Metaphoric Comparison of Audi Manufacturing - Essay Example

? Organisational behaviour Metaphoric comparison of Audi Manufacturing Introduction and overview Metaphoric demonstration of various processes and systems is a common evolution in literature ever since Aristotle’s times. From management process and system’s perspective, Morgan (2006) conducted a much elaborate comparison of various organisational systems and processes with different metaphors such as machines, organisms, brains, psychic prisons, cultures, political systems, flux and transformation, and instruments of domination. Organisations can be compared to many other processes and systems, or metaphors, depending upon the way they are perceived. The main idea behind this comparison is that it produces greater and deeper knowledge and insight of organisational systems and processes. These expressions vary depending upon the need. However, these expressions help in creating a perception of the organisation; provide information that may be used for further diagnosis of the organisation; and provide an experience of the organisation’s disposition from an emotional, sensory, and understanding perspectives. The present context of analytic study is based on exploration of the luxury car manufacturing giant, Audi manufacturing, from three different metaphoric perspectives namely, organisations as machines, organisations as intricately woven meshes and organisations as processes of flux and transformation. The process of exploration is based on literature review associated with these metaphoric expressions and information related to the manufacturing giant. In this process, besides understanding the meaning and application of these three metaphoric expressions to Audi manufacturing, critical reflection on the positive aspects of metaphoric explanations and weaknesses associated with respective metaphors will be undertaken. Originated in Germany, Audi stands as one of the top brands of luxury car manufacturers in the world. Its products can be seen in almost all countries in the world. Audi adopted customization more recently to reach all customer segments, instead of limiting itself to the elite class; yet, its image as luxury car manufacturer still remains. This mass customization has provided numerous choices to its customers in terms of color, engine power, interiors, and other facilities. To possess an Audi, customers willingly wait for long time, which explains its level of success and popularity. Audi’s employees number about 60,000 across the all its production and service centres. Organisations are complex structures that function based on numerous systems, procedures, policies and practices, and requires a variety of skilled personnel that need to continuously learn and upgrade their skills in order to cater to changing external and internal demands. Hence, organisations are constantly challenged with ambiguity and uncertainty, and therefore require constant adaptation. These are achieved by constantly changing the work processes, systems, skills as well as places in contemporary times. These ever-changing patterns coerce management researchers to constantly scrutinize the internal and external environment, which ultimately result in various understandings as perceived by different individuals. These reflective perceptions have resulted in various metaphoric expressions of contemporary organisations. On one hand, these images provide insightful information about the organisation, and on the other, they have potential to present distorted image of the organisation. Both, imminent information and distorted images have to be considered in arriving at meaningful outcomes or studies of organisations that can be of practical importance in implementing measures that could be beneficial to the business, employees and/or society and environment. The present study is aimed at understanding Audi Manufacturing through the lenses of three different metaphors, which are aptly applicable to this manufacturing giant. These finding may be used to understand the impact of metaphors on development of theory and academic perspectives related to the organisation. Through their research on metaphorical expression of organisations, Cornelissen and Kafouros (2008) had concluded that the ability of a metaphor to advance and clarify theoretical understandings of organisations is based upon (1) the degree to which that metaphor is seen to capture multiple salient features of organisations; and (2) the ease with which the metaphor is understood. Based on Cornelissen and Kafouros’s (2008) premise, Audi Manufacturing is studied through the metaphors of organisations as machines, as intricately woven webs and as objects of flux and transformation. Morgan (2006) compared organisations with machines and as objects of flux and transformation, along with other metaphors. Organisations are also, in fact, intricately woven meshes meant to capture something from external world. Each of these metaphors bears resemblances with many aspects of organisational functioning and organisations’ outcomes. Organisations are machines because of the way they are structured to function on an ongoing basis; many of the organisational policies, practices and procedures resemble machinery used for production of goods that may be put to use in some way. The machine form for organisations is mostly derived from Taylor’s (1911) scientific management perspectives, which was a product of industrial revolution (Gibson, 1992). Also referred by Mintzberg (1979), in his organisational typology, the machine perspective denotes the way organisations are structured