Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Production Economics:Vol65.Issue1.Apr2000:

Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

Strategies for managing the teamworking agenda: Developing
a methodology for team-based organisationq
David Tran"eld!,*, Stuart Smith", Morris Foster", Sarah Wilson#, Ivor Parry#
!Cranxeld School of Management, Cranxeld University, Cranxeld MK 43 0AL, UK
"Centre for the Study of Change, 212 Piccadilly, London WIV 9JD, UK
#Shezeld Business School, Shezeld Hallam University, Shezeld S1 1WB, UK

Abstract
This paper reports the development of a vision driven organisation design methodology, strategic designs for
teamworking (SDT), for use by senior managers in their role as organisational architects and engineers. The methodology
is based upon models of teamworking. These were developed from existing theory and empirical research. SDT enables
managers to design or redesign a requisite organisational form at both a conceptual and detailed level, with the aim of
designing and implementing a requisite organisation to contribute to the delivery of strategic objectives. ( 2000
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Teamworking; Manufacturing organisation; Organisation design strategies; Methodology for teamworking

1. Introduction
Research on teamworking and teambuilding
seems to have given considerable attention to team

skills [1,2] and work design within teams [3,4],
whereas there has been less investigation into the
links between teamworking and an organisation's
speci"c technology, the strategic use of teamworking, or the signi"cance of an organisation's culture
on the form of teamworking adopted. Through our
research we have come to consider teamworking as
part of a strategic, corporate response to the de-

q
This research is based on work done on EPSRC grant GR/K
51105, Teamworking: building capabilities for manufacturing
improvements, Prof David Tran"eld, Prof Stuart Smith and Mr.
Morris Foster.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: d.tran"eld@cran"eld.ac.uk (D. Tran"eld)

mands for increased e$ciencies and higher quality
levels, combined with #exibility and continuous
innovation, all of which are required to respond to
an increasingly competitive and global market

place [5]. Given this, the recent drive towards
teamwork has departed from its traditional prime
concern, the quality of working life [6]. Instead, the
key focus now emphasise teamworking as the main
organisation design parameter to improve product
quality and enhance productivity and performance
levels [7], in order to deliver strategic objectives
and gain competitive advantage.
Attempting to purposefully design and introduce
speci"c forms of teamworked social organisation to
ensure the achievement of strategic priorities is
a signi"cant addition to #exing the more accepted
levers for competitive advantage, namely advanced
technologies and integrated information systems.
`Organisational engineeringa of this kind can be

0925-5273/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 8 8 - 2

34

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

seen as an enhancement, at the level of manufacturing systems design, of the argument for manufacturing as `a strategic competitive weapona [8].
Furthermore, if teamworking is introduced as the
critical social linkage connecting technologies and
systems to ensure their strategic exploitation, it
might be argued that it lies at the heart of a resource-based manufacturing strategy [9].

2. Experiences with teamwork
Though many writers extol the virtues of teamworking, unfortunately companies often experience
di$culties in its implementation [5,10}13]. In the
current climate of global competition, managers
may tend to rush towards a generic team-based
solution to their problems, possibly buying consultants' prescriptions, or emulating the manufacturing processes and organisational forms that have
been adopted by companies they know, or regard,
as being successful. Organisational leaders may see
a particular form of teamwork adopted elsewhere
and consider this to be a panacea } something to
which they must aspire. In doing so, they may

discount other options, and implement, without
carefully assessing the appropriateness of the
model they are considering in relation to their
strategic requirements, cultural context, or the
complexities of the change they are attempting. It is
namK ve approaches such as these that can lead
to the notion of teamworking being discredited by
both management and employees. Any organisation embarking on a strategic teamworking venture
needs to appreciate the long term and complex
nature of the undertaking, and respond accordingly. The introduction of teamworking is essentially a strategic venture involving both organisational redesign and the development of a change
initiative.
Flexible, team-based approaches to manufacturing are implicitly linked with a general move
amongst leading-edge manufacturing organisations
towards a `total systems approacha, and the formation of cellular organisational structures, which aim
to form natural groups of people and machinery
around information and material #ows [14]. The
change has been described by [15] as a `new theory

of manufacturinga, which will characterise the
`post-modern factory of 1999a. We have adopted

