The room has a dim glow as the strange intertwining shapes race across the screens, forming an almost illusionary pattern of something out of a sci-fi movie. It could very easily be the cockpit of the space shuttle as it roams the perimeters of space or a commercial aircraft moving through the skies at night. There's a defining silence, hardly a whisper. Then a phone rings or a door opens and we realize that we are back on earth. Lo and behold we find ourselves in one of the nerve centers of an industrial complex - the office areas of an engineering and design group.

Somewhat isolated from the rest of the plant operations, this team of highly skilled individuals thinks in three dimensions and produces concepts that are mirrors of the end product. They are the enablers of product development initiatives. They also hold the pulse of the entire manufacturing process as they translate an idea into a detailed mathematical build plan to manufacture a product for use by consumers worldwide.

But there is a common thread for nearly every manufacturer - the location of the offices tend to be somewhat isolated from the rest of the operation and the role of the designer and engineer as related to corporate success tends to also be distant.

Obviously, not all companies have their design and engineering teams housed in bat caves. Many have well-lit, spacious rooms with easy access. Designers and engineers need a quiet, separate area because of the complexity of their work and their need to be able to concentrate. But we are talking about access and participation.

Access and Participation

During my discussions with executives and managers throughout North America, I have frequently been asked the following questions:

• How do we motivate designers and engineers?
• What do we have to do to execute better throughout operations?
• How do we keep our engineering and design staff focused on the needs of customers and instill a sense of urgency?
• How do we get them to understand that if they always create the Cadillac of designs - even when something less is warranted - they are introducing delays into the build process and create bottlenecks within the production system?

Obstacles
The obstacles are both organizational and cultural in nature. The first order of business is to have a clear, set vision of what the company is to become and a definitive set of goals. For example, if the goal is to reduce leadtime by 20 percent and/or to maintain a record of on-time delivery, then time has to be the critical asset that is planned, tracked, measured and refined. The same holds true if we are working to a product development schedule that is sensitive to market positioning or market timing issues.

Either of these suggests that there should be a project plan up front for each job (e.g., build a mold, run the parts or product deployment - depending upon the company's measures) such that each step in the process of design and manufacturing has an associated time allocation and an individual (or skill level) assigned to it. Combine these project plans together and one can develop a critical path for all work being done within the company as well as the supply chain, the distribution channels and even the customer. This, however, is only the first step. It sets the goals for both the project and the people. Measurement and feedback based on actuals is imperative if this planning is to be effective lest the plans become obsolete within seconds after being generated.

Next, we must look at what the people actually have to do and how long it takes them to do it. In most shops, the real amount of time taken to complete a task is driven not by complexity nor skills nor even the physical process. Instead, it is the inherent delays that the company has designed into its operations associated with position descriptions, space planning, information flow, communications and accountabilities. These same elements contribute to perceived problems with motivation, attitudes and productivity. Because they tend to be innocuous, the management view is that the people are the problem.

Accountability
Let's look at the accountability issue. If there were a project plan developed for the job, who would be the likely lead person that would be accountable for the project and ultimately, the delivery of the product to the end customer?

Prior to receiving an order, the designer and engineer take on a proactive role of supporting the marketing efforts, educating customers, and act as the company's representative to define and steer customer requirements. During this period they have a lead technical role.

Once the job comes in-house as a contractual commitment, the efforts of the designer and engineer represent more of a customer-company requirements translator function. At this juncture the lead technical role for the project is handed off to others. If the company is a mold building operation, the accountability passes to the lead moldmaker that will lead the team that will build the tool. If the company is a molder, it must be the departmental manager where the tool will be run to produce the parts. If the company is the molder's customer, it must likewise be the organizational entity that will receive the parts from the molder and perform the next step in the innovation process (i.e., taking an idea to market). Thus the designers and engineers must be enablers for the lead people.

Location
With this view of accountabilities, where is the most likely spot in the manufacturing floor plan to locate the offices of the designers and engineers? Where should the benches or desks of the lead people in manufacturing be located? Ninety-nine percent of the companies will put the offices of the designers, engineers and lead manufacturing people off to the side just like they do with the quality offices and the management offices. The question is why? Ask yourself the question: Where, with whom and how often do the staff need to communicate once a job hits the floor? Don't forget changes in scope!

Consider what would happen if the support offices (i.e., management, quality department, design department and engineering) and the lead manufacturing people had their offices positioned in the middle of the factory such that the individuals on the manufacturing floor could access any one of these individuals in less than one minute. How much time would this save in walking-around time by the factory operations staff? You might be surprised!

Why is it important? If people are walking around they are not producing and this represents lost capacity, which translates into lost opportunity - computed in revenue dollars per hour.

One of my clients decided to stack these offices in the middle with the offices of the quality department and the manufacturing lead people on the ground level, engineering and design plus management on the second tier. They used soundproof glass windows all around, thus allowing total visual contact. This cuts down on wasted time and integrates the support team into manufacturing operations. It also produced a sense of participation throughout the project life cycle. Does this answer the motivation question? Not quite!

Motivation
We discussed providing a work environment that facilitates integration of the people for streamlining communications, but we haven't answered a critical question: Will they participate? This is truly a people issue and it has to do with the proverbial question of What's In It For Me? It's not only a leadership issue - i.e., Inspire to aspire! In addition to pure leadership, a human capital development approach to learning is required to streamline the process. This approach helps an individual to learn how to develop balance in their work and personal lives, define the worthwhileness and value of their efforts as perceived by them, and develop a sense of belonging to something that is exciting, exhilarating and challenging. At the same time, they become focused on the customer's needs and develop a true correlation between their contributions to the corporate goals and their personal and professional goals.

Just like we must create a value equation in the market that gives our customers a reason to want to change, so must we give our staff a reason to want to participate. With customers, we call it creating a buying environment. Internally, we call it creating buy-in. The principle is the same.

The bottom line is that balanced individuals and focused participation with accountability are keys to sustained performance. Implementing a time-based strategy forces these issues, but the effectiveness is ultimately determined by the leadership's commitment to change, to their people and to their future. Remember that customers provide revenue and employees create profit.

What do you think?