovation. I due concetti sono stati confrontati per studiare i punti di contatto e le discrepanze. Dal confronto \ue8 risultato che i driver del lean management possono essere interpretati secondo il framework della management innovation ma che hanno assunto diversa importanza tra i ricercatori: la gestione della conoscenza e la formazione sono riconosciuti come due tra i pi\uf9 importanti driver per un'adeguata gestione del lean management. Il secondo studio \ue8 il cerchio intermedio poich\ue9 approfondisce due principali driver di adozione del lean management \u2013 le pratiche di gestione delle risorse umane (HRM) e le reazioni al cambiamento, e come esse impattano sulla trasformazione lean. Il modello concettuale \ue8 stato esplorato attraverso un caso studio, analizzato con la metodologia della QCA (Qualitative Comparative Analysis). I risultati supportano il ruolo preponderante svolto dalla formazione rispetto alle altre pratiche HRM; anche l'atteggiamento positivo delle persone (il comportamento pro-change) \ue8 risultato essere un driver per una trasformazione lean di successo. Infine, il terzo studio \ue8 il cerchio interno e si concentra sul ruolo della gestione della conoscenza attraverso uno studio approfondito del ruolo dell\u2019"international assignee" come meccanismo di trasferimento di conoscenza, all'interno di una societ\ue0 di consulenza multinazionale con struttura a rete. La metodologia scelta per questo argomento \ue8 la ricerca-intervento (action research), in quanto il ricercatore \ue8 stato attivamente coinvolto nell'analisi, con il ruolo di formatore per il lancio di un nuovo centro di formazione in America. I risultati dello studio forniscono sostegno all'ipotesi secondo cui l\u2019international assignee \ue8 un meccanismo efficiente ed efficace per trasferire conoscenza. La tesi intende contribuire alla concettualizzazione dei driver che influenzano l'adozione del lean management. In particolare, la letteratura esistente soffre di diversi livelli di attenzione sui driver del lean management e della mancanza di un punto di vista sistemico sui driver della trasformazione stessa. Inoltre, la tesi cerca anche di dare pi\uf9 spazio al ruolo delle persone durante i progetti di trasformazione lean. In particolare, la formazione ricopre un ruolo notevole anche in termini di trasferimento della conoscenza: elemento fondamentale per le imprese lean che sostengono standard comuni e un miglioramento continuo. I risultati ottenuti rafforzano ancor pi\uf9 il ruolo importante svolto dai driver nel lean management e come le organizzazioni possono beneficiare di una buona gestione degli stessi. I risultati sostengono anche il contributo della tesi alla letteratura esistente.This doctoral research is carried out in close cooperation with Lean Experience Factory, the training centre on lean management and Industry 4.0 established by Unindustria Pordenone and McKinsey&Company with partners such the University of Udine. The main goal of this study is to put people at the centre of the processes of change towards a lean organisation. Indeed, the literature shows an underdevelopment of the topic, as it has been focusing mainly into the technical side of lean transformation. The thesis is structured in three distinct studies that share this common goal but investigate different topics with different methodologies. The three papers can be thought in the shape of three concentric circles that embody the kind of interconnection described in this section. The first paper is the outer circle as it is a collection of all the drivers impacting toward successful lean management adoption. The first paper of this study consists in a review of the literature on lean management and management innovation. From the comparison of the two topics, the outcome is that lean management drivers can be interpreted according to the management innovation framework, but, at the same time, they have taken different relevance among scholars \u2013 training and knowledge management are recognized to be two of the most remarkable drivers toward successful lean management adoption. The second paper is the intermediate circle as it deepens two main drivers of lean management adoption \u2013 human resource management (HRM) practices and reactions to change, and how they impact on lean transformation. The analytical model has been explored by means of a case study analysed with the tools offered by Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). The results support the outstanding role played by training among the HRM practices; people attitude - pro-change behaviour, has also found support as a driver toward successful lean transformation and open the road to a more systemic analysis of lean management drivers. Finally, the third paper is the inner circle and it focuses on the topic of knowledge management, with a particular attention on the role of an \u201cexpatriate assignee\u201d as a knowledge transfer mechanism within a network-based multinational consultancy company. The methodology selected for this topic is the action research, as the researcher was actively involved in the analysis covering the role of the trainer for the launch of a new training centre in America. The results of the study provide support to the argument that expatriate management is an efficient and effective mechanism. The thesis intends to contributes to the conceptualization of the antecedents impacting on lean management adoption. The analysis is suffering of different levels of attention on lean management drivers and the lack of a systemic viewpoint of the set of antecedents. Also, the thesis gives more light to the role of people during lean transformation projects. Especially training was proved to cover a remarkable role also in terms of knowledge transfer \u2013 a fundamental element for lean enterprises that sustain common standards and continuous improvement. These insights strengthen even more the important role played by lean management antecedents and how organisations can benefit from a good management of the same. They also support the contribution of the thesis to the extant literature

Proceedings of the inaugural construction management and economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ conference CME25, 16-18 July 2007, University of Reading, UK

This conference was an unusual and interesting event. Celebrating 25 years of Construction Management and Economics provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the research that has been reported over the years, to consider where we are now, and to think about the future of academic research in this area. Hence the sub-title of this conference: “past, present and future”. Looking through these papers, some things are clear. First, the range of topics considered interesting has expanded hugely since the journal was first published. Second, the research methods are also more diverse. Third, the involvement of wider groups of stakeholder is evident. There is a danger that this might lead to dilution of the field. But my instinct has always been to argue against the notion that Construction Management and Economics represents a discipline, as such. Granted, there are plenty of university departments around the world that would justify the idea of a discipline. But the vast majority of academic departments who contribute to the life of this journal carry different names to this. Indeed, the range and breadth of methodological approaches to the research reported in Construction Management and Economics indicates that there are several different academic disciplines being brought to bear on the construction sector. Some papers are based on economics, some on psychology and others on operational research, sociology, law, statistics, information technology, and so on. This is why I maintain that construction management is not an academic discipline, but a field of study to which a range of academic disciplines are applied. This may be why it is so interesting to be involved in this journal. The problems to which the papers are applied develop and grow. But the broad topics of the earliest papers in the journal are still relevant today. What has changed a lot is our interpretation of the problems that confront the construction sector all over the world, and the methodological approaches to resolving them. There is a constant difficulty in dealing with topics as inherently practical as these. While the demands of the academic world are driven by the need for the rigorous application of sound methods, the demands of the practical world are quite different. It can be difficult to meet the needs of both sets of stakeholders at the same time. However, increasing numbers of postgraduate courses in our area result in larger numbers of practitioners with a deeper appreciation of what research is all about, and how to interpret and apply the lessons from research. It also seems that there are contributions coming not just from construction-related university departments, but also from departments with identifiable methodological traditions of their own. I like to think that our authors can publish in journals beyond the construction-related areas, to disseminate their theoretical insights into other disciplines, and to contribute to the strength of this journal by citing our articles in more mono-disciplinary journals. This would contribute to the future of the journal in a very strong and developmental way. The greatest danger we face is in excessive self-citation, i.e. referring only to sources within the CM&E literature or, worse, referring only to other articles in the same journal. The only way to ensure a strong and influential position for journals and university departments like ours is to be sure that our work is informing other academic disciplines. This is what I would see as the future, our logical next step. If, as a community of researchers, we are not producing papers that challenge and inform the fundamentals of research methods and analytical processes, then no matter how practically relevant our output is to the industry, it will remain derivative and secondary, based on the methodological insights of others. The balancing act between methodological rigour and practical relevance is a difficult one, but not, of course, a balance that has to be struck in every single paper