Fostering Continuous Improvement and Innovation Through the Complaints Process

(1)

Fostering Continuous Improvement and

Innovation Through the Complaints

Process

A case study at a global manufacturing company

Elias Tinkler

Patrik Westlin

Industrial and Management Engineering, master's level

2020

Luleå University of Technology

(2)

Acknowledgements

(3)

Abstract

Quality and innovation are central elements in a successful business, where organizations are not solely looking to satisfy existing customers with high quality but to create novel solutions for future customers as well. As a result, addressing both concepts are vital for sustaining business long-term, which has led to a conflict regarding where companies should allocate their efforts. This study analyzed a global manufacturing company’s complaints management (CM) process, where quality and innovation were addressed with the study questions: How can the CM process be improved to reduce recurring complaints? and How can the CM process be improved to foster innovation?. To answer these, a qualitative approach was used in forms of unstructured and semi-structured interviews as well as quality management & control tools. The variables analyzed were partly constructed from the extensive literature review and partly from the employees involved with the CM process. The results showcased negligence towards the CM process, where process description and governance as well as knowledge management were lacking. Practical implications of the study indicates that if the CM process receives more focus in regards to the mentioned factors, the quality and its ability to foster innovation as well innovation will be improved. Theoretical implications of the study indicates a misalignment between the perception of the CM process and the actions of the company. Employees found it essential to the company’s strategy whereas the process, despite this received attention. These implications are limited to large manufacturing companies and in order to generalize the results, further research is required.

(4)

Sammanfattning

(5)

List of Figures

1 Simplified complaints process. . . 9

2 The CM process. . . 10

(6)

4 Exploit-explore perspective visualized in the Kano model. . . 14

5 Knowledge conversion process. . . 16

6 Knowledge management activities included in the CM process model. . . 17

7 Knowledge management’s relation to quality management. . . 18

8 Visualization of the PCP. . . 19

9 SIPOC diagram. . . 20

10 Interrelationship diagram. . . 22

11 Number of completed product care activities. . . 27

12 Affinity diagram. . . II

List of Tables

1 Details of unstructured interview informants. . . 4

2 Details of semi-structured interview informants. . . 4

3 The themes and subcategories generated by the Affinity diagram and the amount of points received. . . 21

4 Results from the Interrelationship diagram. . . 22

5 Coding categories used and the literature and empirical topics that they represent. . . 23

Acronyms

CM Complaints Management. GK Gate Keeper.

JDI Just Do It.

(7)

1 Introduction

In this section, the problem area is described and the purpose of the study is presented.

The business environment’s fast-paced change, through growing customer demands and compe-tition, has resulted in increased pressure in companies’ ability to develop and release new products (Vives, 2008). Innovation is utilized to achieve congruence with the environmental changes, by mo-bilizing possessed knowledge and combining it to create new knowledge, resulting in product and/or process innovation (Çakar & Ertürk, 2010). In order to satisfy customer demands however, the qual-ity output must attain a certain standard, as Levesque and Walker (2007) posits that high qualqual-ity sustains the advantage. If the quality output does not conform to the expected standard of the customer, the advantage can not be maintained.

The complaints management (CM) process is a reactive operation to quality deviations (Anand, Ward, Tatikonda, & Schilling, 2009; Asif & de Vries, 2015), since it is initiated by customers who are dissatisfied by the quality of the received product or service. Customer complaints possess information about a potential problem with a sold product or service, which necessitates short-term correction to re-establish customer satisfaction and to retain the relationship with the customer (Gelbrich & Roschk, 2011; Pfeifer, 2002). Processes like CM that manage current business are referred to as exploitative and are in constant competition for scarce resources with explorative processes, which in contrast hold an innovative focus (March, 1991). This conflict has given rise to the term ambidexterity in business, which is the capability of an organization exploiting current demands while simultaneously exploring changes in the environment and adapting to them (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006).

This study will examine exploitation from the traditional view of quality management (QM), which entails optimization of resource usage, cost reduction, and efficiency increase (Reed, Lemak, & Mero, 2000; Sitkin, Sutcliffe, & Schroeder, 1994; Zhang, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2014). Exploration on the other hand is viewed as disruptive innovation, which consists of exploring the unknown as well as identifying and pursuing novel solutions (Castillo-Apraiz, Richter, de Antonio, & Gudergan, 2020). Focusing solely on exploitation can lead to failure to address future demands through innovation, while too much focus on exploration can lead to poor efficiencies and a waste of resources (Asif & de Vries, 2015). Preventing these settings require resource allocation to both exploitation and exploration, which elevates the conflict of them being in competition for scarce resources. As a result, there are ambiguous views as to whether or not QM and innovation can co-exist to the degree that is sought (Silva, Gomes, Lages, & Pereira, 2014), which necessitates approaches that can positively impact exploitation and exploration simultaneously.

The CM process is viewed by some as being solely exploitative (Asif & de Vries, 2015), but Linder, Anand, Falk, and Schmitt (2016) have shown its potential to also contribute to exploration through knowledge management (KM), by also promoting product development. The CM process can be a prevalent source of knowledge, since it has a continuous flow of information which can be transformed into knowledge (Ackoff, 1989). However, Hellebrandt, Heine, and Schmitt (2018) argue that the strate-gic benefit of the CM process has been neglected. Furthermore, Asif and de Vries (2015) posits that QM practices such as customer satisfaction management and process management, which are exploita-tive in nature, can posiexploita-tively affect exploration if the right tools are utilized. Exploitation-oriented tools, such as process mapping and defect reduction, focus on increasing control and consistency, whereas exploration-oriented tools, such as generating new ideas and solutions, underline change and the promotion of disruptive innovation. Proficient management is therefore essential, because of the potential value the CM process can create in relation to its explorative functions.

(8)

of resources, such as a capable team to work on the project, as well as an estimation of the results the project will induce within an imposed or acceptable time frame (Ingram, 1997). Allocating resources to the CM process can however be challenging, since it is perceived by many as a non-value adding process (Stauss & Schoeler, 2004; Vos, Huitema, & de Lange-Ros, 2008).

The purpose of the study is to improve the CM process from an exploitative and explorative perspective, and thus creating organizational ambidexterity. More specifically, the purpose is to identify potential problems and solutions within the corrective action activity in order to reduce recurring complaints, which will improve the process from an exploitative lens. Furthermore, the solutions will be oriented towards capturing the strategic benefit of exploration through KM. Based on the purpose of the study, the following study questions have been formulated:

SQ1: How can the CM process be improved to reduce recurring complaints? SQ2: How can the CM process be improved to foster innovation?

(9)

2 Methodology

In this section, the research purpose and strategy are discussed. Methods applied in the study for data collection and analysis are also presented and described. Moreover, the quality of the methods are discussed in the form of their trustworthiness.

