Developing customer service daily management tools of an industrial organization

(1)

Miko Puusa

DEVELOPING CUSTOMER SERVICE DAILY MANAGEMENT TOOLS OF AN IN-

DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION

Faculty of Management and

Business

Master’s Thesis

10/2021

(2)

ABSTRACT

Miko Puusa: Developing customer service daily management tools of an industrial organization

Master of Science Thesis Tampere University

Master’s Degree Programme in Information and Knowledge Management October 2021

The target of this thesis was to plan how to enhance industrial case organization’s global customer service daily management by applying Lean daily management best practices. The aim was to guide development and standardization of daily management and the research question was consequently drawn as: “How to improve operational excellence of industrial organization’s customer service using daily management tools and techniques”. In order to answer to the main research question, the current situation of daily management in case organization’s customer service was first investigated through employee interviews. In addition, the daily management target state was defined by conducting workshops with case organization employees. The development roadmap was then constructed to guide the transition between these two stages.

Lean thinking in general is about maximizing value-adding activities and minimizing non-value adding activities. Accordingly, through effective daily management, case organization’s customer service can focus on key tasks and reduce the need for unnecessities like extensive communication and double work. In this regard, Lean daily management literature and studies provided multiple tools and methods to use for daily management operations in various industries. Concrete tools and methods like Kaizen, 5S, accountability lists and Kanban could be applied in industrial business-to-business customer service context. However, most important thing was to link daily actions with high-level organizational targets and make everyone aware of their role in achieving these targets. Through effective visual management, process deviations could be noticed and, organization could commit to continuous improvement.

Interviews showed that different case organization’s customer service teams had similar daily information needs and they shared some common daily management practices. However, teams faced problems with the flow of information and with the continuity and accountability of daily management actions. Daily management tools were not standardized within case organization and global best practices were missing. Key performance indicators and their relevance was seen as an especially problematic area.

Target of the two workshops was to define future daily management tools and performance indicators to be standardized for the whole case organization’s customer service. Tools and methods like deviation notification, workload management, action list and production schedule review were prioritized in the first workshop. Second workshop resulted in finding various performance indicators describing customer service performance in their critical success factors, which were re- trieved from high-level supply chain objectives.

Findings from the theoretical background review, interviews and workshops resulted in the for- malization of daily management development roadmap. Roadmap consists of three consecutive development phases and three continuous improvement streams. Different development tasks were placed in these phases and streams according to their relevance and level of priority. While the roadmap guides case organization’s daily management development, it also offers valuable information about the current and desired daily management state and how they do in comparison to daily management best practices.

Keywords: daily management, Lean, Lean daily management, roadmap, customer service The originality of this thesis has been checked using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service.

(3)

TIIVISTELMÄ

Miko Puusa: Teollisen organisaation asiakaspalvelun päivittäisjohtamisen työkalujen kehittä- minen

Diplomityö

Tampereen yliopisto

Tietojohtamisen diplomi-insinöörin tutkinto-ohjelma Lokakuu 2021

Tämän diplomityön tavoitteena oli suunnitella miten voidaan Lean päivittäisjohtamisen par- haita käytäntöjä hyödyntäen parantaa asiakaspalvelun päivittäisjohtamista teollisessa kohdeyri- tyksessä. Tavoitteena oli ohjata päivittäisjohtamisen kehitystä ja standardisointia, minkä perus- teella tämän työn päätutkimuskysymykseksi on asetettu: ”Miten kehittää valmistavan teollisuuden asiakaspalvelun toiminnan tasoa hyödyntämällä päivittäisjohtamisen työkaluja ja tekniikoita”.

Päätutkimuskysymykseen vastaamiseksi selvitettiin ensin haastatteluin nykyinen päivittäisjohta- misen taso kohdeyrityksen asiakaspalvelussa. Tämän lisäksi päivittäisjohtamisen toivottu tulevaisuuden taso määriteltiin kahdessa työpajassa kohdeyrityksen työntekijöiden kanssa. Näiden ta- sojen välistä siirtymää kuvaamaan laadittiin toimintasuunnitelma eli tiekartta.

Yleisesti Lean-ajattelulla pyritään maksimoimaan organisaatiolle arvokkaat toiminnot ja taas mi- nimoimaan toiminnot, jotka eivät tuota arvoa. Tämän mukaisesti kohdeyrityksen asiakaspalvelussa tehokkaalla päivittäisjohtamisella voidaan mahdollistaa työntekijöiden keskittyminen olen- naiseen ja vähentää tarpeettomia toimintoja kuten ylimääräistä viestintää tai tuplatyötä. Tässä yhteydessä Lean päivittäisjohtamiseen liittyvä kirjallisuus ja tutkimustieto esitteli paljon erilaisia päivittäisjohtamisen työkaluja ja tekniikoita eri toimialoille. Konkreettiset työkalut, kuten Kaizen, 5S, työlistat ja Kanban-taulu, voidaan käyttöönottaa myös valmistavan teollisuuden asiakaspal- velutyön kontekstissa. Kirjallisuudesta selvisi kuitenkin, että työkalujen sijaan tärkeintä on luoda yhteys päivittäisen työn ja organisaation ylemmän tason tavoitteiden välille niin, että jokainen työntekijä on tietoinen omasta panoksestaan näiden tavoitteiden saavuttamisessa. Tehokkaan visuaalisen johtamisen avulla poikkeamat voidaan tehdä näkyviksi ja organisaatio voi sitoutua jatkuvaan parantamiseen.

Haastattelutuloksista kävi ilmi, että asiakaspalvelutiimeillä oli samanlaisia päivittäisiä tietotarpeita ja osittain samanlaisia päivittäisjohtamisen käytäntöjä. Tiimeillä oli kuitenkin ongelmia tiedonja- ossa, päivittäisjohtamisen toimenpiteiden jatkuvuuden varmistamisessa ja vastuuhenkilöiden asettamisessa. Kohdeyrityksen asiakaspalvelun päivittäisjohtamisen työkalut eivät olleet standar- doituja ja tiimit eivät olleet tietoisia hyväksi havaituista käytännöistä. Suorituskyvyn mittaaminen ja mittareiden heikko relevanssi nähtiin erityisesti ongelmallisina aiheina.

