7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

1/14

Facility management teamsIdentifying important human factors

from a manufacturing environmentKym Fraser

Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia,Mawson Lakes, Australia

Janti GunawanDepartment of Industrial Engineering,

Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS),Surabaya, Indonesia, and

Mark GohNUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Abstract

Purpose Teams and teamworking has now become a common form of work structure in mostorganisations, including facilities management. The human interactions which occur when peoplework together in groups is still problematic. In this study human factors are identified and the purposeof this paper is to establish the level of importance of each factor involving specialised teams within amanufacturing environment.

Design/methodology/approach A quantitative study was undertaken at a number ofmanufacturing plants which were using the process: team-based cellular manufacturing. Managers,team leaders, and operators involved with manufacturing cells were targeted to evaluate the varioushuman related factors associated with these teams.

Findings From the nine human factors evaluated, three factors: communication, teamwork, andtraining were identified as being key to the day-to-day success of team-based cellular manufacturing.Some notable differences were observed when comparing the data between countries.

Research limitations/implications This study adds to the limited research which has beenconducted on the human aspects of socio-technical processes. Further work is required to enhanceunderstanding of key human factors.

Practical implications For practitioners involved with manufacturing cells, the study providesan understanding of the key areas towards which attention and resources can be channelled.

Originality/value While the study provides valuable insights into a socio-technical process inmanufacturing, the findings are also very useful to management practitioners who are attempting tomanage and improve the effectiveness of teams and teamwork.

KeywordsManufacturing industries, Cellular manufacturing, Facilities management, Teams,Human factors, Manufacturing, Empirical study

Paper typeResearch paper

IntroductionThe management of facilities is a key and important function for the ongoing economicsuccess of the asset being managed. For most facilities under management specialisedgroups or teams of people work together to provide services such as: marketing,building and property maintenance, customer service, cleaning and laundry services,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

Journal of Facilities Manageme

Vol. 11 No. 3, 20

pp. 253-2

q Emerald Group Publishing Limi

1472-59

DOI 10.1108/JFM-04-2012-00

Facilitmanagemen

team

25

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

2/14

and administration services. Scupola (2012) refers to these services as in-house facilitymanagement teams. While work teams are a very efficient and effective method oforganising labour, managers still face the ongoing problems associated with thehuman interactions of people working together in groups (Benders and Badham, 2000;

Roper and Phillips, 2007). These human factors can have a major impact on theperformance of the day-to-day operations of any organisation. In this study varioushuman factors are identified and a survey is undertaken to determine which factors arekey to the success of work teams. The study was conducted on autonomous workteams within a manufacturing setting, which has many similarities to the in-houseteams or self-managed teams commonly applied in facilities management (FM).Due to the often complex and technical nature of managing facilities and the need fora collaborate approach to problem solving, facility management presents asocio-technical system similar to manufacturing.

The popular manufacturing process which relies heavily on the effectiveness ofteamwork is known as cellular manufacturing (CM). The very nature of manufacturingcells dictates that individuals will be required to work together to maximise the benefitsthat cells can provide manufacturers. The issue of teamwork within cells is closelyinterlinked with a number of the other social factors such as; communication, training,conflict management, autonomy, and worker assignment strategies. Huang (1999)explains that the team concept is not a panacea. The team does not work well if we justsimply pull together a group of people together and say go forth and do good things(p. 31). It takes hard work both from the team members and the managers to buildsuccessful teams. Hence, it is important to study the characteristics of cellular workerteams from the viewpoint of the team building process, job and team training,team member interactions, and impact of the team member characteristics on teamperformance. This study will identify the key human factors associated with CM andundertake an empirical survey to determine which factors are considered important to

teamworking within socio-technical environments.

