Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Performance Analysis:
Field Operations Management
Steelcase, Inc.
Mike Wykes, Jody March/Swets, and Lynn Rynbrandt
This case study describes the process used to improve the business performance
of field operations managers within a subsidiar y of Steelcase, Inc. Steelcase
analysts and consultants used a five-phased methodology to uncover operational and performance gaps, clarify the causes of poor performance, and
recommend key solutions. The consultants delivered key information and guidance through specific reports, meetings, and work sessions. Implementation
of the solution mix resulted in increased job performance that led to positive
impacts on business metrics. The case study reviews the results of an evaluation performed after one year, and key lessons learned are discussed.
Background
Steelcase, Inc. is the worlds leading manufacturer of office furniture and services dedicated to providing high-performance environments that will help people work more effectively. Its products and
services include work settings, systems, seating, desks, and files, as
well as the application of knowledge to help transform the ways people work.
Steelcase is a global company with headquarters in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. It employs some 21,000 people worldwide who work
in manufacturing and sales facilities in 15 countries, and its annual
sales are approximately $3 billion dollars. Its products and services
are sold and serviced through a worldwide network of nearly 700 independent office furniture system dealers (about 400 in North
This case was prepared to serve as a basis for discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective administrative and management practices.
135
(What the
individual brings)
Individual
factors:
(What the
organization
provides)
Environmental
factors:
7. Motives
Intrinsic (internal)
motivators match with
incentives and
consequences
extrinsic (external)
motivators match with
incentives and
consequences
3. Tools, systems,
processes, and
resources
6. Individual capacity
5. Knowledge, skills,
and attitude
2. Feedback
1. Expectations
(Financial or nonfinancial)
clear performance
consequences
consequences and
criteria that dont
conflict
development
opportunities and so
forth
4. Incentives and
consequences
137
139
1 What does the FOM job really look like? (performance model)
2. What things are the FOMs not doing as well as they should to achieve
desired results? What things are they already doing well? (gap analysis report)
3. What currently gets in the way of good performance? (gap and
causal analysis, including barriers and enhancers to FOM performance)
4. What issues should be dealt with first? (barrier summary report)
5. What is the bestquickest and most cost-effectivemix of solutions to help increase FOM performance? (solution mix recommendations)
6. How well did these solutions work? (evaluation report one year
later)
Phase Two: Assessment
The first step in this phase was to agree on desired performance.
The consultant and FMC management agreed that developing a performance model would be an appropriate and desired step in providing clarity to the FOM job role.
To accomplish this, the consultant and analysts facilitated several meetings with the vice president, the FOM leader/manager, and
other FMC leadership to identify result areas (critical responsibilities and valued accomplishments for the FOM job), competencies (those
core competencies critical to the FOM job, such as economic orientation and planning), best practices (what the best performers were
doing to consistently achieve results), measures (the clear business
and performance measures that were needed), and barriers and enhancers (those factors that were impeding or helping FOM performance). Note: With regard to best practices, the idea here is to clearly
document these practices so that others can duplicate them.
FMC leaders identified exemplary FOMsthose individuals who
exhibited the best overall performance, both in terms of measures
met and in terms of interactions with others, such as teamwork, information sharing, and coaching others. Interestingly, not one FOM
was regarded as exemplary in all result areas. For example, an individual might be good at coaching service providers but poor in tracking and reporting key information on a regular basis.
The consultant and analysts interviewed FMC leadership and all
FOMs (mostly by phone) paying particular attention to given areas
in which each FOM was regarded as exemplary. Each interview took
about four hours (two hours to complete and about two to codify the
information so that it could be used to articulate behaviors for the
FOM performance model). Overall, the interviews took several weeks
140 Performance Analysis and Consulting
to complete.
The questions asked during the interviews were specifically designed
to uncover information regarding result areas, competencies, best practices, measures, and barriers and enhancers. They are as follows:
1. With regard to best practices related to result areas, the question
was, Can you tell me what you do to accomplish [a given result area]?
In this case, the FOM result areas included a wide range of practices,
including select and recommend service providers for inclusion in
FMC, assess service provider capabilities, coach and develop service
providers, communicate appropriately with co-workers, coach and develop self and others, and live the Steelcase values.
2. With regard to potential measures of success, the question was,
How do you know that youve accomplished [a particular result area]
successfully?
3. With regard to barriers and enhancers to performance, the question was, What gets in your way or helps you do your job?
4. The final question was, Anything else? This question often elicited revealing information.
The interviewers then integrated the information during several sorting and collating work sessions that lasted approximately four
to five hours each. The result was a working draft of a performance
model that specifically defined the result areas, competencies, best
practices, measures, and barriers/enhancers to performance for the
FOM job (see figure 2). This draft performance model was then validated (with regard to content and measures) and appropriately modified through several meetings with FMC management and the FOMs
themselves.
The next step was to identify operational and performance gaps
and causesthat is, to compare what is with what should be.
The analysts designed a survey to compare typical behaviors of
all FOMs (what is) against the exemplary or best practices as defined by the performance model (what should be). The survey would
also be used to clarify the relative importance of specific barriers or
enhancers uncovered during the performance modeling process.
Surveys were sent to the FMC management team, for them to rate
respective FOMs, and to all FOMs, for them to rate themselves. In
all, about 30 surveys were sent out. Respondents were asked to do
two things:
1. Rate the frequency and skill with which they felt individual
FOMs performed each of the desired behaviors as listed on the model (see figure 3).
2. Prioritize the barriers and enhancers by indicating the extent of
Performance Analysis: Field Operations Management
141
Provide initial
service provider
assessment and
selection
. . . what must be
accomplished
Result area
. . . how it can be accomplished
Best practices
Competencies
required
F. Execute certificate of
insurance.