Kahden työpajan tavoitteena oli määritellä tulevaisuuden päivittäisjohtamisen työkalut ja suoritus- kykymittarit, jotka voitaisiin standardisoida kaikkialle kohdeyrityksen asiakaspalveluorganisaa- tion. Ensimmäisessä työpajassa tulevaisuuden työkaluideoista priorisoitiin poikkeamailmoitus, työkuorman hallinta, tehtävälista ja tuotantosuunnitelman läpikäynti. Toisessa työpajassa löydet- tiin toimitusketjun ylätason tavoitteiden mukaisesti asiakaspalvelun kriittiset menestystekijät, joille ideoitiin erilaisia suorituskykymittareita.

Kirjallisuuskatsauksesta, haastatteluista ja työpajoista saadut tulokset auttoivat päivittäisjohtami- sen kehityksen tiekartan rakentamisessa. Tiekartta koostuu kolmesta peräkkäisestä kehitysvai- heesta ja kolmesta jatkuvan kehittämisen polusta. Eri kehitystoimenpiteet asetettiin tiekarttaan niiden relevanssin ja prioriteettitason mukaisesti. Samalla kun tiekartta tarjoaa kohdeorganisaa- tiolle konkreettisia ohjeita päivittäisjohtamisen kehittämiseen, se myös antaa arvokasta tietoa tä- mänhetkisestä ja toivotusta päivittäisjohtamisen tilasta sekä siitä, miten nämä tilat vertautuvat kirjallisuudesta löytyviin päivittäisjohtamisen parhaisiin käytäntöihin.

Avainsanat: päivittäisjohtaminen, Lean, Lean päivittäisjohtaminen, tiekartta, asiakaspalvelu Tämän julkaisun alkuperäisyys on tarkastettu Turnitin OriginalityCheck –ohjelmalla.

(4)

PREFACE

Writing this thesis has been a long and an interesting journey. Global crisis in a form of Covid-19 pandemic has laid obstacles along the way and also completely transformed the way we study, work or live. Preliminary plans about conducting face-to-face workshops and travelling to case organization’s factories all over Europe didn’t obviously hold and basically everything was managed remotely from home office.

But during this writing process I also experienced one of the happiest moments of my life so far, the birth of my first child. To be there to see my son growing up has given me an enormous amount of joy and pride. Stress from work, thesis and studies goes away fast when you start playing with a toddler.

I want to thank Prof. Hannu Kärkkäinen for guiding the writing process and giving valuable suggestions regarding the thesis structure. I also want to thank my employer for being flexible and my supervisor Frank for fruitful sparring sessions.

The greatest thanks goes to my wife Noora, who has supported me during the whole journey and made it possible to spend countless weekends writing this thesis. Without you this thesis would have never been completed.

Kangasala, 16^th of October 2021

Miko Puusa

(5)

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

5S Sort, Straighten, Shine, Standardize and Sustain

B2B Business-to-business

CRM Customer Relationship Management CSF Critical Success Factor

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

IT Information Technology

JIT Just-In-Time

KPI Key Performance Indicator

KRI Key Result Indicator

LDM Lean Daily Management

LDMS Lean Daily Management System MES Manufacturing Execution System

OTIF On-Time-In-Full

PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act

PDSA Plan-Do-Study-Act

PI Performance Indicator

RI Result Indicator

.

(8)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research background and motivation

Superior performance and the corporate success story of Toyota encouraged different companies worldwide to adopt Lean production methods in a pursuit of competitiveness from 1990’s onwards (Holweg 2007). Lean production introduced a shift in focus, where many traditional manufacturing organizations are transformed to continuously improving and learning organizations trying to systematically introduce only value-adding activities and remove non-value adding ones (Liker & Convis 2011, Poksinska et al. 2013, Wom- ack, James P. et al. 2007, Lareau 2003).

Above described transformation might sometimes be an easier task in environments and settings that are all about manufacturing and therefore physical things. For example, you might easily notice that you have a non-value adding activity like over-processing the product or moving the finished good unnecessarily in warehouse and remove it. But like in these manufacturing settings, similar issues and problems are faced in environments dealing with daily activities or matters that are more tacit or immaterial in nature. Respec- tively, Lean methodologies are also applied in other industries and areas, like healthcare, information technology and customer service call-centers (Raja Sreedharan & Raju 2016). Even though they might be difficult to identify, these aforementioned business environments and functions also have a lot of non-value adding activities to remove and potential value-adding activities and elements to add. For example, white-collar employees may send unnecessary emails or chat messages back and forth while the content of the messages could be shared widely for example in daily management meeting or using visually aided dashboards. Thus, one could reduce the communication waste and re- lease spare time for employees to focus on value-adding tasks.

Successfully implementing Lean methodology and Lean daily management principles to production and office operations can result in significant positive results. In 1996, Wom- ack and Jones described the positive impact of Lean: “[...] a way to specify value, line up value-creating actions in the best sequence, conduct those activities without interruption whenever someone requests them, and perform them more and more effectively. In short, lean thinking is lean because it provides a way to do more and more with less and less – less human effort, less human equipment, less time, and less space – while com- ing closer and closer to providing customers with exactly what they want.” (Setijono et al. 2012)

Case organization has successfully implemented some Lean and Lean daily management principles to its shop-floor operations globally. This has improved operational efficiency as it has provided a way to systematically approach continuous improvement actions and increased standardization in problem-solving activities. At the same time, im-

(9)

plementation of systematic daily management in office operations has been lacking behind and mostly some successful local implementations are made. This thesis investi- gates how case organization could move towards standardized daily management system also in office operations and more specifically in customer service. This would help the organization to pursue benefits that Womack and Jones (1996) have described and Toyota has built its success story on.

1.2 Research objectives and questions

This thesis focuses on investigating Lean methodologies and especially Lean daily management and applying principles of both to enhance case organisation’s global Customer service operations. Main objective of this thesis is to construct a plan in a form of a roadmap that describes possible development and implementation of daily management tools in order to achieve better operational excellence that would eventually contribute to better customer satisfaction. The main research question for building the roadmap is:

How to improve operational excellence of industrial organization’s customer service us- ing daily management tools and techniques? The roadmap is formed by answering spe- cific research questions built around this target and main research question.

In order to construct a comprehensive roadmap to define development and implementation of daily management tools in case organisation’s customer service, it is needed to first investigate the current state of daily management. Investigating the current state helps to identify problems and best practices in the current ways of working. When the current state is understood, target state is to be defined. After this it is possible to identify what is required in order to move from current state towards the common target.

