"Managing the Life Cycle of Virtual Teams"

S. Furst, M. Reeves, B. Rosen, and R. Blackburn

Academy of Management Executive

May 2004, pp. 6-20

The authors of this study tracked six virtual project teams from inception to project delivery. Using Tuckman's Stage Model for team development, they found that the following managerial interventions are most useful for each of the team stages below:

• Forming Stage
  • Provide realistic project team previews
  • Provide coaching from experienced team members
  • Develop a shared understanding and sense of team identity
  • Develop a clear mission
  • Acquire senior manager support
• Storming Stage
  • Provide face-to-face team building sessions
  • Provide training on conflict resolution
  • Encourage conflicting employees to work together to find common ground
  • Provide shuttle diplomacy and mediation to create compromise solutions
• Norming Stage
  • Create customized templates or team charters specifying task requirements
  • Set individual accountabilities, completion dates, and schedules
  • Establish procedures for information sharing
  • Distinguish task, social, and contextual information design procedures—and design procedures appropriate for each
  • Assign a team coach with skills for managing virtually
• Performing Stage
  • Ensure departmental and company culture supports virtual team work
  • Provide sponsor support and resources for the team to perform

Back to top of page

"Lean at Wiremold: Beyond Manufacturing, Putting People Front and Center"

Orest Fiume

Journal of Organizational Excellence

Summer 2004, pp. 23-32

Wiremold has been one of the most successful implementers of Lean Manufacturing. Wiremold realized early in its transition to Lean that the mechanics of Lean (such as TPM, 5S, cellular manufacturing, etc.) were not enough to truly transform an organization. In this article, one of Wiremold's senior managers shares how Wiremold leveraged its people in its Lean implementation.

The article discusses four particular areas where CEO action counts the most in making Lean work for the company:

• Implement Lean as a strategy, not a tactic
• Lead the culture change
• Mandate Lean as a way of operating
• Set stretch goals and create an environment that supports their achievement

For organization structure changes, Wiremold:

• Reorganized into product families, or teams, which reflected value streams
• Organized support activities that had to service more than one value stream into support teams
• Flattened the organizational structure into just three layers: the management layer (CEO and VP's), product and support team leaders, and workers

In order to make the Lean transformation into a win-win situation for both the company and the workers, Wiremold introduced:

• Qualified employment guarantee—Employees were guaranteed that they would not lose their jobs due to the improvements made with Lean. Their jobs might change, however, and poor performers were not guaranteed to keep their jobs.
• Profit sharing and other compensation plans—All compensation plans were examined to assure that they supported the cooperation needed to support the Lean strategy.
• Education and training—All Wiremold employees initially received some education in Lean concepts, but most of the training was given just-in-time, as needed.
• Advance the best, improve the worst—The top 10 percent of employees were placed on a list with a written plan of long-term development. The bottom 10 percent were also on a list for performance improvement.
• New career paths—People were given long (2-3 year) rotation assignments.
• Restructured wage and salary grades—Salaried jobs were put into four wide, broad bands
• Giving employees a voice—A thorough survey feedback approach was implemented.
• Code of conduct—Everyone is expected to respect others, tell the truth, be fair, try new ideas, ask why, keep your promises, and do your share.

Back to top of page

"Co-Creating Unique Value With Customers"

C. K. Prahalad and Verikat Ramaswamy

Strategy & Leadership

32 (3), 2004, pp. 4-9

The authors of this article contend that consumers are rapidly becoming more connected, informed, and active. They state that "Companies can no longer act autonomously, designing products, developing production processes, crafting marketing messages, and controlling sales channels with little or no interference from consumers. Customers now seek to exercise their influence in every part of the business system."

The following "DART" model of co-creation of value is discussed in this article:

• Dialogue—Mutual communication, engagement, and interaction between the company and its customers.
• Access—This includes giving customers the information they want, as well as providing tools for accessing the information on their own.
• Risk assessment—Customers will "insist that businesses inform them fully about risks, providing not just data but appropriate methodologies for assessing the personal and societal risk associated with products and services".
• Transparency—Information that was once considered proprietary to the firm will no longer be considered so by consumers. This includes information about prices, costs, profit margins, products, technologies, and business systems.

Back to top of page

"Select Company"

David Drickhamer

Industry Week

July 2004, pp. 14,18

Industry Week magazine has announced the 25 finalists for its 2004 "Best Plants" awards:

• Aerco International Inc. (Northvale, NJ; commercial heating boilers and water heaters)
• Batesville Casket Co. (Manchester, TN; steel burial caskets)
• Boeing Macon (Macon, GA; aircraft subassemblies)
• Collins and Aikman Plastics (Williamston, MI; automotive headrests and armrests)
• Dana Corp., Perfect Steel Products (Franklin, MI; stainless steel oil ring expanders)
• dj Orthopedics de Mexico S.A. de C.V (Tiajuana, Mexico; rigid knee braces and orthopedic soft goods)
• dj Orthopedics (Vista, CA; custom knee and elbow braces and cold therapy products)
• Exide Technologies (Kansas City, KN; lead acid batteries)
• Guidant Puerto Rico (Dorado, Puerto Rico; wires, vein harvesting systems, heart failure treatment cables)
• Hendrickson Trailer Suspension Systems (Canton, OH; trailer suspension systems)
• Honeywell ES & S ESA (Tempe, AZ; aerospace valves, controls, and systems)
• Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (Camden, AR; military rockets, missiles, and rocket launchers)
• Lockheed Martin Systems Integration (Owego, NY; systems integration and hardware for aerospace and postal automation)
• Maytag Herrin Laundry Products (Herrin, IL; home laundry appliances)
• Maytag Jackson dishwashing Products (Jackson, TN; household dishwashers)
• Nacom Corp. (Griffin, GA; automotive junction blocks, electronic parts and mechanical assemblies)
• National Gypsum Co., Apollo Beach Plant (Gibsonton, FL; gypsum wall board)
• Northrup Grumman Defensive Systems Division (Rolling Meadows, IL; defense electronic systems)
• Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems Consolidated Manufacturing Center (Forest, MS; radio, radar, and electro-optic devices)
• Rockwell Automation Dodge roller Bearing Plant (Marion, NC; mounted roller bearings)
• Schindler Elevator Corp. (Gettysburg, PA; elevators)
• Storage Tek de Puerto Rico (Ponce, Puerto Rico; tape drives, virtual storage systems, tape libraries)
• Thomas & Betts Corp. (Athens, TN; electrical outlet and conduit boxes and covers)
• TRW Automotive (Fowlerville, MI; automotive slip control products)
• Weir Slurry North America (Madison, WI; pumps, valves, hydroclones and mill lining systems)

Back to top of page

"Promise and Peril in Implementing Pay-For-Performance"

Michael Beer and Mark Cannon

Human Resource Management

Spring 2004, pp. 3-20

Though most research has provided evidence that pay-for-performance systems can provide an impressive net return on the investment, there is little research on how the implementation of these initiatives affects the success of the initiative.

In the early 1990's, plant managers at thirteen Hewlett-Packard plants implemented local initiatives aimed at improving performance through new pay-for-performance systems. This article explores why the initiatives were eventually abandoned at these facilities.

The authors conclude that: "The case data presented here does suggest that pay-for-performance systems present implementation problems that may be underestimated by researchers and insufficiently acknowledged by practitioners. Part of the problem stems from a fundamental human tendency, to which managers are also subject: to be unrealistically optimistic about what can be accomplished by a management intervention... Another aspect of these unrealistic assumptions may be attributable to the inherent complications in designing and maintaining effective pay-for-performance programs, particularly in the rapidly changing business circumstances that face many companies today... Managers may also have been unaware that, unlike other interventions such as training, shortcomings in the design or maintenance of pay-for-performance programs can actually cause significant problems such as bitter feelings and damage to important relationships... The implications for practice we draw from these cases is that managers might best approach the introduction of pay-for-performance as a process of 'negotiation' with employees if they are to avoid the unintended consequences we observed at HP."

Back to top of page

What makes a "Best Plant?"

John McNeil, GP Deltapoint

This issue contains a list of excellent plants: all finalists in the Industry Week rankings. But what puts them there? Would you recognize a great plant if you saw one and do you know the difference between your plant and one of these in a quantifiable way that can help you close the gap? Of course a better plant is neat, organized, and busy. But is there more than meets the eye? Is there some magic that they have been fortunate enough to inherit from a kind marketplace, a lucky product design or a compliant customer base?

We at GP Deltapoint would say that, no: most of what you see is what you get in a plant. Great plants are highly visible manifestations of their efficiency and prowess. And if you visit great plants with a smart eye, you are guaranteed to come home with lessons and appreciations that you can apply directly in your workplace. Of course the first trick is to visit those plants. Maybe some of them are your suppliers or customers. Pay them a courtesy call. Maybe these plants open their doors to local manufacturing, logistics, or materials organizations, and you can pay a visit under the umbrella of one of their tours. Take the time and pay your dues!

So now you are there. What do you look for? An excellent article from the Harvard Business Review of May 2002: "Read a Plant—Fast" by R. Eugene Goodson provides a guide to gathering comparative information from a plant tour. Eugene coaches us to gather information in 11 categories from customer satisfaction ("You should be welcomed to the plant, Quality and customer satisfaction ratings should be displayed prominently") to Commitment to Quality ("Short and long term goals quality of incoming and outgoing goods should be posted"). He also provides 20 short questions to complement the overall survey for a full picture of a plant. For more in-depth analysis of the likely costs of production of the plant, a worksheet is available at a University of Michigan website. If you scan this useful tool carefully, you will see that it is simply encouraging you to seek out the standard attributes of a lean organization.

So, armed with tools such as this and a sharp eye, you can learn from others and improve your performance dramatically. There can only ever be one best plant, but there is nothing stopping all your plants from being on your most-excellent list.

Back to top of page