Operations Management for Engineering Consulting Firms:

A Case Study
Linda L. Brennan1

Abstract: While acknowledging the difficulties of managing professionals, many theorists and practitioners are critical of applying
operations management practices as solutions. This study challenges these criticisms by developing a series of propositions for engineer-
ing consulting firms based on a flexible manufacturing paradigm, in particular to 共1兲 develop a generalized skill set among employees; 共2兲
balance the workload across the organization; 共3兲 cultivate project managers in a deliberate manner; and 共4兲 apply operational models to
predict the impact of resource allocation schemes. These propositions are examined in the context of a case study of engineers and
technicians in a consulting company. The exploratory data analysis supports the validity of the propositions and also indicates the need for
other operational improvements.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0742-597X共2006兲22:3共98兲
CE Database subject headings: Consulting services; Resource management; Field investigations; Case reports; Business
management.

Introduction Developing insights into the management of professionals is a

This paper presents a case study used to develop propositions
about the use of operations management techniques in engineer-
ing consulting firms 共ECFs兲. The case organization investigated
was a small consulting company that had grown from one indi-
vidual to over one hundred employees in 30 years, with the most
dramatic growth occurring in the last decade. The company’s
chief executive and founder was concerned with the firm’s recent
operations. Despite marketing and hiring initiatives, the company
had been experiencing stagnant performance with slowing growth
and declining profits for the last three years. He was interested in
options for operational improvements and was particularly con-
cerned with resource allocation methods due to the wide variation
of ways engineers and technicians were used throughout the firm.
By considering the firm in the context of a manufacturing para-
digm, specific options were identified and considered for how
ECFs might improve operations in general.
Previous research has long suggested that service activities
require the same sort of disciplines and strategies that make mod-
ern manufacturing so efficient 共Levitt 1976兲. Mass services have
routinely adopted such approaches, but many theorists and prac-
titioners are hesitant to apply operations management and manu-
facturing practices as solutions to problems regarding managing
professionals. For example, Shapero 共1985兲 suggests that the
uniqueness of the activities performed by professionals prevents
the use of standardized processes. Maister 共1993, p. xv兲 states that
since ECFs must manage customized activities, management of
information cannot be made routine.
1
Mercer Univ., Stetson School of Business and Economics, 1400
Coleman Ave., Macon, GA 31207. E-mail: brennan_ll@mercer.edu
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 2006. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on May 12, 2005; approved on November 2, 2005. This
paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22, No.
3, July 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2006/3-98–107/$25.00.
challenging and interesting problem. The lack of research in
this area makes it a perfect fit for this case methodology. In
particular, this study challenges conventional wisdom by pro-
posing the use of operations management principles associated
with flexible manufacturing to address the specific problem of
resource allocation in the subject firm. The general utility of flex-
ible manufacturing principles for engineering consulting firms is
also considered.
Flexible Manufacturing Paradigm
Often considered a special case of a job shop, flexible manufac-
turing systems 共FMSs兲 are collections of communicating groups
of modular automated material-handling devices and numerically
controlled machine tools that are integrated by a hierarchical net-
work of computers 共Chaudhury and Ratham 1992兲. These systems
are characterized by individual machines that are quite versatile
and are capable of performing many types of operations, demon-
strating automatic tool interchange capabilities, and handling ma-
terial between machines automatically 共Stecke and Solberg 1981兲.
The basic objective of the flexible manufacturing concept is to
achieve the efficiency and utilization levels of mass production
共i.e., flow lines兲 while retaining the flexibility of manually oper-
ated job shops 共Stecke and Solberg 1981兲. Dimensions of flex-
ibility are obtained from the machines, the material-handling
systems, the operational processes, and many other aspects of an
FMS 共Vokurka and O’Leary-Kelly 2000兲.
Two main themes exist throughout the literature on work allo-
cation for FMSs:
• Exploiting the flexibility of FMSs 共cf., Fine and Freund 1990;
Gerwin 1993兲, and
• Loading and controlling FMSs according to different schemes.
For the purposes of this study, the latter theme is of particular
relevance.

