Designing a toolbox that motivates, initiates and supports

process optimization in SME MRO organizations

S. Jongerden*
Research Group Aviation Studies, University of Applied Sciences, Weesperzijde 190, 1097 DZ Amsterdam, Netherlands

Abstract
Purpose - This paper aims to identify the requirements and to design a toolbox that can independently motivate, train and
support MRO SME organizations with the implementation of process optimization.
Design The methodology developed by Oskam, Cowan, Hoiting and Souren (2012) was used for the development of the
design.
Findings This paper finds that the features: self-assessment, Initial simulation, selection of KPIs and tools, a communication
overview, computer based training, A3 format, a stand-up meeting, a forum, tips and a FAQ and success stories should be
embedded in the design.
Practical implications The development of the toolbox can assists MRO SME organizations with the implementation of
process optimization and thereby increase their market share.
Originality/Value This paper may be of value for MRO SME organizations as a method that is developed by which they can
improve their processes.
Keywords: Process Optimization, MRO, SME, Toolbox

1. Introduction
Since the financial crisis, many organizations had to
reduce cost and maximize income. For the aviation
Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) industry
this is not different (Tucker, 2010) as these
organizations are under pressure because customers
have become more demanding regarding price,
delivery reliability and turn-around time (Carlborg,
Kindstrm & Kowalkowski, 2013). If the aviation
industry wants to regain profitability, organizations
need to unlock new revenue potentials and innovate
business models to boost efficiency, speed up
processes and improve customer satisfaction (Ayeni,
Baines, Lightfoot & Ball, 2011). The MRO Small
and Medium Enterprises (SME) sector has
recognized the opportunity that process optimization
(Lean, Six Sigma, TQM and Agile) has to offer, the
revolution is clearly underway (Crute, Ward, Brown,
& Graves, 2003). The implementation of process
optimization is difficult but even more so for the
MRO SME processes as these are characterized by
its extremely broad work scope, changing demand
and unpredictable outcome of inspections (Stander
et. al, 2007).
Most implementations of process optimization are
based on a set of tools within a toolbox. But simply
using tools from a toolbox to improve processes is a
common misconception. The implementation of
selected tools from a toolbox is not sufficient to

Tel.: +31 (0)6 222 95 447.

E-mail address: stevenjongerden@online.nl

achieve a sustainable way of working (Liker &

Hoseus, 2010). Key reasons behind the failure of
process optimization is that it is addressed as a set of
practices instead of a socio-technical system (Lathin
& Mitchell, 2001; Losonci, Demeter & Jenei, 2011;
Mostafa, Dumrak & Soltan, 2013). Process
optimization fails because it lacks this social aspect,
but no new toolbox has been designed.
Since there is no toolbox design that takes these
socio factors into account, a new design will be
presented. This design was determined by using the
design methodology developed by Oskam, Cowan,
Hoiting and Souren (2012). This toolbox should
ensure that MRO SME organizations are capable of
implementing process optimization independently
and successfully and thereby ensure that they are
able to retain their market share.
2. Literature review
Process optimization is a collective term for methods
that are: a package of management practices that
can be applied to eliminate the waste and reduce the
variability of suppliers, customers and internal
resources and processes (Mostafa, Dumrak &
Soltan, 2013, p. 44). Optimization is defined as:
given a system or process, find[ing] the best
solution to this process within constraints (Biegler,
2010, p. 1). Process optimization requires the
following elements (Biegler, 2010):

An objective function that provides a scalar

quantitative performance measure that
needs to be minimized or maximized.
1

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

A predictive model that describes the

behavior of the system.
Variables that appear in the predictive
model that can be adjusted to satisfy the
constraints.

