OUTCOME1

Assessment task 1Outcome(s)covered 1–3Assessment task instructionsThis assessment is based on the case study of Barbour Brown Engineering Ltd. It is divided into three sections. Section A provides information about the organisation’s startup; Section B about the growth and development and Section C provides information about the staff and management of the organisation.You must provide evidence from the case study in your answers.Barbour Brown Engineering LtdSection A: Starting upBarbour Brown Engineering Ltd, a firm of consulting engineers, was set up by David Barbour and Neil Brown 14 years ago, in a main town within a large rural area. Initially the firm concentrated solely on civil engineering projects such as road and sewer developments for the increasing number of private housing developments which were springing up.During the 1980s Neil and David had both worked for a large city firm (Floyd and Fleming Ltd) which had an office in the town. David had been branch manager and Neil, a younger and very enterprising individual, headed up the structural development section before spending two years working in the Middle East. In 1989 Floyd and Fleming Ltd decided to close the branch office and concentrate their business in the city.Neil had recently returned from working in the Middle East and had enjoyed the freedom and flexibility of being his own boss. He discussed with David the possibility of continuing to offer the engineering consultancy service in the town, under a new joint partnership. David had local experience and was aware that there were sufficient smaller projects to sustain the firm’s viability. He also had savings and equity that could be used for a management buy-out. Neil, likewise, had savings acquired through his work abroad. With these resources the pair had enough capital to buy the offices that housed the current Floyd and Fleming business. A business plan was drawn up to secure additional funding to buy over the business. Funding to support this venture was acquired through a bank loan and a grant from the then Scottish Development Agency. The management buy-out was agreed on the condition that they would not accept or carry out work within the central belt for a period of five years.In 1990 the new firm of Barbour Brown Engineering Ltd opened. The team comprised David, Neil and two other qualified engineers: Jack, a recent high flying graduate and James, a 30 year old engineer who had not, as yet, completed his full charter. In addition there were two qualified technicians and one apprentice technician.Section B: Growth and developmentOver the next 14 years the firm grew steadily, mainly concentrating on the core civil engineering business. The firm had developed by undertaking local work and, because Neil and David believed in the principles of inward investment, they had always supported other local businesses. To this end they used local contractors, insurance brokers and accountants to provide services to the firm. In fact, it had become an unwritten policy that they recommend the firm, John Colbert Civil Engineering Contractors, whenever possible, to undertake the development work. Neil Brown and John Colbert had been to university together and had remained close friends. Being able to rely on the service of John’s fir m had been a major benefit in gaining contracts, because this increased the firm’s ability to ensure a high quality of service during the development stage of projects, in addition to the design stage.The main aim of the firm was to provide a high quality service and it was, therefore, important that their staff were appropriately trained in the latest technology. This enabled the firm to produce the designs to a high specification as efficiently as possible. The staff were encouraged to update their skills and were given bonuses whenever they gained recognised qualifications. The local college was used to train the apprentices but it was becoming expensive because of lack of demand locally for the training. David wanted to continue to use the college, not only because it was close but also because he was friendly with the Head of the Engineering Department. As a result of this friendship he was disinclined to use other colleges. He also liked the fact that he had easy access to their apprentices’ progress. Neil, on the other hand, felt that as it was now so expensive and there was always the threat that the courses wouldn’t run, they should look into using one of the colleges in the central belt. He also thought that the young apprentices might appreciate the chance of going to the city and that this might offer them further encouragement.By the year 2004 the firm employed a further two engineers, four technicians and four apprentices. A new town bypass contract and the continued increase in housing developments had allowed the firm to grow in size. To support the engineering staff an office supervisor was also employed to deal with reception, book-keeping and salaries.Section C: Running the businessWhile Neil concentrated on promoting the business and setting up contracts, David, methodical by nature, acted as the general manager. He liked to run a tight ship andhis 10 years in the RAF had shaped his style of management. As a general policy, all new projects went to him in the first instance. He would then allocate the work, as appropriate, to an engineer and a technician who were nearing the completion of their current project. David set the staff specific tasks as this enabled him to keep a tight check on their performance. The staff, including David and Neil, were friendly towards one another and always had a drink together on a Friday night.Although there was no defined structure, David treated James, who had been with the firm longest, as being most senior. This on occasion caused irritation among the engineers who worked on the civil projects, because James was the only engineer who had not achieved his Charter and was, therefore, less qualified. James was often delegated the task of giving out new projects to staff and he was allowed to authorise site visits when David was out of the office. Since the firm opened, David and James had been very friendly. James was originally employed as David’s technician and had worked for David for 20 years.The staff were well paid and had good holidays but one factor that caused resentment among staff was that, although David praised their performance on the completion of projects, he never sought advice from them on the best way to divide up the work. The use of timesheets also gave rise to discontentment, especially among the engineers. It was an accepted practice that a timesheet should be filled in by all employees. This was used to tally up the hours taken and compare them against the targets set for each project. Neil and David used this information to set project costs by constantly reviewing the times taken for design, site visits, phone calls etc. Although Neil tended to use the information as a tool for forward planning, David, who liked to keep a check on staff, used the timesheets to assess the number of phone calls, travelling time and number and length of site visits for each member of staff. In addition, staff were required to seek authorisation by having their timesheet initialed either by David or Neil (or James if they were unavailable) prior to going out on a site visit. This caused a number of difficulties.Firstly, not all site visits could be planned in advance. Often ad hoc visits were required, especially if there were problems on site. Since Neil always insisted on a high quality of service, it was considered important that, if essential, an engineer should go to the site as soon as possible. Secondly, Neil’s belief that a happy customer was a priority, together with his trust of staff, was at odds with David’s rule of staff seeking authorisation for