FM: a socio-technical environmentTeams are now common place in most organisations around the world. While teams arerecognised as being a highly effective method to structure organisational labour stillproblems persist. Such problems are largely due to the human interactions which occurin a team environment (Fraser and Hvolby, 2010). This is regardless of the environmentor industry setting in which the teams may operate within. Having said that,in many socio-technical environments, such as facility management and manufacturing,research studies have tended to focus more on the physical/technical elements. Thispoint was endorsed when the editor of theJournal of Facilities Managementstated in aneditorial FM is very much a people business and yet still the majority of the research

papers that, we receive focus upon place and process rather than people and process(Pitt, 2008). This focus on hard elements is in spite of the fact that the Hawthornestudies from the 1920s found that social factors were more important than physicalfactors with regards to employee productivity and satisfaction (Pitt and Bennett, 2008).

At first the link between teamworking and effective FM outcomes may not be clearlyevident. A review of the FM literature provides an emerging picture of the growingimportance of human and social factors within FM. While no studies specificallyaddress the various human factors associated with FM, a number of studies discuss

JFM11,3

254

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

3/14

the importance of teams and teamworking. Haynes (2007) investigates the behaviourof team-based collaborative work areas on office productivity. Roper and Phillips (2007)examine the advantages and deterrents of integrating self-managed work teams intoproject management. Putnam (2004) discusses the role of the team in developing a

sustainable workplace for facilities engineering. A number of studies, which focused onareas such as service delivery, supply chain issues, and innovation in facilitymanagement, refer to teams as in-house FM teams (Cardellino and Finch, 2006; Noorand Pitt, 2009; Scupola, 2012).

While teams have an important role to play in the management of facilities the reviewof FM literature also highlighted two other human factors, communications and training.Both these factors were discussed in a numberof studies as requirements to improving theday-to-day operations and delivery of FM services. Training was considered critical toimproving the performance and dynamics of facility management (Korsten, 2003;Putnam, 2004; Adewunmi et al., 2009), while the importance of communications wasdiscussed in area such as service delivery, strategic planning and facility relocations(Griffin, 2002; Kleasen and Foster, 2002; Sarshar, 2006). Communications, training andteamwork will be part of a list of human factors being evaluated in this study.

A number of authors (Olorunniwo and Udo, 2002; Johnson and Wemmerlov, 2004;Bidanda et al., 2005) have commented that more empirical research is needed toinvestigate the impact of sociological variables on the implementation of socio-technicalsystems such as CM. While CM has been a popular research area, research on the studyof its human aspects has been limited. In a study of implementation experiences,Wemmerlov and Johnson (1997, p. 46) concluded by making the following point:

[. . .] the picture that emerges from this study is clear restructuring the factory to adoptcellular manufacturing should not be viewed merely as a technical, engineering-dominatedproblem but as a change process where the people element dominates.

While teamworking is an important factor in the success of manufacturing cells, thefollowing will review some of the other human factors associated with CM.

Human factors in manufacturingCompanies converting to CM often struggle with implementation and achieve resultsthat are less than anticipated (Wemmerlov and Johnson, 1997; Yauch, 2000; Fraser et al.,2007). Wemmerlov and Johnson (2000) argue that a major contributing factor why thefull benefits of CM have not been achieved is the fact that the research literature on CMover the last 15 years has to an overwhelming degree focused on the development oftechnical procedures to solve the cell formation problem (machine order/layout, familypart grouping, work flow sequence). Evidence now indicates that firms who struggle toachieve the full benefit from CM may in fact be experiencing problems with the human

factors associated with CM (Hyeret al., 1999; Park and Han, 2002; Fraser, 2009).Udo and Ebiefung (1999) found that both technical and social changes take place

when a company adopts advanced manufacturing systems (AMS) such as CM. Theypoint out that, if an organisation focuses solely on the technical issues from the outset ofa manufacturing project implementation and at the expense of the human issues,its performance will be less favourable than if it pays attention to both sets of issues.Under traditional batch-type functional manufacturing conditions employees havewell-defined responsibilities for a single operation or machine. The very nature of cells

Facilitmanagemen

team

25

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

4/14

requires that a pool of individually skilled machine operators be grouped togetherto share work in the cell. It is now accepted that a number of fundamental social changesdo occur when companies convert from functional manufacturing layouts tomanufacturing cells (Askin and Huang, 2001; Park and Han, 2002; Bidanda et al., 2005).

