Results for cross functional flowchart translation from English to Turkish

cross-functional flowchart
işlevsel akış çizelgesi

a rigid mass production system leads to a highly structured, centralized, and inflexible command and control management system. the management hierarchy in a mass production environment is generally several levels deep. approvals for changes have to flow up and down this chain of command. departmental boundaries, not process requirements, determine where processes initiate and terminate, resulting in processes being chopped into inefficient suhprocesses. examples of this phenomenon found in most mass production environments include the processes of maintenance, quality, procurement, design and engineering, customer service, scheduling, shipping, and invoicing, all of which snake their way through department after department, in-basket after in-basket, paper queue after paper queue, until they are handed off to completion. while all of this is going on, orders, projects, purchases, and deliveries are being expedited, requiring various search missions for papers, negotiations for priority, and the occasional compromise. managers in the mass production environment are usually more concerned with their departmental objectives than with organizational objectives which results in the dissipation of energy and resources as departmental objectives are achieved at the expense of organizational objectives. when rigid production systems in the mass environment grow into static organization structures and management systems, the resulting emphasis placed on maintaining the status quo chokes off innovation. competitive, low-bid purchasing systems lead ro adversarial relations with suppliers that virtually eliminate the incentive to improve anything, except cost. customer 4 . lean performance erp proiect manaeement service is a secondary consideration, limited to fulfilling contracts and warranties. customer service usually does not employ any ~nechanism beyond the stated goal of desiring or seeking customer feedback on their needs, product improvement, effective new- product development, ongoing customer relationships, or effective linkage to production. customer relations management is technology driven and often is only a vehicle for pursuing customers, not for retaining them through better service. innovation is focused on product development, not process development. this results in the introduction of products that cannot be efficiently or effectively manufactured with existing production and/or information systems. in the mass environment, systematic improvement is a staff activity, not a worker responsibility, and is generally performed by industrial and systems engineering technologists which results in elimination of a major source of process improvement: the proccss owners. quality standards that are set to be readily achievable and are not continuously improved lead to low standards that are easy to attain and maintain, thus perpetuating the process conditions that caused such low standards to be set initially. functional areas have little or no incentive to work together to establish cross-functional processes, eliminate delays, improve work flows, balance and synchronize operations, or treat departments receiving products or services as customers. operating systems and reporting structures follow departmental lines of authority. this makes interdepartmental cross-functional processes difficult, if not impossible, to design and operate effectively. systems and operating procedures are not well documented because of the inherent advantages of not documenting (e.g., job security). if systems and procedures are viewed as not changing, why write them up? we can just do it the way we always have. without a documented, standard way of operating, not being held accountable becomes easier. in inany cases, standard ways of operating have not been established because the transition from craft industry to mass production was evolutionary and not explicitly designed on a companywide basis. in many companies existing at the time of transition, it w-as more a matter of introducing an assembly line in the production area and adjusting to its impact. in other words, an explicit process design never existed, and generalions of emulation and stagnation have devolved the processes in the mass production workplace even farther from optimum. interestingly, the lack of standard operating procedures may be the ultimate impediment to the one seemingly successful mass production strategy: the cost mechanics of volume achieved through interminable mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers. without standard processes being understood and documented? the apparent cost savings of eliminating personnel in the target company are often negated by the elimination of expertise, followed by reductions of the very profitable results predicted by the takeover financial strategists. foundations of lean performance 5 many of the mass production practices developed during the transitional period of early adopters of the ford and taylor schools of mass thinking are still predominant today. the absence of standard ways of operating leaves the workers in charge and seems to empower them, but is not in the best interests of the company. management's failure to facilitate change derives from the desire to project the idea that the way we have always done it is the standard. performance measures in the mass production environment primarily reflect departmental and individual outputs, not process performance (except as part of departmental performance). performance measures are generally focused on outputs; not inputs or throughputs; on cost, not quality (except in meeting minimum standards); and after-the-fact activities (rework), not preventive measures (supplier quality). hlanagement controls are set to maintain operations within presct limits (i.e., achieving what we have already denlonstrated we can achieve). in this way, the need to improve by looking for root causes is eliminated, as is the need to train workers in problem-solving techniques. mass production systems incorporate management decision and information/support processes that operate within departmental stovepipe boundaries, not as cross-punc~ional and cross-enterprise processes operating across departmental and company boundaries. cross-functional processes requiring lean inlprovement in most mass production environments include quality management, maintenance? new product introduction, and design and engineering. cross-enterprise processes are just beginning to be recognized as the information technologies necessary for their execution emerge. the need for effective design of these processes is apparent in the early meltdown of many of the dot.com pioneers and the continuing struggles of the "click-and-mortars" that are reinventing themselves for the digital age. finally, the negative characteristics of mass production are mutually reinforcing and interlocking. owners and top managers in these firms have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. middle managers and employees follow suit. they are not given the support, training, or motivation to improve or "lean'; operations. relentlessly, the global competitive beast pursues and, increasingly, leaner is swifter to market and stronger in profit and growth.
c / katı bir seri üretim sistemi, oldukça yapılandırılmış, merkezi ve esnek olmayan bir komuta ve kontrol yönetim sistemine yol açar. bir seri üretim ortamındaki yönetim hiyerarşisi genellikle birkaç düzey derinliğindedir. değişiklik onayları bu komuta zincirinde yukarı ve aşağı akmalıdır. süreç gereksinimleri değil departman sınırları, süreçlerin nerede başladığını ve sona erdiğini belirleyerek süreçlerin verimsiz süreçlere bölünmesine neden olur. mo'da bulunan bu fenomenin örnekleri