the term `New Wavea [16] as a label for this
emergent institutional form.
Because our research focus was on corporate
organisational con"guration and the management
of change, our work draws heavily on con"guration
researchers who have conceptualised organisations
holistically and drawn attention to the importance
of organisational archetypes in the planning and
management of change [17}19]. Particularly, Hinings and Greenwood's [20,21], work provides
a framework for the analysis of archetypal forms.
They consider the archetype in terms of the pattern
formed by the interplay between interpretive
schema, prescribed frameworks and emergent interactions. `Interpretive schemaa, embody the beliefs, ideas and values of the designers and inform
and shape the `prescribed frameworka. `Emergent
interactionsa result from application in response to
the interplay between the `interpretive schemaa,
the `prescribed frameworka and external environmental events. Initially developed for the study of
whole organisational forms, particularly in understanding the dynamics of change, we have adapted
this model for use in our research on teams, since
we consider the strategic use of teams to be the

building blocks of social organisation.

3. Research methodology
Our research was undertaken from both a theoretical and empirical perspective. Initially, we conducted extensive literature searches to ascertain the
status of existing theory, as well as undertaking
three in-depth case studies of manufacturing companies all of which had a considerable track record
in designing and implementing teamworking. It
was to these conceptual issues of the design of the
teamworked organisational form on the one hand
and the process of implementation on the other
that the detail of our cases attended. From these
data sets, we drew some tentative conclusions and
developed initial conceptual models. These became
the basis for our work and as our research
proceeded we integrated research "ndings, both
theoretical and empirical, into these models of

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

teamworking. By so doing, broadly we followed

a `grounded theorya approach [22}27].
In all, empirical work was undertaken in 14 companies, involving some 134 interviews with managers at all levels. Our research strategy "tted
broadly Cohen et al.'s [28] conception of `longitudinal empirical studya, in which
`the research method is not direct observation,
but rather reconstruction from the organisation's
written and oral histories, and perhaps from
preserved artefactsa (p. 681)
Data was collected using the concept of a `time
linea, which enabled respondents to identify and
discuss both the purposes for introducing teamworking and the activities which had to be undertaken including the order in which they were
introduced into the company. Such an approach to
data collection allowed respondents to address the
issues of transformation holistically and systemically, including both design and implementation
issues. The `time linea method proved particularly
user friendly, providing respondents with a natural
method for recounting their stories, as well as providing transparency of data for immediate validation. Equally, this process supported further
validation and triangulation of speci"c data by
checking across the accounts of others in the same
company. Additionally, company documentation
was accessed and incorporated where available and

appropriate.

4. Research 5ndings; conceptual models of
teamworking
The popular adoption of teamworking has been
argued to be part of companies' attempts to shift
manufacturing paradigm from the legacy `Fordista
forms [29] that dominated most Western manufacturing "rms for the past 50 years to the `New
Wavea forms [16] that have emerged from the
Paci"c Rim and particularly Japan. In any attempt
to shift paradigm, the change is inevitably `a step
into the unknowna and therefore is likely to be
more dominated by ideas, beliefs, and recipes about
how to achieve the `new utopiaa rather than exclusively driven by pragmatism and contingency. In

35

these circumstances it is to be expected that organisational con"guration is conceived and enacted in
the form of a model or archetype } it is a means of
simplifying uncertainty and focusing on key features of the desired change.

We begin with the view that teamworking was
largely seen as a generic intervention. However, the
"eldwork revealed much evidence of contextualising di!erences in purpose, design, and implementation within speci"c task environments. Although
there was some evidence of the implementation of
an overall `archetypala approach to teamworking,
within this were di!erent types of teamworking.
There were distinct di!erences in the way such
approaches were structured, managed, and most
signi"cantly in our view, in the underlying ideas
which shaped their purpose and functioning.
Our research content analysed the case and interview data and identi"ed the characteristics of the
overall archetypal team form, which we labelled the
`self-directeda model of teamworking. We also
identi"ed two `typesa of teamworking within the
overall archetype. These appeared to be related
directly to the task context of the application of
teamworking, and seemed to be designed with
speci"c purpose in mind. For example, in both
aerospace and in the o!shore industry a strong
orientation to `projecta teams could be found,

