text:
الرئيسية Handbook of Industrial Engineering, 2nd Edition
Handbook of Industrial Engineering, 2nd EditionGavriel Salvendy
The Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Third Edition contains a vast array of timely and useful methodologies for achieving increased productivity, quality, and competitiveness and improving the quality of working life in manufacturing and service industries. This astoundingly comprehensive resource also provides a cohesive structure to the discipline ofindustrial engineering with four major classifications: technology performance improvement management management, planning, and design control and decision-making methods.
You may be interested in
Most frequently terms
john wiley419
You can write a book review and share your experiences. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you've read. Whether you've loved the book or not, if you give your honest and detailed thoughts then people will find new books that are right for them.
HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING Handbook of Industrial Engineering: Technology and Operations Management, Third Edition. Edited by Gavriel Salvendy Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING Technology and Operations Management Third Edition Edited by GAVRIEL SALVENDY Purdue University A Wiley-Interscience Publication JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. New York ● Chichester ● Weinheim ● Brisbane ● Singapore ● Toronto This book is printed on acid-free paper.嘷 ⬁ Copyright 䉷 2001 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published simultaneously in Canada. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4744. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012, (212) 850-6011, fax (212) 850-6008, E-Mail: PERMREQ @ WILEY.COM. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Disclaimer The editor, authors, and the publisher have made every effort to provide accurate and complete inforamtion in this Handbook but the Handbook is not intended to serve as a replacement for professional advice. Any use of the information in this Handbook is at the reader's discretion. The editor, authors, and the publisher specifically disclaim any and all liability arising directly or indirectly from the use or application of any information contained in this Handbook. An appropriate professional should be consulted regarding your specific situation. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: ISBN 0471-33057-4 Printed in the United States of America. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ABOUT THE EDITOR Gavriel Salvendy is a professor of Industrial Engineering at Purdue University and is the author or coauthor of over 380 research publications, including over 190 journal papers, and the author or editor of 24 books. His publications have appeared in six languages. His main research deals with improving the usability of the network. He is the founding editor of the International Journal on Human–Computer Interaction, International Journal on Cognitive Ergonomics, and Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing. Gavriel Salvendy was the founding chair of the International Commission on Human Aspects in Computing, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1990 he was the first member of either the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society or the International Ergonomics Association to be elected to the National Academy of Engineering. He was elected ''for fundamental contributions to and professional leadership in human, physical, and cognitive aspects of engineering systems.'' He is the 1991 recipient of the Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov Medal (founder medal) of the Russian Academy of Science. This was the first time that this award was presented to a scientist outside the former USSR. In 1995 he received an Honorary Doctorate from the Chinese Academy of Sciences ''for great contributions to the development of science and technology and for the great influence upon the development of science and technology in China.'' He is the fourth person in all fields of science and engineering in the 45-year history of the Academy ever to receive this award. He is an honorary fellow and life member of the Ergonomics Society, a Fellow of the International Ergonomics Association, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Institute of Industrial Engineers, and the American Psychological Association. He has advised organizations and corporations in 23 countries on the human side of effective design, implementation, and management of advanced technologies in the workplace. He earned his Ph.D. in engineering production at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. v ADVISORY BOARD Hans-Jörg Bullinger Professor and Head Fraunhofer IAO and Stuttgart University Germany email@example.com Takao Enkawa Professor Department of Industrial Engineering Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo, Japan email@example.com John A. Buzacott Professor Schulich School of Business York University Toronto, Ontario Canada email@example.com Shlomo Globerson Professor School of Business Administration Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel firstname.lastname@example.com Kenneth E. Case Regents Professor School of Industrial Engineering and Management Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma USA email@example.com Don B. Chaffin The Johnson Prof. of Industrial & Operations Engr. Director, Ergonomics Center The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan USA email@example.com Johnson A. Edosomwan Chairman and Senior Executive Consultant Johnson & Johnson Associates, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia USA email@example.com John J. Jarvis Professor and Director Dept. of Industrial & Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia USA firstname.lastname@example.com C. Richard Liu Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com Nicolas Marmaras Assistant Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering National Technical University of Athens Sector of Industrial Management and Operational Research Zografou, Greece email@example.com vii viii Aura Castillo Matias Associate Professor and Deputy Executive Director National Engineering Center University of Philippines College of Engineering, Dept. of IE Diliman Quezon City Philippines firstname.lastname@example.com Barry M. Mundt Principal The Strategy Facilitation Group Rowayton, Connecticut USA barry email@example.com Gerald Nadler IBM Chair Emeritus in Engr. Mgmt. Industrial & Systems Engr. Dept. University of Southern California Los Angeles, California USA firstname.lastname@example.com Deborah J. Nightingale Senior Lecturer, Lean Aircraft Initiative Aeronautics and Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts USA firstname.lastname@example.com Shimon Y. Nof Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com Ahmet Fahri Ozok Professor & Head Department of Industrial Engineering Technical University of Istanbul Istanbul, Turkey firstname.lastname@example.com Juan R. Perez Industrial Engineering Manager Strategic Process Management Group United Parcel Service Atlanta, Georgia USA email@example.com ADVISORY BOARD John V. Pilitsis President and Chief Executive Quantum Component LCC Shrewsbury, Massachusetts USA email@example.com John Powers Executive Director Institute of Industrial Engineers Norcross, Georgia USA A. ''Ravi'' Ravindran Professor and Head Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania USA firstname.lastname@example.com Vinod Sahney Senior Vice President Planning and Strategic Development Executive Offices Henry Ford Health System Detroit, Michigan USA firstname.lastname@example.com Laurence C. Seifert Senior Vice President AT&T Wireless Services American Telephone & Telegraph Corporation Redmon, Washington USA firstname.lastname@example.com Michael J. Smith Professor Department of Industrial Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin USA firstname.lastname@example.com James A. Tompkins President Tompkins Associates, Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina USA email@example.com ADVISORY BOARD Mitchell M. Tseng Professor and Head Department of Industrial Engineering Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong firstname.lastname@example.com Hans-Jürgen Warnecke Professor and President Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (Society) Leonrodstrasse Munich, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com ix Cheng Wu Professor and Director National CIMS Engineering Research Center Tsinghua University Beijing, P.R. China firstname.lastname@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Mary Elizabeth A. Algeo Computer Scientist National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland USA email@example.com Susan Archer Director of Operations Micro Analysis and Design, Inc. Pearl East Circle Boulder, CO 80301 USA Lajos Bálint HUNGARNET Vice President NIIFI Head of International Relations Budapest, Hungary firstname.lastname@example.com Robert M. Barker Associate Professor Computer Information Systems University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky USA email@example.com Edward J. Barkmeyer Computer Scientist Manufacturing Systems Integration Division National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland USA firstname.lastname@example.com Carl N. Belack Principal Oak Associates, Inc. Maynard, Massachusetts USA firstname.lastname@example.com Yair Berson Polytechnic University Yavuz A. Bozer Co-Director Joel D. Tauber Manufacturing INS Professor, Industrial-Operations Engineering College of Engineering University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan firstname.lastname@example.com James T. Brakefield Professor Department of Management Western Illinois University Macomb, Illinois USA firstname.lastname@example.com Martin Braun Research Scientist Competence Center Human Engineering Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering Stuttgart, Germany email@example.com Ralf Breining Scientist Competence Center Virtual Reality Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering Stuttgart, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Hans-Jörg Bullinger Professor, Head and Director Fraunhofer Institute of Industrial Engineering and IAT University Stuttgart Stuttgart, Germany email@example.com xi xii Richard N. Burns BCW Consulting Limited Kingston, Ontario Canada email@example.com John A. Buzacott Professor Schulich School of Business York University Toronto, Ontario Canada firstname.lastname@example.com Michael A. Campion Professor Krannert School of Management Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Pascale Carayon Associate Professor Department of Industrial Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin USA email@example.com Tom M. Cavalier Professor The Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania USA email@example.com Thomas Cebulla Project Leader Fraunhofer Institute of Industrial Engineering Stuttgart, Germany José A. Ceroni Professor of Industrial Engineering Dept. of Industrial Engineering Catholic University of Valparaı́ Chile email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Don B. Chaffin The Lawton and Louise Johnson Professor Industrial and Operations Engineering The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan USA firstname.lastname@example.com S. Chandrasekar Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Chung-Pu Chang Professor Eureka Consulting Company USA Tien-Chien Chang Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com Chin I. Chiang Institute of Traffic and Transportation National Chiao Tung University Taiwan R.O. China Soon-Yong Choi Economist / Assistant Director Center for Research in Electronic Commerce Department of MSIS University of Texas Austin, Texas USA Tim Christiansen Montana State University email@example.com Terry R. Collins Assistant Professor Industrial Engineering Department University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas USA CONTRIBUTORS Kevin Corker Associate Professor Computer Information and Systems Engineering Department San José State University San José, California USA firstname.lastname@example.com Tarsha Dargan Professor Department of Industrial Engineering FAMU-FSU College of Engineering Tallahassee, Florida USA Ko de Ruyter Professor Department of Marketing and Marketing Research Maastricht University Faculty of Economics & Business Maastricht The Netherlands firstname.lastname@example.com Xiao Deyun Vice Director of Institute of Inspect and Electronic Technology Department of Automation Tsinghua University Beijing P.R. China firstname.lastname@example.com Brian L. Dos Santos Frazier Family Professor of Computer Information Systems College of Business & Public Administration University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky USA firstname.lastname@example.com Colin G. Drury Professor Department of Industrial Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, New York USA email@example.com xiii Laura Raiman DuPont Consultant Quality Engineering Consultant League City, Texas USA firstname.lastname@example.com Taly Dvir Lecturer Faculty of Management Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel email@example.com Andrea Edler Head, Technological Planning Systems Dept. Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology Berlin, Germany email@example.com Johnson A. Edosomwan Chairman and Senior Executive Consultant Johnson & Johnson Associates, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia USA firstname.lastname@example.com John R. English Professor Department of Industrial Engineering University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas USA firstname.lastname@example.com Takao Enkawa Professor Industrial Engineering & Management Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo, Japan firstname.lastname@example.com Klaus-Peter Fähnrich Head FHG-IAO Stuttgart University Stuttgart, Germany email@example.com xiv Richard A. Feinberg Professor Consumer Sciences & Retailing Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana firstname.lastname@example.com Klaus Feldmann Professor and Director Institute for Manufacturing Automation and Production Systems University of Erlangen-Nuremberg Erlangen, Germany email@example.com Martin P. Finegan Director KPMG LLP Montvale New Jersey USA firstname.lastname@example.com Jeffrey H. Fischer Director UPS Professional Services Atlanta, Georgia USA email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Boaz Golany Professor Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management Technion—Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, Israel email@example.com Juergen Goehringer Scientific Assistant Institute for Manufacturing Automation and Production Systems Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen NurembergErlangen Germany email@example.com Frank Habermann Senior Doctoral Researcher Institute for Information Systems Saarland University Saarbruecken, Germany email@example.com Michael Haischer Fraunhofer Institute of Industrial Engineering Stuttgart, Germany G. A. Fleischer Professor Emeritus Department of Industrial Engineering University of Southern California Los Angeles, California USA email@example.com John M. Hannon Visiting Associate Professor Jacobs Management Center State University of New York-Buffalo Buffalo, New York USA email@example.com Donald Fusaro Member of Technical Staff Optoelectronics Quality Lucent Technologies Bell Labs Innovations Breinigsville, Pennsylvania USA firstname.lastname@example.com Joseph C. Hartman Assistant Professor Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Lehigh University Bethlehem, Pennsylvania USA email@example.com Alberto Garcia-Diaz Professor Department of Industrial Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, Texas USA email@example.com On Hashida Professor Graduate School of Systems Management University of Tsukuba Tokyo, Japan email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Peter Heisig Head Competence Center Knowledge Management Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology Berlin, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Markus Helmke Project Leader Institute for Machine Tools & Factory Management Technical University Berlin Berlin, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Klaus Herfurth Professor Technical University of Chemnitz Germany Ingo Hoffmann Project Manager Competence Center Knowledge Mgmt. Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology Berlin, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Chuck Holland Portfolio Project Manager United Parcel Service Atlanta, Georgia USA Clyde W. Holsapple Rosenthal Endowed Chair in MIS Gatton College of Business and Economics University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky USA email@example.com Chin-Yin Huang Assistant Professor Department of Industrial Engineering Tunghai University Taiwan xv Ananth V. Iyer Professor Krannert School of Management Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com Robert B. Jacko Professor School of Civil Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com Jianxin Jiao Assistant Professor School of Mechanical & Production Engineering Nanyang Technological University Singapore Albert T. Jones Operations Research Analyst Manufacturing Systems Integration Division National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland USA firstname.lastname@example.com Swatantra K. Kachhal Professor and Chair Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering University of Michigan-Dearborn Dearborn, Michigan USA email@example.com Kailash C. Kapur Professor Industrial Engineering The University of Washington Seattle, Washington USA email@example.com xvi Ben-Tzion Karsh Research Scientist Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin USA firstname.lastname@example.com Waldemar Karwowski Professor and Director Center for Industrial Ergonomics University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky USA email@example.com Anton J. Kleywegt Professor School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia USA email@example.com Tom Kontogiannis Professor Department of Production Engineering and Management Technical University of Crete Greece Stephan Konz Professor Emeritus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas USA firstname.lastname@example.com Timothy M. C. LaBreche Senior Research Engineer Environmental & Hydraulics Engineering Area School of Civil Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA CONTRIBUTORS Frank-Lothar Krause Professor Institute for Machine Tools & Factory Management Technical University Berlin Berlin, Germany email@example.com Douglas M. Lambert Mason Professor of Transportation and Logistics Fisher College of Business The Ohio State University Prime F. Osborn III Eminent Scholar Chair in Transportation University of North Florida firstname.lastname@example.com R. McFall Lamm, Jr. Chief Investment Strategist Deutsche Bank New York, New York USA firstname.lastname@example.com K. Ronald Laughery, Jr. President Micro Analysis and Design, Inc. Boulder, Colorado USA firstname.lastname@example.com Yuan-Shin Lee Professor Department of Industrial Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina USA Mark R. Lehto Associate Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Jens Leyh Project Leader Fraunhofer Institute of Industrial Engineering Nobelstrasse 12 Stuttgart, Germany CONTRIBUTORS C. Richard Liu Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Raymond P. Lutz Professor School of Management The University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, Texas USA Ann Majchrzak Professor, Information Systems Dept. of Information and Operations Management Marshall School of Business University of Southern California University Park Los Angeles, California USA email@example.com Chryssi Malandraki Lead Research Analyst United Parcel Service Atlanta, Georgia USA Tamas Maray Associate Professor Muegyetem Rakpart 1–3 Technical University of Budapest Budapest H-1111 Hungary email@example.com Nicolas Marmaras Assistant Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering National Technical University of Athens Sector of Industrial Management and Operational Research Zografou, Greece email@example.com Frank O. Marrs President / CEO Risk Management Partners, Inc. USA firstname.lastname@example.com xvii Roy Marsten Cutting Edge Optimization USA Aura Castillo Matias Associate Professor and Deputy Executive Director National Engineering Center University of Philippines College of Engineering, Dept. of IE Diliman Quezon City Philippines firstname.lastname@example.com Gina J. Medsker Senior Staff Scientist Human Resources Research Organization Alexandria, Virginia USA firstname.lastname@example.com Emmanuel Melachrinoudis Associate Professor Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Northeastern University Boston, Masachusetts USA firstname.lastname@example.com Kai Mertins Division Director Corporate Management Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology Berlin, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Najmedin Meshkati Associate Professor Institute of Safety and Systems Management University of Southern California Los Angeles, California USA firstname.lastname@example.com George T. Milkovich Catherwood Professor of Human Resource Studies Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies Cornell University Ithaca, New York USA email@example.com xviii CONTRIBUTORS Hokey Min Executive Director Logistics and Distribution Institute University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky USA email@example.com Reimund Neugebauer Professor / Managing Director Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology Chemnitz, Germany email@example.com Kent B. Monroe Professor Department of Business Administration University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign Champaign, Illinois USA firstname.lastname@example.com Jerry M. Newman Professor School of Management State University of New York-Buffalo Buffalo, New York USA email@example.com Barry M. Mundt Principal The Strategy Facilitation Group Rowayton, Connecticut USA barry firstname.lastname@example.com Abe Nisanci Professor and Director Research and Sponsored Programs Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering and Technology Bradley University Peoria, Illinois USA email@example.com Kenneth Musselman Senior Business Consultant Frontstep, Inc. West Lafayette, Indiana USA Barry L. Nelson Professor Department of Industrial Enginering and Management Sciences Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois USA email@example.com Douglas C. Nelson Professor Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Jens-Günter Neugebauer Director, Automation Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation Stuttgart, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Shimon Y. Nof Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com Colm A. O'Cinneide Associate Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Phillip F. Ostwald Professor Emeritus Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, Colarado USA firstname.lastname@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Raja M. Parvez Vice President of Manufacturing and Quality Fitel Technologies Perryville Corporate Park Perryville, Illinois USA firstname.lastname@example.com Richard B. Pearlstein Director Training Performance Improvement American Red Cross Charles Drew Biomedical Institute Arlington, Virginia USA email@example.com Juan R. Perez Industrial Engineering Manager Strategic Process Management Group United Parcel Service Atlanta, Georgia USA email@example.com Ralph W. ''Pete'' Peters Principal Tompkins Associates Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina USA firstname.lastname@example.com Don T. Phillips Professor Department of Industrial Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, Texas USA firstname.lastname@example.com Michael Pinedo Professor Department of Operations Management Stern School of Business New York University New York, New York USA firstname.lastname@example.com xix David F. Poirier Executive Vice President & CIO Hudson's Bay Company Toronto, Ontario Canada Lloyd Provost Improvement Advisor Associates In Process Improvement Austin, Texas USA email@example.com Ronald L. Rardin Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Ulrich Raschke Program Manager Human Simulation Technology Engineering Animation, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan USA email@example.com A. ''Ravi'' Ravindran Professor and Head Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania USA email@example.com David Rodrick University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky USA James R. Ross Resource Management Systems, Inc. USA William B. Rouse Chief Executive Officer Enterprise Support Systems Norcross, Georgia USA firstname.lastname@example.com xx Andrew P. Sage Founding Dean Emeritus University and First American Bank Professor School of Information Technology and Engineering Department of Systems Engineering and Operations Research