Figure 1 below represents the structure for research questions and objectives. As described above, the first objective is to define what is the current state of daily management in the case organization’s customer service. This objective can be reached by answering multiple sub-questions presented below:

- What are the daily information needs in Customer Service?

- What is the general status of daily management in customer service and what are the tools and techniques used?

- What are the Customer Service and Daily Management related key performance indicators?

Just like the current state, the future target state of the daily management is defined by answering multiple sub-questions:

- What are the case organisation’s group level customer service targets and what are the critical success factors for achieving these targets? What metrics should be used to measure performance in these factors?

- What problems there are in the current daily management tools and techniques and how these should be solved?

- What new daily management tools and techniques should be implemented to improve operational excellence?

(10)

Research questions & objectives

To support analysis of the current state of daily management and to help describing the future state, theoretical background research about the daily management and especially about the Lean daily management is conducted. Theoretical background research focuses on defining Lean daily management phenomena as well as identifying daily management best practices in business-to-business industrial customer service context. The research questions in respect of the theoretical background review are:

- What is Lean daily management?

- What are Lean daily management best practices in B2B industrial customer service context?

Findings derived from research literature also support the main objective of constructing the development roadmap.

1.3 Research scope

As described before, this thesis aims to present a roadmap to guide development and implementation of daily management tools for improving operational excellence in case organization’s global customer service function. Although, as case organisation consists of multiple plants which vary significantly in size and scale of operations, scope in this thesis is narrowed down to plants that are larger in size and therefore also accumulates more sales to case organization. Additionally, these plants also have more customer service employees, which highlights the need of effective daily management practices.

There are five plants in this described scope and all of them are located in Europe.

While in the future it would be beneficial to plan and implement a comprehensive Daily Management System (see (Lareau 2003, pp. 67-75, Zarbo et al. 2015) in the case organization, this thesis focuses on planning the development and the implementation of specific tools and techniques that assist in customer service daily management. This

(11)

limitation is done in order to provide a certain level of concreteness to the thesis and to have measurable results earlier. Even though concrete tools and techniques are empha- sized, daily management systems and especially Lean Daily Management System theoretical background is reviewed in order to explore tools and techniques included and preferred in these themes and to ensure that planned tools and techniques in this thesis are chosen according to research-derived best practices.

Planned actions represented in the daily management development roadmap are not implemented within the scope of this thesis. This thesis will only result in as detailed action plan and timetable as possible and the actions presented in it will be performed at a later stage.

1.4 Research philosophies and approach

Research is constructed according to the research questions and objectives presented in chapter 1.2. There are two main research methods used in this thesis: semi-structured interview and a workshop (see chapter 3). The results derived from these two research methods are complemented by findings from the theoretical background review.

With the chosen research methods, it is fair to say, that the results are qualitative in nature. It is also important to pay attention to the fact that the author of this thesis, interviewees and workshop participants are employees of the case organization and therefore have their own strong experiences and perceptions about case organization’s culture and operations. Taking this into account and reflecting to research philosophies presented by Saunders et al. (2009, pp. 106-124), this research can be described to have both interpretive and pragmatic viewpoints, but mostly following pragmatic research philosophy. This means that the existence of author’s and interviewees subjective opinions and values cannot be ignored while doing the analysis on research results, but at the same time author is taking as objective and external role as a researcher as possible.

What also speaks for pragmatic research philosophy are the use of multiple qualitative research methods and combining both observable phenomena and subjective meanings as an acceptable knowledge (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 119).

Research approach is more inductive than deductive, as multiple research methods are used to gather information about phenomena and to answer predetermined research questions and objectives. After interpreting and analysing the gathered information, the- ory is constructed. However, there is also deductive attributes in the research, as theoretical background of the phenomena is examined, and findings are used to interpret interview and workshop results. (Saunders et al. 2009, pp. 124-127)

1.5 Research structure

Research objectives and questions presented in the chapter 1.2. also work as a basis for the research structure. Obviously, at first it is needed to investigate the current situation of daily management in the case organizations customer service function by conducting interviews. Also, theoretical background about the phenomena is researched in

(12)

parallel with the interviews. After collecting and analysing the interview results utilizing findings from literature, thesis proceeds to design future procedures and daily management actions by conducting workshop built around the topic. Workshop results are also evaluated against the findings derived from literature and theoretical background.

When the current situation and the preferred future state are defined, means and actions to perform the transition between these levels can be identified and planned in detail.

After comprehensive analysis of interview and workshop results are made, discovered means and actions are then presented in a roadmap, which can be described to be an action plan or a strategy directing case organization’s customer service daily management operations development and implementation.

(13)

2. UNDERSTANDING DAILY MANAGEMENT

Although organization’s ways to manage daily work are strongly affected by industry- specific demands or cultural aspects, daily management has general standards and guidelines that can be identified from different studies and literature. In order to understand the daily management phenomena as well as the best practices of daily management, it is not only necessary to closely review the subject itself but also theories and philosophies surrounding it. Knowledge about the phenomena also works as a basis for the design of the workshop research method described in the chapter 3.3.

In this thesis, daily management system is seen as a part of Lean-philosophy and can be described with a term Lean Daily Management System (LDMS) or Lean Daily Man- agement (LDM). LDMS targets to provide focus, structure, discipline and ownership in each discrete work group in the organization (Lareau 2003). This also falls under the broader phenomena of lean leadership defined by Liker and Convis (2011). These topics and their interrelations are explained and fitted to the industrial business-to-business customer service context in this chapter.

2.1 Lean

Automobile manufacturing company Toyota can be considered as an origin of the Lean philosophy. The basis for the philosophy was formed in the core of Toyotas business:

Toyota Production System (TPS) and Just-in-Time (JIT) philosophy. (Holweg 2007, Liker

& Convis 2011). But even though significant studies about TPS and JIT (just-in-time) had already been published early 1980’s, the concept of lean production wasn’t formalized before the publication of Womack’s influential book “The Machine that Changed the World” in 1991. Lean production philosophy has then spread from large-volume automobile production environment to different manufacturing and service operations. (Holweg 2007)

Toyota’s track record in manufacturing speaks for itself. This success can be condensed to one simple statistic: Toyota made profit every year from 1950 until 2008 and was again profitable in 2009 after got hit by global recession and oil price spike in 2008 (Liker &

Convis 2011). This is remarkably consistent operational efficiency and at the same time Toyota also succeed quality-wise. In 2010, Toyota dominated Consumer Reports quality ratings by leading 10 of the 17 categories. (Liker & Convis 2011)

