White Collar Productivity Improvement

(NASA-Ch-176366) WHITE CCLLAE PRODUCTIVITY

IMPROVEMENT: SPONSORED ACTION EESEAHCH 1983

- 1985 {American Productivity Center) 41 p

HC A03/ME A01 CSCL 05A

G3/81

N86-21419

Unclas

oaaio

Sponsored Action Research 1983-85

PRODUCTIVITY

AMERICAN
White Collar Productivity Improvement

Sponsored Action Research 1983-85

3IRU COHTAIHS

Summary and Findings

of a two-year study by

The American Productivity Center

Project Sponsors

Armco Inc.

Atlantic Richfield Co.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. -

General Dynamics Corp. </

Johnson & Johnson

McDonnell Douglas Corp. \/

Motorola Inc.

NASA

Northern Telecom Ltd.

Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

Rockwell International Corp.

TRW Inc.

Warner-Lambert Co.
White Collar Productivity Improvement

Project Steering Committee

American Productivity Center

Steven A. Leth

Humanics Inc.

Vincent J.Byrne'

Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

Bartley M. Howley (Chairman)

American Productivity

Management Association

William L. Ginnodo'

Armco Inc.

Stephen L. Yearout

Atlantic Richfield Co.

John G. Howe

The Dun & Bradstreet Corp.

Robert J. Mitchell

Dennis Masar*

General Dynamics Corp.

Z. Henry Hyman

Bonnie I. Hunt*

Johnson & Johnson

William B.Alton

Gary L. Brewer*

Joseph T. Anstatt

Gary L. Regensburg*

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Larry A. Lemke

Motorola Inc.

Janet Fiero

NASA

Les Sullivan

Wanda M. Thrower*

Northern Telecom Ltd.

Michael R. Flower

Michael K. Marsh*

Rockwell International Corp.

DaleR. Buhr

Tarkenton and Co.

Henry P Conn'

TRW, Inc.

Richard L. Betke

Edward A. Steigerwald*

Warner-Lambert Co.

Fred Klein

"Alternate

• Advisor

This report was prepared by Steven A. Leth, Senior Vice

President for Multiclient Projects for the American Productivity Center, with contributions from members of

the Center's White Collar Productivity Improvement

project team:

Fred R Dorin, Daniel L. Hillman, Judith Leen, Anne F.

Marsden, Thomas A. Salemme, James L. Welsh, John N.

Younker, and Anthony R. Zecca.

Acknowledgments to The Dun & Bradstreet Corp., General Dynamics Corp., McDonnell Douglas Corp., Northern

Telecom Ltd., Westinghouse Furniture Systems, and the

U. S. Department of Labor, for their cosponsorship of a

national conference on white collar productivity improvement hosted by the American Productivity Center on

October 30-31, 1985, in Dallas, Texas.

Special thanks to Digital Equipment Corp. for its donation

of ten PRO 350 computers for the duration of the White

Collar Productivity Improvement project.

Graphic Arts and Production: Cheryl Hoffman

® August 1985, The American Productivity Center
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1_

Introduction 5

Project Developments V\_

Results 23

Research Products 3J_

Insights and Observations 33

Conclusion 37

Illustrations

Figure A: Pilots by function 8_

Figure B: Pilots by location ^0

Figure C: Major project activities and target dates 1_3

Figure D: Major pilot activities 1j5

Figure 1: Diagnosis phase 16

Figure 2: Objectives phase 17

Figure E: Traditional vs. desired productivity measurement ]7_

Figure 3: Measurement phase 18

Figure 4: Service (Re)Design phase 1_9

Figure 5: Team Development phase 20

Figure 6: Technology Parameters phase 2J

Figure F: Elements of a successful pilot 24

Figure G: Research study map 26

Figure H: Work flow redesign 27
Executive Summary
Executive Summary

• Research scientists cut "average study" time by more

than three months.

• Engineers made time and cost estimates one of their

first responses to a request for services. Unnecessary

paperwork and overall time to process the requests

dropped significantly.

• A personnel unit gave other departments direct

computer access to employee files. The departments

now update their own workers' files. Personnel

employees maintain the integrity of the system and the

confidentiality of privileged data, but former filekeepers have been reassigned to more fruitful

endeavors.

• An operational auditing group reexamined its mission

and took a radical change in direction. The group

shifted its focus from exceptions to business

procedures to opportunities to guide and advise those

making the exceptions. Members turned to roles as

counselors rather than policemen.

Across the nation, in similar departments or functional

areas of 13 corporations, white collar employees are

proving that their productivity can not only be measured,

but also improved. These accountants, engineers, scientists, human resource specialists, information management experts, and other professionals and their staffs —

nearly 4,000 altogether — are pioneers of an approach

developed by the American Productivity Center to boost

white collar worker effectiveness. They are the heart of

the Center's two-year sponsored action research

project, White Collar Productivity Improvement, completed in August, 1985.

Dispelling suspicions

The Center developed a six-phase methodology for white

collar productivity improvement in response to a growing

need among its more than 250 corporate, labor, government, and academic supporters to address productivity in

their fast-growing managerial, professional, and clerical

ranks. At the same time, the project was designed to dispel suspicions that white collar work is too varied, too

dependent on subjective judgement or "creativity" to

hold opportunities for the types of productivity gains

generally associated with manufacturing operations. The

project followed a 1983 survey by the Center and Steelcase, Inc., that found both knowledge and practice of

white collar productivity improvement severely lacking.

Traditional attempts aimed at cutting costs or staffing

levels, often alienating workers at the outset. They typically focused on increased efficiencies in individual activities or specific procedures, such as paperwork

processing. In the worst instances, a specific technique

— usually available only by hiring an outside expert —

became viewed as an all-purpose solution in search of

applications. Improvements were isolated and short

lived. Employees affected were left with no greater capability to do their jobs well, and much greater suspicion of

the next "productivity program."

In contrast, the Center's new approach to white collar

productivity focuses on the effectiveness of actual outputs, typically professional services. These typically consist of both tangible products, such as a financial report

or research study, and intangibles, such as the expertise,

advice or guidance that accompanies the product. Effectiveness is assessed primarily as the degree to which

these services meet both internal objectives, those of

the work unit, and external, or "customer," needs and

expectations.

This service orientation and focus on effectiveness

avoids many of the pitfalls of the traditional approaches.

It aims at innovations in the delivery of products or services to adapt to changing business conditions. It

stresses improvement in the quality and timeliness of

white collar activities and ensures they stay in line with

overall organizational strategies. The Center's approach

also focuses on individual capabilities and their contribution to the functional unit. It gives employees tools, such

as productivity measures and team-building techniques,

they can adapt to their own unique circumstances.

Most important, the employees and their managers take

responsibility for every step of the productivity improvement process so they can take it over and carry it on.

Involvement

The White Collar Productivity Improvement project was

carefully crafted from the outset to ensure a high degree

of managerial and employee involvement.
Executive Summary

Project Sponsors

Armco Inc.

Atlantic Richfield Co.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corp.

General Dynamics Corp.

Johnson & Johnson

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Motorola Inc.

NASA

Northern Telecom Ltd.

Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

Rockwell International Corp.

TRW Inc.

Warner-Lambert Co.

Each of the project's 13 sponsoring companies assigned

liaisons to serve on a steering committee that set the

course for the ensuing research. Corporate coordinators

were assigned to assist each firm's several pilots, groups

of 25 to 200 workers responsible for recognizable services of a functional unit or department. At the 56 pilots,

a pilot manager was assigned to work directly with one of

seven Center research associates.

The pilots represent nine functional areas: accounting

and finance, customer service, engineering, facilities

management, marketing and sales, operations, information systems management, human resources, and

research and development.

Frequent steering committee meetings, training sessions

for coordinators and pilot managers, and project conferences at the American Productivity Center in Houston

brought sponsoring firm participants together to share

ideas and experiences with the methodology. In addition,

the project employed computer conferencing for on-line

surveys and report preparation, tutorials, ongoing discussions, and messaging. These computer networks

proved invaluable to both pilot progress and overall

project management.

Progress

Progress and success with the methodology varied considerably from firm to firm and pilot to pilot with pilot

members' level of participation in and commitment to the

project, management's dedication, and the use of the

methodology.

The 56 pilots were initiated into the project at various

points during the past 24 months, and proceeded at their

own paces. At the formal close of the research in August,

1985, all but two had completed or were continuing to

work through the methodology. (One dropped out due to

drastic management change; the other, due to its divestiture from the sponsoring corporation.)

More than three fourths of the 56 pilots had progressed

through the measurement phase — perhaps the most

difficult of the six steps — in which employees themselves selected indicators of their present and future

effectiveness. Most of these also had completed redesigns or new designs of their services aimed at boosting

their productivity and organizational effectiveness.

Phase-by-phase results can be generalized as follows:

1. Diagnosis phase

• Clarification of and agreement on the work unit's outputs and services.