George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia USA firstname.lastname@example.com François Sainfort Professor, Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology 765 Ferst Drive Atlanta, Georgia USA firstname.lastname@example.com Hiroyuki Sakata NTT Data Corporation Tokyo, Japan email@example.com Gavriel Salvendy Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com August-Wilhelm Scheer Director Institute of Information Systems Saarland University Saarbrucken, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Stefan Schmid Professor Department Assembly Systems Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation Stuttgart, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com Rolf Dieter Schraft Director Automation Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation Stuttgart, Germany email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Lisa M. Schutte Principal Scientist Human Simulation Research and Development Engineering Animation Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan USA email@example.com Shane J. Schvaneveldt Fulbright Scholar Visiting Researcher Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo, JAPAN, and Associate Professor of Management Goddard School of Business and Economics Weber State Univeristy Ogden, Utah USA firstname.lastname@example.com Robert E. Schwab Engineering Manager Chemical Products Catepillar Inc. Mossville, Illinois USA schwab robert firstname.lastname@example.com Sridhar Seshadri Professor Department of Operations Management Stern School of Business New York University New York, New York USA J. George Shanthikumar Professor Haas School of Business University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, California USA firstname.lastname@example.com Alexander Shapiro Professor School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia USA email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Gunter P. Sharp Professor Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia USA firstname.lastname@example.com Avraham Shtub Professor Industrial Engineering and Management Technion—Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, Israel firstname.lastname@example.com Edward A. Siecienski Executive Director JMA Supply Chain Management Hamilton, New Jersey USA firstname.lastname@example.com, Wilfried Sihn Director Corporate Management Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation Stuttgart, Germany firstname.lastname@example.com D. Scott Sink President World Confederation of Productivity Science Moneta, Virginia USA email@example.com David Simchi-Levi Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Rm. 1–171 Cambridge, Massachusetts USA firstname.lastname@example.com Edith Simchi-Levi Vice President Operations LogicTools Inc. 71 Meriam Street Lexington, MA 02420 USA (781)861-3777 (312)803-0448 (FAX) email@example.com xxi Douglas K. Smith Author and Consultant La Grangeville, New York USA email@example.com Francis J. Smith Principal Francis J. Smith Management Consultants Longmeadow, MA 01106 USA firstname.lastname@example.com Keith V. Smith Professor Krannert School of Management Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907-1310 USA firstname.lastname@example.com George L. Smith Professor Emeritus The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio USA Jerry D. Smith Executive Vice President Tompkins Associates, Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina USA firstname.lastname@example.com Michael J. Smith Professor Department of Industrial Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin USA email@example.com Kay M. Stanney Associate Professor Industrial Engineering and Mgmt. Systems University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida USA email@example.com xxii Julie Ann Stuart Assistant Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com Robert W. Swezey President InterScience America, Inc. Leesburg, Virginia USA firstname.lastname@example.com Alvaro D. Taveira Professor University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Whitewater, Wisconsin USA John Taylor Coordinator, Research Programs & Service Department of Industrial Engineering FAMU-FSU College of Engineering Tallahassee Florida USA jotaylor@.eng.fsu.edu Oliver Thomas Senior Doctoral Researcher Institute for Information Systems Saarland University Saarbruecken, Germany email@example.com James A. Tompkins President Tompkins Associates, Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina USA email@example.com Mitchell M. Tseng Professor and Head Department of Industrial Engineering Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS Gwo Hshiung Tzeng Professor College of Management National Chiao Tung University Taiwan R.O. China Reha Uzsoy Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Ralf von Briel Project Leader Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation Stuttgart, Germany Harrison M. Wadsworth Jr. Professor School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia USA email@example.com William P. Wagner Professor Decision and Information Technologies College of Commerce and Finance Villanova University Villanova, Pennsylvania USA Evan Wallace Electronics Engineer Manufacturing Systems Integration Division National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland USA Ben Wang DOE Massie Chair and Professor Department of Industrial Engineering FAMU-FSU College of Engineering Tallahassee, Florida USA email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS H. Samuel Wang Provost Chung Yuan Christian University Taiwan R.O. China Hans-Jürgen Warnecke Professor and President Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (Society) Leonrodstrasse Munich, Germany email@example.com Joachim Warschat Professor Frunhofer Institute of Industrial Engineering Nobelstrasse 12 Stuttgart, Germany Martin Wetzels Assistant Professor Maastricht Academic Center for Research in Services Maastricht University Faculty of Economics & Business Administration Maastricht The Netherlands email@example.com Andrew B. Whinston Hugh Cullen Chair Professor of Information Systems, Economics and Computer Science Director, Center for Research in Electronic Commerce University of Texas Graduate School of Business Austin, Texas USA email@example.com Richard T. Wong Senior Systems Engineer Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Piscataway, New Jersey USA email@example.com Andrew L. Wright Assistant Professor College of Business & Public Administration University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky USA email@example.com xxiii Cheng Wu Professor and Director National CIMS Engineering Research Center Tsinghua University Beijing, P.R. China firstname.lastname@example.com Xiaoping Yang Doctoral Student School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA firstname.lastname@example.com David D. Yao Professor Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Columbia University New York, New York USA firstname.lastname@example.com Yuehwern Yih Associate Professor School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana USA email@example.com Po Lung Yu Carl A. Scupin Distinguished Professor School of Business University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas USA firstname.lastname@example.com Fan YuShun Professor and Vice Director Institute of System Integration Department of Automation Tsinghua University Beijing, P.R. China firstname.lastname@example.com David Zaret Lead Research Analyst United Parcel Service Atlanta, Georgia USA FOREWORD Many people speculated about what industrial engineering might look like in the 21st century, and now here we are. It is exciting to see how the profession's definition of the work center has broadened to embrace the information age and the global economy. Industrial engineers, with their ever-expanding toolbox, have a greater opportunity to help corporations be successful than ever before. But while these changes and opportunities are exciting, they presented a challenge to the editor of this handbook. I met with Gavriel Salvendy as he began working to integrate all the thoughtful input he had received from his advisory committee, so I had a firsthand opportunity to observe the energy and creativity required to develop this content-rich edition. This handbook is truly an accomplishment, fully supporting industrial engineers engaged in traditional as well as new facets of the profession. This edition has stepped up to this multidimensional challenge. The Technology section updates the previous edition, with coverage of topics such as decision support systems, but also delves into information-age topics such as electronic commerce. Look closer and you'll see that attention has been given to the growing services sector, including chapters covering specific application areas. ''Enterprise'' has become a popular way to describe the total system and the broad organizational scope of problem-solving initiatives. I am pleased to see this addressed specifically through topics such as enterprise modeling and enterprise resource planning, as well as globally, as in the Management, Planning, Design, and Control section. This edition truly recognizes that IEs can and do contribute in every phase of the total product life cycle. The mission of the Institute of Industrial Engineers is to support the professional growth of practicing industrial engineers. This third edition is an allencompassing Handbook for the IE professional that rises to the task. Students, engineers of all types, and managers will find this a useful and insightful reference. JOHN POWERS Executive Director Institute of Industrial Engineers xxv PREFACE Industrial Engineering has evolved as a major engineering and management discipline, the effective utilization of which has contributed to our increased standard of living through increased productivity, quality of work and quality of services, and improvements in the working environments. The Handbook of Industrial Engineering provides timely and useful methodologies for achieving increased productivity and quality, competitiveness, globalization of business and for increasing the quality of working life in manufacturing and service industries. This Handbook should be of value to all industrial engineers and managers, whether they are in profit motivated operations or in other nonprofit fields of activity. The first edition of the Handbook of Industrial Engineering was published in 1982. It has been translated into Japanese and published by the Japan Management Association; translated into Spanish and published by Editorial Lemusa; published in a special edition in Taiwan by Southeast Book Company; and translated into Chinese and published by Mechanical Industry Publisher; and adopted by the Macmillan book club. The Handbook was selected by the Association of American Publishers as the Best Professional and Scholarly Publication in 1982 and was widely distributed by the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE). The Foreword of the first edition of the Handbook was written by Donald C. Burnham, retired Chairman of Westinghouse Electric Corporation. In this Foreword Burnham wrote, ''The Industrial Engineering principles that are outlines are timeless and basic and should prove useful to corporations, both large and small, both continuous process as well as discrete part manufacturing, and especially to those working in the service industries where most of the jobs are today.'' The second edition of the Handbook of Industrial Engineering maintained this thrust. In the Foreword to the second edition, the former president of NEC Corporation wrote, ''The Second Edition of the Handbook of Industrial Engineering will serve as an extremely powerful tool for both industrial engineers and managers.'' The many contributing authors came through magnificently. I thank them all most sincerely for agreeing so willingly to create this Handbook with me. Each submitted chapter was carefully reviewed by experts in the field and myself. Much of the reviewing was done by the Advisory Board. In addition, the following individuals have kindly contributed to the review process: Stephan A. Konz, K. Ronald Laughery, Jack Posey, William B. Rouse, Kay M. Stanney, Mark Spearman, and Arnold L. Sweet. For the third edition of this Handbook, 97 of the 102 chapters were completely revised and new sections added in project management (3 chapters), supplychain management and logistics (7 chapters) and the number of chapters in xxvii xxviii PREFACE service systems increased from 2 to 11 chapters. The 102 chapters of this third edition of the handbook