whereas in automotive, `leana teams dominated.
These re#ected the needs of di!ering manufacturing
systems (see [30]). Our view is that each of these
were su$ciently separate and distinct in their objectives and deliverables, as well as their form and
features to be considered to be distinct types within
the overall archetype. Each of these forms comprised a speci"c prescribed format for teamworking
containing features best suited for pursuing particular purposes.
Brie#y, the overall self-directed archetype was
characterised by the aim of introducing self-control
through empowerment of sta!. Often it was implemented by removing supervisory levels, #attening
the hierarchy, increasing multi-skilling, harmonising conditions of employment, and introducing
single status. The aim was to develop social control
through a committed, motivated, #exible, responsive sta!, capable of delivering quality and innovation. The central purpose of the self-directed model

36

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

was the desire to break a legacy of alienation and
instrumentality characteristic of many workforces.

The interpretive schema underpinning the self-directed archetype was dominated by social system
characteristics, i.e. the nature of human beings and
group behavior. Its ideas, values and beliefs addressed the characteristics of the technical system
only inferentially, viz., meeting the need for quality
and #exibility. In the literature this form of teamworking has been referred to as `self-directeda
[31}33], `Swedisha [34] and `socio-technicala
[35,36].
Within this overall archetype, the two sub-types
could be found. Firstly, the lean sub-type seems
best "tted to routinised task environments and
aims to support, and continuously improve,
demand driven production systems that are tightlycoupled and standardised, with little slack in inventory or time. There is formal leadership often
accompanied by relatively low levels of autonomy,
with most opportunities for creativity and innovation occurring o!-line in the search for continuous
improvement. The prescribed format for lean teams
is often dominated by technical system requirements [35,36,34,29]. This can prove alienating of
individuals operating in the lean teams. Indeed
much of Wickens' work has addressed ameliorating
the potentially oppressive features of lean production [37] and others have written in a similar vein
[38].
Secondly, there is the project sub-type. This capitalises on the traditional strength of the project
team which has a limited life, is technically speci"c,
and formed to deliver to a pre-de"ned client need
usually within a prescribed time constraint and
budget. The project sub-type is composed of
specialists, integrated together to complete a
single, complex and multi-disciplined task.
It is appropriate in non-routine task environments
such as concurrent, or simultaneous engineering
and partnering, which have encouraged project
teamworking across internal and external organisational boundaries, and the acceptance of a degree of ambiguity and #uidity in design as
inevitable and necessary to achieve the objective of
integrating and compressing development time
scales and meeting customer requirements [1,3,
39}50].

5. Selecting an appropriate team form
Many companies are emerging toward the `New
Wavea model from a traditional organisational legacy with features such as long hierarchy and having
a strong emphasis on functional division, push systems, incorporating high stock levels, adversarial
relations both inside and out, etc. For an organisation to break from such paradigm thinking and
traditional legacy, its architects and designers need
help in conceptualising and articulating a clear
con"guration for which to aim. The team forms
previously identi"ed aid this thinking process
(see Fig. 1: Teamworking trajectory). Our research
suggests that the ultimate emergent form will be a
combination of the overall self-directed archetype,
subsequently contextualised by the task context.
Because of the idiosyncratic nature and speci"c
needs of particular task environments, no generally
applicable `best-modela exists, even for the same
industry, product or technological environment
[51]. Management rarely will be able to adopt
either a single ideal team form, or successfully
achieve all the objectives of teamworking embodied
in the team types. Instead they may emphasise.
`one or two dimensions at the expense of the
other(s)a [51].

Fig. 1. Teamworking trajectory.

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

The aim is for the designed team form to match
the needs of the task context and provide a balance
appropriate for the achievement of organisational
purposes [37,38,52]. The `"ta of the designed form
to the existing organisation will be in#uenced by
the work content, the nature of the task, the technology employed, and the environment [53}60].
Our case evidence supported previous work by
others, that if an organisation achieves transformation to a new archetypal teamworked form, it may
"nd this to be insu$cient, or possibly unstable
[12]. DiMaggio and Powell [61] noted that the
more an organisation is tightly coupled to a prevailing archetypal template within a highly structured "eld, the greater its instability in the face of
external shocks. In this situation, the role of incorporating the characteristics and values of at least
one other archetypal team form into its philosophy,
in essence "ne tunes the organisation to become
more integrated [21].
A `New Wavea integrated organisational form is
an ambiguous concept di$cult to articulate with
su$cient clarity to provide an achievable goal.
However, the self-directed archetypal team form on
the one hand, and the task based team types on the
other, can be used to a!ect interpretive schema by
readily providing conceptualisations of new and
di!erent organisational forms which can o!er the
vision for future direction. In this way the archetype and the team types can be used to assist the
organisation in breaking from its existing orientation or legacy, transforming the organisation and
achieving radical change [21,62,63].
Leading-edge manufacturers are responding to
a marketplace which is demanding both cheap
products and high variety. This strategy requires
a combination of the quality and productivity offered by lean production techniques, the #exibility
and innovation that self-direction can inspire, and
the ability to rapidly solve complex problems and
co-ordinate the work of specialists that project
teams achieve. We believe the e!ective implementation of `New-Wavea organisational forms involves
the integration of selected team characteristics into
a combination that is most appropriate to the strategy, culture and technology of the company. This is
a complex task requiring the development of
a methodology to aid managers in this process.

37

6. Developing the strategic designs for teamworking
(SDT) methodology
This purpose of the SDT methodology, therefore,
is to assist managers and organisations to navigate
the path from a traditional, or `legacy organisationa, to a `New Wavea form. Consequently, the
aim of the methodology is to encourage a more
strategic approach to the adoption of teamworking, such that the actions taken are in alignment
with, and appropriate to, the strategic intent of the
organisation. The methodology will also o!er assistance to those organisations that have travelled
part way along the journey towards implementing
an appropriate team form, but have not tackled
some legacy issues, or are reverting to type because
they have failed to change their infrastructure to
support the new behaviours.
To undertake this development work, the project
moved into an action research phase. The design of
the SDT methodology assumes that strategic choices about the form of teamworking best suited to
speci"c manufacturing environments are constrained by the degree to which teamwork is articulated in the minds and experience of the managers
involved in taking the decision. If teamworking is
only seen as an undi!erentiated generic approach
suited to all situations, then it is di$cult to know
whom to imitate, or which choice to make between
various consultant o!erings, or how to design
di!erent approaches to teamworking in di!erent
parts of the manufacturing process. The three conceptual methods of teamworking upon which the
SDT methodology is based are underpinned by
di!erentiated assumptions and aims. The logic of
the SDT methodology is to use these models to
introduce the generic, self-directed form of teamworking, and then subsequently to articulate the
relationship between manufacturing purpose and
organisational design so as to enable practitioners
to identify and contextualise their speci"c experiences and aspirations for teamworking. The SDT
methodology is intended to enable managers to
better understand their current teamworking arrangements, evaluate how well these "t their strategic purposes, and envisage and plan how these
might be improved by providing a `mapa of possibilities for teamworking.

38

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

However, `the map is not the territorya, and
therefore the methodology should be regarded
more as a heuristic devise than an algorithm for
optimising organisational design. It is aimed at
encouraging managers to re#ect on what they are
trying to achieve through their teamworked organisational designs and how di!erent con"gurations
suit some manufacturing purposes better than
others. Out of this process managers are able to see
the strengths and limitations of their existing
approaches and be more discriminating in evaluating the various approaches available in the market,
and can plan changes that need to be put in place to
better align the con"guration of teamworking in
their factory with the strategic purposes and needs
of the various parts of the manufacturing process.
Methodologies for introducing such changes all
incorporate in some format the questions:
f Where are now?
f Where do we want to get to?
f How do we get there?
In designing such a methodology a key issue is to
decide where the main motivation and energy for
change resides. Does it emanate from dissatisfaction
with the current situation, or does it result from the
attraction of future possibilities? Most methodologies seek to capitalise on both sources of motivation.
Audit tools are used to generate dissatisfaction by
benchmarking existing performance and practices
against either best practice or some idealised model.
Awareness of gaps or shortfalls becomes the energiser for change in de"ning what needs to be done.
The alternative strategy of developing and articulating a vision of the future relies on the attractiveness
of the envisaged future both to energise its enactment and to enable the current state to be `given
upa. It is important in designing a methodology to
decide what comes "rst. If most of the motivation to
change is likely to come from dissatisfaction with the
present then audit should precede vision; on the
other hand, if the attractiveness of an alternative
future is likely to be the motivator then vice versa.
Most manufacturing managers1 who have been
exposed to the `mapa of teamworking incorporat1 Over 300 manufacturing managers have been involved in the
validation of the models resulting from this research.