• Definition of users' needs and expectations.

• Identification of leverage points for productivity

gains.

2. Objectives phase

• Clarification of the unit's mission and purpose.

• Creation of a vision for achieving the mission

and purpose.

• Objectives tied to the development and delivery

of services.

3. Measurement phase

• Measures emphasizing service effectiveness and

critical points.

• Means to track and feed back data for problem

solving.

• Data useful for ongoing improvements.

4. Service (Re)Design

• Clear, agreed upon approaches to service development and delivery.

• Services that are consistent with objectives and

measures.

• Improved capability to identify opportunities for

improvements and to execute changes.

• A framework for effective implementation of new

office technology.

5. Team Development

• Smoothed working relationship among coworkers and

with other units or functional groups.

• Agreement on back-up personnel and procedures.

• Improved morale, enhanced cooperation, active

participation.
Executive Summary

6. Technology Parameters

• Parameters for technology directly in support of

services.

• More efficient performance of routine tasks.

• Enhanced communication ability.

Overall, the progress of the research pilot groups falls in

these categories:

• Business discipline resulting from a service

orientation.

• Improved operational capability and better control of

resources.

• Improved morale and motivation.

• Internal ability for continued productivity

improvements.

Findings

In addition to spurring productivity at the pilot group

level, the project also contributed significantly to general

knowledge of white collar productivity and improvement

practices.

Center research associates documented project developments in written case studies of various pilot groups.

They wrote briefings on assessing opportunities for

improvement, measurement in white collar environments, the role of management in the improvement

effort, environmental design as related to white collar

productivity, and a consultant's perspective on the

improvement process. The Center's six-phase methodology also was refined throughout the project to reflect

lessons learned at the various steps of each phase.

These additional research products are available from

the American Productivity Center.

The two-year test of its methodology supported many initial assumptions by the Center about white collar productivity and improvement efforts. These findings fall under

eight general observations:

1. White collar productivity improvement is founded on

basic issues of vision, orientation, and management

practices.

2. Attention to "operational" issues will enable productivity improvement to take place.

3. White collar professionals require additional training

in order to deliver their services effectively.

4. Administrative systems within an organization offer

a major opportunity for productivity improvement.

5. Measurement of white collar work is both possible

and desirable.

6. Technology, such as computer mediated systems or

new office environmental designs, is best justified

when linked to critical junctures or features of white

collar services.

7. Self-reliance is a key to ongoing productivity

improvements.

8. White collar productivity improvement is dependent

on seven critical success factors. These are:

• A climate supportive of change, innovation, and risktaking.

• A vision for the future of the function that is shared

among all employees.

• Emphasis on service issues and opportunities.

• A flexible methodology, one the function can adapt to

its own circumstances and business.

• Leadership by the function's managers, not by a consultant or lower-level employee.

• Technology directly linked to productivity leverage

points.

• Involvement and "buy-in" by most employees at all

levels of the function.

Work continues

Pilot groups, managers, and coordinators involved in the

White Collar Productivity Improvement project continue

their efforts to become more effective, productive

professionals even as the first phase of the research

effort draws to a close. In the more aggressive of the

sponsoring companies, the methodology and new management skills are spreading to other locations and functional areas.

From its headquarters in Houston, the American Productivity Center also continues its work to seed continued

white collar productivity improvement and to expand

understanding of this vital issue.

The Center has undertaken a second phase of sponsored action research, White Collar Productivity Improvement: Innovative Methods and Plans in Action (IMPACT),

based on findings from its first research study. IMPACT

will pursue continuing improvements in operations within

pilot groups, in the working interfaces between pilot

groups, and in firm-level administrative systems.
Introduction
Introduction

American industry and government witnessed a challenging period during the late 1970's and early 1980's.

The effects seem to endure.

In the private sector, the changes have been most turbulent. Deregulation of transportation and banking,

increased controls on health care costs, aggressive competition by lean domestic firms and low cost foreign competitors, and rapidly changing technology have shaken

the foundation of most industries. Many of the tried and

true "practices" of business no longer appear reliable.

The public sector has not escaped the disruption. A new

Administration heralded a theme of less federal government and more state or local control and responsibility.

Changed or lost sources of funding necessitated major

budget revisions and close scrutiny of resource allocation. Pursuit of productivity gains became progressively

more popular as government agencies sought to manage

the transition.

Productivity improvements were not new to American

organizations. Since the decline in productivity growth in

the late 1960's, the issue had risen in prominence, primarily in production and manufacturing environments. In

the ensuing 10 years or so, productivity became a household word — one with innumerable definitions and connotations. Yet despite the visibility of the issue, limited

information existed on the productivity of white collar and

office workers, and only sporadic efforts had been made

to improve their effectiveness.

As the nation's leading advocate of productivity improvement, the American Productivity Center was frequently

approached for assistance and advice. Many of the corporate, labor, government, and academic supporters of

the Center recognized that a major opportunity for productivity gains resided in their large — and still growing

— staffs of white collar employees. Among many firms,

managerial, professional, and clerical staff composed

the bulk of the workforce and commanded the greatest

share of the payroll. Perhaps more significant, managerial and professional employees were and are viewed as

prime means to product innovation and competitiveness.

In response, the Center surveyed and consulted with

several hundred corporations and public agencies and

published a summary of findings in White Collar Productivity: The National Challenge. The report, cosponsored

by Steelcase, Inc., found that few models of white collar

productivity improvement existed. Moreover, the majority of the programs that had been attempted exhibited

similar, traditional characteristics.

Purpose:

Focus

The Traditional Experience

Cost cutting

Reduced overhead

Individual activities and practices

Specific problem or procedure

Approach: Technique orientation

Solution seeking applications

Narrow thrust

Implementation: Consultant dependent

Impact: One shot

Theme: Efficiency

The traditional experience revolves around cost cuts and

reduction in overhead by streamlining the work of persons in particular positions, such as clerks or technicians;

resolving a problem; or repairing a procedure that has

grown cumbersome. In the worst scenarios, a specific

technique with a narrow thrust is used. The technique is

viewed as an all-purpose solution in search of an application. Typically, outside expertise is needed to apply any

detailed approach over the time required to achieve

white collar productivity gains. Such attempts usually are

isolated or periodic and require the consultant or expert

to return for repeated applications.

In brief, the theme has been one of "efficiency" — an

attempt to reduce the cost of inputs, while the outputs

remained unclear or in less demand.

The traditional experience appeared to offer limited

promise in turbulent business conditions. Costs were cut

periodically, but no greater capability was gained once

the "fat" had been pared. Further, the process of change

and productivity improvement often took on a distasteful

flavor even for the survivors of these traditional methods.
Introduction

The Center's investigation revealed that comprehensive,

concerted efforts to develop new approaches to white

collar productivity improvement were clearly needed.

Consequently, the Center devised a contrasting

approach — one designed to deliver greater benefits.

Sponsored Action Research

Purpose: Improvements in quality and timeliness

Innovation in product/service approach

Adaptation to business changes

Focus: Mission/purpose/direction

Service/outputs

Functional unit and employee capabilities

Approach: Adaptable process

Tools to fit services/outputs

Integrate people, place, tools

Implementation: Management and employee dependent

Impact: Ongoing

Theme: Effectiveness

The two-year action research project the Center

designed was aimed at operationalizing these features.

White collar work groups, usually representing specific

professional functions or departments, participated

because they needed improvement in the quality and

timeliness of their services; innovation in the way the

work was conducted; and, in some groups, adaptation to

continuing changes in the firm or its marketplace.

In each group, a six-phase methodology enabled managers and employees to take a fresh look at their mission

and purpose; to evaluate their design for services and

outputs; and to identify needed tools and appropriate

places of authority. The process could be adapted to the

unique services and outputs of each group, with an

emphasis on ensuring a fit among employees, their environment, and their tools. Managers and employees led

the effort. With assistance from the Center, they

acquired the skills and experience needed to adjust steps

of the process for changing conditions and to transfer

productivity improvement methods to other white collar

areas. With its emphasis on performing the "right" services and meeting user or client needs, the project

focused primarily on professional effectiveness.

The purpose of the project was not only to improve the

effectiveness of participating groups, however, but also

to advance the knowledge and practice of white collar

productivity. Thus, the project's design as "action

research" — an approach to be refined and modified as

further experience was gained. The project also was

crafted to provide for sharing information among groups

within a firm and among the sponsoring companies.

Communication among peers provided for a richer experience. In addition, the project was advised by a steering

committee comprised of liaisons from each sponsoring

company. The committee gave direction to the project

and ensured that sponsors' expectations were met.

Assumptions

The project was based on five major assumptions:

1. White collar productivity improvement must be

demonstrated and proven within each firm.

In few, if any, firms is there widespread acceptance of a

productivity model among various staffs and functions.

Each function or staff and each firm seeks unique

benefits to be derived from productivity efforts.