98 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006

Loading
Resource management for an FMS involves deciding which tools
to assign to machines and how the machines should be pooled for
work queues. This “loading” process can be compared to ECF
operations of deciding which skills to require of employees and
how the staff should be assigned to projects. Loading may possess
several desirable yet conflicting objectives:
• The workloads assigned to each machine should be balanced
to avoid unnecessary bottlenecks.
• When feasible, consecutive operations should be performed on
the same machine to minimize the number of required part
movements.
• Tool space permitting, operations should be assigned to more
than one machine to increase flexibility for routing the parts in
real time 共Stecke and Solberg 1981兲.
These guidelines have intuitive appeal for ECFs as well. Key
performers become bottlenecks by being too busy to be effective
or too busy for others to get the resources they need. Unnecessary
time is spent coordinating activities or achieving transitions on a
project. Finally, flexibility and responsiveness improve as the
number of people who can do a task increases.
Tooling
In a later study using a closed queuing network model of an FMS,
Stecke and Solberg 共1985, p. 882兲 explore the consequences of
varying workloads among multiserver queues of varying size.
Their findings suggest that the best possible solution is to pool,
and therefore identically tool, all of the machines into one group:
It is well known among queuing theorists that, under sto-
chastic conditions, a pooled group of servers will perform
more efficiently 共i.e., complete more jobs per unit time, or
increase production rate兲 than the same number of servers
working separately.
However, this type of tooling is rarely possible since the tools
cannot usually fit into each machine’s limited tool capacity.
Similarly, for an ECF, one might consider requiring that all of
the professionals be capable of performing all jobs, but limited
cognitive abilities of individuals would make this approach in-
feasible. The extensive training 共i.e., “tooling”兲 required would
also make this approach expensive. For a more feasible alterna-
tive to a single pool of all machines, Stecke and Solberg 共1985,
p. 905兲 recommend unbalanced solutions using large groups:
A larger group of pooled machines can be loaded more
heavily simply because pooled servers are more efficient
than single servers. In addition, a larger group automati-
cally increases flexibility by increasing the number of job
routes. Production of more than one part type, each with
alternative routes, increases system variability. Pooling
machines helps a system automatically adapt to conges-
tion 共in part caused by increased system variability兲 and
system breakdowns.
Presentation of ECF Propositions
The FMS paradigm has great intuitive appeal as a framework for
considering an ECF. Machines with different toolings and prod-
ucts with different routing requirements over a set of common
tasks can represent the dynamic complexity of the case study
organization. Much of the research on FMS work allocation is
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006 / 99
concerned with which job to release to a machine or pool of
machines. Therefore, specific models and techniques described in
the scheduling literature are not directly useful for the current
problem, where the concern is with what machines 共i.e., profes-
sionals兲 to assign to a job 共i.e., project兲. Nonetheless, this exercise
has produced some theoretical results, presented as propositions
in the following sections.
Proposition One: Generalized Skill Set
Loading and pooling strategies for FMSs suggest that an ECF
should consider a general set of skills and knowledge bases as a
minimum requirement for professionals on the staff. Specifically,
this criterion may apply to the required expertise of workers in
terms of tooling. This concept is consistent with Garud and
Kotha’s 共1994兲 suggestion that flexibility in production systems is
facilitated by overlapping sets of generalized capabilities in addi-
tion to specializations for specific tasks. Such an approach would
enable an ECF to pool the workers for much of the work under-
taken and achieve greater flexibility and higher efficiencies.
Proposition Two: Workload Balancing
Balancing the workload among professionals should eliminate
bottlenecks. Bottlenecks occur when work is delayed because of
the high utilization of certain resources. Balancing would increase
the use of underutilized professionals, thereby leading to greater
experience and productive capacity. More balanced workloads
should also lead to shorter elapsed “processing” times for project
completions.
Proposition Three: Project Leadership
To improve throughput, performing consecutive operations on the
same machine minimizes movement 共Stecke and Solberg 1981兲.
For an ECF, this movement may imply distributing the work to
more project leaders with smaller project teams. Such a distribu-
tion may increase throughput by minimizing the handoffs among
the professionals.
Proposition Four: Operational Models
Operational models can be used to aid a company in considering
the impact that different resource allocation schemes may have on
the organization. Even though operational models are not likely to
capture all of the complexities inherent in an ECF, they can be
useful diagnostic tools 共cf., Brennan and Orwig 2000兲.
Case Study Organization
This section presents the propositions discussed above in the con-
text of the case study organization.
Company Background
The company examined in this case study was founded over 30
years ago by a Ph.D. metallurgical engineer to provide engineer-
ing consulting services to small industrial companies. The com-
pany grew to 100 employees and expanded its multidisciplinary
practice to include litigation support and applied research and
development. While the company services a broad range of
industries, as well as the public sector, much of its work is per-
formed for insurance companies and law firms. In a valuation
report prepared for the company by an independent agency, the
firm is described as:
 . . . a nationally known independent consulting firm de-
voted primarily to the investigation, analysis and preven-
tion of failures of virtually any type of structure. The
Company analyzes and often reconstructs accidents and
disasters as well as failures in products, structures and
human actions. 关The firm兴 has two specific areas of spe-
cialization: The first area concentrates on product failures
which drive the resulting investigation, solutions and im-
provements; the second area of concentration is on clients
seeking better ways to enhance or improve products or
services. . . The Company’s revenues are primarily derived
from services in connection with the analysis and inves-
tigation of failures and accidents.
The mission of the firm is further described by its Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer: “We provide our clients with the
highest quality engineering and scientific solutions to meet their
technical needs.” In a memorandum to the firm’s employees, he
described the organization as “a highly qualified, experienced and
dedicated team, having multidisciplinary professional, technical
and field service capabilities, using state-of-the-art laboratories
and facilities.”
Organizational Structure
The firm’s organizational structure plays a significant role in the
operations of the company.
Chairman of the Board/ Chief Executive Officer
The management of the firm is primarily comprised of engineer-
ing practitioners. The 70-year-old founder of the company still
actively participates in its operations and is the Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer 共CEO兲. He is concerned with
the transition of ownership and leadership in the company. The
CEO established an employee stock ownership program several
years ago, selling some of his interest in the firm. At present, he
retains 42% ownership as the largest single shareholder.
Chief Operating Officer
The Chief Operating Officer 共COO兲 is a mechanical engineer
and a long-time employee of the company. He is the leading
“rainmaker,” consistently the highest billing engineer in the com-
pany. In contrast to the Chairman’s paternalistic style, the COO
expresses little interest in management practices and prefers to
lead by example. He is rarely in the office as he is busy with
billable work.
Vice Presidents
Five executives hold the title of vice president. These executives,
however, can be further classified by the office to which they
report. A 20-year veteran, the Vice President of Administration
also serves as the Administrative Assistant to the Chairman. She
is responsible for personnel and benefits administration, account-
ing and financial management, information systems, and is the
Secretary of the Board.
The other vice presidents nominally report to the COO,
although often they may seem to report to the CEO. They serve
as functional area heads within engineering disciplines, primarily
for accounting purposes and personnel administration. These
four vice presidents have been with the company less than 5
years. The head of the chemical and electrical practice is also a
top biller and operates primarily out of his home, 800 miles away
the company. The vice president who is responsible for the
100 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006
metallurgical practice also supervises the technicians; he works
part time, being semiretired from a career at the local electric
power utility. Both the head of the mechanical engineering prac-
tice and the vice president in charge of building systems joined
the firm after working for several years in industrial research and
development.
Staff Members
The remainder of the company includes staff engineers who are
full-time employees, associate consultants who are affiliated with
the company but are not employees, technicians, photographers,
graphic artisans, and administrative support staff. Staff engineers
represent a wide variety of engineering and scientific disciplines:
• Materials/metallurgical engineering,
• Chemistry/chemical engineering,
• Electrical engineering,
• Mechanical engineering,
• Manufacturing engineering,
• Structural/civil engineering,
• Human factors/industrial engineering,
• Process plant engineering,
• Biomedical engineering,
• Agricultural engineering, and
• Automotive/aviation/marine engineering.
Furthermore, the Director of Program Development is respon-
sible for marketing activities and business planning for new
ventures. As such, he handles general inquiries and cold calls,
directing callers to the appropriate technical resource.
Paradigmatic View of the Case Study
Case Study Application: Proposition One
Proposition one from the flexible manufacturing paradigm cites
the need for a generalized skill set among employees. In the case
study organization, approximately one-third of the engineers have
Ph.D. degrees, and approximately 42% are registered Professional
Engineers 共PEs兲. In addition to different levels of engineering
expertise, skills in project management, laboratory testing, site
investigation, computer modeling, results presentation, and client
communications vary widely. No generalized skill set is defined
among the professionals.
Case Study Application: Proposition Two
Proposition two from the flexible manufacturing paradigm calls
for a deliberate or systematic effort to balance the workload
across the organization. In the case study organization, projects
range in size from a few hundred dollars to several hundred thou-
sand dollars, and in duration from hours to years. While projects
originate primarily from repeat customers and referrals, they may
be initiated in a variety of ways. If the client has a previous
relationship with an engineer, the client will typically refer to that
person again for assistance. Depending on the client’s current
needs, the engineer may refer the work to another person in the
firm or, as is often the case, retain responsibility for the work
himself. If the client is new to the company, the client is usually
referred to the Director of Program Development who discusses
the project and explains the firm’s capabilities. The director then
refers the client to one of the technical staff with the appropriate
subject matter expertise.
Table 1. Individual-Level Data Protocol
Field Data Type Description Source
# Nominal Numbers assigned to individuals for reporting purposes Computer
educ Ordinal Highest education attained: 0⫽HS; 1⫽AS; 2⫽BS; 3⫽MS; 4⫽Ph.D. Resumes
PE Nominal Professional engineer certification: 0⫽no; 1⫽yes Resumes
CoYrs Ratio Year started with company Personnel coordinator
Exprnce Ordinal Number of years of work experience: 1 ⬍ = 5; 2 = 5 − 15; 3 ⬎ = 15 Observation
General Nominal General area of practice Resumes
Unique1 Nominal Unique area of specialization Resumes
Unique2 Nominal Unique area of specialization Resumes
VP Nominal Hierarchical reporting relationship Operating plans
Loc’n Nominal 1 = 1south; 2 = 1north; 3 = 2south; 4 = 2west; 5 = 2north; 0 = other Observation
BillRate Ratio Hourly rate billed to clients Billing rate report 共May兲
CoClass Ordinal Company classification system Billing rate report 共May兲
ProdRate Ratio Percent billability Individual capacity report 共May兲