Norman et al. (2002) argue that manufacturing companies can establish a strategiccompetitive advantage by placing a greater importance on the human elements early inthe design and implementation process. The authors explain that the vast majority of thecellformation literature places primary emphasison grouping similar parts and machines.Once the cells are designed, secondary consideration is given to the assignment of workersto the cells. At this stage, the human element has typically only considered workers interms of their labour capacity and/or technical skills. Norman et al. argue that, in thissetting, human skills such as communication, problem solving, teamwork,leadership, andconflict resolution can become just as important as technical skills, such as mechanics,mathematics, machining and inspection.

In one of the first large-scale empirical studies of CM users, Wemmerlov and Johnson(1997) surveyed 46 plants to determine reasons for establishing CM, types of operationsperformed, problems faced and lessons learned during implementation. Some of thehuman issues expressed by operators dealt with a lack of acceptance of the cell concept,an unwillingness to make decisions or to runmore than one cell machine at a time, labourunrest due to removal of easy work, long learning periods, problems with creating ateam environment, and unmet expectations. From the survey results the authors wereable to determine a list of factors considered to be of significant importance to celloperation and implementation. These factors included both hard (technical) issuesand soft (people) issues. The results showed the number of soft issues exceededthe hard ones. Therefore, coupled with other results, the authors suggested that thisindicated that successful change is more dependent on organisational than technologicalfactors. The human related factors included; planning for the conversion, education and

training, implementation time, measurement and reward systems, top managementsupport, employee involvement, operator/cell leader selection, and job rotation.

Udo and Ebiefung (1999) analyse the data from 98 manufacturing companies toinvestigate the associations between human factors and the success of AMS. In thisstudy, the eight human factors tested were split into three components namely:self-interest (morale, satisfaction, reward systems, and belief in AMS), top management(top management commitment, response to workers concerns and effective facilitator),and preparation (training). The results of this study show that the eight human factorsconsidered in their study have positive associations with AMS benefits. The authorsconclude by stating that while other factors may play major roles in realisation ofAMS benefits, socio-technical or human factors have been shown to be essentialingredients for AMS success.

Park and Han (2002) carried out an empirical investigation in four Koreanmanufacturing plants to determine performance obstacles in CM. The authors explainedthat performance obstacles are factors in the work environment that restrict productivityby inhibiting workers in the execution of task responsibilities. Therefore, it is thus crucialto identify and reduce those obstacles for more effective CM implementation. The studyaimed to identify performance obstacles in the area of human, organisational, andtechnological factors to which attention should be devoted in the future for successfulCM implementation. The study identified 46 items and these were sorted into seven

JFM11,3

256

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

5/14

classifications, as suggested by the critical incident sorting procedure. The sevenclassifications were analysed into two important aspects, soft (human and organisationalfactors) and hard (technological factors). The four soft aspects identified were; trainingand education, information, teamwork skill, and supervision.

Olorunniwo and Udo (2002) found that a number of fundamental social changes occurwhen companies convert from functional (batch or job shop) manufacturing layout tomanufacturing cells. In CM, employees are moved from segregated work groups (e.g. allpress operators work in the same department, all lathe operators in same department)into cells that combine jobs and workers from several specialised skill areas. Cell teammembers have to work together, though each may have originally been under differentpay or reward system, or possess different levels of training, skills, and experience.In essence, conversion to CM changes the social interactions among employees and theirsupervisors. These social changes require careful attention because of their potentialimpact on employee attitudes, motivation, and retention.

Bidanda et al. (2005) conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the various humanfactors associated with CM. The authors reviewed both the CM and the advancedmanufacturing technologies (AMT) literature. The results of their literature reviewidentify eight broad areas of human issues in CM: worker assignment strategies, skillidentification, training, communication, autonomy, reward/compensation system,teamwork, and conflict management. Finally, adding support to the lack of research isthis field, Bidandaet al. (2005, p. 509) state while cellular manufacturing is a popularresearch area, there is a singular absence of articles that deal with the human elements incellular manufacturing. The factors identified in this section will be used in aquestionnaire survey to determine which human factors are integral to the success of CM.