Thus, the model for productivity gains must be "homegrown" in order to be genuinely accepted on its own turf.

Given these organizational character traits, large-scale or

firm-wide white collar programs — particularly with an

emphasis on the broader issue of effectiveness —

appeared unlikely.

2. White collar productivity results from efficiency and

effectiveness.

Efficiency cannot be left out of the productivity equation.

But experience suggests that effectiveness in a white

collar context cannot be assumed. Many white collar

work units have lost track of client or user needs, and

over time, the mission or purpose of the unit frequently

slips out of line with that of the corporation or that

demanded by the marketplace. Few organizations have

safeguards to ensure that, indeed, they are doing the

right things.

3. Services are a useful focus for analysis and

measurement.

A vigorous analysis of any white collar function's effectiveness must begin with three fundamental questions:

• What are we primarily here for?

• Who relies upon us?

• How do we know their needs have been met?

The questions counsel the function to look beyond its

many activities to the ultimate delivery of its support or

services to a client or user. The focus on services, which

often transcend internal boundaries, encourages the

function to take a fresh look at its own organization and

the unrelated activities that might be eliminated. In addition, measurement of a function's services generates

data of the most significant kind: It tells the unit how well

its purpose and mission are being fulfilled.

4. Participation by the white collar group in the improvement process leads to greater innovation, ownership

and ongoing capability.

Traditional attempts to improve white collar productivity

have relied upon expertise from outside the group. Even

where the expertise was relevant and helpful, significant

opportunities often were not recognized by these

outsiders, or implementation suffered from their dominant role.

In white collar environments, much of the work is specific

to the organization's circumstances; the expertise, training, and judgment of the personnel is critical; the need to
Introduction

change and adapt to business circumstances is frequent

and unpredictable. Clearly such contexts call for productivity thrusts that are driven by the units or functions

themselves. Active involvement by all or many managers

and employees was presumed to be critical in the Center's

process.

5. The productivity improvement process must

address both technical and social issues.

Nearly all of the many traditional programs and techniques employed in white collar productivity improvement tend to focus either on social or on technical issues.

When the focus is purely social, morale or employee

Figure A

Pilots by Function

Company

ARCO

Dun&

Bradstreet

General

Dynamics

Johnson &

Johnson

McDonnell

Douglas

NASA

Northern

Telecom

Ortho

Pharmaceutical

Rockwell

TRW

WarnerLambert

Total

i

1

^

l|

8 I^

CQ

CO

3

2

1

2

3

1

1

14

CO O

CD £=

< &

O'O

CD 3

CD

1

m

CQ

CD

CD

^"

CQ

1

1

2

1

4

2

12

||

3

 w

CD

^. — t2

1

3

CO <r

IC/D si Ir

CQ

Co

2

1

3

0

CD

C/3

1

1

4

CO

1

1

1

2

1

7

cF

c/3

o

^

Z5

cp_

Ss

1

1

1

3

0 7J

CD CD

< C/D

CD CD

o-»

"O O

CD C°

^

1

2

2

2

2

9

§

5

6

6

6

8

3

5

6

5

56
Introduction

communication may improve, but the impact on the business remains uncertain. When the focus is technical, procedures or methods are streamlined, but working

relationships and teamwork are neglected or, worse,

impaired. In environments where the conduct of the work

is highly dependent on the personal choices and motivation of the employees, there is a need to address both

the structure of the services and the interpersonal and

social factors that will make the structure successful.

These five assumptions formed the foundation for the

American Productivity Center's new approach to white

collar productivity. A proposal outlining the design and

schedule, budget, Center resources and services, and

sponsor participation and benefits was distributed to

potential sponsors during the first and second quarters

of 1983. By September, 1983, seven sponsors were confirmed; an additional six firms joined the project later. The

13 sponsors are:

Armco Inc.

Atlantic Richfield Co.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corp.

General Dynamics Corp.

Johnson & Johnson

McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Motorola Inc.

NASA

Northern Telecom Ltd.

Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

Rockwell International Corp.

TRW Inc.

Warner-Lambert Co.

The sponsors were requested to identify the functions or

units in which the process and methodology could be piloted and, in turn, the key players who would lead the

effort. Five criteria guided selection of the pilot groups:

• Size: A range of approximately 25-200 persons within

a functional unit allows for application of the methodology and for the project to be accessible and visible

to most of the unit's employees.

• Complexity: Multiple services and outputs may be

included in a pilot group; each group or function would

have a recognizable management team responsible

for the entire pilot.

• Potential: There should be real potential for improvement derived from change within the group as well as

from change in its working interactions, or interfaces,

with other groups.

• Climate: Management should be receptive to change

and to input from the workforce.

• Business Impact: A pilot group should provide services or outputs that are recognized as important to

the business of the sponsor. Also, having completed

the project, the group would likely serve as a credible

model to other groups and functions.

With the above criteria in mind, potential pilot groups

were approached and a total of 56 participated, representing nine functional areas and approximately 4,000

individual white collar workers in 11 of the 13 sponsoring

companies. (See box.)

What is a pilot?

A pilot is a white collar work group that provides

services or information within an organization, for

example, an accounting department. It is within a

pilot group that the white collar project methodology is implemented. Data collection in real-life, field

situations is a major feature of the project. The pilots

are intended to introduce productivity improvements to the organization and to provide answers

to key business related questions. Pilot groups are

situated to take advantage of new or modified

methods and techniques. Caution is exercised to

ensure that the pilot groups are not merely experiments or "guinea pigs" and that improvements are,

in fact, realized.

(Armco participated by lending to the Center a research

associate who acquired experience with the process.

Motorola participated in the computer networks and project conferences.)

(See Figures A and B.)

The opportunity for participation by many, if not all, members of a pilot was designed into the methodology. In

addition, several key roles were identified:

• Liaison: A senior manager or officer in each sponsoring firm to lead the firm's pilots. The liaison was also

charged with planning the dissemination of the process beyond the two-year project. Finally, each liaison

served on the project steering committee, which provided guidance to the overall project.

• Coordinator: A professional or manager to provide

hands-on assistance to the pilot groups. The coordinator was often an internal consultant designated to

support the liaison in transferring the methodology

and findings to groups beyond and outside of

the project.

• Pilot Manager: An aggressive manager or supervisor

selected from within the pilot group to lead the process

internally. The pilot manager assumed a hands-on

role and worked closely with an internal task force to

conduct each phase of the methodology.

• Research Associate: A representative of the American

Productivity Center to work in close association with

the coordinator, pilot manager, and the various ad hoc

groups and teams within any one pilot. The research

associate is expert in the methodology and provides

guidance and assistance throughout the phases of

each pilot.

Together, the four major roles may account for several

persons within any sponsoring firm; they provide ongoing

leadership, decision making authority, relevant expertise,

and hands-on assistance.

9
Figure B

Pilots by location

Chicago area (2)

Sunnyvale Lafayette, Ind. (1) , Ca. (1)

Greenbelt, Md. (1)A

Raleigh, N.C.(1)

Los Angeles area (14)

Atlanta (1) A

Huntsville, Ala. (1) A

Dallas area (3)

Tampa/Miami (1)

Philadelphia (4)

New Brunswick, N.J.

area (11)

o . ;

COLO* PHOTOGRAPH

li
Project Developments
Project Developments

The project was developed around five major types of

events:

1. Steering committee meetings and deliberations.

2. Training sessions for coordinators and pilot

managers.

3. Pilot level improvements and follow-through with the

methodology.

4. Computer conferences and networking.

5. Face-to-face conferences.

The schedule (see Figure C) shows the timing and

duration of the major events from September, 1983

through August, 1985.

Steering committee meetings

At the onset of the project, the liaisons from each sponsoring organization met to review the project schedule,

training needs, public communication about the project,

and potential new sponsors. Throughout the project and

at each conference the steering committee deliberated

on sponsor needs and project direction. Critical

issues were:

• Feedback to the Center on services to the pilot

groups and the conduct of conferences.

• Transition toward self-sufficiency at the sponsor and

pilot levels, leading to less dependence on the Center's research associates.

• Documentation of project developments and

the subsequent distribution of information and

research products.

Training sessions

Three major training sessions were conducted for pilot

managers and coordinators. Approximately 125 pilot

managers and coordinators learned:

• The project design (resources, schedule, key

players, etc.).

• The six phase methodology.

• Computer networking and conferencing.

12
H

§

I

i?

•

yoioo

13
Project Developments

Pilot-level improvements

Through the training sessions, pilot managers and coordinators acquired a fundamental understanding of the

methodology. They returned to their respective units

and prepared the groups for implementation of

the methodology.

Typically, sponsors' managements were then briefed and,

frequently, a representative group of managers, supervisors, professionals, and support staff was identified as a

task force or pilot-level steering committee. A major presentation on the project for the entire unit or function usually coincided with the scouting mission, the first visit to

the pilot by one of seven Center research associates.