2.1 Research Purpose & Strategy

The research purpose illuminates the knowledge the study is expected to bring forth, and among the applicable purposes exploratory and descriptive were used in the study. Exploratory research aims to increase comprehension about a subject with lacking research (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009), and was used in order to discover problem areas. The descriptive approach was used to identify and describe problems and propose solutions to the identified problems. Furthermore, a qualitative approach was chosen since it is suitable for understanding a phenomenon without risking to manipulate it (Patton, 1990). A qualitative approach can be described as a way of generating research findings without utilizing statistical procedures or other means of quantification (Straus & Corbin, 1990).

To carry out the research, a research strategy was set, which is a plan of action to achieve the purpose of the study (Saunders et al., 2009). There are several approaches that can be used and Saunders et al. (2009) posits that their suitability is dependent on different factors, such as existing knowledge and available resources. One of the recommended strategies for qualitative research is case studies (Myers, 2019), which was used in this study. This type of strategy is valuable, since it can analyze real work environments with the purpose of shedding light on a complex situation (Myers, 2019). Moreover, case study research allows the collection and analysis of data to describe and represent the reality (Ejvegård, 2003).

2.2 Literature Review

A literature review was conducted to gather information from previous research on the complaints process and related subjects. The research mainly consisted of scientific articles, where books were primarily referred to in the methodology to describe research strategies, sampling strategies or specific data collection methods. All articles used in the study were from academic journals, which ensured third party peer review. The snowball technique was utilized in the search for articles, where one study led to another (Myers, 2019), but research was also chosen through convenience of access. The search resulted in a large body of literature, which was subsequently delimited to fit the scope of the study.

2.3 Data Collection

(10)

2.3.1 Interviews

Interviews are recommended as a primary data collection method, as it allows for flexibility and richer examination that other methods can not achieve (Saunders et al., 2009). Interviews were conducted in two phases of the study, where the purpose of the primary phase was to increase understanding about the current state of the CM process, with unstructured interviews. The unstructured interviews were also conducted to help decide the scope of the study, and to give insight on procedures in the company. The snowball technique was used in the first phase, which is a sampling method where you rely on informants to direct you to other suitable informants (Myers, 2019). The unstructured interviews were carried out in accordance with Table 1 that states informant ID, company title, and interview date.

Table 1: Details of unstructured interview informants.

Informant ID Informant title Date of interview UI 1 Process & system owner 2020-01-22

UI 2 Head of global Quality and EHS 2020-01-30 UI 3 Product manager 2020-02-10 UI 4 Product feedback coordinator 2020-02-14 UI 5 Senior R&D engineer 2020-02-17 UI 6 Generic quality 2020-02-21 UI 7 Global quality manager product development 2020-02-24 UI 8 R&D engineer 2020-02-24 UI 9 R&D manager 2020-03-03

The second phase of interviews were semi-structured with an interview guide partly based on the Affinity and Interrelationship diagram findings and partly on the theoretical framework. The purpose of the interviews was to get deepened knowledge of the PCP and its identified problems as well as the organizational structure surrounding the process. Semi-structured interviews are optimal for collecting qualitative data based on individuals’ perspective and experience, and allow interviewers to utilize neutral questions, in order to encourage elaborated answers from informants (Mack, 2005). Informants for the semi-structured interviews were selected with purposeful sampling, which is a sampling strategy where you look for participants with certain traits or expertise that will help achieve the purpose of the study (Koerber & McMichael, 2008). An important aspect of purposeful sampling is to choose informants with varying traits, in order to represent a wide variety of perspectives (Higginbottom, 2004), which was done in this study. Table 2 contains information about the selected informants, such as: interview ID, company title and interview date.

Table 2: Details of semi-structured interview informants.

Informant ID Informant title Date of interview SSI 1 Senior portfolio manager 2020-04-08

SSI 2 Senior R&D engineer 2020-04-14 SSI 3 Senior manager project office 2020-04-14 SSI 4 Product manager 2020-04-15 SSI 5 Head of global quality and EHS 2020-04-16 2.3.2 SIPOC

(11)

Suppliers are actors needed to support the implementation of the process, by providing resources necessary for managing the process (Gueorguiev, 2018). The output is the results achieved by the process step and customers are the actors who are informed of or dependent on the results of the process step (Gueorguiev, 2018). This method is useful when there is a need to understand the basics of a process or if it is not clear who supplies the input to the process and what specifications are placed on them. The SIPOC was created during a brainstorming session with the process owner of complaints and was primarily used to increase comprehension about the PCP. It was also used to clearly communicate the scope of the workshop for the Affinity diagram. The SIPOC diagram was created using the steps recommended by Gueorguiev (2018), which initially require a title of the process and a defined starting and end point. The subsequent step included defining the outputs of each individual process step and then defining the customers. Lastly, the main inputs were listed and the actors supplying the input were defined.

2.3.3 Affinity Diagram

An Affinity diagram was constructed during a workshop to identify problems in the PCP. The partic-ipants were selected because of their involvement or association with the activities of the CM process. The participants’ job titles were: Quality coordinator, Line manager, Product manager, Product feedback coordinator and Global quality and EHS manager. The Affinity diagram is an appropriate tool to use when facts or thoughts are uncertain (Awasthi & Chauhan, 2012a). The diagram gathers and organizes large amounts of subjective data (e.g. ideas and opinions) based on interrelationships (Anjard, 1995). The steps to create the diagram were based on Awasthi and Chauhan (2012b), who adapted them from Foster (2006). The first step was to create a clear and concise problem statement: What are potential problems in the product care process?. In step two, the participants had fifteen minutes to write down suggestions related to the problem. A maximum of one idea per note was a requirement to increase clarity. The third and fourth step were performed under silence and included placing all ideas on a flat surface and rearranging them into subcategories with similar themes. If there was disagreement on the placement of a note, the participants were instructed to silently move it. When consensus was reached, the subcategories were named with a word or short phrase. The last step involved each participant assigning weights to the subcategories through voting. The sub-categories with the most points were perceived by the participants as the primary problems of the PCP.

2.3.4 Interrelationship diagram

(12)

was used to determine the cause-effect relationships between the subcategories (Howick, Ackermann, & Andersen, 2006).

2.4 Data Analysis

Steps used in the analysis of the data collected with quality management & control tools were: category development, breakdown of data and identification of relationship between data (Ghauri, Grønhaug, & Strange, 2020; Saunders et al., 2009). The Affinity diagram was used as the primary source of category development, where the subcategories created were analyzed using an Interrela-tionship diagram in order to break down the data and identify the root cause. The InterrelaInterrela-tionship diagram was also used to identify the relationship between the subcategories. The knowledge gained from the quality management & control tools was combined with the literature findings and acted as the basis for the interview guide used in the semi-structured interviews. The data from these interviews provided enhanced understanding of several aspects of the company, the PCP as well as its organizational surrounding. This enabled a direct content analysis, which is an approach to in-terpret text data in a structured way, in order to either validate or conceptually extend a theoretical framework or theory (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Since this is not a research paper we are not trying to validate or extend a theory, but we perceive our purpose to be similar enough to justify using this content analysis approach.

