**5. Argumentation**

The proposed approach highlights several aspects that contribute to the competitiveness of enterprises. The main ones are listed here. On the other hand, taking the approach to its ultimate conclusion presupposes that the company develops self-assessment capacities. We will come back to this point in the second part.

#### **5.1 Competitive aspects**

*Performance evaluation*. The approach emphasises the notion of performance. It is a major element to be integrated into the management of modern companies because, in order to manage their evolution, companies need to evaluate their performance level (actual state) and compare it with a projected state defined in relation to the economic environment. This expected target with performance evaluation and the path to achieve is also evoked in A3 approach of Lean when targets are evoked to allow easier projection of corrective actions. Faced with competitive pressure, many companies have moved in this direction in recent decades. Nevertheless, knowing how to measure performance and how to choose the corresponding indicators is not yet a talent that all companies still possess. This is why many methods have been proposed to help companies move in this direction [31, 32].

*Industrial strategy*. Talking about performance also means talking about strategy, because it is strategy that allows to clearly define the performance to be monitored. Moreover, an improvement project requires a clear definition of the target to be reached through the formulation of an industrial strategy. This first requires the development of a strategic vision/target to ensure coherence and synergy between all the improvement projects carried out. This argument is not shared by all companies. Obviously, large groups build strategic plans but many SMEs do not for many reasons [33]. Whatever the arguments, the proposed approach encourages the definition of a strategy before any intention of evolution.

*Models*. To propose modelling is to encourage companies to acquire the means to know themselves. Models do not bring new knowledge about the company, but they allow it to be expressed, standardised and exchanged. As mentioned in [34], to model is to externalise knowledge. Self-organising means choosing one's trajectory and adapting accordingly; it presupposes being able to generate symbolic information, i.e. information about oneself [35, 36]. Models contribute to this. Also, pushing companies to model themselves means pushing them to know perfectly

and permanently how they run and the behaviour of each of their components and to identify which part of the structure needs to be improved or changed. It means enabling them to be autonomous in managing their evolution.

*Motivation*. Employee motivation is linked to the significance of the work [37]. In terms of change management, this is expressed by the knowledge of the target (where the company is going) and the possibility of frequently see the results of projects. Then, proposing an approach organised in small projects that allow to reach a step of evolution, itself positioned in relation to a long-term target, allows everyone in the company to appreciate the path proposed and the results obtained. It is also important that employees be involved in the approach as much as possible, which is what continuous improvement and most enterprise modelling methods propose. Ali et al. [38] mentions the lack of training and planning as barriers to Lean projects implementation. These aspects have to be systematically taken into account in the projects portfolio.

### **5.2 Self-evaluation and learning capabilities**

The current state (as-is) must be expressed at each level, in the three proposed forms: performances, models and ongoing projects. As the approach is presented, this expression is based on a fully-fledged activity at the three levels of evolution management, i.e. this state is reconstructed each time. This reconstruction can be carried out by the company itself or by relying on the services of an external company, which is often the case.

Pushing the logic to its ultimate conclusion means thinking in terms of *internalisation* and *continuity*.

*Internalisation* reflects the fact that the company must be able to do this on its own. Indeed, knowing how to evaluate its performance, model its own operations and monitor its projects are not these skills that every well-organised company should have within it? Just as it is normal for the company to turn to external service providers for design activities (because it may not have the necessary skills in IT, workstation organisation, etc.), it is also necessary for it to be able to express its current state.

*Continuity* is the principle that the company should not have to reconstruct its current state at each step of the process but should be able to know it at every moment. As regards the strategic orientation level, this means implementing a system of performance indicators (performance monitor) that is updated as often as possible and that can be adapted if strategic orientations require a change of indicators. For plan level migration, this means that the company has its own models and that there is someone responsible for updating them each time a change is noticed. By analogy with the technical data that the company necessarily possesses for its technical activities, this set is called organisational data here. Finally, for projects portfolio level, it means following and monitoring the evolution projects (ongoing projects portfolio), which in general is integrated into the company's operations and does not pose any problems. These three elements are grouped together in a set entitled "Enterprise monitoring and documentation". Finally, continuity reflects the obvious fact that in order to evolve continuously, the enterprise must be able to evaluate itself continuously.

In conclusion, the approach proposed here leads to advocate a vision of the enterprise that takes its evolution in hand and that provides itself with the means to constantly learn about and evaluate itself. In this way, the evolution management participates to the development of learning organisations [39, 40].

**Figure 10** summarises this vision and shows the main activities.

*Model-Based Enterprise Continuous Improvement DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96856*

#### **Figure 10.**

*The organisation of evolution in the self-evaluated, learning enterprise.*

#### **5.3 Evolution management and continuous improvement**

The evolution management system entails many aspects consolidating the PDCA approach, well known and used in large groups and even SMEs to sustain quality. Even though strategy, as quoted in section 5.1 is not obviously formalised by SMEs because of their dependencies to big groups, they often use and admit efficiency of PDCA vision or DMAIC (often tightly linked to project approach and can also be assimilated to PDCA cycle). Indeed, PDCA is the fundament of continuous improvement because of the value given to the "Act" step to ensure continuous action on systems to make a progress. In the vision presented here, the actions to carry out are in step "Act" of the PDCA but are no more only corrective actions after "Check" step. They represent also new proactive ideas and prospective plans to improve the whole existing projects system regarding the "output" and "knowledge" got from ongoing projects portfolio and migration plan.

The evolution management reminds the importance for the company to continually formalise and display the targeted performances. The performance objectives are tightly linked to the defined "Strategy" that can be revealed in "Plan" step of PDCA. Updating with "performance targets" planned by company strategy is the potential inducer of "could be" situations.

Concerning migration plan, PDCA and Lean highlight that, whatever modelling approach considered, the "added value" is always the main concept to undertake to keep "efficient" model with the required added values processes, the expected relevant data, the prior decisions and the accurate organisations.

To model the current state (As-is), we should remind that the use of various instruments available to an analyst to build the model as consultation of documents, analysis of computer application screens, field observations and interviews are such many elements absolutely necessary to deal with "reliable" data. From Lean point of view, any process has to be produced respecting "Jidoka" notion which means ensuring the quality "at the source". The current state modelling is critical step that should be made as reliable as possible to avoid wasting times and retro-corrective actions. The more the system is reliably represented the better the "could be" system can be achieved in good conditions. So Jidoka, principle coming from Lean management, is an efficient support for the organisational data sustainability.

Lean practices and Continuous improvement are indubitably the result of human forces, company strategy and collective efforts. By the way, the motivation and involvement of the team project evoked previously is an important part defended by Lean and continuous improvement. Then, evolution management, if well described and explained to the team, is significantly able to strengthen the "Do" step of PDCA.