Outside associates are also occasionally a source of projects
when the company finds that it needs the broader capabilities of
the firm to do the work. According to the CEO, associates are
used as a “flywheel” for business development. When the firm
gets enough “energy” in an area of expertise, that expertise is
integrated into the business.
For both existing and new clients, secretaries play an integral
role in the project assignment process. Very often, a secretary
fields the initial calls on a project in an engineer’s absence. The
secretary may then turn the information over to another engineer
for followup.
Therefore, projects originate in a variety of ways with no de-
liberate or systematic effort to balance the workload across the
organization as Proposition two recommends. Not only does this
have an effect on the firm’s throughput, it also affects the firm’s
development of productive capacity. Former Harvard Business
School professor and “consultants’ consultant” David Maister
共1993, p. 175兲 asserts:
The scheduling of work assignments is the single most
important managerial activity in a professional services
firm. . . By allocating the right resources to different as-
signments, there is the opportunity to influence the cost of
the work, its quality, and the timeliness of its delivery. . .
Over time, the pattern of assignments given to individuals
will profoundly influence their professional development,
their worth to the firm and to clients, their satisfaction
with the firm, and, as a result, their motivation and pro-
ductivity. Viewed as a connected set of decisions, assign-
ments will also play a larger role in the dissemination of
expertise throughout the firm. . .
Case Study Application: Proposition Three
Proposition three from the flexible manufacturing paradigm
calls for a deliberate cultivation of project managers. Similar to
the assignment of projects to employees, the company’s process
for assigning project leaders is highly dynamic and is based on
opportunity, staff availability, individual preferences, and staff
experience. Furthermore, this process results in certain employees
performing routinized projects, which limits them to narrow
bands of skills with which to apply their technical expertise.
Limiting employees prevents them from serving as effective
project managers.
Case Study Application: Proposition Four
Finally, Proposition four, explores the use of operational models
to predict the impact of resource allocation schemes. These op-
erational models have been examined in detail by Brennan and
Orwig 共2000兲. Within this case study, the company’s top perform-
ers retained much of the project work and protected their own
productivity rates. These employees can be classified as produc-
tion bottlenecks. A possible allocation scheme the firm could
implement is to leverage these individuals more by extending
their impact and influence with the substitution of junior staff,
overall throughput could increase in two ways. First, as senior
more experienced people, the top performers could effectively
attract more business for the firm, by spending time marketing
and increasing their visibility to prospective clients 共e.g., publish-
ing articles and speaking at conferences兲. Second, by delegating
more work, the top performers would increase the productivity of
the junior staff, enabling the company to do more work faster.
To gauge the impact of implementing the propositions and to
examine whether other variables might be contributing to differ-
ences in productivity, data were collected about the individuals
and the projects performed in a year.
Individual Level Data
The data concerning individuals were collected for three
purposes:
1. To characterize engineers and technicians as production re-
sources,
2. To examine whether professional characteristics could be
linked to productivity levels, and
3. To assess the impact of changing individuals’ project
assignments.
To characterize the individuals as production resources, data
about their credentials, experience, and expertise were collected.
The individuals’ organizationally based characteristics, such as
company classification and billing rate, were also collected for the
impact assessment. The impact assessment included the analysis
of the effect of different work allocation schemes on firm rev-
enues, throughput, and capacity. The individual-level data proto-
col is summarized in Table 1.
As the protocol indicates, these data were collected primarily
from archival sources, such as official company resumes and rou-
tine accounting reports. The Personnel Coordinator supplied the

