- Email: [email protected]
Engineering productivity: The management of improvement
109
Management International, 1 (1982) 109-116 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands
Engineering
ENGINEERINGPRODUCTIVITY: THE MANAGEMENT OF IMPROVEMENT William T. Stewart Assistant Professor of Industrial
Engineering,
West Lafayette,
School of industrial Indiana
47907
Engineering,
Purdue University,
(U.S.A.)
and Ronald J. Calloway United
States Air Force, Base Civil Engineer,
Diyarbakir
~Turkey~
ABSTRACT Productivity improvement of many of our major industries has become a national priority. Much of the responsibility for improving the productivity of resources within organizations will fall on the engineering professionals. Central to this challenge is the development
and implementation of measurement and improvement strategies for the engineers themselves. An activity matrix is proposed along with appropriate action steps which can be utilized to improve engineering productivity. Issues of measurement are also addressed.
INTRODUCTION The concept of productivity has generated an immense amount of interest in recent years. One can hardly pick up a trade journal, association pub~~a~on , text on management, magazine, or even a newspaper without finding at least one article or chapter devoted to the subject. Poor productivity, or lack of sufficient productivity improvement, has been blamed for just about every woe of American society including high inflation, high unemployment, low-quality workmanship, and lack of industry profits (APC, 1980). tether productivity, or lack of it, is responsible for the condition of our society is debatable; however, the fact that an increase in productivity will improve the strategic competitive position of a company is undisputed. A major portion of the challenge in improving the productivity of the various resources within the modern organization will fall on the engineering talent within that Ol67-5419/82lOOOOl$O2.75
0 1982
organization. There are two points of view which can be taken with respect to engineering productivity. (1) The impact of the engineering talents’ performance on the blending together of the major production resources in terms of productivity of the production process. (2) The actual productivity or efficient ut~ization of the engineering resource itself as it attempts to have a positive impact on the overall organizational productivity.
PRODUCTIVITY
CONCEPT
Productivity is a ratio concept: it relates the output of a system to the inputs which are utilized to produce that output. Traditionally, in a production environment, the inputs are labor, materials, energy, and capital. The outputs typically relate the
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company
110
diverse product mix which is created by the blending together of the various resources. Engineers are continually looking for better ways for the production system to produce the desired output. This entails the design of both physical and information systems, the redesign of products to make them more easily produced, and the substitution of one resource for another more expensive resource in the relative sense, i.e. capital for labor. As our production systems become more complex, the necessity for engineering input in the productivity improvement process will continue to increase. Thus the true bottom line for the impact of engineering productivity is on the total system productivity which their efforts support. A closer focus is to relate the output of the engineering staff to the inputs over which they have control. The major input within this productivity concept is that of time which they allocate to problem-solving and productivity improvement schemes. The difficulty with this pure engineering focus is in defining and clarifying the various outputs which an engineering staff creates. One can observe various outputs from an engineering function: drawings, detailed specifications, requests for quotations, cost reduction accomplishments, etc. However, in being explicit about this output and attempting to quantify it in a reliable manner, one has to factor in the characteristics.of the engineering environment. Much engineering effort does not result in a measurable output for some time. The proper design of a new facility is not really ascertained until the facility is built and it then becomes apparent that the performance of the engineering talent was either effective or non-effective, often judged by the length and severity of a punch list. This creates a timing problem which makes the linking of inputs expended to outputs produced elusive. There certainly are approaches to determining the proper measurements for an engineering environment, and this topic will be addressed later in this paper (Stewart, 1980b).
ACTIVITY MODEL FOR AN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENT One characteristic of engineering work is that it is often non-repetitive and requires a great deal of creative thought and detailed analysis. One can construct an activity model (shown in Fig. 1) which describes three major dimensions of engineering tasks: 1. Creative structuring and synthesis 2. Analysis and detailed development 3. Coordination with other functions Creative Structuring and Synthesis
Analysis d Detailed Development
/
Coordination vith Other Functions
Fig. 1. Activity
matrix.
Most engineering tasks will fit into this three-dimensional matrix showing the various degrees of the three dimensions which the succinct task requires. Most successful engineering work will exhibit some mixture, albeit in various degrees, of these three activities. It is important in the eventual development of action steps to improving engineering productivity to understand the nature of the various activities outlined in this matrix.
