|
THE COMPETITIVE SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING HUMAN
RESOURCES PROJECT:
Second Interim Report
CSM-32
Clair Brown, Editor
8. The Transferability of
Case Study Findings to Other Firms
Dan Rascher and Clair Brown
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Transferability Issues - Importance
8.3 Transferability Issues - Processes
8.4 Key Variables - What Do We Need to Know?
8.5 Transferability in the Semiconductor
Industry
8.6 Conclusion
RF References
8.1 Introduction
Case studies on high performance work systems attempt to illuminate
the ways in which the practices operate to improve performance.
These studies are particularly useful for identifying what appears
to be "best practice" in the industry. Because of their
limited number, however, case studies cannot be used to statistically
test the relationship between outcomes and practices, as can be
done with less detailed data on a large number of plants. We believe
that this limits the acceptance and usefulness of case study data.
One of the major goals of the human resource study of the competitive
semiconductor manufacturing program is to understand what are the
"best practices" in the semiconductor industry. This paper
explains how to expand the importance of case study results by determining
if and how it is possible to transfer these practices to other fabs
in order to achieve high performance. A fab manager wants to know
that if they adopt a certain set of "best practices" in
their fab, will they become a high performer?
There are three domains to which we would like to establish transferability
of our CSM-HR study:
Can a fab manager duplicate the "best practices"
or processes in other fabs within the same company?
Can the conclusions from the CSM-HR study be transferred
with similar outcomes to other companies within the semiconductor
industry?
Are the results applicable to firms in other industries?
Although the macro-micro linkages are important in establishing
what effect the macro-environment has on the transferability across
national borders, these linkages are not analyzed here. Instead,
we focus on intra-industry transfer issues and briefly consider
inter-industry transferability.
Why don't most case studies consider the transferability issue explicitly?
Probably because no conventional methodology exists. That begs the
question why not? Pertaining to the laboratory versus field argument,
Locke mentions that "knowledge isn't sufficient to deduce the
answers...thus the real problem of generalization is more one of
induction, not deduction." This may also be true for establishing
transferability from a case study to other domains. Instead of hard,
fast rules that are determined from basic principles, the development
of the necessary methods might be on a case by case basis. Here
we are searching for some common procedures or steps that can be
created and used as a guide.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next section
discusses the importance of establishing the transferability of
case studies. Section three examines the processes involved with
the transferability issue. A general discussion of key work practices
is explored in section four. Section five uses the CSM-HR study
to begin testing the transferability of the "best practices,"
followed by section six, the conclusion.
8.2 Transferability Issues - Importance
In our study of competitive semiconductor manufacturing, our goal
is to examine whether the results from the study, the determination
of the "best practices," are applicable to other plants
within the same company, other companies, or even other industries,
and how this is affected by the macro environment. How can we test
this inquiry, and if the results aren't readily transferable, can
adjustments be made which will allow them to be? Since there doesn't
appear to be a formal process for generalizing case studies to other
domains, a methodology needs to be developed.
Edwin Locke (1986) has systematically examined generalizing lab
studies to the field, but not necessarily from one field to the
next. This is a closely related issue, but crosses a different bridge.
The lab versus field issue addresses the grades of realism in the
lab versus the field. We are trying to see whether lessons learned
from a particular field study, such as the CSM project, can be used
as general benchmarks for other fields or fabs, as the case is here.
Suppose we find that systematic employee skill development over
a period of years is part of a successful high performance work
system in our sample of semiconductor fabs. Does establishing transferability
mean that the empirical value of skill development must be the same
for other fabs, or just the direction of the effects? Because of
the complex nature of high performance systems, it is likely that
most practitioners would be satisfied with establishing external
validity on the level of directional effects within the same magnitude
as their own case studies.
A procedure for establishing transferability of case studies would
have to distinguish between testing whether a case study was transferable
and making a case study transferable. If the conclusions from the
CSM study are not generalizable to other fabs in the industry, is
there anything that can be done? If possible, an adjustment mechanism
should be developed that would allow at least some of the conclusions
to be transferable to other fabs.