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006 / 101


Fig. 1. Educational level
information about individuals’ hire dates 共i.e., CoYrs兲 from per-
sonnel records. The Director of Program Development reviewed
and refined classifications of general areas of practice and unique
areas of specialization. This role was appropriate since the direc-
tor often used such judgments to refer prospective clients to the
technical staff.
The distribution of nominal characteristics of the individuals is
summarized in Figs. 1–4. Fig. 1 displays the highest form of
education that employees have received, ranging from a high
school education to a Ph.D. Fig. 2 depicts the percentage of
employees that are certified PEs 共32%兲. Fig. 3 divides the em-
ployees’ experience into three groups: Less than 5 years, 5–15
years, and greater than 15 years. Finally, Fig. 4 separates employ-
ees by their positions within the firm. These classifications com-
bine education and experience into categories used for billing
range and salary ranges.
Project Level Data
The project-level data were used to characterize the project work
in terms of the flexible manufacturing paradigm, i.e., as products
needing time on machines with specific tools, which are the staff
with special skills. As such, the data were captured in two ways.
One way reflected the information that is available at the time a
project is opened, and the other reflected the activities required
for the project and the resulting revenues. The intent was to use
posthoc information to provide insights into the a priori data.
Two months were randomly selected. The billing information
for projects opened during these months was extracted from the
accounting files to capture the total amount billed, and the timing
and duration of project team members’ activities. To reduce the
data to a more useable form, the projects from one month were
coded. Of the 79 projects opened, only 65 were considered in this
analysis. Five were opened for an auxiliary location 共using differ-
ent resources兲. Four had no dollar billings, and five had missing
files or incomplete billing information.
After coding, the project openings were reviewed, noting the
project number, start date, taken-by information, and assigned-to
Fig. 2. Professional engineering certification
102 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006
Fig. 3. Experience level
information. Based on the project title and descriptive information
in the project-opening request, an effort was made to characterize
the subject, size, and urgency of the work. These assessments
were compared against the actual events recorded in the account-
ing reports. Billings, end dates, and actual assignments were
noted, and size and urgency were adjusted accordingly. Instances
where the project activity indicated the use of unique expertise
were recorded as expert. For reporting purposes, the projects were
assigned codes and the individuals’ initials were replaced by their
code numbers.
Exploratory Data Analysis
Data Analysis: Proposition One
Productivity as a Revenue Indicator
Productivity, one of the key operational measures of the firm, can
be defined as the billability of the technical staff. Billability refers
to each employee’s billable time for a given period and was cal-
culated by dividing the number of billed hours by the 40 hours in
a week. Therefore, productivity can represent the main revenue
stream of the company. Higher productivity levels 共billable hours兲
are directly associated with higher revenues. Higher revenues are
directly associated with higher profits since most of the firm’s
expenses are either fixed, such as salaries and building costs, or
are directly chargeable to the clients, such as project-specific soft-
ware costs and travel expenses.
Changes in workload allocation, as suggested by the flexible
manufacturing paradigm, could increase the productivity rates of
the technical staff. This is not to suggest that other factors are not
associated with increased productivity. In fact, the data collected
at the individual level were examined to identify other potential
productivity levers. Specifically, a series of nonparametric statis-
tical analyses were performed, using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum
Test 共McClave and Dietrich 1991兲 to compare characteristics of
individuals and productivity rates. Note that regression techniques
were not used because of the number of qualitative variables and
Fig. 4. Company classification
Table 2. High-Low Comparison Results
Factor Test values Result
Education level TH = 144, Fail to reject HO
z = 1.24
Number of years at the company TH = 102, Fail to reject HO
z = 1.12
Billing rate TH = 139.5, Fail to reject HO
z = 1.21
their levels, limiting the degrees of freedom. Also note that
ANOVA was not used because of its requirement for normally
distributed interval or ratio data.
For these analyses, the engineering staff was divided into
groups according to their productivity rates. High productivity
was classified as rates greater than or equal to 80%. Low produc-
tivity was classified as rates less than or equal to 60%. Employees
with productivity rates between 60% and 80% were not used in
the comparative analysis. The high productivity group consisted
of ten engineers, while the low productivity group consisted of
thirteen engineers.
Comparison of Individual Characteristics and Productivity
To gain a greater understanding of any factors that influence
productivity not outlined in the flexible manufacturing paradigm,
a comparative analysis was conducted using individual charac-
teristics of members in the high and low productivity groups.
Education level, number of years at the company, billing rate, and
experience level were all compared in single factor analyses. For
each factor, differences in the distribution between the high and
low subsets were tested in terms of the following hypotheses.
H1: The Two Sampled Populations Have Different
Distributions
Note that these tests assume that the two subsets are actually
random samples of a population. While this is not strictly true, it
should suffice to consider the firm as a randomly selected cluster
from the population of knowledge-intensive firms. The results
show no significant difference exists between high and low
productivity-rated staff for the following individual factors 共rejec-
tion region: z = ± 1.645, ␣ = 0.10兲:
• Education level,
• Number of years at the company, and
• Billing rate.
These results are summarized in Table 2.
A single-factor analysis of experience level, however, could
not be performed using this method. Because this factor was
coded as an ordinal data point with three values, too many ties in
the ranks existed to consider the distribution of values as continu-
ous, one of the requisite assumptions. An X2 test for multinomial
probabilities could not be used either as the expected value for
one of the cells was less than five 共McClave and Dietrich 1991兲.