were authored by 176 professionals with diverse training and professional affiliations from around the world. The Handbook consists of 6441 manuscript pages, 922 figures, 388 tables, and 4139 references that are cited for further in-depth coverage of all aspects of industrial engineering. The editing of the third edition of the Handbook was made possible through the brilliant, most able, and diligent work of Kim Gilbert, my administrative assistant, who so effectively coordinated and managed all aspects of the Handbook preparation. My sincere thanks and appreciation go to her. It was a true pleasure working on this project with Bob Argentieri, the John Wiley senior editor, who is the very best there is and was a truly outstanding facilitator and editor for this Handbook. GAVRIEL SALVENDY West Lafayette, Indiana September 2000 CONTENTS I. Industrial Engineering Function and Skills 1. Full Potential Utilization of Industrial and Systems Engineering in Organizations, by D. Scott Sink, David F. Poirier, and George L. Smith 2. Enterprise Concept: Business Modeling Analysis and Design, by Frank O. Marrs and Barry M. Mundt II. Technology A. Information Technology 3. Tools for Building Information Systems, by Robert M. Barker, Brian L. Dos Santos, Clyde W. Holsapple, William P. Wagner, and Andrew L. Wright 4. Decision Support Systems, by Andrew P. Sage 5. Automation Technology, by Chin-Yin Huang and Shimon Y. Nof 6. Computer Integrated Technologies and Knowledge Management, by Frank-Lothar Krause, Kai Mertins, Andreas Edler, Peter Heisig, Ingo Hoffmann, and Markus Helmke 7. Computer Networking, by Lajos Bálint and Tamás Máray 8. Electronic Commerce, by Soon-Yong Choi and Andrew B. Whinston 9. Enterprise Modeling, by August-Wilhelm Scheer, Frank Habermann, and Oliver Thomas B. Manufacturing and Production Systems 10. The Factory of the Future: New Structures and Methods to Enable Transformable Production, by Hans-Jürgen Warnecke, Wilfried Sihn, and Ralf von Briel 11. Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Manufacturing, by Mary Elizabeth A. Algeo and Edward J. Barkmeyer 12. Automation and Robotics, by Rolf Dieter Schraft, Jens-Günter Neugebauer, and Stefan Schmid 1 3 26 61 63 65 110 155 177 227 259 280 309 311 324 354 xxix xxx CONTENTS 13. Assembly Process, by K. Feldmann 14. Manufacturing Process Planning and Design, by TienChien Chang and Yuan-Shin Lee 15. Computer Integrated Manufacturing, by Cheng Wu, Fan YuShun, and Xiao Deyun 16. Clean Manufacturing, by Julie Ann Stuart 17. Just-in-Time, Lean Production, and Complementary Paradigms, by Takao Enkawa and Shane J. Schvaneveldt 18. Near-Net-Shape Processes, by Reimund Neugebauer and Klaus Herfurth 19. Environmental Engineering: Regulation and Compliance, by Robert B. Jacko and Timothy M. C. LaBreche 20. Collaborative Manufacturing, by José A. Ceroni and Shimon Y. Nof C. Service Systems 21. Service Industry Systems and Service Quality, by Martin Wetzels and Ko de Ruyter 22. Assessment and Design of Service Systems, by Michael Haischer, Hans-Jörg Bullinger, and Klaus-Peter Fähnrich 23. Customer Service and Service Quality, by Richard A. Feinberg 24. Pricing and Sales Promotion, by Kent B. Monroe 25. Mass Customization, by Mitchell M. Tseng and Jianxin Jiao 26. Client/Server Technology, by On Hashida and Hiroyuki Sakata 27. Industrial Engineering Applications in Health Care Systems, by Swatantra K. Kachhal 28. Industrial Engineering Applications in Financial Asset Management, by R. McFall Lamm, Jr. 29. Industrial Engineering Applications in Retailing, by Richard A. Feinberg and Tim Christiansen 30. Industrial Engineering Applications in Transportation, by Chryssi Malandraki, David Zaret, Juan R. Perez, and Chuck Holland 31. Industrial Engineering Applications in Hotels and Restaurants, by Douglas C. Nelson III. Performance Improvement Management A. Organization and Work Design 32. Leadership, Motivation, and Strategic Human Resource Management, by Taly Dvir and Yair Berson 401 447 484 530 544 562 589 601 621 623 634 651 665 684 710 737 751 772 787 825 837 839 841 CONTENTS 33. Job and Team Design, by Gina J. Medsker and Michael A. Campion 34. Job Evaluation in Organizations, by John M. Hannon, Jerry M. Newman, George T. Milkovich, and James T. Brakefield 35. Selection, Training, and Development of Personnel, by Robert W. Swezey and Richard B. Pearlstein 36. Aligning Technological and Organizational Change, by Ann Majchrzak and Najmedin Meshkati 37. Teams and Team Management and Leadership, by François Sainfort, Alvaro D. Taveira, and Michael J. Smith 38. Performance Management, by Martin P. Finegan and Douglas K. Smith B. Human Factors and Ergonomics 39. Cognitive Tasks, by Nicolas Marmaras and Tom Kontogiannis 40. Physical Tasks: Analysis, Design, and Operation, by Waldemar Karwowski and David Rodrick 41. Ergonomics in Digital Environments, by Ulrich Raschke, Lisa M. Schutte, and Don B. Chaffin 42. Human Factors Audit, by Colin G. Drury 43. Design for Occupational Health and Safety, by Michael J. Smith, Pascale Carayon, and Ben-Tzion Karsh 44. Human–Computer Interaction, by Kay M. Stanney, Michael J. Smith, Pascale Carayon, and Gavriel Salvendy IV. Management, Planning, Design, and Control A. Project Management 45. Project Management Cycle: Process Used to Manage Project (Steps to Go Through), by Avraham Shtub 46. Computer-Aided Project Management, by Carl N. Belack 47. Work Breakdown Structure, by Boaz Golany and Avraham Shtub B. Product Planning 48. Planning and Integration of Product Development, by Hans-Jörg Bullinger, Joachim Warschat, Jens Leyh, and Thomas Cebulla 49. Human-Centered Product Planning and Design, by William B. Rouse 50. Design for Manufacturing, by C. Richard Liu and Xiaoping Yang xxxi 868 899 920 948 975 995 1011 1013 1041 1111 1131 1156 1192 1237 1239 1241 1252 1263 1281 1283 1296 1311 xxxii CONTENTS 51. Managing Professional Services Projects, by Barry M. Mundt and Francis J. Smith C. Manpower Resource Planning 52. Methods Engineering, by Stephan Konz 53. Time Standards, by Stephan Konz 54. Work Measurement: Principles and Techniques, by Aura Castillo Matias D. Systems and Facilities Design 55. Facilities Size, Location, and Layout, by James A. Tompkins 56. Material-Handling Systems, by Yavuz A. Bozer 57. Storage and Warehousing, by Jerry D. Smith 58. Plant and Facilities Engineering with Waste and Energy Management, by James R. Ross 59. Maintenance Management and Control, by Ralph W. ''Pete'' Peters E. Planning and Control 60. Queuing Models of Manufacturing and Service Systems, by John A. Buzacott and J. George Shanthikumar 61. Production-Inventory Systems, by David D. Yao 62. Process Design and Reengineering, by John Taylor, Tarsha Dargan, and Ben Wang 63. Scheduling and Dispatching, by Michael Pinedo and Sridhar Seshadri 64. Personnel Scheduling, by Richard N. Burns 65. Monitoring and Controlling Operations, by Albert T. Jones, Yuehwern Yih, and Evan Wallace F. Quality 66. Total Quality Leadership, by Johnson A. Edosomwan 67. Quality Tools for Learning and Improvement, by Lloyd Provost 68. Understanding Variation, by Lloyd Provost 69. Statistical Process Control, by John R. English and Terry R. Collins 70. Measurement Assurance, by S. Chandrasekar 71. Human Factors and Automation in Test and Inspection, by Colin G. Drury 72. Reliability and Maintainability, by Kailash C. Kapur 73. Service Quality, by Laura Raiman DuPont 74. Standardization, Certification, and Stretch Criteria, by Harrison M. Wadsworth, Jr. 1332 1351 1353 1391 1409 1463 1465 1502 1527 1548 1585 1625 1627 1669 1695 1718 1741 1768 1791 1793 1808 1828 1856 1877 1887 1921 1956 1966 CONTENTS 75. Design and Process Platform Characterization Methodology, by Raja M. Parvez and Donald Fusaro G. Supply Chain Management and Logistics 76. Logistics Systems Modeling, by David Simchi-Levi and Edith Simchi-Levi 77. Demand Forecasting and Planning, by Ananth V. Iyer 78. Advanced Planning and Scheduling for Manufacturing, by Kenneth Musselman and Reha Uzsoy 79. Transportation Management and Shipment Planning, by Jeffrey H. Fischer 80. Restructuring a Warehouse Network: Strategies and Models, by Hokey Min and Emanuel Melachrinoudis 81. Warehouse Management, by Gunter P. Sharp 82. Supply Chain Planning and Management, by Douglas M. Lambert and Edward A. Siecienski V. Methods for Decision Making A. Probabilistic Models and Statistics 83. Stochastic Modeling, by Colm A. O'Cinneide 84. Decision-Making Models, by Mark R. Lehto 85. Design of Experiments, by H. Samuel Wang and ChungPu Chang 86. Statistical Inference and Hypothesis Testing, by Don T. Phillips and Alberto Garcia-Diaz 87. Regression and Correlation, by Raja M. Parvez and Donald Fusaro B. Economic Evaluation 88. Product Cost Analysis and Estimating, by Phillip F. Ostwald 89. Activity-Based Management in Manufacturing, by Keith V. Smith 90. Discounted Cash Flow Methods, by Raymond P. Lutz 91. Economic Risk Analysis, by G. A. Fleischer 92. Inflation and Price Change in Economic Analysis, by Joseph C. Hartman C. Computer Simulation 93. Modeling Human Performance in Complex Systems, by K. Ronald Laughery, Jr., Susan Archer, and Kevin Corker xxxiii 1975 2005 2007 2020 2033 2054 2070 2083 2110 2141 2143 2145 2172 2224 2241 2264 2295 2297 2317 2331 2360 2394 2407 2409 xxxiv CONTENTS 94. Simulation Packages, by Abe Nisanci and Robert E. Schwab 95. Statistical Analysis of Simulation Results, by Barry L. Nelson 96. Virtual Reality for Industrial Engineering: Applications for Immersive Virtual Environments, by Hans-Jörg Bullinger, Ralf Breining, and Martin Braun D. Optimization 97. Linear Optimization, by A. ''Ravi'' Ravindran and Roy Marsten 98. Nonlinear Optimization, by Tom M. Cavalier 99. Network Optimization, by Richard T. Wong 100. Discrete Optimization, by Ronald L. Rardin 101. Multicriteria Optimization, by Po Lung Yu, Chin I. Chiang, and Gwo Hshiung Tzeng 102. Stochastic Optimization, by Anton J. Kleywegt and Alexander Shapiro 2445 2469 2496 2521 2523 2540 2568 2582 2602 2625 Author Index 2651 Subject Index 2699 SECTION I INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS Handbook of Industrial Engineering: Technology and Operations Management, Third Edition. Edited by Gavriel Salvendy Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CHAPTER 1 Full Potential Utilization of Industrial and Systems Engineering in Organizations D. SCOTT SINK Exchange Partners DAVID F. POIRIER Hudson's Bay Company GEORGE L. SMITH The Ohio State University 1. 2. 3. OVERVIEW 4 1.1. Full Potential Introduced 4 1.2. Structure of the Chapter 4 1.3. ISE Domain Defined 4 1.4. Operational Definition of ISE 5 1.5. Applying the Definition 5 1.6. Integrating Work in Strategy and Policy, Conditions for Success, and Operations Improvement Leads to Full Potential 3.3.3. 3.3.4. 3.3.5. 3.4. 6 Communication System Learning System Summary Operations Improvement Role 3.4.1. Overview 3.4.2. Business Process Improvement 3.4.3. Building Effective Measurement Systems 3.4.4. Organizational Systems Performance Measurement 17 17 17 18 18 18 20 21 THE FULL POTENTIAL MODEL FOR THE ORGANIZATION 7 ORGANIZING FOR FULLPOTENTIAL ISE CONTRIBUTION 22 2.1. Overview 7 4.1. Overview 22 2.2. Examples of Full Potential 7 4.2. Executive Sponsorship 22 2.3. Enterprise Excellence Models 8 4.3. 2.4. Implications for ISE 8 Business Partner Relationship Management 23 THE FUTURE STATE VALUE PROPOSITION FOR ISE Integration Role 23 10 3.1. Overview 10 3.2. The Planning System: Position, Strategy, Implementation, and Deployment 3.2.1. Policy Deployment 3.2.2. Relationship Management 3.2.3. Change Leadership: The ISE as Change Master 3.3 Conditions for Success 3.3.1. Culture System 3.3.2. Infrastructure for Improvement 4. 4.4. 11 13 13 14 15 15 5. 