C. Provide final SP
(service provider)
assignments
B. Approval is obtained
before the customer
contract is finalized (any
exception to that timing is
by prearrangement with
management)
A. One-page summary of
assessment, documented
and presented for
approval to operations
manager and general
manager
Result area
measures
143
2
2
2
2
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
Frequency
of Use
1 = Almost Never
2 = Very Infrequent
3 = Infrequent
1 = Little/No Skill
2 = Basic Skill
3 = Adequate Skill
1
1
1
1
1. Develop credibility with service providers (to help you give feedback that will be
respected).
2. Assess individual service provider capabilities and capacities by determining if
they can provide the required quality and quantity of service.
3. Clearly document service provider capabilities and deficiencies.
4. Lead the development of performance improvement plans to address specific service
provider deficiencies.
5. Follow through on service providers performance improvement plans.
6. Assess the needs of a given market and compare against collective service provider
capabilities and capacities.
7. Assure that service providers are clear on whats expected of them as written in
the Service Provider Work Instruction Manual.
Definition: Select service providers for inclusion into the coalition using solid, clear
criteria.
On-the-Job Activities
(Best Practices)
Name __________________________________
4 = Frequently
5 = Very Frequent
6 = Almost Always
Current Skill
Level
4 = Proficient Skill
5 = Expert Skill
2
2
2
2
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
7. Assure that service providers are clear on whats expected of them as written in
the Service Provider Work Instructions.
6. Assess the needs of a given market and compare against collective service provider
capabilities and capacities.
1. Develop credibility with service providers (to help you give feedback that will be
respected).
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
8. Clarify and communicate corporate customer expectations of the FMC to the service
provider.
145
147
Solutions
Define and communicate service
provider selection/assessment
process.
Barriers to Performance
Expectations/incentives (grid
box 1): No clearly defined lines
of authority to apply true
selection criteria.
Information (grid box 1): No clear
benchmark data to measure
past/current performance.
Process (grid box 3): No clear
service provider selection/
development process.
Process documentation to
outline procedures.
Management to address
resource issue with dealer
alliances group.
* = based on original performance problem statements; = organized by performance grid categories; = based on evaluation interviews performed after one year
Expectations/process/
organization (grid boxes 1 and
3): FOMs spent 30 percent to 80
percent of their time on activities
outside their defined role.
Information-sharing metrics to
be placed into each FOMs
objectives.
149
Results
Results showed that the FMC vice president and the FOM
leader/manager were pleased with the intervention and its outcomes,
as the following satisfaction statements demonstrate:
The return on the individual was sufficiently improved to call it a
win.
[The process drove us] to really look at what we deliver, realize
we are people-dependent, follow processes, and measure results more
specifically.
The process went well. The pace was good. You delivered what we
agreed to in the plan.
[This process took] remote individuals [who were] all doing different things and only doing what they knew they did well, and brought
clarity to what they should be doing.
Additional positive results included the following:
The performance model provided increased clarity about the
FOM job role. Each FOM now had clear performance metrics, which
were adjusted to reflect local market conditions and other specific or unique service provider factors. (The performance model was
designed to be an adaptable document.)
FOMs regularly shared more information with each other.
Improvements were made to the process of selecting and assessing service providers. A new service provider process document
was produced.
The average amount of time decreased between the recognition
of a defect in a service provider and the initiation of development
programs to remedy those defects.
Over 90 percent of the FOMs now had individual improvement plans,
as compared with fewer than 20 percent before the intervention.
Customers (both internal and external) indicated that they knew
exactly what they could expect from the FOMs.
Employee satisfaction among the FOMs increased, as measured by
a biannual Steelcase HR survey.
However, several areas didnt see significant improvement. In particular, FOMs were still putting out fires more than they would like
to, even though this was less of a problem than before. Moreover, some
confusion with other FMC job roles and responsibilities still existed.
Conclusion
Three key items contributed to success in this case. First, the consultants met the clients biggest need first in a timeframe that fit their
world. Second, the client was committed and continually engaged throughout the process. This included the FOMs themselves as well as management. Finally, the entire effort was aided by the existence of an
inside coach/participant (the FOM leader/manager) who was totally committed to the FMC effort and to the FOMs.
Even so, some things could have been done differently. For instance, the FOM manager felt that the use of the model and measures
would have been more effective if similar modeling had been done
for the other key jobs within the FMC, such as the account managers
and area office managers. Even though focusing specifically on the
FOM job did increase performance (and it did so quickly), it lessened the overall impact potential on the larger system by not addressing
how the FOM job role fit with other FMC roles and responsibilities
and the broader corporate strategies.
In addition, it would have been useful to explain the performance grid concept and the systemic view of performance and causal
linkages to barriers found earlier in the process.
Finally, it would have been helpful to define and facilitate more
regular and specific evaluation efforts, to allow for implementation
of any needed midcourse corrections.
The Authors
Mike Wykes is the principal performance analyst for Steelcase,
Inc. Wykes has been a successful performance analyst, consultant, trainer, instructional designer, and manager for the past 20 years. He holds
151
References
Dean, P., and Ripley, D.E., editors. Performance Improvement Pathfinders. Washington: ISPI Publications, 1997.
Gilbert, T. Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (Tribute Edition).
Washington: ISPI Publications, 1996.
Robinson, D.G., and Robinson, J. Performance Consulting: Moving Beyond Training. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1995.
Rummler, G.A., and Brache, A.P. Improving Performance: How to Manage the White
Space on the Organization Chart (2d edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1995.
Stolovich, H.D., and Keeps, E.J. Handbook of Human Performance Technology. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Additional References
Phillips, J.J. Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods (3d edi-
153