Comparison of PE Certification and Productivity
While the X2 test was not useful in comparing experience level to
productivity, this test was used successfully to compare the dis-
tribution of the binomial factor, PE certification, to the high and
low productivity groups.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006 / 103
H2: PE Certification and Productivity Level Are Not
Independent
The test statistic was calculated X2 = 3.20. At ␣ = 0.10 共rejection
region: X2 ⬎ X20.10 = 2.70554, p value= 0.08兲, this statistic loosely
suggests that PE certification is associated with higher levels of
productivity. Note that the correlation does not imply causation; it
is not suggested that certification leads to higher productivity.
While this may be true, motivation and/or technical abilities that
enable an individual to obtain PE certification may also lead that
person to achieve higher productivity rates. The certification pro-
cess includes a qualification exam, proof of industrial experience,
and a licensing exam. The exams are designed to rigorously test
for an understanding of a broad spectrum of engineering prin-
ciples and applications.
Link between Productivity and Generalized Skill Set
The correlation between PE certification and productivity is suf-
ficient without proving causation and should be considered in the
context of the flexible manufacturing paradigm. This correlation
can be used as a basis for relating productivity to the generalized
skill set outlined in Proposition one. Encouraging the staff to
pursue PE certification is consistent with the strategy to tool the
machines broadly for greater flexibility and throughput. PEs have
an explicitly greater capacity to produce since their billing rates
are commensurately higher with this credential.
Also, capacity implicitly increases when an engineer becomes
a PE, since PEs may bring a broader perspective to problem
solving. Substantial anecdotal evidence suggests that engineers in
the subject firm consistently miss greater revenue opportunities
by narrowly defining the clients’ problems. For example, the
Chairman describes one project in which the client contacted an
engineer for $5,000 worth of tests. However, during a planning
meeting with that client, the Chairman probed the client for in-
formation about the problem and was able to expand the engage-
ment to a $30,000 project to solve the problem directly and better
serve the client. This type of interaction is common among PEs.
In contrast, an engineer who is called upon to solve a problem
may be quick to identify the solution without questioning the
problem definition. An engineer often sees the solution in terms of
his particular expertise. This type of thinking is analogous to the
child who, when given a hammer as a gift, sees everything else as
a nail. The discipline and knowledge needed to become a PE may
alleviate this problem, thereby implicitly increasing the firms’
productive capacity without adding staff. Therefore, licensing re-
quirements for PEs capture the essence of the generalized skill set
suggested by the flexible manufacturing paradigm.
Data Analysis: Proposition Two
Data on project openings indicate changes in workload allocation
may increase revenues. This indication, however, begs the ques-
tion of “changes from what?” The investigation revealed that the
company was not using a specific systematic approach to allocate
work. The project opening data were examined to corroborate or
disconfirm this observation and to try to characterize the de facto
approach.
The project openings for a 3-month period were examined. For
each of the 198 projects, the following information was noted:
• Who was credited with opening the project,
• Who was assigned to lead the project, and
• Who was assigned to staff the project.
Table 3. Project Openings Involving Senior Staff involving the senior staff, including officers and vice presidents,
Opened Opened Opened during the 3-month observation period. Table 3 summarizes these
Staff ID by self, by self, by other, Productivity data. As shown in Table 3, the two senior staff members with the
number led by self led by other led by self rate lowest productivity rates 共13.26 and 60.95%兲 were the only ones
to officially delegate project leader responsibilities 共i.e., “Opened
45 0 3 2 13.26
by self, led by others.” The other four senior staff members re-
410 11 4 0 60.95
tained the project leadership designation.
492 7 0 1 76.06
Employees who opened projects tended to assign themselves
110 2 0 1 92.52
as either leaders or participants for those projects. In 49 of the
831 5 0 2 117.07 65 tabulated projects, these employees named themselves leaders
205 16 0 0 137.05 for the projects they opened. Additionally, they assigned them-
selves as participants for 11 of the remaining 16 projects.
Furthermore, this analysis showed that the nominal project as-
Tabulating the data showed that leadership responsibilities were signments rarely reflected actual project billings. Only five of the
assigned to someone other than the project originator 共or his sixty-five tabulated projects were billed by the same people as-
secretary兲 in only 14 of the 198 projects. This allocation method signed to them; most of the discrepancies arose because more
may be a manifestation of the administrative process in that a people worked on the projects than were originally assigned. The
project is opened by the leader once he has been identified. If so, billing discrepancies occurred for several reasons:
this administrative process may not be correctly capturing the • The project opening form limits assignments to three
information about project origination. Alternately, this allocation designees.
method may be attributed to engineers only being successful at • The firm explicitly assigns projects only to engineers, so the
opening projects for which they have the direct expertise needed project openings usually do not reflect the assignment of work
to lead the effort. Regardless of the explanation, the company to the technicians.
allocates work largely on the basis of “you find the project, • The multidisciplinary approach of the firm encourages the staff
you keep it.” This allocation method is inconsistent with the to consult with other engineers during the course of a project.
operational guidelines of workload balancing. The same inconsis- Consultations may occur because of unanticipated develop-
tencies apply to distributed project leadership. ments or the desire for a second opinion.
Other variations in project staffing may be due to changes in
individuals’ availabilities. Among the 65 projects, 14 experienced
Data Analysis: Proposition Three
straight substitutions in staffing assignments. Other projects
The inconsistencies involving distributed project leadership were lacked delegation of staff as 14 had fewer people bill for the
most evident when looking specifically at the project openings projects than were assigned. Finally, for 18 of the 65 projects,

