Steelcase inc. case study
Summary of case
Steelcase Inc. is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of office furniture. They have offices in 15 countries and employ over 20,000 people. Their annual sales total over 3 billion dollars. They have over 700 independent offices that provide direct, primary contact with customers that include many Fortune 500 companies (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 135-136). Furthermore, Steelcase is also involved in furniture management (creating efficient office spaces). This job is handled by a field operations manager (FOM) that reports to the Furniture Management Coalition (FMC) within Steelcase.
Recently, the FMC noticed a problem with the FOM position. To solve the problem, Steelcase employed its performance analysis and consulting group located within the Human Resources department. To analyze problems the consulting group follows four phases: partnership and entry, assessment, implementation, and evaluation. To make certain that all options and variables are considered, the consulting group also uses a variation of Gilbert’s BEM (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 136).
Initial Problem Statement
Steelcase was having a problem with the FOM position within the FMC. Specifically, the FOM’s were:
Performance Analysis
To analyze performance the team decided to first tackle the FOM’s job description. They created a performance model that described all the duties that a FOM was expected to undertake. Moreover, they created a FOM PIP to describe an exemplary FOM. Also included in their task analysis were barriers FOM’s could encounter that would affect their performance (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 140-141).
From this the team performed a gap analysis to find where Steelcase’s FOM’s rated vs. the PIP. Besides discovering the gap, it was hoped that the team would also find any important enhancers or specific barriers that prevented FOM’s from properly completing their job to expectations (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 141).
Cause Analysis
Upon completing the performance analysis the team discovered that FOM’s needed to improve in three areas:
The team also discovered barriers that were preventing FOM’s from properly completing their job. They were:
Intervention Selection and Development
To solve problems related to FOMs, the team implemented a wide range of interventions to improve FOM performance. Interventions that were significant were:
Overall, management was pleased with the results of the interventions. They received many positive statements and saw encouraging results. FOMs were happier and their job roles had increased clarity. FOMs shared information more regularly. Improvements were made to the selection and assessment of service providers. The average amount of time recognizing service provider defects and the implementation of solutions decreased. Over 90 percent of FOMs had individual improvement plans. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, customers knew exactly what they could expect from the FOMs.
Critique
Despite these successes, there are areas that the performance analysis team could have examined and done differently. To begin, for a problem or gap that had relatively few parts, the team implemented 13 separate interventions. Maybe they could have streamlined some of these or perhaps they could have utilized technology effectively to cut down on the number of interventions that were implemented. Additionally, the team did a good job identifying a PIP, but they did not really survey or ask low performing FOMs why they performed as they did.
That being said, the team should be given credit for the fine work they did in a number of areas. Namely, the internal coach was critical to the success of this effort because it allowed the consultant and the analyst to gather insightful information. Having at least one internal person who can “vouch” for the external observers on a project can open the door for truthful and accurate information gathering. The team identified key FOMs that would provide critical input to HPT project and selected appropriate tools for project. Lastly, the methods used in the performance analysis were strong ensuring proper identifications of gaps and the correct implementation of solutions.
Steelcase Inc. is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of office furniture. They have offices in 15 countries and employ over 20,000 people. Their annual sales total over 3 billion dollars. They have over 700 independent offices that provide direct, primary contact with customers that include many Fortune 500 companies (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 135-136). Furthermore, Steelcase is also involved in furniture management (creating efficient office spaces). This job is handled by a field operations manager (FOM) that reports to the Furniture Management Coalition (FMC) within Steelcase.
Recently, the FMC noticed a problem with the FOM position. To solve the problem, Steelcase employed its performance analysis and consulting group located within the Human Resources department. To analyze problems the consulting group follows four phases: partnership and entry, assessment, implementation, and evaluation. To make certain that all options and variables are considered, the consulting group also uses a variation of Gilbert’s BEM (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 136).
Initial Problem Statement
Steelcase was having a problem with the FOM position within the FMC. Specifically, the FOM’s were:
- Not communicating with each other to share best practices
- Each completed their job differently
- They spent 80% of their time putting out fires and tracking down problems
- Measuring metrics (the profitability of their furniture management services) were not being enforced equally amongst the position
- Customers were regularly going over FOM’s heads and contacting Steelcase directly to solve problems (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 139)
Performance Analysis
To analyze performance the team decided to first tackle the FOM’s job description. They created a performance model that described all the duties that a FOM was expected to undertake. Moreover, they created a FOM PIP to describe an exemplary FOM. Also included in their task analysis were barriers FOM’s could encounter that would affect their performance (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 140-141).
From this the team performed a gap analysis to find where Steelcase’s FOM’s rated vs. the PIP. Besides discovering the gap, it was hoped that the team would also find any important enhancers or specific barriers that prevented FOM’s from properly completing their job to expectations (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 141).
Cause Analysis
Upon completing the performance analysis the team discovered that FOM’s needed to improve in three areas:
- To develop improved service provider improvement plans and follow through on them
- Communicate better with FMC leaders
- Coach and develop for enhanced personal
development skills (Wykes, March/Swets, Rynbrandt, 143-146).
The team also discovered barriers that were preventing FOM’s from properly completing their job. They were:
- Expectations and latitudes of authority were unclear to FOM’s
- FOMs tools to monitor, and evaluate service providers were inadequate to maintain profitability
- FOMs were unclear how to provide negative
consequences to service providers who underperformed.
Intervention Selection and Development
To solve problems related to FOMs, the team implemented a wide range of interventions to improve FOM performance. Interventions that were significant were:
- Define and communicate service provider selection/assessment process
- Develop scorecard and sub team to establish benchmarks
- VP and management to meet with dealer alliances group and define roles and responsibilities
- Specific development measures tied to performance review information
- “Sales awareness program” implemented
- New FOM team leader appointed
- Roles clarified proactively with customers regularly
- Information-sharing metrics placed into each FOM’s objectives
- Process documentation to outline procedures
- Management to address resource issues with dealer alliances group
Overall, management was pleased with the results of the interventions. They received many positive statements and saw encouraging results. FOMs were happier and their job roles had increased clarity. FOMs shared information more regularly. Improvements were made to the selection and assessment of service providers. The average amount of time recognizing service provider defects and the implementation of solutions decreased. Over 90 percent of FOMs had individual improvement plans. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, customers knew exactly what they could expect from the FOMs.
Critique
Despite these successes, there are areas that the performance analysis team could have examined and done differently. To begin, for a problem or gap that had relatively few parts, the team implemented 13 separate interventions. Maybe they could have streamlined some of these or perhaps they could have utilized technology effectively to cut down on the number of interventions that were implemented. Additionally, the team did a good job identifying a PIP, but they did not really survey or ask low performing FOMs why they performed as they did.
That being said, the team should be given credit for the fine work they did in a number of areas. Namely, the internal coach was critical to the success of this effort because it allowed the consultant and the analyst to gather insightful information. Having at least one internal person who can “vouch” for the external observers on a project can open the door for truthful and accurate information gathering. The team identified key FOMs that would provide critical input to HPT project and selected appropriate tools for project. Lastly, the methods used in the performance analysis were strong ensuring proper identifications of gaps and the correct implementation of solutions.