The objective function refers to what has to be

improved within the process, the focus of the
optimization. For the aviation MRO industry this
implies the management of the overall maintenance
cost and a reduction in turnaround time (Ayeni,
Baines, Lightfoot & Ball, 2011).
In literature that describes the implementation of
process optimization, the word toolbox is often used.
The toolbox is defined as a collection of tools that
assist or support the implementation of process
optimization (Bhuiyan & Baghel, 2005; Vais, Miron,
Pedersen & Folke, 2006; Waring & Bishop, 2010).
May it be Lean, Six Sigma, TQM or Agile, the
definition is consistent. But one could question what
is wrong with a collection of tools that assists or
supports
the
implementation
of
process
optimization.
Tools should be applied to problems that prevent
organizations to reach what they tend to achieve. If
tools are randomly applied to problems without
focusing on what the organization wants to achieve,
but on what the tool can achieve for them, the
misapplication of the tools is imminent (Salman, van
der Krogt, Little, & Geraghty, 2007). The
implementation of selected tools from a toolbox is
not sufficient to achieve a sustainable way of
working (Liker & Hoseus, 2010). Generally, a
robust lean initiative is that being well-structured,
tooled and comprehensive enough to be
apprehensive
and
understandable
to
the
practitioners. In addition, it should focus on both
human and technical factors in parallel manner all
times (Mostafa, Dumrak & Soltan, 2013, p. 60).
This human factor approach to the implementation

of process optimization is supported by the research

of Losonci, Demeter and Jenei (2011). Their
research indicates that one of the key reasons of
failures to implement process optimizations is that it
was approached as a set of practices instead as a
socio technical system. This conclusion is also
supported by Lathin and Mitchell (2001) as they
state that the implementation of process optimization
is more likely to yield success if the social system is
capable of supporting and sustaining the new
technical system.
Huber (2006) describes three stages which are
required for change. These three stages are
unfreezing, movement and refreezing. In the
unfreezing stage the force is unfrozen that ensures
that the process is unalterable. People need to believe
that change is needed. Therefore to start with process
optimization, organizations must first be motivated
to do so (Scherrer-Rathje, Boyle & Deflorin, 2009).
In the movement stage, strategies and plans for
implementations are made, ensuring that the driving
force exceeds the restraining force. Motivated
organization will start with the implementation but
do not have the knowledge since most of these
organizations have never done any process
optimization. Training for continuous improvement
is required to ensure success in applying the methods
and tools (Nslund, 2013; Alojairi, 2010). The
refreezing state will ensure stabilization of the new
system, to do so management and employees must
be supported. People need to be supported with the
implementation of change, and when they fail, they
must be supported again. (Crute, Ward, Brown &
Graves, 2003).
Further literature study on motivation, training and
support for organizations that are implementing
process optimization have resulted in the
requirements stated in Table 1. These requirements
will be described in detail in 2.1 through 2.8.

Table 1
Functional requirements toolbox design
Main functions

Sub functions
Trigger process optimization
Reduce resistance

Motivation
Promote autonomy

Training

Support

Transfer knowledge
Teach how to learn
Challenge to learn
Applying learned knowledge
Support with problems
Enable knowledge sharing
Enable external support

References
Scherrer-Rathje, Boyle & Deflorin, 2009; Hallam, 2003; Weick & Quinn, 1999
Mostafa, Dumrak, & Soltan, 2013; Hasle, Bojesen, Jensen & Bramming, 2012;
Achanga, Shehab, Roy & Nelder, 2006; Darling & Taylor, 1989
Gagn & Deci, 2005; Crute, Ward, Brown, & Graves, 2003; Kinman, & Kinman,
2001; Bumpus, Olbeter & Glover, 1998
Ayeni, Baines, Lightfoot & Ball, 2011; Eaton, 2010
Santos & Powell, 2001
Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992
Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992
Martnez-Jurado & Moyano-Fuentes, 2014; Fricke, 2010; Crute, Ward, Brown &
Graves, 2003
Real, Pralus, Pillet, & Guizzi, 2007
Dyer & Nobeoka, 2002