• Scouting Mission — In early visits, the

research associate assisted the pilot manager and

coordinator in presenting the project and methodology to the pilot group. This was usually accomplished

in one day about three to four weeks before the first

phase was undertaken. Presentations and subsequent discussions also enabled the pilot group to

offer suggestions on the timing and approach, raise

questions of job security, clarify management expectations, set up a task force/steering committee, and

plan for diagnostic interviews and surveys.

Once these introductory steps were completed, pilot

groups began working through the Center's six-phase

methodology — tailoring each step to their unique needs

and circumstances.

(See Figure D.)

' :
ORIGINAL' PAGE

Project Developments

Figure D

Monthly key pilot activities

Month:

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Preparation for survey

and interviews

Refine measurement and

feedback procedures

Scouting mission

Diagnosis

• Interviews

• Survey

• Synthesis

• Feedback

• Action items

Objectives

• Management work sessions

• Feedback

Action planning on

key productivity issues

Measurement

• Nominal Group sessions

•Integrate measures

• Assign weights

• Feedback and monitor

Services (Re)Design

• Map services

• Redesign/Refine Service

• Identify needs

•Feedback

Team Development

• Clarify roles

• Identify interfaces

• Commit support

Overview service-related

support from electronic

and environmental systems

Technology Parameters

• Review parameters

• Seek applications

• Implementation

• Monitor use

Pilot maintenance, refinement, development

to project

conclusion

Report to Management

15

ORIGINAL PAGE

COLOR PHOTOGRAPH
Project Developments

1. Diagnostic Phase — The purpose of the first phase

was to clarify and reach agreement on major services

and outputs; evaluate several major productivity factors; and resolve obstacles to the improvement effort,

such as morale problems or resource deficiencies.

Specifically, the focus of the diagnosis was on primary

services or outputs, the unit's mission and objectives, its

management practices, measurement methods, relevant

resources and tools, and user/client interfaces. Typically,

all members of the pilot group responded to a written survey. Next, a group representing a diagonal slice of 20 to

30 percent of pilot members was interviewed in two hour

face-to-face sessions. Users of services or outputs from

the pilot groups were also interviewed for their perceptions of support and ideas for potential improvements.

After the data were analyzed, findings were categorized

into general observations, specific opportunities for

improvement, and recommendations on how to proceed.

All members of the pilot group attended presentations on

the findings.

The pilot manager, coordinator, and research associate

each devoted four to six days to this phase. Once the

findings were fed back, ad hoc groups and the task force

followed up on recommendations.

(See Figure 1.)

2. Objectives Phase — The second phase was intended

for the development of objectives for each service or

output — of expectations of quality and timeliness

which took the user/client into primary consideration.

The "pilot team" — the pilot manager, coordinator, and

research associate — worked closely with management

to ensure that the pilot group's objectives fit with the

overall strategic direction of the company, its vision for

the future, and its client's/user's needs. The phase

frequently required two to three days of discussion in

several small group sessions. It resulted in a fresh perspective on the pilot's "business" and identification

of major leverage points for productivity gains.

(See Figure 2.)

Figure 1

Pilot project phase 1

Review relevant operations

and personnel materials

DIAGNOSIS

• Interviews

• Survey

• Synthesis

• Feedback

• Action items

Feedback for

Management All

and pilot

supervisors group members

OUTCOMES

•Agreement on major

"services" and objectives

• Productivity related findings

and improvement opportunities

• Plans to address

items for action

Convene temporary task force(s)

on important issue(s)

•
ORIGINAL PAGE

COLOR Pl'Tr-"-" 1"

Project Developments

Figure 2

Pilot project phase 2

OBJECTIVES

• Management work sessions

•Feedback

Review parent organization

strategic direction

or plan

Management sessions:

• mission and purpose?

• vision for future?

for work environment'

• objectives for each service?

User input to service

related objectives

OUTCOMES

• Clarify pilot group

mission, purpose, vision

• Set objectives

for each

maior service

• Gam user's

perspective in determining

efficiency/effectiveness

balance

3. Measurement Phase — With objectives clearly

stated, the pilot groups were in position to develop

indicators of the effectiveness of their service

and output. This phase was designed to result in

measures reflecting quality, timeliness, and

resource utilization.

In contrast to traditional approaches to measurement,

however, which stress comparisons on a single criterion

and are oriented toward reducing input, White Collar Productivity Improvement pilot groups were encouraged to

develop comprehensive indicators of performance and

productivity. The development process ensured ownership by the several persons responsible for the data.

Pilots were further encouraged to monitor the measures

over time for indications of opportunities to improve service development and delivery and to use the data constructively to resolve operational problems.

(See Figure E.)

Figure E

Measurement

Tradition

Single criterion

Limited input

Comparison with others

Oriented toward

reducing input

Punitive approach

Desired

Multiple criteria

Input from those responsible

Comparison over time

Oriented toward improving

output

Problem-solving, coaching

17
Project Developments

Figure 3

Pilot project phase 3

MEASUREMENT

• Nominal Group

Sessions

• Integrate measures

• Assign weights

• Feedback and monitor

• Nominal Group Session

for each major service

• Task statement

• Group process

• Report to management

Management

assigns

priority

(weights) to

measurement

criteria and/or ratios

Develop a

mathematical base

for all related

criteria

Construct means to

periodically collect data

and feed back results or trends

OUTCOMES

• Weighted measures for

each service

• Provisions for feedback

and use of the data

• A process for future

measurement refinement

Representatives from each of the pilot's service groups

followed a procedure, based on brainstorming, to

develop their unique productivity measures. This procedure produced a group of indicators that were refined

and prioritized, or weighted, by appropriate managers.

In addition, provisions were made for the collection,

feedback, and interpretation of the data. Development of these basic criteria typically required three to

five half-day sessions for each of the various service/

output groups.

(See Figure 3.)

4. Service (Re)Design Phase — In the course of developing or analyzing measurement data, most service

groups recognized opportunities for significant productivity improvement. The service (re)design phase

afforded resources and procedures for redesigning

the development and/or delivery of a service. In some

instances, it led to explicit, formal design of a

heretofore implicit, informal service structure.

Pilot groups were encouraged to look beyond the organization chart to create a structure that would ensure the

best fit between resources and user/client needs. In

'
Project Developments

other words, they were encouraged to challenge matters

of turf, to reevaluate individual assignments and responsibilities, and to investigate major changes in the way

they delivered their services. The groups produced graphic

maps of their services, explored means to improvement,

and planned their own changes. The groups responsible

for the service conducted the phase, with assistance

from the pilot team. The Service (Re)Design phase usually required a total of three to five days in sessions of

three to four hours each.

(See Figure 4.)

5. Team Development Phase — Where steps in the production of services were changed or created, it was

important to promote mutual support and cooperation

among the group members, to facilitate the sharing of

resources, and to identify common goals and responsibilities. In the team development phase, pilot

members' individual roles were clarified, points of

interface with other work units or functions were identified, and back-up procedures were developed.

Representatives from each service area participated in

the process; they attempted to ensure good working

relationships in support of the service or output design.

Three to four days were required for this phase, with any

one service group typically active for one or two sessions.

(See Figures.)

6. Technology Parameters Phase — The final phase

focused on potential applications of relevant technology, such as computer mediated systems or

office environmental designs. The intent was to link

the technology with important features of services/

outputs, to build employees' acceptance of the technology, and to improve upon the groups' overall

capabilities.

Needs for technology surfaced while services were being

redesigned. Anticipating this, the final phase was

devoted to translating those needs into parameters for

the implementation of electronic systems and work

stations. Not all pilot groups were prepared to invest in

new forms of technology. In those that did, task

forces comprised of service/output representatives, inhouse specialists, and Center staff worked to integrate

the new technology with the newly improved service

structures.

Figure 4

Pilot project phase 4

Map service

development

and delivery

• Major steps

• Critical decisions

and parameters

• Points of interface

SERVICE (RE)DESIGN

• Map service

• Redesign/refine service

• Identify needs

• Feedback

Explore means of

improvement

• Develop a structure

for new services

• Redesign existing

structures

• Reassign responsibilities

as needed

• Relate changes to measures

Solicit management

approval and

feedback of

changes to

pilot group

employees

OUTCOMES

• Clear, expedient

service format

• Improved employee capability

• Provisional parameters

for office technology

ORIGINAL PAGE

COLOR PHOTOGRAPH

19
Project Developments

Figure 5

Pilot project phase 5

TEAM DEVELOPMENT

• Clarify roles

• Identify interfaces

• Commit support

• Display and

review the

service design

• Emphasize

major elements,

ob|ectives and

measures

—

Clarify

individual

roles

• Contribution?

• Personal

characteristics?