Table 4. Chronological View of Project AB

When Who What How Cost Comment
7/1/92 842 Site inspection 6 480
7/2/92 842 Data analysis/interpretation: photos, artifacts 2 160
7/6/92 354 Project communication—start up with 842 1 120 No 842 time.
7/7/92 354 Buy new units of subject from Ace Hardware 2 240
7/7/92 354 Metallurgical investigation—macroexam 2 240
7/8/92 354 Metallurgical investigation—macro/diassemble 4 480
7/8/92 842 Metallurgical investigation—fractures 2.5 200
7/8/92 264 Metallurgical investigation—macro/disassemble 4 280
7/9/92 354 Metallurgical investigation—SEM exam 6 720 No mention of 842.
7/9/92 842 Metallurgical investigation—meet w/354 2 160
7/9/92 264 Metallurgical investigation—macrophotos 3.5 245
7/9/92 264 SEM investigation of fitting, deposit 4 280
7/10/92 354 Metallurgical investigation—macro/SEM exam 4 480
7/10/92 264 SEM fractography, discuss w/354 2.5 175
7/13/92 354 Meeting with client 2 240
7/13/92 354 Taking final photographs 2 240 Discussion w/264?
7/13/92 842 Engineering analysis—inspect w/client 2 160
7/13/92 264 Prep macrophotos, discuss w/354 2.5 175
7/14/92 354 File closing 1 120
7/14/92 842 Review photos of explosion 2 160
7/15/92 842 Inspect subject equipment by client 0.75 60
8/14/92 842 Review file—telephone conversation w/client 1 80
8/25/92 842 Project file organization 0.25 20
8/26/92 946 Telephone conversation w/client 0.5 150 Who briefed 946?

