F.W. Guldenmund
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
3 records found
1
Creating Cross Organisational Safety Management
Possibility of Public-Private Safety Collaboration
Master thesis
(2020)
-
Luc van der Beeke, Pieter van Gelder, Frank Guldenmund, Marian Bosch-Rekveldt, Ruben Favié
This research focusses on finding an answer to the question how can safety be improved in a public-private environment. By means of literature and a case study some improvement opportunities are identified, which pose promising opportunities for improving safety management. The research focused on one of the opportunities, a collaborative approach in managing safety. This can be done by setting up a safety organisation, this new organisation was further investigated to identify the required characteristics. The second part of the research focused on finding answers to the questions how the what the preconditions, composition, mandate and tasks of this organisation should be. The final results show that the safety organisation should be an independent advisory group which consists of all long-term project partners. Their main function will consist of coordinating and improving safety practices on a central level.
...
This research focusses on finding an answer to the question how can safety be improved in a public-private environment. By means of literature and a case study some improvement opportunities are identified, which pose promising opportunities for improving safety management. The research focused on one of the opportunities, a collaborative approach in managing safety. This can be done by setting up a safety organisation, this new organisation was further investigated to identify the required characteristics. The second part of the research focused on finding answers to the questions how the what the preconditions, composition, mandate and tasks of this organisation should be. The final results show that the safety organisation should be an independent advisory group which consists of all long-term project partners. Their main function will consist of coordinating and improving safety practices on a central level.
Master thesis
(2019)
-
Max Potter, Pieter van Gelder, Mark de Bruijne, Frank Guldenmund, James Mac Gillavry
The ammunition domain is very fragmented and people within the Ministry of Defence often make the assumption that people from the different branches of the Armed Forces think differently about safety and its priority in making decisions for military operations. So far however it is unknown how the people in the ammunition chain think about safety or what causes differences in their thinking. A literature review was used to gain understanding in safety theories that could be applied to the ammunition chain. The focus was on Normal Accident Theory and High Reliability Theory. Q methodology was then used to identify and explore perspectives about safety of the key-players involved in the ammunition chain. A focus group and interviews with experts have been used to confirm the perspectives that were derived from the Q-study and to further explore their implications. In contrast to what was expected at the start of the research, no (organizational) fragmentation has been found in the mind-set on safety with the participants of the conducted Q-study. The findings seem to imply that the mind-set regarding safety is mainly shaped by the organisational position and roles of the people involved with ammunition. The conducted Q-study found three perspectives. The perspectives 1 and 2 seem to correspond with how High Reliability Organisations (HRO) think about and position themselves regarding safety. In perspective 3, there seems to be no clear lower limit for safety, meaning that the mind-set in this perspective allows for trade-offs on safety if resources become limited. The occurrence of perspective 3 was difficult to understand, therefore an explanation was sought. Combining the theory on NAT and HRO from the literature, the focus group and interviews with experts, a possible explanation for this perspective has been proposed. In this possible explanation the complexity in the governance at the top level of the Ministry of Defence seems to result in the loss of accountability for the ammunition chain. From the point of view of safety, this is a structural problem, implying that after some time accidents with ammunition could return regardless of the safety measures put in place. Two possible solutions were proposed to prevent this from happening.
...
The ammunition domain is very fragmented and people within the Ministry of Defence often make the assumption that people from the different branches of the Armed Forces think differently about safety and its priority in making decisions for military operations. So far however it is unknown how the people in the ammunition chain think about safety or what causes differences in their thinking. A literature review was used to gain understanding in safety theories that could be applied to the ammunition chain. The focus was on Normal Accident Theory and High Reliability Theory. Q methodology was then used to identify and explore perspectives about safety of the key-players involved in the ammunition chain. A focus group and interviews with experts have been used to confirm the perspectives that were derived from the Q-study and to further explore their implications. In contrast to what was expected at the start of the research, no (organizational) fragmentation has been found in the mind-set on safety with the participants of the conducted Q-study. The findings seem to imply that the mind-set regarding safety is mainly shaped by the organisational position and roles of the people involved with ammunition. The conducted Q-study found three perspectives. The perspectives 1 and 2 seem to correspond with how High Reliability Organisations (HRO) think about and position themselves regarding safety. In perspective 3, there seems to be no clear lower limit for safety, meaning that the mind-set in this perspective allows for trade-offs on safety if resources become limited. The occurrence of perspective 3 was difficult to understand, therefore an explanation was sought. Combining the theory on NAT and HRO from the literature, the focus group and interviews with experts, a possible explanation for this perspective has been proposed. In this possible explanation the complexity in the governance at the top level of the Ministry of Defence seems to result in the loss of accountability for the ammunition chain. From the point of view of safety, this is a structural problem, implying that after some time accidents with ammunition could return regardless of the safety measures put in place. Two possible solutions were proposed to prevent this from happening.
Transformation 4.0
A Closer Look at Mode of Operations in Nokia GOPS
The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0) is in full swing and organisations across the world pour efforts into the digitisation of manufacturing operations and services. The working practice changes and entails an increasing interaction of humans with technology. At the same time, from across society actors exert growing pressure on organisations to uphold accountability and other social values.
