Bench Marking Of

8/2/2019 Bench Marking Of

1/21

Benchmarking of thesisresearch: a case study

Mohammad ShahalizadehDepartment of Productivity and System Management Industrial Engineering,

Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch (IAU-STB),Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

Grannaz AmirjamshidiDepartment of Technology Management and Economics,

Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, and

Solmaz ShahalizadehDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering,

Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the process of the thesis research in theindustrial engineering related masters programmes in Chalmers University of Technology forbenchmarking implementation in Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch (IAU-STB), takinginto consideration the different conditions of two universities and respective countries of Swedenand Iran.

Design/methodology/approach In this research, case study strategy was employed. In total, 17thesis reports from 2003 to 2006 and other related published/web-based documents were studied toexplore the theses execution procedure, research method and report organization. To gain primarydata, some interviews were carried out. Qualitative research method, along with descriptive statisticalmethod was used to illustrate structural points.

Findings The resultsof thestudy help to develop group work in thesis execution, to identify the roleof qualitative strategy in industrial engineering research, and to adopt a flexible approach inorganization of thesis report provided that some mandatory regulations are followed. In addition, ithelps to build research-oriented inter disciplinary departments vs traditional education-orienteddepartments on the basis of the requirements of ongoing socio-economic processes in national economy.

Research limitations/implications The acquired knowledge has been partly adapted andadopted by departments of industrial engineering in IAU-STB. The main implication is the need toexplore how the entire industrial engineering departments (IEDs) in Iranian universities can efficientlyand effectively adapt and adopt such knowledge for thesis research.

Practical implications This work provides effective assistance for IEDs in Iranian universitiesembarking on their benchmarking journey on thesis research.

Originality/value This study represents a knowledge gap and offers practical help to IEDs inIranian universities to leverage the skills and expertise of their faculty members together with thetalents of their students and consequently to maintain and enhance their thesis research capability.

Keywords Benchmarking, Knowledge management, Sweden, Iran, Universities, Theses

Paper type Case study

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Mohammad Shahalizadeh is grateful to Professor A. Dubois for facilitating access to studiedmaster theses reports. Thanks also to Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, andResearch Deputy for supporting this research.

Benchmarking ofthesis research

103

Benchmarking: An International

Journal

Vol. 16 No. 1, 2009

pp. 103-123

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1463-5771

DOI 10.1108/14635770910936540


2/21

IntroductionKnowledge is at the heart of organizational capabilities. The need to continuouslygenerate and grow this knowledge base has never been greater. Benchmarking is seena managerial technique to identify performance gaps and improve operational

performance (Yasin, 2002). It is a widely used tool in many traditional areas ofperformance and is expected to be beneficial in transferring best practices in directingthesis research within IEDs.

The increasing economic importance of knowledge, which nowadays redefines thelinks among education, work, and learning, makes the role of knowledge management(KM) quite crucial. KM is the process of critically managing knowledge to meetexisting needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge assets and todevelop new opportunities (Quintas et al., 1997).

Universities have traditionally had two main roles: creating knowledge anddisseminating knowledge. Research has been the main vehicle for creating knowledgeand teaching has been the main vehicle for disseminating knowledge. Universitiesmust recognize and respond to their changing role in a knowledge-based society(Rowley, 2000).

Unlike competitive advantage, benchmarking goes beyond a comparisons of resultsto include an analysis of organizational processes and methods (Fitz-enz, 1993). Drew(1997) believes that benchmarking is one of the most popular tools for strategicmanagement by demonstrating that all of the winners of the Baldridge award scorehighly on the use of benchmarking.

The aim of this paper is to explore thesis research benchmarking. The focus of theresearch is on searching the best practices that leads to superior performance, and isdirected towards acquiring explicit knowledge of one of the best practice universities,Chalmers University, in the area of directing industrial engineering related masterstheses.

The paper starts by defining the key issues of KM, and the criticality of KM to meetexisting needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge assets, and todevelop new opportunities. The paper then discusses the absolute necessity of KM andbenchmarking to universities, and then briefly defines benchmarking in the context ofthis research. Subsequently, the research methodology and the findings of the studyare illustrated before the authors finally carry out comparative analysis betweenbenchmarking department and the IEDs with IAU-STB, explain the limitations ofresearch, and suggest new directions for future research.

Literature surveyAccording to a more recent approach, looking outside the firm boundaries and enablingcomparison with others, in terms of both practices and performances enable the process

of acquiring external explicit and tacit knowledge. Such newly acquired knowledge,once integrated with previous internal knowledge of the firm, creates new knowledgethat may give rise to improvements and innovations (Massa and Testa, 2004). Thelearning organization promotes continuous improvement to survive in a turbulentenvironment. It does so by creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge andmodifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge (Garvin, 1993; Hyland and Beckett,2002). Benchmarking is the search for industry best practices that leads to superiorperformance (Camp, 1989) and is widely used to promote and to measure the learning

BIJ16,1

104


3/21

capability of a learning organization (Lahteenmaki et al., 2001; Zairi and Whymark,2000a, b; Goh and Richards, 1997; Drew, 1997; Fedor et al., 1996; Laise, 2004).

Knowledge management key issuesSociety is entering into an era where the future essentially will be determined by peoplesability to wisely use knowledge, a precious global resource that is the embodiment ofhuman intellectual capital and technology. The knowledge-based economy places greatimportance on the diffusion and use of information and knowledge, as well as itscreation. In this new economy, individuals and companies are obliged to focus onmaintaining and enhancing their knowledge capital in order to innovate, and theirability to learn, adapt, and change becomes a core competency for survival.

In the last decade KM has started to emerge as an area of interest in academia andorganizational practice (Psarras, 2006). KM is driven by the need to enhance:

. intellectual asset management;

. operational efficiency;

. customer and competitor intelligence;

. continuous improvement;

. organizational learning;

. innovation in products and services; and

. time to market.