111
Creative structuring
and synthesis
Engineers are often asked to take an illdefined concept such as an idea for a new product which may come from marketing and to develop that idea into a product which is both feasible and economical. This activity is largely mental and requires a creative thought process where ideas are developed, evaluated, modified, and finally an iteration toward a plausible concept occurs. Some examples of this type of activity should shed some light on its nature : 1. Form synthesis: the actual conceptualization of the shape of a support member in high-performance machinery, prior to any analysis to determine its size. 2. Flow charting of a system model for subsequent simulation and recommendations. 3. Preliminary sketch layout of a material handling system. 4. General outline of a technical specification prior to dictation. 5. Design of an experiment to determine the overall realiability of a complex piece of machinery. Without engineering talent and energies directed along this activity, companies would quickly become stagnant, and new and improved products would not come onto the commercial horizon. Analysis and detailed development Crucial to the success of any engineering task is attention to detail and thorough analysis to ensure that the original concept is both feasible and economical. Improper analysis can lead to a disaster of an originally feasible concept. There is also a great deal of engineering effort which must take place between the original conceptualization of an idea or process and the final hardware implementation. Examples of this type of activity are: 1. Determination of the size of the drive shaft to transmit a given horsepower for a piece of machinery.
2. Actual computer coding of a simulation model. 3. Preparation of purchase requisitions from a composite bill of material for a large production contract. 4. Detailed drawing of a machine part for subsequent manufacture. 5. Preparation of a routing sheet for a complex machine part. 6. The reading and assimilation of technical specifications. 7. Preparation of data files for a Materials Requirements Planning (MRP) control system. Engineers have a responsibility to pay attention to detail, and costly reworks quickly occur due to careless error and improper analysis. Retrofit of any system is extremely expensive and many mistakes are not conceptual in nature, but are careless and analytically based. Coordination
with other functions
In today’s complex technology in an organizational environment, it is essential that the engineer be proficient in coordinating his/her efforts with numerous other functions within the organization and its environment. The work of an engineer interfaces with most including entities, other organizational production, purchasing, marketing and sales, etc. The skill to proproduction control, actively coordinate one’s activities with the other necessary functional units is crucial to the overall success of a task. Examples of this type of coordination requirement are: 1. Determination of a vendor for hydraulics cylinders to be used in a mechanical lift. 2. Establishment of schedules for completion of a facility redesign. 3. Determination of a return on investment on a new robotic production line. 4. Communication of design parameters to junior designers who will do the actual detailed layouts. 5. Coordination with manufacturing with respect to process capabilities. These types of interpersonal skills are often neglected in the formal training of an
112
engineer. However, these “managerial” skills often make or break a project and an individual’s career within a firm.
ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO ENGINEERING WORK ENVIRONMENT
The successful engineering manager must tailor his/her actions to the particular work environment in which the engineering staff finds itself. It is vital to be sensitive to the characteristics present within the organization and the clientele which that organization serves. Numerous opportunities will likely exist within the organization which coincide with activities along the activity matrix. It is likely that the engineering manager will envision a prioritization of these three dimensions of work activity within the general engineering staff. However, it is imperative that the en~neering manager pay attention to the individual engineer and to the potential improvement which that professional can make along his/her activity matrix. There are a number of action steps which are available to the engineering manager, depending upon the particular dimension in which he/she desires improvement. Some examples of these action steps follow. Creative structuring
and synthesis
1. Cross fertilization with other disciplines. 2. Reduction of time pressures: new ideas require incubation time. 3. Encouragement of curiosity/exploration type activities. 4. Provide sounding board: encourage novel approaches even if they may seem to be impractical. 5. Encourage balance in life: exercise program, hobbies, etc. (avoid professional burnout). 6. Tolerate creative spurts and withdraw~s: creativity often does not work at a regular pace but surfaces after a period of reflection and possibly other activities. Basically the engineering manager should be
proactive in creating an .environment which is conducive to the influx of new ideas and to create an acceptance env~onment for this type of new idea risk taking by the engineering professionals. Analysis and detailed development
1. Avoid interruptions: investigate the use of a “quiet time” where only emergency interruptions are tolerated. 2. Provide and encourage the use of checklists for various categories of project tasks. 3. Gather required information before starting work. 4. Use technology where appropriate such as computer-aided design, automatic filing systems, dictation equipment, etc. 5. Stress the importance of this type of work in that the overall success of an engineering project may depend on careful attention to detail. 6. Build in checkpoints throughout the task so as to avoid the discovery of mistakes in the hardware. 7. Bring work to natural closure points so as to avoid startup mistakes and inefficiencies. personal accountability for 8. Stress accuracy and professionalism. Involve the engineer in error resolution. To pursue improvement along this dimension, the engineering manager attempts to provide the environment and the tools which allow the engineer to be precise and accurate in his/her work. This involves the buffering of the engineer from needless interruptions so that an extended period of concentration can be maintained. The engineering manager also stresses accountability and the extreme importance of this type of activity to the overall success and reputation of the engineering staff. Coordination
with other functions
1. Anticipate
instead
of
coordination requirements always reacting to them.