One aspect that sets direct content analysis apart from its counterparts, conventional and summa-tive content analysis, is that it uses existing theory and previous research as the basis for developing coding categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This study was structured accordingly, meaning that the primary data was grouped together with the literature findings into predetermined categories (see Figure 5). These were then analyzed with respect to similarities and discrepancies. According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005), predetermined coding categories mean that you immediately assign data to the categories, and data that cannot be determined immediately are identified and later decided if the data should represent a new category or if a subcategory is more appropriate.

2.5 Methodological Quality

In order to assess the quality or trustworthiness of a qualitative study, four aspects are suggested to be taken into consideration (Guba, 1981): Credibility, Dependability, Transferability, and Confirmability. These aspects are suggested instead of validity and reliability based on the argument proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) that perfect inter-researcher reliability can not be reached. Meaning for example that two observers or researchers may not perceive something in the same way and they might analyze the same empirical data in different ways.

2.5.1 Dependability

(13)

research, in this case people that have also performed a master thesis, in order to identify blind spots and assess the study as it progressed.

2.5.2 Credibility

Credibility is the aspect or trustworthiness that determines the amount of confidence that can be placed in the truthfulness of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility signals if the information drawn from the empirical data seems plausible (Holloway & Wheeler, 2002). There are several strategies available for qualitative studies to enhance credibility , and for this study the following have been utilized: Prolonged engagement, Peer debriefing, Member checks and Triangulation. Prolonged engagement was used to the extent possible, which initially meant physical meetings and discussions with the employees of the case company, but after a few months this was restricted due to the pandemic outbreak and quarantine rules. As a consequence, a significant amount of time was spent in online meetings and discussions with personnel of the case company. The online meeting and discussions together with the physical interactions early on may have gained informants’ trust while also gaining understanding about the participants’ culture and context (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Peer debriefing is another strategy used and it is distinguished from peer examination in the sense that it was performed together with other students, or peers, to gain their perception while peer examination involved discussion with neutral colleagues (Anney, 2014).

Member checks were consequently used to evaluate interpretations and give informants an oppor-tunity to voice potential concern or misinterpretations (Guba, 1981). On top of contributing to the credibility of a study, Anney (2014) argues that member checks also help reduce researcher bias. The last strategy utilized was triangulation, which incorporates multiple methods, investigators, sources and theories to help achieve affirmative results (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). For this study, trian-gulation was used in two ways; firstly, more than one researcher investigated the same problem, which to some extent brings different perspectives to the investigation of data and thereby helps strengthen the integrity of the findings (Anney, 2014). Secondly, triangulation was used to enhance credibility through data triangulation (Anney, 2014), meaning different instruments such as interviews, process mapping (SIPOC in this study), Affinity diagram and Interrelationship diagram were used to gain qualitative data.

2.5.3 Confirmability & Transferability

(14)

3 Case Study

This section introduces the case company and its CM process together with the departments and roles associated with it.

As a part of the Sandvik group, Sandvik Coromant is a company focused on producing manufac-turing tools and creating machining solutions for customers in different metal working industries. The company employs over 7 900 people and is represented in 150 countries around the globe (Sandvik Coromant, n.d.). The major product areas of the company are Turning, Milling, Drilling and Tooling systems which offer products for customers based in the Aerospace, Automotive, Oil and gas, Medical and Power generating industry.

The CM process, see Figure 1, is normally initiated when an external customer contacts a sales associate of Sandvik Coromant. The complaint is then sent from sales to a production specialist function that determines the origin of the problem (e.g. production malfunction or design flaw) or if further investigation is needed before answering the external customer. If further investigation is needed, the sales associate is notified and expected to send the complaint to the complaint handler responsible for the sales area where the complaint emerged. At this point, the complaint handler is responsible for registering the complaint in the company’s internal complaint handling system (TCHS). In the simplified process visualized below (Figure 1), the previously mentioned activities are included in the first step from customer to Global gatekeeper (GK).

By registering the complaint, it is sent to a GK which makes an assessment whether the complaint is most likely to originate from a production unit or a R&D unit. The complaint is normally sent first to the production unit that produced this specific unit or batch (Personal communication, Process owner). It is then up to the production unit in question to investigate if the product/s have been produced according to specifications, or if any incidents occurred on that particular day of production. If a fault is found, the complaint is accepted and appropriate actions are taken within the production unit. If no faults are found, the complaint is rejected and sent back through the GK to a R&D unit for further investigation (see step 4 in Figure 1). The R&D unit can, like the production unit, either accept or reject the complaint after investigation. When a complaint is accepted or rejected by the R&D unit, the GK is informed and in turn notifies the sales associate that contacts the customer.

(15)

Figure 1: Simplified complaints process.

(16)

4 Theoretical Framework

In this section, key concepts such as the complaints process, quality management and knowledge man-agement are discussed. Moreover, a framework is created to display the key concepts’ interrelatedness.

4.1 The Complaints Management Process

Customer complaints are an ever-present issue organizations have to deal with in business. When customers are unsatisfied with their product or service they can send a complaint to remedy the issue. For organizations to properly handle complaints, a CM process is needed, through which customer complaints are effectively managed. The CM process is therefore a reactive process to quality deviations (Anand et al., 2009; Asif & de Vries, 2015), since it is initiated by customers who are dissatisfied by the quality of the received product or service. The CM process, see Figure 2, is a systematic approach that includes all efforts connected to the detection of product failures and process flaws, root cause clarification and implementation measures for root cause elimination (Tuertmann et al., 2016).

Figure 2: The CM process. Adapted from “Technical complaint management as a lever for product and process improvement,” by R. Schmitt and A. Linder, 2013, CIRP Annuals, 62(1), 435-438.

The CM process is essentially a problem-solving process with a continuous flow of complaints containing information, and can thereby be conceptualized as an active feedback system (Fundin & Elg, 2006). The problem-solving function in CM relates to corrective and preventive actions, where corrective actions are taken to prevent recurrence, and preventive actions are taken to prevent a potential problem in the future (Raj, 2016). A corrective action in the context of CM eliminates a root cause that incurred a problem to one or more customers (Tomic & Brkic, 2019), which reduces recurring complaints of similar characteristics. Establishing a corrective action requires allocation of resources, such as a capable team to work on the project, as well as an estimation of the results the project will induce within an acceptable time frame (Ingram, 1997).