The ultimate objective of KM is to effectively maintain and transfer the necessaryknowledge to the operations staff (Leung et al., 2004). In general, one of the mostimportant issues in KM is the organization, distribution and refinement of knowledge.Knowledge can be generated by data mining tools, can be acquired from third parties,or can be refined and refreshed. The collected knowledge can then be organized byindexing the knowledge elements, filtering based on content and establishing linkagesand relationships among the elements. As has been said (Wiig, 1995), KM is a systemcomposed of three conceptual elements, namely:

(1) the knowledge source;

(2) the knowledge (transfer) process; and

(3) the knowledge recipient.

The underpinning objective of these systems is to assist practitioners in producing andretaining knowledge assets.

Liebowitz (2000) presented a nine-step approach to KM:

(1) transform information into knowledge;(2) identify and verify knowledge;

(3) capture and secure knowledge;

(4) organize knowledge;

(5) retrieve and apply knowledge;

(6) combine knowledge;

(7) create knowledge;


105


4/21

(8) learn knowledge; and

(9) distribute/sell knowledge.

Knowledge management in education and learningThe nature of work, as we know it, is undergoing profound change today (Psarras,2006). According to Davies (1998):

Work is increasingly about how knowledge comes to be defined as useful and educationitself is viewed as a form of work which can lead to self-realization and self-fulfillment at anindividual and existential level.

Knowledge is seen as neither absolute nor universal; it is local, changing and has to bere-constructed time after time on the basis of lived, individual and social experience.It is obvious that where there is continuous change, there must also be continuouslearning and training. Todays employees must be inquisitive, have flexible thoughtprocesses and be open to new ideas. These abilities are required to meet the numerousdemands of business and the challenges of technology. Being able to stay ahead of thecompetition is vital (Psarras, 2006).

On the other hand, students no longer are satisfied with first phase education.Their needs are now increasingly seen to be continuous throughout a working life andembrace personal growth at all stages of an individuals life. It is now clear that thefuture will belong to those who can acquire and apply knowledge and skills that theglobal markets demand. Modern students will require regular updating of theirknowledge, skills, and competences. In this context, universities will be required toexpand flexibility and innovative learning and teaching. Universities havetraditionally had two main roles:

(1) creating knowledge; and

(2) disseminating knowledge.

Research has been the main vehicle for creating knowledge and teaching has been themain vehicle for disseminating knowledge. In todays rapidly-changing economicenvironment, the traditional role of universities as providers of knowledge is greatlychallenged (Psarras, 2006).

Universities must recognize and respond to their changing role in aknowledge-based society. They need to be consciously and explicitly managing theprocesses associated with the creation of their knowledge assets, and to recognize thevalue of their intellectual capital to their continuing role in society. In this framework,KM is absolutely necessary to universities for the following reasons:

. It can create a flexible and innovative relationship and link between work andeducation.

. It can help students to more closely match their talents with current workplacedemands.

. It can contribute to the adaptation and assimilation of new knowledge with theexisting one.

. It can contribute to the re-connection of learning with experience, so that acurriculum reflects the real time, real place, and real problems; work can nolonger be seen as something that happens at a later stage in life (Rowley, 2000).

BIJ16,1

106


5/21

. And it can contribute to the adaptation and adaptation of new knowledge withresearch requirements.

The important question which now arises is how KM can contribute to the development

of education, training, and research in the new economy. The authors believe thatbenchmarking as a managerial technique should facilitate KM in universities.

BenchmarkingFor decades, practitioners in the public and private sector have adopted thebenchmarking approach as a useful tool for performance and quality assessments(Collins et al., 2006). Landmark benchmarking studies have been performed and theresults widely publicized over the years (Camp, 1989; Kolarik, 1995; McNamee, 1994;Yasin, 2002). There are several definitions of benchmarking all based on the idea ofevaluating the performance of an organized system by comparing it to exogenousentities. Websters Dictionary defines a benchmark as:

A mark on a fixed and enduring object (as on an outcropping of rock or a concrete post setinto the ground) indicating a particular elevation and used as a reference in topographicalsurveys and tidal observations. A benchmark is thus a point of reference from whichmeasurements of any sorts may be made.

The American Productivity and Quality Center (ODell, 1994) defines benchmarking asthe process of identifying, understanding, and adapting outstanding practices andprocesses from organizations anywhere in the world to help other organizations toimprove performances. Codling (1996) defines benchmarking as an ongoing processof measuring and improving products, services, and practices against the best that canbe identified worldwide. Spendolini (1992) explained benchmarking as a continuousand systematic process for evaluating the products, services or work processes oforganizations that are recognized as representing best practices for the purpose of

organizational improvement (Leung et al., 2004). Camp (1989) defines benchmarkingas the search for industry best practices that will lead to superior performance.Lucertini et al. (1995) propose the following definition that includes all these differentaspects:

[. . .] [benchmarking is] continuing search, measurement and comparison of products,processes, services, procedures, ways to operate, best practices that other companies havedeveloped to obtain an output and global performances, with the aim of improving thecompany performance.

Benchmarking is a multifaceted technique to identify operational and strategic gaps,and to search for best practices that can be applied to close any existing gaps (Yasin,2002). It is generally recognized as a tool that enables a company to understand its

current performance levels and set future targets (Camp, 1989). These definitionsemphasize the value of learning from best practices both internally and externally forthe purpose of achieving superiority (Bessant et al., 2003). For the aim of this paperbenchmarking is defined in accordance with Massa and Testa (2004) as learningprocess that involves observation of external practices and performances, comparisonwith internal ones, identification of knowledge gaps and finally the decision: bridgingthe gaps acquiring new resources or leveraging on internal ones and investing inupgrading. The result of this learning process is something new; deriving both from


107


6/21

the integration of external inputs with internal previous knowledge as well as frombridging knowledge gaps.

