Three Groups at Boeing Zero in on Performance Measurement (published by National Productivity Review, Spring 1994)
The Blossoming of Melissa (published by Roots and Wings Adoption Magazine, Jan/Feb/Mar 1996)
Learning to Walk the Leadership Talk? (published by Healthcare Executive Mar/Apr 1994)
Using Leadership Criteria to Measure and Reward Performance (published by Physician Executive, Aug 1995)
Practice what you Preach (published by Best Practice, "Measuring Performance" Issue, IFS International Lmt, UK)
Integrating Processes and Performance: Benchmarks and Keys to Quality (published by Performance & Instruction, Sept 1993) ...and 19 more Three Groups at Boeing Zero In on Performance Measurement
[by JT Carr, published in National Productivity Review/ Spring 1994 p245-255] How are you measuring performance? Are you measuring the right things? The three case studies presented here measure leadership performance, focusing specifically on productivity. The message is twofold. First, performance criteria can be standardized for both management and staff. The difference is in what and how it is measured. Second, productivity--in terms of knowing the processes or steps, and using techniques such as simplicity-- is neither well-understood nor included as part of most performance measures. In many companies and departments, people are planning, managing and measuring quality improvements, yet many managers implement, manage, and measure quality improvements without an understanding of standard [management] processes, methods, and their integration. Further more, they talk about leadership but do not act as leaders; implement quality improvement efforts without an appropriate understanding of (1) how to recognize and measure quality performance, (2) how to measure productivity, or (3) how to reward people for quality efforts and achievements; are intolerant of failure; are threatened by change; and are unable to admit their own mistakes and failures. These managers often do not realize that logical processes known as structured methods exist, and that understanding the integration of the processes leads to improvements in quality. Structured methods are systematic approaches of logical analysis, design, and development. Processes or systems can be defined as a set of facts, principles, or rules, arranged in an orderly form. When some type of logic links the parts, they are called structured. Structured methods translate functions into a set of steps. In the case studies that follow, the specific steps used to enhance productivity, teamwork, and creativity (entrepreneurship) are outlined. The results of these steps, and their inherent risks are also discussed. Case Study #1: Telecommunications Services: Training Department--Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group To order telephones and other telecommunications services, the staff had to work with different telephone organizations within Boeing. Each group had different requirements, different technology, and different ordering terminology and abbreviations. Customers did not know when or where their telephones were being moved. Some training instructor-customers did not have proper telephone line service in the classrooms. Installation errors, omission of features desired,and changes in type of service occurred frequently. Costly emergency services were unnecessarily requested by middle managers. Boeing guidelines and directives that specified telecommunications policy for management and staff were not followed. People who complained loudest were assisted first. First-line managers were permitted costly telephone equipment and service reserved for upper management. Pagers and answering machines were ordered without thought to costs. Customers were unaware of the various features on standard telephone service. No training on telephone features and benefits had been provided. Duplication of resources occurred frequently. To improve this situation, the training department began applying productivity techniques. The process of ordering telephones and service was simplified by negotiating with the supplier. Common English rather than "telephonese" was suggested when ordering new equipment and services to decrease mistakes and omissions. Clear wording and complete information improved productivity. Establishing one contact person for each of the telephone companies was critical to reducing variability in information. The problem-solving process (analysis, feedback and follow-up) helped to uncover the more- than -100 phones not in use. New procedures were noted, drafted, and placed in a procedures book to be written up later. Mind mapping was used as a productivity tool for note taking, to generate ideas, and in developing/presenting staff briefings. As a result, the internal process of ordering telephones, faxes, and other telecommunications equipment was streamlined; internal telephone problems were resolved in one to three days, rather than weeks; and the unused telephones were disconnected. Expensive and inappropriate telephone service was corrected. For example, a free long-distance feature was removed from the telephones in classroom areas. Instead, alternate calling methods and services were posted near the phones. Voice mail was recommended, pilot -tested, and approved. The existing telephone answering machines were recommended