2.1.1 Lean characteristics

What it was in Lean philosophy and especially Toyota Production System and Just-In- Time that made Toyota so successful? Main principle of Toyota Production System as well as Lean is to maximise profit by reducing different kinds of unnecessities, like waste and excessive workforce. (Monden 2011, p. 4). According to Monden (2011, p. 4), Toyota Production System concentrated eliminating four kinds of waste in manufacturing:

(14)

1. Excessive production resources 2. Overproduction

3. Excessive inventory

4. Unnecessary capital investment

These different waste types are related to each other. Basically overproducing because of excessive production resources will increase waste of excessive inventory and unnecessary capital investment. This happens because overproducing creates excessive inventory and this extra inventory creates the need for excessive warehouse workforce, equipment and floorspace. To cover these needs, excessive capital investment is needed. (Monden 2011, pp. 4-5) Thus, it is important to focus on eliminating waste from the beginning by controlling production according to sales velocity, so that in case of reduced sales organization can eliminate waste like excessive workforce to achieve reduction in production costs.

Respectively, according to Womack (2006), lean focuses on eliminating three types of unnecessities. These three types are waste (muda), unevenness (mura) and overburden (muri). Womack (2006) explained the relation between these three types so that usually existence of Mura (e.g. unevenness of sales and production) will create Muri (e.g. over- load of work for employees and machines). Eventually existence of Mura and Muri will prevent organization from tackling Muda (e.g. overproduction, waiting). Above mentioned fundamental targets form the basis for lean characteristics and lean thinking in general and they are reached by adopting different Lean tools and subsystems.

Currently researchers are partly unanimous about different muda types and number of these types. Toyota’s Taiichi Ohno originally identified seven types of waste (muda), but many researchers prefer to talk about eight types of waste (Lewis & Cooke 2013, Liker 2004). These eight types of waste according to Liker (2004) are presented below:

1. Overproduction 2. Waiting

3. Unnecessary transport 4. Over processing 5. Excess Inventory

6. Unnecessary Movement 7. Defects

8. Unused employee creativity

The first seven waste types presented above were originally introduced by Taiichi Ohno and the last one was added by Liker (Liker 2004). Like Monden (2011, pp. 4-5), Ohno and Liker argue that the fundamental waste is overproduction since it causes majority of other waste types.

Clearly linked to waste reduction, Toyota Production System and Lean relies heavily on already mentioned Just-In-Time philosophy (Monden 2011, pp. 6-7, Sugimori et al.

(15)

1977). Just-in-Time for Toyota means that in principal only necessary parts are handled at the necessary time using only necessary resources. This is done to avoid things like inventory unbalance or excessive workforce and therefore it helps to prevent waste cre- ation on different production levels. (Sugimori et al. 1977).

Toyota Production System introduced different subsystems that have then been adopted to be part of Lean. These subsystems can also be utilized as a part of daily management and therefore there is motivation to view them in some level.

One example of these subsystems is Kanban, which was created for controlling and monitoring material flows like inventory levels, production and supply of components.

Kanban utilizes cards to keep track of different material transactions in the organization.

(Lage Junior & Godinho Filho 2010). Although, according to Lage Junior and Godinho Filho, definition of Kanban needs to be restricted to more narrow level than just using cards to maintain material flow because most of the companies are utilizing some kind of system involving cards to manage materials on shop floor level.

Other popular subsystems or techniques originating from Toyota Production System are Gemba, which refers to “actual place”, and Kaizen, that refers to continuously improving via small improvement steps (Liker 2004). Gemba, originally known as genchi genbutsu, is about going out to where it happens and seeing for yourself to understand. So, in order to solve any business-related problems, Toyota Production System encouraged manag- ers to go and see the problem origins and where it happens (for example to production or to warehouse). (Liker 2004). Kaizen refers to a system aiming for a continuously improving and constantly learning organization. Word Kaizen itself can be described to mean “small, continuous improvement on everyone’s part” (Lareau 2003). Kaizen emphasizes that structured and solid processes form a basis for continuous improvement, and learning is about the capacity to build on past and constantly move forward (Liker 2004). In the core of Toyota’s kaizen are different advanced problem-solving techniques like “5 Why’s” and Pareto-analysis, and by using them they are trying to find out the root cause to every problem. (Liker 2004)

But all in all, in the core of Toyota Production System and Lean are not the tools or waste reduction techniques but the employees mindset. Toyota values the passion to constantly learn and improve and encourages employees to start the actual implementation and take actions instead of standing down. Company should always strive to operational excellence. This is also the basis of Lean philosophy. (Liker 2004).

As mentioned in chapter 2.1, term Lean production was popularised by Womack, Jones and Roos (1991). Competition in the automobile manufacturing industry also boosted the Lean phenomena as competitors tried to match Toyota’s numbers and in 1990’s, research focus started to expand to different areas (Holweg 2007).

Superior performance of practitioners of Lean manufacturing encouraged also non-au- tomotive and non-Japanese companies to adopt Lean techniques and tools to boost their performance. These early implementations of Lean manufacturing were mainly focused on tools and human aspects of the philosophy were neglected, which resulted only in very localised positive effects (Hines et al. 2004). Up to this point, Lean thinking and

(16)

characteristics have been researched in various settings including manufacturing, customer service call centres, health care, construction and logistics. Research of the topic has been conducted across the world. (Raja Sreedharan & Raju 2016)

2.1.2 Lean Six Sigma

Although sometimes considered to be the same, Lean or Lean Production and Lean Six Sigma are somewhat different although complementary approaches (Raja Sreedharan

& Raju 2016). There are various definitions for Lean Six Sigma, but Lee et al. (2010) explain the relation of Lean production and Lean Six Sigma as follows: “Six Sigma is a well‐structured methodology that focuses on reducing variation, measuring defects and improving the quality of products, processes and services. Lean Production is an approach that focuses on reducing the cycle time and eliminating waste in processes. Com- bining the principles of Six Sigma and Lean can achieve synergistic results that neither system can achieve alone.“ Other researchers have provided very similar definitions and have highlighted that Lean Six Sigma combines tools and principles from both, Lean and Six Sigma (see (Allen & Laure 2006, Kumar et al. 2006, Laureani & Antony 2010).