ing the `self-directeda, `leana and `projecta models
report experiencing it as `paradigm shifta in their
thinking about teamworking. Once having heard
about it, their thinking and understanding of their
prior experience of teamworking is `transformeda.
They talk about the three archetypes map as `revelatorya insofar as it illuminates areas of their teamworking practice, in particular how di!erent parts
of the manufacturing process with di!erent imperatives require di!erent approaches. Typically, this
has generated high levels of energy and motivation
with groups of managers wanting to proceed
immediately to redesign the teamworking arrangements. In terms of the change model described
above, the teamworking map appears to have considerable potential for generating visions of future
teamworking con"gurations. On this basis the
methodology has been designed to be `vision
drivena rather than `audit leda. Whilst we believe
both are required, in this case we are clear that the
vision will provide the main motivation to change
with the audit revealing the potential brakes on
achieving it.
Deciding the methodology should be `vision
drivena resulted in most emphasis being placed on
designing processes to enable participants to explore and elaborate the meaning and potential of
the approaches to teamworking identi"ed in SDT.
To do this the methodology was designed in four
steps:
1. Pre-diagnosis and audit.
2. Workshop 1: Awareness raising and conceptual
design.
3. Consolidation and data gathering.
4. Workshop 2: Detailed design and action planning.
6.1. Stage one } orientation and audit
The aims and bene"ts of conducting an audit of
the existing organisation are to surface and make
explicit the taken-for-granted assumptions to the
facilitating consultants, and later, in the two workshops to `2generate managerial debate about the
cultural barriers to change that exista [64]. In this
way the audit takes the form of an interactive
device and acts as a change tool. We propose the

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

data collection include elements of artefact,
values/beliefs and taken-for-granted assumptions.
The aim of the audit is to ascertain the history
and current status of teamworking in the company,
to identify its position on the path between traditional and New Wave organisational forms, and to
discover which combination of the archetypes
would be most appropriate. The audit is based on
data from interviews which explore critical incidents in the company's history and the values and
beliefs of its members with regard to teamworking;
observation of organisational artefacts, structures
and processes; and questionnaires involving point
allocation and choice between archetypes. The
audit is undertaken by external facilitators and
provides background information for Workshop
One, which is the key driver for change.
6.2. Stage two } Workshop One } conceptual design
of teamworked organisation
The "rst stage of this workshop is educational in
that it familiarises participants with the archetypal
teamworking map. Speci"cally, this involves a presentation of the archetype and team types, linking
each to di!erent types of outcomes, and tight coupling the purposes for adopting teamworking to
various team forms and the infrastructures required
to support them.
The journey to the `New Wavea team-based
organisation is often one of radical change from
one paradigm to another. It involves a fundamental
shift in the cognitive structure [65] and behavioural patterns of managers and employees. Managers may be stuck in paradigm thinking and
require input to help them see the options open to
them. Radical change can only be made when alternative templates are articulated, which allow them
to shift the perspective through which they view the
event [27,66,67]. Through the use of theoretical
models, combined with `reala and `ideal-typea
case-study illustrations, managers are provided
with a framework for understanding their organisation and options upon which they can make
informed choices.
The move to teamworking is a journey within
a strategic context. It is that context which provides
not only the reason for implementing teamworking

