PERFORMANCE

"PERFORM High Impact Engineering Assessment & Evaluation Methodology"
by
David W. Camper
• Featured in Solid Solutions Magazine Jan/Feb. 2002

INTRODUCTION

          Without question, the competitive nature of today's global economy is driving manufacturing organizations to reevaluate every activity that impacts the longevity of their business and the relationships they have with their customers. Cognizant of the significant importance of performing technical tasks well and the potential impact these activities have on a company's bottom line, organizations are searching for better ways to measure and improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency in which work is performed. These three factors are rapidly becoming the baseline norm for optimizing operational and procedural activities. In simplistic terms, better, faster, and cheaper continues to be the battle cry of manufacturers striving to improve upon performance as a means of remaining competitive.

          Though there is little confusion surrounding general performance objectives, the devil in the detail exists when determining how to proceed. Everyone in the company seemingly has a different opinion and more questions than answers begin to surface. What areas should be looked at first? How much time and effort will be required to accomplish the objectives? What are acceptable returns on any investment and what are the anticipated benefits to the company should be gained from such an undertaking? With opinions running rampant and no systematic methodology in place to allow the best ideas to rise to the top, managers are often forced to dive into perceived problem areas with only the hope of gaining some form of positive return that will justify the effort and not negatively impact other related areas of the business. What seems like a valid approach may very well end up an inefficient use of time or even a step backwards in a company's march towards improved performance.

          A common example of this is the deployment of technology-based solutions for the purpose of optimizing task driven performance. For instance, many companies have implemented varying degrees of 3D modeling and data management systems as a means of creating a collaborative design environment that streamlines the way they generate and support product development. They then impose a set of standards defining methodologies perceived to be proper for conducting engineering activities in support of the business. However, the vast majority is doing so without understanding the potential impact to the rest of the organization. The need for the standards and procedures may be very real and the intentions sincere, however, the time and effort spent developing standards with limited exposure may have been better utilized in other areas.

THE PERFORM METHODOLOGY

          The PERFORM methodology was developed in response to the need for a meaningful engineering assessment and evaluation tool and to aid engineering personnel in their pursuit of high impact improvement. PERFORM is based on the ability to filter out the trite and focus on the causal effects of time wasting symptoms that pervade engineering environments. This straightforward methodology guides the user through simplistic and methodical procedures in an effort to come to clear and effective conclusions.

          Perception vs. Metrics

          PERFORM does not espouse to be a definitive measurement of results based on time studies and other metric based assessments of performance. Although these studies have their place in certain environments, they are subject to serious limitations in both methodology and in the interpretation of the results. The measurements are often based on false assumptions and do not assess the task at hand well enough to determine root cause and the optimal methods for change. Also, the reduction of the data, despite claims to the contrary, are subjective and often formulated from the perceptions of isolated and singular agenda driven managers, project leads or team members.

          Although there is no guarantee PERFORM will isolate systemic and causal problems better than time studies, it is nevertheless a more streamlined process for obtaining information, distilling the data, and uncovering problematic areas. The interpretation of the data makes no illusions about false objectivity based on hard numbers and facts (that are often heavily skewed to satisfy individual agendas). PERFORM is based on multi-line performance perceptions within an engineering environment and makes the assumption that those perceptions, thoughtfully compiled and interpreted, have significant value and bring the greatest return on investment in the assessment process.

          Step 1 - Questions and Answers

          The information gathering function of PERFORM is based on obtaining the perceptions of engineering personnel in assessing how well the group performs specific tasks and the perceived impact those tasks have on their ability as a department to meet company goals and objectives. By answering a series of subjective questions, an engineering manager, designer, or other engineering personnel can give his or her opinion of the department's performance and the impact it has on the department, company, and customer.

          The questions represent elements inside categories surrounding engineering and, as discussed later in this document, each category can be addressed separately or as part of an overall assessment. Although the questions at times may not appear relevant or straightforward, they are essential in uncovering opinions regarding departmental performance and the level of importance certain tasks have towards the improvement of the department.

          Step 2 - Categorization Matrix

          Once the questions have been answered, PERFORM transfers a numeric rating value to a multidimensional matrix format based on columnar headings and associated row topics embedded within categorized sections of a spreadsheet. Even at this early stage, the matrix begins to reveal possible areas of concern within an engineering group and enables closer inspection of interrelated causal influences on any given area. Each of the functional areas assessed is evaluated and depicted within the matrix using the definition guidelines below:

          Tools - The tools used in getting work done effectively and efficiently. Includes such areas as hardware, software, supplies and other equipment.

          Constructs - The actual framework for packaging information such as data elements, 3D model features, bill of material structures, specification and spreadsheet formats, etc.

          Methodology - The process, standards, guidelines, rules, management of data or activity through various processes, workflows, reviews, etc.

          Utilization - Evaluates an activity or process in terms of how effective, productive, efficient, orderly, or optimized it is.

          Philosophy - The attitude, culture, mind set, perspective, acceptance, conformity, ideology of an activity, concept, application, or managerial viewpoint.

          Step 3 - Data Reduction

          Once the data is placed in the matrix, it is automatically distilled down to graphically charted representations. These representations can depict a specific area of concern such as file naming convention or an aggregate analysis of an entire and complete effort such as document revision control. The reduced data takes into account the subjective perceptions of both staff and management. The data represents their views towards current performance and as the amount of impact or level of importance it has to the improvement or optimization of the department, company, or customer relationship.

PERFORM UTILIZATION

          As one begins to use the PERFORM methodology in addressing engineering issues, the following should be kept in mind in regards to the way PERFORM can and should be utilized.

          Complete vs. Discreet Assessment

          When evaluating how an engineering group performs, it is best to look at all facets of the operation in order to find problems in related areas that may not have been uncovered. Although a daunting task and one in which major benefits on the surface may not be so obvious, it is usually best to analyze the department in its entirety. A complete assessment tends to bring out interrelated dependencies and greater insight into fundamental and foundational tasks to be performed before moving on to more complex and far-reaching areas of concern.

          While a complete assessment is optimal, it is not always realistic for an engineering group to put the time and effort into a long and thorough effort. As a result, and without extensive detrimental effects, the PERFORM methodology can be used as a discreet tool that only examines a particular facet of one's engineering environment. Instead of the entire methodology, there is still an advantage in examining a few topics to get an idea of how one is performing in an area where significant problems may exist. It may be debatable whether or not these are systemic or isolated problems but are nevertheless very real concerns that are advantageous to address singularly or, in time, as part of an overall assessment.

          Customize to One's Environment

          Because engineering environments are unique in the way they conduct business, it is unlikely that the structure of the PERFORM methodology will match exactly to the structure and scope of any engineering group. Many engineering groups will not have reason to evaluate downstream CAE applications nor examine in depth the many personnel or infrastructure issues contained in PERFORM. PERFORM is simply an optimized assessment methodology that offers an ALA-carte choice of valuable and pertinent topics to help an organization identify problematic areas, prioritize its needs, and optimize its engineering related activities.

The WEB-TeK program is a membership only service provided by DAD Engineering Group for the sole purpose of promoting and sharing information related to the proactive optimization of design, engineering, and 3D modeling related activities. Solicitations for services or product sales shall be strictly prohibited.