When working with clients on effectiveness and efficiency, we often get into discussions of “specialist” versus “generalist”. We aren’t talking about hiring specialists versus generalists (as applied to the person), we are commenting on the way jobs and tasks are assigned to those employees. Having employees with generalist experience brings a wealth of benefits, especially when their workflow is well defined. Having generalist employees and specialized processes is often the right answer.
If you have read our posts “The 2 Forces in Account Services” or “Are you pitching or catching?”, you may have noticed that we look at most functions in a business as discreet workflows. Those workflows are designed to be driven by visual cues and to consume some subset of an associate’s time. This allows the quick adjustment of capacity, visual representation of work completed and work to be done and makes on-boarding much easier.
For example, in our work with distribution centers we notice a lot of processes are set up for pickers to get a pick ticket, walk the route and pick all the pieces needed to fulfil an order, place those pieces in the box, tape and label the box, and put it on a pallet going to the dock.
Our specialized task approach would have each picker “pick”. Work would be assigned to each picker. The picker would pick the items needed. Then packers would “pack”. All the materials needed would be set up at a workstation for the packer to verify and package the order. We may even have a shipping station, depending on the requirements of the WMS/ERP/shipping software.
We aren’t saying these individuals are not interchangeable. We believe that as associates concentrate on a smaller part of the process, especially those that require different skill sets and equipment, they are better at it and therefore more effective and efficient.
To get the most value out of adjusting processes from scattered to more narrowly focused, it is important to model the solution. Things to be considered:
· Critical Mass
· Current Demand
· Future Demand
· Fungibility of Resources
First, each task must have “critical mass”. Without enough demand for a process, it should not stand alone. Basically, don’t break down processes to the point that you waste capacity by having resources assigned to them.
Current demand is a huge influencer on how tasks are delineated. Having too much or too little demand for a given capacity is ineffective and inefficient. Tasks need to be designed so that capacity can be added or subtracted with little disruption.
Future demand is equally important. Being prepared to bring on capacity or shed it allows a current design to last well into the future.
Fungibility of resources allows for constant adjustment to capacity. It is important to note that it is preferable to add and remove capacity through resource allocation than to change a process to adjust output. If we have a very low-density pick day (picker example above), moving packers to picking can quickly add capacity in that area. This is where having generalist employees do more defined tasks pays off. Streamlined, well defined and documented processes are quicker and easier to learn. If your employee base is steeped in the culture and philosophy of your business, bringing up that additional capacity is relatively painless.
Modeling data to build out processes is crucial for a thorough understanding of demand and demand timing, capacity requirements and expected performance. Title 2 Business Services has performed this work for multiple clients in different industries. The actual results post-implementation are extremely close to the modeled expectations.
If you want to see what redesigning processes might do for your business, give Title 2 Business Services a call. We would love to talk to you about what we can make happen in your business!