Hi all

First, I wish everyone a great New Year. These forums have helped me quite a bit this year, and I hope to contribute more in the coming year.

For the matter at hand - we're running a commercial calibration lab. Since I've been here, we've had several ways to process orders. Until recently, technicians took work based on what they are capable of. With a more computerized system, I've seen that some technicians do dramatically more work than others. (accounting for the fact that some work naturally takes longer.) I've started assigning work to technicians to try to equalize the load, but it's proven to be more difficult than I expected. Does anyone have any tips on this to reduce the disparity?
Next week I'm going to lay down the law a bit more for timeliness in completing the work. One thing I don't want to do is cause undue pressure to get the work completed so as not to sacrifice quality. But there's got to be a limit!
TIA

Hi all

First, I wish everyone a great New Year. These forums have helped me quite a bit this year, and I hope to contribute more in the coming year.

For the matter at hand - we're running a commercial calibration lab. Since I've been here, we've had several ways to process orders. Until recently, technicians took work based on what they are capable of. With a more computerized system, I've seen that some technicians do dramatically more work than others. (accounting for the fact that some work natually takes longer.) I've started assigning work to technicians to try to equalize the load, but it's proven to be more difficult than I expected. Does anyone have any tips on this to reduce the disparity?
Next week I'm going to lay down the law a bit more for timeliness in completing the work. One thing I don't want to do is cause undue pressure to get the work completed so as not to sacrifice quality. But there's got to be a limit!
TIA

It seems to me that if (all variables being equal) some people do significantly more work than others, there must be a reason for it, and I'm not sure that assignment of jobs will help, unless it helps to verify what you already know or suspect. In my experience, these things are best dealt with on an individual basis, person to person. If some people aren't performing to your expectations, you need to talk to them about it, and have a plan for dealing with it. It's best to avoid direct comparisons such as saying, "Sammy is doing twice as many calibrations as you," because those sorts of comparisons can foment ill will between workers. It's better to let an individual know that your perception is that he might not be carrying his share of the load, based on the data at hand, and ask him for suggestions as to how the disparity can be addressed.

Jim makes a good point and I would add that it could also be that some of the technicians with a high output are also taking short cuts or have develop improved methods that the other technicians are not using.

It's better to let an individual know that your perception is that he might not be carrying his share of the load, based on the data at hand, and ask him for suggestions as to how the disparity can be addressed.

Thanks Jim. I knew some sound advice would come along. Although, do you really think it's better to base a one-on-one talk on perception rather than hard numbers. Not that the numbers have to be shoved in the employee's face...but I don't want the employee to reply:"Well, you perceived wrong."

Jim makes a good point and I would add that it could also be that some of the technicians with a high output are also taking short cuts or have develop improved methods that the other technicians are not using.

Indeed, that's the other end of the spectrum I've got to handle. I'm a relatively new supervisor, so I'm still learning the ropes on these kind of issues. Thanks for your input.

Thanks Jim. I knew some sound advice would come along. Although, do you really think it's better to base a one-on-one talk on perception rather than hard numbers. Not that the numbers have to be shoved in the employee's face...but I don't want the employee to reply:"Well, you perceived wrong."

Note that I said:
It's better to let an individual know that your perception is that he might not be carrying his share of the load, based on the data at hand... (Emphasis added)

What I meant was, rather than flatly accusing a person of not carrying his share of the load, it's usually better to let him know you're concerned, and what the basis of the concern is, and ask him to solve the problem, or clarify the issues at hand. Ask for help rather than making demands. If it comes to the point where demands are necessary, they're probably not going to have much impact.

Remember Deming's advice about what managers are supposed to do: help people to do a better job. Whenever possible, it's best to have people invest in--and commit to--their own solutions. Rather than saying, "You'd better start carrying your share of the load, or else," it's better to say, "We have a problem, and I'd like for you to help me solve it. How do you think we can even out the amount of work being done?"

I don't think you can base a talk on 'hard' numbers if you don't have any. Do you have a standard to compare performance to? Is there a sort of 'flat rate' manual that gives the average times required? To use numbers, you must compare performance to a standard, not to other peoples performance, otherwise, you have little choice but to use perception.

I don't think you can base a talk on 'hard' numbers if you don't have any. Do you have a standard to compare performance to? Is there a sort of 'flat rate' manual that gives the average times required? To use numbers, you must compare performance to a standard, not to other peoples performance, otherwise, you have little choice but to use perception.

While I agree that whenever possible there should be some sort of a "standard," I think you have to be careful about using it. I've seen an awful lot of instances where objectives weren't carefully considered, and wound up being counter-productive. For example, if the standard says that calibration of some device x should be completed in y time period, the objective will probably become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the work will get done in that amount of time regardless of the quality of the work.

When any sort of disparity of this type is seen, it's important to take into account all of the potential causes for it before ascribing the cause to an individual's lack of effort. There are all kinds of things that might contribute to it, including things that might not be obvious, such as individuals with "hidden" disabilities such as dyslexia or Attention Deficit Disorder (which does occur in adults). Thankfully, in most instances the causes are fairly easy to identify, and if people know what's expected of them (and standards can be helpful) but consistently don't achieve it, the problem can usually be addressed with the individual in question.

I agree Jim, thats why I questioned whether there were any existing standards. My caution is not to compare performances because each person performs differently.

Until recently, technicians took work based on what they are capable of. With a more computerized system, I've seen that some technicians do dramatically more work than others. (accounting for the fact that some work naturally takes longer.)

