Steelcase Inc. HPT Case Study

Summary:

A Steel Case subsidiary company, Furniture Management Coalition helps provide furniture management services to customers throughout the continental US. This SteelCase Inc. case study is about the Field Operations Management position, the problems that were rampant in this department. This study outlines the intervention strategy that was deployed from the initial analysis stage through the final evaluation.

Initial Problem Statement:

There were several problems related to the FOM position. The problems surrounded a theme of poor communication, disjointed procedures and methodology, lack of clarity, and poorly enforced policies. These issues directly impacted the customer experience and led to customer’s often going over the FOM’s head and solving their issues through the incorrect channels.

Phase One:

The intervention team consisted of consultants, that were on site with the team, analysts that went over the key metrics and feedback data, and FMC management. During the initial analysis, the team set out to define the scope of the issues. To accomplish this the analysts devised a series of focused questions. The questions were targeted to get an understanding of what the role entailed, the obstacles that the FOM’s face, what solutions were deployed previously and how the team felt about them. The questions were based on various HPT models and encompassed many HPT best practices.

Phase Two:

In this phase, the goal was to identify and agree on the desired performance. Several meeting with key leadership were facilitated and covered responsibilities and valued accomplishments, critical competencies, best practices, barriers and enhancers, and business and performance measures. During this meeting key players were also identified. Interviews were then conducted with the staff. The result was a working draft of the performance model. Next, operational and performance gaps were identified, surveys were used during this process as well. “results of the survey highlighted areas in which the FOMs needed to improve and hinted at key barriers that might be causing the FOMs to underperform with regard to specific goals in associated result areas.” (Phillips-Wykes, 141)

Phase 3:

This phase was the implantation and solution phase. Solutions that were centered around clarifying expectations, documenting processes, and ensuring that appropriate measures and incentives are implemented were given to the FOM leadership to carry out. For accountability, the consultant would conduct regular meetings and stay abreast on key updates.

Phase 4:

The evaluation took place approximately a year later. Surveys that included focused questions to evaluate impact and implementation were sent to Leadership and several select FOM team members. Specific solution related questions were also asked.

Results:

Overall Leadership was pleased with the intervention results. Key satisfaction statements suggested that the clarity and communication issues that were rampant were resolved. Over 90% of FOM’s had performance improvement plans in place, time from initial problem discovery to a solution was decreased and employee satisfaction was high. There were some issues that the intervention, unfortunately, did not correct. Role confusion and “fire-fighting” were two of the larger issues that didn’t show significant improvement.

Critique:

The intervention strategy was fundamentally strong, and therefore it was not surprising that they experienced success. One of the most impactful things to the success of the intervention was the dedicated in-house coach. I believe that deploying an individual to be on the ground with the team throughout the entirety of the project was a sound decision that impacted the project positively. In regard to the issues that did not yield improvements, there is an important lesson to be learned about the impact of other departments within the company. The solutions were deployed to one department, however, they are only a piece of the whole, and the issues within the larger system played a part in the shortcomings of the intervention strategy.

Source: