Implementing Technological Change with Cross-Functional Teams
Implementing Technological Change with Cross-Functional Teams
复制标题
与跨职能团队实施技术变革
DOI：
10.1080/08956308.1994.11670964
复制
发表时间：
1994
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
R. A. Lutz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. A. Lutz
概述：为了更快、更低成本地生产出高质量的产品，克莱斯勒公司在公司内部建立了一个跨职能的平台团队系统。组织的许多方面，包括研发，现在受益于更直接地参与生产过程。在过去，各部门作为独立的实体工作，而现在每个部门的专家都聚集在一起，在四个主要平台团队中的一个团队中更有效地工作。而且，随着新产品的成功，克莱斯勒意识到，有限的资源-如果集中和组织-不一定是一个责任。通过缩小发明者和实施者之间的差距，克莱斯勒在产品开发和技术变革的各个阶段沿着强调团队精神。克莱斯勒的第一个转机，该公司的传奇回来的早期至中期的80年代，是一个熟悉的故事。但我相信，我们最近的转变（仍在继续）同样令人印象深刻。在我看来，令人印象深刻的是，我们成功地将“团队合作”概念贯彻到我们所做的几乎所有事情中，包括我们的研究和开发。传统上，克莱斯勒和几乎所有其他西方汽车制造商一样，是围绕垂直导向的“烟囱状”职能部门组织起来的（图1）。（图1省略）每个部门--设计、工程、采购和供应等等--几乎都是一个独立的世界--如果你愿意的话，可以说是一个筒仓。设计部门，或多或少在真空中工作，将设计一辆汽车，然后（如图1中较大的箭头所示）“把它推到门外”到工程部门。但是，由于工程师没有完全参与到这个过程中，因此总是需要进行可行性更改-导致我称之为“重做循环”（虚线）。然后，工程部在真空中设计汽车，并将其推到采购和供应部门，从供应商那里购买零部件。但同样会有更多的重做循环，因为我们的供应商一直处于他们自己的真空中。同样的事情会一直发生，直到最后，所有的重做循环开始看起来像一个巨大的毛球！可悲的是，其结果是猛犸成本，缺乏竞争力的产品开发时间，最后但绝非最不重要的是，“最低公分母”的汽车和卡车。这是因为，尽管沿着有激烈的地盘争夺战，但对整车的“所有权”感是如此的分散，几乎没有人对它负责！在深刻反省之后，我们采取了一个大胆的举措，从根本上重组了公司的组织体系。图2说明了我们所做的：从本质上讲，我们推翻了旧的功能烟囱，代之以跨功能的产品开发团队--我们称之为“平台团队”。“（图2省略）我们有四个主要平台团队：小型汽车、吉普车和皮卡车、小型货车和大型汽车各一个。每个团队都由所有旧职能部门的专家组成，包括我们的主要供应商。事实上，我们的供应商对我们来说至关重要，因为他们为我们提供了不少于70%的零部件，而且他们还为我们提供了越来越多的研发。因为我们对待他们的方式，他们这样做是安全的。事实上，我认为，我们与供应商的关系被广泛认为是国内汽车行业中最密切的关系，有人称之为“美国式的经连会”。“我喜欢用“虚拟企业”这个词--它真的就好像我们正在成为一个巨大的、无缝的增值链。当然，很多公司都有所谓的“矩阵”组织，但往往没有太大的成功。…
OVERVIEW: In an effort to produce quality products more quickly and at less cost, Chrysler Corporation has instituted a cross-functional system of platform teams within the organization. Many facets of the organization, including R&D, now benefit from being more directly involved in the production process. Whereas in the past, departments worked as separate entities, specialists from each now come together to work more efficiently within one of the four major platform teams. And, with the success of their new products, Chrysler realizes that limited resources--if focused and organized--do not necessarily have to be a liability. By bringing the gap between those who invent and those who implement, Chrysler is emphasizing the spirit of teamwork along all stages of product development and technological change. Chrysler's first turnaround, the company's storied come-back of the early- to mid-1980s, is a familiar story by now. But our more recent turnaround (which is still going on) is, I believe, an equally impressive story. What makes it impressive, in my view, is the degree to which we have been successful in implementing "teamwork" concepts into virtually everything that we do--including our research and development. Traditionally, Chrysler, like virtually all other Western automakers, was organized around vertically oriented, "chimney-like" functional departments (Figure 1).(Figure 1 omitted) Each department--Design, Engineering, Procurement Supply, and so forth--was pretty much a world unto itself--a silo, if you will. The Design department, working more or less in a vacuum, would design a car and then (as represented by the larger arrows on Fig. 1) "shove it out the door" to the Engineering department. But, because Engineering hadn't been fully involved in the process, changes for feasibility would invariably be required--resulting in what I call "re-do loops" (the broken lines). Then, Engineering, in a vacuum itself, would engineer the car and shove it out the door to Procurement & Supply to buy parts and components from suppliers. But again there would be more re-do loops, because our suppliers had been in a vacuum of their own. The same thing would happen all the way down the line until, finally, all of the re-do loops started to look like a massive fur-ball! The results, sadly, were mammoth costs, uncompetitive product development times and, last but by no means least, "lowest-common-denominator" cars and trucks. That's because, even though there were intense turf battles all along the way, the sense of "ownership" for a complete vehicle was so diffuse it was almost as if nobody was responsible for it! TOPPLING THE CHIMNEYS After a lot of soul-searching, we took a brave pill and radically restructured our company's organizational system. Figure 2 illustrates what we did: Essentially we toppled the old functional chimneys and replaced them with cross-functional product development teams--what we call our "platform teams."(Figure 2 omitted) We have four major platform teams in place: one each for small cars, Jeep vehicles and pickup trucks, minivans, and large cars. Each of these teams is made up of specialists from all the old functions, including our key suppliers. Indeed, our suppliers are critically important to us, both because they provide us with no less than 70 percent of our parts, and because they also supply us, more and more, with a whole lot of R&D. They feel safe about doing that because of the way we treat them. In fact, I would maintain that the relationship we have with our suppliers is widely considered to be the closest in the domestic auto industry--what some have called an "American-style keiretsu." The term I like to use is "virtual enterprise"--it really is as if we are becoming one big, seamless value-added chain. Of course, a lot of companies have had so-called "matrix" organizations, but often without a lot of success. …