and function, especially in stable and steady environments. Mintzberg’s (1979) typology referring to machine-like organisations actually point at standardized tasks, formalized work processes and routine procedures, and centralized decision-making processes. The machine forms also include the organisational structure, which is mostly hierarchical or vertical structure with many levels; organised into specific departments based on the functions performed; this further leads to concentration of specific skills to certain departments. Such setups are more often seen in large manufacturing units. In fact, origin of machine-structures can be traced to large automobile manufacturers in the past, and so it’s metaphoric expression. Despite changes in management in contemporary times, features of machines can still be found in modern organisations. Contemporary organisations are intricately woven webs that are used to capture various external objects and objectives. The way intricately woven meshes are used as fishing nets to catch fish, organisations use various organisational elements to capture capital profits, customers, talented human resources, high-quality supplies or resources, lucrative markets, and a sustainable position. The elements used in various organisations differ and correspond to respective objectives that they want to achieve (or capture). In order to capture or achieve all desired goals, all elements must be interconnected and should be able to produce appropriately interlocking systems that can accurately achieve the desired objective. In an ideal state, all these elements are intricately linked without leaving any gaps or spaces that might result in missing the objectives. Intricacy and interlocking features determine the ability and scope of achieving organisational objectives. Just like meshes with smaller holes are used to catch smaller fish, and those with larger holes may be used for larger fish, organisational webs are structured in a manner that suits their objectives. From the third perspective, organisations are models of constant flux and transformation (Morgan, 2006). The comparison of organisations as forms of flux and transformation contradicts the machine form of organisation, which is especially true of contemporary organisations. The mechanical forms of organisation are also constantly challenged by external factors, different viewpoints, flaccid adjustments or adaptations, and thus are in constant chaos. Morgan (2006) argues the concept of autopoiesis in organisations and supports this argument with the interplay between external factors and internal organisational systems, which ultimately result in change. Therefore, Morgan (2006) views organisations as open systems, contrary to traditional closed systems. Factors such as changes in environment in the form of competition from external world, changes in quality and quantity of resources, changes in customer expectations, etc force organisations to interact with external forces and deal with internal chaos through flexible approaches and patterns. Organisations have been dealing with this chaos constantly, which has resulted in enormous change in the way they are managed, the way challenges and emergencies are handled, the way resources are managed and treated, and the way resources are developed. All these challenges and instabilities have resulted in constant transformation; in other words, the way organisations handle these challenges also determine their stability and reasons for existence. Hence, it would be apt to study Audi Manufacturing in terms of flux and transformation it has been undergoing since its beginning. : Analysis of Audi from the chosen metaphoric perspectives will be helpful in highlighting various features. Audi Manufacturing conducts its manufacturing processes through the Audi Production System (APS), which is similar to many other manufacturing processes, like the Toyota Production System (TPS) (Clarke, 2005). The APS adopts standardization of many processes that require lesser or no skills. This standardization can be seen in some of its technical processes, production processes, working conditions, and socioeconomic standards related to its employees. The APS is only different from Taylor’s scientific management principles in a manner that the former places human being at the centre unlike the latter that eliminated human element. With human being at the centre, the APS imbibes holistic production system with all components and processes of production process, interplant structures, and standardization and organisation principles. The Audi management claims that their production operation is innovative and is based on rigid accuracy and quality; they care for their employees’ needs and focus on efficient use of their resources. Their production process is completely focused on their people and their customers. While Audi’s customers receive high quality and innovative products, their employees enjoy the rights to decision making in areas such as ergonomic manufacturing processes. Audi encourages its employees to the fullest extent to produce high-quality and innovative products for its customers, by following all possible employee-oriented practices to encourage and motivate them to do so. In all, yet employees are forced to achieve the goals set by the organisation to the highest precision. Innovation and involvement are limited when the outcomes of high precision are demanded of employees. In such cases, innovation and involvement is confined to few employees, probably at managerial level in technical or design departments. This is evident from Audi’s