883

–Methods for its of examination, approval and review.

–Policy and objectives of the organization.

–Description of the structure of the organization.

–Responsibility, powers and relations.

–Description of the control system.

–Reference to documents that are not included in the manual/guide. The procedure is regarded as the second level in the hierarchy of system

documentation. The procedure is a way to perform an activity or a process. According to ISO 9000: 2000 a «procedure is a certain way to perform an activity or a process». Procedures can be documented or not documented. When the procedure is documented, the term «written procedure» or «documented procedure» can be used [2]. Documented procedures can be formatted as texts, block charts, tables, a combination of transitional or other appropriate forms, in accordance with the needs of the organization. The procedure should be clearly identified. Normally, documented procedures describe activities related to individual functions. They can indicate certain instructions or other documents.

Usually a documented procedure includes:

–A title: it must clearly identify the documented procedure.

–A goal.

–Scope of application: it describes both the areas that should be included, as well as those that should not be included.

–Terms and definitions specific to the particular procedure.

–Content.

–An activity or activities, which are the subject of the procedure.

–Responsibilities.

–The organizational path for the implementation of activities.

–Criteria and constraints imposed.

–Documenting of the activity and distribution of documents.

–Control of activities.

–Validation of the procedure.

–Review of procedure.

–A procedure for the amendments of methods.

Depending on their function, procedures can be divided into organizational and operational. Organizational procedures describe the organization and conduct of activities over time; and operational ones – the conduct of the activity.

111

Instructions are accepted as the third level in the hierarchy of documentation. Usually it is expected that an instruction be developed for the most common tasks or activities of a function. An instruction primarily includes:

–A title.

–A clear name.

–Description of activity.

–Forms.

–Records.

–Review, approval and overhaul.

–Distribution.

–Identification of changes.

The structure, format and level of detail of instructions is determined by the needs of the management staff and depends on the complexity of the task, the methods used, the skills and qualifications of contractors [5, p. 12–14]. Regardless of the form, instructions should reflect the sequence of the operations and requirements. They should contain all necessary materials, tools and documents. It is a good practice to include criteria for evaluation and acceptance.

Instructions can be formatted as text, block charts, models, specifications, manuals, a combination of these, and more.

The instructions may be included in the documented procedures or a reference to them can be made.

The form is the fourth level of documentation. It is a document used to record the data.

Each form must contain:

–A name.

–An identification number.

–Level of review.

–Date of review.

Forms can be cited or appended to the manual/guide, the procedures or the instructions.

The records show achieved results and/or provide evidence for the completion of the activities specified in the procedures and instructions. The record resembles a form with the data in it.

The methods for completing, filing and keeping of records should be indicated.

External documents for the organization are those documents, which have not been created in the organization, but are used in the control system.

112

Such are, for instance, laws and regulations, codes, standards, sketches and client specifications, and so forth.

The organisation shall determine the external documents and their control in its system.

Regarding the documents from the management system, the organisation's management staff must:

–Define and file the procedures for development, validation, review and revocation of documents.

–Examine them for adequacy until their entrance into effect.

–Conduct regular analysis and if necessary organize their checking for completeness and adequacy.

–Regulate the use of documents that have received approval under the proper terms.

–Identify uniquely each document and each of its versions.

–Control the copying of documents.

–Determine the code for their filing.

In order to illustrate the foregoing, I would like to present a sample set of documented procedures/instructions, which should be developed in any organisation that designs and develops its own new products. The study of the needs and desires of customers, as well as the analysis of customer complaints and claims, regarding an ongoing product, can be used as an input to the design and development. Here are some of them:

–Marketing requirements of the designers.

–Data collected prior to design.

–Desired user parameters and product characteristics.

–Requirements and limitations of the technology used in the manufacture of the product.

–Limits as to cost/planned selling price of the product.

–Restrictions imposed by standards and other normative documents.

–Information and experience from previous projects.

–Transformation/conversion of the needs and desires of the consumers into indicators and characteristics of the product.

–Comparison between the capacity of the organisation and the needs of the customers.

–Assignment for designing a new product.

–Rounds and deadlines in the production of the design.

–Control during design.

