Internal interface

Hence, the current situation within the organization, as described by the different parts (namely standardization engineers, management, and technical experts) is characterized by a lack of established structures of formal communication.

Specifically, as far as standardization-related communication is concerned, such formal structures seemed to exist previously (that is, before the standardization unit turnover), at least to some degree.

Manager C: “We used to have meetings, but now the people [have] changed, so the way they work has changed, they haven’t taken up all the previous ways of working. But a couple of years ago we used to have an annual meeting, where we were going through what should be done with the standards. So we had a kind of annual loop, where we were looking into the standards. So we put them in the calendar and we had an annual meeting. That was a good plan. But I haven’t seen it the last [few] years. I don’t know why. I think it is because the people in the standards department have changed. New people working there, and they have lost that process, at least this is my perspective. I don’t see it anymore, I saw it a couple of years ago but not anymore.”

Interestingly enough, then, as was also previously pointed out, formal structures of standardization-related communication, such as fixed meetings, were weakened or even lost in the recent organizational transition (from the previous standardization department to the current one). Despite the fact that it was not deliberately designed or decided by the upper-level management that formal standardization-related communication would gradually diminish, care in order to prevent this from happening was not taken. In the same vein, despite the fact that it was not explicitly decided that the standardization department should no longer retain overall standardization management control, this control was lost.

In particular, even if those outcomes could not have been initially forecasted, they could have been quickly diagnosed. However, they were not; or at least corrective measurements for this were not taken in the organization, which indicates that the isolation of the standardization department was not considered problematic for the company. The reason for that is the decoupling of Scania’s strategy from corporate standardization. Although corporate standardization has by no means been eliminated or wholly neglected by the company, it does not substantially support the corporate strategy.

Manager C: “So it comes from a need, it is very rare that a [higher-level] manager comes to us and says that we should implement this standard, this is mandatory, we have to use it. I have never seen that. Thus, the standard is driven by an organizational need in the lower level.”

However, additional reasons for the lack of formal structures of information exchange relate to the overall organization, and not solely to standardization management per se. In many cases, streams of informal communication are seen as the primary and most effective means of information exchange in Scania.

Manager C: “And then [employees and even managers] hope that people in the organization will talk to each other. There’s no strict format you can really follow, it’s not that you will pick up one wire and find everything you need. You have to know people, you have to know some areas. It is related to the way we work here, since we are in the same place. The ones using the standards are mainly sitting here. So you meet people, you talk to people, you see people. If I work on something, I know who are the other people here working with it. So, it spreads very easily. But if this company was divided in 10 different sites, one in China, one in Russia, one in [the] USA, then we would need another kind of process for this implementation, I guess. Here, we work like we are a small company. Everyone sits around the same coffee table, same restaurant eating our lunch. And this is a little bit how information also spreads in this small company—although it is a big global company. But we work like a small company in this aspect, I would say. So in a small company you do not need strict routines about how to spread information.”

In other words, what can be observed in Scania is a “small company syndrome,”

meaning that its personnel and management rely on tactics (such as reliance on informal communication) that suit small companies. The roots of such a mentality can be traced back to Scania’s organic growth, which has enhanced a coherent and strongly integrated culture. In that sense, Scania’s employees (many of whom have been in the company for years or even decades) perceive themselves as belonging to a “Scania family.” In such a context, it is not surprising that informal communication takes over; however, the practical truth is that the organically grown company has now reached tens of thousands of employees. At that size, established streams of formal communication are nothing other than mandatory. Most probably, in regard to crucial organizational areas—that is, those of strategic importance—that issue has been pinpointed (and resolved) long ago. However, as far as corporate standardization

management is concerned, a lack of established communication poses tangible and important challenges that substantially limits the role corporate standardization could potentially play in the company, since interrelation of combined efforts cannot materialize.

5.7.2 Interrelation of internal and external standardization efforts Furthermore, the lack of established formal communication in regard to standardization activities does not facilitate the different parts of the organization to coordinate their efforts. Namely, the internal activities (managed by the standardization engineers) and external ones (managed by the technical experts) are isolated and decoupled from each other. This decoupling occurred in Scania because standardization-related information exchange was not safeguarded, but instead was left to “fade away” over the past few years, and hence information from different sources is not blended together towards overall and coordinated corporate standardization management.

Area specialist A: “Communication is extremely important I think, so that you get the right areas standardized, instead of focusing on the wrong areas.”

Manager A, Corporate Standards: “We don't have the complete picture of Scania’s participation in other international organizations, communities, etc.”

More specifically, the technical experts who attend the different external standardization committees are not urged to share their input and insights intraorganizationally, either with other technical experts, or with standardization engineers, or with the decision makers themselves.

In particular, decision makers (at any hierarchical level or position) do not appear to accomplish (or even seek) integrated standardization-related information or an overall picture of the company’s maneuvers within external standardization committees. In other words, decision makers do not really have a say in that respect; managing of external standardization is totally left to the free will and inclination of the technical expert that is participating in each committee. A main reason for this is that standardization activities are not attempted to be strategically utilized in Scania; hence, they do not directly concern the strategic leaders (decision makers). However, the decision to leave the total authority for external standardization up to the experts was not clearly made at a certain point in time, but rather gradually emerged, and relates to the

fact that technical experts are very experienced and highly trusted employees in the company; they have been gradually given more and more freedom to act as they judge best within the setting of standardization committees.

However, along this process, care was not taken to ascertain an interrelation of the experts’ external efforts with the internal circumstances of the company (either by upper-level management or by experts themselves). Such interrelation could very well result in more coordinated corporate standardization management for Scania, where the different parts of the organization are aware of each other’s actions and maneuvers, and hence make more well-informed decisions. That is not currently the case within the organization.