39

but also needs to dictate the speci"c form it will
take. Where teamworking is not tightly coupled to
the business strategy, implementation will falter, for
it will be di$cult to get high-level endorsement and
support for the whole system changes that will be
necessary to make a coherent teamworked design
function e!ectively. Further, the resources for
implementation may be limited. Therefore, for speci"cation and implementation to be successful, it is
necessary to ensure that strategic intentions have
been established by the organisation, and are
understood in su$cient detail to be able to inform
the teamworking debate. This tight coupling of
proposed organisational con"guration to strategy
is developed as a dominating theme in Workshop
One in producing an agreed conceptual design.
In the latter part of Workshop One, the participants use the three SDT models to produce an
idealised view of the teamworking requirement.
This involves analysing the manufacturing organisation into its appropriate teams and identifying
which forms of teamworking are best suited to
speci"c situations.
6.3. Stage three } consolidation
The participants are provided with a summary of
the output from Workshop One together with
a written document (an edupac), which provides
them with more information on the archetypes.
They are asked to re#ect on the output produced in
Workshop One, and to consider what will need to
change in order to bring about an ideal team-based
design.
6.4. Stage four } Workshop Two
Detailed data gathered in the audit and orientation phase is provided to allow the participants to
compare the current teamworking con"guration
with the ideal view developed in Workshop One. In
particular, it highlights di!erences between what is
in place and what is required in terms of team
forms, and evaluates whether or not infrastructural
systems and processes are compatible with supporting the required forms of teamworking. In the
last phase of Workshop Two, the methodology
develops a change agenda and plans to develop the

40

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

required form of teamworking and support structures. This phase prioritises change in terms of
feasibility and expected bene"ts.
The aim of the SDT methodology is to achieve
a coherent organisational whole to deliver the
established strategic purpose, by aligning an appropriate organisational form for its achievement
[68,69].

7. Conclusions
Although popular, teamworking often is proving
problematic in implementation. Our work in a
variety of experienced companies suggests this is
because many organisations are failing to contextualise the archetypal self-directed model to suit
their speci"c task environment, and hence to link
teamworking speci"cally to their wider strategic
agenda. The teamworking models developed as
part of this research provide a variety of forms
designed to be used within the SDT methodology
to impact on the interpretive schema of managers,
thus enabling them to envision and purposefully
prescribe formats, designs and the paths they
choose to follow. The development of the SDT
methodology to facilitate this process surfaces
taken-for-granted assumptions and encourages
more open debate. It also facilitates a speci"cation
of the necessary, detailed changes required within
the social system to support the required changes.

References
[1] J.M. Kouzes, B.Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge:
How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organisations,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1987.
[2] K. Fisher, Leading Self-Directed Work Teams: A Guide to
Developing New Team Leadership Skills, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1993.
[3] J.R. Hackman, G.R. Oldham, Work Redesign, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA, 1980.
[4] P.A. Goodman, Designing E!ective Work Groups,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1986.
[5] M. Higgs, D. Rowland, All pigs are equal? Management
Education and Development 23 (4) (1992) 349}362.
[6] D. Buchanan, Cellular manufacture and the role of teams,
In: J. Storey (Ed.), New Wave Manufacturing Strategies,
Paul Chapman, London, 1994.

[7] N. Oliver, R. Delbridge, J. Lowe, Lean production
practices and manufacturing performance: International
comparisons in the auto components industry, Refereed
Paper, BAM Conference, 1995.
[8] W. Skinner, Manufacturing: The Formidable Competitive
Weapon, Wiley, New York, 1985.
[9] V. Mole, D. Gri$ths, M. Boisot, Theory and practice: An
exploration of the concept of core competence in BPX and
Courtaulds, British Academy of Management Conference,
Aston, September 1996.
[10] R. Kilmann, A holistic program and critical success factors
of corporate transformation, European Management
Journal 13 (2) (1995) 175}186.
[11] R. Howard, Brave New Workplace, Elizabeth Siftington,
New York, 1985.
[12] B. Sandkull, Lean Production: The Myth which Changes
the World? Lean Production. Part Two: Comparative
Cultural Recipes for Management, 1994.
[13] R.F. Conti, M. Warner, Taylorism, teams and technology
in re-engineering work organisations, New Technology,
Work and Employment 9 (1994) 2.
[14] J. Parnaby, A systems approach to the implementation of
JIT methodologies in Lucas industries, International Journal of Production Research 26 (3) (1988) 483}492.
[15] P.F. Drucker, The emerging theory of manufacturing,
Harvard Business Review 68 (1990) 3.
[16] A. Harrison, J. Storey, New wave manufacturing strategies: Operational, organisational and human dimensions,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16 (2) (1996) 63}76.
[17] R. Drazin, A.H. Van de Ven, Alternative forms of "t in
contingency theory, Administrative Science Quarterly 30
(1985) 514}539.
[18] H. Mintzberg, Structure in Fives: Designing E!ective Organisations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ, 1983.
[19] D. Miller, P.H. Friesen, Organisations: A Quantum View,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ, 1984.
[20] C.R. Hinings, R. Greenwood, The Dynamics of Strategic
Change, Blackwell, Oxford, 1988.
[21] C.R. Hinings, R. Greenwood, Understanding radical organisational change: Bringing together the old and the new
institutionalism, Academy of Management Review 21 (4)
(1996) 1022}1054.
[22] B.G. Glaser, A.L. Strauss, Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine,
Chicago, 1967.
[23] K.E. Kram, Phases of the mentor relationship, Academy of
Management Journal 26 (1983) 608}625.
[24] K.E. Kram, L.A. Isabella, Mentoring alternatives: The role
of peer relationships in career development, Academy of
Management Journal 28 (1985) 110}132.
[25] R.I. Sutton, The process of organisational death: Disbanding and reconnecting, Administrative Science Quarterly 32
(1987) 542}569.
[26] R.I. Sutton, A.L. Callahan, The stigma of bankruptcy:
Spoiled organisational image and its management, Academy of Management Journal 30 (1987) 405}436.

