Productivity improvement does not rely for itssuccess on the application of specific produc-tivity techniques – it depends much more onthe commitment and creativity of all membersof the organization. However, the techniquescannot be ignored – they are the armoury ofapproaches to improving productivity. Theymust not be regarded as the providers ofimproved productivity but as assisting agentsin the process, a part of the overall approach.Ideally they should be provided by the pro-ductivity specialists for deployment by theoperational staff and work groups. Suchspecialist staff thus become correctlyproviders of support services. One of theterms in general usage for such specialist staffis that of “management services”. In the lightof our desire to fully involve all members ofthe organization, and not just managers, inour productivity improvement programme,perhaps another title is required. To fullyrepresent their new role, perhaps that of“productivity support” or “productivityservices officers” is more appropriate as a jobtitle for such specialists.

There are a number of approaches andtechniques which have grown out of the pro-ductivity movement – work study, organiza-tion and methods, operational research, etc. –and to deny or ignore their existence would befoolish. They must, though, be used as part ofa structured and targeted campaign aimed atexamining and improving all the relevantfactors that contribute to output-enhancingproductivity. That means that they should notbe employed in a mechanistic way but ratherthat the questioning and analytical approachthey normally use should be harnessedtogether with the intuitive and creativeapproach that can be obtained through themotivation and enthusing of the workforce.

The approach and attitude to productivityimprovement is much more important thanthe type or nature of any techniquesemployed. One of the great strengths of thoseproperly and fully trained in the use of pro-ductivity techniques is the ability to question,in a systematic manner, all aspects of a partic-ular situation, process or procedure. Thefundamental questions of productivityimprovement are:(1) What?

• What are we trying to achieve?(2) Why?

• Why are we trying to achieve it?

52

Work StudyVolume 46 · Number 2 · 1997 · pp. 52–57© MCB University Press · ISSN 0043-8022

Back to basics withproductivity techniques

Shirley Daniels

The authorShirley Daniels is a freelance journalist based in Leeds,UK.

AbstractProductivity techniques are no longer in fashion. Yet, formany years they were regarded as essential to the processof analysing and improving productivity. Argues that thetechniques are still very useful – but as part of a coherentapproach to understanding and improving productivity.Explains some of the more common, and more traditionaltechniques set in a context of a productivity improvementstrategy.

• What are the benefits? (Short- and long-term)

(3) How?• How might we set about achieving it?• What alternative approaches exist?• How do we evaluate alternatives?

These are supported by a second level ofquestions :(1) Who?

• Who is responsible for a given objective?(2) When?

• When will the objective (and sub-objec-tives along the way) be achieved?

(3) Where?• Where will activity in support of a given

objective take place?

These questions are not asked in a simplelinear way, but as a continuing spiral of ques-tions as layers of a specific problem or situa-tion are uncovered. Almost all the questionscan be followed with Why? (Why, for exam-ple, are we assigning responsibility to a givenindividual or group?) and almost all can bere-used at the next level of discussion (Whatare the constraints? How can they beovercome?).

For some tasks or projects, this questioningprocess may take only a few minutes. Forothers, some of the questions may requiresome form of investigation or study beforeanswers can be given. The nature and level ofthe questioning process is dependent on thecomplexity and of the anticipated level ofbenefit accruing from revision of the situationunder examination.

Value analysis

One particular variant of the general ques-tioning technique that is worth specific men-tion is that of “value analysis”. This tradition-ally was concerned with material analysis(component to finished goods) but the meritin discussing it within a more general produc-tivity improvement programme is that itmakes specific reference to the term “value”.It was one of the earliest techniques to makereference to the concept of a “supplier” chain(which is another way of describing a cus-tomer chain) and, in its more sophisticatedusage, encompasses the concepts of “usagevalue” and “esteem value”, recognizing thatthe total value attributed to an article (or acomponent) is a composite of its functionalityand any additional perceived value. The

technique attempts to address each material,component part and intermediate part of anarticle to question whether the cost of the partis commensurate with the value it adds to thefinished product. Thus some parts may addfunctionality whereas others may contributemore to esteem value (through improvingaesthetics or some other factor). Value analy-sis thus offers a framework for analysing amanufactured product and in particular itsmaterial content. One of the general aims ofmaterials review is to establish the standard-ization of materials and components over aproduct range in order to reduce purchasingcosts, by taking advantage of economies ofscale, and stock-holding costs. Value analysiscan sometimes argue against standardizationif the perceived value offered by a non-stan-dard material or component is greater than itsadditional cost. Such an alternative viewpointoffers an advantageous viewpoint to thedebate and discussion. Value analysis thusbrought together at an early stage the inter-play of productivity and quality.

