One plant’s solution to the Sweet 16 dilemma. What’s yours?
My prior article posed the proposition that, to some employees, the typical organizational chart more closely resembles the bracketed final 16 college basketball teams when rotated 90 degrees with the perceived behavior of management as competitors rather than as a team.
This blog post is about the turnaround of a major mail processing plant in Philadelphia. It had approximately 2,000 employees on five floors, was experiencing unscheduled absences greater than 7 percent, and had poor quality and high expenses. Its reputation was questionable. If you had walked the plant floors, you would have trouble seeing further than 50 feet, would see deplorable restrooms (not a custodial issue), notice an absence of supervision, paint peeling from the walls, lots of red-tagged rolling stock on the floor. In spite of this, the maintenance department was held in high esteem as it managed to keep the equipment operating. You can imagine the magnitude of union grievances, EEO complaints and letters to OSHA.
The new plant manager, Al LaRiviere, had a challenge. His first actions were to remove all red-tagged equipment as well as the equipment that was not being used. The number of items which were placed in the parking lot numbered more than 1,000 and was very visible. More than half were scrapped; the others were eventually repaired at another facility. Next, he began a process management study of what really transpired in the plant and worked to get management involved as a team.
This is a 24×365 plant with three shifts per day. There were approximately 350 employees in the maintenance staff to manage the building’s more than 1 million square feet, customer lobbies, 20 acres of land, more than 200 pieces of automation, 2 miles of conveyor, all custodial needs and the 25 stations around Philly. The original plant was a WPA project and had been modified numerous times.
Mail plant processes originating (mailed within the plant’s service area) and destinating mails (coming into the plant’s processing area) were broken into streams (letters, parcels, small items, bundles). It had an inventory turn of 365 per year, unable to store mail. Critical metrics were measured in days from the mail being placed in a box to the delivery day (delivery standards). Each type of mail had different standards. Along with this was a quasi metric of work hours used vs. work hours earned (budget performance). These were the results metrics on which the plant manager was rated.
An external evaluation of the management team competencies recommended team training, individual training, and development of all supervisors and managers on interpersonal skills and how to supervise. This was begun concurrent with the process management study.
In the study, the performance indicators were identified as process or results. Examples of process were absence, production, unit quality and meeting work area clearance times. The bottom line: Did the mails clear the various operations having had quality sortation and did the right mail get on the correct transportation at the scheduled dispatch time? The last two became the plant results indicators. If these are consistently met, the plant’s delivery standards are met.
Armed with the process study results, Al made a decision that he only wanted his management teams to be concerned with two metrics - clearing the mail on time and quality of sortation. He felt that productivity was the result of the individuals’ motivation and would accompany the meeting of the indicators. These became the results indicators for each supervisor’s/superintendent’s processing areas. The shift managers had the result indicators of right mail on right trucks at the right time. All staff meetings or other management discussions were limited to those two sets of metrics. Al even had a small stand with three steps built for the conference room. If a person failed his metrics, he had to climb the steps to stand up and be counted. There was no follow-up discussion. However, Al did institute celebrations for achievements (lots of them).
Training for all employees focused on the two metrics and the process within their work areas. Supervisors were to not focus on absence rates, individual performance, reasons for incoming mail quality or being critical about any other process with their employees. It was the supervisor’s responsibility to worry about upstream and downstream problems and to have his or her employees focus on their work. Supervisors were to develop a team. Each supervisor posted his or her team’s process indicators each day (how much was processed, work hours, internal quality and delayed mail [storage]). All machine operators were trained on using the machine-generated production reports, and rudiments of overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) were built into the software.
To make this work, plant employees were assigned to specific supervisors. All supervisors adhered to the game plan, and were kept informed of overall USPS performance, their plant performance and their own areas’ effect on performance. They were becoming a respected go-to person for the craft employees.
Al believed that if employees knew that their managers were all on the same ship, knew where it was going and the game plan for getting there, they would find the confidence and motivation to perform and go home at night with a sense of accomplishment and pride in their plant.
Maintenance employees were trained on interpreting equipment performance reports, understanding the customer-supplier relationship with operators, and relating to the operations people a problem-solving mode trying to stop the blame game. Conversations between employees and their supervisor centered on processes in their work areas.
I have only touched the surface of this remarkable turnaround. Unscheduled absence dropped to 3 percent, productivity increased 20 percent, and quality led the region. Would you believe they now had too many people coming to work each day? Employees now counted on supervisors to supervise, keep them informed and to buffer them. Supervisors now held their heads up and looked forward to coming to work.
Al also had the interior plant painted, and put up meaningful signage to make it a visual workplace. He reduced the number and size of restrooms (original employment was more than 4,000 employees). He also worked the same process with human resources, finance, maintenance, vehicle operations and office staffs.
Al was a unique manager, at the right place at the right time.
While this is not necessarily a maintenance story, it does illustrate the use of process management tools, the understanding of what makes people tick, and what a vision can produce when the top dog is given the freedom to take a chance.
Al never pushed the absence issue. He recognized that the employees’ morale was abysmal, and he knew it was his Sweet 16.
To me, personally, it validated what I had learned, practiced and preached for the better part of my career.
Remember: “Humility overrides pride.”
I am interested to hear your tales of broken organizations and/or the steps your company has taken to fix them.
Related posts:
- Is your plant organization ship shape? Probably not. You are in the engine room of the USS Lincoln....
- Restroom libraries and all that jazz On my first day in my first job out of...
- Help employees get the most out of their career, their life “Rex, your maintenance leadership mentoring program caused four employees to...
- Three alternatives to laying off staff members In this blog, I had intended to discuss the tips...
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment and subscribing to the email alerts or RSS feed.
Filed Under: Featured, People Management | Tags: employee engagement, maintenance leadership, management, process management, talent management, training