6. IIE / CIE / CIEADH RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 23 5.1. Overview 23 5.2. Relationship Management 23 MAKING THE FULL-POTENTIAL MODEL WORK FOR YOU: LEADERSHIP AND PERSONAL MASTERY 23 REFERENCES 24 ADDITIONAL READING 25 16 Handbook of Industrial Engineering: Technology and Operations Management, Third Edition. Edited by Gavriel Salvendy Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 3 4 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS 1. OVERVIEW The theme of this chapter is ''achieving full potential.'' We explore how industrial and systems engineering and engineers (ISEs) can achieve full potential and how the ISE function and individual ISEs can assist their organizations in the achievement of full potential. Our fundamental premise is that organizations that desire to achieve full potential can enhance their success by more fully utilizing the potential of their ISEs. This will require holding a different definition for ISE, organizing the function differently, and having a different expectation regarding the ISE value proposition. The practicing ISE will also need to envision the role(s) he or she can play in large-scale transformation. This possibility has implications for the way ISE is organized and positioned in organizations, for higher education, and for the individual ISE. 1.1. Full Potential Introduced Have you ever experienced being a ''10'' ? Perhaps you struck a perfect golf shot, had a great day when everything went perfectly, or flawlessly executed a project. We're thinking of something that turned out even better than you expected—when you were in ''flow,'' creating the optimal experience and optimal results (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). Full potential is about realizing personal and organizational possibilities. It's about getting into flow and staying there. It's about creating optimal results from the organizational system. 1.2. Structure of the Chapter In its simplest form, an organization might be modeled as a complex collection of actions that drive particular results. These actions take place in a context or environment that mediates or moderates the results. Figure 1 illustrates such a model. This model will be our organizing frame for the chapter. We will discuss the role of ISE in corporate transformation, in the achievement of organizational full potential performance. As you see in Figure 1, there are three roles that the ISE can play in this model: 1. Strategy and positioning (e.g., what is the value proposition? Are we doing the right things? What is the strategic planning process, who is involved, what is the system, how do we ensure it works?) 2. Conditions for success (what are the conditions surrounding the actions that drive results? Is the environment right to support success?) 3. ''Drivers,'' or operations improvement (are we doing the right things right? How are we doing things?) We will discuss these roles in that order in the chapter. Note that the third role has been the traditional focus of ISE; we will suggest an expansion of the ISE ''domain.'' Rather than cover what is well covered in the rest of this handbook in the three roles for ISE in the future state organization, we will highlight, in each of the three roles, work that we believe ISEs will migrate to in achieving full potential. 1.3. ISE Domain Defined As James Thompson points out, a domain can be defined by the ''technologies employed,'' the ''diseases treated,'' and / or the ''populations served'' (Thompson 1967). Actions Full 3. Drivers -- Operations Improvement (4.4) Results (Cause & Effect Relationships -- beliefs in & knowledge of) Potential Performance Figure 1 Actions → Results in Context of Conditions for Success. INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ORGANIZATIONS 5 Consider the remaining sections of this Handbook: Information Technology, Manufacturing and Production Systems, Service Systems, Organization and Work Design, Human Factors and Ergonomics, Project Management, Product Planning, Manpower Resource Planning, Systems and Facilities Design, Planning and Control, Quality, Supply Chain Management and Logistics, Probabilistic Models and Statistics, Economic Evaluation, Computer Simulation, and Optimization. All speak, in one way or another, to technologies employed by ISEs, diseases treated by ISEs, and / or to a lesser extent populations served by ISEs. Again, we will propose expanding the ISE role. Let's begin by examining the traditional definition of ISE and then explore a broader domain definition in the context of full potential performance. 1.4. Operational Definition of ISE ''An Industrial and Systems Engineer is one who is concerned with the design, installation, and improvement of integrated systems of people, material, information, equipment, and energy by drawing upon specialized knowledge and skills in the mathematical, physical, and social sciences, together with the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design to specify, predict, and evaluate the results to be obtained from such systems'' (Womack and Jones 1996). This is the current and fairly traditional definition for ISE. 1.5. Applying the Definition According to Dr. W. Edward Deming, an operational definition is a definition you can ''do business with.'' Let's see if we can do business with the formal definition. The key word in the definition is ''system.'' It prompts the question ''What system is it that ISE's work to optimize? '' Our contention is that the ultimate system of interest is the extended enterprise. Ken Wilbur (1996), a challenging author to read and understand, says growth is about ''transcending'' and ''including.'' To contribute to full potential, ISEs must include and also transcend the subsystem they are working on. ISEs must also transcend and include the roles they play and the work they do. ISEs must see how performance improvement in the target subsystem (warehouse layout, work cell configuration, display / human-equipment interface, queue design, simulation, supply chain, etc.) serves the higher good or works to optimize the performance of the larger system. Jim Tompkins (1999) speaks to this and provides an example in his lectures on the migration from warehouse management to supply chain management to supply chain synthesis. Transcending the ISEs traditional system of interest may be the most profound change facing our profession. Inability or unwillingness to address the larger system may hold a clue to the decline our professional society has experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. Figure 2 is a portrayal of ISE extracted from the perspective of an academic program. Notice how in this model ISE builds on a core engineering curriculum foundation and then specializes in four basic areas: human factors engineering, manufacturing systems engineering, operations research, and management systems engineering. Each of these four specialty areas dovetails Mathematics Statistics Operations Research Manufacturing Systems Engineering Accounting ISE Management Systems Human Factors Engineering Psychology Economics Organizational Behavior Figure 2 An Academic Portrayal of Part of the ''Domain'' Definition for ISE. 6 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS with basic knowledge areas and / or application areas such as statistics, psychology, mathematics, information sciences, accounting, and economics. While this model is useful for portraying ISE from a curricular perspective, it is much less useful from an application perspective. Once the ISE begins reduction of theory to practice, the academic distinctions rapidly disappear. The ISE typically migrates to a setting that is defined by business processes rather than subdiscipline. The fledgling ISE is thrown into a system of people and capital that survives and thrives by continuing to enhance customer loyalty while at the same time reducing costs and improving efficiency. Fortunately, the ISE value proposition is so robust that enterprising ISEs find that they can contribute at any point and any level in the enterprise system. ISEs at work are more accurately portrayed by the potential value contribution or offerings they bring to the enterprise as it migrates to full potential and future state. ISEs at work will increasingly find that they must transcend and include their academic training in order to contribute meaningfully to the quest for full potential. Figure 3 is an example of such a portrayal. The specific contribution that ISEs make, the true value contribution, is the focus of this model. One example might be creating more effective measurement systems that lead to better information about the connection between improvement interventions and customer behaviors. Others might include optimized supply chain systems or increased safety and reduced lost time injuries. What is important in these examples is their impact on business results rather than their particular tools, techniques, or disciplinary focus. It is the cause-and-effect relationship between the value proposition and the business result that is the emerging emphasis. The disciplinary tool, knowledge, or technique becomes valuable when it is applied and we see its instrumentality for achieving positive business results. The ISE value proposition isn't only knowledge; it is the ability to reduce that knowledge to practice in such a way that it produces positive business results. In the coming decades, ISE practice is going to be very, very focused on creating results that move ISEs and their organizations toward full potential. 1.6. Integrating Work in Strategy and Policy, Conditions for Success, and Operations Improvement Leads to Full Potential Our point of view is that integrating work done to achieve strategy and positioning, the management of conditions for success, and operations improvement create full potential performance (again, see Figure 1). The role of ISE needs to expand to include more involvement with this integration. ISE work in operations improvement, at minimum, needs to be seen in the context of the other two roles. At the extreme, ISE needs to be active in strategy and positioning and condition for success work. And it is value creation for the organization that is the end in the coming decades. A profession that Building more Effective Measurement Systems for improvement System & Process Improvement (e.g. Business Process Reengineering) Strategy & Positioning/ Policy Aligned, Focused Improvement Condition of Mind: Intention, Alignment Program & Project Management Discipline (Benefits Realization) Change Leadership Management Information Systems & Technology Figure 3 ISE Value Proposition: A Real World Perspective. INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ORGANIZATIONS 7 is so constrained by the technologies it employs and doesn't focus on the end will continue to struggle. We will explain what we mean further into this chapter. 2. 2.1. THE FULL POTENTIAL MODEL FOR THE ORGANIZATION Overview Full potential organizations are made up of full potential individuals. We will address individual full potential briefly at the end of the chapter. Our discussion of organizational full potential will be more extensive, including specific examples of full potential for organizations, discussed in the context of the enterprise or business excellence model. We will also explore the implications of the expanded role of the ISE on our profession. 2.2. Examples of Full Potential Two seminal books come to mind when we think about full-potential organizations: Built to Last (Collins and Porras 1994) and The Living Company (DeGeus 1997). Collins and Porras portrayed eighteen ''visionary'' companies, companies that are more than successful, more than enduring. They are best of best in their industries and have been that way for decades; in fact, they performed well over some 70 years. The visionary companies were matched with 18 comparison firms* for the analysis. The DeGeus study, commissioned by Dutch Royal Shell, looked at 27 firms that were larger and older than Shell. These ''living companies'' had thrived for 100–200 years. We will review these studies to provide you with a glimpse of the ''full potential'' model (see Figure 4) and to highlight the ''causal variables'' identified by the studies. We will then explore the implications of these studies for the ISE profession. Collins and Porras's visionary companies attained extraordinary long-term performance. Consider three $1 investments on January 1, 1926: one in a general market stock fund, one in a visionary company, and one in a comparison company. By 1996, $1 in the general market investment would have grown to $415; in the comparison firms, to $955; and in the visionary firms, to $6356 (see Figure 4). What was full potential? What was possible? The point to be made from these numbers is that there are orders-of-magnitude differences in market performance between the visionary companies and the comparison organizations. One might even contend that ''full potential'' was in fact $10,000 or more! Surviving for 70⫹ years is an accomplishment in and of itself; we believe that thriving over that period begins to describe full potential. Collins and Porras concluded that ''visionary companies display a powerful drive for progress that enables them to change and adapt without compromising their cherished core ideals (1994, 9). Visionary Company $6356 $1 Out of Business $0 $415 $955 $2000 $4000 $6000 $8000 Full Potential = ? General Market Comparison Firm Figure 4 Relative Performance Data from Collins and Porras (1994): What Was Full Potential? * E.g., 3M the visionary company, Norton the comparison firm; Boeing the visionary company, McDonnell Douglas the comparison firm; Citicorp the visionary company, Chase Manhattan the comparison firm. 8 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS What are the attributes of full potential organizations? In living companies, DeGeus found four significant factors: 1. Sensitivity to the environment: the ability to learn and adapt (we might add, in a timely fashion) 2. Cohesion and identity: the ability to build community and a distinct cultural identity (we might add, that supports full potential performance) 3. Tolerance and decentralization: the ability to build constructive relationships with other entities, within and without the primary organization 4. Conservative financing: the ability to manage growth and evolution effectively DeGeus states, ''Like all organisms, the living company exists primarily for its own survival and improvement: to fulfill its potential and to become as great as it can be'' (1997, 11). Collins and Porras went beyond DeGeus, identifying one distinguishing variable and six ''explanatory'' variables they attributed to performance differences between visionary companies and comparison firms. The distinguishing variable for the visionary firms was ''Leadership during the formative stages.'' The six explanatory variables that they identified were: 1. Evidence of core ideology: statements of ideology, historical continuity of ideology, balance in ideology (beyond profits), and consistency between ideology and actions (walk the talk) 2. Evidence of the use of stretch goals, visioning, defining full potential for a given period of time: ''bold hairy audacious goals'' (BHAGs); use of BHAGs, audacity of BHAGs, historical pattern of BHAGs. 