113
2. Use structured group process when Insist that required. meetings are meetings have a purpose and that results of the sessions are communicated to the members of the group. 3. Familiarize the engineer with the “big picture” of the various tasks. 4. Expedite communication with other functional units. Recognize that communication delays can cause great stress and potential errors within the engineering environment. 5. Encourage written confirmations of decisions reached and commitments rendered. 6. Prioritize efforts to account for lead times. Revise this prioritization often so that the engineering staff can be responsive to changes in the work situation. 7. Encourage overall project scheduling with realistic due dates. Allocate time to do effective project scheduling and then insist upon the alignment of actual performance with scheduled commitments. 8. Develop lines of communication which across traditional organizational cut structure. The engineering manager realizes that his/her department does not exist in an organizational vacuum. Necessary information is derived from other functional units and from the organizational environment in order to do effective professional engineering. Also many other units within the organization and clients depend on the outputs with respect to blueprints, proposal drawings, specifications, etc., in order to do their work effectively. Thus the engineering staff is seen as a critical part of a complex organizational network and this reality must be addressed by appropriate professional action.
DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT
OF A PRODUCTIVITY STRATEGY
In developing a improvement strategy environment, two key
useful productivity for an engineering ideas should be con-
sidered. The first is the role of participation of the engineering professionals. A participative approach to productivity improvement for an engineering organization can significantly increase the probability of success for that unit (Stewart, 1980a). As individuals are allowed to participate in the formulation and implementation of productivity improvement actions, there will be greater acceptance than if the changes are imposed. The quality will also probably be better if these decisions are developed through participation. Participation can bring together or tap a reservoir of knowledge, experience, skills and creativity and may identify areas for improvement that would not be obvious to management. Participation can also help align the engineers’ goals with those of the organization. The objective of a participative approach is to develop feelings of common commitment to organizational goals and to promote constructive cooperation. The second key idea is that of situationspecific action. This involves the use of contingency theory structure. In simple terms, contingency theory suggests that one should assess the situation, determine the desired changes, look at available options, determine tradeoffs for interrelationships, and use what best fits the situation. It is unlikely that a rigid strategy can be proposed which would fit all engineering situations. Thus the engineering manager needs to gather information from the engineering environment and to make judgments as to which actions offer the highest potential payback. Using the above premises, and the developed conceptual framework of engineering activity, the following strategy can be proposed : 1. Determine the need. Be explicit about the role that engineering performance in the overall organizational plays productivity improvement picture. Discuss the concept of engineering productivity with members of other functional units and determine their perception of how improvement of engineering productivity would impact the overall organization.
114
2. Isolate opportunities. Opportunities will likely exist at many levels: environmental, organizational, departmental, project, individual. Involve members of the engineering staff in identifying those opportunities which exist at these various levels for productivity improvement from their perspectives. Examples of actions which might be taken at various levels are: (a) Better client communication with respect to specifications could be approached with the assistance of people skilled at working with clients within the environment. (b) Better coordination with purchasing could take place at the organizational level. (c) Implementation of cathode ray tubes (CRT) with adequate data files would have a departmental perspective. (d) Use of Critical Path Method (CPM) project planning could enhance project performance. (e) Advanced engineering courses may affect one’s performance as an individual engineering professional. These opportunities can be developed through a number of different mechanisms. Techniques such as brainstorming, nominal group technique, work analysis, Delphi technique, surveys, interviews, can be extremely helpful in etc., involving the members of the staff in the development of potential opportuniproductivity ties for engineering improvement. 3. Generate action to seize opportunities. Encourage individuals to generate specific action steps which they can use to seize upon the various identified opportunities. Some of these actions may be implestraightforward and quit kly mented, while others will need further study and may require the formation of a mechanism by which the opportunity is further developed. 4. Prioritize productivity projects and seek resources. From the various action steps
which naturally form projects, an assessment must be made as to which potential projects will receive an allocation of the scarce resources of time and financial support to pursue these particular changes. 5. Assign responsibility for implementation. Provide sufficient time and development resources so that this type of change process can be properly managed and controlled. This type of responsibility assignment can occur both at the project level and at the individual level. 6. Monitor results and adapt. A strategy must be flexible and changes in plan will be necessary. Results of action steps should be carefully monitored so as to reach a successful implementation. Central to all of these activities is the hypothesis that self-directed change by those who will be most affected by that change offers the highest probability for successful implementation (Morris, 1979). This strategy is also seen as an ongoing process of opporgeneration of tunity identification and appropriate actions which then are evaluated and perhaps further opportunities developed. Thus it is not a one-shot strategy, but a method by which engineering professionals can continue to seek ways of improving their particular work environment and their own personal contributions to the overall producimprovement efforts of the total tivity organization.
