Discuss Walter Long and the Process Engineering Proposal (PEP) .

I AM UPLOADING THE WALTER LONG CASE AND THE PROCESS OF ENGINEERING PROPOSAL IN THE ATTACHED FILE. YOU NEED TO READ THE CASE AND THE PROPOSAL THOROUGHLY IN ORDER TO WRITE THIS PAPER. ALWAYS REFER TO THE PROPOSAL AND CASE WHEN YOUR ANALYSING THE PAPER. REMEMBER THIS IS AN ANALYSIS PAPER!

TASK: I am taking the role of Niel Goodrich, the VICE PRESIDENT of Manufacturing and I am hiring you as my HIGH PERFORMANCE ORGANISATION (HPO) consultant. I need you to advise me on the viability of the PEP going forward. THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP TO THE PROPOSAL IN THE ATTACHED FILE. this is a very stimulating case because it covers a number of issues (not only the motivational/job design issues within the NTAR but also interdepartmental communications etc.). Some have noted this appropriately. But here is a big hint – don’t let the latter issue distract your analysis from the very specific elements of the proposal. The specifics deal with things like fixed station assignment, specialization, new workers etc. These CAN be analyzed at a very deep level in terms of motivating high performance. I am Niel Goodrich and I KNOW of the interdepartmental conflicts (with the sub-context of Long/Singer) and I don’t need you to deal with that – that is my job – your job is to analyze the PEP. Also don’t make this a change analysis or a communications analysis – you might never analyze the “guts” of the proposal. You know and I know there are many communications and change management issues but that is not why I am hiring you – I want to know if the PEP will work or not. you might try to document performance in terms of real change. That is the first step and many of you have done that. Then explain/analyze what Long did to produce those numbers – this is the second step and then as a third step consider the impact of the PEP on what Long did. This should give you insight into your performance predictions – it is an idea anyway.

USE THE P-A-R APPROACH TO WRITE THIS PAPER. THE P-A-R STANDS FOR PROBLEM STATEMENT-ANALYSIS-RECOMMENDATIONS. START WITH THE PROBLEM STATEMENT FIRST, WHERE YOU WILL TALK ABOUT THE STRENGTHS IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THIS SHOULD BE IN 1 PARAGRAPH. AND THEN, START WITH THE ANALYSIS, WHERE YOU STATE AND BACK UP YOUR POINTS FROM THE PROBLEM STATEMENT. DONT GIVE PERSONAL OPINIONS! THIS SHOULD IN 1 OR 2 PARAGRAPHS. BACK IT UP FROM THE PEP ANALYSIS IN THE ATTACHED FILE. TALK ABOUT HOW YOU MOTIVATE EMPLOYEES/JOB DESIGN AND ALSO, TALK ABOUT INTRINSIC MOTIVATION. AND THEN GIVE REALISTIC RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH THE MANAGER CAN IMPLEMENT IN THE ORGANISATION. AGAIN, THEY SHOULD BE REALISTIC RECOMMENDATIONS! THIS SHOULD BE IN 1 0R 2 PARAGRAPHS.

THEN DIAGNOSE THE FUNCTION OF MOTIVATION, PERFORMANCE VARIATION, ABILITY, GOALS, CONSTRAINS, AND, MATCH BETWEEN ABILITY AND JOB FIT. ALSO TALK ABOUT EFFECTED JOB DESIGN AND DIMENSIONS OF TASK PERFORMANCE, SKILL VARIETY AND TASK FEEDBACK. MAKE SURE YOU EVALUATE ALL THE ASPECTS THAT I HAVE MENTIONED HERE.