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

2.1 Triggering process optimization

Organizational change would not be necessary if
everyone would do their job right. Change is
necessary because of an external environmental
influence that forces the organization to adapt to
survive the new situation. Changes are therefore
triggered by management or employees not being
able to respond fast enough to the changing situation.
Since the environment changes continuously,
organizations must do the same. Before an
organization is willing to change and improve, it
must become clear that the organization is lagging
behind and is unable to catch up to the changing
environment (Weick & Quinn, 1999). There are
several methods to determine the performance of an
organizations, these could be financial versus nonfinancial and qualitative verse quantitative. To
determine
organization
performance,
selfassessment models can be used to determine how the
organization is performing. Research by Chin, Pun
and Lau (2003) states that using financial assessment
methods are not enough to determine good or bad
future financial results. It is also necessary to
determine the driving force behind the success or
failure. The objective of a self-assessment tool
should be to identify possible areas that require
improvement and recognize and maintain areas that
are already going well (Chin, Pun & Lau, 2003).
Beyond simply giving the leader a lecture on lean,
the establishment of local lean efforts can serve to
demonstrate the performance gains achievable with
lean (Hallam, 2003, p. 243). This statement is in
line with research performed by Rebentisch, Muman
and Stanke (2007) that state that traditional training
methods will not create the required mind-set.
Seeing what process optimization can do instead of
just reading about it will create the right motivation
to start with the implementation.
2.2 Reduce resistance to change
When organizations implement change, the
implementers of the change are confronted with
resistance from employees. Many organizations
have trouble dealing with the resistance caused by
these employees and do not know how to deal with
this issue. Resistance to change is defined as a
counterforce to the inclination to introduce a positive
organization change that will lead to better
performance and change (Alasadi & Askary, 2014).
Alasadi and Askary (2014) have identified these
same methods as Darling and Taylor (1989) by
performing a literature study and used these to
perform and empirical analysis on which methods
were most important to reduce resistance to change.
This research was performed with a questionnaire
with 234 participants where they were asked for their
experience with organizational change. Their
research concluded that:

Communication with employees prior and

during change are very critical for success;
Considering the needs of employees when
planning for change in an important issue;
Employees should be involved in the change
process.

This conclusion is in line with what Darling and

Taylor (1989) describe by the model that they
developed for overcoming resistance to change.
2.3 Promote autonomy
When personal is motivated for process optimization
and resistance to change is reduced by
communicating with employees about the change,
motivation must become intrinsic so that the external
motivation factor can be removed. This will allow
organizations to continuously change and improve
processes without having to repeatedly motivate
employees over and over again. Gagn and Deci
(2005) state that internalization of motivation for the
implementation of process optimization can be
improved by providing support for autonomy. To
provide support for autonomy the toolbox must:

Promote competence;

Provide feedback;

Create achievement;

Provide challenge;

Provide choice.
Competence has a connection with performing a task
that looks challenging, where an employees would
wonder if he or she is capable of completing that task
successfully. If competence is based on obtaining
results that depend on the employees skills and/or
abilities two, method can be used to improve
competence:

Ensuring that the skills and abilities of the

employee are above the level of the task that
needs to be performed;

Ensuring that the level of the task that needs to

be performed is below the skills and abilities,
of the employee.
Providing employees with positive feedback is likely
to promote engagement and performance. The aim
of positive feedback is to provide employees with
information that will let them change their
ineffective behaviour and praise correct behaviour
(Thoo, Maguire & Moorhead 2004). When methods
are performed within the toolbox, employees should
receive feedback on how they performed their tasks.
To ensure that employees stay motivated to increase
performance, the increase of evaluation should be in
line with the increase of difficulty. The further the
difficulty increases, the less the feedback should be
overly positive. Providing more feedback in the
beginning of the toolbox will provide the
organization with more motivation and will retain
their interest (Thoo, Maguire & Moorhead 2004).
3

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

With process optimization there is no product that

can be finished or repaired as it focusses on process
change, therefore a sense of achievement must be
accomplished (Herzberg, 1968). The sense of
achievement can be accomplished when a process
change has been successfully implemented and the
process has changed for the best. To ensure that
changes are accomplished these changes need to be
attainable.
Challenging is defined as requiring ones full ability
or resources in a difficult but stimulating effort (The
free dictionary, 2014a). Providing challenge to
employees therefore implies that they will have to
perform tasks that require their full ability. This can
be done by:

Ensuring that the tasks that they have to

perform are difficult and complex;

Providing new and unfamiliar tasks.

Choice is defined as giving people the option to
select from a number of possible alternatives (The
free dictionary, 2014b). As it states, from a number
of possible alternatives, indicates that there must be
something to select from. Providing a selection can
be performed in various manners, for example:

Selecting methods to use

Selecting which problems to address

Providing choice to participate with the project

2.4 Transfer knowledge
Training is defined as activities leading to the
acquisition of knowledge or skills for the purpose of
personal growth (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).
Individual training refers to educating personal in a
one on one basis or when people perform training
autonomously. The training method used can be
either face to face, paper based or on a computer by
means of CBT or simulations (Salas & CannonBowers, 2001). According to research performed by
Kraus and Gramopadhye (2001) there is no
significant difference in acquired knowledge after
training by one of these methods. As there is no
significant difference either one of these methods
can be used to train individual employees in process
optimization practices. While Kraus and
Gramopadhye (2001) state that there is no significant
difference in the acquisition of knowledge there are
other differences between paper based and CBT, as
a CBT would else result in just a mere digitalization
of information. A CBT has certain advantages but
also disadvantages over traditional learning (Zhang,
Zhao, Zhou & Nunamaker, 2004). Comparing these
with the characteristics just stated on traditional
learning and e-learning, the second seems to match
these best. This is because CBT learning is learner
centred which is important according to Tavangarian
et. al (2004).

