JWMI550 PEMM Project – Course Project D

PEMM Project – Course Project D

Jack Welch Management Institute

JWMI550 Operations Management

Introduction

“The Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (PEMM™) is a corporate roadmap and benchmarking tool for organizations embarking on the path to becoming a Process Enterprise”. Using the PEMM tool, we are Arconic can get a good sense of where the site currently stands with organizations processes and enterprise. Arconic had some good findings, but still has a fair deal of improvement that can be made in order to be a more successful plant.

Findings

Process Enablers

Design – The overall design of the plants processes are good. Processes are designed form end- to end basis with functionality and performance in mind. Processes work well with each other and function well with customers and suppliers alike. The context of the processes is well laid out and identifies all the areas they cover. The contexts of the processes clearly let the process owner know what the performance expectations are. The documentation is where some of the gaps lie in the design. The documentation is a bit cumbersome and can be difficult to understand without reading it over a few times. It lacks the link between the process and the systems involved. Making any changes to the documentation is difficult. There is a lot of red tape to go through to make any type of change. Not everyone has access to Q-Pulse (the electronic filing cabinet) where the documentation is stored.

Performers – Performers have a good knowledge of the processes they must own and execute. Extensive training is provided the first few months on the job and continuous training is provided to maximize performance. Performers can explain the overall process flow, how this proves flow affects the business and is familiar with the industry in which they work. Skilled performers are not heavily involved with the business decision making process. Performers are not skilled at change managements or implementation. They seem to be set in their ways from their original training.

Owner – The ownership of the process has some major gaps. While owners can identify processes, the processes do not tend to come first. Leadership has not assigned all processes to senior managers, leaving them for the performers to maintain. Quite a few of the process owners are not senior management that are part of the enterprises decision making body. Process owners are not keen on communicating small scale changes. Process owners do not collaborate with each other to achieve the sites goals. Processes tend to get changed without collaborating with other process owners that will be affected. Owners have very little control over IT systems and have very little influence in change. When changes need to be implemented senior management must step in. Finance controls the process budget, if there is one. The owners do not have much controller over budgets.

Infrastructure – The IT infrastructure aligns with current processes as the processes were written for them. IT systems were not designed completely with the purpose of the process in mind. Because IT is in the UK, there is a gap between what the other countries sites need in the way of support versus what they provide. Because of the different time zones there is only a limited amount of time had with them daily for any type of support.

The Human Resources structure needs major improvement. Management does not reward excellent performance. Jobs are not well defined and lack a proper description of the processes that need to eb performed. Hiring, development and reward recognition. There is a high tune over rate and employee morale is low.

Metrics – The definitions of the processes is well defined. Processes have end-to-end metrics delivered from customer requirements. Processes are not entirely in line with the plants strategic goals. Metrics have for the most part been derived from the plants goals.

Enterprise Capabilities

Leadership – Leadership is aware that changes need be made in order for the plant to be successful. For the most part leadership has a good understanding of the process concepts and can see their own work in the processes. Leadership has a good alignment with middle management, but they tend to not take responsibility for their teams. Leadership is not very proactive in helping to promote process change. The leadership team had set stretch goals for the facility and their teams and try to remove any roadblock that appear. Leadership tends to stay inactive thought the processes unless one of their team members actively asks them to get involved. Management style has a lot to be desired. It is more of a dictatorship than a collaborative environment. They tend to make the decisions and pass them down to their team to see if the changes will work or not.

Culture – Teamwork as become more of a priority to the facility recently. The current teams try to work more with other teams to ensure processes meet the plants needs and goals. Customer focus still has a way to go. Employees don’t have a good understanding of what the needs are and do not understand how important it is to make parts to customer specifications. Since employees don’t have a good concept of the customer needs, products are getting made haphazardly and causing scrap in increase over time. Management is not good at taking responsibility for their team. They are quick to blame others. Even though management is aware that changes need to be made to be successful, the attitude from employees toward possible changes is not as inviting. Many are set in their ways and are unaccepting of change.

Expertise – Employees overall have an appreciation for the process. We have a good number of employees who have expertise in most of our processes. Process management and redesign need a little work. Employees are set in their ways, making suggestions for improvement low. Process improvements are usually proposed middle management or the process owner.

Governance – The plants process model has not been clearly communicated throughout the site to all the employees. The model does not align with the customers vision and is not used for strategy development. The plant does not have a process council but does have a process improvement manager. This is a large task for one person to take on.

Recommendations

Owner – Process owners need to take more ownership of their process and their improvements. Processes that were functional a few years ago may no longer align with the company’s vision. Since the process owner does not have a lot of control of the IT function of their process, IT should be more accessible when owners have questions or wish to make possible changes

Infrastructure – With the large amount of turnover at the plant, not just in employees but in management, plant management needs to make a better effort in listening to their staff about their complaints before people quit. There is a lack of coaching by the current management team. Mentoring and rewarding excellent process performance should be implemented.

Culture – The site needs to focus more on their customers and relay customer needs to its employees. This will help employees have a better understanding of the importance of the expected exceptional performance. Employees and their team leads need to take ownership of their functions and perform to expectations. Providing positive reinforcement for a job well done is a good start to improving morale. Currently management only points out the negative processes and ignores the jobs that are performed well. Management also needs to help employees envision process changes, so they are more accepted. Explaining why changes are being made can help employees accept them or make suggestions for better improvement.

Governance and Metrics – Process models needs to be better communicated to the staff. This can be achieved by hosting quarterly meetings or smaller staff meeting s for management to then share with their teams. The site also needs to make sure that their process models align with customers and suppliers. This can be better achieved with frequent communication to them and talking about what their goals are. Though the site has a process improvement manager, it would be helpful for him to be able to have access to team members from other departments on a regular basis. He then can delegate changes that need to be made to the appropriate team member for that department, taking some of the burden away from him. Lessing their load could make more time for focusing on major issues at the plant and more time planning for improvements.

Conclusion

Arconic currently has good processes in place. Owners of these processes need to really take ownership of them and make sure they stay aligned with the focus of the plant. The site also needs to focus on lessening the employee turnover rate. This can help keep experience and customer focus in line with the sites plans. Management needs to keep communication with the employees open and constant. Everyone needs to be on the same page with the plants needs and wants. If Arconic can take all of the recommendations to heart, the plant could be one strong, profitable competitor.