Sedalia Engine Plant Case Study

Sedalia Engine Plant

Case Study Analysis

1. What are the philosophy and assumptions that guide the work system at Sedalia? What are the key design elements and how do they reflect those assumptions?

In the creation of the Sedalia Engine Plant, the plant manager Don St. Clair laid a philosophy of “excellence, trust, growth, and equity.” The goal was to create a working system that empowered employees to “work hard, perform well, learn new skills, and be involved,” with the underlying assumption that when given the ability to do these things, workers will demonstrate excellent work ethics. St. Clair structured the plant into self-regulating teams which, in turn, were part of one of the five semi-autonomous “businesses” within the factory. These businesses were kept small, around 200 to 300 people, with the goal that each business manager would have personal knowledge of everyone in his or her unit. The goal of personal knowledge of one's workers was twofold. First, it demonstrates the desire of plant management to foster open relationships between all layers of the plant’s leadership and secondly it decreases the need for unions, which SEP sought to exclude from its onset.

2. What is your evaluation of the Sedalia Engine Plant’s approach to management? What are the assets? What risks and special problems does it present?

The empowerment of the workers by including them in historically higher-level decisions as diverse as quotas and discipline allowed for greater autonomy of teams. Unfortunately, it also increased stress levels for team members. This empowerment came along with responsibilities outside of the hands-on production process, requiring cuts to some team members production time to fulfill these ‘vertical tasks.’ In practice though, if a team advisor is not fully committed to this structure, then team members can be penalized for this auxiliary work given to them. The approach’s assets were demonstrated by the ability of team members to redesign team management structures (with input from the top level management) which they deem to be inefficient. An example of this restructuring is given by the break-up of a particularly large and diverse team into three smaller and more specialized teams spread across fewer shifts. However, much of the underlying structure of these decisions were left to be freely decided by team members, which regrettably left some overwhelmed and unsure of the correct course of action. Another risk with this management approach saw the team advisors initially tasked with very complex roles in coaxing their teams to optimal performance, but as the team matured the advisor role became trivial, with their days filled primarily with dispute resolution and meetings.