Case+Studies

=Solved HPT Case Studies:=

Case Study 1:
Bangladesh has a lot of garment factories that are responsible for cutting, stitching and packaging garments as per requirements of buyers abroad. The buyers abroad also source the cloth and other raw material accessories to ensure the quality of the raw materials. When setting the price paid to the garment factories, the buyers allow 3% wastage. This means, if the costing comes to 100, the buyer pays the factory 103 for the finished garment.

In a particular factory, "StyleCraft", the wastage was 5%, i.e. 2% above that allowed by the buyers. This was of grave concern to the directors and owners as it left very little or no profit margin. The blame was put on the shoulders of the Factory Manager who knew his job well, knew of reasons behind this problem, but could not fully work out how to implement a solution.

In walks the HPT technologist. On a preliminary survey he finds a lot of problems.
 * Workers are not motivated
 * They have no ownership or do not take pride in their work
 * Nepotism is ripe - directors send relatives to be recruited as workers, other workers feel favoritism takes precedence over quality
 * Wastage happens everywhere: quality rejects, production-line rejects, etc.

The factory floor has 6 (six) production lines and one training line.

The HPT technologist also did not understand what to do in the face of such problems. He understood however that the Factory Manager has a better understanding of what is going on. The Factory Manager did not have the right analysis tools to enable himself to find a solution. So the HPT technologist showed the Factory Manager how an Excel Spreadsheet can be used to analyze the productivity of each production line. An easy to use tool, the Factory Manager then hit upon a way to calculate the productivity of each of the six production lines. On a daily basis and eventually on an hourly basis the productivity of each production line could be tracked. This way the Factory Manager had a tool to manage and chase up the productivity problems of each production line on an hourly basis.

While having an evaluation tool helped the Factory Manager monitor the performance of each line, it did not improve the wastage problem significantly. The Factory Manager then hit upon an idea. Could each production line be made responsible for their own productivity? Could the Directors of the company reward the production line with best productivity ratios at the end of each year?

Working with the HPT technologist, it was decided to have a computer terminal on the factory floor. Each production line would simply enter the number of products made each hour. The interface would be extremely simple. It would simply have two things. Production line number and a box to enter the number of products made during the past hour. The workers would be trained on the meaning of productivity and in how many ways productivity could be reduced. The workers could also see the productivity ratio of their own line compared to others.

As the workers of each production line understood the ways productivity would be lost, they started making sure that productivity was not lost. If a relative of the management was introduced to the production line, they would check the ability of the person and ask the person to train herself in the training line and before joining their line.

At the end of the year, each of the members of the best production line were given a Radio Set in the annual factory function in front of all the factory members.

What happened to wastage figures. By the end of the year wastage came down to 1%! Why and how do you think this happened?

By Jesvin : Two challenges that clearly caught my attention was that staffs were not motivated and had no knowledge about how productivity is lost or gained in their line. In result, they did not take charge of their work and did not bother to put their effort. There was also no healthy competition between the production lines for them to keep doing better. But, once the Factory Manager decided to make a change with the help of HPT technologist things started to change. Creating a computer terminal at each floor, gave each production line an ownership and responsibility to look out for. In addition, each production ensured that they did not loss any productivity by making sure to enter the number of products made each hour. They were able to monitor their products made hourly. Thus, they work harder to improve every hour.

On the other hand, favouritism was not accepted and this sure made all staffs feel important. If a staff is not capable to perform at the production line he/she need to attend training no matter if he/she are related to the management. Rewarding staffs is a great idea, by rewarding the best production line indirectly it created a healthy competition among them to achieve great results. Great results means making more products. Staffs will also feel valued when they are acknowledge in front of everyone and for sure they will keep doing better and better.