3. Evidence of ''cultism'': building and sustaining a strong culture, seeing culture as an independent variable, not a context variable; indoctrination process, tightness of fit (alignment and attunement) 4. Evidence of purposeful evolution: conscious use of evolutionary progress, operational autonomy, and other mechanisms to stimulate and enable variation and innovation 5. Evidence of management continuity: internal vs. external CEOs, no ''post-heroic-leader vacuum,'' formal management development programs and mechanisms, careful succession planning and CEO selection mechanisms 6. Evidence of self-improvement: long-term investments, investments in human capabilities (recruiting, training and development), early adoption of new technologies and methods and processes, mechanisms to stimulate improvement; effective improvement cycles established and a way of doing business. We will highlight this last finding particularly as we explore the expanding role for the ISE in the future. 2.3. Enterprise Excellence Models We find enterprise models or business excellence models to be increasingly relevant to the central message of this chapter. They are a way to portray the lessons from the work of DeGeus and Collins and Porras. For example, the Lean Enterprise Institute is working with MIT to develop a Lean Enterprise Model (LEM) (Womack and Jones 1996). The Malcolm Baldrige Award has created a Performance Excellence Framework (National Institute of Standards and Technology 1999). We believe that the Baldrige model provides valuable insight into the variables and relationships, consistent with the lessons from Collins and Porras. Figure 5 depicts the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence: (1) leadership; (2) strategic planning; (3) customer and market focus; (4) information and analysis; (5) human resource focus; (6) process management; and (7) business results (overarching—customer- and market-focused strategy and action plans). Compare and contrast these variables to the seven identified in Collins and Porras. Each of these models prescribes strategies for achieving full potential. Our contention is that this striving for full potential is the context within which ISE will be practiced. ISE will be challenged to present a value proposition in the context of large-scale organizational transformation. Enterprise models of excellence provide insights into how to position our profession and the work of ISE in organizations. With this base, each and every ISE has the potential to be a visionary representative of our profession. This is an excellent way to think about both personal and collective value propositions. 2.4. Implications for ISE The context shift we describe above for ISE has several specific implications. First, each and every initiative undertaken by an ISE must be causally linked to business results. Let's use a large retail INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ORGANIZATIONS 9 Customer & Market Focused Strategy & Action Plans 2 Strategic Planning 5 Human Resource Focus 7 1 Leadership 3 Customer & Market Focus 4 6 Business Results Process Management Information & Analysis Figure 5 Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. (C R Len us ela gt to ti h m on of er sh Lo ip ya lty ) organization as an example. One of the major business outcomes for this type of business is to fill what we call the ''treasure chest.'' As depicted in Figure 6, the treasure chest's three dimensions are (1) market share, (2) percent spend, and (3) length of relationship or customer loyalty. Retail businesses want to optimize market share, get their customers to spend more of their disposable income (percent spend) in their stores, and keep their customers (optimize the value stream from customers). How can ISEs help fill the treasure chest? Consider a profit ratio. Typically, ISEs have worked to reduce the inputs (the denominator) of the profit ratio by driving costs down and increasing efficiency. Focusing ISEs on outcomes (the nu- 100% Percentage of Spend 0% 0% Market Share 100% Figure 6 Filling the Treasure Chest as a Major Business Goal: What Does the Treasure Chest Model Look Like in Your Organization? 10 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS "C" - cater to crises, fight fires "A" - administer the business, do the job "D" - do the dumb "B" - build the business improve performance, fix the process or system Figure 7 ABCD Model: How We Spend Our Time. merator) shifts the paradigm about our value contribution. Our contention is that ISEs will be challenged to work on both the numerator and the denominator of the profit equation. ISEs and the ISE function will be required to explain our contribution in terms of the profit ratio. It won't be enough to say that we improved the efficiency of a process or work cell. We will have to demonstrate how our actions lead to filling the treasure chest. The seventh variable that Collins and Porras (1994) identified was ''evidence of selfimprovement.'' Time is the most critical resource in the knowledge-based organization. People at all levels spend their time doing four things: they Administer the business, that is, do jobs (''A'' work); they Build the business, that is, improve performance and fix systems or processes (''B'' work); they Cater to crises, that is, fight fires, fix problems (''C'' work); and they Do the dumb, that is, nonvalue-adding things (''D'' work). Figure 7 depicts how we spend our time. Organizations that intend to achieve full potential will spend more time on B work. They will establish improvement cycles such as the Deming and Shewhart Plan-Do-Study-Act model. Rather than addressing ''targets of opportunity,'' ISEs will deploy improvement cycles that are thought through strategically, comprehensive in scope, and well integrated. Enterprise excellence models clearly indicate this. Systems thinking will be applied at the enterprise level. This has been the clear migratory path for the past 30 years, and it will continue to be. Our profession's value proposition will focus on the special knowledge and skills the ISE brings to the quest for full potential. In the more traditional model, ISE work is often detached from the work of transformation. ISE improvement efforts tend to be done outside the context of the enterprise improvement cycle, so they lack a clear causal connection to organizational business results (e.g., filling the treasure chest). So the big implication for ISEs in the next several decades is that they must think enterprise, think total systems, and be connected to the enterprise improvement cycle. ISEs cannot afford to (sub)optimize targeted subsystems at the expense of the larger system, and they cannot afford to be isolated from the large-scale transformation work that characterizes the full potential organization. We might go a bit further and suggest that increasingly ISEs are going to be challenged to prescribe migration paths that move an organizational system toward full potential at a faster rate. 3. 3.1. THE FUTURE STATE VALUE PROPOSITION FOR ISE Overview On the threshold of the 21st century, Michael Porter is perhaps the best-known researcher, author, teacher, and consultant on the subject of competitive strategy. Porter (1996) makes a distinction INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ORGANIZATIONS 11 between operating effectiveness and efficiency and positioning and strategy; balance between the two contributes to organizational full potential. Whereas operating effectiveness and efficiency is the traditional core of ISE academic programs, positioning and strategy is rarely, if ever, addressed in ISE academic programs. We believe that our model of full potential depicts that balance. In this section of the chapter, we will approach positioning and strategy from an ISE perspective. Then we'll talk about another subject missing from most academic programs—conditions for success. Finally, we'll make some observations about a more familiar topic, the ISE's role in operations improvement. (For more on this subject, see Sink and Poirier 1999.) 3.2. The Planning System: Position, Strategy, Implementation, and Deployment The first role in this new model for ISE contribution focuses on the planning system. The planning system includes processes by which high-level strategy and policy are determined and all processes that lead to effective implementation and benefits realization from strategy and policy deployment. In many organizations, this system is not defined, not documented, not systematic, and hence the results it creates are highly variable. We contend that the planning system needs to be reengineered, and we offer this work as a role that ISEs can and should impact. Figures 8, 9(a) and 9(b) are simple versions of what we mean by this contention. Figure 8 is a depiction of what we call a ''grand strategy system.'' It is a high-level picture of strategy and policy deployment. Once strategy and policy (positioning) is decided, a transformation plan needs to be developed. The vision and definition of the future state is on the right-hand side of the picture, the current reality is on the left, and the work in front of the organization is in the middle. Conceptually, it will take many improvement cycles (Plan, Do, Study, Adjust / Act) to pull off a largescale transformation. Figure 9(a) depicts the improvement cycle process itself in general terms. It is not important to understand all the details of these figures; it is important that you see that ISE skills of system and process design are being applied at the strategy and policy deployment level. The premise is that more defined and explicit systems and processes for strategy and policy deployment will lead to more consistent results (benefits realization). Positioning deals with what an organization offers and how that offering is portrayed to the customer. It has to do with whether your value proposition is clear to the customer and whether those propositions are distinctive and attractive. It has to do with whether your customers see your offering PURPOSE (Enduring reason for being) = VALUES (See sheet #2_ "A-work" Missions, Systems Fronts, Business Processes, PIO's, KI's CURRENT REALITY Fall '99 • • • • • • 2 Spr '00 Sum Fall '00 '00 K RA M 3 ea su re t VISION (Point of Arrival) • • • • • • • • • Model for Success • Strategy (Overall & at KI level) • Tactics (w/I KI's) • Action Plans n me Win '01 Actions Results Adjustments KPI's A KR KR A 1 KRA Win '00 KPI's 4 KPI's KPI's Current Performance Levels PAST PRESENT 1/100 Figure 8 Grand Strategy System. Intended/Desired/Required Future Performance Levels FUTURE 12 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS (Prepare to Plan) STEP 1 (Study - Act) RECYCLE STEP 7 