ISSUES OF MEASUREMENT The measurement challenge of an engineering environment is a severe one. Again it is essential that participation and involvement of key personnel be used in the development of any measurement system which would subsequently be implemented. It is clear that any measurement system used in this type of unstructured work environment will be open to question and criticism. It is crucial then that the engineering professionals see their input as part of the development of the
115 system, and it is hoped that through this participation, more time will be spent on the positive aspects of the measurement scheme than on the obvious drawbacks. As was mentioned earlier in this article, various perspectives for engineering productivity can be pursued. If one views the role of the engineering staff as that of support for the total production output of the system, one could form a productivity ratio of total supported/engineering hours and output observe this ratio in a trend type of analysis to see whether or not the various engineering hours are contributing to the increase in output of the production system. One can also take the project perspective and look at the budgeted hours us. actual hours for various projects. This type of productivity indicator monitors both the planning and budgeting process along with the actual completion of the engineering work. A third approach to measurement within the engineering environment is to utilize various surrogate measures which provide perspectives on engineering performance. These surrogates are not pure output-to-input productivity ratios, but their use can provide important insight into the improvement of a particular engineering operation. Some suggestions of general surrogates are: Number of engineering errors found in shop multiplied by cost to correct/drawings issued Number of revisions per drawing Percent tasks completed on time Percent utilization of engineering resources Cost reduction per engineer Percent utilization of CRT capabilities It is important in the development of any measurement system to properly reflect the perceived goals that the engineering function should be pursuing. Engineering tasks should not only have an efficiency dimension but need to look at the quality and timeliness aspects of their performance. Thus it is envisioned that an engineering staff could create a family of surrogate measures which assess the various dimensions of their work as that
reflects the organizational goals work (Stewart, 1978, 1980b). It is also important that one not try to collapse all of engineering activity into one single dimension. It is likely that that particular dimension will be the one that catches the attention of the engineering professional and, if the engineering department is actually operating in a multi-criteria environment, a single dimensional type of performance could be disastrous. For example, if an overemphasis is placed on efficiency in terms of minimizing person-hours per drawing, the response to the schedule commitments and to the quality of that particular work may become secondary. It is also fairly clear that most measurement within an engineering environment will be done on a trend or change basis. It is unlikely that a large investment in developing engineered standards for the diverse types of engineering work would prove to be cost/ beneficial. In the absence of standards, it is difficult to determine whether or not an engineering staff is working at near optimal performance. Most engineering managers will be content with the demonstration that performance is improving or deteriorating along the various dimensions which are important to that particular engineering organization.
CONCLUSION In a recent talk by Stanley Pace, Chief Executive Officer for TRW, he called the 1980s the “decade of the engineer” (Pace, 1980). The challenges to engineering managers in terms of utilizing the scarce resource of engineering talent will be extreme during this decade of technical problem solving. Organizations should develop unified strategies which involve the engineering professional in the continuous finding of better ways to perform this necessary engineering work. The engineering manager plays a crucial role in establishing a proper environment which creates a readiness for change and rewards good performance and improved performance instead of just senior-
116
ity and punctuality. The challenge is clear: increased engineering output will be required from a dwindling supply of engineering talent. This makes the productivity concept a crucial one to the overall success of a firm which requires professional engineering skill.
REFERENCES American Productivity Center, Perspectives. Houston, Texas.
1980.
Productivity
Morris, W.T., 1979. Implementation Strategies for Industrial Engineers. Grid, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 252 pp. Pace, S.G., 1980. Speech to Triple Engineering Conference. Cleveland, Ohio. Stewart, W.T., 1978. A “yardstick” for measuring productivity. Industrial Engineering, lO(2): 34-37. Stewart, W.T., 1980a. A productivity improvement strategy at the firm level. Manufacturing Produc tivity Frontiers, 4 (1): 26-27. Stewart, W.T., 1980b. Productivity measurement at firm level. Manufacturing Productivity the Frontiers, 4 (2): 6-l 1.