In Lean Six Sigma definitions, many researchers mention Lean Six Sigma’s benefits in increasing cost-savings and improving operational efficiency of the organization (Gupta et al. 2012, Raja Sreedharan & Raju 2016, Sunder 2013) But regarding customer service context of this thesis, Lean Six Sigma is also often mentioned to eventually contribute to customer satisfaction. This increase in customer satisfaction is often a consequence of above mentioned improved operational excellence in the organization. This because customer can expect products or services they have acquired to be received on time and in good quality. (Wang & Chen 2012, Gupta et al. 2012) Respectively, practicing Lean Six Sigma based activities daily can eventually increase customer satisfaction.

2.1.3 Lean leadership’s connection to daily management

Another Lean sub-term that is very much related to daily management is Lean leadership. Lean leadership has been developed in Toyota’s production system and can be defined through its four main stages. These leadership stages are: 1. Commit to self- development 2. Coach and develop others 3. Support Daily Kaizen and 4. Create vision and align goals. These four principles are differentiating Lean Leadership from other leadership styles. (Liker & Convis 2011). These stages are demonstrated in the below figure 2.

(17)

Diamond Model of Lean Leadership Development (Liker & Convis 2011)

Liker and Convis (2011) explains that rather than moving linearly from stage to stage, person usually cyclically go through these different stages throughout their career. First two stages are more of an individual development. The first stage is about leaders actively looking for ways to improve themselves and learn new skills. Crucial in this is to get help from others as leaders need to have space to be able to self-develop. In the second stage, leader needs to take role in developing others and actively coach and teach everyone in their staff. (Liker & Convis 2011)

Third stage, supporting Daily Kaizen, is more institutional and very much related to the daily management. In this stage, leaders are encouraged to guiding work groups towards one aligned vision or end-goal, that Toyota calls True North. There are two types of kai- zens within this stage. Maintenance kaizen is about dealing with daily changes and problems without deviating from the standardized processes. Improvement kaizen instead focuses on daily improvements and moving from current standard processes to improved performance. (Liker & Convis 2011) Both perspectives of kaizen should be taken into account when practicing daily management. If you focus only on maintenance kaizen, you are not proceeding towards the True North and the development stops. On the other hand, if you only focus on improvement kaizen without taking care of standardization, facing unexpected difficulties might lead to chaos.

Fourth stage concerns the alignment of vision and goals throughout the organization.

This stage emphasizes that separate local implementations of kaizen is not enough if they are leading to two different goals or opposite directions. It is important that all organization’s levels up-down have aligned their long-term objectives. This is also called hoshin kanri – the process of setting mutual goals for long term improvement. Crucial in this is to also break these high-level targets down to sub-targets for different departments and to communicate how these lower level objectives support big-picture targets. (Liker

& Convis 2011)

(18)

Quite similar process model of lean leadership is presented by Dombrowski and Mielke (2013). In this model, they present five stages: 1. Improvement culture 2. Self-development 3. Qualification 4. Gemba and 5. Hoshin Kanri. Dombrowski and Mielke empha- sized the role of team as an active unit in the lean environment. (Aij & Teunissen 2017, Dombrowski & Mielke 2013)

Regarding daily management, challenge is to seamlessly enable employees of the organization go through these lean leadership stages described above and how to com- bine this with daily actions. To achieve this, all teams and individual employees need to be aware of their roles in the organization and how they can in their own behalf help to reach big-picture goals. Daily management and daily management tools need to be planned so, that they allow space for self-development and provide assistance in coach- ing and teaching others. Most importantly, daily management and daily management tools need to be designed in accordance with organization’s high-level strategy and vision.

2.2 Lean daily management

In the last chapter the connection between Lean leadership and daily management was already partly addressed, but in this chapter daily management and particularly lean daily management is looked more into detail. Especially it is important to investigate how lean principles, like waste reduction and continuous improvement, can be implemented ex- ploiting daily management practices and tools.

There are various definitions for daily management or lean daily management, but it can be described to be standardized, systematic and structured approach to manage daily work and decisions. ”Daily Management is the key accountability subsystem for manag- ers to continually improve their operations in a structured and visible manner” (Zarbo et al. 2015) Daily management emphasizes visually aided management and aims to make workflows as well as process executions and failures visible so that entire workforce can take part in management and continuous improvement. (Zarbo et al. 2015) Visual daily management is also something that Toyota widely used to make problems visible and to improve value added flow. (Liker 2004). Lareau (2003, p. 67) explains that office lean daily management provides focus, structure, discipline and process ownership within each discrete workgroup or team in the organization. This thesis is not committed to one single daily management or lean daily management definition, but instead it is combining definitions and information from several sources and studies of the subject.

Empowering employees to make decisions and to commit to self-leadership is an important part of lean daily management. Leaders are meant to coach others and encourage employees to self-develop as well as to participate in organizational development.

(Aij & Teunissen 2017, Poksinska et al. 2013). Leader or manager also needs to work as a role-model and show willingness to change and to improve processes. Changes and improvement actions should be initiated and then monitored systematically (Poksin- ska et al. 2013).

(19)

Lean daily management is supposed to support the daily kaizen, or so to say continuous improvement in the organization (Lareau 2003). Popular process model for continuous improvement and kaizen actions is PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) nowadays also known as PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act). PDSA is a cyclical scientific method applied to daily work.

Its main idea is that the explicit and measurable hypothesis of possible process improvement is formed, and this hypothesis is then tested. If improvement happens, this improvement is applied as a standard work method until a new improvement is needed.

This cycle can be repeated many times. (Toussaint & Berry 2013) PDSA method can be also expanded to match MFI-method presented below in the figure 3. In the MFI method, PDSA cycle is complemented with couple of additional steps aiming to understand the initial problem and how to measure the success of process changes.

MFI-method (Taylor et al. 2014)

Although researchers equally see Lean daily management benefits and targets, there are slightly different views about lean daily management principles and main contents.

Researchers views are presented in the table 1.

(20)

Table 1. Lean Daily Management principles according to researchers

Researchers presented in the table 1 have studied different domains. Lareau’s (2003) book is about office work, Zarbo and Varney (2015) article concerns manufacturing field and Mann’s book (2005) more handles Lean management in general. Graban (2016) and Poksinska et al. (2013) talk about lean daily management in health care but Poksin- ska et al. (2013) also deals with manufacturing setting. These different research settings probably explain some of the sentimental differences regarding daily management principles.

