The performance of the 1500+ engineers at MSFC is critical to the Center's mission. Worker's performance, however, is a variable affected by ability, motivation, role understanding, and other factors. Managing subordinates' performance is a great challenges to managers. Special challenges confront the managers of engineers because engineers often work with general goals, long deadlines, and considerable autonomy. The productivity of a team or branch is a function of the productivity of each of its members. While many managers have personal theories about how to run their work group, surprisingly little systematic scientific knowledge exerts about the effects of various factors on engineers' productivity. This study is intended to help lay the foundation for such a program of research

Jackson, Conrad N.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

1992
NASA/ASEE SUMMER FACULTY FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
SOME EFFECTS OF TIME USAGE PATTERNS
ON THE PRODUCTIVITY OF ENGINEERS
Prepared By:
Academic Rank:
Institution and
Department:
Marketing
Conrad N. Jackson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Management
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Department of Management and
NASA/MSFC:
Directorate:
MSFC Colleague:
Science and Engineering
Leonard W. Howell, Ph.D.
XXII
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930008112 2020-03-17T09:11:12+00:00Z

INTRODUCTION The performance of the 1500+ engineers at MSFC
is critical to the Center's mission. Worker's
performance, however, is a variable affected by ability,
motivation, role understanding, and other factors. Managing
subordinates' performance is a great challenges to managers.
Special challenges confront the managers of engineers because
engineers often work with general goals, long deadlines, and
considerable autonomy (I).
Budget challenges should make all managers concerned
about their workgroup's efficiency as well as its
effectiveness(2). One measure of efficiency is productivity
-- the amount of useful output which is obtained per unit
input. Productivity is easy to measure when the output is
easy to count, the time required to produce each unit is
relatively short, and the standards for acceptable quality are
apparent and routine. For example, a manufacturing plant
might produce 200 cars per day, or a license bureau might
process 20 applications per hour. Productivity of the typical
S&E branch at MSFC is not as easy to measure. However, some
examples of productivity improvements include completing more
critical tests per month, finishing analyses more .quickly, or
serving the branch's customers well with fewer englneers.
The productivity of a team or branch is a function of the
productivity of each of its members. While many managers have
personal theories about how to run their work group,
surprisingly little systematic scientific knowledge exists
about the effects of various factors on engineers'
productivity. This study is intended to help lay the
foundation for such a program of research.
METHOD The primary goals of the present study have been to
familiarize the principal investigator (PI) with the
work environment and the nature of the tasks faced by MSFC
engineers, to gain insights into how productivity might be
measured for engineering tasks, and to formulate models and
hypotheses which suggest relationships among these issues.
The PI thus spent fifty days at MSFC observing numerous
engineers from three S&E labs and two Chief Engineers' offices
as they went about their daily work, and interviewing them
regarding their work. These observations included attending
numerous meetings and teleconferences with engineers. Several
managers from various levels of the S&E organization were also
interviewed. Particularly valuable insights were gained from
in depth interviews of 40 MSFC engineers using a structured
set of open-ended questions (summary of questions below).
Interview Questions For Enqineers' Time And Work Study
I. Job title, brief job description, projects you work on
2. Education history and career path; why you became an
engineer, why you joined NASA
XXII-I
3. Present top priority tasks and deadlines
4. Activities in a typical week; time in meetings, on phone,
on computer
5. How your work tasks/projects are initiated; by whom
6. Extent to which you like your job
7. How you feel about your work performance; indicators of
success in your work
8. How one might judge productivity in a job like yours
9. Things that block you from being more productive
i0. How many hours you work each week, day
ii. Percent of your time you typically feel to be productive
12. How you would describe yourself as a worker; self
discipline, perfectionist, time manager, confidence
13. What the most productive engineers you have observed do
differently from average engineers
14. What you need from NASA/your boss to be more effective
15. Advice for a new employee to be successful in your job
16. How you feel about NASA's current mission and direction
OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION Measuring Productivity In order
to manage an outcome one
generally must be able to measure it(2). Most interviewees
initially expressed uncertainty about how to measure
productivity, but then went on to speculate usefully on
possible methods or criteria for such measurement. Many
expressed a belief that supervisors who stay in touch daily
with what their engineers are working on can make a reasonably
accurate subjective estimate of engineers' productivity.
Factors which should be integrated into this judgement include
the difficulty of the task (including the development stage of
the required tools or methodology), comparison of progress
rates among engineers doing similar types of tasks (or past
experiences with people doing similar types of tasks), and
comparison of progress against a mutually-agreed-upon time
line (when posing a design or analysis question to an
engineer, it helps to specify whether one wants a one-day
answer, a one-week answer, a one-month answer, etc.)
Work output measurements for estimating productivity
could include specific observations of work methods or
outcomes. For example, track the number of analyses an
engineer produces in a period of time, the number of papers
they publish or present, the number of phone calls made or