MethodologyThe objective of this study was to identify the various human factors associated with

CM and determine which of these factors are considered to be of most importance to CMoperations. After reviewing the CM literature it was deemed that nine human relatedfactors would need to be tested in a questionnaire survey. The list of factors is presentedbelow.

Human factors in CM. Worker assignment strategies. Methods that help in assigning specific people to

tasks within a cell or between cells.

. Skill identification. Identifying skills needed for a task and identifying the skilllevels of cell workers.

. Training.Developing training strategies and policies for increased productivity.

. Communication. Methods to enhance inter-cell communication (between cells),intra-cell communication (within cells) and manager-cell communication(between management and workers).

. Autonomy.Degree of self-government within a cell.

. Supervision.Role and activities of team leaders.

. Reward/compensation system. Designing reward systems to enhanceproductivity improvement.

Facilitmanagemen

team

25

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

6/14

. Teamwork.Methods to enhance team dynamics and interaction.

. Conflict management. Tools and techniques for resolving conflicts.

Having identified the various human factors to be tested, the following research

question and associated hypotheses were developed:

RQ. What are the most important and least important human factors associatedwith CM operations?

To provide further insight into the above RQthe following hypotheses are proposed:

H1. The ranking of human factors in CM systems will differ across variouscompanies and worksites.

H2. Managers and team leaders in CM systems will rank human factorsdifferently than operators.

H3. Operators with less experience (0 to three years) in CM systems will rank

human factors differently than operators with greater experience (.3 years).

H4. Operators from smaller teams in CM systems will rank human factorsdifferently than operators from larger teams.

For theRQrespondents were asked to rank (1 most important to 9 least important)the nine human factors. Due to collecting data through a method of rankings the data isclassified as non-parametric and therefore the need to use non-parametric tests (such asPearson x2 test) to investigate the various hypotheses proposed. Data was collectedfrom four medium to large manufacturing companies in two countries, three in Australiaand one in Switzerland. To help overcome language barriers the survey was converted tothe common language used within the region of Switzerland the survey was undertakenand a senior employee who was fluent in both the native language and English was usedto explain the survey to the participants. The survey participants came from threesub-groups: managers, team leaders, and operators within each of the manufacturingplants. Care was taken to ensure that all participants were involved in team-based CMwithin their respective plants. A brief summary of the four organisations targeted andthe sample size of participants (Table I) is provided below:

(1) Company 1 (sites 1 and 2) Electrical accessories manufacturer (Australian)(2,300 employees).

(2) Company 2 Sanitary ware manufacturer (Australian) (2,000 employees).

Managers Team leader Operators Total

Company 1Site 1 5 37 42Site 2 2 2 19 23

Company 2 1 4 1 6Company 3 3 6 31 40Company 4 4 6 51 61Total 10 23 139 172

Table I.Sample size for differentcompanies and jobpositions

JFM11,3

258

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

7/14

(3) Company 3 Automotive components manufacturer (Australian) (800 employees).

(4) Company 4 Electrical accessories manufacturer (Switzerland)(380 employees).

FindingsTable II represents the ranking of human factors for each of the companies involved in thestudy including the sum of all companies and Australia companies for comparisonpurposes. Company 4 was the only non-Australian firm in the survey. Due to issuesconcerning missing data and compounded by a small sample size, a meaningful analysisof Company 2 could not be undertaken, and therefore removed from table. The percentagevalue shown under each human factor in Tables II and III indicated the percentage thatthe human factor was ranked either first, second or third by respondents.

As shown in Table II the overall findings of this study (all companies) clearlyidentified the three most important human factors in CM operations as being:

(1) communication;

(2) teamwork; and

(3) training.

While the order of these three factors may have changed within the various companiesand sites all three were ranked in the top three positions. The only single exception tothis was the ranking of training in seventh position for the European company(Company 4). Looking at the other end of the scale, autonomy (seventh), supervision(eighth), and reward/compensation (ninth) were ranked the least important humanfactors in CM operations.

