Implementierung als Kernaufgabe des Wandlungsmanagements

Implementation of Urban Logistics Systems

“…Zeyer (1996) primarily attended to the social factors and affected parties because the research posited, those stakeholders can act as opponents, indifferentists, or promotors of an implementation undertaking. This is supported by Krüger (1997), who also focused solely on people-related barriers using the same segmentation but with more detail. In contrast, Daniel (2001) Promoting factors in both dimensions should be used in the implementation process for the good.…”

“…Turning to factual-related aims, these are situated within the strategic triangle of qualitycost-time (Krüger, 1997). Hence, conflicts usually arise between these three aims because the respective implementation undertakings can only cover a part of the triangle (Krüger, 1997).…”

“…Turning to factual-related aims, these are situated within the strategic triangle of qualitycost-time (Krüger, 1997). Hence, conflicts usually arise between these three aims because the respective implementation undertakings can only cover a part of the triangle (Krüger, 1997). The quality of the implementation can be understood as the degree of achievement of the concept aims (Grimmeisen, 1998), which is the most complete possible and error-free fitting of the implementation object in the implementation context (Zeyer, 1996).…”

“…Engstler ( 2009) also described a successive transition where the 'new' is divided into several modules that are implemented step-by-step to replace the 'old'. Roughly, different context transition strategies can be summarized with phases of 'unfreezing', 'moving', and 'refreezing', according to Krüger (1997), or 'planning', 'realization', and 'control', as described by Heusler (2004). The decision about which strategy to choose is also interrelated with the implementation object scope, whether a complete concept is planned to be implemented at once or in parts, and whether a 'perfect' solution is desired or a proximity solution (Engstler, 2009).…”

“…To conclude, based on the discussion above, it is clear how complex the implementation configuration is. Consequently, it is unsurprising that scholars describe the implementation context as an iceberg, where only factual management related to costs, quality, and time are visible at first, and although questions about competence and behavior are closely related -they are invisible underwater (Krüger, 1997). Given this broad understanding, it must be noted that there is no 'one fits all' solution, as every implementation undertaking vastly differ in a number of areas (Scharfenberg, 1997), such as in terms of the implementation object, the implementation context, the implementation timing, and style.…”