8.3 Transferability Issues - Processes
To establish transferability, a researcher must identify the key
variables and hypothesized relationships from case study data in
a particular industry. Since "best practices" may include
more than one path, and may include HR systems that are not thought
of as "high commitment," these variables and relationships
may be more complicated than originally thought. There are likely
to be several "best practices" depending on the environmental
constraints such as the culture and institutions of a country. Theoretically,
the number of "best practices" should be limited by the
number of goals that the HR system must successfully reach.
With that in mind, where should one start in testing whether a particular
case study is transferable? For example, the CSM-HR study examines
15 fabs in an industry that has hundreds. Suppose X1, X2, and X3
designate the observed systematic combinations of HR practices (denoted
HR bundles or systems), and we know where these various HR bundles
fall on the measure of performance outcomes. We would like to determine
to what degree the environment in the population of fabs is replicated
so that we can conclude that X1, X2, and X3 will result in the same
performance outcomes. To do this we must classify the observed HR
practices as necessary or sufficient (or not necessary).
Statistically, a sufficient condition to establish that the conclusions
of a case study are generalizable is that the sample is representative
of the population. However, if the case studies were not selected
to be representative, can we identify, ex post, selective important
dimensions in which the sample must be representative? What is needed
is the identification of the essential features, or key variables.
In the end, one would like the essential features of the sample
fabs to be representative of the population.
There are at least two ways to view this. Suppose Fab 1 in our study
has work practices bundle X1 in place and has high performance metrics.
One test of external validity would show that most fabs in the population
that also have these work practices in place are high performers.
The percentage of these would have to be statistically significant
for transferability not to be rejected. Another perspective would
be that of the manager of Fab 2, which is not in the sample. If
these practices are imported into Fab 2, will it become a high performer?
The answer depends on whether Fab 2 contains the other essential
features related to the environment or culture, which will be discussed
below.
There are really two sets of important aspects. One is the relationship
between the performance metrics and the HR bundles , which are trying
to be transferred. Two is the set of conditions required for successful
transfer. X1, X2, and X3 cause hypothesized performance outcomes
under certain conditions. The transferability of the results of
the CSM-HR study will be satisfied conditional on whether a specific
environmental climate exists.
The particular problem with transferability within an industry from
detailed case studies is to ensure that the hypothesized relationship
between performance and practices has correctly identified all the
key variables in the relationship. For example, if a key variable
is incorrectly left out, then transfer of the system as identified
will not necessarily lead to the anticipated performance outcome.
If a key variable is misspecified (i.e., the specified variable
is acting as a proxy for the true variable), and if the value of
the variables diverge or if the relationship between them shifts,
unanticipated results can occur.
For example, assume that HR bundle X1, which is associated with
high performance metrics, includes industry specific work practices
(SP1), e.g., operators performing certain SPC tasks. Suppose X1
also includes general HR practices (GP1), such as employment security
and structured on-the-job training.
There are initially two steps to establish transferability:
Step 1: determine whether the companies that use X1 are high
performers, and
Step 2: to what extent the remaining firms are not high performers.
A test of whether the results of the case study are transferable
within the industry would involve showing that X1 is transferable.
One test of generalizability is a statistical calculation of whether
other semiconductor fabs that employ X1 practices are high performers.
A further necessary condition of this test is that the environmental
conditions are also satisfied. Only fabs that satisfy both of these
conditions are eligible to be part of the test for transferability.
If the success rate is statistically significant, then it might
be concluded that the case study is applicable to the rest of the
industry. This is similar to out-of-sample testing for ensuring
model stability.
Step 2 involves checking whether the case study is transferable
to firms in other industries (inter-industry) that aren't using
comparable work practices or general practices GP1. To establish
transferability, it might be sufficient to show that the firms satisfy
the environmental conditions. Thus, in all probability, any firm
that satisfies the environmental conditions could adopt practices
comparable to X1 and become a high performer. Specific practices
would most likely need to be replaced by practices specific to the
industry that fulfill similar goals, but general practices, GP1,
might be universally applicable.
