Burke Engineering, Inc.
The Detailed Report
Burke Engineering, Incorporated, a commercial construction company based in Atlanta, Georgia, recently requested the services of Big Dawg Consulting Company. It seems as if Burke ran into some quality problems stemming from faulty paperwork dealing with employee information. In response to Burke's request, Big Dawg investigated the situation and the results are as follows.
We shall begin by giving some information regarding Burke's background. Burke Engineering, Incorporated, was established in 1994 in Atlanta after branching off from their parent construction company in Knoxville, Tennessee. Burke initially started as an environmental company, but eventually returned to its roots as a commercial construction company. Like many other construction companies, Burke faced difficulties in dealing with its paperwork. Once Burke discovered the problem, they called on Big Dawg to find a solution.
Burke's Office Manager began noticing an ever-increasing problem with employees filling out their initial employment forms incorrectly. Once thought to be a minute detail in this million dollar industry, the problem escalated into a serious situation. According to the Office Manager, "Every time I have to run someone down to get the correct information, I end up wasting half my day. That may seem insignificant, but hourly wages can certainly mount up once this starts happening regularly. This ends up costing the company thousands of dollars per year in my salary alone." She included a rough estimate of $8,000 that included her salary ($20 per hour) and workload (four hours per day, two days per week), based on a 52 week work schedule.
In looking for possible solutions to the problem, Big Dawg used several analytical tools that proved very helpful. A flowchart was used to chart the different steps that the paperwork actually went through, and we were able to identify the source of the problem. A fishbone diagram was used to look at different causes of the problem, and it helped signal the area of biggest concern.
The flowchart identified the different stages the paperwork went through, and the people who were responsible for ensuring that the process "flowed" correctly. We were able to identify the basic path in which the forms traveled. First, the forms' circulation was begun by the Office Manager, who passed them along to a field supervisor. The field supervisor passed them to the job supervisor, who in turn distributed the forms to the prospective employees. Once the form is completed, the cycle then flowed backwards, eventually returning to the Office Manager. From the flowchart, we identified the job supervisor as the key to the problem. According to the job supervisor's job description, he/she is in charge of the employees in his/her particular area. This includes checking to make sure all paperwork is filled out completely and correctly. Apparently, this duty was being overlooked.
Once the source was identified, a fishbone diagram was used to specify why the problem kept reoccurring by tracing it back to its roots. The diagram enabled us to pinpoint simple carelessness and/or laziness on the part of the job supervisor as the major contributor. So, in effect, the problem originated when the employee either filled the forms out incorrectly, or did not fill them out completely. However, the problem could best be eliminated if the job supervisor would monitor the forms for completeness and correctness.
Once we had identified the problem, it was time to implement a solution. This proved to be a rather simple solution, but at the same time, the results seemed to be very effective. We simply had Burke create a step-by-step checklist that was to be attached to the top of the forms that were given to the employees. The list included all the steps that were to be completed in order to ensure completeness and correctness. Also included was a memo that explained the process in which the forms were to be filled out. The employee, after having completed the forms, would then hand the paperwork over to the job supervisor. The job supervisor would then check every form and checklist to ensure that they were all done correctly. The checklist was then given to the field supervisors, who checked the forms one last time before they were returned to the office manager.
As we stated before, the results from the initial implementation seem to signal that the solution will be very effective. In its first two weeks, the program was an instant success. According to the previously disgruntled Office Manager, "The program has decreased the time I had been wasting by one-hundred percent." Assuming the program will continue its initial success rate, Burke should see vast improvements in their paperwork, which will ultimately result in improving the company as a whole.
| Executive Summary | Burke Engineering | The Problem | The Investigation | The Solution | The Results | The Detailed Report | The Team | Comments |
Back to Burke Engineering Main Page
Last Updated: May 12, 1997
WebDesign by: jdaniels@athensnet.com