Abstract
A high-class process analysis and synthesis is required to assure that the improvement efforts are effective and that the company targets the right issues when aiming at a proper solution of the HPPI equation at the process level. How to decide which focus process to go for is in an ideal case based on considering the profit level of the company, the attractiveness of current offerings and the growth rate. Naturally, the output of Phase 1 of the generic HPPI process provides also the necessary input to this end. However, in many cases the management selects the focus process based on the gut feeling. This gut feeling factor, although largely used throughout the world, is a very serious biasing factor that needs to be properly taken care of. The real improvement objects do not necessarily coincide with this gut feeling even at the process level. In any case, it is necessary to communicate and discuss the process analysis and synthesis output properly between the concerned stakeholders. It is a necessity to formalize the output into a written document the quality of which is quantifiable. To qualify as a sub-process or phase of the HPPI process the related activities, i.e. the data collection, analysis and synthesis and creation of the required document, have to match the performance requirements both in terms of quality and resource utilization (time, costs). In addition, the output has to fit in the process improvement flow in totally four directions. This means that it has to be seamlessly integrated upstream (network analysis and synthesis), downstream (the implementation) and sideways (another process). The output should also be able to target the need of moving upwards if necessary (the strategy process and the corporate or company strategy).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These approaches include e.g. quality award criteria, performance measurement based approaches (incl. concepts such as scorecards, six sigma and different kinds of satisfaction surveys) and the “House of Quality” and “Voice-Of-The-Customer” (Quality Function Deployment).
- 2.
E.g. the PDCA logic and related improvement tools (Pareto analysis, scatter diagram, check sheets, etc.).
- 3.
Compare with the principle “anything goes”. If you do not know about anything better, something in the right direction will suffice. This will improve the absolute performance level of the company, but not necessarily the relative performance level.
- 4.
This is also true for the structured approach.
- 5.
The scientific verification of the method considered in this chapter is presented in the doctoral dissertation (Helsinki University of Technology, Finland) “Process Improvement Essentials: A Framework for Creating and Implementing Operational Improvement Plans” written by me and published by Vistalize in 1998 (second edition in 2000). ISBN 951-97912-0-5.
- 6.
Figure published with due permission of Vistalize Oy.
- 7.
Strictly speaking the phases should have a numbering starting with “2” (e.g. Phase 1.1 should be Phase 2.1.1), as these activities relate to Phase 2 of the generic process improvement process. However, the shorter notification is used throughout the chapter.
- 8.
Usually Module 5 is run on Day 2. In complex and large settings, it can also be run on Day 1 in addition to on Day 2.
- 9.
This picture, a visualization of Fig. 2.1 except of the suppliers, was drawn by Harri Pakarinen and is part of the VISTALIZER® for Consultants software. It is published with due permission of Vistalize Oy.
- 10.
#1 = the customer.
- 11.
The number of sub-processes is usually larger. To simplify the presentation the number of different sub-processes was restricted to four. The correct sequence would have been P1 Order Management, P2 Production Planning, P3 Preparation of Production, P4 Production, P5 Packaging, P6 Delivery, and P7 Sending of the Invoice (Invoice Management). The finer a classification, the more accurate is the analysis. A too fine a classification can potentially result in a loss of sight.
- 12.
The significant organizational levels are the ones ranging from the process owner to the level where the actual work is conducted.
- 13.
Top-management, middle management and team leaders attend the specific sessions on Day 1 and the team leaders and team members attend the related sessions on Day 2.
- 14.
This picture was drawn by Harri Pakarinen. It is published with due permission of Vistalize Oy.
- 15.
Performance measures are the actual values of the performance measurement criteria.
- 16.
Most (all) of the LPPI analysis methods require measured facts to be operational.
- 17.
This picture was drawn by Harri Pakarinen. It is published with due permission of Vistalize Oy.
- 18.
This is actually a cost parameter and could be grouped under that main parameter as well. It reflects the monetary implications of not making things right the first time.
- 19.
Expenses that change in proportion to the activity of the process.
- 20.
Expenses that do not change in proportion to the activity of the process.
- 21.
Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.
- 22.
This picture was drawn by Harri Pakarinen. It is published with due permission of Vistalize Oy.
- 23.
If this is the case then the influence of the segment specific impact field allocations is simply weighed according to the priority judged appropriate.
- 24.
This picture was drawn by Harri Pakarinen. It is published with due permission of Vistalize Oy.
- 25.
The values are percentage points. The values in the brackets are the initial values allocated that have been changed according to the verification (substance quality control) conducted in Phase 3.
- 26.
The reliability score was not zero because the key persons possessed an extensive practical understanding of the critical parts of the process.
- 27.
Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.
- 28.
The values are percentage points. The values in the brackets are the initial values allocated that have been changed according to the substance quality control conducted in Phase 3.
- 29.
The value in brackets communicates the share, if the unproductive time and operations costs are cleared from the allocation. In so doing, it is possible to conduct a like-for-like comparison with the allocation made by the customers.
- 30.
Of course, the Managing Director would not say that for your money “you get a defective product and it is only delivered on occasion.”
- 31.
The last section in Chap. 3 of the VISTALIZER® Report presents this issue.
- 32.
The time period considered is usually 3 years although other time frames are naturally also possible.
- 33.
Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.
- 34.
Criterion 3 is the defined short-term financial outcome excluding the investments.
- 35.
This assumption is also applied by the TQM approach; see e.g. (Hackman and Wageman 1995).
- 36.
Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.
- 37.
If different investments are needed each year, then the negative cash flow is discounted to its present value. After that, the negative sum is subtracted from the positive cash flow (which also has been discounted).
- 38.
Picture drawn by Harri Pakarinen and published with due permission of Vistalize Oy.
- 39.
The importance is communicated by a number in brackets, meaning roughly that 1 = very important (urgent action required), 2 = important (should be fixed soon), 3 = rather important (should be fixed), 4 = not important right now (noted for further reference).
References
Brealey RA, Myers SC (1988) Principles of corporate finance, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hackman RJ, Wageman R (1995) Total quality management: empirical, conceptual and practical issues. ASQ June, pp. 309-342
Hunsaker PL (1985) Strategies for organizational change: role of an inside change agent. In: Warrick DD (ed) Contemporary organization development. Scott Foresman and Co, London
Pastinen M (1998) (2nd Ed. 2000) Process improvement essentials – a framework for creating and implementing operational improvement plans. Helsinki, Vistalize. Dr. Tech. dissertation (Helsinki University of Technology)
Steiner G (1979) Strategic planning: what every manager must know. Free Press, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pastinen, M. (2010). Process Analysis and Synthesis. In: High-Performance Process Improvement. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10784-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10784-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-10783-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-10784-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)