Preventive actions on the other hand are actions taken to improve a component in the end-to-end process, which reduces the risk of a potential problem occuring (Raj, 2016). Tomic and Brkic (2019) analyzed corrective and preventive actions and found that corrective actions affect customer satisfaction, whereas preventive action does not. Even though preventive action reduces negative experiences in the future, it has no effect on customer satisfaction as it is not an experience customers anticipate. Additionally, Majanoja, Linko, and Leppänen (2017) stated difficulties with implementing, transferring, and executing corrective and preventive action, because of a lack of responsibility. This is in line with Homburg and Fürst (2005), who found that CM required more guidelines and governance from a QM perspective.

(17)

non-value adding process (Stauss & Schoeler, 2004; Vos et al., 2008). Recent scholars have however put more emphasis on viewing CM as a source of strategic benefit with the use of KM (Hellebrandt et al., 2018; Schmitt & Linder, 2013).

Customer complaints possess information about a potential problem with a sold product, which can be used as a prevalent source of knowledge, since it has a continuous flow of information which can be transformed into knowledge (Ackoff, 1989). This information can either be personalized or codified, where personalized information flows through people and codified information flows through a database (Fundin & Elg, 2006). The flow of information can also be partly personalized and partly codified when it goes through the process. Irrespective of the information being personalized, codified, or a combination of both, it does not automatically translate into product and/or process improvements if they are not sought after and measured appropriately (Brecher, Klocke, Schmitt, & Schuh, 2014).

4.1.1 Performance Measurements

Measuring performance in an organization is vital for improvement, and the fast-changing business environment has resulted in companies having many key performance indicators (KPIs), which re-quires organizations to prioritize where to allocate resources (Shahin & Mahbod, 2007). Successful KPIs follow five characteristics: accountability - assigned responsibility for the measure’s outcome; easily assimilated - quantifiable, accurate, and easily understood; timely - measured frequently, and reflect current priorities; relevant align with strategic organizational objectives and; consistent -does not conflict with other performance measures (Graham et al., 2015).

Companies have different strategies depending on their positioning in the market, and according to Masood, Jahanzaib, and Akhtar (2013) there are protector-, offensive-, and innovative strategies. These strategies should be reflected in the KPIs used in the organization, since they put emphasis on different factors. In the manufacturing industry, a protector positioning corresponds to low costs, where production planning and production control are the most important factors to focus on strate-gically (Masood et al., 2013). An offensive positioning corresponds to customer-orientation with high quality, and an innovative positioning coincides with product differentiation, where quality assurance and product development were the two most important factors to concentrate on respectively. Ma-sood et al. (2013) emphasized the similarity of factors between offensive and innovative positionings being due to customers demanding a high degree of reliability and innovation within these sections.

Ruessmann et al. (2020) provided evidence of a positive relationship between performance mea-surements and the performance of the CM process. However, the authors found an absence of stan-dardized objective performance measurements, and put forward the need of finding a better balance between short-term and mid-term KPIs. Operational and monetary factors such as throughput times, failure rates, and costs are important, but need to be complemented with KPIs on effectiveness and sustainability such as complaint satisfaction, repetition rate of failures or effectiveness of corrective measures (Ruessmann et al., 2020).

(18)

To counteract the listed complications, Tuertmann et al. (2016) states a number of requirements to pay attention to when designing a performance measurement system for a CM process. Firstly, the indicators ought to be process-related, since the CM process has many interfaces which can result in unforeseen delays due to different responsibilities. Performance indicators should also have a non-monetary focus to gain a comprehensive picture of the process, which avoids the challenge of it being hard to quantify in monetary terms. The third requirement is making the performance indicators process-specific, which is distinguishable from process-related performance indicators. Process-specific performance indicators aim to capture the difference in characteristics and preconditions for specific sub-processes and make the assessment of them more fair (Tuertmann et al., 2016). The final require-ment is to only include indicators relevant to the overall success of the CM process. This requirerequire-ment’s purpose is to balance the previous ones, since there is a risk of an excessive amount of performance indicators being applied if left without counterweight (Tuertmann et al., 2016).

4.2 Quality Management

QM is a well-studied concept, with its focus on customers, continuous improvement, zero defect production, and data-based decision-making (Flynn, Schroeder, & Sakakibara, 1995). However, some scholars have been criticizing its utility in a more dynamic business environment (Behmer, Jochem, & Hanke, 2016). Some have focused on different QM approaches and re-conceptualized them to better fit the current business state, by making a distinction between exploitative and explorative practices (Hsu & Wang, 2012). Exploitative QM practices can be conceptualized as the traditional view of QM, which entails optimization of resource usage, cost reduction, and efficiency increase (Reed et al., 2000; Sitkin et al., 1994; Zhang et al., 2014). Exploitative QM practices reduce scrap, rework issues, and internal failure (Prajogo & Sohal, 2006), which positively affects organizational performance (Piao, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). Explorative QM practices consist of exploring the unknown as well as identifying and pursuing novel solutions (Castillo-Apraiz et al., 2020). Exploration involves risk taking, experimentation, and innovation (March, 1991). Hence, Exploitation is about incrementally improving current business, whereas exploration is in search of means that will sustain business long-term, see Figure 3.

Figure 3: Quality management’s effect on organizational ambidexterity.

(19)

orga-nizations must allocate resources to both concepts. Innovation is regarded as the creation of compet-itive advantages, whereas product quality is viewed as sustaining competcompet-itive advantages (Levesque & Walker, 2007). Zeng, Phan, and Matsui (2015) regards quality as an order qualifier, whereas innovation is the order winner (Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 1997).

With respect to these concepts’ importance in business, resource allocation between exploitation and exploration can become a dilemma, as excessive focus on exploration weakens existing resources and decreases firms’ total profits (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). In contrast, if there is an excessive focus on exploitation, it can result in failure to address future market needs (Asif & de Vries, 2015). Herzallah, Gutierrez-Gutierrez, and Rosas (2017) emphasized the need to introduce new methods to prioritize resource allocation across exploitative and explorative practices. Sitkin et al. (1994) posits that resource allocation between the two concepts should be based on the inherent characteristics of the organization. This is in line with Castillo-Apraiz et al. (2020) who argue that an organization’s strategic positioning characterizes its condition within exploitative and explorative QM practices. Castillo-Apraiz et al. (2020) state that exploitative and explorative QM practices are mechanisms that describe the character of which a firm operates, which essentially means how resources are allocated within the QM practices is a reflection of the strategic positioning of the firm.