practice of creating a new model in its ‘digital factory,’ which is then approved and sent to the production unit where employees are expected to produce similar product with highest precision and quality (Janos & Josef, 2010). Production then becomes a process of performing certain standardized work actions, without much room for bringing about change or making critical decisions. For instance, Audi’s Quality Assurance incharge along with other board members deal with all quality-related issues instead of assigning such critical responsibilities to the lower level employees. These top management executives drive quality through specific procedures and practices that are standardized and implemented. Freedom of action is enjoyed by the top management and freedom of voicing opinion by the customers; this process does not practically involve production employees (Zimmermann, 2009). Moreover, quality assurance activities such as checking for sounds, noises and other quality issues are delegated to separate teams within quality and technical departments whose job is limited to checking respective quality aspects of the products. Viewing Audi as an intricately woven mesh highlights certain new perspectives. Audi’s growth and competitiveness is attributed to its efficiency in implementation of operational strategies. These strategies include resource allocation, knowledge and innovation management, quality assurance practices, and minimum wastage and costs towards operations. Resource allocation also focuses on efficient use of resources including human resources and material resources. For instance, all of Audi’s production processes emphasize efficient use of energy and minimum or no wastage. For this, Audi uses highly sophisticated technology in its power plant, which can manage energy consumption for operating units, heating units and refrigerating units. Audi’s logistics are designed in a way to minimize energy consumption and storage. Its manufacturing rules are based on standardization of processes, which ensure minimum wastage of all resources along with time and efforts (Audi AG, 2008). Audi’s degree of integration between various production processes vary significantly and according to the external demand. At Audi, some of its production systems establish interrelation between different elements and some are interrelated (Clarke, 2005). This means some work functions in Audi are linked with each other for completion of the product, whereas some work functions are linked with all other work functions in order to ensure the right product with highest precision is manufactured. The former type of interrelation can be seen in various production processes on the manufacturing shop floor, whereas the later interrelatedness refers to functions such as human resources department, quality assurance, administrative and logistics functions etc. These interrelations between different functions and their interrelatedness depict a mesh-like picture of the organisation. As Clarke (2005; p.122) describes, Audi manufacturing imbibes nine key elements in its APS, such as, continuous improvement process (CIP), visual management, teamwork problem solving processes, standardized work, material handling systems, work place organisation, quality processes, and Total Production Maintenance. All APS processes are supported by ergonomically safe working areas, healthy work and team practices, clean and hygienic environment, and environmental-friendly work and production systems. Audi Manufacturing has certainly been a model for constant flux and transformation considering the evolution of its product line and its growth and sustainability. Audi has adopted numerous different working systems and methods since its inception in order to deliver highest quality products; these different working methods are infused into almost every aspect of Audi’s g business. For instance, the APS embraces flexibility as one of the approaches in its production processes in terms of schedules, purchasing or procuring supplies, and adaptation to global needs. The APS adopts lean hierarchies in many of its production plants and in logistics management (Clarke, 2005). In fact, Audi is known to have tied up with many other competitors, such as Volkswagen, for assembly and sales. For instance, Audi shares assembly shop space with Volkswagen and Scoda in India (van Weenan, 2008); this not only reduces administrative and other costs but also introduces new ways of doing business. This move is also a part of its sales strategy, which considers India as a good potential for Audi’s business, which depended upon imported Audis until now. Audi’s sustenance is also a result of its constantly changing ways to suit the environmental and customer needs, not ruling out need to make the business more profitable. In order to cater to larger customer segments and larger numbers of customers, Audi introduced many mass customization processes such as modular product architecture, flexible manufacturing and logistics systems, and integrated IT systems in a manner that provided high degree of uniqueness at affordable prices (Moser, 2007; 127). Change is emphasized in Audi manufacturing through all critical activities such as Quality, design and product innovation, human resource development etc. For instance, the Head of Quality Assurance at Audi, Zimmermann (n.d), regards quality as a principle followed by Audi, instead of regarding it as an abstract idea. In a press release, Zimmermann (2009) stated, “The quest for perfection is deeply ingrained in the Audi team. Audi quality means raising the bar higher and higher – that’s what