Organizational Systems Analysis • Mission, charter, purpose • Vision • Values, principles • Scanning, situation appraisal • Assumptions • Past and current performance assessment • Gaining systems appreciation I/Q analysis • Enlightenment • Upline plan review • > Quarterly reviews • 3 level meetings • Think statistically • Annual cycle STEP 6 Performance Measurement Systems •Visible management systems (Do) (Plan) STEPS 4 - 5 STEPS 2 - 3 Infrastructure • Scoping • Implementation • Implementation Management • Strategic • Tactical • Great performance OBJECTIVES P D S t A (a) ENLIGHTENMENT/AWARENESS PAST INITIATIVES CURRENT CURRENT PERFORMANCE ROADBLOCKS ASSUMPTIONS REVISIT/RECYCLE STEP ONE ZERO-BASE PLANS EVERY THREE TO FIVE YEARS WIDESPREAD COMMUNICATION LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE VISIBILITY/WAR ROOMS MID-YEAR REVIEWS REWARDS & RECOGNITION QUARTERLY LAWS STEP FIVE Accountability Mechanisms GUIDING PRINCIPLES VISION MISSION STEP ONE Preparation to Plan KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AUDITS STRATEGY STATEMENTS EXPANDED DEFINITIONS TACTICALOBJECTIVES GOALS/STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES STEP TWO Participatively Develop Goals & Objectives Visible Management Systems Infrastructure Problem Solving Process Accountability Matrix STEP THREE Implementation Planning & Implementation (b) Figure 9 Improvement Cycle Process. STEP FOUR Continuous Performance Improvement Measurement INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ORGANIZATIONS 13 as instrumental to their success. Positioning decisions occur in step 1 of the Improvement Cycle (see Figure 9(b)). Positioning decisions end up being articulated and portrayed on the far right side of the transformation plan (see Figure 8). Strategy, on the other hand, has to do with how the organization plans to deploy its offering and execute on its position. Strategy ensures that the customer takes up the offering. Success must be operationally defined; you must have a clear vision of what success looks and feels like. Successfully executing strategy and policy throughout the organization involves what is called policy deployment. Strategy is reflected in the middle part of the grand strategy plan (Figure 8). Strategy is fleshed out in the improvement cycle (Figures 9(a) and 9(b) in step 2. Improvement cycles in context of positioning and strategy are similar to the relationship between a game plan, perfect practice (as Vince Lombardi used to say), and actually playing the game. Strategy and positioning are the game plan; improvement cycles are perfect practice and also playing the game. The key role we see for ISEs in the planning system is in effective implementation and deployment of strategy and policy. This may well be several levels higher in thinking and involvement than many ISEs have traditionally been. 3.2.1. Policy Deployment Policy deployment involves the successful implementation of the strategy for success (Akao 1991). The Japanese describe it as a ''waterfall-down'' process consisting of communication and ensuing coordination of activities. Effective policy deployment processes and practices ensure alignment and attunement. It is the policy deployment process that causes improvement efforts inside the organization to be aligned with the vision for the organization. Improvement cycles become aligned as a result of the deployment processes and practices. An example of such a practice is what are called three-level meetings. Periodically, leaders and managers and employees from three levels of the business gather for an ''all-hands'' meeting to share progress and performance on key initiatives or performance improvement objectives (PIOs). During these reviews, the dialogue ensures that critical adjustments are made to refine alignment in efforts (pace, focus, resource allocation, etc.). We have found that ISEs can be effective in supporting policy deployment policy and practices; their systems thinking background makes them well suited for this activity. 3.2.2. Relationship Management In the full potential model of the organization (see Figure 10) are at least four categories of relationships that need to be managed and optimized: (1) customers, (2) employees, (3) stakeholder / stockholders, and (4) business partners (internal and external). At a micro level, the ISE will be expected to contribute to the conception, design, development, and implementation of improvement initiatives. The extent to which relationships are managed ef- STAKEHOLDERS Community Stockholders Owners ↑ Compelling Place to • goods ↑ value ↑ trust • services ↑ partnership • people ↑ quality ↑ consistency Compelling Place to Provide (partner with, supply) Invest Organization Upstream Systems • $'s Partners Industry Customers Leadership & Management ↑ cooperation ↑ win -- win ↑ trust ↑ dialogue ↑ quality of customer interaction Employees ↑ seamlessness ↑ value ↑ loyalty ↑ competencies ↑ successful attitudes Compelling Place to Work ↑ value of goods & services • satisfaction ↑ % speed ↑ loyalty ↑ Market Share Compelling Place to do Business With Figure 10 Full-Potential Performance Requires the Optimization of Key Relationships. (↔ represents relationships (or value exchanges) we will optimize in this transformation.) 14 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS fectively will ultimately determine the effectiveness of the implementation. At the macro level and with a focus on business results, it will be the relationship with the customer that will determine how well the treasure chest is filled. Acquiring information about the customer, monitoring how that information is used, and helping the customer be successful are all key aspects of customer relationship management (CRM). The role ISE should play is, at a minimum, to be keenly aware of the importance of CRM and to align ISE project work with CRM efforts. In that larger context and domain, value creation will derive from the ISEs ability to manage our relationship with various partner and customer segments and create results for and with them. In our view there is only one customer, the consumer. The end users or customers are the population we serve. There are no internal customers in our model. Everyone inside the organization should function as a partner on a team working to serve the customer. The ISE is in partnership with others in the enterprise, and all are working to achieve organizational full potential performance. The ISE brings technologies to the enterprise that will facilitate achieving full potential performance. At the maximum, ISE professionals would be part of the CRM program team. This would involve designing the strategy, working on information systems, and thinking through how to deploy CRM data and information to achieve alignment and optimize the lifetime value of the customer. Perhaps the most dramatic change for ISEs in the decades to come will be the requirement that they understand the needs of the customers and have a role in managing customer relationships. ISEs understand the process of converting data to information, using information to support decisions and actions. This understanding is sorely needed in organizations today and is a key to unlocking full potential. How will ISE solutions enhance the organization's relationships with its customers? This will be a key area of emphasis for the ISE in the future. The relationship management aspect of strategy and policy deployment goes well beyond just improved customer relationship management systems and processes. As Figure 10 shows, full potential performance requires that all relationships be managed differently. It has not been uncommon for supplier and vendor relationships to be in transition in the past; what has the role of ISE been in that transition? We contend that relationships with employees must also be managed differently; what is the role of ISE in that? Sears has a well-publicized transformation effort that focuses on being a compelling place to invest, a compelling place to shop, and a compelling place to work. This concept will show up in Figure 10. We would argue that ISEs can and should play a role in the relationship management associated with making the organization compelling from all constituent vantage points. This will lead to full potential performance. Managing these relationships differently will take different levels of personal mastery. Listening skills will be even more important. How we hold ourselves in relationship to others in the system is foundational; do we see ourselves as partners or as competitors / adversaries to be negotiated with? First we need a different model for full potential. Then we need to develop the skills to work the model effectively. We have discussed grand strategy, improvement cycle, policy deployment, and relationship management as key elements of planning system (strategy and policy development and execution) transformation. Other changes are required in the planning system in order for an organization to migrate to full potential performance, which we will either mention here and not elaborate on or mention in upcoming sections. The transformation to full potential is a stream of improvement cycles. There are improvement cycles embedded in improvement cycles. There is one for the overall enterprise and then embedded improvement cycles (aligned) for subsystems. Coordinating all these improvement cycles is critical to overall success—yet another natural role for ISEs to play in the future. Improvement cycles, at all levels, are conceptually a process of Planning, Doing, Studying (progress and performance), and then Adjusting plans based on results. We've addressed the Plan and Do steps. In the third role, operations effectiveness and efficiency, we'll discuss the role of measurement in the Study process and outline how to build more effective measurement systems—yet another key role for ISEs in the work to achieve full potential performance. All the Planning and Doing and Studying and Adjusting is being done in a context or organizational environment. Figure 1 depicted this. Culture shift is central to creating conditions that will support migration to full potential performance. We would once again contend that ISEs can and should play a role in designing and executing the culture shift to create conditions that will fully support transformation to full potential. This might be a support role to the HR function, team member / collaborator, and so on. We will flesh this out in the next section. 3.2.3. Change Leadership: The IE as Change Master Pulling off a major shift in the improvement cycle process in organizations will require many, if not most, to get outside their comfort zones. People are going to be asked to do different things differently. One key function of ISE in the context of improvement cycles will be bringing solutions to the business that help fill the treasure chest. Ensuring that the benefits of improvement are actually realized is a three-ball juggling challenge. The first ball is solution design and development. Solutions INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ORGANIZATIONS 15 must be thought through in the context of strategy and policy of the larger system. The second ball is project leadership and management: delivering the solution. The third ball, and often the most critical, is change leadership and management (Sink 1998). It is the ISEs smooth juggling of these three balls that creates effective change. Clearly there is a science and an art to this, and ISEs can become its foremost practitioners. In large-scale transformation, the three-ball challenge becomes the threenth-ball challenge. Full potential will require that many (n) solutions be delivered concurrently. The challenge is to manage multiple projects rather than a single project. We find that as ISEs gain experience they become excellent candidates for this challenge due to their training in dealing with system interactions and complexity. Here is a model that is especially useful for understanding change leadership and management: Readiness for change (R) ⫽ V ⫻ BP ⫻ A Change will occur if R ⬎ C, where: V ⫽ vision, i.e., people's connection to success, their clarity on what success looks like and feels like, an operationally defined desired point of arrival BP ⫽ burning platform, i.e., sense of urgency, level of dissatisfaction with the status quo A ⫽ approach, i.e., clear and pragmatic first steps, knowing what to do next to move in direction of vision C ⫽ Perceived cost and / or risk associated with change, i.e., level of discomfort associated with moving outside the