Management International, 1 (1982) 109-116 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands
Engineering
ENGINEERINGPRODUCTIVITY: THE MANAGEMENT OF IMPROVEMENT William T. Stewart Assistant Professor of Industrial
Engineering,
West Lafayette,
School of industrial Indiana
47907
Engineering,
Purdue University,
(U.S.A.)
and Ronald J. Calloway United
States Air Force, Base Civil Engineer,
Diyarbakir
~Turkey~
ABSTRACT Productivity improvement of many of our major industries has become a national priority. Much of the responsibility for improving the productivity of resources within organizations will fall on the engineering professionals. Central to this challenge is the development
and implementation of measurement and improvement strategies for the engineers themselves. An activity matrix is proposed along with appropriate action steps which can be utilized to improve engineering productivity. Issues of measurement are also addressed.
INTRODUCTION The concept of productivity has generated an immense amount of interest in recent years. One can hardly pick up a trade journal, association pub~~a~on , text on management, magazine, or even a newspaper without finding at least one article or chapter devoted to the subject. Poor productivity, or lack of sufficient productivity improvement, has been blamed for just about every woe of American society including high inflation, high unemployment, low-quality workmanship, and lack of industry profits (APC, 1980). tether productivity, or lack of it, is responsible for the condition of our society is debatable; however, the fact that an increase in productivity will improve the strategic competitive position of a company is undisputed. A major portion of the challenge in improving the productivity of the various resources within the modern organization will fall on the engineering talent within that Ol67-5419/82lOOOOl$O2.75
0 1982
organization. There are two points of view which can be taken with respect to engineering productivity. (1) The impact of the engineering talents’ performance on the blending together of the major production resources in terms of productivity of the production process. (2) The actual productivity or efficient ut~ization of the engineering resource itself as it attempts to have a positive impact on the overall organizational productivity.
PRODUCTIVITY
CONCEPT
Productivity is a ratio concept: it relates the output of a system to the inputs which are utilized to produce that output. Traditionally, in a production environment, the inputs are labor, materials, energy, and capital. The outputs typically relate the
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company
110
diverse product mix which is created by the blending together of the various resources. Engineers are continually looking for better ways for the production system to produce the desired output. This entails the design of both physical and information systems, the redesign of products to make them more easily produced, and the substitution of one resource for another more expensive resource in the relative sense, i.e. capital for labor. As our production systems become more complex, the necessity for engineering input in the productivity improvement process will continue to increase. Thus the true bottom line for the impact of engineering productivity is on the total system productivity which their efforts support. A closer focus is to relate the output of the engineering staff to the inputs over which they have control. The major input within this productivity concept is that of time which they allocate to problem-solving and productivity improvement schemes. The difficulty with this pure engineering focus is in defining and clarifying the various outputs which an engineering staff creates. One can observe various outputs from an engineering function: drawings, detailed specifications, requests for quotations, cost reduction accomplishments, etc. However, in being explicit about this output and attempting to quantify it in a reliable manner, one has to factor in the characteristics.of the engineering environment. Much engineering effort does not result in a measurable output for some time. The proper design of a new facility is not really ascertained until the facility is built and it then becomes apparent that the performance of the engineering talent was either effective or non-effective, often judged by the length and severity of a punch list. This creates a timing problem which makes the linking of inputs expended to outputs produced elusive. There certainly are approaches to determining the proper measurements for an engineering environment, and this topic will be addressed later in this paper (Stewart, 1980b).
ACTIVITY MODEL FOR AN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENT One characteristic of engineering work is that it is often non-repetitive and requires a great deal of creative thought and detailed analysis. One can construct an activity model (shown in Fig. 1) which describes three major dimensions of engineering tasks: 1. Creative structuring and synthesis 2. Analysis and detailed development 3. Coordination with other functions Creative Structuring and Synthesis
Analysis d Detailed Development
/
Coordination vith Other Functions
Fig. 1. Activity
matrix.
Most engineering tasks will fit into this three-dimensional matrix showing the various degrees of the three dimensions which the succinct task requires. Most successful engineering work will exhibit some mixture, albeit in various degrees, of these three activities. It is important in the eventual development of action steps to improving engineering productivity to understand the nature of the various activities outlined in this matrix.