2.5 Applying learned knowledge

Training employees in methods of process
optimization might have little effect in the beginning
as these employees dont know what to do with this
new knowledge. This will not become apparent until
this knowledge is required to perform actual tasks.
Therefore educational practices should not differ
much from the practice and activities required in real
life. The following benefits occur when there is a
clear connection between theory and practice
(Katajavuori, Lindblom-Ylnne & Hirvonen, 2006):

It will become easier to continue studying as it

becomes clear what theory can do in practice;

Trainees understand why the knowledge is

required;

Enables trainees to perform a self-assessment

and test their knowledge and skills in real life.
Taking these methods in consideration results in that
only simulations and practicum experiences are
possible in MRO SME organizations. This is
because role play has no significant meaning or
application in process optimization and single course
projects would not ensure that these organizations
are
implementing
process
optimization
independently. Simulations can be used to get
practical experience with practices that are too
expensive to try in real life while practicum projects
can be used on easy and cheap methods since making
simulations for these methods would be inefficient
(expensive to program with no real purpose).
2.6 Support with problems
Customer support is a service that is provided with
products that are sold to organizations. Support
assists these organizations with the use of the
product or service. Customer support is essential for
achieving customer satisfaction and plays a role in
the success rate of a new product. Goffin (1999)
states that manufacturers need to ensure that the
appropriate customer support is provided with the
product which are installation, documentation,
maintenance and repair service, user training,
telephone or internet service and upgrading.
Documentation refers to using instructions to
understand how methods and tools should be used in
practice. Documenting how these tools and methods
should be used are part of the training for process
optimization. The same can be said for user training.
A side note is that documentation can be used as a
part of support but not in the method described by
Goffin (1999). A commonly used practice by
organizations to assists customers with products are
a frequently asked questions list. Such as list
presents question that users will likely have towards
a product. This list thereby also provides the
customer with the answer to that question and
thereby provides the required assistance.

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

A different method which is in the same style, is

presenting the user with tips on how to use the
method. Employees and managers might have
difficulty with certain aspects of a tool or method and
tips might just provide them with the required
information to continue.
2.7 Enable knowledge sharing
Organizations, small or large in size, consists of
multiple employees and all these employees know
something, as stated by Adamic, Zhang, Bakshy and
Ackerman (2008). Yahoo answers is a good example
of a question answer platform that enables users to
share knowledge on several topics. Knowledge
sharing is defined by making ones knowledge
available to someone else where this knowledge is in
the form that is understood, absorbed and used by the
other individual. To ensure that individual
knowledge is shared an opportunity to share this
knowledge should be created. This can be either
formal in means of training or work teams or
informal on the basis of a personal relationship.
Research indicated that informal knowledge sharing
is the most effective. Taking into account process
optimization, knowledge sharing and problem
solving is done by stand-up meetings. In these day to
day meetings, information on the current state is
shared but also efforts undertaken to resolve difficult
and time consuming issues (Ipe, 2003).
For employees to share ideas on which processes can
be improved, a form of A3 thinking could be used.
An employee could write down his or her idea on an
optimization and what to do about the problem to
solve it in a structured manner. This will allow for
other to understand his or her problem and decide if
it is worth solving. This method was personally
observed by Omron and according to the floor
manager a successful method.
2.8 Enable external support
External support refers to assistance that is provided
from without ones own organization. This is not
completely in line with the stated intention that these
organizations should individually implement
process organizations. But everyone that tries to do
something by themselves can come in a situation that
requires assistance from someone else. It is also
stated to be one of the expected results from the
RAAK project, therefore this feature will be
provided in the design.
Providing external support is not different from
sharing knowledge within the organizations. The
only difference is that the information is received
from outside of the organization instead of within.
The same methods can be used as described to
provide this feature.