And as can be seen from the table 1, there are certain elements which researchers agree about, but there are also differences. All researchers include daily meetings in some respect, be it a problem-solving board meeting, a stand-up team meeting or a daily work group meeting. Researchers also emphasize different forms of visual management like board layouts, visual controls or Kaizen (continuous improvement) sheets. Zarbo and Varney (2015) underline the meaning of gemba walk and post-gemba walk in daily management. Other researchers value gemba too, but according to them it is not necessarily crucial part or principle of daily management or they have included it in the other elements (Aij & Teunissen 2017, Mann 2005, Poksinska et al. 2013)

Lean daily management is a system that should become a “new normal” in the organization when implemented and it should guide and align daily activities according to leadership’s objectives or higher-level organizational targets. (Lareau 2003, pp. 67-68, Zarbo et al. 2015) Effective daily management also enables information flow from bottom-up to top-down, so that everyone in the organization can feel responsibility and accountability of the results as well as problems. (Poksinska et al. 2013)

In lean daily management, this information flow is often enabled using visual management and according to Zarbo et al. (2015) the daily visual management system is one of the most important structure to enable continuous improvement. Target of the visual management is to provide right information at the right time in order to make right decisions. When team’s targets and performance measures are made visible on boards or digital screens and updated frequently, process owners and team members get timely feedback on team and process performance. Effective visual management has many benefits as it promotes transparency, discipline, shared ownership and morale. (Eaidgah et al. 2016) Visual management makes the goals and the metrics constantly visible and they remind employees that what they are trying to achieve and how they are performing

(21)

compared to their targets (Gustavson & Liff 2014). Ultimate target is to see all the relevant information at once and that all the employees, not just leaders, could do meaningful decisions from the holistic perspective (Torkkola 2015).

According to Rich (2006) there are two main applications for visual management on the shop floor. First is to control the operation area or working environment by using different visual tools, like shadow boards indicating whereabouts of different tools. This also provides information about the current standard, which is the base for possible improvements. Second application is about reporting facts and figures of the work environment in form of communication board. These boards aim to provide open and reliable information about the performance trends and targets, so employees can learn about the process and its improvements. (Rich 2006)

Visually managing daily office work like customer service work is different and challenging when compared to shop floor daily management. When working on the shop floor, there are certain concrete elements like raw materials, finished goods and machinery.

This also means, that there are elements that are measurable, and employees are often able to see their work results directly. In customer service work instead, things like assignments, tools and metrics tend to be immaterial by nature and therefore not easily measured or displayed either. This might make customer service visual management more complex in nature as immaterial problems and functions need to be transformed to observable form. Information is also often hidden or unreachable in the information systems and visual management requires creativity. At the same time, transforming invisible to visible possesses a high value. Suitable lean daily management tools for visual management in these scenarios are Kanban boards, Obeya boards or X-matrix tables (Tork- kola 2015).

To conclude, lean’s foremost purpose is to serve customers in a quicker, more flexible and a higher quality manner. (Schonberger 2019) Instead of just reducing waste and standardizing ways of working, lean and lean daily management are providing a system to develop creativity and ability to solve problems. This is done by aligning organization to focus on customer needs and long-term goals. (Husby & Berlanga 2017) This means that applying lean thinking through daily management actions organization is eventually contributing to customer satisfaction, which can be considered to be the ultimate goal of customer service.

2.3 Daily management tools and practices in B2B customer ser- vice

Lean daily management research provides a lot of different tools and operating models for arranging daily management activities. Of course, there are no tools that suits every organization because demands vary between different industries and business environments and even between organizations. Organizations need to evaluate if certain tool can be used for their purposes and possibly redesign the tool or even reinvent it completely. However, in the studies and literature concerning lean and lean daily management there are many universal tools and best practices that completely or partly work for organizations from various industries and multiple business environments like customer service. Some of these tools are presented in the following sub-chapters 2.3.1-2.3.5.

(22)

2.3.1 Kaizen and continuous improvement management

There are various ways to support Kaizen or continuous improvement activities but managing improvement actions in a visually structured manner is something researchers emphasize (Mann 2010, pp. 170-171, Eaidgah et al. 2016, Lareau 2010, pp. 98-100). As continuous improvement as a systematic and iterative approach is important throughout the organization, it is beneficial to manage it visually. This also helps to engage and stimulate people towards improvement actions. (Eaidgah et al. 2016)

Principally, continuous improvement means that every process is improved every day.

In relation to PDSA-cycle, this improvement is enabled by following four steps encour- aging to experiments. (Torkkola 2015, p. 114)

In the first step, challenge is identified. This challenge should be in accordance with high- level strategy and eventually customer needs. In the second phase, current state is investigated. Understanding the current state is crucial before anything can be changed.

In this stage it is also important to measure the process so that it is possible to know if the changes done have been improvements. (Torkkola 2015, pp. 115-116)

Third phase is about defining target state of the process. Good question to ask at this phase is: “How this process should work?”. When the target state is defined in the third phase, experiments towards the target state are made in fourth phase. These experiments follow the PDSA-cycle. (Torkkola 2015, pp. 117-118)

One approach to Kaizen management or small daily improvements is the Kaizen Action Sheet tool introduced by Lareau (2010, pp. 98-100). Idea of the tool is to systematically manage waste-eliminating Kaizen suggestions of the workgroup. Improvement suggestion is provided by filling out simple action sheet as in below figure 4.

(23)

Kaizen Action Sheet (Lareau 2010, p. 99)

Problem description, action suggestion and expected results along with responsible person names are filled on to Kaizen Action Sheet. Lareau (2010, p. 100) highlights the importance of before and after pictures as they force the employee to think the problem- solving creatively and this increases the feeling of ownership and involvement. Kaizen Action Sheets are divided to four bins (Lareau 2010, pp. 99-100):

- Blanks – Kaizen Action Sheets ready to be used for employees of the work group - Submitted – Bin for sheets that are filled by employees. Each sheet is then an-

nounced in daily meetings.

- In progress – After announcement, sheets are stored in this bin until they are implemented of rejected.

- Resolved – Completed or turned down sheets are placed in this folder. It is not beneficial to further analyse contents of these sheets as it might result in demo- tivation instead.

As explained in the bin descriptions, sheets are placed in to correct bin according to its stage in the process. These action sheets are then reviewed regularly within the team in order to speed up the completion rate. (Lareau 2010, pp. 99-100) Granted that this method is based on circulation of paper sheets, the methodology could work also in a

(24)

completely digital environment. Regardless of the implementation technology or the detailed process structure, benefit of the tool arises from the fact that it guides to act based PDSA or PDCA cycle.