for use in locations where voice mail was not yet available, thus expanding the use of available resources. Pagers were recommended only for those with a need. Training was offered for managers in using existing telephone features and equipment more productively. Managers could override recommendations as desired. Variations in written standards versus actual practice were brought to the attention of middle and senior management. Performance was measured according to teamwork, productivity, and entrepreneurship [creativity], with special emphasis on productivity, in terms of (1) smart work (using productivity techniques) and (2) simplicity (keeping things simple and streamlining). Among the lessons learned: Simplicity: Use simple, clear language whenever possible. Investigate the major data sources and reports available. Many reports and sources contained all the data necessary to accomplish the work. Teamwork and Quality Work: Building self esteem, fostering trust, discouraging misplaced competition, and various structured processes, such as planning, need to be better understood and practiced by managers. Performance: Managers and their colleagues need to talk more to one another; often their information, guidance, and actions were contradictory. Middle/top managers, as well as staff, need a standard performance criteria based on productivity, teamwork and entrepreneurship to successfully motivate them to achieve the right quality improvements. Managers and leaders need to be measured and rewarded for productivity and teamwork and for "follow my lead" performance. Case Study #2: Capital Asset Inventory--Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group Capital Asset Inventory is an annual inventory by each organization or department of items costing over $1,000 each. There were no written procedures on how the inventory had been conducted in previous years, and previous years' staff were not available for help. A Master Report by the Capital Asset Department, as well as some definitions of terms, were provided. Many items were listed as lost; other items were reported as having been transferred to another organization or location. The Capital Asset Department tried to find out more about these transactions, but no identification of equipment by manager was available. To solve this problem, a database of thousands of items was designed and implemented. Physical audits of more than 800 items were conducted at four sites in two days by one temporary staffer. Procedures and guidelines were developed and published. Items previously double- and triple-counted were eliminated. Items previously considered lost were located. No overtime and no additional staff were used. This project used a combination of processes and productivity techniques and tools. Here are the basics: 1. An understanding of the assignment, due dates, resources, and requirements was first [Statement of Work]. 2. Developing operational definitions [or Work Breakdown Structure Dictionary] was necessary. (What are capital assets? Are computers included? Do we count wooden cabinets?) 3. Conducting physical audits was next. A simple auditing sheet was designed and tested [part of the life cycle process] by the auditing individual using the existing capital equipment in the building [productivity technique: Start with the easiest first]. Modifications were made [Life Cycle principles: Design a little, Test a little]. The person doing the work was empowered/measured/rewarded to suggest improvements. 4. The database was designed to search for any data point such as department/ supervisor/ assignee/ item/identifying numbers. 5. Remaining items still not identified were resolved with suppliers and internal customers using the problem-solving process, process of elimination, or the negotiating process. 6. A report was developed by integrating the writing, planning, and life cycle processes. As a result of these efforts, thousands of items were audited in varying locations; a database was developed; internal and external customers were advised on progress and results; the final report was written; and the project was finished on time. Performance was measured based on (1) productivity, specifically a knowledge of quality work, which means knowing the processes and how they are integrated, smart work, which includes productivity techniques, and simplicity; (2) teamwork, specifically building self-esteem, and praising ideas and achievements; and (3) entrepreneurship and creativity, specifically urging prototyping, rewarding risk taking, tolerating errors, and taking action. Via progress reports, middle and senior managers were reminded of the completed items, equipment still lost or unaccounted for, and tardiness in reporting. Communicating the ongoing performance of middle and senior managers to their colleagues was required by the performing manager but not appreciated by management. The lessons learned included: Accountability: Two key factors to being able to solve the problem and improve the process were (1) having control of the function within the department and (2) the project essentially ended upon report completion until next year. Structured Methods: The test step in the life cycle was a critical time saver in designing the tracking sheet used during the physical audit. Creativity and Productivity: The information being