Case Study Report 2
Case Study Report on Performance Analysis: Field Operations Management, Steelcase, Inc.
Case Summary
Steelcase, Inc. provides office furniture and services that promote high-performance environments for its clients. With over 21,000 employees worldwide, and over $3 billion dollars in sales, it is reportedly the industry leader of the world. One of its subsidiary companies, the Furniture Management Coalition (FMC), was formed to fulfill an emerging role of this industry. Steelcase service providers are increasingly expected to provide “furniture management” services for their clients. The quality of furniture management service they provide will inevitably have a reflection on Steelcase. The job of FMC is to assist the Steelcase service providers with their furniture management services. FMC is comprised of only 30 employees. The most crucial of these employees are the field operations managers (FOM.) Each FOM is responsible for servicing selected Steelcase providers located in their vast geographical territories. There are numerous problems related to the FOM position including, but not limited to poor communication, ill-defined job procedures, inconsistent profitability measures, and a weak chain of command or hierarchy within the organization. The performance analysis and consulting group followed “the phases of partnership and entry, assessment, implementation, and evaluation,” with the aim of revealing business and performance deficiencies and providing the most efficient solutions. The systematic course of interventions resulted in largely improved job performance, which translated into more favorable business indicators.
Initial Problem Statement
The initial problems and gaps arose from the field operations manager (FOM) employees within the Furniture Management Coalition. According to the case study, the FOMs were not communicating with each other to trade ideas and improve their practice. Further, each individual FOM was undergoing standard procedures differently, creating a variety of outputs for production. The FOMs were also spending a vast majority of their time troubleshooting issues that came up instead of allotting time for all required duties and responsibilities. Another issue arose when it was uncover that all FOMs were being assessed with the same standards, however, not all procedures were strictly enforced. Finally, instead of contacting the FOMs directly, customers were occasionally calling the corporate office, leading to confusion and redundancy of troubleshooting. Evermore, these calls led to worse relationships between FOMs and customers. Even more surprising, the FOM had not been completely established, with no formal listed duties and responsibilities. Furthermore, there had been no existing avenues to measure past and current performance. Due to the lack of benchmarking, there were also no consequences for a lack of production in the position, leading to a reduction in accountability.
Performance Analysis Tools, Analysis, Results
The consultant and analysts took several weeks and interviewed FMC leadership and most of the FOM’s by phone. This was to retrieve information on best practices, competencies, measures, areas, and barriers and enhancers. Best practices were assessed with asking “How would you accomplish (Task A)?” This had to cover a number of services such as: FMC’s, service providers, capabilities of service providers, and service coaches. The question “How do you know you have accomplished (Task B)?” gave information to the analysts on potential measures of success. They gaged barriers or enhancers with “What deters you from your job?” or “What helps you excel at your duties?”. The last question was open and allowed the participants to include any thoughts, or notes that were not covered by the survey. This type of question let the participant have a voice, or bring up an area the analysts had not considered.
The second step in Performance Analysis for Steelcase involved locating the performance gaps. Trying to separate the “What is” from the “What should be”. Surveys were sent to FMC management teams and around 30 FOM’s tasked with rating themselves. These surveys were designed to find the frequency and skill FOM’s performed. Categorize and rate the barriers with the enhancers, with the extent of work environment statements. Participants were asked to rank the options on questions on a scale of 1=strongly disagree to 6 being strongly agree. Questions were also structured to remove negative verbiage in an attempt to lessen the tendency towards negativity with known issues. A question that wanted to reveal if required documents were arriving late, would ask “Do required documents arrive on time?” and let the “disagrees” or the “agrees” show the amount of dissatisfaction with the process. Analysts the collected, interpreted, and reported the information in a format that integrated data from all the resources instead of a data dump. It did require a very holistic interpretation of a very skilled analysts.
Cause Analysis Tools, Analysis, Results
Initial consultation with the FMC vice president highlighted the presenting problems, which included poor communication among the FOMs, ill-defined FOM job procedures, inconsistent profitability measures, and a weak chain of command within the organization. The root cause analysis, which was conducted, in part, through a performance model survey given to both management and FOMs, revealed the reasons behind the presenting problems. The cause analysis identified many factors that impeded FOM performance. FOM performance suffered from unclear expectations, fuzzy authoritative boundaries, and a lack of knowledge about Steelcase culture. In addition, FOMs were not provided with the vital tools in order to select, monitor, and evaluate service providers in need of consultation. FOMs were not utilizing consequences for low performing service providers. The cause analysis identified FOM skill level and motivation as strengths from which to build a path of improved performance.
Intervention Selection and Development
After the gap had been identified through the HPT analysis process, the HPT analysts and leadership members of the FMC group first discussed potential solutions while considering cost and scope analysis for each one. The intervention methods revolved around defining the field operations management position, encouraging necessary documentation, and providing incentives for success. Also, the analysts developed a solution of linking FOMs with the corporate offices to increase communication and reduce duplication of efforts within the company.
