DB&AReport United Defense Case History

HE MISSION STATEMENTS

T of most companies proclaim

a vigorous sense of responsi-
bility and duty toward the
users of their products and services.
When that primary group is com-
posed of the sailors, soldiers, air-
men, and Marines of the United
States armed forces, that commit-
ment takes on even greater impor-
tance and meaning. Such is the
case with United Defense, a major
defense contractor with facilities
located throughout the United
States. The company started out
producing amphibious landing craft
for the military in the early days
of World War II. After a merger in
1994, they began manufacturing
some of the leading combat sup-
port vehicle systems and weapons
delivery systems. From the begin-
ning, their vision has been “to pro-
“to protect freedom world-wide by supporting
tect freedom worldwide by support- U.S. and Allied security needs.”
ing U.S. and Allied security needs.”

In spite of its noble purpose, the

Steel Products Division of the com-
pany located in Anniston, Alabama,
began to lose some ground in the
areas of on-time delivery, productiv-
ity, and excess scrap. The situation
had become so critical, a foundry
at the facility was sold.
Even for an organization used to
dealing with the tensions of combat
readiness, this was shaping up to
be the most crucial struggle in the
company’s history. Fortunately,
management and employees joined
forces, and with help from DeWolff,
Boberg & Associates, Inc., the
Anniston facility underwent a
turnaround that exceeded all
expectations.
United Defense goes on the offensive.
The United Defense Steel Products
Division is one of the largest steel
forging operations in the southeast.
Here in this charming and relaxed
town of Anniston resides the
nation’s only overhaul and conver-
sion program for the M113 Family
of Vehicles—the foremost line of
armored-tracked vehicles currently
being made.
It was no secret to upper manage-
ment that serious problems were
brewing at the facility. The foundry
had been sold because of operation-
al deficiencies stemming from a
lack of controls and measurements.
Consequently, a general sense of
confusion led to dissatisfaction
among employees who had no
(Continued on following page)
DeWolff, Boberg & Associates is a management
consulting firm specializing in helping companies
of every description achieve their objectives through
improved performance or resource utilization.

Entrance to the Anniston facility, with the foundry building in the background.
(Continued from previous page)
sense of their roles within the com-
pany and felt they had no direct
contribution to schedules, products,
quality control, and other important
functions. Additionally, the facility’s
computer system was shut down
for several months, resulting in a
total loss of productivity reports for
the period.
In an effort to correct the rapidly
deteriorating situation, United
Defense assigned Robert Houston,
Site Manager, to head up an internal
Total Quality Management effort.
“We were having tremendous diffi-
culties with delivery and with
quality,” said Houston. “What’s
worse, there were problems with
actually knowing what the customer
wanted and when they wanted it.
Unfortunately, we didn’t have any
real measurements in the facility
that meant anything.”
It soon became clear that the inter-
nal Quality Control procedures were
failing to solve the long-standing
problems. Even though United
Defense management and employ-
ees seemed genuinely involved in
the process, no results were being
seen in a very critical area—the bot-
tom line—primarily because the fo-
cus of the new effort was too broad.
Getting outside help that made sense.
Robert Houston first learned of
DeWolff, Boberg & Associates from
the Anniston facility’s Division
Manager, Elmer Doty. Although
DeWolff, Boberg & Associates had
a strong reputation for success,
United Defense’s management
looked at other possibilities before
making their final decision.
Upon being selected, DeWolff,
Boberg & Associates impressed the
people at United Defense by com-
ing into the Anniston facility and
immediately conducting a compre-
hensive assessment. The United
Defense team also felt the DeWolff,
Boberg & Associates staff seemed
exceptionally knowledgeable and
could provide the needed resources
to do a complete overview. What
set the firm apart to many was the
candid way it reported its findings.
“They didn’t hold back,” said
Houston.“If your baby was ugly,
they told you your baby was ugly.”
Dealing with internal resistance.
Employee morale was at its lowest
point at the time it was announced
that DeWolff, Boberg & Associates
would be making its assessment
at United Defense. The fact that
“outsiders” were coming in was
seen as a threat and the worker’s
union filed a strong protest. “When
we went in there, we started doing
things differently and holding peo-
ple accountable, and they weren’t
used to that so there was a little
displeasure the first couple of
months,” said Keith Leary, DeWolff,
Boberg & Associates.
United Defense management
immediately informed employees
and the union that the goal was to
find solutions that would head off
further difficulties and closings.
Although there seemed to be
“pockets” of resentment, most peo-
ple were willing to work together
to get things back on track. Leary
explained, “To a person they would
say, ‘We need to do this because
we want to save the jobs for the
rest of us.’”
Undertaking a winning campaign.
DeWolff, Boberg & Associates
launched a two-week, in-depth
analysis—the first part of a highly
By working with employees and
understanding the skills flexibility,
training has been performed and
employees are now capable of running
many operations reducing the number
of station-filled positions and lost
employee utilization. Employees now
move to the work, leaving many areas
empty when there is no volume.
structured, yet flexible procedure
that ultimately leads to custom-
designed solutions. “I realized
that I didn’t have the resources to
get the job done,” said Houston,
“DeWolff, Boberg & Associates
could do a comprehensive study
on all three shifts, which impressed
me very much.”
At United Defense, the analysis
consisted of an intensive study of
supervisors’ on-the-floor behavior,
the supervisory Opinion Question-
naire (SOQ), and important diag-
nostic tools such as capacity utili-
zation studies, production variance
studies, and key interviews.
During the analysis, 32 hours of dir-
ect observations revealed that less
than 14 percent of the supervisors’
available time was spent actively
interacting with their employees
and only 12 percent of their time
was spent responding to problems
brought to their attention by the
operators. In addition, the SOQ
revealed that supervisors had a
Managers and supervisors now meet on
the floor to discuss delivery and quality
concerns where they occur, allowing
for improved problem solving and
immediate corrective actions.
developed that allowed for hourly
interaction and follow-up sessions
between the two groups.
A Master Schedule was also devel-
oped to plan manpower require-
ments for upcoming months using
current productivity levels to deter-
mine workforce needs. Unlike pre-
vious methods, the schedule also
made adjustments for absenteeism
and vacations. In addition, a Daily
Schedule Control was set up to
track productivity, scrap, lost time,
and capacity utilization on an hour-
ly basis. Variances are promptly
analyzed so that managers can be
more proactive.
One major concern was a lack of an
effective communication tool to let
employees know the status of their
department’s daily performance
level. This was solved with Visual
Control Boards being set up around
the facility and updated regularly.
The boards noted any operating
barriers, as well as the action plans
put in place to improve overall
performance.
A Barrier Update Resolution Pro-
cess was activated so that managers
and supervisors identified barriers
that were prohibiting United
Defense from achieving its goals.
Supervisor training programs were
also developed to deal successfully
with both internal and external
barriers. Methods of reaching the
(Continued on following page)

