An Idea for Workplace Organization

Before retiring I spent many years organizing the activities within an engineering/manufacturing operation where we designed, developed and manufactured a wide range of products and processes all based upon one technology providing them to vastly different applications and customer types. Unlike many manufacturing organizations (at least as I imagined them), we did not limit the work we took on to that which fit a set of processes currently in place, but often accepted jobs requiring us to devise, not only new processes but often new tools. This was the greatest and most differentiated value we brought to the marketplace. At the center of the basic structure was a product engineering staff whose responsibilities included interacting with customers to understand their needs, and then design products that fit our existing facilities and capabilities if possible. If needed capabilities did not exist, they coordinate with the process engineering and manufacturing groups to develop them. The manufacturing arm was comprised of a number of work areas with specialized skills and facilities through which the work flowed. We had about a dozen or so such areas. The work flow was erratic. For example: some jobs would go from department 1 to7 to 3 to 7 then 6 ending in 12; While other might go from 2 to 5 to 6 to 5 to 11 to 2 to 7 to 12. The mix was varied, not only in type, but also volume and complexity. Some tasks would require skills developed over years while others had very simple steps that could be taught in less than an hour. On rare occasions we had demand for enough volume of a single product to warrant setting up a series of operations with dedicated staff, through which flowed the same product in the same sequence. We tried to walk a tight rope, balancing efficiency (cost) and reliability of delivery. If we staffed each department to the maximum capacity we could expect, there would be too much idle time. If we staffed to the most efficient level, we would not make our delivery commitment. We made some effort to have a bit of flexibility, but with volume of work within a department varying even within a given day, it was at best marginally effective. Prior to my retirement, I started exploring another possible way to organize ourselves to increase our efficiency, improve our reliability and to maximize “quality of life” for our associates. We would start by reducing the staff of each manufacturing department to a supervisor and enough of the most experienced individuals to handle the absolute minimum level of work anticipated. Each job would have a process flow maintained on the network with anticipated arrival dates in each department adjusted automatically as work was completed in a given area. The heads of the departments would then compare the capacity within the department with the impending demand, and if needed, call for a qualified associate from a pool of flex staff. The supervisors would be measured on the quality of work done in their department, the cost (mostly labor) and the amount of “wait” time (the time a job was in the department waiting for work to be done on it). I envisioned a division within which resides a pool of associates with varied skills and skill levels needed in all manufacturing departments from which, as the workload increased beyond the minimum staffing within their departments, the supervisors could draw additional help . The manager of this pool would oversee the training and staffing and would be measured on the availability of the skill at the proper level and the quality of the work of the flex staff on each assignment. Idle time within the division is to be another measure of their performance. If the skill called for by manufacturing was not available, the department supervisor would request an individual by name who they then train for the processes. When any of the flex staff was idle, the manager would coordinate with the manufacturing departments to provide “on the job” training during their slower times. The supervisors would select the processes theyteach to the flax staff, choosing ones that they anticipated would be of greatest value to them in the future, Thus, the flexible staff gains experience and advances their skills as they move from job to job or are provided special training. Their pay would be determined by three factors. There would be a number of pay grades each with a wide range of salaries. The pay grade for an associate is to be determined by the complexity and the number of processes they were qualified to perform. Exactly where within that range their pay fell, is to be determined by their performance at each assignment as reported by the manufacturing supervisors. This would be their base pay. On top of the base pay they would earn bonuses, which would represent a significant part of the total pay based on the time allotted for the task and the level of skill provided. From a “quality of life” stand point, the flex tech, though some of the work may be mundane, would not be stuck in a tedious routine, changing from department to department and process to process. They would also be learning new skills which, along with the quality and quantity of their work, would be reflected in their pay. Arrangements could be made between the manufacturing supervisors and the flex division manager to accommodate wishes of associates to move from a flex to a permanent position or vice versa. Inevitably there will be idle time in the division. Training in a new skill may not be practical at times, in which case the idle flex associates would be encouraged to use the time to pursue on-line courses. People differ not only in their basic capabilities but also in their character. Some would prefer the comfort of working in one department on a narrow set of processes, while others get bored doing similar tasks and enjoy doing a wide range of chores and continually learning new ones. This system would accommodate both characteristics. In practice each job would have a routing indicating the process required in each department and estimated touch time (the time the parts are actually worked on for each). When a job enters, the department will estimate its completion time. Based on this, the system calculates the estimated time of arrival for each department and the total amount of time required of each skill level. The supervisor, equipped with a list of available individuals and their qualifications in the flex pool, could call for a specific person or a skill for a specified time. The department would be charged based on the time and the assigned value of the skill. The supervisor has an incentive to hire the lowest skill level required for the task. If, because of availability or quality of work or other factors, they choose someone with a higher skill, they pay a higher price. Other factors they may consider in making their selection could be the work habits and compatibility of the flex associate with the permanent staff. If properly structured, such a system should incentivize the staff at all levels to improve the reliability of delivery commitments while improving the efficiency and quality of life