–Acceptance and evaluation of the project, i.e.:

113

1.Output data from the design. Such as.

2.Information about the organization and implementation of the product: sketches, recipes, technical specifications, description of the technology, technology modes, work instructions, specifications.

3.Criteria for product acceptance.

4.Information necessary for safe operation of the product by consumers.

5.Information for purchased items.

6.Permits, licenses, certificates and so forth, needed to begin produc-

tion:

– to develop a prototype/prototypes;

– to test a prototype/prototypes;

– to assess the product;

– to amend the documentation of the project after testing;

– approval of project documentation;

– organization of a trial series;

– evaluation of test series.

The stated so far allows for the conclusion that the development of documentation flow is a critical factor for the development and improvement of any organisation, as it thus creates maximum transparency benefiting the needs of society in terms of operations, tactics and strategy. Any emerging misconstructions regarding those find fast resolution both thanks to the analytical and to the normative factors. In general terms, document flow becomes a lawful and partly bureaucratic fundament for sustainable organizational development.

References

1.БДС EN ISO 9000. Системи за управление на качеството. Основни принципи и речник.

2.ISO\ TR 10013. Указания за документиране на система за управление на качеството.

3.Димитров И., Логистичен мениджмънт. Ун-т «Проф. д-р Асен Златаров». – Бургас, 2004.

4.Димитров И., Павлова Д. Основни аспекти на тоталното управление на качеството // Годишник на университет «Проф. д-р Асен Злата-

ров». – Бургас, 2004. – Т. XXXIІI.

5.Стоянов Е. Финансово-контролни системи и институции; Либра скорп. – Бургас, 2011.

114

S. Tranev

University «Prof. Dr. Asen Zlatarov»

Burgas, Repablic of Bulgaria

IMPROVEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

The report examines the development and improvement of organizational behaviour. This continuous process is analyzed as a specific result of the influence that trends emerging in the environment surrounding organisations exert on it. The content of this environment includes the economic reality and economic situation. The components of this environment naturally reflect on the organizational behaviour. Adaptation to the specific economic environment in this system of organizational operations and activities is the adequate response of any organization that seeks survival and sustainable development.

Keywords: development, economic environment, economic situation, organizational behaviour, sustainable development.

The goal of this article is to offer analysis of the key factors, which shape the profile of the environment.

The tasks that ensure the realization of the goal are purely analytical in nature.

As they grow, organizations are regularly faced with fundamental changes to the external factors. During such periods, due to the changing user preferences, social values, demographic profile and other exogenous factors, an atmosphere of insecurity is being created, often requiring the organisation to make significant changes in its working process in order to reduce risks. Thus, it seems that questions about the manner, type of conditions and timing of organisational response to the challenges of the external factors become crucial for the study of organizational adaptation.

The relationship between the external factors and organizational adaptation, where adaptation can be defined as "a change in a key organizational signifier, such as strategy or organizational structure in response to changes of the external factors" has been for a long time one of the main topics of discussion. The main and common argument on adaptation is the identification of the key forces, which inspire the efforts of the organization to reinvent itself in response to the changes. It is also in this respect where the main shortcomings of the traditional adaptation models are manifested. They tend to present adaptation as a dual process, in which the organization opposes external factors and seeks answers while presented with social exclusion.

115

When developing adaptation models and studying the optimal conditions for their application one looks for the opportunity to measure the impact of factors most accurately in order to choose the most appropriate type of behaviour for adaptation. Stinchcombe [2] argues that external factors have disproportionate impact on new firms in comparison with those already working in the same field. Young companies find themselves in conditions, which hinder their activity and require the investment of substantial funds for their adaptation. The structure and processes within the organization grow relatively quickly and the members of the organization get accustomed to find in them the only way to increase their efficiency.

Problems arise from the fact that the internal factors are composed of interrelated elements and it is difficult to replace only one of them without causing a negative impact on the rest. Overall, young firms invest in people, technology and assets, which can not be changed in the short term due to the limited resources they have available. In this situation, even the slight decrease in efficiency leads to inability of the organization to seek opportunities for adaptation to more favourable working conditions.

