Management consulting

Phase III – The Implementation Phase, to design and develop the productivity improvement tasks in detail, implement the measures for improvement and control, and evaluate the results.

To run a successful PIP, it is vital to involve management in the decisionmaking process from the very beginning. If “stop/go” decision milestones are incorporated into the programme after each main step, management becomes very much involved in decisions on directions, aims, expected results, necessary changes and investments to be made.

All reporting by the PIP team to management should be focused on decisionmaking. This makes it easy to understand which data have to be collected and checked, and how measures for improvement have to be presented as clear, accurate and convincing information to the decision-makers.

For a PIP to be implemented successfully, the project team has to be well motivated to achieve the results aimed for. At the end of the implementation phase the results should always be documented by quantitative data reflecting the improvements actually achieved.

20.5Tools and techniques for productivity improvement

It is very important for a productivity consultant to be aware of productivity techniques and tools. In deciding on productivity techniques, managers and consultants need to understand:

●how comfortable the improvement team will be with the technique in the tasks it is supposed to deal with;

●how well the team understands the technique’s language;

●how much the team knows about using the techniques or how rapidly it can be trained.

If managers and consultants understand the purpose, language and relations among various improvement techniques, using them will be easier. They will be able to combine them in complementary rather than competitive ways. The following should be taken into account in selecting the productivity improvement techniques:

●The needs of the process customer (internal or external) in identifying the method.

●The technique should be as simple as possible for the task.

●Everybody must understand it; and everybody affected by it must have the opportunity to contribute to its development and implementation.

●It must empower people to perform better and have a motivating and not a punitive character; it must be non-manipulative, honest and unambiguous.

458

Consulting on productivity and performance improvement

Box 20.3 Some simple productivity tools

Productivity improvement techniques may be old or new. In most cases old tools are simpler and less sophisticated than the new ones. New developments do not necessarily imply that old productivity tools should be – or are being – discarded. For example, Taylorism is the application of well-proven techniques for working efficiently in performing well-defined operations and is still used widely today despite its shortcomings. Old productivity tools may be particularly relevant in less sophisticated operations and companies. Box 20.3 gives some examples of relatively unsophisticated productivity tools.

It is worth noting that most of the “new” tools are in fact a combination of well-tested and simple old techniques, including tools of industrial engineering. Complex objectives and problems demanding integrated across-the-board solutions call for more sophisticated and integrated multiple tools. Box 20.4 lists some sophisticated, multipurpose techniques, a number of which are broadly used in many organizations.

So far we have mentioned here more than eighty different productivity tools. Many of them overlap by purpose, or by focus (economics, technology, management, behaviour, etc.); some of them are sophisticated, others less so. It is difficult to navigate among them. Here are a few tips on choosing an appropriate tool:

●Identify techniques that have universal appeal or cross-over capability.

●Create a common organizational language for diverse professional groups.

459

Management consulting

Box 20.4 Multipurpose productivity techniques

●Create cross-functional teams of members who can educate each other about various tools from their functional disciplines. Key decision-makers must understand and use the language for multiple tools.

●Assess the improvement methods that the functional groups in the organization currently use and understand their commonality.

●Integrate productivity tools to reach a solution that ensures that improvement occurs and which all groups can support.

Another good approach is to mimic the improvement efforts and techniques used by the competition. Some consulting companies systematically assess the evolution of these techniques and shifts in their popularity among business managers. A recent survey by Bain Consultants9 indicated that over the past decade some management tools and techniques, such as one-to-one marketing,

460

Consulting on productivity and performance improvement

TQM, and benchmarking, have become particularly popular. The three most popular tools were used by at least three-quarters of respondents: strategic planning (81 per cent), mission and vision statements (79 per cent), benchmarking (77 per cent) and customer satisfaction measurement (71 per cent). Worldwide, satisfaction was highest for cycle-time reduction, one-to-one marketing, strategic planning, and mission and vision statements. Firms worldwide are least satisfied with the application of knowledge management, strategic alliances, and activitybased management. The survey also found that most successful companies use more frequently the top ten improvement tools given in box 20.5.

Box 20.5 Tools used by most successful companies

It should be realized that only very few of the techniques and tools described here are needed for any particular productivity improvement project. The most important considerations in selecting tools are the purpose, organizational readiness, and management and productivity team awareness and skills as well as the competence of the consultant in using the tools.10

1P. Vrat, G. Sardana and B. Sahay: Productivity management: A system approach (London, Narosa Publications, 1998), p. 6.

2D. Anderson: “Aligned values + good job fit = optimum performance”, in National Productivity Review, Autumn 1998, pp. 23–30.

3“Measuring people power”, in Fortune, Oct. 2000, p. 66.

4T. Copeland: “Cutting costs without drawing blood”, in Harvard Business Review, Sep.–Oct. 2000, pp. 155–164.

5N. D. Schwartz: “Secrets of Fortune’s fastest-growing companies”, in Fortune, Sep. 1999, pp. 32–49.

6C. Prahalad and V. Ramaswany: “Co-opting customer competence”, in Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb. 2000, pp. 79–87.

7K. Tuominen: Managing change: Practical strategies for competitive advantage (Milwaukee, WI, ASQ Quality Press, 2000), p. 209.

8S. Sink: “TQM: The next frontier or just another bandwagon to jump on?”, in Quality and Productivity Management (Blacksburg, VA), Vol. 7, No. 2, 1989, p. 18.

9D. Rigby: Management tools and techniques: Annual survey of senior executives (Boston, MA, Bain & Company, 1999).

10Most approaches and techniques discussed in this chapter are examined in more detail in other ILO publications. See J. Prokopenko and K. North (eds.): Productivity and quality management: A modular programme (Geneva and Tokyo, ILO/APO, 1996), and G. Kanawaty (ed.): Introduction to work study (Geneva, ILO, 4th ed., 1992).

461