Workplace Engineering

Even within supposedly single industries with common training structures, regulated activities and well defined professional organizations there is a surprising amount of disagreement over fundamental definitions of an object, service or performance. 

Turnaround or response times are a key item in many outsource partnerships, yet the start and finish point can be a major point of disagreement. For a customer, the start point may be when they first picked up the phone and had an informal conversation, for the help desk when the work order was actually entered, for the maintenance manager when they got it and the ultimate performer when they were asked to do it.

The possibility for confusion and disagreement around definitions, standards and service levels are enormous. Although reference to recognized to standards endorsed by IFMA, OSCRE, BOMA or other institutions is a great start, time must be taken to develop an agreed set of performance criteria that can be measured and actually reflect a common understanding of the operation or service.

Introducing a new partner into an existing environment or creating a whole new environment out different parties coming together to form a team creates a new dynamic that needs to be worked through to enable the team to perform effectively.

Without knowledge of how involved the client team should be in the day to day running of the operation, there may be a tendency to stay out of the expert’s business. Until there is a problem, that is. 

With pressure from above of dissatisfaction from the recipients of the service there is huge temptation to intervene directly to resolve the problem and become highly directive. Where the partnership was set up to effectively just out-task items or just use the labor of the other party this may not be such a big deal. In partnerships where the goals are more wide ranging, potential strategic benefits can be quickly lost.

In fact, these behaviors are the result of people using “common sense” to fill a vacuum and make an ambiguous situation workable. Preventing this needs management tools that work. 

Understanding and agreeing escalation processes, decision rights and mechanisms for correcting poor performance is critical as is understanding and agreeing the objective criteria for measuring performance and ensuring that a mechanism is in place to collect and share them with the people that need them.

In addition to underestimating the effort and time required to plan for and procure a partner, the resources and effort required to ensure a successful transition are also often underestimated. The transition phase can last for six to eighteen months after a contract is signed. The results of underinvestment here can result in an unacceptable reduction in service levels and in the worst cases early failure of the relationship.

For a client, this underinvestment can be the result of leaving too small a team in place (or not leaving one at all) to manage to the relationship or not having the necessary skills.

For the vendor partner, this may be the result of leaving the transition team in place for too short a period or rotating key people away from the contract to meet the pressures of other new contracts. For both client and vendor it may also be the result of a complete lack of understanding of the impact that the change may have.

Commercial realities mean that these issues cannot always be avoided, but they can be mitigated through the development of a clear and unambiguous transition plan and lots of feedback between the partners on how the transition is going, developing risks, actions and next steps.