Stinchcombe emphasizes the impact of two groups of factors, which influence the company's ability to seek any type of strategic adaptation. Organizations face a number of dangers, due to lack of influence and impact on existing suppliers. The second group of factors are purely organizational, i.e. young organizations usually have key members that take up unfamiliar for them roles, which in turn directly affects their performance at work.

According to Carroll and Delacroix [3] external factors play a leading part in shaping the capabilities of newly created organisations to procure resources. It is the amount of available resources and the ability to obtain additional resources that largely determines the potential of the organization to adapt. The emerging markets turn out to be a factor, which hinders new businesses due to the need to foresee the appropriate time of entry. These companies do not possess the resources to withstand competition when entering such markets and investors can quickly lose interest. Even if they manage to enter, these companies are too "dried-up" to be able to benefit from their growth. Meanwhile, new constraints may arise, due to outdating of technology and work habits.

The relationship between external factors and the formation of organizational strategy has been the subject of empirical research for a long period of time, focusing on the different strategic orientations and the operationalization of environmental factors. One of the most widely used and empirically verified

116

in scientific and practical aspects classification that of Miles and Snow, dates back to the same period. Miles and Snow [6, р. 77-88] derive four types of strategic orientation through which the organization adapts, and namely: Prospectors, Defenders, Analysers and Reactors.

Prospectors are organizations, which constantly seek out new market opportunities and compete largely by introducing new products to the market. Prospectors are most common in environments with volatile and dynamic external factors. To make such a strategy successful, they look for opportunities to control changes in the external factors. Thus the organization's flexibility increases and the fast response to market changes is ensured. On this basis, it can be argued that the planning of organizational development of Prospector firms requires the establishment of decentralized structures.

Defenders are organizations, which are situated at the opposite end of the strategic spectrum. They operate in relatively stable market segments and compete primarily on the basis of better quality, service and prices. In their case planning is more intense and structures are more formalized and centralized.

Analysers are organizations, which due to their greater flexibility, combine features of both Prospectors and Defenders. They work on established markets and offer proven products, but sometimes also try to enter into new markets. In general, Analysers’ businesses are more complex in organizational terms, and bring together the characteristics of centralized and decentralized organizations.

Reactors are organizations, which are characterized by the absence of a coherent strategy and are commonly regarded as volatile and non-viable.

Research suggests that successful Prospectors use performance measures systems mostly interactively, while successful Defenders mostly diagnostically [4]. This is explained by the fact that Prospectors face greater constraints to the necessary knowledge than Defenders do, and focusing is possible and appropriate only when sufficient knowledge is available, respectively sufficient certainty on the underlying business model [5]. The design of performance measures system should be based on the return of management as a maximization criterion, where manager’s time and attention is a scarce resource and has to be optimized. This measure shows the return of investments in scarce resources (e.g. manager’s time and attention). Return of management is not a quantifiable amount, so the manager can only determine it as an intuitive estimate. Also, as a control quantity it can indicate directions, but not definite targets [1].

117

Ramastvami, Thomas and Litcher have expressed certain disagreement with these statements. As a result of their research they find that Defenders perform better than Prospectors in the conditions of a controlled environment.

Given the relationship between the structural characteristics of the organization and the external factors Stalker identifies two types of organizational structures: mechanistic and organic, each of which is expected to be more effective for a specific type of impact of external factors. In this regard, Galbraith concludes that the relative effectiveness of different organizational types is a function of the exogenous factors.

Subsequently, the attempts to explain the relationship between external factors and type of organization are separated into two strands: analysis of strategic choice and organizational environment. Strategic choices are based on the belief that management decisions about how the organization should respond to changes in external factors are an important determinant of organizational performance.

Focusing on this perspective, organizations not only adapt to environmental factors, but the larger ones try to influence them. In this sense, typology, such as that of Miles and Snow, and approach such as Frisen's are perceived as common reference points for describing and predicting organizational behaviour and guidelines for adaptation. As a result of the increased dynamics in the modification of external factors at the present time, the different approaches to adaptation cannot be accepted as successful in just any configuration of the environmental factors.

The approach however is different when one is looking for an explanation of the relationship between the type of adaptation and the impact of external factors through analysis of the organizational environment. This approach takes the organizational environment as a totality, made up of numerous niches, each of which preconditions both the resources and the constraints of the organization.

