The Order That Is Due in Twenty Days
Harpreet owns a small hosiery unit in Ludhiana with 14 circular knitting machines and 18 workers. He takes every decision himself: buying yarn, meeting buyers, checking quality and paying wages. Two 'supervisors' were appointed last year, but nobody told them or the workers what authority they hold, so workers still queue at Harpreet's table for instructions. Last month the rejection rate was 9% against a norm of 4%. An order for 12,000 pieces for a Delhi buyer is due in 20 days and only 4,500 pieces are packed. The yarn shortage was discovered only when a machine operator complained on Tuesday. Two workers resigned last week, saying 'nobody tells us what to do'. Harpreet says he is too busy to write anything down and wants to hire one more supervisor.
1. Identify which management functions are weak in this unit and give the specific evidence for each.
Read the worked answer
| Function | Weakness | Evidence in the case |
|---|---|---|
| Planning | No production plan or backward schedule from the due date | 12,000 due in 20 days; nobody worked out the daily requirement; yarn shortage surfaced by accident |
| Organising | No clear division of work or authority; two supervisors with undefined powers | Workers bypass supervisors and queue at Harpreet's table |
| Staffing | Roles not matched to jobs; no induction or instruction to supervisors | Two resignations with the reason 'nobody tells us what to do' |
| Directing | No regular instruction, supervision or feedback | Rejection at 9% goes unchallenged; the operator, not the supervisor, reports the yarn problem |
| Controlling | No standards set in advance and no timely measurement | 4% norm exists but is not checked daily; 4,500/12,000 packed is discovered late |
The common root is that Harpreet is doing technician's work (buying, checking) instead of manager's work (planning, assigning, measuring). Hiring one more supervisor does not fix an authority problem - it adds a third person with no defined role.
2. Using the figures in the case, work out whether the 20-day deadline is achievable and what daily output and control checkpoints are needed.
Read the worked answer
Balance to produce: 12,000 − 4,500 = 7,500 pieces. Over 20 days that is 375 good pieces per day.
Adjust for rejection: at the current 9% rejection, to get 375 good pieces the machines must produce 375 ÷ 0.91 ≈ 412 pieces per day. If rejection is brought to the 4% norm, the requirement falls to 375 ÷ 0.96 ≈ 391 pieces per day. So the gap between success and failure is partly a quality-control job, not only a speed job.
Control checkpoints (set the standard, measure, correct):
- Daily 9:00 am stand-up (15 minutes): yesterday's knitted, packed and rejected pieces machine-wise; today's target of 412.
- Machine-wise output card: each of the 14 machines shows target and actual; a machine below 30 pieces a shift by 2 pm is investigated the same shift.
- Rejection log: count and reason (yarn fault, needle, oil mark) recorded every lot; anything above 4% stops that lot before it reaches packing.
- Yarn reorder level: minimum stock = average daily consumption × supplier lead time + 2 days' buffer; checked every Monday.
Conclusion: 412 pieces a day is achievable on paper, but only if the plan, the daily measurement and the yarn buffer exist from tomorrow. Without checkpoints, 20 days will pass with Harpreet still firefighting.
3. What organising and staffing changes should Harpreet make within one week, and why will they work better than hiring another supervisor?
Read the worked answer
Organising:
- Split the unit into two clear sections - knitting (machines) and finishing and packing - and give one existing supervisor charge of each, in writing: who assigns work, who can stop a defective lot, who signs the packing slip.
- Cap the span of control: one supervisor should not handle 18 workers across two stages; two supervisors with 9 workers each is manageable.
- Publish a one-page chart on the wall showing worker → supervisor → Harpreet, so nobody needs to ask where to go.
Staffing:
- Write a one-page job card for each role (machine operator, linker, checker, packer) listing the task, the daily quantity and the quality standard.
- Hold a 30-minute induction with both supervisors and all workers on the new chart and the daily target; record attendance.
- Move the strongest existing checker into a quality role rather than recruiting outside, and replace the two leavers by internal referral only if the output data shows a genuine shortage.
Why this beats hiring a third supervisor: the problem is undefined authority and missing standards, not a shortage of people. A third supervisor added to an unclear structure simply creates a third person whom workers can bypass, adds cost, and leaves Harpreet still doing the buying and quality checking himself. Structure first, then headcount - and let the daily rejection and output figures prove whether more staff are actually needed.