Usando a perspectiva BPM para o aprimoramento de processos no setor da construção naval e o<i>ffshore</i>: estudo de caso no polo naval de Rio Grande (RS)

Silva, Jéssica Carvalho da; Longaray, André Andrade; Munhoz, Paulo Roberto; Castelli, Tiago Machado

Jéssica Carvalho da Silva

Laboratório de Estudos e Pesquisas em Metodologias de Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão – LabSADi, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande – FURG, Av. Itália, Km 08, Campus Carreiros, CEP 96203-900, Rio Grande, RS, Brasil, e-mail: carvalho6jessica@gmail.com; andrelongaray@gmail.com; paulorsmunhoz@gmail.com; tiagorip@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9702-4495

André Andrade Longaray

Laboratório de Estudos e Pesquisas em Metodologias de Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão – LabSADi, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande – FURG, Av. Itália, Km 08, Campus Carreiros, CEP 96203-900, Rio Grande, RS, Brasil, e-mail: carvalho6jessica@gmail.com; andrelongaray@gmail.com; paulorsmunhoz@gmail.com; tiagorip@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2908-9390

Paulo Roberto Munhoz

Laboratório de Estudos e Pesquisas em Metodologias de Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão – LabSADi, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande – FURG, Av. Itália, Km 08, Campus Carreiros, CEP 96203-900, Rio Grande, RS, Brasil, e-mail: carvalho6jessica@gmail.com; andrelongaray@gmail.com; paulorsmunhoz@gmail.com; tiagorip@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4077-4831

Tiago Machado Castelli

Laboratório de Estudos e Pesquisas em Metodologias de Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão – LabSADi, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande – FURG, Av. Itália, Km 08, Campus Carreiros, CEP 96203-900, Rio Grande, RS, Brasil, e-mail: carvalho6jessica@gmail.com; andrelongaray@gmail.com; paulorsmunhoz@gmail.com; tiagorip@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7409-8643

Stage	Description
I. Requisite Development	Client demands and considerations regarding details, costs and the vessel’s function are met.
II. Concept/preliminary design	Basic vessel characteristics from demands determined in stage I.
III. Contract Project	Based on the preliminary project, with detailed description of budget aspects, a contract is drawn.
IV. Contracting	Hiring of the shipyard that will build the vessel is done, taking into consideration factors such as cost, delivery date and performance requisites.
V. Planning and detailing project	Building schedule is defined.
VI. Construction	1^st level: Processes relating to purchasing raw materials and needed components as well as parts manufacture.
	2^nd level: Processes relating to product and component fusion, which originates sub-blocks or units.
	3^rd level: Processes relating to production of hull blocks (created by fusion of parts).
	4^th level: Processes relating to building that involves joining of blocks at the end of the vessel assembly stage.

Author (s)	Concepts/Characteristics
Davenport (1993Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press., p. 6)	It is a “[…] specific ordering of work activities in time, with a beginning, an end, entrance and exit, all clearly identified: a structure for action […]”
Association of Business Process Management Professionals Brasil (ABPMP, 2013Association of Business Process Management Professionals Brasil – ABPMP. (2013). BPM CBOK: guia para o gerenciamento de processos de negócio – corpo comum de conhecimento. Retrieved in 2019, September 3, from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abpmp.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/ABPMP_CBOK_Guide__Portuguese.pdf http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abpmp.org/r... , p. 35)	It is an “[…] aggregate of activities and behaviours conducted by humans or machines to achieve one or more results […]”
Baldam et al. (2014Baldam, R., Valle, R., & Silva, H. P. (2014). Gerenciamento de processos de negócio – BPM: uma referência para uma implantação prática. São Paulo: Elsevier., p. 3)	It is a “[…] set of interlinked, or interactive, activities that transform inputs into outputs […]”
Davenport & Short (1990)Davenport, T. H., & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31, 11-26.	Are characterized by having internal or external clients and being interfunctional as they cross over departments in their organizational structure and may occur between organizational sub-units.
Smith & Fingar (2003)Smith, H., & Fingar, P. (2003). Business process management: the third wave. Tampa: Meghan-Kiffer Press.	Are characterized by, being complex and having extension (size and/or duration); being dynamic; can be widely distributed (that is, execute multiple applications on several technological platforms); they are programmable, when speed and accuracy are crucial; technologically dependent; depend on human judgement and rely on human intelligence; aren’t always easily understood (generally they are neither conscious nor explicit) and require coordination.