~-

Identify points

of interface

• Graph important

points of

interface

• Probable points

of back-up

—

Relate interface management to major service elements

Interface

management

• Potential

interface

problems

• Agreement to

manage interface

issues

Commit forms of

support

• Select means of

interface management

• Determine responsibility

and schedule

of implementation

OUTCOMES

• Means of employee

back-up and assistance

1

 Broad perspective and

range of responsibility

1

 Increased ownership

and motivation

Development of the parameters was completed in four to

six days of task force effort; time required for implementation varied widely from pilot to pilot.

(See Figure 6.)

As each phase of the methodology was completed, the

pilot manager was encouraged to communicate the

developments to all pilot employees, to monitor the

changes, and to make refinements or revisions as

appropriate.

All phases of the methodology had several common

characteristics:

• An emphasis on the functional or operational thrust of

the pilot group, that is, relating its work to actual services and/or outputs;

• Specific steps with related outcomes;

• Input and participation from persons at several levels

and positions;

• Feedback to the functional group or work unit at large;

and

• Leadership and direction from the pilot manager and

task force, with additional guidance and support provided by the liaison, coordinator, and Center staff.

Computer Networking

One major goal of the project was to speed developments and spread knowledge across company functional

lines and even corporate and industry boundaries. To

do so, the Center used the medium for communication

proven effective in 1983, when 175 business, labor,

and academic leaders "signed on" across the nation

to develop recommendations for the White House

Conference on Productivity.

Computer networks are asynchronous electronic links for

general information, training, and group discussion. They

are an ongoing service provided by the American Productivity Center.

The White Collar Productivity Improvement project

tapped the Electronic Information Exchange System,

(EIES) based at the New Jersey Institute of Technology,

to create four types of computer networks:

• Project management network — A forum for all persons active in the project. The network served as a

general bulletin board and for open discussion on

project-related topics.

• Functional discussions — among persons of similar

background and responsibility. Conferences were

.
ORIGINAL PAGE

COLOR PHOTOGRAPH

conducted by and for engineering, research and

development, information services, and accounting

functions. Participants exchanged experiences and

ideas about application of the methodology in their

particular environment.

• Special interest networks — established for the

exchange of information among groups with a unique

interest or commonality, such as the steering committee, Center staff, pilot managers, and coordinators

within a sponsor.

Approximately 90 persons participated in the networks,

using home, office, or portable terminals and modems to

share ideas, questions, and project information. Surveys

and brief tutorials also were conducted through

the computers.

These computer networks proved to be invaluable to

both pilot progress and overall project management. Participants across the U.S. and Canada "signed on" to their

respective networks, creating a truly continental web of

white collar productivity improvement activity. Liaisons

received ten PRO 350 computers donated by Digital

Equipment Corp. for the duration of the project. They

used the computers for developing documents and decision-making support, as well as for networking.

Face-to-Face Conferences

Pilot managers, coordinators, and liaisons also convened

for six conventional face-to-face conferences at the

American Productivity Center in Houston. These were

designed to update pilot activities, report in-progress

developments of the methodology, and provide for discussions among functional groups.

Guest speakers at these gatherings added an extra

dimension to the project. They represented organizations

such as the Office Technology Research Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Price Waterhouse,

Honeywell Aerospace Productivity and Quality Center,

the University of Minnesota, Strategic Planning Institute,

Miami University, and Arizona State University, as well as

the American Productivity Center.

In addition, the conferences gave pilot groups within any

one sponsoring firm a place and time to review and compare progress and to plan for maintenance of their efforts

beyond August, 1985, the formal end of the project.

Figure 6

Pilot project phase 6

Review outcomes

• Vision and

purpose

• Service objectives

and measures

• Service design

Information flow

Proximity

Timing

Interdependence

TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS

• Review outcomes

• Seek potential

technology applications

• Implementation

• Monitor use

Seek potential

technology applications

• Review of

parameters

• Match outcomes

and technology

• Specify hardware

and software

Implementation

• Tactical planning

• Evaluate uses of

productivity and

effectiveness gains

•Feed back to users

Task force planning and control

• American Productivity Center

• Coordinator, proiect manager

•In-house specialists

• Staff representatives

OUTCOMES

• Technology in support of services

• Efficient performance of routine tasks

• Greater communication ability

• Service design supported?

• Service objectives and measures met?

• Relationship to vision and purpose?

21
Results

CEDING PAG£ BLANK NOT FILMED

23
Results

As has been noted, the project was designed to generate

noticeable changes at each phase of the methodology.

Objectives emerged from the objectives phase; productivity measures from the measurement phase, for example. Successful completion of all or most of the phases

would produce a significant overall change in a pilot

group's productivity and capability.

Furthermore, the multisponsor nature of the project provided sufficient data and observations for general conclusions about white collar work and ongoing use of the

methodology.

Success among the 56 pilot groups varied widely. Outcomes depended upon the extent to which a pilot group

adhered to the intent of the methodology. Other determinants of success were the level of management commitment, the dedication of coordinators or other productivity

champions, representation on the pilot steering groups,

and the extent of participation in the project by pilot

group employees.

(See Figure F.)

In most pilots, the phase-by-phase and overall outcomes

could be characterized either as new management practices or as new operational disciplines.

1. Diagnosis: The diagnostic phase produced three

major outcomes among the more successful pilots:

• Clarification and agreement on outputs and services

— Most managers and employees acquired a fresh

perspective by defining their primary outputs and

services.

Interviews with managers within a function typically

revealed a lack of clarity, even disagreement, about

major outputs and services. Often, their primary concern

was with maintaining the numerous activities within

any subunit.

In response to findings from the diagnosis phase, one

engineering group reorganized to carry out their service

responsibilities better. In a personnel group, employee

selection processes were clarified to emphasize the

importance of support from compensation and security

areas. The pilot realized employee selection could be

better managed as a departmental service than as the

responsibility of a few persons in the selection unit.

• Definition of user expectations and needs — Pilot

groups developed clear definitions of user/client

needs and expectations regarding their outputs

or services.

At the outset of the project, few groups had insight into

how well they met or would continue to meet users'

needs, and these relied merely on personal judgment and

occasional feedback — typically complaints.

In the diagnosis phase, several pilot groups took an

aggressive approach to this problem. They interviewed

users. Some users were surveyed and included in pilot

Figure F

Elements of a successful pilot

Management

support

and felt need

Coordinator/champion

Representative,

cross-sectional steering group

Widespread participation

problem-solving discussions. One research group in a

pharmaceutical firm even drew customers into their product development process. An auditing function influenced the future direction of its activity by soliciting

suggestions and ideas on past and current abilities; the

group was encouraged to include broader operational

issues in its purview.

• Identification of leverage points for productivity gains

— Surveys and interviews within the pilots revealed

opportunities for improvement on several important,

generally accepted productivity leverage factors.

For example, many pilot groups were not accustomed to

providing operational or strategic information to employees. Further progress in the pilot depended on sharing

such data. The group had to agree and commit resources

to developing and disseminating the information. Other

groups discovered specific weaknesses in morale, inadequate resources, or a workforce inexperienced with providing input and ideas. Their plans typically called for

clarification of the weakness or opportunity; definition of

the desired condition; designation of steps to reach that

condition; assignment of responsibility for each step,

including milestones and target dates; and provision of

needed resources.

While the subsequent phases addressed some of these

factors, others were examined and addressed through a

task force or steering committee.

2. Objectives — The objectives phase enabled the pilot

managers to set forth the future direction of the functional area. The majority of the pilots had determined

the tactical needs of the future, although most planning revolved around the past level of activity or

'-
Results

changes in the budget. The objectives phase resulted

in these outcomes:

• Clarification of mission and purpose — Many

functions appeared to pursue "business as usual"

despite strategic changes on the part of the corporation or agency. Managers viewed the future as the

opportunity to do more or less of the same depending

on resources. In many instances, the mission or purpose was clear among management but was not

communicated downward.

The objectives phase enabled the managers within a

pilot to clarify and align their mission and purpose with

that of the parent organization. An information services

function declared its mission was to "...provide leadership in the effective use of data processing resources;

ensure responsible management of information in support of business operations for the corporate organization; and institute, administer, and monitor processes to

ensure client's system activities are within architectural

guidelines and corporate management policies," for

example. Above all, the function sought to be proactive in

knowing clients' business climate and recognizing their

computing needs.

• A vision for achieving the mission and purpose —

Few, if any, pilot groups had discussed their vision for

the future or the environment needed to reach it. The

objectives phase allowed the management team or,

at least, senior managers to propose the kind of working environment they desired and the practices

required to lead and support the more expensive

resource — the employees.

One pilot determined that these characteristics were

important to its work environment:

• Well defined goals;

• Team work;

• Good morale;

• Communication, recognition and management

support; and

• Leadership/management skills.

Another group defined its vision as "the development of

an organization with superior technical and management

competence that will be recognized and utilized by our

(corporate) customer, and to provide an environment

which will foster professional and personal growth and

satisfaction by its members."