111
Creative structuring
and synthesis
Engineers are often asked to take an illdefined concept such as an idea for a new product which may come from marketing and to develop that idea into a product which is both feasible and economical. This activity is largely mental and requires a creative thought process where ideas are developed, evaluated, modified, and finally an iteration toward a plausible concept occurs. Some examples of this type of activity should shed some light on its nature : 1. Form synthesis: the actual conceptualization of the shape of a support member in high-performance machinery, prior to any analysis to determine its size. 2. Flow charting of a system model for subsequent simulation and recommendations. 3. Preliminary sketch layout of a material handling system. 4. General outline of a technical specification prior to dictation. 5. Design of an experiment to determine the overall realiability of a complex piece of machinery. Without engineering talent and energies directed along this activity, companies would quickly become stagnant, and new and improved products would not come onto the commercial horizon. Analysis and detailed development Crucial to the success of any engineering task is attention to detail and thorough analysis to ensure that the original concept is both feasible and economical. Improper analysis can lead to a disaster of an originally feasible concept. There is also a great deal of engineering effort which must take place between the original conceptualization of an idea or process and the final hardware implementation. Examples of this type of activity are: 1. Determination of the size of the drive shaft to transmit a given horsepower for a piece of machinery.
2. Actual computer coding of a simulation model. 3. Preparation of purchase requisitions from a composite bill of material for a large production contract. 4. Detailed drawing of a machine part for subsequent manufacture. 5. Preparation of a routing sheet for a complex machine part. 6. The reading and assimilation of technical specifications. 7. Preparation of data files for a Materials Requirements Planning (MRP) control system. Engineers have a responsibility to pay attention to detail, and costly reworks quickly occur due to careless error and improper analysis. Retrofit of any system is extremely expensive and many mistakes are not conceptual in nature, but are careless and analytically based. Coordination
with other functions
In today’s complex technology in an organizational environment, it is essential that the engineer be proficient in coordinating his/her efforts with numerous other functions within the organization and its environment. The work of an engineer interfaces with most including entities, other organizational production, purchasing, marketing and sales, etc. The skill to proproduction control, actively coordinate one’s activities with the other necessary functional units is crucial to the overall success of a task. Examples of this type of coordination requirement are: 1. Determination of a vendor for hydraulics cylinders to be used in a mechanical lift. 2. Establishment of schedules for completion of a facility redesign. 3. Determination of a return on investment on a new robotic production line. 4. Communication of design parameters to junior designers who will do the actual detailed layouts. 5. Coordination with manufacturing with respect to process capabilities. These types of interpersonal skills are often neglected in the formal training of an
112
engineer. However, these “managerial” skills often make or break a project and an individual’s career within a firm.
ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO ENGINEERING WORK ENVIRONMENT
The successful engineering manager must tailor his/her actions to the particular work environment in which the engineering staff finds itself. It is vital to be sensitive to the characteristics present within the organization and the clientele which that organization serves. Numerous opportunities will likely exist within the organization which coincide with activities along the activity matrix. It is likely that the engineering manager will envision a prioritization of these three dimensions of work activity within the general engineering staff. However, it is imperative that the en~neering manager pay attention to the individual engineer and to the potential improvement which that professional can make along his/her activity matrix. There are a number of action steps which are available to the engineering manager, depending upon the particular dimension in which he/she desires improvement. Some examples of these action steps follow. Creative structuring
and synthesis
1. Cross fertilization with other disciplines. 2. Reduction of time pressures: new ideas require incubation time. 3. Encouragement of curiosity/exploration type activities. 4. Provide sounding board: encourage novel approaches even if they may seem to be impractical. 5. Encourage balance in life: exercise program, hobbies, etc. (avoid professional burnout). 6. Tolerate creative spurts and withdraw~s: creativity often does not work at a regular pace but surfaces after a period of reflection and possibly other activities. Basically the engineering manager should be
proactive in creating an .environment which is conducive to the influx of new ideas and to create an acceptance env~onment for this type of new idea risk taking by the engineering professionals. Analysis and detailed development
1. Avoid interruptions: investigate the use of a “quiet time” where only emergency interruptions are tolerated. 2. Provide and encourage the use of checklists for various categories of project tasks. 3. Gather required information before starting work. 4. Use technology where appropriate such as computer-aided design, automatic filing systems, dictation equipment, etc. 5. Stress the importance of this type of work in that the overall success of an engineering project may depend on careful attention to detail. 6. Build in checkpoints throughout the task so as to avoid the discovery of mistakes in the hardware. 7. Bring work to natural closure points so as to avoid startup mistakes and inefficiencies. personal accountability for 8. Stress accuracy and professionalism. Involve the engineer in error resolution. To pursue improvement along this dimension, the engineering manager attempts to provide the environment and the tools which allow the engineer to be precise and accurate in his/her work. This involves the buffering of the engineer from needless interruptions so that an extended period of concentration can be maintained. The engineering manager also stresses accountability and the extreme importance of this type of activity to the overall success and reputation of the engineering staff. Coordination
with other functions
1. Anticipate
instead
of
coordination requirements always reacting to them.