marginal understanding of the con-

cepts of effective supervision. For
Meeting together, managers supervisors and employees make up a cross-functional
example, they generally believed
team to address issues keeping them from hitting the company goals. They hold
in infrequent follow-up on work
problem solving discussions getting to the root cause and develop corrective actions
assignments, refused any responsi-
to be implemented.
bility for employee training or plan-
ning, and made general and vague
work assignments that lacked
specific expectations.

Getting down to basics and training.

Following its analysis, DeWolff,
Boberg & Associates began to re-
lease its initial findings and sugges-
tions. They worked closely with
United Defense officials to set about
defining specific roles and responsi-
bilities for the different levels in the
organization, from the operator to
the supervisor to the manufacturing
manager. To meet the problem of
sporadic interaction between super-
visors and operators, systems were
facility’s new goals were discussed
at “Morning Huddles” and Shift
Review Meetings which were
attended by representatives from
all the major departments—Mainte-
nance, Engineering, Scheduling,
Quality, and Production. After
implementing the Morning Huddle,
Daily Schedule Control, Visual
Boards, and the Barrier Update
and Resolution Process, the lines
of communication improved and
operating barriers were not only
discussed but resolved.
Boosting morale and production
on the home front.
As in all of its collaborations,
DeWolff, Boberg & Associates
helped United Defense leverage
its existing resources in the most
With increased employee involvement,
the employees have developed owner-
ship and responsiblity to quality,
delivery and performance.
productive way possible. As Robert
Houston put it, “They came in
and made our systems more ‘user-
friendly,’ so that the data started
to mean something tangible. Previ-
ously, we had all the information,
but we weren’t putting it together
in the proper way.”
United Defense employees also took
ownership of the systems by directly
participating in the program and,
with coaching from the DeWolff,
Boberg & Associates team, manag-
ing activities and developing new
initiatives. “Once they started to see
that these things were making their
jobs easier and improving produc-
tion, they continued the process,”
said Leary. “Because they were
being recognized for their achieve-
ments, United Defense managers
felt that they were solely account-
able for the goals and objectives,
which led to a further lift in morale
and self-esteem.” “The accountabil-
ity factor was missing,” noted
Houston. “If you don’t have goals
and measurements, you can’t hold
people accountable. However, once
we had developed the goals and
objectives, accountability just
naturally fell into the picture.”
Staffing was affected by the many
changes, especially in the supervi-
sory ranks. Initially the facility saw
a 50 percent turnover rate at this
level. Most of this was voluntary
after some supervisors decided they
didn’t wish to adhere to the new
changes even though they were
resulting in demonstrable levels
of improved efficiency.
Quickly capturing a host of
improvements.
One of the most important improve-
ments was in the supervisors’ level
of interaction with their employees.
“Direct communication increased
from 14 percent of their available
time to 26 percent between the two
groups. And we were pleased to
learn that use of the Visual Control
Boards we established pushed that
number even higher,” said Leary.
“There was a 23 percent increase in
productivity with a corresponding
21 percent reduction in scrap and
71 percent reduction in rework.”
Hiring practices also changed in
the way potential supervisors were
evaluated. “They saw the impor-
tance of making sure people could
successfully function in the new
system before they were hired. So
they looked for candidates who
possessed good interpersonal skills
and were proven problem solvers,”
added Leary.
Continuing the commitment.
Although United Defense was ex-
pected to lose money in 1999, it
actually exceeded everyone’s expec-
tations and even turned a profit.
As of this writing, the company is
approximately one million dollars
ahead of its current annual budget.
Importantly, the entire process
established by DeWolff, Boberg &
Associates and United Defense is
designed to be repeatable. This
means that even though markets,
priorities, and company focus
continue to change, use of the
management process will help
the company achieve fast-paced
improvements by focusing on
specific objectives and current
needs. In fact, United Defense paid
DeWolff, Boberg & Associates the
highest compliment possible by
asking them to design similar tech-
niques for several other United
Defense facilities. It’s the continua-
tion of a strong relationship based
on mutual respect and dedication.
As Robert Houston noted, “The one
thing that they said that I really
liked—and they stuck to it—was,
‘We’re not here to manage your
business. We’re only here to make
recommendations. And it’s you
who will receive the rewards when
you take the recommendations and
do something with them.’”
DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Resources to management for improving performance SM
100 North Central Expressway Suite 210
Richardson, Texas 75080
(800) 800-6030 (972) 808-9291
www.dewolffboberg.com
©2000 DeWolff, Boberg & Associates