sought exists somewhere. The only limitation in finding it is one's own creativity. "Have more than one use for something." For example, the software program used here functioned as a text processor and as a database (using the search feature). Performance: Having the person who performed the function conduct the test improved the learning curve and saved time and effort. Measuring and rewarding (praising} staff for new, streamlined ideas produced impressive results. Having a first -level manager monitor the performance of higher-level managers was informative, revealing, and risky. Case Study #3: Boeing Commercial Airplanes Learning Centers The Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) Learning Centers are a learning resource service primarily for Boeing Commercial Airplanes but available to all Boeing people. They are a source of learning media (workbooks, professional books, audiotapes, videotapes, computers, computer-aided instruction, interactive video) to lend or purchase, on- or off-site, on both work-related and personal topics. The BCA Learning Centers totaled four, located at different sites, staffed with an administrator and two additional staff, plus a headquarters office/service center. The learning center service is well received; thousands of registrants use the materials monthly. Customer comments/complaints included the need for automation, newer materials, more copies of popular materials, longer hours, more services, and standardization among the sites. To tackle this problem, a proper organizational structure was established. The staffs' functions were identified and clarified. Similar functional groups worked together identifying ways in which they could improve services for the external customer and themselves, the internal customer. The project used the structured method of the planning and controls process. The teams were also taught productivity tools and techniques. Mind mapping (productivity tool) and team site meetings (communication) were examples of productivity at work. A performance measurement and reward system was used to motivate the teams. The functional work teams streamlined internal procedures; developed more customer self-services; standardized procedures in all 4 sites; streamlined from 60 to 7 days the ordering/receiving of course materials; and implemented and installed an automated registration system in 4 weeks, rather than 4 years, as originally planned. The supervisor modeled the behavior sought from her team by (1) using and teaching productivity tools and methods; (2) seeking the simplest yet most effective method to solve problems; (3) applying this performance criteria and approach to her own actions and performance; (4) empowering her staff to make changes and improvements; (5) admitting mistakes; (6) discouraging misplaced competition; (7) establishing trust; and (8) building self -esteem through praise and recognition. Performance was measured with particular emphasis on productivity in terms of quality work, which means understanding the processes, and productivity in terms of smart work, which includes various productivity techniques. Each staff members' performance was measured in terms of achieving teamwork, productivity, and entrepreneurship [creativity] throughout the year. In addition to productivity, performance was measured with special emphasis on building teamwork through improvements in self-esteem, building trust, using recognition, and discouraging misplaced competition. Working with colleagues while achieving customer improvements added to yearly performance. Performance accomplishments can be measured in increments of achievement and may be simply noted, perhaps using a mind map. These achievements can be grouped over a period of time. Individual performance should, in part, be dependent on performance as a team member and should be measured by other team members based on defined, yet flexible criteria. Simplicity, productivity, teamwork, and /or entrepreneurship should be rewarded. Rewarding should be done on an individual basis and can be extended to a team reward. Individuals should select their own rewards. The individual or team should be praised or recognized and rewarded at various times and in various ways. Risks Achieving productivity success is not without its risks. Although detailed and systematic reports of plans and progress were provided, middle management resisted relinquishing responsibility and control to the proper management level. The first-level supervisor believed in a management style that permitted freedom and empowerment-- to risk, to be tolerant of mistakes, and to provide an opportunity for people to develop as leaders. Middle management's actions indicated a requirement to control decisions, an inclination to harbor technology and other resources, a preference to perform differently from published management standards, and tendency to treat male and female managers unequally. As a result, the first-line manager, considered a troublemaker, was transferred to another department and placed on probation. In the new department, in spite of multiple and repeated productivity achievements, the first-level manager was terminated for "lack of productivity". Among the lessons learned here: Structured Methods: A clear organizational reporting structure helped improve communications, clarify