Advertisement

Collecting, storing and utilizing information about improvement opportunities: A discussion of the nontechnological barriers to success

  • Henrik M. Giæver
Chapter 3: Applications
  • 185 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1756)

Abstract

Total Quality Management (TQM) in various forms has for decades proved successful in improving productivity; continuous improvement and learning being essential tools also in Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Our suggestion for any improvement system is 1) Adjust ambitions to the sociopsychological climate in a unit before embarking on the explicit improvement road. 2) Without the backing of other managers, solutions may create harm rather than improvements 3) In a small unit, sophistication of the information technology will have insignificant effects 4) Align the reward mechanisms closely with what is to be achieved. 5) First analyse information that is collected for other primary purposes; then consider creating supplementing systems. This is based on our experience as a Quality System Advisor and Lead Auditor as well as with the Total Quality Management (TQM) practice of Det Norske Veritas (DNV). An improvement process was created and used for 9 months in a small unit in 1995–1996. No sophisticated technology was used. Many improvements took place in the 9 month period the system was operated, however it is questionable whether the success matched the expense (time, frustration, interpersonal friction, unrest). In this paper we describe the life and death of a small scale experience-database.

Keywords

Knowledge Management Learn Organization Improvement Process Small Unit Intellectual Capital 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Argyris, Chris, 1991: “Teaching Smart Peole How to Learn”. Becoming a learning organization, Harvard Business Review Reprint 1997, Boston.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argyris, Chris, 1994: “Good Communication That Blocks Learning. What is a Learning Organization?”, Harvard Business Review Reprint 1997, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buene, Leif & Moen, Anne Sigrun 1996: Organisational Learning. Tech. Report. DNV 97-2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deming, Edwards W., 1986: “Out of the crisis”. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Det Norske Veritas, CMS 110 1997: Total Quality Management in DNV, rev 0, 1997-04-24.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Foundation for Quality Management, 1996: Assessor Manual/Training binder. EFQM, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giæver, Henrik, 1998: “Does Total Quality Management Restrain Innovation?”, Sociology Thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hackman, J. Richard, 1995: “Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and Practical Issues”. Administrative Science Quarterly, no 40.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giæver, Henrik, 1999: “Knowledge Management in DNV” http://research.dnv.no/Knowman/Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    March, James G. 1991: “Exploration and Exploitation in organizational Learning”. Organization Science, No. 1, February 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nonaka, Ikujiro, 1991: “The Knowledge-Creating Company”. Harvard Business Review Reprint 1997. “What is a Learning Organization?” Boston.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomsen Jan 1998: The Virtual Team Alliance (VTA): Modeling the Effects of Goal Incongruency in Semi-routine, Fast-paced Project Organizations. PhD dissertation, DNV report 98-2024, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik M. Giæver
    • 1
  1. 1.Det Norske VeritasHøvikNorway

Personalised recommendations