Optimization Tool to Form Combinatorial Teams during Implementing Service Systems

Pierre H. Mouawad, Lyes Kermad, and Abderrahman El Mhamedi

Abstract—In today’s global competitive environment, each company must continually improve its performance and its quality by developing and implementing new and innovative strategies. For this reason, they start looking for Service Systems (SS) to manage their business system and be ahead in competition. Implementing & continual service of SS is a complex activity; therefore companies start reorganization their business process before putting into practise. Realizing reorganization is a key phase in the implementation process. In this article, we will propose an optimization modelling method to form team mixture able to support consultant during implementation & continual service. Primarily, we will specify the objectives, affinities and functional characteristics which will enable us with sufficient information to select the best modules. Secondly, competent team mixture will be selected for the reorganization through assessment.

Our main objective is to identify a team mixture able to implement & continual service of each module that matches or exceeds the performance expectation of the client.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the advent of industrial revolution, very few companies were doing the business in an organized way. These companies were small; a single person was taking decisions and managing all the operational and the related functions. Gradually, the market demand and the entire operations became impossible for one single person. Thus, the department concept evolved and designed to be specific to a function. The employees at all levels will cooperate to achieve company goals. In the process of this evolution, departments became larger, specialized, and functionally watertight in which each has its own set of processes.

The time has changed today from such a highly

secured corporate working environment to the more uncertain future. Now, to become leader and competitive in the market, it is said that companies have to properly manage the future by sustaining today through managing the current and future business information in each department. In order to manage information in terms of delivering high quality support to the right decision makers at the right time, one must automate the process of data collection, refine the data and give proper information to the organization. To achieve this, one must make information technology (IT) an ally and should harness its full potential and use it in the best possible way. That’s why almost all organizations are switching to SS as a solution.

Implementation & continual servicing of SS is a complex activity; it includes strategic, organization and technical dimensions. That’s why, companies hire skilled consultant to accomplish this task.

In this article, we particularly focus on the

composition of team mixture capable of supporting consultant during implementation & continual service. The main objective is to recognize a competent team mixture representing each department and capable of servicing SS while attaining client expectations. Here, we use the experience of the consultant by grading the resources through assessments.

The rest of this article is organized as follows: In section II, we discuss about SS and reorganization phase. In section III, we propose our optimization approach. And the conclusion will be found in section IV.

II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION OF SS: REORGANIZATION PHASE.

A. Description Innovation, adaptation and improvement are

concepts with high concerns of leaders, who must constantly lead their organization to adjust

978-1-4244-1672-1/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE.

themselves to be distinguished. Hence, companies integrate SS to optimize the diffusion of information for better reactivity and good performance.

As per Wikipedia, 2007, a service system is a configuration of technology and organizational networks designed to deliver services that satisfy the needs, wants, or aspirations of customers. It allows relatively inexperienced people to perform very sophisticated tasks quickly – vaulting them over normal learning curve delays.

At the time of implementation of SS, reorganization will be effected.

B. Problems faced: Failures Implementing SS system can throw up many

unexpected challenges. Many delegates said that adopting business process modelling is a prerequisite in order to implement this system. New processes do often not fit within the existing organizational structure, because processes are often cross functional. Also, the culture of the organization is a main issue to be taken into account during organizational change, because organizational change could support an implementation, and it can as well lead to resistance.

According to Figure 1, the basis of changing

management is in both the interpersonal and behavioral dimension and the normative and cultural dimension, and is subject to power and politics management, and to the management of perceptions and beliefs.

FIGURE 1: CHANGE MANAGEMENT ICEBERG

According to the GRH consulting, developing

the potential and supporting the acquisition of new behaviours through new ways is important during reorganization phase. The core strength of SS consulting should be the ability to recognize the elemental human characteristics and their impact on the systems. SS vendors do not propose an optimization tool to form competent team mixture capable of dealing with the personnel’s interest, personnel qualification in existing distribution and the work environment of the organization.

For that reason the organizational culture should

be managed in order to avoid problems like resistance. Therefore, our research is centralized on the following: It is important to choose combinatorial team from existing organization to support consultant during implementation and continual servicing of SS.

III. OPTIMIZATION APPROACH

As of today, there is no strategy which insists in making reorganization by choosing teams able to support consultant by creating timeless value for its client.

This team will be involved in the changement of

the organization structure and in the reorganization of the processes to be compatible with the new systems.

Hereby, we like to propose a solution composing of the following matrices inspired from the Quality Function Deployment1 (QFD) method. In the first

matrix, we specify the client requirements nreq and we relate them to organizational

characteristics je. These requirements and

characteristics will be gathered by category. Each one will have an effect on each functional characteristics and consequently on company's performance. Based on the findings, the reorganization process will continue with the second matrix. It helps to identify the best module for each department in section 3.2 and then identify team mixture from each department in section 3.2.1 to 3.2.4 capable to deploy modules in the new organization.

A. First matrix: House of Quality

During the first matrix, the objective as well as the affinities must be specified at the beginning. They must be selected by client. However, the functional characteristics must only be specified by the consultant.

In table 1, we summarize the notations used in

the first matrix as follows: TABLE 1

NOTATIONS OF HOQ 1

ireq Client requirements, 1≤ i ≥ n

je

Functional characteristics, 1≤ j ≥ m

ju The weight with which je

affects organization performance

ija The intensity with which je

affects ireq .

ir Client and manager’s preference rating of

ireq

1 QFD is seen like a planning instrumentation and as an

“Organizational culture/corporate culture that has an effect on the ability to change organizational human processes and on the sustainability of the changes.”