makes Audi stand out. Quality doesn’t just happen by itself; it has to be worked for day after day. Continuous improvement process, new product introduction and development, learning and knowledge sharing are few agents driving change and transformation in an organisation. Analysing the metaphoric images through mirrored and critical reflection would be extremely useful in analyzing its systems and in shedding light on gaps, if any, in Audi’s manufacturing system. At the outset, looking at Audi manufacturing as a machine, which refers to its standardized processes, stable environment, consistent performance, and controlled output, does not seem to aptly describe the company; this is especially true because it is a contemporary organisation. With much emphasis on the human element, the machine metaphor seems a misfit. A machine metaphor is characterized by the ability and extent of control on design, production processes, quality and final production outcomes. The root of organisational sustainability lies in ability and extent of control. Control is also exercised through formal procedures, policies, and regulations. Large manufacturing units are controlled by all these techniques applicable for every function. Even in contemporary organisations, like Audi, power is not completely decentralized. Decentralized powers of decision making and authority lie in the hands of senior management of every function, who at their discretion can transfer authority to people of their choice. Audi follows lean hierarchies in order to encourage commitment, performance, and innovation at all levels (Clarke, 2005). Nonaka et al., (2003; p.492) pointed out that an organisation is not a mere information processing machine, but an entity that creates knowledge through action and interaction. In case of Audi, the machine metaphor is confined to very few processes and functions that are standardized and routine; where employee involvement is absent or hindered by inefficient and authoritative leadership; yet, machine metaphor stands true in case of organisational policies and procedures, which drive all employees towards performance and achievement of objectives. However, the machine-form of monotonous work is a thing of the past; contemporary organisations encourage innovation, creativity, involvement and improving performances. Ownership, which is opposite of control, improves involvement and commitment, which Audi imbibes into its organisational culture. Kartin (2011; p.16) highlights that, ‘The Audi brand stands for innovation and change.’ Thus, continuous improvement, innovation and transformation are a part of Audi’s corporate culture that is highly customer focused. The web or mesh metaphor reflects and is applicable to almost any contemporary organisation with its presence at local, national and international levels. Organisational elements are linked with each other just the way threads in a mesh are interlocked in uniform fashion. Any uneven gap within the mesh can lead to the escape, or miss, of objectives that the organisation wants to achieve. For instance, if the learning opportunities are not linked with operational strategies, then the final product would not be of high precision. Secondly, if the human resource development practices are not aligned to product development measures, then commitment and ownership of employees towards production will be affected. Moreover, if quality assurance measures are not linked with performance management, customer satisfaction will suffer thereby leading to leakage of profits and customers to competitors’ offerings. Any changes that are introduced in order to improve performance and business sustainability should also correspond and cohere with existing strategies in order to maintain uniformity of the mesh structure. Changes that are incoherent or illogical can produce gaps or chaos within the system. For instance, introduction of new designs without adjustments to resource allocation, budget and other required elements can result in much confusion, stress and defective or imperfect outcomes. The drawback of mesh or web metaphor is that this perspective cannot explain the positioning of organisational hierarchies or structure within the mesh. Although it is imperative that the hierarchical structure has to correspond with organisational objectives and that the positioning of hierarchies should cohere with other processes in order to be effective, it is difficult to explain their position within the mesh. Moreover, the mesh metaphor highlights organisations as closed systems, whereas the mesh metaphor is built on aspects such as coordination and efficiency, which are most affected in closed systems by conflicting interests and objectives. Considering the lean hierarchical system at Audi, the mesh metaphor seems most appropriate. Moreover, the webs become more and more intricate with the size, complexity and nature of organisation. Adjustments would be required to eliminate or address conflicting interests and to weave strong coordination and efficiency between different functions. From Audi’s transformation perspective, evidences of its product transformation from normal simple model cars to high-end luxury and sport cars are indicative of its evolution during the past few years. Audi attributes its transformation to its employees’ commitment and efforts, competitors’ advancements, and changing customer preferences. With a focus of expanding its business and products, Audi adopted various innovative initiatives, some of which include partnering with competitors to share space for production. Audi used this initiative to enter markets