Szulanski and Winter (2002) warn that the knowledge of existing and successfulprocesses is difficult to transfer as they are embedded in complex realities. They add

that shared practices must be replicated as exactly as possible in order to be successful.Additional difficulties arise from the problem that often experts do not trulyunderstand why some practices worked in the first place. Thus, for the aim of thisresearch we consider variable of national culture to avoid such misinterpretation, andunderstand why some practices worked in the first place.

Cultural effects of customs, languages, attitudes, motivation, social institutions,status symbols, and religious beliefs have all been documented in the internationalliterature (Phatak, 1995).

Cultural variables can affect the management of higher education services. Severaltheory-based schemas have been suggested for dimensionalizing the modal concept ofnational culture; examples of such schemas include Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks (1961)five value orientations, Inkeles and Levinsons (1969) three dimensions, and Hofstedes(1980) five dimensions. There is considerable convergence among the various schemas(Prasad and Tata, 2006). Several cross-cultural studies have empirically established theimportance of individualism-collectivism dimension of cultural values; Schwartz (1990,p. 143) describes individualism-collectivism as follows:

[In individualistic cultures] achievement, self-direction, social power, and stimulation valuesall serve self-interests of the individual [. . .] [In collectivistic cultures] conformity, security,and tradition all focus on promoting the interests of others.

Collectivistic cultures can be defined by we consciousness, identity based on the socialsystem, emotional dependence of the individual on organizations and institutions,friendships determined by stable social relationships, belief in group decisions, andparticularism (Hofstede, 1980). Although the degree of collectivism exists on a continuum,in this research we employ the cultural variable (degree of collectivism) to explain thesocial basement of group work in thesis undertaking.

We believe that the cultural variable sufficiently describes most aspects oforientation to group work in thesis research.

MethodologyThe purpose of having a methodology description is to explain how we will progressand justify our research. It also gives a view of how the work proceed as well as whyand in what way we chose to do as we did. It is very important to get a persuasiveresearch result, therefore the choosing of one or several suitable methods can be thevital part of the research work.

Research designThere are several different ways for research: the case study, field experiment, panelstudy, focus group, and survey (Yin, 1994). Among them, Merriam (1998) argues that,the case study is designed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation andmeaning which are involved. The interest is in the process rather than the outcomes, incontext rather than specific variables, in discovery rather than confirmation. Comparingwith other qualitative research strategies, case studies are intensive descriptions and

BIJ16,1

108


7/21

analyzes of a single unit or bound system. In here, we choose to use the case studymethod. We think that the case study approach will give us the best opportunity tounderstand the concepts of masters thesis execution in target department.

According to Yin (1994), there are four types of designs for case study:

(1) single-case holistic;

(2) single-case embedded;

(3) multiple-case holistic; and

(4) multiple-case embedded design.

Yin (1994) describes that three major rationales for a single case are:

(1) critical case;

(2) extreme or unique case; and

(3) revelatory case.

Multiple-case studies have been considered a different methodology than single-casestudies. Although multiple-case study can require extensive resources and time, itsdistinct advantage is that the evidence from multiple cases is often considered morecompelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust. As ourresearch task is to investigate the goals, structure, and the executive approach of theresearch and report of the masters theses supervised from 2003 to 2006 and publishedby the School of Technology Management and Economics, the conclusion cannot bedrawn until we have gotten adequate data from different theses, and have a completepicture in the area of our research problem. Therefore, we choose multiple-case studyinstead of single-case study to capture the variety among the cases.

The next step is to choose a holistic versus an embedded approach. Yin (1994) arguesthat the difference between these two approaches depends upon the type of phenomenon

being studied. Embedded analysis pays its attention to sub-units, embedded units. Incontrast, a holistic method is conducted when the case study solely investigates the globalnature of a program or an organization. The embedded technique has the disadvantage ofbeing too focused towards the sub-unit level and therefore may fail to go back to largeraspects of the analysis. A holistic view on the other hand has the weakness that the casestudy may risk being conducted at an abstract level, missing clear measures of data.Another obstacle is that direction may shift during the progression of the study. Holisticanalysis is appropriate when no logical sub-units could be identified and when relevanttheory underlying the case study itself is of a holistic nature. In our research, we try to get aholistic view of masters thesis content by using embedded approach to study sub-issuesinvolved in the mastersthesis execution process. It involves investigating different theses,and so on. Therefore, the study takes multiple-case embedded character.

Data collectionData collection is crucial to all research. Through this process, researchers accumulateempirical material on which their research is based. According to Yin (1994), there aresix important sources:

(1) documentation;

(2) archival records;


109


8/21

(3) interviews;

(4) direct observation;

(5) participant-observation; and

(6) physical artifacts.

They can be generally divided into two categories:

(1) primary data; and

(2) secondary data.

Primary data is collected for fulfilling the needs of specific research. Primary data doesnot yet exist and must be collected. Secondary data is, on the other hand, previouslypublished data not purposely collected for specific research. Secondary data can befound both within an organization and outside it. Common forms of secondary datainclude books, articles, company material, internet sources, etc. In this study, bothkinds of data are included.

Qualitative and quantitativeA study can be qualitative, quantitative or a combination of both. The qualitativemethod permits the researcher to study selected issues in depth and in detail, andallows project work not to be constrained by predetermined categories of analysis.It facilitates the compiling of in-depth information about a smaller number of peopleand cases. Therefore, it increases the understanding of the cases and situations studied.The major drawback with the qualitative approach is that it reduces possibilitiesof generalization. The quantitative approach, on the other hand, requires the use ofstandardized measures so that the varying perspectives and experiences of people canbe fit into a limited number of predetermined response categories to which numbers areassigned. It becomes possible to measure reactions of many respondents to a limited

set of questions, thus facilitating comparison and statistical aggregation of the data.This means that a set of broad generalizable findings can be presented succinctly andparsimoniously (Patton, 1990). Some researchers claim that the two methods:qualitative; and quantitative are complementary and cannot be used in isolation fromeach other (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002). They argue that although most researchersemphasize one or the other, both methods can be combined and used in the samestudy. In this study, we obtained data through theses reports, and interview.Thus, we received both qualitative and quantitative data. Our study is to someextent a combination of qualitative and quantitative, it is more qualitative thanquantitative.