comfort zone We believe that in the new environment the power of creation will supplant problem solving. It is easier to get people motivated to deal with an uncertain future if they are clear on the vision and they choose for it. (However, in fairness to problem solving, you don't need a vision to fix a broken window.) So we suggest strongly that ISEs work on developing creation skills to complement their highly developed problem-solving skills (Fritz 1991). Once people are in the creation mode, there will be little resistance to change and change leadership will be quite natural and almost easy. 3.3. Conditions for Success We will now turn from the planning system to look at what we call conditions for success. Recall the action-results and conditions for success model (see Figure 1). Much of the work of ISE tends to be in the domain of action to results; working on what we call drivers of change that directly result in improved business results. Often the effectiveness of efforts to influence drivers is diminished because the conditions for enabling the efforts to be effective are not present. So we identify ''enablers'' that are collectively constitute conditions for success. We will introduce four enablers that are central to conditions for success: 1. Culture system: shaping values / attitudes / behaviors that will support full potential performance 2. Infrastructure: how we are organized to do B and implications that B work will have on the A work infrastructure 3. Communication system: sharing information necessary to ensure that people are informed as we migrate to full potential performance 4. Learning system: ensuring that knowledge and skills keep pace to support the transformation 3.3.1. Culture System Culture is ''a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems'' (Schein 1992). The fundamental question for organizations aspiring to reach full potential (or should we say leaders who wish to lead groups to full potential?) is, ''What is the full potential culture?'' Figure 11 is a pictorial we use to describe our answer. The descriptors on the right side reflect values, attitudes, and behaviors that we believe are consistent with achieving full potential. Listed on the left are commonly experienced values, attitudes, and behaviors typical of underperforming organizations. We believe that most people inherently have core values that match those on the right: serving, learning, integrity, and excellence. Unfortunately, we have found that when individuals come together in organizations, things conspire to cause their attitudes and behaviors to migrate to the left. By raising consciousness about personal choices and what motivates those choices, it is possible to induce a shift to the right. We might more accurately say it is possible to create conditions that will naturally bring people back to their core values and to the attitudes and behaviors that are so critical to full 16 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS OPPORTUNITIES Ourselves Service to Others Conventional Creative Attack Ideas Nurture Ideas Individual Team Fearful Courage Indecisive SERVING Decisive Being Popular Right Decision Focus on Activity EXCELLENCE Focus on Results Suspicion Trusting Blaming Accountable Collaboration Competition Avoidant INTEGRITY Direct Defending Learning Arguing Listening Hierarchical Empowering Territorial LEARNING Sharing FULL POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE Under Performance Figure 11 Leadership Values Model. potential performance. Whether the ISE is an active or a passive player in this process, there still must be an awareness of the role culture plays in performance improvement. Having said this, we are convinced that there can be no passive players. Everyone's behavior must reflect full-potential values. (i.e., ''walk the talk.'') The ISE function is too important to be ignored. The ISEs must model these core values in order to be effective as individuals and as a collective force for improvement. Note that we entitled the section ''Culture System.'' The implication is that culture is the product of a system. If we want / need the culture to be different in order to achieve full potential, then we need to change the system that shapes culture. This is an active rather than passive approach to culture. We are consciously shifting culture toward what is natural (in our view) and toward valuesattitudes-behaviors that support achievement of full potential. Because ISEs are about integrating systems to optimize performance, recognizing that culture is a subsystem that needs to be led and managed is integral to our work—yet another area of potential work for ISEs in the future. 3.3.2. Infrastructure for Improvement Earlier we alluded to the ABCD model (Figure 7) depicting how we spend our time. Spear and Bowen (1999) highlight the importance of integrating administering the business (A work) with building the business. What are the roles and rules in the context of A and ''B?'' Toyota manages to demand rigid performance specifications while at the same time ensuring flexibility and creativity. This seeming paradox is the ''DNA'' or essence of their success. Disciplined execution of A makes it possible to also do B. The infrastructure for this is supported by culture, discipline, learning, role clarity, and rules. The potential ISE role in this regard is tremendous. Many organizations lack discipline and specification relative to A work, leading to a great deal of variation and unpredictability. This variability in performance is a source of D and ineffective management of C. Established methods and procedures are central to gaining control of A-work and freeing up more time for B. It is important for ISEs to reestablish their role in the continued ''rationalization'' of A. As Spear and Bowen (1999) mention, rationalizing A involves using experimentation and the scientific method to improve things. A word of caution: things will get worse before they get better. If the experiments are well designed and carefully thought through, the loss in performance will be manageable and the final results will be well worth the cost. Ideally, one could create a system that would perform and improve simultaneously. How to organize this and make it happen is clearly an important domain of activity for ISEs. How is your organization organized to do B, and what role should ISE play in the infrastructure piece? We have found that the infrastructure for B will determine how effective and efficient the B work is. ISEs can play an important role in this design variable. INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN ORGANIZATIONS 3.3.3. 17 Communication System Noted organizational authority Dr. Edward Lawler (1986) recommends that organizations first share information, then knowledge, then power, and only then share rewards. Communication is sharing information. The theory is that better-informed people perform better. Our experience and a host of research results confirm that hypothesis. Sharing information leads to better coordination, and better coordination creates the conditions for realizing full potential. The communication system needs to be thought through and well designed for effective and efficient implementation and deployment. We have found that ISEs can help improve the information sharing system. We see this as a key area of ISE contribution in the future. Remember the sequence Lawler recommends: Reengineer the communication system before addressing the learning system, then create the involvement system, and finally, put into place the reward and recognition system. Taken in order, these four steps produce an integrated system that can benefit from key capabilities of the ISE. Taken randomly, as is too often the case, valuable resources are wasted and the value proposition to the enterprise gets diluted and disappears. 3.3.4. Learning System Full-potential organizations are also learning organizations. Learning organizations must be made up of learning individuals. Each of us is a product of our experience. For the better part of 16–20⫹ years we participate in a particular educational process. The curriculum and the syllabi are provided for us. The goals, the things to be learned, the sequence, the practice, and so on are all prescribed. And then, suddenly, teachers are no longer part of the process, and we must make choices: either drift away from learning and growth or take charge of our own learning. Unfortunately, most people drift, and as a result their value proposition—their ability to continue to add value—diminishes over time. In the 1990s, as technology, competition, and complexity increased, organizational leaders began to stress the importance of learning and growth as part of the personnel development process. However, stressing importance typically has little or no effect. Lifelong learning is something that must be ''chosen for'' if we are to continue to contribute. Clearly, the ISEs can play at least two roles in the learning process. First, ISEs of the future will need to be more systematic and more disciplined about continuing education and development. Our professional society—in this case, the Institute of Industrial Engineers—will play an increasingly important role through its conferences and seminars. Additionally, many companies and agencies provide formal programs to support the learning process. Second, the ISE can and should play a role in assisting the organization with the design and execution of the learning (education, training, and development) process. Learning is a key business process. Improving the competencies and capabilities of the human resource requires a well-designed and executed process. Business process reengineering is often required if an organization is to move beyond the minimally effective training systems of the past to the learning systems that support the creation of positive business results and keep employees vital. We are proposing that learning is the result of a process. The education, training, development process in most organizations is not effective. A work knowledge and skills as well as B work knowledge and skills are needed. This will require being a team member with the HR function. Our experience is that the HR personnel have welcomed the contribution that ISEs can make to rethinking how to spark and sustain learning. The migration to full potential performance will require a tremendous amount of new learning. This will require, first, recognition that this is important, and second, willingness and desire to learn. We believe that creating a learning orientation is part of the culture shift work. People have a natural tendency and desire to learn and grow. When you change the condition within which people are working, this natural tendency will reappear. Then it is just a matter of directing the learning toward the knowledge and skills that support performance improvement. Much of this will be quality and productivity and improvement related, and this is where the ISE comes in. Changing the culture and then changing the system for learning are central to creating conditions that support full potential performance. ISEs can and should play a role in this shift. 3.3.5. Summary The involvement of ISE in strategy and positioning and in conditions for success occurs too infrequently. Full potential, as we have posited, requires an integration of work in the three areas. We asserted earlier that for ISE to be positioned differently, to adopt a broader domain, a senior champion or sponsor is often required. This will be someone who is an ISE or understands the value proposition of ISE and is constantly looking for effective pieces of work to involve them in, ways to use ISE to migrate to full potential. Each month, Industrial Management features ISEs who are in these roles.* * An outstanding example of an executive champion of ISE is our coauthor and colleague, David Poirier. His story appears in the May / June 1998 issue of Industrial Management. 18 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FUNCTION AND SKILLS The true impact of leadership in achieving and sustaining full potential performance is most often seen in the work they do in establishing conditions for success. All ISEs would be well served to consider the role they play in establishing and sustaining the proper conditions or environment to support full potential performance. We believe that ISE modes of thinking will be valuable in the challenging strategy and positioning work of the organizations of the future and in creating optimal conditions for success. A perspective built on sys