3. Methodology
The methodology developed by Oskam, Cowan,
Hoiting and Souren (2012) was used to create a
design for the process optimization toolbox. This
methodology is developed to design innovative
products and consists of an orientation, analysis,
design, detailing and a realization phase.
To perform the orientation phase a literature review
was performed on the current definition and use of
the toolbox. This literature review was performed
using the database of the University of Applied
Science Amsterdam and Delft University of
Technology. The articles that were used for this
research were often cited by other researchers
indicating that these articles have provided a
contribution to science. If this was not possible, the
method described by Sekaran and Bougie (2013)
was used to determine the quality of the article.
The analysis performed to determine what the
requirements for a new toolbox should be, was
performed as a descriptive research. A descriptive
research focusses on the characteristics of a certain
group to determine why that group behaves that way.
The amount of MRO SME organizations within the
Netherlands is rather low and thereby reasonably
stable. Therefore a cross sectional study was
performed on the total population. With a cross
sectional analysis a sample survey can be performed
which targets a very specific population, which was
the MRO SME sector for this research. The design
criteria for the toolbox are based on the information
gathered during the descriptive analysis and verified
with a questionnaire under the MRO SME
organizations, the RAAK subsidiary request, inverse
verification and with an expert group (consisting of
researchers that have experience with the
implementation of process optimization within
MRO SMEs). The questionnaire held under the
MRO SME organizations provided input for a
pairwise comparison matrix based on the analytic
hierarchy process. This matrix resulted in
eigenvectors which indicated the importance of the
MRO SME requirement (Saaty, 1990).
In the design phase exploratory research was
performed to determine what options are able to
fulfill the design criteria for the design. Exploratory
research will not provide the answer to the problem
that is researched as it can only provide meaningful
information or even definitive explanations for
particular individuals. It therefore does not provide
answer for the overall population because the
number of organizations is rather small and these
organizations are not randomly selected from the
total population. To perform the exploratory
research a literature study is performed. Oskam,
Cowan, Hoiting and Souren (2012) describe that as
part of the design phase a main design must first be
selected. This main design was selected based on the
5

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

MRO SME and lifecycle requirements and weighted

according the eigenvector established in the pairwise
comparison matrix. Further exploratory research
could then be performed on how the design criteria
could be met and fit best in the main design
previously determined. The results from this
exploratory research was then again compared to the
MRO SME and lifecycle requirements and weighted
by means of the eigenvectors. Resulting in a design
that is substantiated by literature and matched best to
the requirements of the targeted population.

therefore not possible to conclude that this research

is generalizable to all MRO SME organizations.
3.2
Sample size
As the sample size was not selectable this will have
influence on the reliability of the research. Since
only six out of twelve organizations could be
questioned during the organizations meeting, this
results in a confidence interval of:
=

The detailing phase is the further development of

sub-functions based on the concept that was
developed in the design. A visual prototype was
created that matches the functional and MRO SME
requirements as close as possible. No research
methodology can be applied in developing
innovative designs, only that the information that
was gathered to substantiate the design, as described
above. Oskam, Cowan, Hoiting and Souren (2012)
only describe that experimentations can be done to
test if the selected features have the desired outcome.
The visual prototype can serves that purpose in some
manner as an expert group was asked to state their
opinion regarding the design.
The visual prototype was constructed with Adobe
Photoshop CS6, Adobe Captivate 7 and resulted in a
Microsoft Windows executable (.exe) that used
Adobe Shockwave. The visual prototype uses
rendered images from Autodesk 3Dsmax 2014 to
illustrate how the toolbox could be designed. The
following list presents all the software visions used
for this design:
Adobe Photoshop CS6 version 13.0 X64
Adobe Captivate 7 version 7.0.0.118
Adobe Shockwave Player 12.1
Autodesk 3Dsmax 2014 version 16.0
Commercial
Chaos Group V-Ray Adv. version 2.40.03
3.1
Sample frame
The toolbox is developed for SME MRO
organizations that are participating with the RAAK
project. Therefore the total population consists of
twelve organizations. That organizations that were
available for a questionnaire were not randomly
selected as their availability depended on their
participation.
Currently
there
are
seven
organizations actively participating with the RAAK
project. In these seven organizations there are also
two organizations with have their origin outside of
the Netherlands. This in combination with the
deviation from the total population induces a
coverage error. The coverage error occurs because
there are organization that have a non-zero
probability of being selected and will therefore
influence the reliability of the outcome. It is