While differences in the ranking of human factors within the various companies andsites can be observed, a couple of notable differences occurred between the European

company (Company 4) and the overall results of the Australia companies. The first ofthese differences was the ranking of training, with the combined results of theAustralian companies ranked training number one but the European company onlyranked training as the seventh most important factor. The second major differenceinvolved autonomy with the Australian companies ranking autonomy last while theEuropean firm ranked autonomy as the third most important factor.

Table III shows how different job positions (managers, team leaders, and operators)ranked the nine human factors. Again, human factors communication, teamwork, andtraining dominate the top three rankings for managers, team leaders, and operators. Thetable also shows more consistency than Table II with skill identification (fourth),worker assignment strategies (fifth), and supervision (eighth) each being ranked thesame for all of the three job positions. In regards to the ranking of training, not one of the

four managers surveyed (n 4) from the European company indicated that trainingwas one of the top three factors.

The findings on theranking of human factors indicated a number of differences. To testif these differences were statistically significant a bivariate analysis was undertakento test the significance of human factors on a number of independent demographicvariables. Due to the categorical nature of ranking information, non-parametric testingwas conducted using x2 test for Independence and cross-tabulation tables. A summary ofthe test results for the four hypotheses associated with theRQare listed in Table IV.

Facilitmanagemen

team

259

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

8/14

Respondentcategories(%)

Rank

Company1site1

(n

42)

Company1site2

(n

23)

Compa

ny3(n

40)

Company4(n61

)

Australiancompanies

(n

105)

Allcompanies

(n

166)

1

Training

Training

Communication

Communication

Training

Communication

23.5

28.8

29.2

25.1

26.1

23.9

2

Teamwork

Teamwork

Training

Teamwork

Teamwork

Teamwork

21.2

28.8

27.5

18.0

23.9

21.7

3

Communication

Communication

Teamw

ork

Autonomy

Communication

Training

19.7

19.7

24.2

11.5

23.3

19.0

4

Skillidentification

Skillidentification

Skillid

entification

Conflictmanagemen

t

Skillidentification

Skilliden

tification

10.6

9.1

6.7

10.9

8.8

8.6

5

Reward/compensation

Workerassignment

strategies

Workerassignment

strateg

ies

Workerassignment

strategies

Workerassignment

strategies

Workera

ssignment

strategies

8.3

4.5

5.0

10.4

5.0

7.0

6

Workerassignme

nt

strategies

Supervision

Superv

ision

Skillidentification

Supervision

Conflictm

anagement

5.3

4.5

4.1

8.2

4.4

5.8

7

Conflictmanagem

ent

Conflictmanagement

Autonomy

Training

Reward/compensation

Autonom

y

4.5

3.0

1.7

6.6

4.1

5.2

8

Supervision

Reward/compensation

Conflic

tmanagement

Reward/compensation

Conflictmanagement

Supervision

4.5

1.5

0.8

4.9

2.8

4.4

9

Autonomy

Autonomy

Reward/compensation

Supervision

Autonomy

Reward/c

ompensation

2.3

0.0

0.8

4.4

1.6

4.4

Table II.Human factor rankings:companies

JFM11,3

260

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

9/14

DiscussionOf the nine factors tested, three clearly were identified as being the most importanthuman factors in CM operations. These were: communication (first), teamwork (second)and training (third). The three least important human factors associated with CM were:autonomy (seventh), supervision (eighth) and reward/compensation (ninth). This left

skill identification (fourth), worker assignment strategies (fifth), and conflictmanagement (sixth) as the three factors filling the gap between the most importantand least important factors.