Jesvin, spot on! Now can you match what you have said above to the Figures in Chapter 2 - in particular Fig 2.1 on page 37? Yousuf

By using the comparative method all workers in each production line could measure their performance against the other groups. Secondly the incentive given at the end of the year in front of all factory members also played a key role. Humans want to see that they are valued for what they are doing. In this case the problem was solved using an easy method just by setting up a computer terminal and like Jesvin said they took ownership in their own production. The question is why did the wastage percentage drop to 1%? Simply because there was competition now and if there was a specific problem in one of the production lines it would have shown and that person could then be asked to train her in the training line. Self correction is the answer and the realization that I am the weak link. It is important for workers in an organization to measure their performance and productivity against co-workers and to take corrective measures. This production problem was solved because there was competition, they had pride again in their work, they took ownership of their work, no more favoritism over quality and their hard work and effort was rewarded at the end. (Wynand)

It is an open secret that motivation would always lead to increased productivity. Thus the decision of the company's Directors to give a radio set to every member of the production line with the highest level of productivity is right. The motivation is also in two parts: the presentation of the radio and the presence of all the other workers. Though one can say that the cost of the reward is very small, but it means a lot in boosting the morale of the workers. Secondly, tracking the output of the workers is another factor. When people are able to track their output, the tendency is that they would continue to strive to improve on the output or improve on it. Yes, feedback helps them evaluate their own performance. When this is to be done however, care must be taken that whatever tool is used must track productivity. For example, NOUN is currently trying to track the output of the workers but is beginning by tracking the number of hours the workers are spending in the office. The number of hours a worker spends in the office however cannot measure output. TRUE. Finally creating a healthy competition among the staff can also lead to increased productivity. It has to be noted however that when this is to be done, the terms under which rewards would be made should be made clear and transparent. For example, as in the case study, every worker knows the input and what the result would be as productivity is measured hourly. Where these are not clear, the method could become counter-productive. For example, a sabbatical staff in NOUN is being tipped for the best sabbatical staff award in the university (and the award may attract half a million Nigerian naira). This led to disaffection among almost all members of the staff because though the staff to be awarded has done well in undertaking public advocacy for the university but in her primary assignment she could be graded below 30%. Thus the problem is how could you rate someone who has not done well in the primary assignment as the best staff? (Olubiyi) Good question. Also, for some people reward is in the satisfaction of a job well done. Money rewards beyond a limit can sometimes have a negative or non-productive effect. In the case of the garments factory, productivity ratios give a simple measure that is application to all productions lines and activities on the floor. In the case of university teaching and contribution it is more complex. As you point out, a reward system should be comprehensive and transparent. Read Chapter 20, starting at page 478, in Ref 3. See if it helps you understand the situation better.Yousuf.

Hello everyone,

Here is my response:

What happened to wastage figures. By the end of the year wastage came down to 1%! Why and how do you think this happened?

In analyzing this case study for “StyleCraft”, a systematic approach was applied using the Performance Technology Landscape as in Figure 2.1 of Chapter 2: Guide to the Performance Technology Landscape, and 2 key concepts were used.
 * Analysis **


 * 1) **Performance ** – The Performance we want to improve is to lessen the wastage from 5% to less then 3%
 * 2) **Human Performance Technology (HPT)- ** focusing on mapping of Principles of Performance Technology, Work Environment, System(s) Viewpoint, and Systematic Approach.

By the end of the year, the wastage figures shrunk dramatically from 5% to 1% and “StyleCraft” was able to achieve its performance goal. This is done by systematically applying change to how they perform their job in the factory.

The Factory Manager with the help of the HPT technologist took a system(s) viewpoint and first assessing what are the problems that he faces in his factory which include:
 * Design of Intervention **
 * Workers are not motivated
 * They have no ownership or do not take pride in their work
 * Nepotism is ripe - directors send relatives to be recruited as workers, other workers feel favoritism takes precedence over quality
 * Wastage happens everywhere: quality rejects, production-line rejects, etc.