Quality of the methodsHere, we discuss whether the chosen method and the collected data are valid andwhether the results are reliable.

Validity. Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects orassesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. It canbe divided into following types (Yin, 1994): construct validity; external validity;and internal validity.

Construct validity means establishing correct operational measures for the conceptsbeing studied. In this study, a way of establishing correct operational measures is to

BIJ16,1

110


9/21

obtain constant feed-back from the case theses. In addition, interviewees, chosen fromIranian graduate students of the Technology Management and EconomicsDepartment, provided critical views on the construct validity.

External validity means establishing the domain to which a studys findings can

be generalized. For this case study, we tried to expand the data source, and make thefindings of the research be generalized. The focus is drawing a conclusion suitablefor any thesis in a similar situation.

Internal validity is for explanatory or causal studies only, and not for descriptive orexploratory studies. This study will not deal with internal validity.

Reliability. Reliability is concerned with the extent to which research findings can bereplicated. The goal is to ensure that a researcher follows exactly the same proceduresdescribed by an earlier researcher and conducts the same case study all over again, andthat he/she would come to the same conclusions. Reliability is the extent to which anexperiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same result on repeated trials.As Yin (1994) mentions the objective is to be sure that, if a later investigation followed

exactly the same procedure as described by an earlier investigator and conducted thesame case study all over again, the later investigator should arrive at the same findingsand conclusions. The goal is to minimize the errors and biases in a study. Weattempted to make as many operational steps as possible and conduct research as ifsomeone were always looking over your shoulder (Yin, 1994). We studied the thesesover and over. All these are to have our research findings get a high reliability.This can be also achieved by creating a stepwise logic and build up the study on a rigidfoundation of documentation.

To present a detailed evaluation of the goals, structure, and the execution procedure

of the masters thesis, this work approaches the research questions from theuniversitys point of view.

In this research, 17 masters theses supervised from 2003 to 2006 and other relatedpublished/web-based documents of the Department of Technology Management andEconomics of Chalmers University were studied. These theses are related to industrialengineering subjects. Besides, corresponding author attended in a seminar at theDivision of Technology Management and Innovation, and carried out unstructuredinterview with some of the students.

The interviewees were chosen from Iranian graduate students of the TechnologyManagement and Economics Department. These people are highly suited to the topicsince they are intensely involved in masters thesis task. They were asked to evaluate themasters thesis task as a whole, in terms of the goals, structure, and the executionprocedure of the masters thesis in the School (Department) of TechnologyManagement and Economics. The questions were semi-structured before the

interviews and the meetings were flexibly directed by interviewees. In many cases,the result of an interview changed the content or order of questioning for the nextinterview. In other words, the result of each interview influenced the remaining datacollection process.

The authors used qualitative research method in qualitative instances, togetherwith descriptive statistical method to illustrate structural points. Research focus was

oriented to explore the role of research divisions, research method, modeling attitude,structure of final reports, and cultural issues.


111


10/21

Research findingsIn Chalmers University, The implementation of education and research is taking placewithin 16 departments in research groups of varying size.

In the departments, a departmental advisory team exists made up of external and

internal members and equipped with an external chair to be consulted on issues ofstrategic importance. Department heads are responsible for providing departmentaloperational leadership. A pro- and a deputy head of department, as well as anadministrative head, render assistance to department heads.

Vision of the Department of Technology Management and EconomicsTechnology Management and Economics Department describes its attitude asfollowing.

The industrial realization of technology is what dominates our research. It has threemain, closely interrelated themes:

(1) Change.

(2) Innovation.(3) Interaction.

We approach them using our understanding of engineering and technology, whilerelying on theories taken from primarily economics, social and behavioral sciences[1].This department conducts ten research divisions and five master programmes.

Mission and strategy of the Divisions of the Department of Technology Managementand EconomicsCenter for intellectual property (CIP) studies. CIP is a competence center founded byGothenburg University and Chalmers University of Technology and is situated at thecrossroads of management, economics, law, and technology. This convergence is a

necessary part of the evolution of industry, academia, and society as we enter a worldthat is more and more dependent on knowledge structures in determining ownershiprights, market success, and social welfare.

Industrial dynamics. Scientific and technical change is of central importance to therenewal of industry and to the development of society at large. New technologies, forinstance, biotechnology, emerge, and diffuse in a process of creative destruction.The economy is perceived to be in a permanent flux, changing fundamentally over time,bringing opportunities for new as well as existing firms, as well as threats to establishedbusinesses. This process is driven not only by new technological opportunities but also bychanging patterns of demand and new forms of regulations. Managing organizations, bethey firms, industry associations, universities or regional and state policy bodies, requiresa deep understanding of such processes of change and transformation.

This understanding requires a multidisciplinary platform with diversity in approaches.With a base in social science (economics and management) or engineering, this divisionpursues analyses that are of general nature, i.e. not technology or industry-specific, as wellas those that are very close to the relevant scientific and/or technological fields.

Industrial marketing. The Division of Industrial Marketing was founded in 1989.Its research area is industrial marketing and purchasing. It involves how companiesinteract with customers, suppliers and other organizations in industrial networks inorder to create efficiency and development.