When analysing the relationship between companies and the ranking of humanfactors some interesting differences are discovered between the Australian companiesand the overseas company. The data collected from the Swiss company, Company 4,clearly showed three distinct differences from the data collected from the companies inAustralia (Table II). When compared to the Australian companies the Swiss company

Respondent categories (%)

RankManagers(n 10)

Team leaders(n 23)

Operators(n 139)

All positions(n 172)

1 Teamwork Communication Communication Communication26.7 28.3 23.6 23.9

2 Training Training Teamwork Teamwork20.0 21.7 21.4 21.4

3 Communication Teamwork Training Training20.0 18.3 18.8 19.2

4 Skill identification Skill identification Skill identification Skill identification13.3 13.3 8.1 9.0

5 Worker assignmentstrategies

Worker assignmentstrategies

Worker assignmentstrategies

Worker assignmentstrategies

6.7 5.0 7.1 6.96 Autonomy Autonomy Conflict management Conflict management

6.7 5.0 6.2 5.7

7 Conflict management Conflict management Reward/compensation Autonomy

3.3 3.3 5.2 4.98 Supervision Supervision Supervision Supervision

3.3 3.3 4.8 4.59 Reward/

compensationReward/compensation

Autonomy Reward/compensation

0.0 1.7 4.8 4.5

Table IIHuman factor ranking

job positio

RQ Dependent variable Independent variable Value df Asymp. sig.(two-sided) Test results

H1 Ranking of human factors Companies 56.607 28 0.001 * * AcceptedH2 Positions 12.369 14 0.577 RejectedH3 Team experience 15.236 7 0.033 * AcceptedH4 Team size 56.819 21 0.000 * * Accepted

Note:Significant at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.01

Table IVSummary of Pearso

x2 test resul

for hypothes

Facilitmanagemen

team

26

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

10/14

ranked the importance of training very low (seventh compared to first for Australia),autonomy very high (third compared to ninth for Australia), and conflictmanagement high (fourth compared to eighth for Australia). Without furtherresearch it would be difficult to provide reasons for these differences but the following

observation is made. The surveys distributed to participants in the Swiss company wereconverted to the common language of the factory (Swiss-German). The authors of thisstudy observed that many operators experienced problems understanding the languagebeing used, even when a senior and long time company employee explained the surveyquestions. While many of these workers were not native to Switzerland, the researchersfound it surprising that so many workers (including younger people in the 20-30 agebracket) would experience such a problem with the native/common language. It wouldseem that some form of literacy training would benefit the company, considering thatoperators needed to work within a team environment in manufacturing cells. Anotherdifference which may have some links to the language issue is the high autonomyranking by the Swiss company. Due to literacy problems, operators may feel morecomfortable working in smaller groups or even alone. It could also be argued thatcultural differences may affect various outcomes when comparing differences betweenthe two countries. When shown the results the Swiss company was at a loss to explainthe reasons for the low ranking of training.

If the Swiss results were removed from the analysis, the ranking of human factors forthe survey (Australian companies only) would have training ranked first, followed byteamwork and communication, closely ranked second and third, respectively.Although the order of the top three human factors changes with the removal of theSwiss data, in either case, these three top factors are clearly the most important humanfactors in CM.

Regarding differences between managers, team leaders and operators when rankinghuman factors, the results showed that there were no significant differences. Having

said that if the results for the Swiss company were isolated out of the overall results theoutcomes would be similar to the differences discussed above. The results for teamexperience and the ranking of human factors showed that training is the key factor foremployees with three or less years experience. For workers with more than three yearsexperience the key factors are communication and worker assignment strategies.These results offer some direction to practitioners on areas which may need support forthe various level of experience. While the size of teams, when compared to the ranking ofhuman factors, was found to be significant, doubt remains about the causal effect.

In determining the importance of human factors such as skill identification, workerassignment, training, reward, etc. in different companies and countries, it must be notedthat these issues are rarely neutral in nature, and their interpretation will be shapedby the policies and industrial context of the firm and/or country. It is therefore

acknowledged that some of the differences in the results between the four companiesmay well be shaped by the industrial context and culture in which they operate.The non-testing of this issue in this research provides the opportunity for furtherresearch in this area and in human factors in general.