2 ( (100 )
1.962 (70 30)
=
= 322
2

52

z = 1.96 for 95% confidence

p = the expected deviation from answers, 70% indicates an
expectation that the answers are pointing in the same direction.
e = precision of 5%
n = required sample size

Since the population of the questionnaire is finite a

correction factor (cf) must be applied to the required
sample size.
=

12
=
= 0.03604
+1
322 + 12 1

N = population

Multiplying the required sample size with the

correction factor results in a sample size of 11.60.
Therefore 12 questionnaires are required for a 95%
confidence interval. Since only six questionnaires
were filled in this results in a confidence interval of:
=

= 167 =

6
= 167
0.03604

2 (70 30)
= 1.41
52

A z value of 1.41 results in a confidence interval of

85%. This in combination with the coverage error
will result in an even lower confidence and therefore
the results are not generalizable. This does not
indicate that the data does not give a clear
representation of the organizations that were
questioned.
3.3
Data collection procedure
Data collection next to the literature research were
two questionnaires and two expert meetings. The
questionnaires were conducted anonymously to
ensure ethics.
The first questionnaire was administrated during an
RAAK organizations meeting on the University of
Applied Sciences. The questionnaire stated closed
questions on the main functional demands of the
toolbox.
The
second
questionnaire
was
administrated under trainees of the RAAK project to
validate the visual prototype. This questionnaire also
used closed question. The expert meetings were
6

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

unstructured interviews and consisted of A.

Stander1, E van de Ven2, E. Postma3 and P. Bos4
4. Results
The results from the used methodology lead to the
construction of a flow diagram to which a visual
prototype was constructed. The flow diagram
indicates how the design must be used and in what
order the separate components work together.
As the design of the toolbox consists of separate
functional modes the design of the toolbox also
functions in separate modes which are:
1.
Full automatic
2.
Employee driven
3.
Support driven
All the three cycles are presented in figure 1.
4.1 Full automatic
Organizations start with the self-assessment tool to
understand that there is a need for change. This in
combination with a simulation creates the initial
motivation to start with process optimization. From
this point the toolbox enters a continuation loop in
which the following phase will be performed
cyclically. The toolbox requires the organizational to
select a KPI in which that organization wants to
improve. The tools are then selected based on this
KPI and the weaknesses the self-assessment
presents. The toolbox will present the organization
three possible tools that can be implemented to
improve their current situation. The KPI, selfassessment score and tools are presented on the
communication board to communicate this
information with employees to reduce resistance to
change.
Before these tools can be performed, training must
be performed to ensure that employees that
participate in the improvement cycle have the
knowledge to do so. Training will result in the
required knowledge but also create the feeling of
achievement and involvement which is required to
internalize motivation. Based on who performed the
training, employees can be selected to participate in
the implementation of the tool. As the tool is used
and the implementation is successful the information
on the change can be shared with the organization.
This completes the cycle of the implementation of
the tools which are presented by the toolbox. If this
tool has been successfully implemented a new tool
can be selected.

1
2

A. Stander, Project Team RAAK,

E. van de Ven, Project Team RAAK,

4.2 Employee driven

The second cycle function on problem solving by
means of employee process improvement ideas. Not
only the toolbox prescribed what can be improved,
as employees of the organization also have a good
understanding of the process they work in.
Employees are presented with the possibility to share
their ideas on possible process improvement by
means of an A3 format. This A3 format can be used
to improve problems on the shop-floor and thereby
improve process performance.
4.2 Support driven
If an organization does not know how a process can
be improved, the support function enables that
organization to seek assistance within their own
organization but also with other organizations or
with experts. Knowledge created by implementing
tools and solving problems will be stored in a
database and used to create new knowledge for
assistance with tools and process improvement.
With all three process improvement cycles the cycle
is restarted when the cycle is completed. Between a
couple (for example five) cycles the organization is
presented with the self-assessment tools to reevaluate their score and indicate if process
improvement is effective.
5. Conclusions and future research
The flowchart of figure 1 was used for the
construction of a visual prototype to verify if the
design meets with the function requirements. The
questionnaire used for the design verification
indicated that the design criteria are recognized in
the design and are therefore present in the design.
The results from the questionnaire did however
indicate that there is a lack of indication to where one
is within the toolbox and that initial training is
desired for the use of the toolbox.
The expert meeting indicated that the design criteria
are recognized in the design and clearly sees the
possibility and potential of using this design with
organizations as it provides guidance for an
implementation project.
Further research must still be performed as a
functional prototype must still be constructed.
Without a functional prototype it is not possible to
test if the design functions and that organizations are
able to independently implement process
optimization. Case studies must be performed within
MRO SME organizations to verify the functionality
of the toolbox and if the stated functionalities are
indeed all required.
3
4

E. Postma, Project Team RAAK (HOIO),

P. Bos, Project Team RAAK
7

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

Start toolbox
Selfassessment
Is the organization
new to process
optimization?