BIJ16,1

112


11/21

Innovation engineering and management (IEM). The research and teaching profileof the Division of IEM focuses on the dynamics and management of innovation. Sucha focus includes among other things corporate venturing, technical entrepreneurship,KM, university-industry linkages and intellectual property rights.

Logistics and transportation. Logistics is the science of planning, organizing, andcontrolling the material flow from raw material to end consumption and phase-out.The purpose is to satisfy the needs and wishes of customers and other interestedparties, i.e. to provide good customer service and bring low costs and smallenvironmental consequences. Swedens geographical location in relation to theimportant import- and export-markets as well as the low population density of thecountry calls for excellent qualities in logistics and transportation.

Operations management and work organization. The scientific base the Division ofOperations Management and Work Organization is a combination of theory formation,firmly established in production engineering, and theories and methods emanatingfrom the social sciences.

Project management. Project Management is becoming an important field of

research and is increasingly influencing work routines and practices in organizations.Research on project management is to a large extent multidisciplinary, drawing from anumber of social science disciplines such as sociology, management studies,psychology, and the engineering sciences. This diversity is reflected in the faculty andamong the PhD candidates at the department, representing a variety theoreticalorientations and work life experiences. The research activities are grouped around anumber of issues:

. Research on new product development, R&D, innovation and creativity inorganizations.

. Studies of knowledge-intensive organizations and organization learning inorganizations.

. Research on organization change and development activities aiming atstrengthening the strategic position of the firm or organization.

Quality sciences. The Division of Quality Sciences wants to develop knowledge andcompetence in quality management and technology and its supporting methods for usein the ongoing improvement process in the Swedish society. To this division, qualitymanagement and technology means to continuously strive to fulfill or exceed theneeds and expectations of external and internal customers in all processes in whicheveryone are committed to their continuous improvement. The department was startedin 1999 and has a close collaboration with SKF.

Service management. The service element increases steadily in many types ofproduction in both the private and the public sector. The Division of Service

Management chooses to focus on services bought by firms and public authorities.Its research issues often concern a more or less long-term contractual relation.

Technology and society. The field of Technology and Society, which is relativelynew, brings the insights from various social sciences to bear on the complex interplaybetween technological and social change. It draws on a number of social sciencedisciplines including sociology, history, economics, anthropology, philosophy,political science in order to arrive at a critical appreciation of the social implicationsof technology. And although this is a recent field of study, its growing importance is


113


12/21

attested to by a number of factors, not least the establishment of course, and degrees inscience, technology and society at the major universities, as well as the keen interestamong a wider public in the role of technology in society[1].

Divisions are interdisciplinary and oriented to the needs and requirements of

ongoing socio-economic processes in home country. Their members get involved ineducational programmes, supervising master theses and doctoral theses, andindustry-university integrated research projects. The dynamic integration ofinterdisciplinary and research-oriented approaches provides this department withdeveloping synergy and leads to innovation, creativity, and exploration.

Aim and strategy of the master programmes of the Department of TechnologyManagement and EconomicsManagement and economics of innovation. Management and economics of innovationaims at giving students a good understanding of economic systems, and in particularthe role of innovation in economic development.

Management of logistics and transportation. Management of logistics andtransportation offers students the knowledge and methods for reducing negativeimpact of transportation of goods and passengers on both the environment and qualityof life, while ensuring efficient transportation.

Production and operations management. Production and operations managementaims to develop future leaders responsible for managing value adding processes inmanufacturing companies. The target group is defined in terms of roles and areas:

. Roles that graduated students can have within companies include manager,project manager and management consultant.

. Areas graduates work with include technology and product development,product planning, process development, production, and operationsimprovement.

Quality technology and management. Quality technology and management aims toprovide a learning arena including humanistic perspective, statistically orientedapproaches, customer focused product planning and development, process orientationand holistic organizational assessment schemes, six sigma initiatives for students withfuture carres as managers, facilitators, consultants or researchers in the above areas.

Supply chain design and management. Supply chain design and managementcontent covers the firm and its boundaries in the supply network, buyer-supplierrelationships, manufacturing and supply chain planning and control, informationsystems for supply chains, demand and supply network strategies, distributionnetworks and efficiency and value creation in distribution networks.

In learning arena, focus is on developing competence with much time devoted to

application of knowledge on actual problems, including training in problem formulationand problem solving. The students can gain valuable knowledge and skills bycombining theory and exercises with the case studies and projects in cooperation withsome of Swedish industrial companies and leading European enterprises.

Goals and structure of the masters thesisThe masters programmes are concluded with a thesis. The thesis work is aimedat giving the students practice in independent problem solving and scheduling.

BIJ16,1

114


13/21

The thesis is based on real life problems that should be solved using scientific theoriesand methods. Beside the educational aim of the thesis work, there should also be anaim to achieve a useful result. The thesis will be presented in writing as well as orally.The ability to oppose and discuss another thesis is also part of the examination.

The thesis group should consist of two students, but exceptions can be made.Requirements of the thesis workers are as following:

. To qualify for the thesis, the students should have acquired 35-40 creditsfrom the masters programme.

. The student must have taken required classes of the subject in question.The examiner decides whether the student has sufficient knowledge of thesubject and whether the proposed thesis is suitable.

. The thesis group should consist of two students, but exceptions can be made.

Initiation of thesis is usually made in either of the following ways:

. Student/company initiation the students contact the company and give

suggestions of their thesis task.. Company initiation the company turns to Chalmers to get a task solved.. Department initiation the thesis task is suggested by a Chalmers department

in order to help the team with an ongoing project.

The thesis is conducted at an approved Chalmers department. The Vice-Dean of theSchool of Technology Management and Economics could permit subjects that are notin the line of interest of these departments.