ConclusionsThis study has a number of implications for the management of facilities.As emphasised by Pitt (2008) FM is a people business and research in the field should

JFM11,3

262

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

11/14

have a much greater focused on human aspects. With increasingly large numberof organisations arranging their workforce into teams and groups, the understandingof human factors associated with people working together is paramount. Clearlyfrom the FM literature teams and teamworking has become an important factor in the

efficient and effective management of assets and facility services. While nine humanfactors were evaluated in this study the findings clearly identified three factors whichwere critical to the success of groups of individuals being required to work together:

(1) communication;

(2) teamwork; and

(3) training.

The findings clearly show that these three factors are not only integral to socio-technicalsystems, but also for managers, team leaders, and operators alike. For managers of FMthere is no doubt that these human factors are key to improving the level of service anddelivery performance, where people are required to work together in teams. Effective

and engaging communication has long been recognised as an essential ingredient formanagers and organisations. For teams the communication channels to and from, andwithin, must be formalised, open and clear. In regards to teamwork, for work groupsto be successful the team not only requires the right skill mix but these skills mustbe complementary. Theses skill requirements can be categorised into three areas:technical or functional expertise; problem-solving and decision-making skills; andinterpersonal skills (Roper and Phillips, 2007). Finally, FM can often be a highly complexand technical business which requires collaborate problem solving and cross-functionalsupport. Therefore, training is not only critical to enhancing the knowledge and skill setsof the FM workforce but to also develop the human skills to be effective team players.Training must be viewed as an opportunity for personal, group and organisationaldevelopment, and FM departments must commit to effective, lasting training.

The research literature provides ample examples of the technical issues withinsocio-technical environments but research on the human aspects is limited.This study attempts to address this shortcoming by identifying the human factorswhich are important for the day-to-day success of the team-based process, namely CM.The findings provide researchers with a basis to develop further human factor research,and practitioners with key areas to focus their attention on in improving both team andsocio-technical performance. While this study was conducted within a manufacturingenvironment it has wider implications due to CM being a team-based activity. With teamsand the effective operation of teams being a strong focus in most modern organisations,the authors would argue, that the outcomes of this study could be equally applied to anysituation which requires groups of skilled people to work together as a team.

References

Adewunmi, Y., Ajayi, C. and Ogunba, O. (2009), Facilities management: factors influencing the roleof Nigerian estate surveyors,Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 246-258.

Askin, R.G. and Huang, Y. (2001), Forming effective worker teams for cellular manufacturing,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2431-2451.

Benders, J. and Badham, R. (2000), History of cell-based manufacturing, in Beyerlein, M.M. (Ed.),Work Teams: Past, Present and Future, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, pp. 45-57.

Facilitmanagemen

team

26

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

12/14

Bidanda, B., Ariyawongrat, P., Needy, K.L., Norman, B. and Tharmmaphornphilas, W. (2005),Human related issues in manufacturing cell design, implementation, and operation:a review and survey, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 48, pp. 507-523.

Cardellino, P. and Finch, E. (2006), Evidence of systematic approaches to innovation in facilities

management, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 150-166.Fraser, K. (2009), Labour flexibility: impact of functional and localised strategies on team-based

product manufacturing, CoDesign, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 143-158.

Fraser, K. and Hvolby, H. (2010), Effective teamworking: can functional flexibility act as anenhancing factor? An Australian case study, Team Performance Management:

An International Journal, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 74-94.

Fraser, K., Harris, H. and Luong, L. (2007), Improving the implementation effectiveness ofcellular manufacturing: a comprehensive framework for practitioners, International

Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 24, pp. 5835-5856.

Griffin, C. (2002), Strategic planning for the internal marketing and communication of facilitiesmanagement, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 237-246.

Haynes, B. (2007), The impact of the behavioural environment on office productivity,Journal ofFacilities Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 158-171.

Huang, Y. (1999), Employee training and assignment for team-based manufacturing systems,PhD thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Hyer, N.L., Brown, K.A. and Zimmerman, S. (1999), A socio-technical systems approach to celldesign: case study and analysis, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp. 179-203.

Johnson, D.J. and Wemmerlov, U. (2004), Why does cell implementation stop? Factorsinfluencing cell penetration in manufacturing plants, Production and Operations

Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 272-289.

