CASE

4
Work Redesign at BHEL,
Hardwar
Nitish R. De
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) is one of the largest
public enterprises in India, with six major manufacturing plants
and several divisions. The enterprise employs over 60,000
employees in the manufactu-ring, marketing, R&D, servicing,
and corporate headquarters units. It also services overseas
markets. The corporation has been making spectacular progress
since 1972.
The Hardwar unit, located in the north, is mainly concerned
with the manufacture of heavy electrical equipment such as
steam and hydroturbines, generators, and other related
equipment. It employs over 10,000 employees and has a self-
contained township. Although over 10 years old, the unit was
not coming up as well as was expected and productivity was
not, by any means, satisfactory. Technical collaboration existed
with a large Soviet firm located in Leningrad, though gradually
the design and manufacturing activities have been taken over
by the Indian counterparts as they gathered more and more
experience and confidence.
The Executive Director of the unit, having attended a ‘quality
of work-life’ seminar, was keen that some action should be
initiated in the plant. The National Labour Institute team,
consisting of Nitish R. De, Subhash Gakkhar, V. Nilakant, and
Rukmini Rao, started dialogues with the managers, the trade
union leaders (four identifiable trade unions in operation), and
the supervisory staff. The dialogues, held sometimes in camera
and sometimes in the open, occasionally in separate groups and
at times in joint sessions, gradually moved the groups towards a
resolution that a pilot project would be started at a favourable
work site.

OFF THE MARK: SURVEY AND STUDY

It may also be mentioned that a comprehensive survey was
undertaken in the unit to diagnose the training needs of the
middle management in the plant and another survey to explore
the linkages between the perception of work-life and the
lifestyle in the community. The first study indicated that, on 10
 key dimensions, significant levels of differences existed in terms
of knowledge and information gaps.
This study revealed that in some of the key areas the middle
management personnel were lacking in knowledge and there
were information gaps. This situation was certainly not
conducive to effective performance of their supervisory
functions. The other study to establish interlinkages between
the quality of family and community life and the quality of life in
the workplace indicated a clear dichotomy between the life of
the workers at the workplace and their life with their families.
A section of Block V, newly created, with 25 workmen working
on fabrication of the upper part of the condenser unit, was
considered to be a favourable site: compact in character, with a
reasonable layout, and a positive attitude among the manager
and the shop-floor trade union leaders. There were also other
compelling reasons to select the group. The condenser was an
expensive piece of equipment. Second, for the setting up of a
power station, it was necessary that a condenser unit should be
placed at the site before the steam turbine was installed and as
such it had to be manufactured and despatched at least two
months ahead of the completed steam turbine. Third, the
productivity in the shop was not of a high order.
The workers had a series of dialogues with internal and
external consultants and they agreed to undertake the work
redesign experiment. First, a joint study of the work flow was
undertaken, which is presented in Fig. 1.
The involvement of some of the key workers in the study also
provided them with excitement, if not insight, at being involved
in an action–research project. The workforce consisted of the
categories shown in Fig. 2.
The study of the social system of work imposed by the
organization indicated that each worker was concerned with his
or her own trade and that none of them identified himself or
herself with the product itself. Second, there was invariably
forced idle time because when a particular worker was working
at a spot, another worker who was required to do his job in close
proximity had to wait till the first worker had finished his or her
job. Third, there was uneven demand on the services of the
material supplies group, crane operator and the riggers.
Productivity, when the studies were being undertaken in April
and May 1975, was certainly low.
Part of the low productivity was on account of the high rate of
absenteeism during the summer months.