104 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006

Table 5. Chronological View of Project CC
When Who What How Cost Comment
7/29/92 598 Examine gears in lab 0.5 55 No project planning?
7/30/92 598 Reference study; review literature 1 110
7/31/92 598 Project comm’n w/contacts for gear profiling 0.75 83
8/3/92 598 Project comm’n w/gear vendors for profiling 1 110
8/4/92 598 Metal investigation; examine fractures 1 110
8/5/92 598 Project comm’n w/492 and client 0.5 55 No 492 time.
8/6/92 598 Project comm’n w/492 0.75 83 No 492 time.
8/10/92 598 Metal investigation: micros w/917 1 110
8/10/92 917 Gen’l lab work 共Ccut hrd mt pl e兲 4 260
8/11/92 598 Metal investigation: review micros, hardness 0.5 55
8/11/92 917 Gen’l lab work 共Repol eh ph hrd兲 4 260
8/12/92 492 Project comm’n w/598 0.75 143 No 598 time.
8/13/92 598 Project comm’n w/client 0.75 83
8/14/92 598 Project comm’n to direct lab 0.25 28
8/18/92 598 Project comm’n to direct lab, review micros 0.75 83
8/18/92 727 Metal investigation: cut, photo, micro 2 130
8/20/92 727 Photo micros, micro hardness for case bond 1.5 98 No 598 time for results?
8/24/92 492 Project comm’n w/598 and client 1 190
8/24/92 598 Project comm’n w/492 to call client 1 110
8/25/92 598 Gen’l engrg: write letter and report summary 0.75 83
8/25/92 598 Project comm’n; review file w/492 and call client 0.5 55
8/26/92 598 Draft letter and report 2 220
8/27/92 598 Final report 4 440
9/21/92 492 Telephone conversation w/client 0.25 48
9/28/92 917 Gen’l lab work 共Skth sc mt po h兲 4 260 No 598 time to direct?
9/29/92 917 Gen’l lab work 共Phot lg mth cmp兲 0.75 49 No 598 time to direct?
10/23/92 598 Draft letter report 2nd TMS gear 2 220
10/27/92 598 Draft final report 1 110
10/28/92 492 Review/sign report 0.5 95

management duties, such as communicating with clients, were
performed by someone other than the assigned leader. For each
project, the project leaders are listed first in both the Assignment
and Actual columns of Table 3.
This comparison demonstrates that the a priori data 共project
openings兲 were not strong predictors of the posthoc results
共project billings兲, suggesting that the administrative process
of project assignments does not fully reflect actual resource
allocation in the subject firm. Further, this comparison supports
the proposition that operational models could demonstrate the
impact of consistently using systematic approaches to allocate
workload.
Data Analysis: Proposition Four
The original purpose of the exploratory data analysis of the
project billings was to characterize the project work in terms of
the flexible manufacturing paradigm, i.e., by its manufacturing
requirements. Three of the sixty-five projects, named AB, CC,
and CD, were selected for the initial analysis as operational
models. These models were selected because they displayed the
following criteria:
• Typified the firm’s work,
• Involved multiple staff members, and
• Were medium size in scope.
Project AB was an investigation of a gas explosion. Project CC
was an industrial consulting project involving metallurgical
testing. Finally, Project CD was a litigation matter regarding an
automobile accident.
To code these projects for further analysis, the following fields
of information on the billable activities of the technical staff were
collected:
• “When” the work was performed,
• “Who” billed the work,
• “What” work was done,
• “How” many hours the work took, and
• How much the work “cost”.
In the billing reports for each project, this information is sorted
according to the individuals on the project; to gain a chronologi-
cal view of the billable activities of the project, however, this
study sorted the data by the date when activities were performed.
These data originated on daily timesheets submitted by all staff to
the accounting department for data entry into the billing system.
The examination resulted in the detection of regular inconsis-
tencies in the project billings. In this process, little time is explic-
itly allocated to project planning and problem definition. One of
the most common inconsistencies occurred when Engineer A re-
corded time for discussions with Engineer B, but Engineer B did
not bill for comparable time with Engineer A.
Ordering the data chronologically further revealed another in-
consistency. Projects may undergo a series of handoffs without
any billing for project communication or coordination. This error
may be a problem in project management or a lost opportunity for

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006 / 105

Table 6. Chronological View of Project CD
When Who What How Cost Comment
8/24/92 762 Evaluate material: C report 0.5 60 No project planning?
2/25/93 762 Technical summary depositions G 2 240
3/2/93 762 Technical summary depositions G 1 120
3/13/93 762 Travel to Detroit 3 360 Only 3 hrs, no action?
3/16/93 205 Review witness statements 1 225
3/19/93 762 Test preparation sled testing 8 960 No technician time?
3/24/93 89 Subject photography of study overall and cleanup 2.25 157.5
3/24/93 205 Part analysis and discuss with client 2 450
3/25/93 89 Evaluate material organize/review w/205 0.75 52.5 No 205 time billed.
4/6/93 205 Telephone conversation with client, data analysis 2 450
4/6/93 410 Deposition analysis 3 480
4/7/93 410 Data analysis/interpretation, review depositions 1 160
4/13/93 205 Engineering analysis with client 1 225
4/16/93 205 Trip preparation 1 250 No briefing by 762,410.
4/19/93 205 Inspection and travel 14 3500
4/23/93 205 Telephone conversation with client 1 250
4/23/93 301 Photographs of exemplar, inspection 4 300
5/6/93 410 Review file for data for accident reconstruction 2 340
5/17/93 410 Review photos/reports for recon; speed calcns 2 340
5/17/93 224 Review witness depositions 3 315
5/18/93 224 Review K, D depositions 4 420
5/19/93 762 Organize file 1 130
5/21/93 205 Telephone conversation with B. C. 1 250
5/24/93 205 Draft report 2 500 No assistance?
5/25/93 205 Draft report and discuss with client 2 500 No assistance?
5/26/93 224 Review G deposition 3 315
5/27/93 205 Final report 8 250
5/27/93 224 Review G deposition 1 105
6/2/93 264 Discuss project w/205, prep meeting w/clients 0.75 60 No 205 time billed.
6/3/93 264 SEM photos, fractography 6.5 520
6/8/93 205 Engineering and data analysis 1 225
6/8/93 264 Prepare photos, data 1.5 120
6/9/93 205 Review work product w/264, engrg analysis 1.5 337.5 No 264 time billed.
6/9/93 205 Discuss w/client 0.5 112.5
6/9/93 264 Discuss results w/205 0.5 40
6/18/93 205 Review work product 2 450
6/22/93 205 Review work product with 762 1 225 No 762 time billed.