Yes

Yes
Initial
simulation
Yes

No

Communication
board

Select KPI

Does the
organization want
to change the KPI ?

No

Does an employee
indicate a problem?

Yes

No
Select tool

No

Yes

Are five changes

made?

A3

Is training required?

Perform stand-up
meeting

CBT
No

Is there a solution
within the
organization?

Simulation

No

Yes
Select employees
for implementation

Yes
Improve process

Forum

No
Tips and FAQ

Use tool and

improve process

Improve process

Is there a problem
with the
implementation?

No

Is the solution
effective?

Yes
Share succes +
create knowledge
for other
organizations

Question
Function
To next function
Question line
Information
Figure 1
Toolbox design flow chart
8

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

References
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. (2006).
Critical success factors for lean implementation
within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 17(4), 460-471.
Adamic, L. A., Zhang, J., Bakshy, E., & Ackerman, M. S.
(2008, April). Knowledge sharing and yahoo
answers: everyone knows something. In
Proceedings of the 17th international conference
on World Wide Web (pp. 665-674). ACM.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and
development for individuals and teams,
organizations, and society. Annual review of
psychology, 60, 451-474.
Alasadi, R., & Askary, S. (2014). Employee involvement
and the barriers to organizational change.
Business and Management, 6(1).
Alojairi, A. S. (2010). Project Management: A SocioTechnical Perspective (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Waterloo).
Ayeni, P., Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., & Ball, P. (2011).
State-of-the-art of Leanin the aviation
maintenance, repair, and overhaul industry.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 225(11), 2108-2123.
Biegler, T,L. (2010), Nonlinear programming. Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of
continuous improvement: from the past to the
present. Management Decision, 43(5), 761-771.
Bumpus, M. A., Olbeter, S., & Glover, S. H. (1998).
Influences of situational characteristics on
intrinsic motivation. The Journal of psychology,
132(4), 451-463.
Carlborg, P., Kindstrm, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2013).
A lean approach to service productivity
improvements: Synergy or oxymoron?.
Managing Service Quality, 23(4), 3-3.
Chin, K. S., Pun, K. F., & Lau, H. (2003). Development of
a knowledge-based self-assessment system for
measuring organisational performance. Expert
Systems with Applications, 24(4), 443-455.
Clough, G., Jones, A. C., McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E.
(2008). Informal learning with PDAs and
smartphones. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 24(5), 359-371.
Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S., & Graves, A. (2003).
Implementing Lean in aerospacechallenging
the assumptions and understanding the
challenges. Technovation, 23(12), 917-928.
Darling, J. R., & Taylor, R. E. (1989). A model for
reducing internal resistance to change in a firm's
international marketing strategy. European
Journal of Marketing, 23(7), 34-41.
Dyer, J., & Nobeoka, K. (2002). Creating and managing a
high performance knowledge-sharing network:
the Toyota case.
Eaton, M. (2010). Training and development: The beating
heart of successful lean transformation. Training
& Management Development Methods, 24(4),
323-326.
Fricke, C. F. (2010). LEAN MANAGEMENT:
AWARENESS,
IMPLEMENTATION
STATUS,
AND
NEED
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
SUPPORT
IN