In order to apply change that could have direct impact on performance the Factory Manager with the help of the HPT technologist analyze the factory’s work environment, the operational method, as well as the processes on the assembly line and applied change systematically the following areas (the Hows) and organize a plan as the following:


 * 1) Since production is low, the Factory Manager must have the right tools to analyze the hourly productivity of each production line so as productivity can be tracked. For this purpose Excel Spreadsheet was used.
 * 2) To eliminate the wastage problem the Factory Manager made all 6 of the existing production line to be responsible of their own productivity.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">All employees are being made accountable for the production in their own production line, thus increasing ownership by making them being responsible to themselves and to their team.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">To decrease the problem with nepotism and favoritism, the Factory manager shifted the focus to productivity by making sure of the ‘relative’s” ability to perform before joining the production line.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Finally, to increase the motivation of the workers, the production line is evaluated. The best performing production line will be rewarded at the end of the year.

Enna, good analysis! It is important to realise that the solution was arrived at step-by-step. The HPT analyst has to do little things here and there, work together with the Factory Manager like a doctor applying tests with monitoring equipment and a variety of therapies to see what works best and arrive at the root of the problem.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Hence, as a result of applying systematic change in the process of how the employees perform their job, “StyleCraft” was able to reduce wastage in not just 3% but because the right motivating factors was put into the system of “how to perform their job in the production line” the employees exceed performance expectation by reducing wastage to just 1%. As a reward the employees in the BEST PRODUCTION LINE were rewarded with a radio set in the annual factory function in front of all the factory members, as according to Olubiyi, "It is an open secret that motivation would always lead to increased productivity." (Enna)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Evaluation of Success **

Yes, however, the trick is how to transfer ownership to the workers and inculcate motivation. Also, the management had to be convinced by showing trends in wastage to dish out for the annual function.

So, working backwards, what practical analysis steps would you recommend to a HPT expert who has just walked in, is told the problem of wastage but knows nothing about the workings of the factory?

The HPT expert will use performance Map to determine:

• Business need - business need is to minimize wastage

• Desired operational results (Should) - No wastage

• Desired on-the-job performance (Should) - high productivity, employees who are motivated to perform their task

• Causal linkage between desired performance and results -

• Actual operational results (Is) wastage was 5%, i.e. 2% above that allowed by the buyers, leaving very little or no profit margin.

• Actual on-the-job performance (Is)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Low productivity
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Wastage happens everywhere

• Causal linkage between actual performance and results
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Workers are not motivated
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">They have no ownership or do not take pride in their work
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Nepotism is ripe - directors send relatives to be recruited as workers, other workers feel favoritism takes precedence over quality
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Wastage happens everywhere: quality rejects, production-line rejects, etc.

• Environmental factors impacting performance (Internal & External) Internal - no tool to measure productivity - no feedback on job performance external factor -nepotism (can this be external, prof?) (Enna)

Yes, of course. For example, in Bangladesh, political parties in power try to exert their influence everywhere. They even appoint their own candidates as private university vice chancellors. However, generally, such influence does not normally trickle down to worker level.

Dear Prof., I have read chapter 20 and I can understand why you asked me to read it in the first place. In particular, I was highly moved by the five things that can kill motivation. The first of them all is the statement that motivation can be killed just even if the organization is perceived as dishonest and unfair. The stress is that they don't have to be dishonest. This means that more damage can be done when they feelings go beyond perception to facts that show unfairness. Let me again share something with you. Late 2010, the university reworked the promotion criteria for academic staff and raised the stakes higher, in fact, it can be said to be higher than any other conventional university. This has so much caused disaffection among the academic staff and has caused them to reduce the amount of time to spend on official work so that they can turn attention to fulfill the conditions of the harsh promotion criteria. This in my understanding has gone beyond the level of perceived unfairness. As if to buttress the feelings of the academic staff, the recently released Government white paper on the university also asked for a review of the promotion criteria. Another issue I find interesting is the fact that monetary motivation can be more dangerous and counter-productive. I am also thrilled at the portion that discussed emotional motivation. (Olubiyi)

Good!