Productivity, by definition, is the measure of the efficiency of production. What does this mean? People commonly measure "what is accomplished," but this is often a poor measure of productivity as a whole. Although great production numbers may be generated, a complete, efficient performance rarely is. While it is possible to perform operation and design decisions at a timely rate, too often these decisions must be later fixed at great cost as a result of unforeseen factors. In order to properly determine productivity, the following equation must be filled:
Productivity = what is accomplished - work required to fix deficiency - work required to fix human error.
Let's break down each variable:
- Deficiencies: Stem from lack of preparation, knowledge and training. Inexperience plays a factor, like a youth struggling to enter the workforce or an experienced worker learning how to do the same job with a new tool/ technique.
- Human error: Ranges from application conditions to human fatigue, compiling over the stretch of the work shift.
As a result, it is possible for productivity to be negative when workers end up doing more harm than good.
The common theory within the workforce is that longer hours produce more results. However, this could not be further from the truth. Henry Ford is notably known as the inventor of the Ford automobile, but he is also credited for implementing the assembly line and sparking the Industrial Revolution. Ford performed 12 years of studies within the assembly line, focused on obtaining the highest worker productivity. His results pointed toward fewer working hours and noted the peak times where the human worker was most efficient. Decades later, his studies still remain intact. In 2014, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showcased a study comparing the average worker in Germany and Greece, working 28 and 42 hours per week (1,371 and 2,042 hours annually), respectively. Analyses showed that German personnel, though working considerably fewer hours, were 70-percent more productive than those in Greece.
These statistics also reflect the world of industrial labor. According to The Business Roundtable's "Effect of Scheduled Overtime on Construction Projects," in a 60-hour week (12-hour shifts), only 25-30 percent more work is output from a 40-hour week (8-hour shift). Also noted, in a 12-hour shift, the worker's best work is done between hours 2-6 on the job (see figure). Between hours 6-9, human fatigue sets in, delivering a fraction of the human capacity. Hours 10-12 are a wash, providing minimal output from the physically and mentally exhausted worker.
What is the solution for minimizing the second and third variables in the productivity equation? Introduce widely available mechanized and automated tools to eliminate human error due to fatigue. Currently, 60 percent of all occupations have the option of automating at least 30 percent of their activities. Devices that are dependable, accurate and tireless during a 12-hour work shift procure a consistent, predictable timeline for project completion. Worker deficiency can be overcome with the investment in these automated systems as well. Research shows that employers are willing to pay for training programs -- up to 15 percent (~2 months) of the employee's annual salary -- to have prepared and capable hands on-site. A worker who has performed the previous working method, battling physical fatigue, has a better chance of increased worker satisfaction in improved and advanced working conditions.
And in a society where almost 40 percent of American employers say they cannot find skilled labor, even for entry-level jobs, these trained individuals will be more willing to commit to the company that provided better working conditions, resulting in a lower turnover rate.
For more information, contact Terry Gromes at tgromesjr@terydon.com or visit www.terydon.com.