Industry 4.0 rises concerns over the organisation's current ability to support employee well-being. Here, well-being refers to the quality of an employee's working experience. In addition to an adequate physical and cognitive workload when performing tasks, factors influencing well-being include continuous competency development, synchronisation of one's work with that of colleagues, and recognition of one's contribution to the purpose of the organisation. Responsible Innovation, as a lens to improve the innovation process and anticipate social concerns such as that of well-being, remains appropriate for decision-making in governmental and academic settings. However, its use in industry is underrepresented and still unfamiliar to managers.
This thesis project is conducted in collaboration with Nokia Solutions \& Networks. The project explores how can Responsible Innovation benefit the employee well-being in the Transformation 4.0 of the associated company? The project follows a Trailing Research approach. This is similar to action-research, but it is executed in only one cycle and its goal is not to trigger change. The organisation does not have the explicit request to address a problem. Instead, it commissions this study in order to explore possible impact of Industry 4.0 on their current mode of operations.
Therefore, the student-researcher trails the transformation inside the organisation during a 5-month research stay. Change brought by the design, execution, and evaluation of new digitisation projects is followed closely. From interviews to 9 practitioners across Human Resources, Change Management, Leadership \& Talent, Demand Planning and Manufacturing groups, next to documentation analysis and contextual observation, a single case study with two embedded units of analysis---Business and Factory---is created.
The analysis results in the 9 Areas of Inquiry. These suggest a need to review current efforts in the organisation. The areas include a review: on traditional learning pillars; on the visibility of subject-experts across units and on current reward schemes; on the opportunity for rank-and-file to increase their outward-looking capability; on the way how groups capture and share lessons and how the impact of sharing is measured; on the understanding and monitoring of various forms of leadership; on the opportunity for the central change management group to transfer value to project groups in lower-levels; on employees' perception of the role of the continuous improvement function and how its methodologies are being transferred to the daily work of project groups; on the anticipation activities of more abstract future requirements for new tools; and on the mapping the evolving and diverse motivations of employees.
Responsible Innovation brings its value by acting as a lens through which the aforementioned areas should be studied. This thesis recommends a first step to explore these areas. Namely, managers should start a reflection on current efforts by using 4 criteria: anticipation, reflection, inclusiveness, and responsiveness. These can be used to evaluate activities and adapt future ones. This is recommended as an extension of the manager's tool-set in decision-making pertaining to change. Its use in the company can bring employee well-being to a more central position in the discussion.
...
The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0) is in full swing and organisations across the world pour efforts into the digitisation of manufacturing operations and services. The working practice changes and entails an increasing interaction of humans with technology. At the same time, from across society actors exert growing pressure on organisations to uphold accountability and other social values.
Industry 4.0 rises concerns over the organisation's current ability to support employee well-being. Here, well-being refers to the quality of an employee's working experience. In addition to an adequate physical and cognitive workload when performing tasks, factors influencing well-being include continuous competency development, synchronisation of one's work with that of colleagues, and recognition of one's contribution to the purpose of the organisation. Responsible Innovation, as a lens to improve the innovation process and anticipate social concerns such as that of well-being, remains appropriate for decision-making in governmental and academic settings. However, its use in industry is underrepresented and still unfamiliar to managers.
This thesis project is conducted in collaboration with Nokia Solutions \& Networks. The project explores how can Responsible Innovation benefit the employee well-being in the Transformation 4.0 of the associated company? The project follows a Trailing Research approach. This is similar to action-research, but it is executed in only one cycle and its goal is not to trigger change. The organisation does not have the explicit request to address a problem. Instead, it commissions this study in order to explore possible impact of Industry 4.0 on their current mode of operations.
Therefore, the student-researcher trails the transformation inside the organisation during a 5-month research stay. Change brought by the design, execution, and evaluation of new digitisation projects is followed closely. From interviews to 9 practitioners across Human Resources, Change Management, Leadership \& Talent, Demand Planning and Manufacturing groups, next to documentation analysis and contextual observation, a single case study with two embedded units of analysis---Business and Factory---is created.
The analysis results in the 9 Areas of Inquiry. These suggest a need to review current efforts in the organisation. The areas include a review: on traditional learning pillars; on the visibility of subject-experts across units and on current reward schemes; on the opportunity for rank-and-file to increase their outward-looking capability; on the way how groups capture and share lessons and how the impact of sharing is measured; on the understanding and monitoring of various forms of leadership; on the opportunity for the central change management group to transfer value to project groups in lower-levels; on employees' perception of the role of the continuous improvement function and how its methodologies are being transferred to the daily work of project groups; on the anticipation activities of more abstract future requirements for new tools; and on the mapping the evolving and diverse motivations of employees.
Responsible Innovation brings its value by acting as a lens through which the aforementioned areas should be studied. This thesis recommends a first step to explore these areas. Namely, managers should start a reflection on current efforts by using 4 criteria: anticipation, reflection, inclusiveness, and responsiveness. These can be used to evaluate activities and adapt future ones. This is recommended as an extension of the manager's tool-set in decision-making pertaining to change. Its use in the company can bring employee well-being to a more central position in the discussion.