• Objectives tied to the development and delivery of

services — With the strategic direction and vision

before the pilot groups, the managers were able to

focus on the more operational nature of the function

— the services. Objectives set priorities in conjunction with strategic plans and for the indefinite future.

They tended to relate more directly to operations

than did strategic goals, and they tended to be

broader than a manager's personal objectives.

For example, one group's service was to "to provide

on-line, real time and batch computing power to clients

and customers." It became this group's objective to:

• Provide processing capacity and maintain 98 percent service level 24 hours per day and 96 percent at

prime time (7 am to 5 pm).

• Provide state-of-the-art solutions to problems within

group standards.

• Develop internal staff capabilities.

• Meet cost improvement targets.

For another pilot, whose service was " the analysis and

interpretation of high frequency data from laboratory

component tests, engine hot fire tests, and flights," these

objectives were determined:

• Support tests in a timely manner with minimum hardware risk and the prevention of failures.

• Verify analyses.

«Clear communication of the results and requirements

to and from other organizations.

• Evaluate design changes.

• Determine a components environment under different engine operating conditions for analytical and

test life verification.

3. Measures — Measurement was expected to be the

most difficult and emotionally laden phase of the

methodology. Nearly all pilot groups had some experience with productivity measures, and most had found

the experiences to be either disappointing or less

rewarding than expected. The measurement phase

was intentionally positioned after services and objectives were identified so pilots could determine what

was important to measure and how to use the data

meaningfully.

Measures were designed to reflect the timeliness, quality, and use of resources for the pilot services. Consequently, the ratios developed are understandable in view

of a particular service and related objectives. In an information service pilot, for example, an objective was to

"develop and maintain computer applications to meet

business needs." The related measures:

Number of milestones met

Number of milestones set

Production support time required during first year

Development time required

Actual time spent on projects

Total project hours allocated

Hours spent per project

Total hours available

Total budgeted $—Total actual $

Number of projects accomplished

25
Results

An engineering function sought to improve the level of

this service: "In-house component design of electrical

environmental and armament systems." The related

measures:

Percent of items (drawings, changes) released

on schedule

Number of released items

Total department manhours

Number of scheduled and released changes

Total number of released changes

User satisfaction survey

In a final example, drawn from a research environment,

the objective was "completely assembled, accurate,

reviewed and signed report by the (PERT) target date."

The measures:

• Number of trips to typist before release to division

director.

• Number of quality assurance discrepancies, omissions, or errors.

• Percent of report preparation activities completed

within specified time.

• Percent of reports published by target date (set at

protocol review meeting).

The measurement phase was undertaken by pilot groups

across the spectrum of functions within the project. The

greatest successes were realized in research, engineering, finance and accounting, information services, and

general administration/operations functions. At the close

of the project, the groups continued to monitor their data

and undertake revisions as appropriate.

4. Service (Re)Design — Diagnosis, objectives and

measures typically provided ideas concerning the

design or redesign of a pi lot group's services.

Opportunities for improvement in either the development

or the delivery of a service surfaced. For many services,

the design was placed on paper for the first time. Overall,

the phase resulted in:

• A clear, agreed upon approach to service(s) development and delivery.

• Services that are consistent with objectives

and measures.

• Improved capability to identify improvements and

execute changes.

• Provisional parameters for office technology.

In the redesign phase, a research and development

pilot group constructed a visual representation of their

main service and identified its major weaknesses. The

discussions helped to inform recently hired employees

and to direct problem-solving within the group. Plans for

Figure G

Research study design and final report

Conflict in

scheduling due

to numerous

concurrent studies

Conflicting perspectives on

• what is to be

communicated?

• what needs to be

changed?

• how changes in

study are

implemented?

26
Results

action were formed around each of the problems associated with the service, research studies, and preparation

of final reports.

(See Figure G.)

These changes improved coordination among internal

units, made provisions to ensure better operational controls, and reduced time for an "average study" from 13

months to 9.7 months.

In another example, an engineering group addressed one

of its major areas of service and output, "requests for

engineering services" (RES). The pilot learned that

excessive amounts of time were spent in preparation

of work parameters, contractor bids, and review of the

proposal with the requesting client. A thorough mapping

of this process led to plans for reducing the awkwardness

of the system and the time it required. Time and cost

Figure H

Human Resource division

Work Flow

(Present)

Customer

Request

•

Analysis

(Manager) t

estimates were given early in the request process —

often precluding further work. Participating units, such as

accounting, were included earlier in the process and,

consequently, the overall RES time was significantly

shortened.

Finally, a personnel group identified means by which records updates and inquiries could be more expedient and

responsive to those who needed the services. The group

configured computer hardware and software to allow

users to investigate and update personnel files directly.

The pilot group maintains the integrity of the system and

the confidentiality of privileged data. Major cost savings

are anticipated as employees in this group are reassigned to more fruitful endeavors.

(See Figure H.)

Work flow

(Future)

Input Output

AAAA

Go/No go

usefulness

Ranning

Priority

27
Results

5. Team Development — The team development phase

emphasized a need for smooth working relationships

among service team members and at their interfaces

with other units or functional groups. Particularly in

the wake of major redesign, service groups were

encouraged to consider person-to-person hand-offs

and backups, bottlenecks, and levels of responsibility.

Pilot groups found means of splitting responsibilities

between key players, identifying several persons with

product approval authority, rotating leadership on

decisional teams, and integrating downstream and

upstream personnel. One group of middle managers

agreed upon these communication/integration principles,

for example:

• Openness — no game playing.

• Timeliness — bring issues to the table when

they arise.

• Open-mindedness — recognize the other's point

of view.

• Cooperation — in the fullest sense.

• Analyze before forming conclusions.

• Active participation, no holding back.

• Focus on the common goal.

• Communicate decisions immediately.

The managers rely upon the principles frequently and

remind each other of the value of their application.

6. Technology Parameters — Suggestions for technology were purposefully placed at the end of the

methodology. Electronic systems and office design

were viewed as yet more tools in the improvement of

pilot group productivity; the previous phases covered

the structural and social issues.

Many groups were unable to utilize the phase fully

because of limited funds or existing systems. In those pilots that did acquire new technology, three outcomes

were most apparent:

• Technology directly in support of service.

• Efficient performance of routine tasks.

• Greater communication ability.

An information services group that deals directly with

clients in the marketplace settled on technology that

increases efficiency and client interface, for example.

Address labels are automatically sorted at the mainframe

computer to reduce redundancies. Another sort, this time

by customer characteristics and needs, is designed to

focus marketing efforts and minimize complaints about

misdirected marketing.

A research group has placed marketing, manufacturing,

sales, and customers on a common system of product

development and refinement. The system will encourage

timely updates from all of the interested parties.

A third example is drawn from an engineering group that

did not have the means of tracking project development

or responsiveness to user needs. Personal, interacting

computers enabled project tracking and accurate monitoring of service measures.

In the several groups that addressed technology parameters, further documentation is required to demonstrate

that the work stations and computer-mediated systems

have significantly augmented their services. Fortunately,

the measures of service productivity created in earlier

phases of the White Collar Productivity Improvement

project will provide evidence regarding the impact

of technology.

.
Results

Results by pilots

The results within the several pilot groups have varied

depending upon the opportunity for improvement, allocation of resources, and follow-through on the methodology. Four results are most common:

• Operational rigor resulting from a service orientation.

• Improvements in capability and resource control.

• Improved morale and motivation.

• Internal ability to improve.

Over time many of the pilot groups became

engrossed in the day-to-day activities of their functional

responsibilities. New and more elaborate procedures

were continually devised to account for troublesome

exceptions. Ultimately, procedures, rules, and manuals

determined the extent to which the function operated rigorously. In many areas, the function learned to view itself

as a policy monitoring mechanism rather than as a service or support group. Responsibility to the discipline

replaced support to the operating manager.

Several pilot groups have benefited by emphasizing the

degree to which the user/client interests should, instead,

be promoted.

An engineering pilot reduced delay and bureaucracy for

company clients. A purchasing group decreased the cost

and difficulty of its operations. A research group

improved its interfaces with marketing, sales, and manufacturing. And an information services pilot improved

internal efficiency and ease of access by clients through

a shared database.

Second, the process resulted in increased functional

capability and control of resources — including costs.

The emphasis on improved effectiveness encouraged

each group to improve services with given resources.

During the project, few groups added resources; most

maintained their resource allocation; and a few experienced budget cuts. Reductions in the time and resources

required were primarily due to changes in the approach

to the work. Unimportant activities were eliminated and

inefficient procedures were refined and automated. In

short, a thorough examination of the effectiveness of

pilot services paved the way to service efficiency and

cost effectiveness.