Kleasen, K. and Foster, A. (2002), Communication strategies for the transition of employees toan open work environment, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 201-213.

Korsten, A. (2003), Developing a training plan to ensure employees keep up with the dynamicsof facility management,Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 365-379.

Noor, M.N.M. and Pitt, M. (2009), The application of supply chain management andcollaborative innovation in the delivery of facilities management services, Journal of

Facilities Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 283-297.

Norman, B.A., Tharmmaphornphilas, W., Needy, K.L., Bidanda, B. and Warner, R.C. (2002),Worker assignment in cellular manufacturing considering technical and human skills,

International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1479-1492.

Olorunniwo, F. and Udo, G. (2002), The impact of management and employees on cellularmanufacturing implementation, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 76,pp. 27-38.

Park, K.S. and Han, S.W. (2002), Performance obstacles in cellular manufacturing

implementation empirical investigation, Human Factors and Ergonomics inManufacturing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 17-29.

Pitt, M. (2008), Building an effective team for business, Journal of Facilities Management,Vol. 6 No. 2.

Pitt, M. and Bennett, J. (2008), Workforce ownership of space in a space sharing environment,Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 290-302.

Putnam, C. (2004), High-performance facilities engineering: preparing the team for thesustainable workplace, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 161-172.

JFM11,3

264

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

13/14

Roper, K.O. and Phillips, D.R. (2007), Integrating self-managed work teams into projectmanagement, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22-36.

Sarshar, M. (2006), Improving service delivery in FM: case study of a UK hospital facilitiesdirectorate, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 271-285.

Scupola, A. (2012), Managerial perception of service innovation in facility managementorganizations, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 198-211.

Udo, G.G. and Ebiefung, A. (1999), Human factors affecting the success of advancedmanufacturing systems, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 37, pp. 297-300.

Wemmerlov, U. and Johnson, D.J. (1997), Cellular manufacturing at 46 user plants:implementation experiences and performance improvements, International Journal of

Production Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 29-49.

Wemmerlov, U. and Johnson, D.J. (2000), Empirical findings on manufacturing cell design,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 481-507.

Yauch, C.A. (2000), Moving towards cellular manufacturing: the impact of organisationalculture for small businesses, PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

About the authorsKym Fraser is a Researcher at the Universityof South Australia in Adelaide. He is also an AdjunctProfessor at both Brawijaya University and Ciputra University in Indonesia, and an AdjunctAssociate Professor at Aalborg University in Denmark. He has a PhD in ManufacturingManagement and holds degrees in Business, Accounting, Economics and Engineering. He has35 years of business and academic experience in Australia and abroad, having held seniormanagement positions in both government and private enterprises, specialising in service andoperations management. He is the current chair of the Manufacturing Society of Australia(ManSA) and has published over 50 research articles in internationally refereed journals andconferences. Kym Fraser is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: kym.fraser@unisa.edu.au

Janti Gunawan is the Head of Industrial Management and System Development in the

Department of Industrial Engineering at the Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya,Indonesia. She holds a Bachelor degree in Industrial Engineering from the same University, twoMasters degrees, a Master of Engineering Science (University of New South Wales, Australia) and aMaster of Commerce (University of Auckland, New Zealand), and a PhD in International Business(Victoria University, New Zealand). She has extensive project experience working as a consultant forlocal, regional, national and international organisations in various Indonesian enterprisedevelopment programs. Her research interests include cluster industries, entrepreneurship, andcorporate social responsibility.

Mark Goh is the Director (Industry Research) of the Logistics Institute-Asia Pacific, and thePrincipal Researcher at the Centre for Transportation Research at the National University ofSingapore. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of South Australia and holds a PhDfrom the University of Adelaide. Currently he is a board member of the Chartered Instituteof Transport (Singapore), and was the Vice President of the Operations Research Society

of Singapore. His current research interests focus on supply chain strategy, performancemeasurement, buyer-seller relationships and reverse logistics. He has published over 130 technicalpapers in internationally refereed journals and conferences.

Facilitmanagemen

team

26

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

7/24/2019 Jurnal FM 12

14/14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.