Team Case Study

 
PF was a company with eleven different business units located in three countries.

THE PROBLEM

As is often the case with companies that grow through acquisitions, most of the locations were not integrated and did not feel they were part of the company. This ‘Silo’ organization was inefficient from both the customer and manufacturing point of view.

Several facilities possessed similar capabilities. However, while one plant was running excessive overtime and quoting long delivery times, another was operating on reduced hours with layoffs. Facilities acted as though they ‘owned’ their customers. Sales reps were aware of customer needs which they didn’t address because the solutions were offered at facilities other than their own. As a result, business was lost because customers looked elsewhere for shorter lead times or more full-service providers. In addition, there was no economy of scale since each location had its own accounting, purchasing, IT, HR, training and marketing

METHODOLOGY

The Board called us in to reverse several years of declining sales and profit. We have developed the following principles for change:

• Speed is key -- It is critical to raise the energy level and overcome objections. We designed a plan to be executed in three months. We incorporated a focus and discipline to keep the plan on track.


• Engagement of the best and brightest. Task forces for key areas were created with members with the right talents who could work together. They were not chosen based on seniority or politics.


• Pareto priorities. Twenty percent of items were selected with an eighty percent chance of success in the short term. This is the opposite of large, daunting task lists that drain enthusiasm and scatter focus.


• Communications often and with substance to promote buy-in and remove ambiguity. If you do not send a message, someone else will, and it is not likely to be the one you want.

TEAMS

The task forces were central to the success of our plan. We recruited three to six people company-wide with talents matching each team’s charter. These were often not the most senior or politically favored individuals; they were selected for their ability to identify and drive necessary change.

These teams were organized around sales, operations and infrastructure, with the following objectives:

Sales

• Identify more products and services for existing customers across all divisions


• Target new accounts in markets where the company was strong


• Identify new markets for existing products


• Retain existing customers

(Note: we did not target new markets with new products)

Operations

• Balance production among facilities to eliminate overtime and underutilization


• Improve existing operations by coordinating operating plans and resource allocations


• Identify new technologies and complimentary capabilities

Infrastructure

• Develop meaningful measurements for sales and operational improvement


• Consolidate purchasing to leverage improved pricing and service


• Design training and development to provide cross-training and encourage adoption of new technology

The teams had a life of thirty days to accomplish their objectives. Each team also had to work with the other two to identify potential conflicts or problems and to mitigate those issues.

RESULTS

After thirty days, the plan was rolled-out to management, employees and customers:

• Customers saw the changes only as a benefit and supported them 100%.


• Sales the following month were up 13%


• Profits were up 17%


• Lead times at one facility dropped from thirteen weeks to one week.


• Overtime was virtually eliminated