Zhang, Linderman, and Schroeder (2012) proposed that there are variable effects of QM when it comes to the exploit-explore perspective on manufacturing performance, because it is dependent on the environmental context. This notion seems to be well represented in the literature as many factors seem to be involved, in addition to outdated QM practices being unable to adapt to the environment (Behmer et al., 2016). The conflict between exploitation and exploration is not new, but its importance in relation to QM practices has recently been emphasized. Asif (2017) found QM to be one of the antecedents of organizational ambidexterity, which is the capability of effectively managing the conflict between exploring new ideas and exploiting current value streams (Gupta et al., 2006). QM practices are exploitative in nature, but Asif and de Vries (2015) analyzed these approaches from an explorative perspective and found exploitative QM practices to be the foundation of the explorative QM approaches. Ebrahimi and Sadeghi (2013) identified over 200 different QM practices, which Asif and de Vries (2015) used to identify key practices. The key practices applicable for this study were: Customer satisfaction management and Process management.

4.2.1 Key QM Practices

(20)

Figure 4: Exploit-explore perspective visualized in the Kano model. Adapted from "Creating am-bidexterity through quality management," by M. Asif and H. J. de Vries, 2015, Business Excellence, 26(11-12), 1226–1241.

Exploitative activities address and gradually improve basic and performance needs. In contrast, addressing excitement needs are related to explorative activities. Continuously innovating, by gen-erating customer insights and redesigning products, is required because excitement needs descend to basic needs over time (Asif & de Vries, 2015).

Process management comprises activities such as: process mapping and process improvement (Kaynak, 2003; Saraph, Benson, & Schroeder, 1989), which can be supported by different quality control tools (e.g. Ishikawa diagrams, Pareto diagrams and flowcharts). Additionally, it includes as-signment of process owners, implementation of standardized systems, and establishment of objectives and measurement systems (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Calvo-Mora, Navarro-Garcıa, Rey-Moreno, & Periañez-Cristobal, 2016). These tools analyze as well as streamline processes, which is primarily associated with exploitation. Because of its emphasis on exploitation, process management is benefi-cial in organizations with stable contexts (Benner & Tushman, 2003). Furthermore, Moreno-Luzon, Gil-Marques, and Arteaga (2014) posits that process management can result in both exploitation and exploration but is imbalanced towards exploitation.

Process management practices reflect an organization’s commitment to enhance the reliability and control for performance and at the same time search for better methods to improve the processes (Dean Jr & Bowen, 1994). Exploitation-oriented practices focus on increasing control and consistency of the existing processes, whereas exploration-oriented practices underline change of the current processes to promote disruptive innovation (Zhang et al., 2012).

(21)

proficient process management is according to Hammer (2002): 1. Identify company processes, typically 5-10

2. Increase awareness of the process

3. KPIs of end-to-end process performance (based on stakeholder needs) 4. Designate process owners

5. Select 2-3 processes for improvement

6. Over time, align the company’s management systems with the new prominence of its processes

4.3 Knowledge Management

Alavi and Leidner (2001) defines knowledge as personalized information, which is information pos-sessed in the mind of individuals related to facts, procedures and interpretations. This means that knowledge is derived from information, which is described as contextualized data, that in turn is derived from data which is raw numbers and facts (Dretske, 1981; Machlup, 1982; Vance, 1997). According to Alavi and Leidner (2001), there are two forms of knowledge: tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge can be exemplified by mental maps, viewpoints or skills that apply to a specific context, whereas explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is articulated in natural language or communi-cated through symbols.

Knowledge is, according to Andersson, Dası, Mudambi, and Pedersen (2016), one of the key elements in the global economic evolution. From a knowledge-based perspective this emphasizes the need of KM. Examining the theoretical background of KM, it is clear that KM and some of its components can be described in many different ways depending on the context or perspective (Paulin & Suneson, 2012). In the context of this study, KM is defined as a management strategy that focuses on the flow of knowledge and constitutes the creation, storing, transferring and application of knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The application of knowledge is however not included in the scope of this study and will therefore not be discussed thoroughly.

(22)

Figure 5: Knowledge conversion process.

Knowledge transfer (KT) entails several different levels of transfer such as between individuals, from individuals to groups, between groups or from groups to the organization (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). When individuals place reports on a group server for instance, it is an example of transfer between individuals and groups. KT serves as the part of KM that transfers knowledge to locations where it is needed and can be used (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). According to Huber (1991) however, KT is not that simple to execute due to the fact that organizations often do not know what they know, and often have flawed systems for locating useful knowledge. This has led to a large body of literature focusing on the element of KT channels which range from informal procedures, such as coffee break conversations, to more formal mechanisms like training sessions (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

The importance of KT is partly highlighted by its positive correlation to the innovative capability of an organization (Cavusgil, Calantone, & Zhao, 2003). More specifically, the authors suggest that the better you are at transferring tacit knowledge, the more innovative you are likely to be. KT’s importance is also emphasized by Wang and Wang (2012), who concluded that KT is connected to both the operational and financial performance of a firm. It is also suggested that KT can help provide a competitive advantage for a firm if used right (Argote & Ingram, 2000). According to Tuertmann et al. (2016), one of the challenges with the CM process is that the knowledge within can be hard to interpret for other departments, since the knowledge is often tied to its context.

To help answer the question of how KT should be used, Cummings and Teng (2003) suggest key factors related to KT success. One of the major findings was a need for contextual alignment between the transmitter and receiver of knowledge in order to achieve KT success (Cummings & Teng, 2003). Contextual alignment means that the knowledge transferred needs to be packaged in such a way that the recipient can process and adapt it to its localized needs (Leonard-Barton, 1988). Song, Van Der Bij, and Weggeman (2005) also seems to support the importance of contextual alignment with their conclusion, that trying to transfer and apply complex knowledge without strong inter-unit ties will actually slow projects down rather than help them. Strong inter-unit ties are, in their study, suggested to consist of co-location of personnel from different units as compared to weak inter-unit ties that consist of lead-users and supplier networks.

4.3.1 Complaints & Knowledge Management

(23)

organi-zation’s effectiveness and efficiency. When it comes to projects, KM plays a vital role in its success (Choo, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2007), as it can result in project cost reduction, faster completion of similar projects, and a reduction of complaints (Patalas-Maliszewska, 2015). The KT step consists of three modules shown in Figure 6. The first module is called acquisition, and its function is to detect and create a knowledge base consisting of all relevant complaint knowledge (Linder et al., 2016). Part of this module is filtering the knowledge, since the CM process often has limited resources and not all complaint knowledge is relevant for further use.

The second module is called analysis, where focus lies on using the knowledge base for single case and holistic complaint analyses. Single case analyses examine individual complaints to determine if they contain knowledge applicable for future generations (Linder et al., 2016). Holistic analyses instead allow a company to identify failure patterns based on stored information and knowledge in repositories. The final module is distribution and usage, which incorporates transferring complaint knowledge within a company. The complaint knowledge can be used to improve products and pro-cesses, by being a basis for decisions and through generating insights that can improve future products (Linder et al., 2016).

