Finding the right balance between technological, productivity-driven and human-centric development is key to success in manufacturing in the 2020s. Actions to reduce waste from processes, for example, by utilising digitalisation opportunities or operation automation, are still vital and commonly used to improve operational efficiency. Simultaneously, the significance of personnel satisfaction is rising. In production development, satisfied personnel guarantee the added value of a change initiative, and personnel satisfaction should be seen as a key objective in all development activities.
Production and operations improvement projects may easily be executed as straightforward, technical projects without considering operative personnel satisfaction as a success factor or target. Objectives explain how mechanical efficiency will evolve, but improvements for the site personnel are unclear. The focus may be on the technology, even if it’s unclear how it’s linked to the production landscape. Change management may only be applied as a sidetrack ensuring the technical implementation. As a result, we may end up with:
A solution that is great on paper but doesn’t play an integrated part in the operational day-to-day life.
A technical implementation of a new solution that failed to achieve the targeted operational efficiency or had an unwanted outcome.
Personnel who experienced the project and its outcome negatively.
I’ll share my real-life experiences with an example. A company had a clear need to increase its profitability and delivery punctuality. Studies and current state analyses showed that implementing new processes, supporting IT systems and automating one production operation would improve both KPIs significantly. The investment plan was clear, and there was no doubt about the monetary benefits. Automation increased the operational capacity and changed the nature of the work itself. A new IT system was implemented, and new KPIs were established with requirements for operating, performing and reporting operative actions. User training was held, but system usage remained low – as a quick fix, the managers applied more training and control. Eventually, the system usage rose to an adequate level and based on the KPIs, business improvements were achieved. However, not all organisation levels considered the project as a success. After a while, negative implications arose. Personnel satisfaction was reduced, and the employee turnover increased, challenging business continuity.
The main lesson to be learnt is to set development targets for personnel satisfaction and involve the personnel in changes – even if you think the business case is clear. One way to understand personnel’s needs and involvement mechanisms is the “Job Demand –Resources model”:
“Job Demand – Resource model” defines how output depends on the balance of the two elements: Job demands (strains) and Job resources (motivation).
Source: (PDF) Occupational Stress and Workplace Design (researchgate.net) (Adapted from Bakker & Demerouti 2007)
I’ve found it has two main benefits:
First, the Job Demand—Resource model can be utilised to translate business targets to meaningful aspects of the personnel’s job roles. In this case, delivery punctuality and profitability targets could be linked to how well the improvements will decrease the negative impacts of Job demands, like time pressure, work overload, performance demands, job insecurity, complexity, or schedule changes. These discussions raise opportunities to identify topics which are important to personnel and have a significant impact on their job satisfaction.
Second, I’ve utilised the opportunity to increase Job resources, which lifts motivation. Here, I mean defining targets and building solutions together with the personnel, utilising their knowledge and skills, providing opportunities to participate, and increasing self-esteem. As a result, the targets are clear, the personnel feel appreciated, and change resistance is replaced with trust, team harmony and cohesion. Not only does the solution get better, but I see this as important because we learn and gain new skills together.
After these steps, achieved results feel important because the teams have succeeded together, and there is something to gain for everyone involved. Following these steps, the described project would have had a more positive outcome, reaching higher operational efficiency and motivated, engaged personnel.
About the author: Jussi Haatainen
I have 15 years of experience in manufacturing operations, where I’ve had the privilege to work in roles such as factory manager, global manufacturing process owner, different IT development roles and project manager. I’ve also led operations at a company providing testing, inspection, certification, and expert services for construction material manufacturers. In my consultation assignments, I always strive to create industrial efficiency with balanced mechanical efficiency and personnel satisfaction.
Organisational change management frameworks, like Prosci and ADKAR, have their merits but also limitations. I acknowledge these methodologies' popularity and ...
Read moreThe year 2023 had lower-than-normal M&A activity. This was mainly due to the high interest rates yet still high company ...
Read more
One of the strategic objectives of Kontiotuote Oy (later Kontio) for the strategy period is "exploiting the potential of digitalisation". ...
Read more
