1 / 10

European Regions For Innovative Productivity (ERIP)

European Regions For Innovative Productivity (ERIP). Final Conference – Introduction. 23 rd and 24 th November 2011. Antecedents of ERIP. 14 th International Working Seminar on Production Economics in 2006 brought together academics and practitioners with an interest in Lean and SMEs.

shing
Download Presentation

European Regions For Innovative Productivity (ERIP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. European Regions For Innovative Productivity (ERIP) Final Conference – Introduction 23rd and 24th November 2011

  2. Antecedents of ERIP • 14th International Working Seminar on Production Economics in 2006 brought together academics and practitioners with an interest in Lean and SMEs. • This was followed by a conference at Groningen University. • An article in Regional Innovation in Europe (December 2007) journal of the Network of Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) looked at the low productivity in SMEs in Europe. • The North East Productivity Alliance (NEPA) had been established by One NorthEast in 2002. • NEPA had Lean specialists seconded to it from Nissan and other blue chip companies. Its role was to transfer Lean knowledge to companies in the North East of England.

  3. Antecedents of ERIP • NEPA used the Master Class methodology to transfer Lean knowledge. • The Master Class approach was considered not suitable for many very small companies in terms of resources, time commitment, application of tools, etc. • A new methodological approach was required.

  4. Methodology – Master Class 5 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 3 days 1 day Workshop Follow Up 1 Follow Up 2 Follow Up 3 Diagnostic Pre-Diagnostic Check Day Preparation Preparation Source: Bateman (2001)

  5. The Partners • One NorthEast (Regional Development Agency), UK. • SINTEF (Foundation for Scientific & Industrial Research), Independent research institution, Norway. • Newcastle University Business School, UK. • University of Applied Science Osnabruck, Germany. • Municipality of Ammerland, Germany. • N.V. NOM (Regional Development Agency), Holland. • Hanseatic Parliament (non-governmental, non-profit association), Germany. • Ghent University, Belgium. • Swerea IVF AB (research institute owned by industry associations and the Swedish State), Sweden.

  6. Rationale for ERIP • Increasing competition from manufacturers in low cost economies. • In the North Sea Region of Europe, Lean and agile manufacturing methods are mainly used by a few market-leading companies. • 99% of Europe’s manufacturers are SMEs accounting for 58% of manufacturing employment. • The application of Lean/agile techniques in SMES was constrained by their lack of knowledge and resources. • Concern about the competitiveness of supply chains across the North Sea Region. • How can Lean knowledge be transferred into SMEs to increase innovative capacity and competitiveness?

  7. Aim of the ERIP Project • Establish Innovative Productivity Centres (IPCs) in each region comprising exemplars, public sector business support agencies, RDAs, universities • Increase productivity capacity and innovative capability. • To test and validate a methodology (based on transnational best practice) using 24 SME testers. • Joint evaluation and refinement by project partners to produce a coherent approach and methodology.

  8. Project Activities – Work Packages • WP1 Project Management & Coordination (set up management structures, steering committees, financial management, etc). Lead Partner was ONE now Newcastle University. • WP2 Identify and Engage Regional Exemplars, SMEs and other Stakeholders (engage with regional exemplars such as Nissan , Scania, Electrolux; selection criteria for SMEs, identify sources of Lean knowledge). Lead Partner was ONE plus all partners. • WP3 Establish Transnational Network of IPCs (central source of Lean knowledge in each region). Lead Partner is SINTEF. • WP4 Development of a Lean Change Methodology for SMEs (develop and refine the methodology). Lead partners are Ghent University and the NOM.

  9. Project Activities – Work Packages • WP5 Testing the Lean Change Methodology (joint testing and refinement of change methodology developed in WP4 on 24 SMEs in the partner regions). Lead Partner is Swerea. • WP6 Evaluate and Further Develop the Methodology and Outputs (evaluate impact on tester SMEs in terms of quality, cost, delivery, staff turnover; transnational longitudinal study; gather user experience). Lead Partner is Newcastle University Business School. • WP7 Communication and Dissemination (dissemination of outputs and results). Lead Partner is the Hanseatic Parliament and previously included One NorthEast.

  10. Aim of the Conference • Outline the development and evolution of the Lean Change Methodology in each of the regions. • The problems of identifying and recruiting suitable SMEs. • The role played by the IPCs and the exemplars in transferring Lean knowledge. • Compare the experiences of trying to implement Lean in SMEs in each of the Partner regions. • Identifying whether there is a minimum size of SME below which it is not possible to transfer Lean knowledge. • What type of Lean tools were utilised? • Changes in operations, structure, management styles, HR policies and issues.

More Related