received, the number of action items completed, or even the
number of action items not completed by the requested date.
Or poll customers for feedback on an engineer's work,
including their general satisfaction with work quality or
pace, estimates of work impact on a program or at least the
thinking of others, the degree to which an engineer is
consulted by others for an opinion, or the general accuracy of
one's models, tests, and designs. Finally, productivity might
XXII-2
be reflected in system-level indications such as whether one's
work has held up a flight or test schedule, a new motor flew
tested without problems, or a meeting was productive.
Ideally, engineers and their supervisors should
collaborate to find the best method for monitoring their
productivity. Where colleagues or customers are in the best
position to judge an engineer's productivity, a formal or
informal system could be set up to gather their feedback.
While some engineers may be sufficiently defensive about their
work to make them uncomfortable with such a feedback program,
most appear to be justly proud of their work and of the world-
renown accomplishments of the Center, and many expressed great
interest in learning from any available feedback.
Being Busy Versus Being Productive One's work effort can be
viewed as a vector. The length of the Effort Vector might
indicate the degree to which one is busy during the work day.
However, that work effort can be factored into a Productive
Work component (i.e., work which is directed toward
accomplishment of the specified job goal) and a perpendicular
"Wasted Motion" component (e.g., work effort which is directed
toward simply satisfying one's curiosity, looking busy, or
fulfilling a perfunctory obligation). Thus, one engineer
might be seen as putting forth less work effort than another
(e.g., attending fewer meetings, writing shorter memos, taking
a longer lunch break), yet might actually accomplish more than
the latter with respect to job goals. Both continuous
clarification of organizational and departmental goals and
honest feedback to engineers by supervlsors or co-workers can
affect powerfully the direction of work effort toward
productive ends. Many engineers feel that they need more goal
clarification or feedback than their supervisors now give.
Some engineers seem to find it difficult to prioritize
their work activities. For example, some are inclined to
study a problem forever in search of an optimal answer, though
the organization needs a sufficient answer quickly to meet a
project deadline. Indeed, some engineers in the labs see
"getting smart" on an issue being as important in their job as
is applying their knowledge to a specific project. However,
an overly compulsive or extremely cautious personality in such
a person might result in a great deal of wasted motion.
Others believe that learning directed toward specific project
questions is most efficient in the long run. In any event, it
is natural for workers to spend as much time as possible on
the activities they find intrinsically interesting. Thus, to
optimize productivity, engineers must be placed in jobs which
require the work they intrinsically enjoy.
Career Issues Five career types were observed in
interviews, i) The Center has a lot of "New Kids" who are in
the early phases of their NASA careers. Most do not yet know
for what job they are best suited, and their work habits and
XXII-3
standards are still extremely malleable. They need a good
view of the types of work available at MSFC, and close
supervision to ensure task success until their competence and
confidence grows. Young engineers typically aspire to high
levels of technical competence. Highly experienced engineers
from project offices who would spend a year or two back in the
labs before retirement might make excellent mentors and role
models for New Kids. 2) Some engineers mature into
"Techo-Wizards", carving out an area of great technical
expertise from which they greatly influence design, analysis,
or test methodology decisions. They work with maximum
autonomy. 3) A few engineers find that they enjoy
questioning and helping define departmental/ organizational
priorities and strategic direction even more than developing
greater technical expertise. Those with good interpersonal
skills may become "Movers and Shakers", seeking management
track careers. 4) Many engineers, perhaps due to differing
interests, have not developed the technical proficiency of
Techno-Wizards nor the leadership qualities of Movers andShakers, but instead specialize in attending to details of
information and data management, tasks often critical to
project success. These "Worker Bees" seem satisfied with a
modest level of technical challenge in their jobs. 5)
However, a few engineers never found appealing career tracks,
or somehow run out of steam. These "Lost Souls" often
eventually were relegated to tasks which are least critical to
the organizational mission. They seem to have low
expectations of the prospects for whatever years remain in
their career. Perhaps a "PIP Program" for veteran engineers
could help place these Lost Souls into more productive work.
Future Research Clearly research on engineers' productivity
is in a preliminary stage. A questionnaire survey of 300
randomly-selected MSFC engineers, sponsored by Dr. George
McDonough, Head of S&E, is now gathering information from a
wider sample about many issues related to engineers'
effectiveness and use of time. It builds on previous research
by the PI(3) plus insights from the present study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks for support and cooperation
go to Dr. George McDonough, Lab Directors
Bill Chubb, Jim Blair and John McCartey, Chief Engineers
Dennis Gosdin and Len Worlund, interviewees, and many managers
and helpful others too numerous to list here.
REFERENCES
1 Pelz,D.C. and Andrews, F.M., Scientists in Orqanizations,
New York: Wiley, 1966.
2 Administrator Daniel Goldin's Memorandum For All NASA and
JPL Employees dated July 9, 1992.
3 Jackson, C., "Some effects of time management styles on the
personal productivity of knowledge workers", CAS Research
Report Number 90-11-02, Center for Management and Economic
Research, University of Alabama in Huntsville, 1990.
XXII-4


Some effects of time usage patterns on the productivity of engineers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server