113
2. Use structured group process when Insist that required. meetings are meetings have a purpose and that results of the sessions are communicated to the members of the group. 3. Familiarize the engineer with the “big picture” of the various tasks. 4. Expedite communication with other functional units. Recognize that communication delays can cause great stress and potential errors within the engineering environment. 5. Encourage written confirmations of decisions reached and commitments rendered. 6. Prioritize efforts to account for lead times. Revise this prioritization often so that the engineering staff can be responsive to changes in the work situation. 7. Encourage overall project scheduling with realistic due dates. Allocate time to do effective project scheduling and then insist upon the alignment of actual performance with scheduled commitments. 8. Develop lines of communication which across traditional organizational cut structure. The engineering manager realizes that his/her department does not exist in an organizational vacuum. Necessary information is derived from other functional units and from the organizational environment in order to do effective professional engineering. Also many other units within the organization and clients depend on the outputs with respect to blueprints, proposal drawings, specifications, etc., in order to do their work effectively. Thus the engineering staff is seen as a critical part of a complex organizational network and this reality must be addressed by appropriate professional action.
DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT
OF A PRODUCTIVITY STRATEGY
In developing a improvement strategy environment, two key
useful productivity for an engineering ideas should be con-
sidered. The first is the role of participation of the engineering professionals. A participative approach to productivity improvement for an engineering organization can significantly increase the probability of success for that unit (Stewart, 1980a). As individuals are allowed to participate in the formulation and implementation of productivity improvement actions, there will be greater acceptance than if the changes are imposed. The quality will also probably be better if these decisions are developed through participation. Participation can bring together or tap a reservoir of knowledge, experience, skills and creativity and may identify areas for improvement that would not be obvious to management. Participation can also help align the engineers’ goals with those of the organization. The objective of a participative approach is to develop feelings of common commitment to organizational goals and to promote constructive cooperation. The second key idea is that of situationspecific action. This involves the use of contingency theory structure. In simple terms, contingency theory suggests that one should assess the situation, determine the desired changes, look at available options, determine tradeoffs for interrelationships, and use what best fits the situation. It is unlikely that a rigid strategy can be proposed which would fit all engineering situations. Thus the engineering manager needs to gather information from the engineering environment and to make judgments as to which actions offer the highest potential payback. Using the above premises, and the developed conceptual framework of engineering activity, the following strategy can be proposed : 1. Determine the need. Be explicit about the role that engineering performance in the overall organizational plays productivity improvement picture. Discuss the concept of engineering productivity with members of other functional units and determine their perception of how improvement of engineering productivity would impact the overall organization.
114
2. Isolate opportunities. Opportunities will likely exist at many levels: environmental, organizational, departmental, project, individual. Involve members of the engineering staff in identifying those opportunities which exist at these various levels for productivity improvement from their perspectives. Examples of actions which might be taken at various levels are: (a) Better client communication with respect to specifications could be approached with the assistance of people skilled at working with clients within the environment. (b) Better coordination with purchasing could take place at the organizational level. (c) Implementation of cathode ray tubes (CRT) with adequate data files would have a departmental perspective. (d) Use of Critical Path Method (CPM) project planning could enhance project performance. (e) Advanced engineering courses may affect one’s performance as an individual engineering professional. These opportunities can be developed through a number of different mechanisms. Techniques such as brainstorming, nominal group technique, work analysis, Delphi technique, surveys, interviews, can be extremely helpful in etc., involving the members of the staff in the development of potential opportuniproductivity ties for engineering improvement. 3. Generate action to seize opportunities. Encourage individuals to generate specific action steps which they can use to seize upon the various identified opportunities. Some of these actions may be implestraightforward and quit kly mented, while others will need further study and may require the formation of a mechanism by which the opportunity is further developed. 4. Prioritize productivity projects and seek resources. From the various action steps
which naturally form projects, an assessment must be made as to which potential projects will receive an allocation of the scarce resources of time and financial support to pursue these particular changes. 5. Assign responsibility for implementation. Provide sufficient time and development resources so that this type of change process can be properly managed and controlled. This type of responsibility assignment can occur both at the project level and at the individual level. 6. Monitor results and adapt. A strategy must be flexible and changes in plan will be necessary. Results of action steps should be carefully monitored so as to reach a successful implementation. Central to all of these activities is the hypothesis that self-directed change by those who will be most affected by that change offers the highest probability for successful implementation (Morris, 1979). This strategy is also seen as an ongoing process of opporgeneration of tunity identification and appropriate actions which then are evaluated and perhaps further opportunities developed. Thus it is not a one-shot strategy, but a method by which engineering professionals can continue to seek ways of improving their particular work environment and their own personal contributions to the overall producimprovement efforts of the total tivity organization.