Every thesis will have at least one tutor from the chosen department. The tutor isresponsible for the quality and quantity of the thesis. The tutor will help the thesisteam with the task specification. The examiner must approve the subject and scope

before the thesis work can start. Normally, the thesis work is executed at anorganization or company outside Chalmers. If this is the case, the company should alsoappoint an assistant tutor that will help the thesis workers with the aids needed.The thesis is based on the demands of the company, but the examiner gives the finalapproval. This is to make sure that the thesis will fulfill the requirements of Chalmers.The examiner is appointed by Chalmers and has to be a professor or associateprofessor at Chalmers. The examiner is responsible for the final approval of the thesis.The tutor arranges all necessary contacts with the examiner.

The first thing to do when starting the thesis work is to make a thesis project planover the entire thesis work. The aim of the project plan is to ensure the quality of thethesis and to make sure that the scope is appropriate. This plan has to be approved bythe examiner before starting the thesis work. It is important that all parties concerned

meets to accept the project plan in order to get it as realistic as possible. The projectplan is then to be upgraded on a regular basis as the thesis work continues.All elements causing changes in the project plan or in the quality of the thesis have tobe documented. Progression reports are to be handed into the examiner and the tutorsas stated in the project plan. The project plan should contain the following parts:

. Background: the background should contain the reason why the student chosethe subject and why the company needed the work to be done. In some cases thebackground should include some historical background to the case of point.


115


14/21

. Purpose: the purpose should explain what the expected achievement is and oughtto be as stringent as possible.

. Problem analysis: the problem analysis is often the most important part of thethesis. It is impossible to get useful results if you do not understand whatquestion to answer. It is important for the thesis workers to do a problemanalysis even if the employer already has specified the task. The reason for thisis that the main problem often differs from the task. The problem definitionshould be wider than the task suggested by the company in order to get a usefulresult not only for the company. The problem analysis is also important in orderto identify the information needed, what information sources to use and suitablemethods to get this information.

. Limitations: the limitation section should include what parts of the task that arenot dealt with in the thesis and the reason why they are not. Justification of thelimitations is important.

. Method: the method section should include the information sources to be used

and how the problem is to be solved.. Work phases/time plan: this section shows what to do and when to do it. People

that the thesis workers have to contact should also be listed here. Dates when thethesis workers should give situation reports will be specified here as well as thedate of the final presentation.

Conclusion chapter is limited to the responses of research questions discussed inproblem analysis chapter.

Research method and modeling attitudeMethodology description is a mandatory part of a masters thesis report. The thesisworkers start by describing their research design. How they collected and analyzed the

data follows then. Finally, they discuss the quality of the chosen methods.The studied theses used qualitative research method including case study method

and systematic combining approach. Dubois and Gadde (2002) state that a case studyis not a linear process. It is by combining theory and empirical studies in an iterativeway that a profound understanding can evolve. Systematic combining and matchingare the two concepts that Dubois and Gadde (2002) argue for. Systematic combiningmeans that data from the empirical world is confronted with a theoretical framework.This is to be done in a parallel development of matching the case with the frameworkthat also is conducted in an iterative way. Using a theoretical framework is to useprevious experiences of others and new findings can often be the results of the processwere case studies are consisted of information from a theoretical framework Accordingto Woodside and Wilson (2003) the case study methodology is suitable to use as

network actors are relatively few and have a lot of information regarding the matter asthey work with it every day. A main advantage with the case study researchmethodology is that it gives a deeper understanding of actors behaviors in thenetwork. This is the advantage of the ability to follow up questions with furtherquestions depending on answers and note the interviewees behavior. A questionnairegiven to a large number of interviewees does not provide the same possibility.

Aforementioned approach forms the basis of modeling attitude. Modeling startswith reviewing relevant theories, documents, conducting interviews with experts,

BIJ16,1

116


15/21

academics, progresses through performing problem analysis, methodologicalcorrections, and is completed by means of creative thought and conclusion of thesisworkers. The authors (thesis workers) build their models basically on empirical data.They use why and how approach (words) to investigate casual relations, deal with

various events/variables, and explore complex situation of real world. This approachconducts the researcher towards investigating casual relations. The quality of researchis assessed by qualitative research criteria.

Group workTeam work is highly appreciated. Figure 1 shows the role of team work in masterthesis executing.

The seminar presentation must take place associated with opposition. One or twomaster students make the opposition of the thesis. To find opponents is the responsibilityof the thesis workers. Thesis opponents can be advertised at the notice board locatedoutside the Deans office. The opponents should get the final thesis at least eight days priorto the seminar. At least two days before the seminar the opponents should present how the

opposition will be done. The opposition should be no longer than 10 min per opponent.Theopponents should discuss the thesis, its arrangement, the method of solving the problemand the result. The opponents should also have commentsabout the seminar. The answersby the thesis worker should be kept short. The opposition should be both written andorally. The oral part should deal with the overall impression of the thesis, while the writtenpart should contain the details. The written part should be given to the respondents.Besides, the seminar and the report, every thesisworker has to be an approved opponentofone seminar and a participant of three other seminars. The thesis is evaluated as Failedor Passed. The origin of the group work approach in masters thesis task can be soughtin the collectivistic culture of Swedish society.

Structure of the final reportMost of the reports are written in English. It contains a thorough problem analysis inorder to demonstrate the work done. The thesis report is designed as a scientific report.There are some formal demands of a final report:

. The thesis should be of good stylistic quality and written in correct English.

. The references of sources and the list of sources have to be done in a correctfashion.

. The title page should contain the names of the thesis workers, the name of thedepartment and the report number.

. A summary should come immediately after the title page. It should be no longerthan one page but includes all the important results from the thesis.

There is no general disposition of the thesis as each thesis task is different. However,a standard disposition to start with is:

Figure 1.The role of team work in

conducting a mastersthesis

One Author

Two Authors

Three Authors


117


16/21

. Title page; Summary; Foreword; Table of content; Introduction includingBackground, Aim, Problem analysis, Limitations, Disposition; Theories andmethods; Results; Conclusions; Table of sources; Appendixes.