responsibilities, and resolve some problems. Empowerment and Standardization: Empowering the staff to make the recommendations of what should be standardized versus what should be tailored provided the staff with ownership and contributed to the improvements. Requiring the different site staff to standardize major procedures while permitting them to remain somewhat flexible to meet their respective customer needs was considered another key factor in achieving quality improvements. Communication and Cross-Training: Communication via a simple newsletter created with a text processor helped bring staff together as a team, although they were located at different sites and rarely exchanged news or views. Cross-training streamlined ideas, expanded understanding of functions, and improved customer services by offering more complete information to the inquiring customer. Allowing staff to work and observe at various sites proved to be enlightening in terms of streamlining and observing wasted effort, excessive control, and dictatorial behaviors. "Follow my Lead" Behavior: The role of the leader in behavior modeling was key to assuring that staff would follow suit. Performance criteria based on quality improvement measures applied to the leader as well as staff. Standardizing the performance criteria, tailoring the measures, and personalizing the rewards added to performance successes. Productivity and streamlining did not appear to be among the goals and objectives of many middle managers, however. Common Problems, Uncommon Solutions The case studies described above reflect the daily problems of most organizations, especially those with large, complex, integrated products and/or services. In each case, there was (1) a multiplicity of problems, (2) little incentive to be more productive and creative, and (3) little to no long-term planning. Furthermore, there were some small fix-it attempts and few ways to effectively and simply reward quality improvements. Leadership examples of good productivity ("follow my lead") behavior in middle and top management occurred all too rarely. At the heart of the problem of managing for quality is a lack of... o Understanding of the structured methods or logical processes involved, including their steps, measurements, and integration; o Effective use and knowledge of productivity tools and techniques; and o A proper performance measurement system that rewards leader-managers for the right improvement results. Only when performance criteria require people--both managers and staff-- to be aware of and use productivity methods and techniques (for example, simplicity, streamlining, and structured methods) and when leader-managers model the behavior they seek will major improvements in quality result. The case studies also showed that ... o Applying performance criteria that rewarded measurable improvements for internal/external customers was one key to quick and numerous achievements. o Applying planning and control methods within the organizational structure increased communication and understanding among staff and management. o Productivity tools and techniques helped staff accomplish work in shorter time and with less effort. o Overcoming fear in the workplace by providing a risk-tolerant atmosphere that supports freedom, entrepreneurship, and teamwork is essential to productivity and achievement. A productivity-enhancing performance measurement approach works well for leader-managers as well as staff. Productivity in performance can be measured and rewarded simply. Through teamwork, managers can become the needed leader-models for their staff as they work together rather than against one another, establish loyalty and trust, discourage misdirected competition, and admit and tolerate mistakes. The risks of achieving quality improvement successes stem from the fact that improvements cause change. Change causes fear in managers, and change agents risk their careers if changes are successful. Fear and resistance will set in as some managers feel threatened. Therefore, it is vital that managers be rewarded for being more productive, more creative and entrepreneurial, more streamline-oriented, and better team players. Their own management must be more tolerant when mistakes occur. For mistakes will be made. As the authors of Driving Fear out of the Workplace note," When people know in their bones that they are free to tell the truth about workplace problems or come forward with risky ideas for improvement without repercussions, quality and productivity can flourish." References/Resources Gamache, R. Donald & Kuhn, Robert, The Creativity Infusion, "How Managers can Start and Sustain Creativity and Innovation", Ballinger Pub., 1989. Lehr, Lewis, "Encouraging Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Diversified Corporations," Handbook for Creative and Innovative Managers, Robert L. Kuhn, Editor-in-Chief, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1988. Performance criteria and Rewards are adapted from: LeBoeuf, Michael, PhD, The Greatest Management Principle in the World, Berkley Pub., 1989. Ryan, Kathleen D. & Oestreich, Daniel K., Driving Fear Out of the Workplace, Jossey Bass Pub., 1991. Yourdon, Edward, Managing the Structured Techniques: Strategies for Software Development in the 1990s, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, 1986. |