Where work teams are themselves involvedin the process of raising problems, makingchanges, contributing to discussions, etc. (asin quality circles), it is useful to have support-ing agents to act as “devil’s advocate” byposing some of the above questions. Theadvantage of defining such support in thename of specific techniques is that it offers astructure and a credibility to a process thatcan otherwise be vague and ill-formed. Thedifficult part is to ask questions withoutappearing to be negative or critical. Thus, theapproach should be to suggest that “We needto ask Why or How or whatever” and then tomake suggestions, based on experience andtraining of how such questions could beanswered. It is also beneficial to offer trainingto the workforce in the basic approach andsome of the basic techniques, so that commu-nication with the specialist supporters ismeaningful and effective.

Generally, training should start withapproaches and concepts and move towardsspecific techniques where these can illustratethe general approach or where they are identi-fied as having specific applicability within theenvironment of the particular organization.The questioning approach so far discussed isso simple in concept that it can be used withimmediate effect. The aim of this approach isbasically to discover more about the nature of

53

Back to basics with productivity techniques

Shirley Daniels

Work Study

Volume 46 · Number 2 · 1997 · 52–57

a given problem or situation. Doing this oftenleads naturally to the identification ofimprovements or beneficial changes, but it isimportant to concentrate on the situation orproblem first without rushing into solution-finding.

For many problems or situations, theremay be a need to carry out investigative workon the problem and its environment beforeattempting to look for changes to be made.Such investigations may require the deploy-ment of particular investigative and recordingtechniques and it is here that support special-ists can be of assistance in providing suchinformation for the managing group of a givenproblem, whether this be a group of managersor a workgroup.

The general approach of productivitymethodologies (of which the simple question-ing technique above is one) is to find out whatis currently happening, to examine potentialsolutions/changes, and to evaluate thosepotential solutions/changes according todefined criteria of success.

Pareto analysis

Pareto analysis is a useful, and simple,approach to identifying priorities. One of itsattractions is that its simplicity makes it anideal “technique” to be introduced quickly tomembers of the workforce who may beinvolved in some form of partnership that isaddressing productivity issues – such as pro-ductivity circles or teams. They may possiblyhave heard of the 80/20 rule and, even if theyhave not, will accept the basic concept quitereadily. Data which at first appear complexcan often be more readily understood bypresenting them graphically and then subject-ing them to a Pareto analysis. Thus in anorganization which makes a large number ofcomponents to go into a large number of endproducts, an analysis which shows whichproducts, and which components, contributesthe lion’s share of sales revenue can be quite illuminating.

Family tree analysis

One approach which helps to achieve a fullpicture of a given situation is to build up a“family tree” structure starting from theexisting situation or problem and the kind ofimprovement it is wished or hoped to make.

This is expressed as a simple question. Takinga general problem, we may be part of a policeforce, local authority or other public serviceorganization discussing ways in which we canimprove road safety in conditions of lowvisibility due to fog. Our basic question istherefore “How to reduce road accidents infog?” This question is written in the centre ofa sheet of paper and a simple tree structurecreated both above and below it.

Above the basic question on the branchesof the tree are then written questions thatmust be answered or tackled if the basic prob-lem, as detailed within the central question isignored. Thus, in this example, we may haveproblems of “How to detect the occurrence ofaccidents as quickly as possible?” or “How toensure that emergency vehicles can reachaccidents safely and quickly?” If the basicproblem is insoluble, at least in the shortterm, these “above the line” questions offerthe chance of minimizing the effects.

On the branches below the basic questionare written the questions that must be askedor tackled in order to make progress towardsanswering the basic question. Again, in thisexample, such questions may be:• How can we reduce the incidence of fog?• How can we improve street lighting?• How can we ensure vehicles do not travel

too fast?, etc.

These, in turn may have sub-problems (andtherefore questions) to be asked and we add abranch under the particular question andmove downwards, building a tree structure.As we move downwards, the questions beingasked become more detailed and weinevitably move towards potential solutions,simply by continuing to ask questions.

The aim is to build the tree structure fairlyquickly and then to examine it, looking forquestions that seem worthy of further devel-opment, looking for those that can beanswered with few resources or in a shorttime, and so on. Eventually, the range ofquestions posed will lead to a shortlist ofquestions which, if tackled, will lead to thebest chance of improving the situation orsolving the problem. This technique has theadvantage of being suitable for group work,allowing a group leader to build up the treestructure on a flip chart or overhead projectoras the group pose the questions. It is also, likethe basic questioning procedure, simple inconcept and simple to apply.