The problem analysis does not necessarily have to be the same as the one madeinitially.

The report is public, but parts of the report can be classified if the examiner hasapproved this in advance (Chalmers University, 2005).

Final report is concise. Figure 2 and Table I illustrate the quantitative characteristicof studied masters theses reports.

Correlation test is carried out between variables of Table I. The results show:low correlation (0.32) between number of authors and number of total pages

Figure 2.Distribution of total pagesin studied theses reports 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Number of total pages

No.Number of

authorsNumber oftotal pages

Number ofchapters

Number of pages ofliterature review chapter

Number of pages ofresearch method chapter

1 3 141 6 14 82 2 138 7 22 53 2 119 8 22 64 3 119 9 16 65 2 117 11 26 86 2 115 9 11 87 2 114 12 25 88 2 110 7 16 3

9 2 106 7 31 410 2 104 7 30 811 2 94 7 8 812 2 79 7 10 813 2 75 9 15 514 3 72 11 15 415 1 70 8 13 116 2 68 7 11 317 2 64 8 18 6

Table I.Comparative illustrationof the number of: thesisworkers, total pages,chapters, pages ofliterature review chapter,and research methodchapter in studied theses

BIJ16,1

118


17/21

(volume of report), no significant correlation (20.07) between number of total pages(volume of report) and number of chapters, moderate correlation between number oftotal pages (volume of report) and number of pages of literature review chapter andnumber of pages of research method chapter (0.37 and 0.42, respectively).

These results show that:. The number of authors does not strongly affect the volume of report.

. The number of chapters does not depend on the volume of report.

. The volume of literature review and research method chapters is moderatelyaffected by the volume of report.

. There is a low correlation and a moderate correlation, respectively.

Re-connecting learning with experienceAs mentioned in previous, normally the thesis work is executed at an organization orcompany outside Chalmers. During masters project execution phase, students aresponsored by the host organization or company. They are welcome by the hostorganization or company, and participate in real research. This process of participationhelps students to more closely match their talents with current workplace demands. Tobecome involved in solving a real life problem causes their educational knowledge tobe defined as useful, and education itself to be viewed as a form of work which leadsto self-realization and self-fulfillment at an individual and existential level.

Concluding remarksIn this study, 17 thesis reports written in English from 2003 to 2006 and someother related documents were studied. Table II illustrates external knowledge

No. Subject of comparison Chalmers approach Our departmental approach

1 Tutors/supervisors Dual tutors (Industry,University)

One tutor (University)

2 Research design Case study method andsystematic combining

Survey, study of collectedrecords

3 Qualitative or quantitative Purely qualitative Most quantitative4 Data gathering tools Participative observation and

interviewArchived documents, databank, andpredefined-structuredquestionnaire

5 Literature review Brief Illustrative, along withthorough review of executedtheses

6 Work organization Group work One thesis worker7 Thesis presentation Along with students opposition Without students opposition8 Chaptering Most flexible Less flexible9 Evaluation Fail/pass Score point

10 Modeling attitude Explanatory and analytic Statistical and mathematical11 Quality of research Assessed by qualitative

research criteriaAssessed by quantitativeresearch criteria

12 Departments organization Research oriented Education/programmesoriented

Table II.Comparison of external

knowledge with internalknowledge


119


18/21

(research findings) in comparison with internal knowledge (our departmental approachin IAU-STB).

Table II shows that:

. Research implementation process is monitored by two tutors in university andindustry in benchmarking department, whilst it is done merely by one tutor inour departments.

. Research design/strategy is mainly qualitative and relies on case study andsystematic combining by means of participative observation and interview inbenchmarking department, whilst it is mostly quantitative and relies on Survey,Study of collected records by means of archived documents, data bank, andpredefined-structured questionnaire in our departments.

. Literature review is brief in benchmarking department, whilst it is illustrativeand includes thorough review of literature and executed theses in ourdepartments.

.

Thesis work is undertaken mainly by two or three students in benchmarkingdepartment, whilst it is undertaken exclusively by one student in ourdepartments.

. Thesis presentation is performed together with students opposition inbenchmarking department, whilst it is performed without students oppositionin our departments.

. Number of chapters of thesis report is completely flexible, and problem analysisincluding research question(s) and variable explanation builds an independentchapter of thesis report in benchmarking department, whilst it is less flexible inour departments and problem is defined shortly in the first chapter of thesisreport.

.

The thesis is evaluated via categorical scale (fail or pass) in benchmarkingdepartment, whilst it is evaluated via cardinal scale (scoring point) in ourdepartments.

. Modeling attitude is explanatory and analytic in benchmarking department,whilst it is mainly statistical and mathematical in our departments.

. The quality of research is assessed by qualitative research criteria inbenchmarking department, whilst it is assessed by quantitative researchcriteria in our departments.

. Divisions are interdisciplinary and oriented to the needs and requirements ofongoing socio-economic processes in home country, whilst the organization ofour departments mainly depends on education programmes, and is less

interdisciplinary.

On the basis of comparative findings, the following directions can be proposed inshort-term:

. To use case study and systematic combining strategy along with survey andstudy of collected records.

. To include problem analysis as an independent chapter and include thesis mainquestion in this chapter. We may adopt more flexible chaptering given some

BIJ16,1

120


19/21

mandatory chapters such as methodology, literature review, problem analysis,and conclusion are included.

. To plan to make thesis opposition by students.

In mid term, we must adopt the idea of dual tutors, and continuous monitoring onthesis work.

Due to less collectivistic and more individualistic culture of our country, group work(team work) in thesis undertaking must be targeted in long-term. In addition, we mustpursue the idea of research-oriented departments in long-term.