VIRGINIAS WOOD INDUSTRY (Doctoral

dissertation, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC
INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY).
Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Selfdetermination
theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Goffin, K. (1999). Customer support: a cross-industry
study of distribution channels and strategies.
International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 29(6), 374-398.
Hallam, C. R. (2003). Lean enterprise self-assessment as a
leading indicator for accelerating transformation
in the aerospace industry (Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Hasle, P., Bojesen, A., Jensen, P. L., & Bramming, P.
(2012). Lean and the working environment: a
review of the literature. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 32(7),
829-849.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate
employees (pp. 46-57). Boston
Huber, D., 2006. Leadership and Nursing Care
Management, third ed. W.B. Saunders
Company, Philadelphia.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a
conceptual framework. Human Resource
Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Katajavuori, N., Lindblom-Ylnne, S., & Hirvonen, J.
(2006). The significance of practical training in
linking theoretical studies with practice. Higher
Education, 51(3), 439-464.
Kinman, G., & Kinman, R. (2001). The role of motivation
to learn in management education. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 13(4), 132-144.
Kraus, D. C., & Gramopadhye, A. K. (2001). Effect of
team training on aircraft maintenance
technicians: computer-based training versus
instructor-based training. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(3), 141-157.
Liker, J. K., & Hoseus, M. (2010). Human resource
development in Toyota culture. International
Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 10(1), 34-50.
Lander, E., & Liker, J. K. (2007). The Toyota Production
System and art: making highly customized and
creative products the Toyota way. International
Journal of Production Research, 45(16), 36813698.
Lathin, D., & Mitchell, R. (2001). Learning from mistakes.
Quality Progress, 34(6), 39-45.
Losonci, D., Demeter, K., & Jenei, I. (2011). Factors
influencing employee perceptions in lean
transformations. International Journal of
Production Economics, 131(1), 30-43.
Martnez-Jurado, P. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2014). Key
determinants of lean production adoption:
evidence from the aerospace sector. Production
Planning & Control, 25(4), 332-345.
McManus, H. L., Rebentisch, E., Muman, E. M., &
Stanke, A. (2007). Teaching lean thinking
principles through hands-on simulations.
Mostafa, S., Dumrak, J., & Soltan, H. (2013). A
framework
for
lean
manufacturing
implementation. Production & Manufacturing
Research, 1(1), 44-64.
Nslund, D. (2013). Lean and six sigmacritical success
factors revisited. International J

S. Jongerden / Process Optimization Toolbox

Oskam, I., Cowan, K., Hoiting, L., Souren, P., (2012).

Ontwerpen van technische innovaties. Houten:
Noordhoff Uitgevers
Real, R., Pralus, M., Pillet, M., & Guizzi, L. (2007,
December). A study of supporting programs for
small and medium enterprises: a first stage going
to Lean. In Industrial Engineering and
Engineering
Management,
2007
IEEE
International Conference on (pp. 515-519).
IEEE.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic
hierarchy process. European journal of
operational research, 48(1), 9-26.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of
training: A decade of progress. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 471-499.
Salman, M. R., van der Krogt, R., Little, J., & Geraghty, J.
(2007). Applying lean principles to production
scheduling.
Santos, A., & Powell, J. A. (2001). Effectiveness of push
and pull learning strategies in construction
management. Journal of Workplace Learning,
13(2), 47-56.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for
business 6th Edn.
Stander, A., Boersma, M., Wennink, B., de Vries, M., de
Boer, R. J., & Overeijnder, M. (2012, October).
Applying proven methods in a new environment:
the case of LEAN in Business Aviation MRO. In
Air Transport and Operations: Proceedings of
the Third International Air Transport and
Operations Symposium 2012 (p. 265). IOS
Press.

Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T. A., & Deflorin, P. (2009).

Lean, take two! Reflections from the second
attempt at lean implementation. Business
Horizons, 52 (1), 79-88.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and
development in work organizations. Annual
review of psychology, 43(1), 399-441.
Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M. E., Nlting, K., Rser, M.,
& Voigt, D. (2004). Is e-learning the Solution for
Individual Learning. Electronic Journal of Elearning, 2(2), 273-280.
The free dictionary. (2014). Challenging. 18th March,
2014,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/challenging
The free dictionary. (2014). Challenging. 18th March,
2014,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/choosing
Thoo, S. L., Maguire, P., & Moorhead, R. (2004). Giving
feedback to learners in the practice. Australian
family physician, 33(9), 691.
Tucker, R. (2010). Aviation industry to stay aloft despite
some turbulence in 2010. Metal Finishing,
108(2), 18-60.
Waring, J. J., & Bishop, S. (2010). Lean healthcare:
rhetoric, ritual and resistance. Social science &
medicine, 71(7), 1332-1340.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational
change and development. Annual revie
Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F.
(2004). Can e-learning replace classroom
learning?. Communications of the ACM, 47(5),
75-79.

10