54

Back to basics with productivity techniques

Shirley Daniels

Work Study

Volume 46 · Number 2 · 1997 · 52–57

Cause and effect diagrams

A similar, if slightly more “fashionable” tech-nique (arising from the quality movement) isthat of the cause and effect diagram. This issometimes known as a fishbone diagram,because of its shape, or an Ishikawa diagram,after Dr Kaoru Ishikawa who is responsiblefor its development and promotion. Thisdiagram takes a known, or desired, situation(the effect) and attempts to identify the fac-tors influencing the situation (causes, andsub-causes). Initially, at least, these factors areoften common: people, equipment, methodsand materials are four commonly used factors.

Each of the factors is then discussed (bythe group of people responsible for the situa-tion or, perhaps, those who must deal with it)and possible sub-factors (or causes) are iden-tified.

Consider the situation where a particularprocess is producing components of variablequality – identified, perhaps by the use ofquality control charts or simply by the com-ments of those who have to use the compo-nents in a subsequent process.

Under the “People” factor, the groupundertaking the examination may have sub-factors, or possible causes of the final effect, of“lack of training”, “working too fast”, “highlabour turnover” and so on.

This would be repeated for each of theother factors. Again, as with the family treediagram, after two or three levels have beendiscussed and charted, discussion moves toconsideration of probabilities of cause andprobabilities of improvement if the particularsub-factor is addressed. In this way, prioritiesfor action or for further investigation areestablished.

Method study

Method study (one of the “granddaddy” oftechniques) is defined in the BSI Glossary ofTerms in Work Study as:

the systematic recording and critical examina-tion of existing and proposed ways of doingwork, as a means of developing and applyingeasier and more effective methods and reducingcosts.

Method study is based around a procedureknown, not surprisingly, as the basic methodstudy procedure which in outline form is:

• Select the situation or problem to be exam-ined.

• Define that situation or problem.• Record relevant data about it.• Examine the recorded data.• Develop fresh ideas and approaches.• Install a new working arrangement, process

or procedure.• Maintain that new arrangement as stan-

dard practice.

‘…Practitioners who have undergonemethod study training tend to spend adisproportionate time on the Recordstage of the procedure, since there is agreat range of recording techniquesavailable…’

This is a gross oversimplification of the manystages that are passed through in a full investi-gation but it does serve to highlight the salientmain steps and to demonstrate the essentialsimplicity of a procedure that can be used asthe basis of complex investigations. Where itfalls down is in representing the process as amechanistic process in which a series of stepsis followed in a rigid, linear fashion. It alsotends to undervalue the Develop stage. Practi-tioners who have undergone method studytraining tend to spend a disproportionate timeon the Record stage of the procedure, sincethere is a great range of recording techniquesavailable (flow charts, travel charts, multipleactivity charts, string diagrams, etc.) andthese are essentially easy to carry out and areuseful in “padding out” reports. The datacollection stage is not obviously an end initself; it merely serves to underpin the devel-opment of new ideas and approaches.

However, the basic charting and diagram-matic techniques are useful to serve as com-munication devices. Most of them are alsosimple and training can be given to employeesto allow them to record (at least in outline ordraft form) the kinds of processes and activi-ties on which they work. Even if they are notto undertake their own recording, a basicunderstanding of the simpler techniquesallows them to communicate with supportspecialists who may produce the charts anddiagrams and to discuss and confirm theinformation recorded. Naturally employeesare most concerned with the part of a process

55

Back to basics with productivity techniques

Shirley Daniels

Work Study

Volume 46 · Number 2 · 1997 · 52–57

with which they personally are involved. It isuseful to let them see how their particularactivity or job fits into a wider process andprocess charts are a useful means of doingthis.

Many of the techniques that are not aimedat the creation of ideas are aimed at the provi-sion of information – information to informdecisions about alternative ideas, ways ofworking, capital investment, etc. This is inpart the province of productivity or manage-ment sciences. The term “scientific manage-ment” is normally associated with the work ofF.W. Taylor in the early part of this century.Taylor suggested that analytical and quantita-tive techniques could be used to provide afactual basis for the management process.Although present views on management aremore complex and more varied, there is aplace for such “scientific” techniques in pro-viding decision-support information. Someof the techniques are very simple to use.Others may be conceptually simple but diffi-cult or time-consuming to use in practice.These techniques may again need the employ-ment of specialist staff, but it is worth repeat-ing that such staff should be directed by thosewho are to use the information. These people,whether managers or workforce representa-tives or groups, must know enough about thenature of the technique and the informationcollected to be able to consider the informa-tion provided in an informed manner.