site visits. Thirdly, the engineers felt that as professionals, they should have the right to make decisions regarding site visits without having to ask permission. The office layout didn’t help matters as James shared an office with the two civil engineers and they often felt it was like having ‘Big Brother’ watching over them. The four technicians shared a different office and the apprentices were based in the main drawing room. The result of this approach was that the more senior staff appeared to have less flexibility over their working arrangements than the others. They also felt that having to continually go through to another room to speak withtechnicians and apprentices was both timeconsuming and cumbersome. Furthermore, Jack, the structural engineer, shared an office with his technicians. This little team seemed to work very well together as laughter could often be heard and, as David frequently stated, they did get through their projects more quickly. As a result their bonuses were always higher.Jack had always encouraged Neil to bring in structural development projects, as this work was more lucrative than the civil work. Initially he tended to work with one technician on structural designs for their main housing development client. Work in this area had developed during the past three years and another technician was moved over to work with him. David, who had little structural experience, left Neil to make decisions regarding the structural work. Since Neil’s management approach was m uch more flexible, coupled with the fact that the team worked together in the same office, Neil would discuss the project design and development with the team. Although he would offer advice and assistance on design elements, where necessary, he gave Jack the autonomy and flexibility to decide how the projects should be carried out. Once a project was underway, Neil also expected Jack to attend management meetings with clients to discuss the project planning and development. Jack, following Neil’s approach, encouraged the small team to offer suggestions on project design. Unlike the other engineers, Jack was less affected or worried by the apparent seniority of James. David, on the other hand, was unhappy that Jack was given such a free reign but felt unable to comment, given the fact that this area was growing. This was mainly due to the high level of performance of the small committed team.Neil, who concentrated on promoting the firm by sourcing business contracts, preferred not to get involved in work politics. The firm had a reputation for both high quality design and meeting targets timeously within the quoted price. Neil believed that the firm should always strive to achieve these standards. It was important to him that any work taken on by the firm was thoroughly costed and he stipulated that once a price had been set, it could not be altered by adding supplementary charges and expenses. In the past this had secured business for the firm. The staff were committed to working to target because Neil rarely put out a tender without close consultation with those most likely to be involved. He also ensured that end-of-year bonuses were given out based upon successful completion of projects. The staff liked the way that Neil consulted them and generally felt respected by him. Neil also believed that it was essential to liaise fully with clients to ensure that the firm was able to provide the best service, and his role in the firm was to provide this external liaison. As a result, he tended to spend very little time in the office. Although he and David did have weekly meetings to discuss the forward planning of projects, it was very rare that any proposed project Neil had discussed with an engineer actually came back to him because of David’s system for allocatin g work. It was frequently the case that time was wasted by the engineer doing the job because he wasn’t the one consulted at the start, and it was for this reason that the different approaches operated by the twopartners tended to cause annoyance.Cracks in the system!James, aware that there were ‘grumblings’ among the civil staff, who felt that the way Jack and his team worked was far more effective, had spoken to David about the problem. David, who liked to tell friends that his firm was a happy one, was concerned, and decided that this, together with some other issues, should be raised at the next Partners’ meeting.Until recently, the job costing policy operated by the firm had proved to be very effective, but competitive tendering, normally based upon price, had meant that the firm had lost two important contracts to one of their competitors. This was another issue that needed to be addressed. The firm had grown substantially and needed to be sure of continued work in order to assure its viability. The firm expected to win two large-scale contracts: a multiplex cinema complex and an office block for the Scottish Executive as part of their re-location to rural areas. In addition, new roads to support these and other developments at the South side of the town were to be designed. It was essential that the firm secured these contracts.In addition, David did feel a bit disgruntled about the fact that he was left to sort out the workload for staff with little support from Neil. He was also aware that over the past 14 years the firm had grown and evolved and that is was now time to re-structure. Assessment task 1Section A1 With reference to the firm in the case study, describe the basic components of a work organisation.2 a) Using a recognised classification, explain the importance of the four main goals of the organisation in the case study.b) Identify examples of objectives and policy from the case study and comment on how effectively you believe they have been implemented.3 Using an open systems diagram, describe how the organisation in the case study interacts with its external environment.4 All organisations have stakeholders. Give examples of the main stakeholders of this organisation giving reasons for your answer. You should identify at least four stakeholders.5 Outline four strategies for controlling staff. Identify the one used by David Barbour. Section B6 Using two examples from the case study, explain why the motivation for staff to work well depends on more than a high salary and good working conditions.7 How might the following theories of motivation be used to describe situations within the organisation:a) Equity theoryb) Goal theory8 Describe how four work practices used in the Structural Engineering office have improved job performance and team cohesiveness?9 With reference to problems in the Civil Engineering office, explain why the introduction of team working might help to resolve some of the difficulties.Section C10 By identifying two duties and three roles of two managers from the case study explain why the job of a manager differs from any other job in an organisation.11 Using Likert’s Management Systems Model:a) Describe the approaches to management currently adopted by Neil and David.b) Give two indicators that could be used to measure the effectiveness of the different management approaches.c) Explain how these indicators could be used to help the partners assess their performance.12 Why is it important to have an understanding of leadership when assessing the management of an organisation?13 Explain how David could use the approach suggested by John Adair to improve his leadership style.14 From the Contingency, Situational and Transformational approaches to leadership, describe:a) One theory that could be used to provide guidelines that might help Daviddecide on the right approach to leading the team.b) A different theory that could be used to demonstrate the approach adopted by Neil.15 Why are the theories you have chosen relevant to our understanding of the way in which managers lead their staff?。