Figure 6: Knowledge management activities included in the CM process model.

Continuing on this path, Hellebrandt et al. (2018) used the conceptual model formulated by Schmitt and Linder (2013) and analyzed if certain KM solutions (i.e. methods and tools) could be beneficial for the KM activities in the CM process. Hellebrandt et al. (2018) proved that the addition of KM solutions have a positive effect on an organization’s long-term knowledge transfer. The study also concluded where in the long-term KT process step which KM solutions are the most appropriate to use. If the goal for example is to improve the KM activity named Distribution and Usage of knowledge, the most appropriate KM solution would be Lessons learned and Best practices (Hellebrandt et al., 2018).

To benefit from applying KM in the CM process, prerequisite elements such as organizational structure, organizational culture and process controlling are needed (Probst, Raub, & Romhardt, 2000; Schmitt & Linder, 2013). Schmitt and Linder (2013) suggests organizational structure to include clear responsibilities, process-related roles and an explicit aim with the process. Furthermore, the process is suggested to be controlled by appropriate KPIs, to be able to prove process efficiency (Schmitt & Linder, 2013). These factors also enable information transparency (Probst et al., 2000), which is especially important considering the authors perceive employees as transmitters and receivers of knowledge in an organization.

4.4 Quality & Knowledge Management

(24)

Honarpour, Jusoh, and Long (2017), Zhao and Bryar (2001), who identified a reciprocal relationship between the concepts.

The reciprocal relationship between KM and QM, shown in Figure 7, can increase both profitability and have a positive impact on customer satisfaction (Rebelo & Gomes, 2017). This relationship is visualized through the connection between exploitative QM and KM, where these effects positively affect current business. The coordinating mechanism of KM can also positively affect innovation, by utilizing resources more efficiently (Darroch, 2005). This connection positively affects explorative QM, which contributes to the development of future business seen in the Figure. Zhao and Bryar (2001) proposed that KM will increase performance further if a sound foundation of QM is present, which is displayed in the Figure through the linkage between exploitative and explorative QM, where exploitative practices act as the basis for exploration.

(25)

5 Empirical Results

In this section, the empirical findings are displayed. The PCP is described and visualized, and the quality management & control tools’ results are presented. Furthermore, the findings from the semi-structured interviews are shown.

5.1 Current State of the Process

Unstructured interviews were conducted to outline a process map of the study’s scope, see Figure 8. The first step of the PCP continues from step 5 of Figure 1, where a complaint is accepted or rejected. The following step entails a selection regarding which of these complaints are deemed significant or urgent enough to be put into the next step which is the ”bucket”. The selection is made by the Quality coordinator but is in accordance with the concerned Line managers and Product managers (Personal communication, Quality coordinator). The main difference between the selection stage and the prioritization of product care projects seems to be that in the latter, Line managers’ and Product managers’ involvement is formalized and the prioritization list is documented. After that it is seemingly the Line managers which have the final say in the step that decides which Product care projects are to be initiated, but they try to initiate projects in accordance with the prioritization list when it is possible (Personal communication, Line manager). The last step is when a Product care project is completed and its status inside the ”bucket” is changed. Apart from that, however, most projects do not generate any more output since few employees have access to the ”bucket” and its content. In some cases, where it is specifically requested, the knowledge can however be shared but it is not a specified step in the current process.

Figure 8: Visualization of the PCP.

(26)

Figure 9: SIPOC diagram.

(27)

product care action.

Line managers hold the resources necessary for the completion of product care actions and if high-priority actions require more resources than are available, lower-priority actions will be executed. Moreover, the production unit responsible for the product will be examined to determine if a product care action is possible within a suitable time frame. The line manager responsible then provides resources for the product care action to be completed successfully. Employees are the prominent resource for these actions, of which they use their expertise and innovative thinking to successfully improve a product. Product improvement can require a change in the process, which then results in process improvement. The last process activity has scattered functions, since there are different channels dedicated to different customers.

5.1.1 Quality Management & Control Tools

The visualization in Figure 8 acted as a clarification of the starting point and ending point of the process, which was used for the Affinity diagram. The process map clarified the confines of the Affinity diagram’s focus area. The results of the diagram are presented in Table 3. The results rendered a priority list of the most acute problems in the process, where the subcategories ambition & objective, lack of resources, and lack of pull in the product care process received the most points from the participants.

Table 3: The themes and subcategories generated by the Affinity diagram and the amount of points received.

Theme Subcategory Number of points Resource and priority Lack of resources 18

ROI calculation 1 Resource allocation 11 Documentation and distribution Examination at completion 0

Knowledge transfer 0 No theme Designs and CAD/D program problems 7 Process management System support 7 Ambition and objective 19 Lack of pull in the Product care process 12

(28)

Figure 10: Interrelationship diagram.

Table 4: Results from the Interrelationship diagram. Subcategory Out In Lack of Process Governance & Description 6 0 Ambition & Objective 3 2 ROI Calculation 2 0 Lack of Resources 1 3 Resource Planning 1 2 Examination At Completion 1 1 System Support 1 0 Lack of Pull In the Product Care Process 0 3 Knowledge Transfer 0 2 Designs & CAD/D Program Problems 0 0

With these quality management & control tools, clear problems could be identified in the PCP. A lack of process governance and a lack of process description showed to be the most prominent root cause of the PCP. The lack of governance and description does also seem to affect the organization’s ambition and objective, which was the problem that was most critical to address from the Affinity diagram. A lack of resources and a lack of pull in the product care process, which was the second and third most critical problems to address in the Affinity diagram, showed in the Interrelationship diagram to be effects of other underlying problems in the PCP.

5.1.2 Semi-structured Interviews

(29)

represents the topics process focus and strategic positioning that are discussed in the literature review chapter, and the empirical topic ambition & objective which was brought up in the Affinity diagram. Some of the topics are discussed more than once, since there is overlap between the categories. Both the categories Resource allocation and The product care process, for example, include questions and answers covering the topic resource planning. In order to structure the data further, subcategories are used for each coding category. These subcategories are grouped based on the questions generated for the semi-structured interviews, and not relevant to the direct content analysis approach.

Table 5: Coding categories used and the literature and empirical topics that they represent.