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42
[27] L.A. Isabella, Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds:
How managers construe key organisational events, Academy of Management Journal 33 (1) (1990) 7}41.
[28] M.D. Cohen, R. Burkhart, G. Dosi, M. Egidi, L. Marengo,
M. Warglien, S. Winter, Routines and other recurring action
patterns in organisations: Contemporary research issues, Industrial and Corporate Change 5 (3) (1996) 653}698.
[29] C. Forza, Work organisation in lean production and traditional plants: What are the di!erences? International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16 (2)
(1996) 42}62.
[30] D.R. Tran"eld, J.S. Smith, S. Wilson, I. Parry, M.E. Foster,
Teamworked organisational engineering: Getting the most
out of teamworking, Management Decision 36 (6) (1997).
[31] S. Caudron, Are self-directed teams right for your company? Personnel Journal, December (1993) 76}84.
[32] T.P. Mullen, Integrating self-directed teams into the management development curriculum, Journal of Management Development 11 (5) (1992) 43}54.
[33] P. van Amelsvoort, J. Benders, Team time: A model for
developing self-directed work teams, International Journal
of Operations and Production Management 16 (2) (1996)
159}170.
[34] R. Van der Meer, M. Gudin, The role of group working in
assembly organisation, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16 (2) (1996) 119}140.
[35] J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, M. Nitta, B. Barrett, N. Belhedi,
J. Bullard, C. Coutchie, T. Inaba, I. Ishino, S. Lee, W.J. Lin,
W. Mothersell, S. Rabine, S. Ramanand, M. Strolle, A.
Wheaton, Japanese team-based work systems in North
America: Explaining the diversity, California Management
Review 37 (1) (1994) 42}64.
[36] W. Niepce, E. Molleman, A case study: Characteristics of
work organisation in lean production and socio-technical
systems, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16 (2) (1996) 77}90.
[37] P. Wickens, The Road to Nissan: Flexibility, Quality,
Teamwork, Macmillan, London, 1987.
[38] J.R. Barker, Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control
in self-managing teams, Administrative Science Quarterly
38 (1993) 408}437.
[39] A. Ward, J.K. Liker, J.J. Cristiano, D.K. Sobek II, The
second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make
better cars faster, Sloan Management Review (1995) 43}61.
[40] D. Buchanan, Boddy, Management objectives in technical
change, In: D. Knights, H. Wilmott (Eds.), Managing the
Labour Process, Gower, Aldershot, 1986.
[41] K.B. Clark, T. Fujimoto, Product Development Performance } Strategy, Organisation and Management in the
World Auto Industry, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA, 1991.
[42] F. Harrison, Advanced Project Management, Gower,
Aldershot, 1985.
[43] M. Jenner, C. Mabey, What is it that Makes Teams Work?
A Study of 49 Project Teams in the Construction Industry.
British Academy or Management Conference Proceedings,
Aston Business School, Birmingham, 1996.