Third, morale and motivation were frequently low within

the groups selected for participation. Inspiration waned

because of middle management suspicion and a sense

of hopelessness associated with previous, unsuccessful

productivity programs. Soliciting input from all pilot group

members, engaging numerous personnel in problemsolving and improvements, and focusing on large scale

matters of effectiveness lent credibility to the process

and methodology. Support staff and professionals persisted, despite reluctant managements, with desired

changes in procedures and business practices. Changes

in capital allocation procedures, approval forms, and project decisions were driven by impetus from the the pilot

group employees.

Finally, the coordinators and pilot managers for the more

successful pilots have learned the methodology and continue to apply it as needed. Researchers, engineers,

accountants, salespersons, programmers, and personnel

specialists have learned to conduct interviews and problem-solving sessions. They have continued to utilize

group techniques. And they recognize the key elements

in designing an effective service with team support and

the appropriate technology. Once the process has been

experienced successfully, the methods and tools will continue to be utilized; examples already exist across the

various functions as the pilot groups seek to maintain

their productivity improvements.

29
Research Products

PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

NML

BLANK

31
Research Products

Six major products in addition to this summary were

derived from the project. These products were approved

by the steering committee and developed with input

from the coordinators, pilot managers, and liaisons.

• Case histories

• Graphic models and key factors

• Survey data and conclusions

• White papers/briefs

•Change issues

• Pilot methodology

The case histories document major developments within

pilots where much has been learned. Each case

describes the background of the project group, important

steps, major players, results, and lessons learned. The

cases have been drawn from the spectrum of functional

areas and the various sponsoring organizations. They

provide examples of the methodology in action in a broad

range of circumstances.

Graphic models and descriptions succinctly summarize

important issues or dynamics of the productivity

improvement effort. The models depict the "efficiencyeffectiveness contrast," "characteristics of readiness,"

"phases of change," "elements of a successful pilot,"

"traditional versus desired measurement approaches,"

and other similar concerns. They can be used by pilot

managers and coordinators to continue to review the

methodology and to present it to others.

Similarly, "key factors" highlight insights on the "business" of the various functional areas. Working groups of

engineers, scientists, accountants, information specialists, and others identified factors which, if properly managed, would "leverage" the capability and productivity of

the function. Key factors were developed for information

services, research and development, engineering, and

finance functions. Some examples:

• The ability to expedite routine features of projects

and studies.

• Proficiency in scale-up from research parameters to

manufacturing specifications.

• Provisions for long-term product/service refinement.

• Common data bases with users and contributing

functions.

• Internal structure which promotes and supports the

development and delivery of services.

Two major surveys were distributed on-line via the computer networks established for the project. The first,

which raised a number of questions related to change,

became the foundation for a major research report on

"Change Issues" in white collar productivity. The second

survey addressed investments in resources within a

white collar context. Representatives from sponsoring

organizations were requested to gather information on

equipment (personal computers, telecommunication

devices, word processors, etc.); training and consulting;

work stations and furniture; and facilities and

environment.

A third survey was utilized within the diagnostic phase of

each pilot group. The survey solicited input from all persons within a pilot — nearly 4,000 persons in all. The data

was analyzed in aggregate and by functional group. Conclusions relate to the total population within the study as

well as to specific functional groups.

Several white papers or "briefs" were prepared on topics

of particular interest:

• Measurement in a white collar environment.

• The role of management in initiating and supporting a

white collar productivity effort.

• The improvement process — from a consulting

perspective.

• The service versus activity orientation in white collar

groups.

• Diagnosing and assessing the white collar

environment.

• Environmental design as related to white collar

productivity.

The papers are based primarily on experiences within

the pilot groups. They propose practical approaches to

each topic.

Changes in methods and orientation were central to the

project. Pilot managers and coordinators and the Center's research associates collaborated to encourage and

lead the changes within the pilot groups. The "Change

Issues" summary reflects their various viewpoints about

management support, employment security, time and

financial commitments, leadership, relevant skills, obstacles to improvement, and related strategies. The majority

of pilots and all sponsors with active groups are represented in the summary. The groups represented

were distributed over all functional areas.

Finally, the pilot methodology has been continually

revised to the last month of the project. The original

phases remain, but the steps have been considerably

improved. The description of the methodology includes a

consistent format for each phase:

• Purpose

• Steps

• Key players

• Outcomes

• Supplementary video aid

• Facilitation guidelines

• References/Exercises

The coordinator or pilot manager will find the description

helpful as a guide to "best practice" of the methodology,

and for its numerous supporting or alternative exercises,

background readings, and visual aids.

(The six research products and additional copies of this

White Collar Productivity Improvement Project Summary

are available through the American Productivity Center.)

32
Insights and Observations

33
Insights and Observations

With 56 pilot groups in 11 sponsoring companies working

for two years, the opportunities for learning about white

collar productivity improvement have been great.

At the pilot group level, pilot managers and employees

learned methods to improve their performance. Sponsor

coordinators learned with the Center's research associates how best to facilitate this methodology and to transfer their expertise among additional pilots.

A review of the project overall leads to eight general

observations about white collar productivity

improvement:

1. White collar productivity improvement is founded on

basic issues of vision, orientation, and management

practices.

Productivity efforts — specifically in white collar contexts — are frequently preoccupied with the methodology or technique to be employed. Much attention is

directed to the specific steps and to the time and

resources required. The concern is understandable; good

intentions are not enough to overcome an inappropriate

or weak approach. However, several basic issues should

be considered before the steps of any methodology

are initiated, and they should be revisited as the

effort proceeds:

• Management style and skills — Are upper and middle

managers inclined and able to advise and facilitate

discussions and problem solving among persons who

report to them? Also, does the organization value and

develop operational skills?

Many managers are limited to an ability to monitor and

control; their behavior will restrict brainstorming, fresh

views, and personal risk taking. Furthermore, white collar

functions typically promote their better professionals,

and leadership is often closely associated with advanced

degrees and special distinctions. However, expertise in

control of a discipline or science does not ensure operational insight or skills. The manager may enjoy respect

from colleagues in the profession, while at the firm,

operations and personnel are suffering.

• Change orientation — Is the function primarily interested in constructive, significant change?

Productivity efforts are sometimes embraced for political

reasons or as experiments. In either case, there is little

assurance that proposed changes will be given full attention — or that proposals for change will even surface. Yet

few operations are so well honed that a fresh look at the

business is not warranted.

• Service perspective — Does the organization have a

strong interest in providing timely, high-quality support to clients or users? Is there evidence (measures,

surveys, joint councils, etc.) of their interest?

Many functions assess their effectiveness by their levels

of activity or from user/client complaints. Few organizations have good measures of effectiveness already in

place. The desire to assess and improve service levels

should extend well beyond lip service.

• Strategic direction — Is the function clearly aligned

with and supportive of the parent organization's

strategic direction?

White collar functions are often reluctant to engage in

strategic planning. Viewing themselves as the "tail on the

dog," they are reactive and fail to take a lead in shaping

their destiny. Many find it difficult to discover, in the

direction of the larger organization, implications for their

own plans and tactics. Yet this vision of what the function

could be, and agreement on how to achieve it, are important motivators for employees implementing changes.

••• •
Insights and Observations

• Focus — Does the function, particularly at the middle

management level, recognize opportunities for internal improvements? Or do they assume that the

potential lies in "fixing" everyone else?

Few white collar functions act in isolation. Their work is

closely integrated with other functions or customers in

the marketplace. Over time, these interactions are certain to be tested: frustrations emerge, barriers develop,

and employees clash. A "we-they" scenario develops,

with employees concluding that "we could do our job if

only they would "

The function must be willing to abandon or at least submerge such unconstructive feelings. There needs to be a

desire to improve their own operations before others can

be expected to do the same.

2. Attention to "operational" issues will enable productivity improvements to take place.

Productivity efforts in white collar functions have varied

considerably. Some focused on motivational systems.

Others emphasized assessments of procedures and work

flow. Many addressed specific problems and employee

relations. However, few efforts have approached white

collar functional groups as businesses with both operational constraints and opportunities.

Attention to services is analogous to a focus on "product

lines" of the unit and provides a significant means of

analysis and measurement.

White collar functions are not mere repositories of expertise. They have resources at their disposal, people to be

managed, obligations to a clientele, and an opportunity

to further the strategic direction of the entire organization. They have inputs and outputs, albeit often complex

and intangible. And there are procedures — often a multitude of procedures — that can be adjusted for gains in

productivity. Indeed, such tinkering can proceed nearly

indefinitely before realizing the gain equivalent to a major

change in the actual service.

Moreover, professional and support staff are more

inclined to evaluate their own efficiency when they are

assured that larger issues relating to organizational support for their services have been resolved.

3. Training and coaching are required to deliver services

effectively.

The primary interaction between functions and their

users/clients is one of providing professional expertise.

Accountants, engineers, programmers, and others are

expected to provide opinions and advice as the situation

demands. They gain credibility by giving good answers

and avoiding elaboration and detail unless requested.

Their service is typically a combination of tangible and

intangible commodities. It may be a report, plus the

advice and interpretation which inform the report's user.