You have surmised this very accurately! At one company I saw, they tried to quantify each calibrations. They wanted to know how much time was being spent on each calibration. Partly in how it was executed, it was a colossal mistake. As you run a commercial lab and this was an internal calibration shop, there is simply calibration work that requires a little more experienced hand (and more time).



I've started assigning work to technicians to try to equalize the load, but it's proven to be more difficult than I expected. Does anyone have any tips on this to reduce the disparity?


Why are you wanting to assign work? What are you wanting to optimize? Saying, the work that is more tedious (and that you charge more for) should account for the work taking longer. Too, Do you really want a pin gauge/caliper technician calibrating high-end/ low range pressure devices? Outside of cross-training (I don't think that is the purpose of your post) I would think it OK to let people do what they are good at, and what they enjoy.


Next week I'm going to lay down the law a bit more for timeliness in completing the work. One thing I don't want to do is cause undue pressure to get the work completed so as not to sacrifice quality. But there's got to be a limit!
TIA

Upon what are you basing that it is taking significantly longer to do the work? Are you technically proficient at the skill, and know how long it takes to do? Or is it a gut feeling?

If you are proficient at it and you know they're dragging it out, have a training session. Show all how to do it, and time yourself doing it. Do a 1.5 multiplier on it, and that's how long it should take, or something like that.

I'm all for maximizing proficiency. I just am not sure if there is really a problem here. If there is some lax performance, good cross-training can help make sure one person does not possess knowledge that makes them non-dispensable.

Hi all

First, I wish everyone a great New Year. These forums have helped me quite a bit this year, and I hope to contribute more in the coming year.

For the matter at hand - we're running a commercial calibration lab. Since I've been here, we've had several ways to process orders. Until recently, technicians took work based on what they are capable of. With a more computerized system, I've seen that some technicians do dramatically more work than others. (accounting for the fact that some work naturally takes longer.) I've started assigning work to technicians to try to equalize the load, but it's proven to be more difficult than I expected. Does anyone have any tips on this to reduce the disparity?
Next week I'm going to lay down the law a bit more for timeliness in completing the work. One thing I don't want to do is cause undue pressure to get the work completed so as not to sacrifice quality. But there's got to be a limit!
TIA

First.....some of the productivitiy is in fact discipline related.....not too much you can do about that without significant cross-training.....for some however it seems to be "cherry picking".....that is where a "FIFO" system (first in first out) can help.....understand in cal that is not a perfect approach, and to accomodate customers you may have to cherry pick to complete a customer's equipment.....but this is an observation that I hope helps......

Hi all

First, I wish everyone a great New Year. These forums have helped me quite a bit this year, and I hope to contribute more in the coming year.

For the matter at hand - we're running a commercial calibration lab. Since I've been here, we've had several ways to process orders. Until recently, technicians took work based on what they are capable of. With a more computerized system, I've seen that some technicians do dramatically more work than others. (accounting for the fact that some work naturally takes longer.) I've started assigning work to technicians to try to equalize the load, but it's proven to be more difficult than I expected. Does anyone have any tips on this to reduce the disparity?
Next week I'm going to lay down the law a bit more for timeliness in completing the work. One thing I don't want to do is cause undue pressure to get the work completed so as not to sacrifice quality. But there's got to be a limit!
TIA

If I'm understanding you, it sounds more like a training issue more than a performace based one. If they were doing the work that they're capable of and now you are assigning them equipment that the aren't highly capable of then you would see a dramatic difference.

It's hard to have standard times on calibrations as every piece gives it's own problems, but there should be a ballpark time frame.

I have found in my experience that putting a quota on the amount per tech always degrades the quality and puts under pressure on them. As another poster said FIFO, within that technicians capability. Example a person who does meters only shouldn't pick up the 40GHz sweeper because it's next on the list.

Automation does make this easier and sometimes a person without the experience can get through the cal, but they usually don't catch little glitches that the program will pass and fail as they don't know what they are looking for or at on the report.

Training, training, training. Though some people are just slower than others.

Example a person who does meters only shouldn't pick up the 40GHz sweeper because it's next on the list.

We have the exact opposite problem here in that the person who normally takes all day to finish up a 40 GHz sweeper would then go grab a couple Fluke 87s in order to bump up their own production numbers, while the person who is relegated to meter duty and can crank out ten Fluke 87s a day complains if the last one on the shelf (next to another 40 GHz sweeper) gets taken. "Don't be a biscuit looking for some gravy!" they would exclaim. :mad:

My Opinion - This is management issue... Before I comment, consider the followings:
1. Are the employees performance measured?
2. Are the different calibration tasks duration measureable?
3. Are the employees capable to be multi-trained in different calibration work?
4. Did the Management set expectation to these employees?

We use a scheduling system to allocate jobs to individual employees. The system tracks the various tests time needed per request so the jobs are very much in order. The test personnel cannot run away since the test volume is so high that we can hardly have a day without test requests / other duties.

Next, if we can forecast period when test volume is lower, we cross train the personnel - between test area of low load and high load (would prefer to say - more tedious or less tedious) and equalized the job with job rotations. This planning is not short term but will plan over a year, subjected to changes to cater different situations. This enable the employees to visualise what is ahead.

As a supervisor, keep an open mind to personnel who would request to be cross train in a station that interest him /her. Consider the personnel's suitability as well as the job is suit him/her. Well, so far this work well for our test Lab. We have trying to achieve above 50% employees multi-stations trained in the midst of the high test volume. In fact, some our better test personnel feel good to be trained in more test areas - this shows their ability too.

One thing I learnt - it's not totally a surbordinate's incapable to do a task but the Superior's incapable to plan for and manage. :agree1: