Internal

Background:

MBRDI is a technical center based in Bangalore India, mainly focused on providing research and
development support for Mercedes Benz AG Germany.

The team structure in Germany is based on the powertrain and vehicle sub-systems. (ex: Turbo system,
Intake system, exhaust system) Each subsystem has got a Head of Department under him there are a
few managers responsible for the different programs of subsystems (Diesel /Gasoline /4 cylinder /6
cylinder etc.) Under the Managers, there are component engineers who work on different components
of the subsystem.

Whereas in MBRDI the team structure was not so elaborate, for example, in the entire engine system
there is only one Head of Department irrespective of projects, under the head of the department there
are many managers who are responsible for multiple subsystems and multiple projects. Under the
manager, different sub-group teams are working on different projects and different sub-systems and
report to the same manager.

The responsibility distribution across the subgroups was also not uniform in MBRDI, few groups had the
full component responsibility without any lead engineer in Germany.

Whereas other subgroups had tandem or co-responsibility, The tandem Engineer responsibility means,
there is a lead component engineer in Germany who will be the front face for the project and
responsible for driving the project.

RD I -PMX is the turbocharger group in India with a manpower capacity of 9 members all 9 members
work as component Engineers and are fully responsible for the design and development of turbocharger
parts. There is no lead component engineer present in Germany for the components handled by RD I
PMX.

In MBRDI most of the responsibility is of the nature which is tandem type and had at least one lead
German component engineer, for this kind of work MBRDI defined the KPIs which can take the case of
tandem or co-responsibility type of role. The tandem or co-responsibility involves executing the tasks
which were assigned by the German component Engineer.

The problem with RD I PMX was that the single manager was handling 5 different subgroups (30
members) most of them had the tandem type responsibility, whereas PMX Team members were
having the full component responsibility but they were still subjected to KPIs of tandem role.

This created demotivation within the team that they were not assessed based on the nature of the work

Problem:

Turbocharger team members were unhappy that their performance was not evaluated based on the
true nature of their work and always they compared themselves with other members. On other hand
Manger has difficulty analyzing the performance of team members

The new manager was hired specifically to handle the PMX team which has got critical responsibility.

The manager had core technical experience in the area of turbochargers and worked in different OEM
companies.
Internal

The new manager had the challenging task to settle down team’s issues and boost the morale of the
team

As a first step, the New manager set up the One on One meetings with all team members to
understand the Concerns

Based on the one on one meeting new manager listed down the voice of Team members:

1. The performance appraisal process was not followed

2. It’s only the manager’s wish to promote or give appraisal ratings
3. No recorded KPIs to assess the individual work
4. Org structure is very flat and everyone was weighted equally

In addition, a detailed Analysis of Voices was done with the below outcomes

1. The department standard KPIs are not covering the nature of the complex work the team was
performing,
2. Regular performance tracking mechanism was not present
3. Team manager was not at all involved in the day-to-day project activities or meeting
4. Managers use to take overall team feedback from counterparts,
5. Individual feedback on performance was not taken also not recorded
6. Only the Close aid of the manager influenced the performance rating of team members
7. Manager’s focus was only to add people, with no focus on building competence, performance,
etc.

The new manager proposed and implemented the below changes to resolve the teams:

1. Changed the KPI specific to the team and also aligned the department-level KPI
2. Regularly attending the technical meeting and closely working with team members
3. Set the expectation for Counterpart to provide feedback on individuals regularly
4. Translated counterpart feedback as a constructive performance improvement activitactivityam
members
5. The goals of the team members were changed which will make them more accountable for their
project.
6. Set internal responsibility hierarchy, so that junior members of the team were assigned more
technical, and detailed analysis kind of jobs, whereas senior members were assigned more
planning and review roles, (Goals in the performance appraisal set based on the role, senior
levels )

As a result of the above actions, within a year team got on track with the below outcomes

1. Manager’s job in assessing the performance got easy as there were recorded performance
feedback from internal members, counterparts, cross-function team members, etc. was
available
2. Customized KPIs was instrumental in assessing the team’s performance
Internal

3. Team members were motivated and confidant

4. Accountability of the team increased
5. Overall counterpart feedback increased positively
6. The changed Goal system with different weightage played a vital role in assessing the senior
and junior members differently
7. Overall team’s morale boosted