2.3.2 Problem-solving activities

Crucial part of lean thinking and daily management is effective problem-solving and lean organizations encourage employees to solve problems on their own behalf (Zarbo et al.

2015, Poksinska et al. 2013, Liker 2004). This is very much related to the idea of Kaizen and continuous improvement as well. Daily problems can be noticed for example from Kanban boards or different performance metrics. It is important to grasp problems as soon as possible when they occur and start systematic problem-solving activities.

Mann (2010, p. 168) presents seven basic steps of problem solving:

Step 1: Identify and define the problem

Step 2: Quarantine the problem and take other immediate remedial actions

Step 3: Involve the appropriate, knowledgeable people Step 4: Conduct root cause analysis

Step 5: Identify root cause solutions, assess them, and test the preferred alternative

Step 6: Implement the root cause solution

Step 7: Monitor and revise the solution as indicated by performance data

But even though these are the preferred steps, Mann (2010, p. 168) also notes that problem-solving activities doesn’t need to be complicated at first, and simple tools like 5 Why’s can be used to get started. The 5 Whys is a problem root cause analysis technique that is widely used in manufacturing and service industries. The 5 Whys is simply a method of asking five problem-related consecutive questions starting with a word “Why”.

(Basu 2009) There are four basic steps for conducting 5 Whys analysis (Basu 2009):

1. Select the problem for analysis.

2. Ask five ‘close’ questions, one after another, starting with why.

3. Do not defend the answer or point the finger of blame at others.

4. Determine the root cause of the problem.

The advantage of the 5 whys analysis is its simplicity as it can be used to define root cause of the problem without significant training. At the same time, the tool is very effective. (Basu 2009)

Another widely used problem-solving technique is the Ishikawa diagram also known as the Fishbone (Brussee 2012, Strong 2014, p. 120). The Ishikawa diagram targets to

(25)

systematically analyze the probable root causes of a certain problem. The tool is structured so that the effect (problem) is known and different factors leading to it are considered category-by-category. The structure is presented in below figure 5:

The Ishikawa diagram (Strong 2014, p. 120)

Problem-solving group goes through these categories (e.g. process or people) and brain- storms different causes which belong to these. It is often necessary to drill-down further into the causes and think about the real root causes for them for example by using 5 Why method.

Of all the discovered causes, group should agree two or three causes that are most likely to be the main reasons behind the problem. These three causes are then those to miti- gate first. (Brussee 2012)

When applied to industrial customer service setting, some root cause categories will probably stand out. Problems related to knowledge work, like customer service, are not so often caused by for example equipment or materials related causes. Of course, there are exceptions like equipment causes from faulty software or network, but major categories are often people, management, and process.

2.3.3 Daily accountability and actions lists

To follow-up problem solving activities and continuous improvement projects, there should be a way to display current tasks and define the status of them. Daily accountability is a lean management subsystem, that simply ensures that task assignments and continuous improvement actions are followed-up daily. But it also provides a focus on the process and identifying improvement opportunities (Mann 2010, p. 85)

To boost daily accountability, daily meetings and visual controls should be used. Main objective is to keep problems and related mitigation or problem-solving actions constantly visible to boost the feeling of ownership. (Mann 2010, pp. 85-91).

(26)

Mann (2010, pp. 85-91) suggests to go through three tiers of short follow-up meetings.

These meetings are closely related to hierarchy levels. In the first meeting, team leaders meet with team members. The second meeting is supervisor meeting with team leaders and in the third meeting, value stream manager meets with supervisors. These three meetings all are guided by visual control board but have a slightly different agenda. The first meeting among team leader and team members are about daily tasks and everyday topics whereas second and third tier meetings are focusing on the big picture assignments and development. However, as office processes tend to cycle slower than for example repetitive manufacturing processes, holding daily accountability meetings weekly rather than daily might be a better fit. This might also apply to the case organization.

Assisting daily accountability with visual control boards like action lists is a widely used approach. Action lists come in various forms like flip-chart sheets, whiteboards, and cards. Different action items on these lists originate from multiple sources like workshops, problem-solving activities, and value-stream mapping. These action items are simply written down on to list and possibly prioritized. Action items are assigned to individual employees or groups and due dates for completion are set. Manager’s job is then to follow-up completion in daily meetings with the team. (Rother 2009)

So, in a simplest form, action list can be such simple thing as a “To-Do list” where different actions to be completed are marked down and possibly divided to sub-actions. Then these items are prioritized, the due dates are set and responsible persons nominated.

Status of these actions are followed up daily or weekly in a group meetings or individu- ally.

2.3.4 Visualizing flow with Kanban

Kanban was already mentioned in the chapter 2.1.1. It is a tool for controlling and monitoring material flows like inventory levels, production and supply of components. Kanban utilizes cards to keep track of different material transactions in the organization. (Lage Junior & Godinho Filho 2010) But Kanban is not just used for inventory management and it applies for different settings, like software development and knowledge work in general (Torkkola 2015, Hammarberg & Sundén 2014).

According to Hammarberg and Sundén (2014) Kanban is built on three principles: visualization, limiting work in process and managing flow. Visualization of work can be as simple as putting sticky notes on the wall representing each work item. These notes representing work items you then move on the board according to workflow and process model. When doing this you can begin to see bottle necks when sticky notes are not moving fluently and are starting to gather to certain spots on the board. Adding limitations for work in process items will make possible improvement topics visible. By managing workflow, it is possible to implement these improvements and make process more fluent.

(Hammarberg & Sundén 2014)

Every team, like customer service team in one plant, can have different processes and resources, therefore it is beneficiary to customize Kanban board just for specific team’s needs. As described earlier, every work item has its own note on the board and these notes then move from left to right on board’s sections when actions are made in real

(27)

world. This kind of setting makes it easy to see bottle necks and division of work between team members. (Torkkola 2015).

What makes things challenging for Kanban in the case organization’s customer service setting is the already mentioned fact, that work items are often immaterial. Therefore, work items in Kanban are not following flow of material but something intangible like order data. This difference will most likely result in a need of modifications if used in customer service setting. But even so, many same principles apply to these Kanban variations.

Example of a Kanban board (Hammarberg & Sundén 2014)

Figure 6 explains the basic elements of Kanban board. Work items are indicated with notepapers which can contain information about the work item itself. They are moved on the board from workflow stage column to another (from left to right). Avatars can be used to indicate which person is responsible of work item during specific stage of workflow.

