243
was also intended to leverage any previous investments in lean methods and to ally
with the quality function within the company. A questionnaire
1 was developed that
provided diagnostic questions for key processes, along with example practices that
described the various maturity levels.
In May 2013, the initiative announced a call for proposals from companies
“interested in implementing a project which adopts life cycle thinking in their business management and operation”. The proposal application required companies to
conduct a maturity self-assessment and propose improvement projects to advance
both life cycle and business objectives. Applicant companies identifi ed a “LCM
CMM coach” to help with the maturity assessment and the eventual implementation
of identifi ed projects. There was no requirement that coaches had previous training
in the LCM CMM, and training materials that were developed in earlier phases of
the LCI were made available to support their preparation of proposals (Swarr et al.
2011 ). In addition, UNEP/SETAC contracted a “mentor” to provide remote technical support to the coaches. Eight projects were selected from 22 applications and
were awarded small grants to help implement the life cycle based improvement
projects (UNEP/SETAC 2013b ).
2.2 Company Case Studies
2.2.1 UNEP/SETAC LCM CMM Pilots
There were several constraints in the application process, which complicated evaluation of the effi cacy of the LCM CMM. Coaches were required to conduct a maturity assessment and propose specifi c improvement projects as part of the application
process. Few coaches had any prior exposure to the LCM CMM, and thus had to
conduct the maturity assessment based on their review of the training materials, a
PowerPoint presentation and a workbook. However, the maturity assessments submitted all appeared to be of reasonable quality and identifi ed existing organizational
strengths and weaknesses. In general, identifi ed projects seemed to be reasonably
aligned with the maturity assessments (i.e. existing LCM capability within the organization), with the possible exception being an over-emphasis of LCA in the projects. A second constraint was a short timeline, approx. 6–9 months, which meant
that many proposed improvement projects would extend beyond the contract end
date, precluding a fi nal evaluation of outcomes. A list of the projects is provided in
Table 17.2 .
Several projects in companies led by executives with visions of strong LCM
programs raised interesting questions of just how much life cycle knowledge is
required and where should it reside in the organization. RUCID processes tropical
fruits into juice and dried crisps. NEHSU Foods produces and sells soya-based milk
1 A copy of the questionnaire and an accompanying workbook are available at http://blog.pucp.edu.
pe/media/2360/20130211-4__cmm_workbook_ilcm2012_s__valdivia.pdf (Accessed 24 Feb 2015).
17 Building Organizational Capability for Life Cycle Management
was also intended to leverage any previous investments in lean methods and to ally
with the quality function within the company. A questionnaire
1 was developed that
provided diagnostic questions for key processes, along with example practices that
described the various maturity levels.
In May 2013, the initiative announced a call for proposals from companies
“interested in implementing a project which adopts life cycle thinking in their business management and operation”. The proposal application required companies to
conduct a maturity self-assessment and propose improvement projects to advance
both life cycle and business objectives. Applicant companies identifi ed a “LCM
CMM coach” to help with the maturity assessment and the eventual implementation
of identifi ed projects. There was no requirement that coaches had previous training
in the LCM CMM, and training materials that were developed in earlier phases of
the LCI were made available to support their preparation of proposals (Swarr et al.
2011 ). In addition, UNEP/SETAC contracted a “mentor” to provide remote technical support to the coaches. Eight projects were selected from 22 applications and
were awarded small grants to help implement the life cycle based improvement
projects (UNEP/SETAC 2013b ).
2.2 Company Case Studies
2.2.1 UNEP/SETAC LCM CMM Pilots
There were several constraints in the application process, which complicated evaluation of the effi cacy of the LCM CMM. Coaches were required to conduct a maturity assessment and propose specifi c improvement projects as part of the application
process. Few coaches had any prior exposure to the LCM CMM, and thus had to
conduct the maturity assessment based on their review of the training materials, a
PowerPoint presentation and a workbook. However, the maturity assessments submitted all appeared to be of reasonable quality and identifi ed existing organizational
strengths and weaknesses. In general, identifi ed projects seemed to be reasonably
aligned with the maturity assessments (i.e. existing LCM capability within the organization), with the possible exception being an over-emphasis of LCA in the projects. A second constraint was a short timeline, approx. 6–9 months, which meant
that many proposed improvement projects would extend beyond the contract end
date, precluding a fi nal evaluation of outcomes. A list of the projects is provided in
Table 17.2 .
Several projects in companies led by executives with visions of strong LCM
programs raised interesting questions of just how much life cycle knowledge is
required and where should it reside in the organization. RUCID processes tropical
fruits into juice and dried crisps. NEHSU Foods produces and sells soya-based milk
1 A copy of the questionnaire and an accompanying workbook are available at http://blog.pucp.edu.
pe/media/2360/20130211-4__cmm_workbook_ilcm2012_s__valdivia.pdf (Accessed 24 Feb 2015).
17 Building Organizational Capability for Life Cycle Management