One of the key principles of this approach is that within each niche there are organizations, pursuing more adequate strategies, which make them more successful, but there are also those who suffer setbacks. What is however common for both types of organizations is their low level of alteration as they are subject to strong inertial forces. This is seen as a reason to claim that the substantial differences in performance and approaches to adaptation of the various organizations will be maintained.

Common for both analytical approaches studying the relationship between external factors on the one hand, and the type of organization and adap-

118

tation on the other, is that the competitive strategy of the organizations changes in two main directions: developing competitive advantage and changing the scope of action. The first direction proscribes that the organization should grab every opportunity to achieve innovative market position and increase its effectiveness on the already exploited markets. With regards to the second direction, the organization can either maintain a narrow scope of action, or take up an expansionist approach.

The conclusion that can be drawn is that there is a direct correlation between the conditions of the external factors and the demand for approaches to organizational adaptation. The difficulties, which arise from the choice of type of adaptation, are caused by the dynamics in the changing of factors on the one hand and the organizational inertia on the other.

Therefore, the tools, which will largely determine the degree of effectiveness of the preferred type of adaptation, are the feasible methodology by which external factors are measured and in effect only they can set and provoke the adequacy of the mere change.

References

1.Dimitrov I., Petkova St. Theoretic Investigation of the Determinants Impact on the Level of Decentralization and Performance Measurement System Choices // Manufacturing and Management: Scientific Conference with International Participation in 21-st Century. – Skopje, 2004.

2.Ketchen DJ, Thomas JB. Organizational configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches // Academy of Management Journal, 0001 4273. – Dec. 1993. – Vol. 36. – Iss. 6.

3.Kraatz M.S. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change // Academy of Management Journal, 00014273. – Dec. 1998. – Vol. 41. – Iss. 6.

4.Димитров И. Проблеми при разработката на системи от показатели // Управление и устойчиво развитие. – София, 2004.

5.Димитров И., Петкова Ст. Насоки за усъвършенстване на системата от показатели в организацията // Мениджмънт и инженеринг: II Междунар. конф. – София, 2004.

6.Стоянов Евг. Системи за управленски контрол; Либра скорп. – Бургас, 2009.

119

P. Yangyozov

University «Prof. Dr. Asen Zlatarov»

Burgas, Republic of Bulgaria

METHODOLOGY FOR BUSINESS PROCESSES

OPTIMIZATION WITHIN THE DYNAMIC MODEL FOR BUSINESS

PROCESSES IMPROVEMENT

The goal of the present paper is to present the methodology, through which the business processes optimization performs. It is carry out in the second module of the dynamic model of business processes improvement – module "Process optimization". Through the developed methodology the actual improvement of each process is implemented. Also, the nature and principle of operation optimization are described. Optimization is presented as a process that must be performed continuously to increase the income and benefits for the organization. The improvement of the processes is divided into two stages – preparatory stage and optimization stage. Each of them is represented by specific phases. They should be implemented consistently. In the preparatory stage, the actual business processes and the improvement goal are transformed into vectors. This conversion is conditional and it is made for easy observation. The comparison between real vectors (business processes) and the goal vector (improvement goal) is carried out in the optimization stage. Then their effectiveness, potential and priorities for improvement is established. In case of deviations in favor of the goal vector must be proceed to the application of optimization tools. Then the simulation of the improvements must be performed to determine their sustainability. If the improvements are not sustainable in time, implementation of the optimization tools should be performed once more.

Keywords: business process, preparatory stage, optimization stage, vector, comparison, process improvement

Introduction. An organization, which should be competitive on the market, has to have a set of qualities. They include operational productivity, administrative efficiency, agility, shorter turnaround times and increased shareholder value. The key for reaching those results is the business process improvement [3]. The main objective of business process improvement is identifying and eliminating of those ones, which are of non-value-added, as well as those ones should be simplified, which bring less or greater valueadded of an organization [8]. It is a continuous process that most often leads to a change in both the production and the managerial structure [4, p. 1]. This change requires a reorganization of existing business processes, which in turn

120