41

[44] D.S. Kezsbom, Integrated planning process } making
a team work: Techniques for building successful crossfunctional teams, Industrial Engineering 33 (1995) 39}41.
[45] B. Metcalfe, Project management system design: A social
and organisational analysis, Proceedings of The Second
International Conference on Managing Integrated Manufacturing: Strategic Organisation and Social Change,
Leicester University, 1996.
[46] P.W.G. Morris, The Management of Projects, Thomas
Telford, London, 1994.
[47] P.K. Smart, An empirical investigation of the factors
contributing to the successful implementation of CE,
in: The Proceedings of The Second International Conference on Managing Integrated Manufacturing: Strategic
Organisation and Social Change, Leicester University,
1996.
[48] H. Takeuchi, I. Nonaka, The new product development
game } stop running the relay race and take up rugby,
Harvard Business Review 64 (1) (1987) 137}146.
[49] G.M. Winch, Thirty years of project management what
have we learned? British Academy or Management Conference Proceedings, Aston Business School, Birmingham,
1996.
[50] G.M. Winch, Contracting systems in the European construction industry, in: R. Whitley, P.H. Kristensen (Eds.),
The Changing European Firm: Limits to Convergence,
Routledge, London, 1996.
[51] F. Mueller, Teams between hierarchy and commitment:
Change strategies and the internal environment, Journal of
Management Studies 33 (3) (1994) 383}403.
[52] F. Carr, Introducing team working: A motor industry case
study, Industrial Relations Journal 25 (3) (1994) 199}209.
[53] C.C. Manz, K. Mossholder, F. Luthans, An integrated
perspective of self-control in organisations, Administration and Society 19 (1987) 3}24.
[54] J.W. Slocum, H.P. Sims Jr., A typology for integrating
technology, organisation and job design, Human Relations 33 (1980) 193}212.
[55] C.C. Manz, Self-leading work teams: Moving beyond selfmanagement myths, Human Relations 11 (1992b) 1119}1140.
[56] C.C. Manz, H.P. Sims Jr., Self-management as a substitute
for leadership: A social learning theory perspective, Academy of Management Review 5 (1980) 361}367.
[57] A.H. Van de Ven, A reviews framework for organisational assessment, in: E. Lawler, D. Nadler, C. Cammann (Eds.), Organisational Assessment: Perspectives on
the Measurement of Organisational Behaviour and the
Quality of Working Life, Wiley Interscience, New York,
1979.
[58] A.H. Van de Ven, A. Delbecq, A task contingent model of
work-unit structure, Administrative Science Quarterly 19
(1974) 183-197
[59] A.H. Van de Ven, A. Debecq, R. Koenig, Determinants of
co-ordination modes within organisations, American Sociological Review 41 (1976) 322}328.
[60] J.D. Thompson, Organisations in Action, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1967.

42

D. Tranxeld et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 65 (2000) 33}42

[61] P.J. DiMaggio, W.W. Powell, Introduction, in: W.W.
Powell, P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in
Organisational Analysis, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1991, pp. 1}38.
[62] G. Johnson, Strategic Change and the Management Process, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1987.
[63] D. Miller, Evolution and revolution: A quantum view of
structural change in organisations, Journal of Management Studies 19 (1982) 131}151.
[64] G. Johnson, Managing strategic change: strategy,
culture, action, Long Range Planning 25 (1) (1992)
28}36.
[65] K.D. Benne, The processes of re-education: an assessment
of Kurt Lewin's views. In: W.G. Bennis, K.D. Benne, R.
Chin, K.E. Corey (Eds.), The Planning of Change, 3rd

[66]

[67]

[68]
[69]

edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976,
pp. 315}326.
M.W. McCall, Making sense with nonsense: helping
frames of reference clash, in: North-Holland/TIMS Studies
in Management Science, North-Holland, New York, 1977,
pp. 111}123.
W.H. Starbuck, Organisations and their environments, in:
M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976, pp.
1069}1123.
R. Hamermesh, Note on Implementing Strategy, Harvard
Business School, Boston, MA, 1982, Case no: 383}015.
H.E.R. Uyterhoeven, R.W. Ackerman, J.W. Rosenblum,
Strategy and Organisation, Revised Edition, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1977.