Case Summary
Steelcase, Inc. provides office furniture and services that promote high-performance environments for its clients. With over 21,000 employees worldwide, and over $3 billion dollars in sales, it is reportedly the industry leader of the world. One of its subsidiary companies, the Furniture Management Coalition (FMC), was formed to fulfill an emerging role of this industry. Steelcase service providers are increasingly expected to provide “furniture management” services for their clients. The quality of furniture management service they provide will inevitably have a reflection on Steelcase. The job of FMC is to assist the Steelcase service providers with their furniture management services. FMC is comprised of only 30 employees. The most crucial of these employees are the field operations managers (FOM.) Each FOM is responsible for servicing selected Steelcase providers located in their vast geographical territories. There are numerous problems related to the FOM position including, but not limited to poor communication, ill-defined job procedures, inconsistent profitability measures, and a weak chain of command or hierarchy within the organization. The performance analysis and consulting group followed “the phases of partnership and entry, assessment, implementation, and evaluation,” with the aim of revealing business and performance deficiencies and providing the most efficient solutions. The systematic course of interventions resulted in largely improved job performance, which translated into more favorable business indicators.
Initial Problem Statement
The initial problems and gaps arose from the field operations manager (FOM) employees within the Furniture Management Coalition. According to the case study, the FOMs were not communicating with each other to trade ideas and improve their practice. Further, each individual FOM was undergoing standard procedures differently, creating a variety of outputs for production. The FOMs were also spending a vast majority of their time troubleshooting issues that came up instead of allotting time for all required duties and responsibilities. Another issue arose when it was uncover that all FOMs were being assessed with the same standards, however, not all procedures were strictly enforced. Finally, instead of contacting the FOMs directly, customers were occasionally calling the corporate office, leading to confusion and redundancy of troubleshooting. Evermore, these calls led to worse relationships between FOMs and customers. Even more surprising, the FOM had not been completely established, with no formal listed duties and responsibilities. Furthermore, there had been no existing avenues to measure past and current performance. Due to the lack of benchmarking, there were also no consequences for a lack of production in the position, leading to a reduction in accountability.
Performance Analysis Tools, Analysis, Results
The consultant and analysts took several weeks and interviewed FMC leadership and most of the FOM’s by phone. This was to retrieve information on best practices, competencies, measures, areas, and barriers and enhancers. Best practices were assessed with asking “How would you accomplish (Task A)?” This had to cover a number of services such as: FMC’s, service providers, capabilities of service providers, and service coaches. The question “How do you know you have accomplished (Task B)?” gave information to the analysts on potential measures of success. They gaged barriers or enhancers with “What deters you from your job?” or “What helps you excel at your duties?”. The last question was open and allowed the participants to include any thoughts, or notes that were not covered by the survey. This type of question let the participant have a voice, or bring up an area the analysts had not considered.
The second step in Performance Analysis for Steelcase involved locating the performance gaps. Trying to separate the “What is” from the “What should be”. Surveys were sent to FMC management teams and around 30 FOM’s tasked with rating themselves. These surveys were designed to find the frequency and skill FOM’s performed. Categorize and rate the barriers with the enhancers, with the extent of work environment statements. Participants were asked to rank the options on questions on a scale of 1=strongly disagree to 6 being strongly agree. Questions were also structured to remove negative verbiage in an attempt to lessen the tendency towards negativity with known issues. A question that wanted to reveal if required documents were arriving late, would ask “Do required documents arrive on time?” and let the “disagrees” or the “agrees” show the amount of dissatisfaction with the process. Analysts the collected, interpreted, and reported the information in a format that integrated data from all the resources instead of a data dump. It did require a very holistic interpretation of a very skilled analysts.
Cause Analysis Tools, Analysis, Results
Initial consultation with the FMC vice president highlighted the presenting problems, which included poor communication among the FOMs, ill-defined FOM job procedures, inconsistent profitability measures, and a weak chain of command within the organization. The root cause analysis, which was conducted, in part, through a performance model survey given to both management and FOMs, revealed the reasons behind the presenting problems. The cause analysis identified many factors that impeded FOM performance. FOM performance suffered from unclear expectations, fuzzy authoritative boundaries, and a lack of knowledge about Steelcase culture. In addition, FOMs were not provided with the vital tools in order to select, monitor, and evaluate service providers in need of consultation. FOMs were not utilizing consequences for low performing service providers. The cause analysis identified FOM skill level and motivation as strengths from which to build a path of improved performance.
Intervention Selection and Development
After the gap had been identified through the HPT analysis process, the HPT analysts and leadership members of the FMC group first discussed potential solutions while considering cost and scope analysis for each one. The intervention methods revolved around defining the field operations management position, encouraging necessary documentation, and providing incentives for success. Also, the analysts developed a solution of linking FOMs with the corporate offices to increase communication and reduce duplication of efforts within the company.