FIGURE 2: FIRST MATRIX - HOQ 1

As per figure 2, the construction of the matrix

help in choosing the functional characteristics je

with relation to client requirements ireq , and then

to fill up ija.The values of ija

are indicated by the consultant that determine the value of qualitative

relation between ireq & je.

Applying these characteristics leads to achieve the goal envisaged. If there is existing relation

between client ireq and je: ija

is larger than zero.

If not, ija = 0

Ideally, ju represents the weight with which

jeaffects organization performance. It can be

derived by the following formula:

ju = ij

n

ii ar∑

=1

j = 1, 2,…., m. Equation 1

When decision is taken to improve the

performance, client and executive manager’s opinions is required regarding the importance of requirements to enhance system in the organization. Sometimes, opinions differ between people in prioritizing the weakness points and requirements. These objectives and requirements will be classified as preference ranking

B. Second matrix: Module Deployment & Teams composition

During this phase, modules will be proposed for

each department. It will be selected according to functional characteristics. These modules will be implemented in the enterprise.

In below table, we summarize the notations used in the second matrix as follows:

TABLE 2:

NOTATIONS OF SECOND MATRIX

kp The k th module of the service system, 1 ≤ k ≥ 0n

klp

The l th alternative module choice for kp ,

1 ≤ l ≥ kn

jkb The intensity with which p k affects je

kw The weight with which kp affects company performance.

kp ( C ) The performance rating of klp

FIGURE 3: HOQ 2

In the same manner for ju of the first matrix, the

weight kw will integrate a significant effect of jeon

organization performance, as well as the weights jkb.

Thus, kw will be calculated according to the following formula:

kw = jk

m

jjbu∑

=1 k = 1, 2,…., 0n . Equation 2

Once modules are selected to be implemented,

therefore we will have to choose teams that will accomplish the task. These teams will support the consultant during implementation and then during continual service of SS.

Therefore, in order to select the suitable teams, the

performance of each team will be evaluated by the consultant. His experience will have positive influence on the changes. The performance will be evaluated through the following tables:

Functional Departmentalization2

In functional organization, organization is subdivided into departmental groups. And each

department kp will be further divided into several

teams klp . Depending upon each department, teams can be proposed as below:

FIGURE 4: TEAMS COMPOSITION

Evaluation of members & composition of teams

Team structure consists of mixture of members either from same department or from other departments. To build a team, it is required to choose necessary functions to attain goals. So, we have to evaluate members and choose them to be part of the teams as shown in figure 5. Here, the consultant will

2 Functional Departmentalization organizes by the functions to be performed. The functions reflect the nature of the business.

use his experience to opt for good members according to their personnel interest & qualification

as per figure 2. klså is the number of selected member:

FIGURE 5: EVALUATION OF MEMBERS & COMPOSITION TEAMS

Team evaluation as per functional characteristics:

The appraisal of each team shall be calculated by evaluating klí according to je , quality and reactivity. Also, the team shall be composed as if members according to their attitude, interpersonal and cultural dimension to suit with other members. klè valuates the contribution as follows:

FIGURE 6: TEAMS EVALUATION

Executive managers will choose mixture of teams

from each department. klC will be composed of several teams representing each department and matching or exceeding client expectation. Example: { klC } = (1, 2, 3): means that he has

chosen 11p of 1p , 22p of 2p and 33p of the 3p as in table 1.

The total ratio of estimated evaluation of selected team with others in the same department will be denoted by kp ( klC ). kp ( klC ) = (1,3,5): means that the performance of team 1 is evaluated by one (1). The number must be from 1 to 5. The number one (1) means not good performance and the number five (5) means very good performance. Hence, through section 3.2, we determine all variables related to model (P) as per equation 3. The variables are kw , the performance of each team and x. x indicates the choice to compose teams from existing resources or outsourcing. This model identifies a team mixture3 that maximizes company’s performance as in equation 3.

(P) kl

no

k

nk

lk xCw )(Pmax k

1 1∑∑

= =

Equation 3

1..1

=∑=

kl

no

l

xts k= 1, 2,.no Equation 4

theamongselectedispifxkk klkl 1{=

kpforesalternativ

otherwisexkkl 0{= Equation 5

Equation 4 corresponds to the assignment of team options in the team mixture while Equation 5 corresponds to the integrality constraints.

Since the performances are calculated, then as per model (P) the team’s mixture will be selected with higher values.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

This optimization modelling technique provides greater support during implementation and continual service of SS. During this method, the selection of the teams will be carried out according to personnel dimension and having good performance.

Reorganization must focus on generating new model for the company; this shall be done by

3 Team mixture represents work group members from each department of the company. Their role is to complete reorganization and attain enterprise objectives.

evaluating all resources and proposing the combination of man usage. The above mentioned method is used to recognize the system with possible combinations of resources.

REFERENCES [1] Manage 12, www.12manage.com, February 2007. [2] Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org, “Quality Function

Deployment, et Business Process Reengineering”, February 2007.

[3] Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org, “Service system”, 2007. [4] Computer weekly, “Service Oriented Architecture”, 2007. [5] Karni & Kaner, “An engineering tool for the conceptual

design of service systems. In advances in service innovations”, Springer, 2006.

[6] Rahul V. Altekar, “Enterprise wide Resource Planning. Theory and Practice”, Eastern Economy Edition, 2005.

[7] George L. Vairaktarakis, “Optimization tools for design and marketing of new / improved products using the house of quality”, Journal of Operations management, 1999.

[8] Hammer, M. and Champy, J. “Reengineering corporation: a manisfesto for business revolution” Harper Business, New York, p 32, 1993.

[9] Davenport, T.H, “Process Innovation”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, page 2, 1993.