What are the environmental conditions in a particular domain that
are necessary for transferability? These are conditions that might
either constrain or support a particular practice. They are aspects
of the economy that are uncontrollable, at least in the short run,
such as the labor supply, product market demand, financial institutions,
cultural practices, and the availability of certain technologies.
For example, the labor market for the industry might not have enough
qualified technicians. Thus, either the HR system cannot be adopted
without modifications, or upon adoption part of the system will
not perform as expected--in this case the less qualified technicians
will prevent the fab from reaching expected performance.
8.4 Key Variables - What Do We Need to Know?
HR or employment systems involve individual level characteristics
such as motivation and participation; group level characteristics
such as work group climate and work organization; and organization
level characteristics such as organizational performance and strategy.
The potential "best practices" HR system must have key
variables that fulfill specific goals. Here we identify the major
individual and group goals: incentives and monitoring, skill building
and knowledge creation, and work organization. The HR practices
that are used to fulfill these goals are given in Table 8-1.
| TABLE 8-1 |
| HR GOALS AND WORK PRACTICES
|
| |
| Promotion Determinants: |
Attendance, Attitude, Output Goals,
Quality Record, Skill Level, Number of Skills, Team Participation,
Tenure. |
| Appraisals: |
How Often Done, Share Results with
Employees, Who Conducts (Self, Supervisor, Personnel Manager,
Peers, Group Leader). |
| Number of Promotions. |
|
| Compensation Methods: |
Base Pay, Performance Pay (Gainsharing),
Team Pay, Company Performance Pay, ESOP, Skill Pay, Suggestion
Pay, Non-monetary Pay. |
| Pay levels: |
Amount, Percent Incentive Pay. |
| |
| Goal: Skill Building
and Knowledge Creation |
| |
| Amount of Training: |
Orientation Days, Percent OJT (First
Year, After First Year), Percent Classroom (First Year, After
First Year), Financial Support for Training. |
| Type of training: |
Basic Skills, Basic Science, SPC,
Company History, Machine Operation, Machine Maintenance, Teamwork
and Communication, Problem Solving, Experiment Design, Safety
Procedures, Clean Room Procedures, Leadership. |
| Job Assignment: |
Depth, Breadth. |
| Equipment Maintenance: |
Who Performs Various Tasks (Ops,
Techs, Process Eng., Equip. Eng.). See Question 18.B from the
Questionnaire for list of practices. |
| SPC: |
Who Performs Various Tasks (Ops,
Techs, Process Eng., Equip. Eng.). See Question 18.C from the
Questionnaire for list of practices. |
| Knowledge Sharing: |
General, Specific, Worker to Worker,
Manager to Worker, Teams for Problem Solving and Improvements
(see below). |
| |
| Goal: Work Organization
|
| |
| Headcount: |
Ops, Techs, Supes, Eng., Manager:
Number of Employees, Turnover Rate (Hiring, Firing, Quits, Transfers,
Re-hiring), Variability of Turnover, Relative Number of Employees,
Functional Breakdown, Number of Grade Levels. |
| Demographics: |
Age, Gender, Years with Company,
Education Level. |
| Work Schedule: |
Fab (Hours/Day, Days/Week), Work
Shifts/Day, Hours/Shift. |
| Type of Teams: |
QC, QIT, SDWT, Cross Functional.
|
| Details of Teams: |
Team Composition (Managers, Supes,
Ops, Techs, Eng.), Assigned Duties, Decision Making Process
(Decides the Projects, Authorizes Expenditures), Lifecycle of
Team, Number of Teams, How Often Meet, Length of Meeting, Voluntary,
Formal Problem Solving, Team Support Dept. |
Go to Next Section
of this Chapter
Go to Table of Contents for this
Chapter
Go to Table of Contents for the
CSM-HR Interim Report
|