Cost/benefit analysis

Evaluation of ideas/proposals is an area that isoften overlooked. The most common methodof evaluating a significant project is through acost/benefit assessment where the variousadvantages accruing from the project areassessed (in financial terms where possible)and compared with the costs involved inmaking the necessary changes. For ideaswhich have not yet been formulated into adefined proposal, the situation is not quite sosimple. Here, the techniques used may needto be as vague as the ideas themselves. Theapproach is, however, essentially the same.Some attempt must be made to determine :• the benefits that will accrue;• the probability of success;• any “side-effects” (negative or positive).

Simple ranking systems are often used – withweightings attached to different factors inmore sophisticated versions.

In some ways, the actual method – and itsassociated scoring system – is not important;the act of using any method and being forcedto make numerical assessment forces whoeveris carrying out the evaluation to think careful-ly about the proposal and its implications.Any points scoring is simply an expression ofthis thought process; in any case the subjec-tive nature of the scoring must be borne inmind – there is a tendency to think that num-bers are produced by objective or scientificprocesses and that numbers carry moreweight than words.

Work measurement

One area that has often proved contentious inthe past is that of work measurement. Workmeasurement is a useful technique for provid-ing information about activity completiontimes, workloads, capacities and so on.Unfortunately, it has too often been linked topayment systems and individual performancemeasures have been treated with antagonismby many workforces, with the measured timesbeing incorporated into the wage negotiationsystem. Yet it is a useful technique (or, moreproperly, range of techniques, since there area large number of techniques suitable fordifferent types of work and work situations)with wide applicability within the planningand monitoring arenas. It must be employedwith sensitivity. In a productivity improve-ment programme, it can be used by particulargroups to assist in their own determinationand evaluation of alternative working patternsand procedures. If used in this way, at therequest of work groups or teams, it can beestablished as a supporting rather than dam-aging agent. Some of the newer techniquesare particularly designed to provide dataabout group activity, work load and perfor-mance. Such techniques may be seen as less“threatening” than those which are essentiallyaimed at individual measurement. Thesetechniques can be employed by the supportspecialists to provide information that hasbeen requested (explicitly or implicitly) by theproductivity improvement circles and teams.Such techniques may require the supportspecialist to undertake a particular study,carry out some information-gathering exer-cise or analyse established data. Such projectscan be carried out by the support specialistbetween team meetings.

56

Back to basics with productivity techniques

Shirley Daniels

Work Study

Volume 46 · Number 2 · 1997 · 52–57

Non-work measurement

Traditionally, as illustrated above, work mea-surement has been concerned with establish-ing consistent data on activity and job com-pletion times, for comparative, control orpayment purposes. Work measurement, withresults expressed in time units, is importantsince time is a basic resource that incurs bothactual cost (from what we do in the time andfrom “overhead” charges that accrue in a timeperiod) and opportunity cost (what we couldhave done in the time). However, work doesnot use up all the time of an organization –just as much, if not more, is used by non-work. When organizations undertake a studyof throughput times for a given product, theyare often horrified to discover that a givenproduct may take, say, 20 hours to manufac-ture but 200 hours to progress from order todelivery. The rest of the time (the non-worktime) is taken up by various delays – often inthe form of (temporary) storage. It may thusbe interesting, and advantageous, to under-take measurement of not only the work con-tent of jobs, but also the overall throughputtimes and to measure one as a percentage of

the other. The size of the resulting figures mayoffer strong motivation for improvement.

Summary

We have not therefore ruled out the use ofspecialist productivity improvement tech-niques – we have simply relegated them totheir proper place. They must be subservientto the process of establishing the correct levelof commitment and the right attitude amongall members of the organization. They mustbe used on behalf of those giving that commit-ment and demonstrating that attitude, notimposed on them. Thus the specialist advisersmay suggest the use of specific techniques andoffer information on the nature of the tech-nique and its applicability. If the group thendecides to adopt a given technique to assistthem in raising their productivity, the tech-nique is much more likely to be successful –the technique is perceived as working for themrather than on or against them. So dust offyour old kit-bag of techniques and get themto work for you – as part of a coherentproductivity improvement plan.

57

Back to basics with productivity techniques

Shirley Daniels

Work Study

Volume 46 · Number 2 · 1997 · 52–57