Symbology	Meaning
	Operation (rectangle): An activity is described in it to show it
	Movement / Transport (thick arrow): shows physical movement between locations.
	Decision Point (Diamond): Represents the point of the process where a decision must be made, where the following sequences of activities shall depend on the taken decision.
	Inspection (large circle) Shows that the process flow is interrupted so that quality of outputs may be evaluated. It may also show the point in which an approval signature becomes necessary.
	Printed Document (rectangle with wavy background): Shows the exit of an activity with information registered in paper.
	Hold (round sided rectangle): Is used, when a person, item or activity needs to wait for the following programmed activity to be executed.
	Storage (triangle): Represents a storage condition under control and an order or requisition is needed to remove the item for the following activity.
	Annotation (open rectangle): Registers any additional information regarding the symbol to which it is linked.
	Flow direction (arrow): Shows the direction and sequence of the process stages.
	Transmission (interrupted arrow): Identifies the occurrence of information transmission.
	Connection: small circle. A small circle with a letter indicates that the exit of that part of the flowchart shall be used as an entrance in another flowchart.
	Limits (elongated circle): Shows the beginning and end of the process.

Abbreviation	Classification
IDEF0	Function Modelling
IDEF1	Information Modelling
IDEF1X	Data Modelling
IDEF2	Simulation Model Design
IDEF3	Process Description Capture
IDEF4	Object-Oriented Design
IDEF5	Ontology Description Capture
IDEF6	Design Rationale Capture
IDEF7	Information System Auditing
IDEF8	Using Interface Modelling
IDEF9	Scenario-Driven IS Design
IDEF10	Implementation Architecture Modelling
IDEF11	Information Artifact Modelling
IDEF12	Organization Modelling
IDEF13	Three Schema Mapping Design
IDEF14	Network Design

Tool/ methodology	Characteristics	Objective	Focus	Application	Application duration	Complexity of application
Flowchart	Use of standard graphs and symbols	Present steps and events that occur during execution of a process	Process	All types of organization	Short	Low
IDEF	Definition of inputs and outputs, process restrictions and interactions, use of the set of IDEF techniques	Allow for a complete and complex analysis of processes	Process	All types of organization	Medium	Medium
BPM	Use of a 4-stage cycle	Complete understanding about the process and its redesign.	Process	All types of organization	Long	High

Ativities	Predecessor	Successor	Responsable	Duration of Execution
1.1. Arrival of SB and material in the Advanced Post of the Fiscal Sector	Referent to the previous process not analysed in this study.	1.2	Administrative Assistant	Automatic
1.2. Verification of SB and PO	1.1	1.3 or 1.6	Administrative Assistant	Up to 30 min. (Relative to quantity of items in the SB and PO)
1.3. SB is launched in ERP1 by the Advanced Post	1.2 or 1.9	1.4	Administrative Assistant	On average 15 minutes (Relative to the quantity of items in the SB)
1.4. Verification of physical quantity and quantity in the SB and PO	1.3	1.5 or 1.8	Warehouse	Up to 8 hours (relative to quantity of materials)
1.5. Warehouse confirms launch of SB in ERP 1	1.4	End	Warehouse	Automatic
1.6. Advanced Post contacts buyers	1.2	1.7	Administrative Assistant	Automatic
1.7. Buyer reviews the PO in ERP 2	1.6 or 1.8	1.3	Buyer	Relative to the detected problem
1.8. Warehouse contacts buyers	1.4	1.7 or 1.9	Warehouse	Automatic
1.9. Buyer requests changing the SB with the supplier.	1.8	1.3	Buyer	Relative to supplier mood

Parameter	Description	Evaluation
Complexity Level	Complexity due to range of stages to conclude something, depending on the level of complexity may create difficulties. As such, this parameter shall evaluate the complexity of activities.	- No complexity; - Low complexity; - Medium complexity; - High complexity.
Utility Level (of the activities)	Utility is about how useful something is. As such, this parameter shall evaluate the utility of activities for concluding the process.	- No utility; - Low utility; - Absolute utility; - High utility.
Involvement Level (of people)	Involvement is about the compromise people have with the activities they are performing. As such, this parameter shall evaluate peoples’ involvement in activities and the process.	- Not involved; - Little involved; - Involved; - Very involved.
Compatibility Level (between ERP and the process)	Compatibility is about the state of things that are in agreeance. As such, this parameter shall evaluate the compatibility between the used ERPs in the process and the organization.	- Not compatible; - Little compatible; - compatible; - Very compatible.
ERP employment level	ERP is a system the presents and manages processes and data from the company sectors. As such, this parameter shall evaluate the frequency of ERP use in the process.	- Infrequent; - Little frequent; - Frequent; - Very frequent.
Level of flaws	Flaws come from errors that occurred in processes. As such this parameter shall evaluate the flaws in the process generated by inputs and outputs that are missing, redundant or illogical.	- No flaw; - Little flaw; - A few flaws; - Many flaws.

Interviewee	Id	Position	Sector
1	E1	Administrative Assistant	Tax
2	E2	Technical support	Warehouse
3	E3	Buyer	Supplies

Id	Evidence
E1	The process is quite practical and of low complexity. E1 states that nothing would be changed in the process, but often due to some urgency, the process is not completed, exceptions are made. What I would change is that, I would not open any exceptions. E1 alleges, “[…] there is no way of decreasing the existing bureaucracy as it is essential”.
E2	The process is of medium complexity, as it requires “[...] material knowledge on behalf of who receives and verifies […]” “[…] for staff who already have this know-how, this brings no issues, but when new staff with little experience are concerned there are difficulties which imply longer time to verify materials... this can delay the process”.
E3	The process is of high complexity due to “[…] the company employing two ERP systems to work... with a lot of flaws in their integration […]”, furthermore he states that “[…] the company’s systems are too static... generating delays in receiving of SB and in receiving merchandise”. He states that systems are too bureaucratic and with two parallel systems where only the purchase sector uses one and the other is shared by the rest of the organization.

Id	Evidence
E1	All of the process activities have full utility. E1 states, “[…] none has greater importance or utility than the other, for each stage exists for a reason”.
E2	All the activities have high utility for process conclusion. E2 states, “[…] the highest point should be receiving and the second should be its conclusion in the system, with other activities being of equal weight in utility, by maintaining that part constant, the rest should keep flowing”.
E3	Activities conducted in this process have high utility, but the most useful activity is verification of SB and PO to check they are in accordance with other activities, having the same level of utility.

Id	Evidence from interviews
E1	A few people are a little involved and others very involved in following procedure. According to it “[…] sometimes people deviate from procedure due to orders given from above […]” and in other cases “[…] due to sectors having different goals the trend is for each department to direct procedure in a way that makes his tasks easier […]”, thus “originating inter sector clashes”. In some cases, “[…] due to needing materials not done earlier in the process, implying a deviation in the procedure […]”, such as when “when the supplier is authorized to deliver supplies without the purchase being authorized in the system” when the materials reach the shipyard, the procedure is compromised as if it does enter it won’t be possible to register it in the system and stock won’t be updated.
E2	“[…] people are committed to their activities […]”, “[…] they are focused on concluding the receiving process as quick and correct as possible, both the verification part as well as the launching part and even material delivery.... the auditor tries to interrupt when errors are detected in the PO, contacting the warehouse immediately, who in turn give their feedback as quick as possible,.... we have an open management style that I believe makes people want to do the right thing”.
E3	“[…] most people are committed to their activities, but a minority is not involved”. For E3, those who are not committed would “[…] rather not deal with the problem themselves, are not worried about the process”. As for those who are committed “[…] want to see the problems solved as they want to see the organization prosper”. He also stated that a certain lack of commitment on behalf of the approvers, where “[…] complete approval of a PO takes at least 40 days”.

Id	Evidence
E1	“Regarding tax entries, the system is compatible, as only one is used... however when considering other issues such as PO or stocks where one system has to communicate with the other generating flaws... together they are not compatible”. When the “[…] non-integration of PO in one of the systems occurs it stops the PO from being approved […]”, primarily preventing materials from entering the shipyard. “The materials stock is controlled by one computerized system and the tax entries for the SB are done in another system that often does not share information with the other”. For E1, systems enable visualization of information by several sectors and that facilitates the conduction of activities: however, “the obtained information is not reliable”.
E2	The organization has “[…] a huge problem, as procurement works with one computerized system, the tax department with another and the warehouse uses both systems and as such needs to have an interface, working perfectly, but there are many flaws with this interface... the systems are good independently, but as a working pair not at 100%”. “When (integration) works, one can instantly get figures for materials, reports, material costs, verify minimum and maximum stocks… but one cannot overly depend on them as these are not 100% accurate. Each time a report is issued, it must be verified… This is why we normally work with excel spreadsheets to double check”. To improve system integration “it is easier to modify one systems rather than the other”… regarding the system subject to change, the organization uses different data bases, whereas the system which will not be altered has a single data base” for all its units. This has direct consequences on “[…] supplier payments… causes double the work load in several sectors… causing the process to be lengthier”. Finally, he states, “[…] independently they (systems) are compatible, but as a set, there are flaws with their integration, thus are not very compatible”.
E3	“One or the other (system) is compatible, but together they are delaying this process as often they do not communicate with each other. Those systems together do not help at all”. “Their lack of integration slows down financial approval, as often the PO does not migrate from one system to the other, where the approval takes place”. That implies a delay in the flow of this and the next processes, a delay and lack of financial approval of Pos, a delay in materials receiving… delays in supplier payments”.