Category code Literature topics Empirical topics Strategy Market stability, Process management,

Strategic positioning Ambition & objective

Resource allocation Resource allocation, Strategic alignment, Innovation

Lack of resources, Resource planning, ROI calculation

The product care process Resource allocation, Customer satisfaction management, Strategic alignment, Complaints management

Lack of pull, ROI calculation, Resource planning, Lack of resources

Knowledge management Documentation, Knowledge transfer, Knowledge management structure

Examination at completion, System support, Knowledge transfer

Strategy

Strategic Positioning

The informants have different perspectives regarding the strategic positioning of the company. All included innovation as part of the strategic positioning but whether or not an offensive or defensive positioning also was included varied. Semi-structured informant (SSI) 1 thought the company has a mix between an offensive and innovative positioning, whereas SSI 2, 3, 4 and 5 thought it is a mix between a defensive and innovative positioning.

Company Orientation & Leadership

There seemed to be consensus that the company works with processes but is function-oriented, which means that the different functions in the company work more independently. Due to this, SSI 4 pointed out that there is a lack of process focus, and SSI 1 and 3 expressed a need to strengthen the processes by clarifying goals, descriptions and responsibilities. SSI 5 stated that it differed between high-level processes and low-level processes, whether or not processes lacked focus. According to SSI 5, high-level processes are main processes represented on a strategic level, by KPIs and leadership commitment, and are well-defined. Lower-level processes refer to subprocesses lower down in the hierarchy and SSI 5 proposed that they lack process focus, which is in line with SSI 3 who stated a lack of leadership commitment towards processes on an operational level in comparison to main processes. SSI 4 on the other hand experienced leadership commitment in all processes.

Company Strategy & PCP Alignment

(30)

“They only look forward.”

SSI 2

KPIs

SSI 2 stated that a KPI was set in 2017 to have less errands at the end of the year than at the beginning of the year, which created a pull effect in the PCP. The pull effect was characterized by a demand for completed errands from management, which resulted in employees being more active in product care activities. This resulted in clear improvements of completed product care activities. The KPI only lasted for a year and in 2018 an informal goal was set to complete as many product care activities as possible. SSI 2 stated that no KPI exists anymore because it is hard to calculate its effect in relation to product development. All informants did however state a need for KPIs for the PCP, because it would create incentives to improve existing products.

“Everyone knows that product care results in improvement on existing products but it is dif-ficult to showcase the value it provides."

SSI 2

Resource Allocation

Resource Allocation Between the PCP & Innovation-based Processes

The general assessment of the resource allocation was unanimous from the conducted interviews, where the innovation-based processes PDP and KDP receive over 90 percent of the resources. Most informants stated that the PCP gets around five percent of the resources, but a well-defined percentage does not exist. SSI 3 posited that only the PDP and KDP are taken into consideration in the planning of resources and a maximum of 75 percent of the resources are allocated between them. The rest acts as a buffer, which SSI 2 said most commonly is used for delays and unpredictable events, and the PCP seems to take resources from the buffer. Furthermore, SSI 5 stated that the PCP exists on an operational level and not on a strategic level, which was also emphasized by SSI 2’s statement that product care is expected to happen but no time or resources are provided to ensure it. In contrast, the PDP and KDP exist on a strategic level, which means that the PCP is not considered to be a critical element of the company. The PCP should be viewed from a strategic level, because it is valuable from both the customer’s and the company’s perspective (SSI 5).

“Product development is the engine of . . . the whole company really”.

SSI 1

Resource Allocation Guidelines

(31)

the buffer are allocated; he perceives that it is only in theory that the resources are used for product care. SSI 2 believes most of the resources are simply used for project delays in PDP projects or other development projects.

Company Strategy & Resource Allocation Alignment

There were scattered views as to whether or not the resource allocation aligns with the company strategy. SSI 3 stated that it does align with the company strategy, since long-term thinking is needed. SSI 2 also thought it did align with the company strategy, but that is because the company strategy does not contain anything explicit regarding product care, which he thinks is needed. SSI 4 and 5 do think that too little resources are being invested in the PCP for it to be aligned with the company strategy. SSI 4 posited that the current resource allocation does not align with the company strategy, as the company has a strong focus on premium products with high quality, which is in agreement with SSI 2.

Change In Resource Allocation If the PCP Fosters Innovation

All informants agree upon the notion that if the PCP fosters innovation, more resources would be allocated to it. SSI 3 stated that it is not reasonable to invest a large portion of resources on complaints, since it per definition is a reactive process. If the PCP fostered innovation however, SSI 3 believes it would be more attractive to allocate resources to it. SSI 4 posited that resources would be allocated differently if the PCP showed to foster innovation, but more resources would also be allocated to it if it would be easier to showcase the value. SSI 4 means that this would result in better decision-making in regards to the prioritization of resources between the PCP, PDP and KDP. In regards to the decision-making, SSI 3 put forward that the company needs to analyze what it will cost to do nothing compared to how much resources are required to solve the problem. The company should also take into account the value of the customer (SSI 3).

The Product Care Process Value of the PCP

Most of the informants see the PCP as a valuable process, but some also see it as solely a reactive and wasteful process. SSI 5 stated that the PCP essentially is a wasteful process because the company should have done it correctly from the beginning, but since it does not happen it is a valuable process. SSI 4 posited that the PCP is a valuable process, as it is a requirement from the customer if a long-term relationship is to exist. SSI 1 thinks that the PCP has not really been accepted and that they can satisfy the customer without the PCP, by just replacing the products. SSI 4 put forward that a process is needed if anything is to happen in an organization like this, and the process needs to be clearly defined and well anchored to the company strategy. SSI 2 also believes it is a struggle to get things done with the PCP, since it gets too little resources in terms of time and money.

Value of Complaints

(32)

“It is the feedback that gives us the oppor-tunity to improve the product, and the com-plaint might illuminate a problem that exists in several products, not just that product.”

SSI 1

A Lack of Pull In the PCP

The lack of pull in the PCP was explained by a lack of prioritization. SSI 1 and 4 stated that the company is driven and focused on developing new products, which consumes a lot of resources. SSI 3 related the lack of pull to the PCP existing on a lower level, which has resulted in it not being represented properly in comparison with the PDP and KDP. SSI 1 and 5 also expressed a lack of visualization, as nothing explicit exists for the PCP.

Process Owner & Description

Similar arguments were put forward as to why no process owner or process description exists. A lack of commitment from top management has, according to SSI 1 and 4, created a lack of drive for the PCP in comparison with the PDP and KDP. In summary, SSI 4 said that the PCP has not been anchored to top management, and if there are no guidelines from top management, nothing will happen. Things that are built on an operational level get no traction .

“If anything is to happen in an organization like this, a process is needed which is clearly defined and well anchored to the company.”

SSI 4

Knowledge Management KM Structure

All informants feel that there is a lack of KM structure for the PCP. SSI 5 does however think a knowledge culture exists in the company, but it relates to product and knowledge development. SSI 4 thinks it would be difficult to have a good KM structure, since it is the people who have done the product care activity that possess the knowledge which seems to be hard to transfer. Furthermore, most product care activities are not documented except for larger activities, where R&D documents what is carried out and why (SSI 2). SSI 2 also stated that he sometimes partakes in development meetings to mitigate repeating mistakes, but does not think a clear structure for KM exists for the PCP.