In this research, we limit ourselves to study only industrial engineering relatedtheses. We restrict the macro dimension affecting the thesis implementation to onevariable: one aspect of culture (individualism-collectivism). We recognize that the spanof subject/disciplines should be expanded to include other masters programmes; thenumber of macro variables can be expanded to include other dimensions of culturealong with economic development level; and the impact of cultural variable in subjectselection can be studied in future research.

Note

1. www.chalmers/divisions of Technology Management and Economics Department/Technology Management and Economics.htm, 2006.

References

Bessant, J., Kaplinsky, R. and Lamming, R. (2003), Putting supply chain learning into practice,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 167-84.

Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to SuperiorPerformance, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Chalmers University (2005), The School of Technology Management and Economics, ChalmersUniversity, Sweden.

Codling, S. (1996), Best Practice Benchmarking: An International Perspective, Gulf Publishing,Houston, TX.

Collins, T.R., Rossetti, M.D., Nachtmann, H.L. and Oldham, J.R. (2006), The use of multi-attributeutility theory to determine the overall best-in-class performer in a benchmarking study,

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 431-46.

Davies, D. (1998), The virtual university: a learning university, Journal of Workplace Learning,Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 175-213.

Drew, S.W. (1997), From knowledge to action: the impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 427-41.

Dubois, A. and Gadde, L-E. (2002), The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:

implications for productivity and innovation, Construction Management and Economics,Vol. 20, pp. 621-31.

Fedor, D.B., Parsons, C.K. and Shalley, C.E. (1996), Organizational comparison process:investigating the adoption and impact of benchmarking-related activities, Journal ofQuality Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 161-92.

Fitz-enz, J. (1993), Benchmarking Staff Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Garvin, D. (1993), Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, July/August,pp. 78-91.


121


20/21

Ghauri, P. and Gronhaug, K. (2002), Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide,Prentice Hall, London.

Goh, S. and Richards, G. (1997), Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations,

European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 575-83.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hyland, P. and Beckett, R. (2002), Learning to compete: the value of internal benchmarking,

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 293-304.

Inkeles, A. and Levinson, D.J. (1969), National character: the study of modal personality and

sociocultural systems, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds), Handbook of SocialPsychology, Vol. 4, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA, pp. 111-57.

Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Greenwood Press,Westport, CT.

Kolarik, W.J. (1995), Creating Quality: Concepts, Systems, Strategies, and Tools, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J. and Mattila, M. (2001), Critical aspects of organizational learningresearch and proposals for its measurement, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12,pp. 113-29.

Laise, D. (2004), Benchmarking and learning organizations: ranking methods to identify best in

class, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 621-30.

Leung, S.H.N., Chan, J.W.K. and Lee, W.B. (2004), Benchmarking the role-modification process

for successful knowledge transfer, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6,pp. 601-9.

Liebowitz, J. (2000), Building Organizational Intelligence: A Knowledge Management Primer,CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Lucertini, M., Nicolo, F. and Telmon, D. (1995), Integration of benchmarking and benchmarking

of integration, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 59-71.McNamee, D. (1994), Reinventing the Audit: Frameworks for Change, Mc2 Management

Consulting, California.

Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2004), Innovation or imitation? Benchmarking: a knowledge-management

process to innovate services, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6,pp. 610-20.

Merriam, S.B. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

ODell, C. (1994), Out-of-the-box benchmarking: continuous journey, American Productivity

and Quality Center, available at: www.apqc.org/free/articles/dispArticle

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. , Sage,

Newbury Park, CA.Phatak, A.V. (1995), International Dimensions of Management, 4th ed., South-Western

Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

Prasad, S. and Tata, J. (2006), A framework for information services: benchmarking for

countries and companies, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 311-23.

Psarras, J. (2006), Education and training in the knowledge-based economy, The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 85-96.

BIJ16,1

122


21/21

Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), Knowledge management: a strategic agenda,Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-91.

Rowley, J. (2000), Is higher education ready for knowledge management?, International Journalof Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 325-33.

Schwartz, S.H. (1990), Individualism-collectivism: critique and proposed refinements, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 139-57.

Spendolini, M. (1992), The Benchmarking Book, AMACON (a division of the AmericanManagement Association), New York, NY.

Szulanski, G. and Winter, S. (2002), Getting it right the second time, Harvard Business Review,January, pp. 62-9.

Wiig, K.M. (1995), Knowledge Management Method: Practical Approaches to ManagingKnowledge, Schema Press, Arlington, TX.

Woodside, A. and Wilson, E. (2003), Case study research methods for theory building,Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 6/7, pp. 493-508.

Yasin, M. (2002), The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and now, Benchmarking:

An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 217-43.Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, London.

Zairi, M. and Whymark, J. (2000a), The transfer of best practices: how to build a culture ofbenchmarking and continuous learning part 1,Benchmarking: An International Journal,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 62-78.

Zairi, M. and Whymark, J. (2000b), The transfer of best practices: how to build a culture ofbenchmarking and continuous learning part 2,Benchmarking: An International Journal,Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 146-67.

About the authorsMohammad Shahalizadeh is head of the Department of Productivity and System Management Industrial Engineering at Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch (IAU-STB), Iran.

For about 12 years, Dr Shahalizadeh has taught undergraduate, graduate and industry coursesand carried out research in various aspects of industrial engineering and management includingportfolio management, human resource management, MCDA, applied statistics, qualitymanagement, and research methods. He has presented papers at a number of internationalconferences. His research has appeared in: International Journal of Computational Science,

Journal of Industrial Engineering International, Iranian Journal of Science Production, and Iranian Journal of Accounting and Auditing Review. Mohammad Shahalizadeh is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: mshahalizadeh@ hotmail.com

Grannaz Amirjamshidi is a graduate student of Department of Technology Management andEconomics, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.

Solmaz Shahalizadeh is a graduate student of Department of Computer Science andEngineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.


123

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Bench Marking Of

Documents

Transcript of Bench Marking Of