Id	Evidence
E1	ERP use is “very frequent”. However, when “[…] supplies arrive without a valid PO, they should not make it into the shipyard, unless there is an order form someone higher up saying those supplies should enter, in which case the supplies do enter the shipyard and the invoice is launched in the system at a later stage, after the process is normalized”. E1 states the use of ERP for tax entries is of high importance as “[…] they are integrated... it will provide information for other sectors”.
E2	ERP use is “frequent”, however, when “[…] supplies are of high importance or of extreme urgency... and we receive a SB with 100 items and one of them is faulty we cannot register that SB... as such we set up an excel spreadsheet to show this... and finally when this is sorted, the SB is entered into the system”. For E2, the use of systems is fundamental, “[…] as anything done in parallel (in Excel) is subject to failure, whereas the system is subject to investigation and audits”. For E2, the reason ERP is not so used is “[…] the urgency in using the materials. For consumer goods and office supplies, 95% is used in the system as they tend to be national suppliers, thus the process is normalized swiftly. Whereas project supplies are mostly imported and by the time someone checks to find something wrong with them they are already in the yard... 30% to 35% are carried through a parallel process to be normalized later”. Finally, he states “[…] the impact is extremely high... as they are dealing with tax documents, with tax benefits, and any mistake is subject to penalties and fines for the organization and for the person who conducted that process”.
E3	“I always conduct my activities in the system”. ERP use is “very frequent”. For E3, their use when conducting POs is fundamental.

Id	Evidence
E1	“What I can identify as a flaw is the non-fulfilment of the procedure... many exceptions are made, causing flaws to occur”. “It is quite common to have approvers travel to China on work and when that happens they do not approve. Therefore it is quite common to have expired payment orders that were not registered in the system… generating delays in supplier payments”. “Should supplies be received while the PO has not been yet approved, it will physically be in the warehouse, but it will not exist in the system, as what informs the system is the entry of the note, thus there is a massive loss of information throughout all sectors”. Furthermore, “[…] when the PO is sent to the supplier without having been approved, he will receive it again by email, automatically through the system.... then what happens is the supplier sends the materials again. Then, the supplies are duplicated in the warehouse, the system and in payments as well”. As such, E1 suggests the “procedure must be followed.... the supplier must receive the PO after it has been approved.” Finally, E1 states “[…] currently there are a few flaws, but a few months ago there were many flaws… less than six months ago, consumption materials had few mistakes, but project materials saw about 80% of its invoices be reviewed and altered”.
E2	“As well as existing flaws due to lack of integration among systems, there is also a lack of diligence, of materials exiting from the supplier to us”. “Most suppliers do not schedule their deliveries and deliver them at will... this generates us having to chase around the POs and most times the PO has not even been drawn up yet”. E2 suggests that not only flaws in integration must be solved, there must be a better diligence or the transport must be paid for by the organization. The cost may be a bit higher, but materials will come with a quality certificate that most times does not exist...that would solve around 90% of issues at receiving ... in national materials the supplier could send a copy of the SB and the corresponding PO so that an initial count could be done... and for international materials there should be someone verifying in the country of origin. Since when this material is received with divergences, these are extremely difficult to solve”. Finally, E2 states “[…] there are some flaws, but more flaws occur with platform application materials where as they occur very rarely with consumption materials”.
E3	“The flaws that can be seen are a function of the use of both systems and the delay of PO approvals... generating difficulties in merchandise receiving, SB registry and supplier payments”. E3 states he took part in the “war room” for a period of between 35 to 40 days, where processes that involved 1200 SBs were normalized and updated and more than 300 PO had to be done. After 60 days, only 10 Pos had been fully approved and the remaining ones were waiting for approval by the organization’s leadership. According to E3, “[…] the organization should choose one single system ... and thus simplify bureaucracy within the approval process... because if the process is to be counted from its beginning when the Materials Requisition was made (Materials Requisition - activity from a previous process than the one analysed in this study), between both systems, may lead to up to 9 approvals”.

[1] Source: based on Storch et al. (1995)Storch, R. L., Hammon, C. P., Bunch, H. M., & Moore, R. C. (1995). Ship production: Cornell maritime press. Maryland: Centerville..

Brasil

Brasil

Usando a perspectiva BPM para o aprimoramento de processos no setor da construção naval e offshore: estudo de caso no polo naval de Rio Grande (RS)

Resumo