Product Care Knowledge

(33)

6 Empirical Analysis & Recommendations

In this section, empirical findings are analyzed in respect to the theoretical framework. The analysis brings forth similarities and differences between them. Furthermore, recommendations are presented based on the analysis.

6.1 Strategy

The strategic positioning of the company was identified as partly innovative, which according to Masood et al. (2013) puts quality assurance and product development as the most critical activities to focus on from a strategic level. Currently, the company primarily focuses on product development and lacks quality assurance based on the semi-structured interviews. The company has effective process management in certain areas, which is an important element of quality assurance. The organization also exists in a stable market, which means that process management provides additional benefits (Benner & Tushman, 2003). However, the empirical findings concluded process management deficiency in regards to the PCP.

KPIs are a critical component in process management (Hammer, 2002) for aligning processes with company strategy. KPIs do not currently exist for the PCP, but the empirical findings showcased a clear need for it. Furthermore, complementary data was provided of completed product care activities, which displayed a clear distinction between the process output, see Figure 11. There are three important distinctions to be made in the Figure. First, when the PCP was initiated in 2014, there was a clear spike in completed product care activities in 2015 and 2016. Second, when the addition of a KPI was incorporated in 2017 and 2018, the outcome increased further. Lastly, when the KPI was removed there was a substantial drop of completed product care activities akin to 2014.

Figure 11: Number of completed product care activities.

(34)

controlling is proposed as a prerequisite for achieving effectiveness and efficiency in a CM process (Spanyi, 2015). This proposition is in line with the data provided above in Figure 11, since the effec-tiveness increased substantially when KPIs existed. Implementing KPIs for the PCP necessitates an operational, monetary and effectiveness perspective (Ruessmann et al., 2020), of which an operational KPI that measures lead time exists in the reactive part of the CM process.

Recommendation 1: The PCP should be represented on the strategic level, by implementing KPIs connected to the process in order to increase the company’s focus on quality assurance. An effectiveness KPI should be implemented, where it measures e.g. the reduction of recurring complaints of similar characteristics. A monetary KPI is also recommended to be implemented where it measures the costs of not correcting a problem, as it displays the monetary value of not solving a given issue.

6.2 Resource Allocation

A strategic misalignment between resource allocation and company strategy was displayed through the Affinity diagram and the Interrelationship diagram, which presented lack of resources and Resource planning as two of the primary problems. This is in line with the literature, since Castillo-Apraiz et al. (2020), Sitkin et al. (1994) state that the allocation of resources is affected by the strategic positioning of the company. The semi-structured interviews showcased that the organization is heavily focused on innovation and explorative activities, and since the PCP currently is completely exploitative, less attention and resources has been given to it. Lack of resources was identified as the second most critical problem for the PCP, but was later proven to be an effect of other underlying problems. Process governance & description, ambition & objective, and ROI calculation showed to be the root cause problems for the PCP lacking resources.

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that the company documents how much resources are currently being allocated to the PCP in addition to determining how much resources are to be allocated to it.

6.3 The Product Care Process

Based on the semi-structured interviews, the PCP was concluded as a valuable process for the com-pany, relating it to customer relationship management and continuous improvement. Similar views were found in the literature review, where the traditional view of a CM process considers it solely as an exploitative effort aimed at retaining dissatisfied customers (Stauss & Schoeler, 2004; Vos et al., 2008). Existing theory and the informants’ perception of the CM process display a resemblance of solely viewing it from an exploitative perspective, which highlights the issue of this view being insufficient. The PCP is perceived as valuable by the company but paradoxically lacks pull and resources. It was mentioned in the interviews that this problem is caused by top management not accepting the PCP and that it can be circumvented. Since the PCP is viewed as solely being able to retain customer satisfaction, it can be circumvented by solely replacing customers’ products without a corrective action preventing future problems. This short-term solution can be related to the Kano model in Figure 4, where no exploitative and explorative function of QM is used. While it retains the expected customer satisfaction, it will not provide any benefits without these practices for existing and future customers, which is visualized in the developed framework in Figure 7.

Currently, the selection and priority phases of the PCP do not have any clear criteria to support decision-making, and are to a large degree based on subjective experiences. Furthermore, the PCP lacks defined process activities and since the empirical findings displayed the lack of process description as a root cause problem, the negative effects are prominent. Additionally, the lack of exploitative QM practices inhibits the value of innovation to be captured, as seen in the developed framework.

(35)

the activities in the PCP. Furthermore, the process activities must be standardized, especially in the selection and priority phases where explicit criteria are needed to support the decision-making process. Creating formal criteria will reinforce objectivity and fact-based decisions. Criteria recommended to be included are: number of recurring complaints, resources required and a cost prognosis if not completed.

6.4 Knowledge Management

The Affinity diagram from the empirical findings showed that the lack of KM is not an important problem to solve for the PCP. However, the informants from the semi-structured interviews recognize complaints as a potential source of critical knowledge that can create value for the company, by identifying problems and strengthening their relationships with customers. Hence, KM is perceived as being a value-adding activity for the PCP.

Generating value can be performed from both an exploitative and explorative perspective, since KM contributes to organizational ambidexterity (see Figure 7). Currently, no value is generated from the explorative perspective, as knowledge generated from complaints are rarely used for product development. The empirical findings did however showcase that product care activities from the PCP have the potential to positively improve and develop more than one product, which is in line with the developed framework (see Figure 7).

The potential value of the PCP remains elusive partly because its knowledge is difficult to transfer, since it is tied to employees directly involved with product care. To convert the tacit knowledge from employees to explicit knowledge that is more readily available, the knowledge has to be externalized (Cummings & Teng, 2003), which is often done by documentation. In order for the knowledge to be grasped by the receiver, there also needs to be contextual alignment (Leonard-Barton, 1988), meaning that the employees involved in the PCP needs to package the knowledge in such a way that other functions or departments can understand the content. Today, some knowledge is created through externalization but it is done sporadically without structure and on a small scale. This means that internalization is unlikely to occur since it requires documentation to analyze in order for new tacit knowledge to be created (Nonaka, 1994).

While complaints were described as containing critical knowledge in the semi-structured inter-views, no KM structure exists for the PCP. As a result, both exploitative and explorative practices are mitigated, which prevents the value of complaints to be captured. This also highlights a dis-crepancy between the lack of KM structure and the perception of complaints containing valuable knowledge. The misalignment of KM does not only affect the quality of existing products, but also the innovative aspect of product development, as shown in Figure 7.

Fostering Continuous Improvement and Innovation Through the Complaints Process