ISSUES OF MEASUREMENT The measurement challenge of an engineering environment is a severe one. Again it is essential that participation and involvement of key personnel be used in the development of any measurement system which would subsequently be implemented. It is clear that any measurement system used in this type of unstructured work environment will be open to question and criticism. It is crucial then that the engineering professionals see their input as part of the development of the
115 system, and it is hoped that through this participation, more time will be spent on the positive aspects of the measurement scheme than on the obvious drawbacks. As was mentioned earlier in this article, various perspectives for engineering productivity can be pursued. If one views the role of the engineering staff as that of support for the total production output of the system, one could form a productivity ratio of total supported/engineering hours and output observe this ratio in a trend type of analysis to see whether or not the various engineering hours are contributing to the increase in output of the production system. One can also take the project perspective and look at the budgeted hours us. actual hours for various projects. This type of productivity indicator monitors both the planning and budgeting process along with the actual completion of the engineering work. A third approach to measurement within the engineering environment is to utilize various surrogate measures which provide perspectives on engineering performance. These surrogates are not pure output-to-input productivity ratios, but their use can provide important insight into the improvement of a particular engineering operation. Some suggestions of general surrogates are: Number of engineering errors found in shop multiplied by cost to correct/drawings issued Number of revisions per drawing Percent tasks completed on time Percent utilization of engineering resources Cost reduction per engineer Percent utilization of CRT capabilities It is important in the development of any measurement system to properly reflect the perceived goals that the engineering function should be pursuing. Engineering tasks should not only have an efficiency dimension but need to look at the quality and timeliness aspects of their performance. Thus it is envisioned that an engineering staff could create a family of surrogate measures which assess the various dimensions of their work as that
reflects the organizational goals work (Stewart, 1978, 1980b). It is also important that one not try to collapse all of engineering activity into one single dimension. It is likely that that particular dimension will be the one that catches the attention of the engineering professional and, if the engineering department is actually operating in a multi-criteria environment, a single dimensional type of performance could be disastrous. For example, if an overemphasis is placed on efficiency in terms of minimizing person-hours per drawing, the response to the schedule commitments and to the quality of that particular work may become secondary. It is also fairly clear that most measurement within an engineering environment will be done on a trend or change basis. It is unlikely that a large investment in developing engineered standards for the diverse types of engineering work would prove to be cost/ beneficial. In the absence of standards, it is difficult to determine whether or not an engineering staff is working at near optimal performance. Most engineering managers will be content with the demonstration that performance is improving or deteriorating along the various dimensions which are important to that particular engineering organization.
CONCLUSION In a recent talk by Stanley Pace, Chief Executive Officer for TRW, he called the 1980s the “decade of the engineer” (Pace, 1980). The challenges to engineering managers in terms of utilizing the scarce resource of engineering talent will be extreme during this decade of technical problem solving. Organizations should develop unified strategies which involve the engineering professional in the continuous finding of better ways to perform this necessary engineering work. The engineering manager plays a crucial role in establishing a proper environment which creates a readiness for change and rewards good performance and improved performance instead of just senior-
116
ity and punctuality. The challenge is clear: increased engineering output will be required from a dwindling supply of engineering talent. This makes the productivity concept a crucial one to the overall success of a firm which requires professional engineering skill.
REFERENCES American Productivity Center, Perspectives. Houston, Texas.
1980.
Productivity
Morris, W.T., 1979. Implementation Strategies for Industrial Engineers. Grid, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 252 pp. Pace, S.G., 1980. Speech to Triple Engineering Conference. Cleveland, Ohio. Stewart, W.T., 1978. A “yardstick” for measuring productivity. Industrial Engineering, lO(2): 34-37. Stewart, W.T., 1980a. A productivity improvement strategy at the firm level. Manufacturing Produc tivity Frontiers, 4 (1): 26-27. Stewart, W.T., 1980b. Productivity measurement at firm level. Manufacturing Productivity the Frontiers, 4 (2): 6-l 1.