additional billing if the project is being managed but not recorded.
The billings for the three projects are annotated in Tables 4–6.
Reviewing project billings in chronological order and placing
more emphasis on project management, therefore, will allow the
company to avoid such inconsistencies in the future.
Summary and Results
This study examined whether operations management practices
could be used to improve the performance of an ECF. A flexible
manufacturing paradigm was considered to identify the underly-
ing structure in an ECF, without undermining the ECFs’ informal
and organic organization. The study argued that the dynamic
complexity of an ECFs’ workload allocation can be represented
by machines 共professionals兲 with different tooling 共experience
and expertise兲 and products 共projects兲 with different routing
共staffing兲 requirements over a common set of tasks. This frame-
work yielded four interesting propositions about a generalized
skill set, workload balancing, project leadership, and operational
models.
For the firm in this case study, the propositions identified were
considered valid options by the management team. As a result,
operational models were developed to demonstrate the impact of
different workload allocation schemes. These indicated that the
allocation approach should match the strategic intent of the orga-
nization. If the organization intends to be a diverse engineering
firm offering expertise and experience, a more leveraged ap-
proach with workload balancing and diverse project leadership is
preferred 共Brennan and Orwig 2000兲. Furthermore, in response to
the need for a more consistent approach to project management, a
project management methodology was defined and disseminated
throughout the organization.
The opportunity to collect posthoc data after these operational
changes were made was contaminated by significant changes in
company leadership shortly after the proposition-based changes
were introduced. The COO suffered a massive heart attack and so,
of necessity, his work was reassigned throughout the organization.

106 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006

The Chairman appointed a new CEO, and a vice president and
several key directors left the organization. In the last fiscal year,
however, the firm did experience a significant performance im-
provement with increased revenues and record profitability.
The inability to measure the results of specific interventions is
unfortunate. Yet, the case meets the requisites for rigor described
by Meredith 共1998, p. 448兲:
• Controlled observations: The use of posthoc billings data cap-
tured the natural variations in resource management in the
firm—i.e., there was no intervention effect during the course
of the study.
• Controlled deductions: The propositions are logically derived
from the extant literature on operations management for flex-
ible manufacturing systems.
• Replicability: The presentation of archival data in the
tables and figures provides justification for the study’s
replicability.
• Generalizability: The nature of the propositions themselves
suggests theoretic generalizability 共Meredith 1998兲. The ex-
ploratory data analysis enhances the generalizability by exam-
ining a broad array of variables 共from multiple data sources兲 to
examine other effects.
Therefore, the insights generated from the flexible manufactur-
ing paradigm and the illustration provided by the case study still
suggest that ECFs will benefit from more rigorous operations
management. Among these benefits are increased revenue and
increased profits for ECFs. Thus, managers should strongly con-
sider implementing the four propositions presented in this case.
Furthermore, the implementation of these propositions may lead
to other valuable business realizations that can enhance the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of an organization. As an exploratory
study, the ethnography presented in this paper provides a strong
foundation for further study and testing with other ECFs.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2006 / 107
Acknowledgments
The writer would like to thank Jennifer and Carla Paschke for
their editorial assistance, and Professor Frey and Dr. Packer for
their support of this study.
References
Brennan, L., and Orwig, R. 共2000兲. “A tale of two heuristics: Conflicting
work allocation approaches in engineering consulting.” Eng. Manage.
J., 12共3兲, 18–25.
Chaudhury, A., and Rathnam, S. 共1992兲. “Informational and decision
processes for flexible manufacturing systems.” IEEE Expert, 7共6兲,
53–62.
Fine, C., and Freund, R. 共1990兲. “Optimal investment in product-flexible
manufacturing capacity.” Manage. Sci., 36共4兲, 449–466.
Garud, R., and Kotha, S. 共1994兲. “Using the brain as a metaphor to model
flexible production systems.” Acad. Manage. Rev., 19共4兲, 671–698.
Gerwin, D. 共1993兲. “Manufacturing flexibility: A strategic perspective.”
Manage. Sci., 39共4兲, 395–410.
Levitt, T. 共1976兲. “Industrialization of service.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 54共5兲,
63–74.
Maister, D. 共1993兲. “Managing the engineering consulting firm.” The
Free Press, New York.
McClave, J., and Dietrich, F. 共1991兲. Statistics, Dellen, N.J.
Meredith, J. 共1998兲. “Building operations management theory through
case and field research.” J. Operations Manage., 16, 441–454.
Shapero, A. 共1985兲. “Managing professional people.” The Free Press,
New York.
Stecke, K., and Solberg, J. 共1985兲. “The optimality of unbalancing both
workloads and machine group sizes in closed queuing networks of
multiserver queues.” Oper. Res., 33共4兲, 882–910.
Stecke, K., and Solberg, J. 共1981兲. “Loading and control policies
for a flexible manufacturing system.” Int. J. Prod. Res., 19共5兲,
481–490.
Vokura, R. J., and O’Leary-Kelly, S. W. 共2000兲. “A review of the empiri-
cal research on manufacturing flexibility.” J. Operations Manage.,
18, 485–501.