Working Without Supervision
Overcoming Inefficiencies and Lost Productivity
The overwhelming issues that organizations are faced with when shifting organizational
structures towards self-directed teams or when utilizing cross-functional supervision are
increased inefficiency, in regards to maintenance execution, and decreased productivity levels
within the hourly ranks. Typically, accountability for maintenance execution, and performance
thereof, lies within the first-line supervisor role. Without such a role, organizational leaders must
provide the infrastructure to compensate for the losses in direct supervision.
The common mistake that most organizations make when incorporating the ‘Team’ concept into
their infrastructure is not recognizing the integration of roles within. When observing failed
attempts at self-directed teams, you’ll find that teams were arranged by function, i.e.
Maintenance, Operations, Materials Management, Engineering, and others. In fact, this
reorganization is merely a modified traditional organization, minus first-line supervision, which
does achieve the goal of reducing overhead, but does nothing to improve organizational
performance. Self-directed Teams should be arranged by process, as in the TPM model
developed by the Japanese. Teams incorporate a cross-functional group of Maintenance,
Operations, and Engineering personnel, with support resources assigned from roles such as Sales
and Marketing, Materials Management, and Contract Services. Team members are well versed
in all business processes and thoroughly understand their role and the impact it has on the
business unit.
Even with well-constructed self-directed teams, work execution is based on a majority consensus
of what work will be performed, how it will be performed, and when it will be performed from
within the team. The pitfall is that each team operates day-to-day in a ‘vacuum’, with little to no
regard for other activities within the plant. Coordinating cross-team efforts is not provided for,
and plant leadership is often unaware of the tasks being performed, and the impact they may
have on overall plant performance. For this reason, work control processes must be identified,
mapped, defined, and communicated to illustrate the linkages between teams. Work processes
that were designed under a traditional structure must be reviewed and revised to support a
‘Team’ driven structure. Responsibilities within each process must be aligned, and management
reporting and control measures must be in place to coordinate the day-to-day activities of each
team. Self-directed does not mean unmanaged. The CEO of every corporation has a
responsibility to report performance, and identify corrective actions to improve performance, to
stockholders. Stockholders then provide direction to the CEO by way of an elected Board of
Directors. With this in mind, why would the corporation allow hourly personnel to be
unaccountable, unmanaged, and self-directed? The answer in most cases is cost. However, cost
reductions associated with reducing line supervision are often over-shadowed by the increase in
4360 Corporate Road • Charleston, SC 29405-7445 • 843.744.7110 • www.LCE.com
©Life Cycle Engineering®
maintenance and operating costs, as a result of less reliable equipment, caused by inefficiencies
in the work processes and decreasing productivity of maintenance crews.
Overcoming Inefficiencies and Lost Productivity
Organizations who are looking to restructure in order to cut overhead costs need to first prepare
the organization for change. Successful and effective use of self-directed teams requires a high
level of discipline and motivation. Team members will be required to step outside their
traditional roles, accept new responsibilities, and work cooperatively with those members of the
organization who have always been ‘them’. This level of cooperation must be evident at the plant
leadership level, portrayed in their actions as a common goal and unified commitment.
When considering self-direct teams or cross-functional supervision, examine your current work
control processes to ensure the direction required to support Best Practices is maintained without
the presence of first-line supervision. Work control processes exist in every organization, such
as, Maintenance, Reliability Engineering, Materials Management, Operations, and Sales and
Marketing. Although each process is independently defined, all work control processes should be
fully integrated to sustain and improve overall plant performance. To ensure the proper level of
direction, identify the critical steps within each process that require higher levels of coordination,
approval, recognition, and control.
Develop your organizational structure utilizing the work control processes as a guide to
assembling the functional aspects of each ‘Team’. Determine the type of work and quantity to be
performed and allocate resources to each team as appropriate. Periodically review the volume of
work performed and the volume of work requested, for each team, to align manpower with the
operating needs of the plant. Utilize cross-functional supervisors at the highest level necessary to
oversee the critical steps within each process for a given boundary, while maintaining
accountability within each at the lowest possible level. For example, the Scheduling and
Coordination Meeting is a critical step within the Scheduling process, as it requires input and
direction from all process areas, functional roles, and work teams within the plant to ensure plant
performance is optimized. The managing member for the planning and scheduling function
would oversee this step, however, accountability is assigned to the planning and scheduling
coordinator in each team.
Empower team members with the knowledge and understanding of plant policies, procedures,
and business philosophies through programmed training and evaluation. Those organizations that
have successfully reduced first-line supervision have embraced the need for cross-training
personnel. The efficiency of each process demands that every member be capable of executing
each step of the process, consistently. When everyone understands the affects of not following
the process as defined, the need for direct supervision is diminished.
Once the work control processes are developed to close the gaps caused by the absence of line
supervision, Key Performance Indicators (KPI) should be defined and implemented to measure
process compliance and the performance of each team. Additionally, these KPIs should be
monitored to identify opportunities to eliminate the inherent process inefficiencies.
4360 Corporate Road • Charleston, SC 29405-7445 • 843.744.7110 • www.LCE.com
©Life Cycle Engineering®
In conclusion, removing the piece of infrastructure that has served as the “director” of work
execution for so many years will have devastating affects on the productivity of work crews and
will allow for greater inefficiencies throughout the plant. Providing direction through definitive
process controls, coupled with the integration of functional roles within the organization will add
to the success of the restructuring effort and will ensure the sustainability of plant performance.
For more information please contact Life Cycle Engineering at 843-744-7110, or visit our
website at www.lce.com.
4360 Corporate Road • Charleston, SC 29405-7445 • 843.744.7110 • www.LCE.com
©Life Cycle Engineering®