(Hammarberg & Sundén 2014)

2.3.5 5S for office operations

5S is a methodology for organizing workplace. It is straight-forward five-step technology targeting to change the mindset of the staff and encourage everyone for continuous improvement actions. At its core is the elimination of waste and applying focus on produc-

(28)

tive and quality improving environment. Traditionally 5S has been applied by manufacturing companies, like the case organization, to keep workplace clean and well orga- nized, but the methodology can be applied to service operations and knowledge work as well. (Sarkar 2006, pp. 1-2)

According to Sarkar (2006, p. 2) implementing 5S has the following effects on organization:

- Change the mindset of employees and facilitate continuous improvement - Improve the efficiency of employees and make them more productive

- Eliminate time spent on non-value-added work affecting individual and workplace efficiency

- Create a robust foundation for future work in the quality arena

Sarkar also points out that 5S is quality methodology that should be implemented before any other methodologies or tools (Sarkar 2006, pp. 2). Although like in manufacturing, 5S can be used as a cleaning and organizing method for offices to help locate for example physical tools and documents, but when it comes to knowledge work it might be more beneficial if it is applied for organizing immaterial work items like data and files. (Kropsu - Vehkapera & Isoherranen 2018)

The 5S tool and its five-steps methodology originate from Japanese companies where companies do 5S programs and conduct series of activities to eliminate waste causing errors, injuries and defects in workplaces. These five steps are called seiri, seiton, seiso, seiketsu, and shitsuke. These steps are translated and presented in the below figure 7.

The 5S’s (Liker 2013)

(29)

The application of 5S to knowledge work and data management is still arguable and there is not a lot of evidence except single case studies. But standardising and organizing knowledge work with a method like 5S could have significant benefits and make waste recognition easier. (Kropsu - Vehkapera & Isoherranen 2018)

Customer service in case organization is not totally separate from manufacturing as it indeed is handling the customer service of a manufacturing company. But even so, it has a lot of similarities when compared to pure knowledge companies doing for example software development. In both, customer is usually determining the flow of the work and customer demands can change significantly during a process, like a customer order process. Therefore, a lot can be achieved by standardising the processes and making waste visible.

2.4 KPIs and customer service performance measuring

“Performance management is seen as a dynamic and iterative process in which manag- ers work with their employees to define goals, measure and review results and reward a good performance or set corrective actions, to improve employee performance, with the ultimate aim of affecting organisational success positively” (Eaidgah et al. 2016). Accord- ing to researchers, visual performance management is an important part of Lean thinking and Lean daily management. (Poksinska et al. 2013, Graban 2016, Lareau 2010, Liker 2013)

There are various targets for performance management system and visual performance dashboards. According to Eckerson (2011, p. 5) there are three main targets:

1. Monitor critical business processes and activities using metrics that trigger alerts when performance falls below predefined targets.

2. Analyse the root cause of problems by exploring relevant and timely information from multiple perspectives at various levels of detail.

3. Manage people and processes to improve decisions, optimize performance, and steer the organization in the right direction

Practically, performance dashboard breaks down organizational strategy to components and metrics for each team and group of the organization and it enables effective way to monitor and manage key activities and processes. (Eckerson 2011, p. 4)

There are four types of performance metrics, and it is important to note that all metrics are not key performance indicators (KPIs). These four types of performance measures can be divided into two groups: result indicators and performance indicators. (Parmenter 2020) The four types of performance measures are presented in the below table 2.

(30)

Table 2. Performance measure types. (Parmenter 2020) Performance metric type Definition

Key Result Indicators (KRI’s) Give the board an overall summary about how the organization is performing as a whole

Result Indicators (RI’s) Tells management how well all teams combined are providing results

Performance Indicators (PI’s) Tells management what teams are de- livering

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Tells management how well the organization is performing 24/7, daily, or weekly in their critical success factors, and by taking action, management can improve performance

According to Parmenter (2020) many organizations use result indicators to measure performance. But this approach is problematic, as result indicators are designed to describe the results of actions carried by many teams over a certain period. Result indicators are usually indicating what has happened in the past and therefore they do not tell management what to do to improve performance. Also, key result indicators are often monetary and performance indicators are not. (Parmenter 2020)

Performance indicators are nonfinancial measures that indicate the performance of certain team or individual. Purpose of performance indicators is to help teams align their actions to organizations strategy and objectives. Deviations in performance indicators and key performance indicators are meant to trigger corrective action from group accountable for these indicators and the group should also immediately know what to do.

What differentiates performance indicator from key performance indicator is that latter is more fundamental and critical measure that indicates organizations performance. (Par- menter 2020)

KPIs have certain defining characteristics according to researchers. When comparing Parmenter’s (2020) and Kerzner’s (2013) views of these characteristics, it is clear that they agree on some characteristics but there are also differences. Both researchers emphasize for example timeliness, accountability and simplicity of a KPI but Parmenter (2020) points out the non-financial and top management involvement aspects whereas Kerzner (2013) talks about relevancy and KPIs as a trigger points. These characteristics are presented in below table 3.

(31)

Table 3. KPI characteristics

KPI characteristics according to Par- menter (2020) (edited)

KPI characteristics according to Kerzner (2013) (edited)

Non-financial

Not expressed in dollars, euros, pounds etc.

Accountability Individual or group is accountable for it.

Timely Measured frequently

(e.g. daily). Empowered Encourages people to act based on it.

CEO focus Acted upon top man-

agement. Timely Right time data. Must be updated frequently.

Simple

All staff understand the measure and what corrective actions to do.

Trigger points

It tells you about other interrelated processes too.

Team based

A team are accountable for improving the measure.

Easy to understand

Employees must know what is measured and what they should do as corrective actions.

Significant impact

Major impact on the organization’s critical success factors.

Accurate

Should measure only one thing and not affected by various things.

Limited dark side

Have been tested to have significant positive impact on performance.

Relevant

It should reflect the current way organization does business.

When developing KPIs and performance measures, organization should define its own critical success factors. Critical success factors (CSFs) are the strengths and weak- nesses that most affect an organization’s success and usually they are measured against the organization’s competitors (Law 2016). Critical success factors can also be seen as operational issues or aspects that are needed to be done well everyday by the staff (Parmenter 2020).

Identifying operational critical success factors can have many advantages, like assist in discovering effective KPIs, linking daily work to organizational strategy and help eliminate unnecessary measures that do not relate to any CSFs (Parmenter 2020). But in

Developing customer service daily management tools of an industrial organization

Miko Puusa