in Hungary, India and China. The characteristics of flux and transformation are chaos, complexity and paradox (Cameron & Green, 2009). At Audi, flux emerged from stiff competition and customers’ changing expectations, resulting in internal chaos in terms of necessity to constantly change and improve; complexity crept into the business in the form of skill level required to produce highly sophisticated systems, procedures and products. This metaphor effectively addresses the process of change that all organisations are constantly undergoing. Unlike the machine and mesh metaphor, which regard change as mechanical and deliberate process, this metaphor considers change as a natural phenomenon, which occurs as organisations evolve, expand and improve. To sum up, organisations are concrete formulations that can be compared to many natural, unnatural and imaginary models; a concept referred to as metaphoric comparisons. Comparing Audi Manufacturing to three different metaphoric expressions has assisted in surfacing various distinct properties of the company. The three metaphors used in this comparison lead to different reflections of the same manufacturing firm. The two metaphors that pose quite contradicting characteristics include the machine metaphor and organisations as objects of flux and transformation. While the former metaphor reflects control, monotony, rules and regulations, and authority, the latter comparison reflects involvement, commitment, innovation, leadership, and interaction. In case of Audi, both these metaphors are applicable to certain functions or aspects of the automobile giant, but do not reflect its personality in entirety. Organisations are formed by people that constantly change with respect to behaviour, thinking, attitude, focus, needs and expectations. These changes coupled with forces from external environment result in transformation of businesses. Changes within organisations play a role in facilitating sustenance and growth, but not complete functioning. In total, organisational functioning involves various management functions, production abilities and processes, quality functions, human and other resources. At Audi, these organisational activities are designed and conducted in a manner that complement and facilitate each other, which results in an interrelated system, like that of an intricately woven mesh; all these activities are directed towards common objective. This metaphor of a mesh addresses drawbacks of the other two metaphors; however, this metaphor fails to include certain organisational elements, like structure and hierarchy, and changes brought about within the organisational systems as a result of constant chaos and competition. In short, it would certainly be apt to mention that organisations are like meshes that are woven with various organisational elements, functions, resources, policies and procedures etc which keeps extending or contracting based on changes introduced in order to match with external forces and to meet organizational objectives. References Audi, AG. (2008). Production at Audi Characterized by Uncompromising Perfection. 29 October 2008. Available from http://www.audiworld.com/news/08/production-perfection/content.shtml (Accessed April 21, 2012). Cameron, E and Green M. (2009). Organisational change. In Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organisational change. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page. (pp: 97-137). Clarke, C. (2005). Automotive production systems and standardisation: From Ford to the case of Mercedes-Benz. Germany: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg. Cornelissen, J and Kafouros, M. (2008). Metaphors and theory building in organisation theory: What determines the impact of a metaphor on theory? [Abstract]. British Journal of Management, 19(4): 365-379. Abstract available from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1297548 (Accessed April 20, 2012). Gibson, J.E. (1992). Taylorism and professional education. In Heim, J.A and Compton, W.D’s Manufacturing systems: Foundations of world-class practice. Washington D.C: National Academies Press. (pp: 149-157). Janos, J and Josef, P. (2010). Digital factory, methods and applications in Audi Hungaria motor ltd. Abstract available from, http://www.fisita2010.com/programme/programme/pdf/F2010H039.pdf (Accessed April 20, 2012). Katrin, O. (2011).Organisation culture - An insight in organisation culture of the Audi AG: What are the indicators and measures of the culture in a company? A Seminar Paper. Verlag, Germany: GRIN Verlag. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organisations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organisation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Moser, K. (2007). Mass customization strategies - Development of a competence-based framework for identifying different mass customization strategies. USA: Lulu Enterprises. Nonaka, I, Toyama, R and Byosiere, P. (2003). A Theory of organisational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In Dierkes, M et al’s Handbook of organisational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp: 491-517). Van Weenan, F. (2008). Audi Starts Production in India. 3 January 2008. Available from, http://www.worldcarfans.com/10801032737/audi-starts-production-in-india (Accessed April 21, 2012). Zimmermann, W. (2009). Quality – the core competence of the Audi brand. Audi Media Services. 26 June 2009. Available from https://www.audi-mediaservices.com/publish/ms/content/en/presskit/2009/06/26/quality/quality___the_core.standard.gid-oeffentlichkeit.html (Accessed April 21, 2012) Read More