It may be test results, along with advice on using the

data. It may materialize in the form of exercise facilities

and the coaching required to make good use of the

equipment. Regardless, the function and its personnel

cannot work solely on the tangible commodity, or even

their expertise.

Yet the vision for the future of many of these support

groups relies upon enabling the user to make independent decisions and choices — on educating and facilitating rather than harboring and controlling their areas of

functional responsibility. Thus, white collar personnel

must be practiced in collaborative decision-making, fostering "buy-in" and commitment, and educating the user/

client to make decisions independently.

Personnel in these groups typically are not prepared for

such a role change. They have been trained and

rewarded for delivering their expertise — for defining

both the problem and the solution. For many, the desire

to facilitate and consult is present, but the skills are lacking. Most professionals are not trained in this regard;

higher education typically does not provide such skills.

The functional group and the parent organization have

the responsibility to characterize the service, provide

training in the delivery of support, and coach and reward

personnel who interface with users/clients.

4. Organization administrative systems and processes

offer a major opportunity for productivity

improvement.

The project methodology addressed issues and opportunities within and between functional groups — both

areas that afford major productivity gains. A third area of

improvement lies in organization-wide or division-wide

administrative systems and processes — provisions that

were implemented to ensure control and to promote efficiency but which may have become bureaucratic and

cumbersome.

In the few pilots where these broad systems were

tackled, major gains were realized. Capital and lease allocation request systems were revamped to produce more

expedient approaches and a level of control commensurate with the size of the request, for example. Particularly

in contract organizations, such as aerospace and defense

firms, the ability to acquire resources quickly and productively aan mean greater profit and future business.

5. Measurement of white collar work is both possible

and desirable.

At the onset of the project, measurement was presumed

to be possible in the many areas represented by the pilot

groups. The assumption was based on other measurement activities at the American Productivity Center.

At the close of the project, with most pilot groups having

completed the measurement phase, there is clear evidence that white collar productivity measurement is

indeed possible in many different settings and all functional areas represented. Perhaps more importantly, the

groups themselves are collecting the data and managing

improvements in their operations.

The measurement efforts were successful because:

• The project was not "measurement driven"; measurement was approached as but one among many tools

to address effectiveness.

35
Insights and Observations

• Measures were associated with major components of

the business — services or outputs. Individuals were

not threatened.

• The measurement phase came after objectives had

been set; measures were developed with services

and particular future emphases in mind. Employees

had a knowledge of any thrust to complement corporate decentralization or a new product, for example.

• The people who provided the services developed the

measures, collected and interpreted the data, and

determined appropriate changes in the service.

6. Justification of technology is best linked to critical junctures or features of service development

and delivery.

Cost justification of computer-mediated systems

and office environmental designs is difficult at best.

Comparisons between the "manual" approach and

the technology are particularly unimpressive if the

manual approach is considered to be awkward and

bureaucratic to begin with.

Further, management now recognizes that promised technological capabilities may or may not have

much payoff; the mystique of office technology is

rapidly waning.

Office technology is often characterized as a "tool"

to be used at the discretion of the employee. In a

few instances, it is "automation" of a routine process or series of transactions. Often, technological

applications are least clear where the opportunity

to further the business is greatest. The opportunity

is perhaps recognized by a manager or professional, but he or she has difficulty spanning the gap

between technological capability and the unique

business opportunity.

Once a function has determined its major services,

established future emphases, identified critical

points of service development and delivery, and

corrected weaknesses in service design, applications of office technology readily surface. More

importantly, the capabilities provided by the technology may be directly linked to critical junctures

or features of services where measures already

are being made.

7. Self-reliance is a key to on-going productivity

improvements.

Reliance on outside expertise is natural and frequently

necessary. However, the process of change and productivity improvement should be ongoing. Improvement

should not depend upon the consultant's presence.

Rather, the move toward self-reliance can be aided by

the consultant. Several provisions will help:

• Agreement that the functions' managers are in the

lead and are responsible for success or failure of

the effort.

• Clear expectations of the kinds of changes that can

be supported.

• Putting functional needs first, rigorous use of the

methodology second.

• A group of managers, professionals, and support staff

who represent key organizational areas and services

to foster improvements indefinitely.

• A network of peers in other functions and even other

firms to generate ideas and provide for ongoing

inspiration.

• Training and coaching in the methodology; frequent

follow-up and review of variations.

• Frequent feedback from and close association with

users and clients.

8. White collar productivity improvement is dependent

on seven critical success factors.

• A climate supportive of change, innovation, and risktaking.

• A vision for the future of the function that is shared

among all employees.

• Emphasis on service issues and opportunities.

• A flexible methodology, one the function can adapt to

its own circumstances and business.

• Leadership by the function's managers throughout

the effort, not by the consultant or a lower-level

employee.

• Technology directly linked to service leverage points.

• Input from and "buy-in" by most employees at all levels of the function.

•
Conclusion

37
Conclusion

White Collar Productivity Improvement: Sponsored

Action Research was an investigation of practical issues

and concerns. The project demonstrated that white collar

work can be measured; worthwhile improvements are

probable in most functions; and the managerial, professional, and support staff can lead the improvement

process.

Numerous examples of creativity, innovation, and problem resolution emerged within the pilots. Implementation

of the ideas resulted in significant changes in the functions' way of doing business and in their use of

resources. The project provides evidence sufficient to

dispel any doubts of the opportunity for productivity

improvement in white collar functions. Sufficient models

have been documented to demonstrate the approach.

The challenge to management within any firm or agency

is clear: either productivity improvement can be tackled

in an aggressive, committed manner or "business as

usual" can continue into the future.

The firms sponsoring the Center's White Collar Productivity Improvement action research were encouraged to

look beyond the experiences of their pilots and the scope

of the project to continued use and further dissemination

of the results. The more aggressive and successful firms

have outlined plans for the future. Highights of these

plans include:

• Reports by pilot groups to different functions at new

locations.

• Multiple, interrelated pilots in strategic components

of the firms.

• In-house capability to train and coach new

pilot managers.

• A senior advisory group to steer the development of

white collar improvements.

• Internal computer conferences and networks for pilot

managers.

• Integration of the approach with other productivity

and quality thrusts.

Experience with the project and its findings encouraged the American Productivity Center to continue its

work in the white collar area. The proposed follow-up —

White Collar Productivity Improvement: Innovative Methods and Plans in Action (IMPACT) — is an improved version of the previous project and methodology. Over the

course of 16 months, four pilot groups in each sponsoring

firm will participate. The purposes of the project are to

improve:

1. Operations within the pilot groups, leading to

increased efficiency and effectiveness.

2. The working interface between pilot groups.

3. The utility and speed of firm-level administrative

systems.

As before, the sponsors will actively participate in computer networks and face-to-face conferences. Center

staff will provide direct assistance in the field and seek

continued improvements in the methodology. Throughout the project, interested parties are invited to contact

the Center.

Together, sponsoring firms and the American Productivity

Center continue to pursue an elusive yet promising goal

— productivity improvement within the challenging

environment of white collar work.
About the Center

The American Productivity Center is a non-profit organization that works with business, labor, government, and

academia to improve productivity, quality, and quality of

work life.

Founded in 1977 by C. Jackson Grayson, former dean

of the School of Business Administration of Southern

Methodist University, the Center today has a staff of 50

professionals. Its membership includes more than 250

business, labor, government, and academic organizations

representing the gamut of industrial sectors, economic

strategies, and political persuasions. Their common aim,

with the Center, is productivity improvement, coupled

with enhanced quality of work life, as the means to continued U. S. economic competitiveness and vitality.

In addition to multisponsored productivity research projects, such as the White Collar Productivity Improvement

project, the Center provides private consulting, advisory

services, and educational seminars in the areas of:

Productivity and quality of work life management

Productivity measurement

Productivity gainsharing

Labor-management cooperation

Employee involvement

Additional Center resources include the nation's most

extensive productivity and quality of work life library,

research services, regional network meetings, ongoing

computer networks on a variety of productivity issues,

a wide range of publications, and national affairs

representatives.

To order additional copies of

White Collar Productivity Improvement

Action Research

Project Summary and Findings

To order additional copies of this summary, return a copy

of this order form and a check made payable to:

The American Productivity Center

123 North Post Oak Lane

Houston, TX 77024

Attn: Information Services

Quantity

x $20 each (Center members) =

x $30 each (non-members) = _

Total

Add 6 1/8 % sales tax (Texas only) =

Total amount enclosed:

Mail to:

Name

TitleCompany.

Address.

City_ . State. Zip_

n I am interested in additional research products of the

White Collar Productivity Improvement project.

Interested in learning more about the American

Productivity Center?

Membership

Multisponsored research

Computer Networks

Productivity and Quality of Work Life Library

39
American Productivity Center, 123 North Post Oak Lane, Houston, Texas 77024, 713/681-4020