FIRST LAP: THE ACTION PLAN

When all the data, generated by the workers from their own
experiences, were analysed, they decided on two steps:
1. To set up a task force with representatives of each category
of workers and the supervisor. The manager, under whom
 the shop was placed, would also participate in the meeting if
the group so wanted. An industrial engineer was also
associated with the group as a resource person. The task
group had a membership of eight. It was also decided that
while two members would continue because of their
leadership abilities, the others would rotate (except for the
supervisor).
2. To devise a new work system which would take care of the
workers’ motivation as well as overcome the persisting
culture of low productivity.
After deliberations, the task force, with the concurrence of the
employees concerned, evolved the work system detailed in Fig.
3. According to this design, the direct production groups would
each consist of one welder, three fitters, and one fettler. Each
group would take charge of the totality of its task and would
gradually take up one another’s skills by undergoing on-the-job
training assisted by the supervisor, the industrial engineer, and
the fellow workers themselves. This would also be the case with
the crane operator and the riggers. It was decided that the gas-
cutters and helpers on the one hand and material supplies
group on the other would be integrated into the new work
system at a later stage. As the system started working in May–
June 1975, several positive and negative phenomena showed
up. On the positive side, a welder now started working as a fitter
and if he or she did not know the art of reading elementary
drawings, which was a necessity for a fitter’s job, arrangements
were made by the management to provide for on-the-job
training. The same procedure was followed in the case of fitters,
fettlers, gas-cutters, and others.
With more experience and confidence, the workers working
along with the task force brought about a second redesign of
their work organization in the month of September 1975. It was
decided that the workforce would be distributed in two shifts in
the following manner.

Table 1 Division of Workforce

Shift 1 Shift 2
Fitters 5 Fitters 4
Welders 5 Welders 6
Gas-cutter 1 Gas-cutter 1
Fettler 1 Fettler 1

In addition, there would be crane operators in both the shifts.

Each shift group became an integrated group and it was
decided that one shift would fabricate the right side of the upper
part of the condenser unit and the other shift would do the
same with the left side of the condenser unit. As and when
several such parts were to be assembled, the two groups would
 together weld them in order to make a complete upper part of
the condenser unit.

THE WINNING EDGE: IMPLEMENTATION

While the new system started in Block V in late May 1975, in
Block II the bay which was concerned with the manufacture of
the lower part of the condenser unit started the same process in
June. The senior supervisor of the shop took the initiative and 39
workmen with similar trade experiences were involved. They
also designed a similar small work-group module. Here also the
task force consisted of eight members with the provision of
monthly rotation.
Data indicate that there have been steady increases in
productivity although there have been occasional setbacks.
Progressively, the old culture of one man–one function was
replaced by the acquisition of multiple skills leading to the
development of a group system of working with internal
monitoring of group norms, internal control of work flow and
work allocation, identification with the product and its quality,
and what, from the management point of view, was considered
significant, the gradual drop in personal idle time on account of
loitering, spending time outside the workplace without any
justifiable reasons, etc. The commitment of the workers and,
along with them, that of the supervisor and the manager was
distinctly visible. The old culture that higher status, such as that
of a welder or fitter, would stand in the way of taking up a low-
status job even for a part of the time could be overcome.
It is worth mentioning that the target of seven condensers for
the year 1975–6 was completed by the workers of Block V by
January 1976, with the result that the management had to give
them other items of work from February 1976. The demand for
thermal power units for the year 1976–7 having gone down, the
need for condenser fabrication also was much less. Therefore,
the workers in Block II and Block V had to take up other
products, in the manufacture of which they did not have much
experience. Both the groups responded to the challenge with
optimism and alacrity. Table 2 indicates the product mix for
these two groups, which were traditionally fabricating
condenser units.
Table 2 indicates that, while in Block II, two major items were
being produced during the year 1976–7, and as such the two
groups working in two shifts had a steady flow of manufactured
products, Block V—also working in two groups distributed in two
shifts—had taken diverse product lines varying from month to
month. This switchover somewhat adversely affected
productivity and caused initial disruption in group working.
However, the tension between the management and the
workers that would normally arise in such a situation was
 absent. Both groups worked together on this challenge in
November 1976 without conflict.

Table 2 Product Mix

Month Block Items

February 1976 II Lower part of condenser fabrication
V Four water boxes—rear and front
March 1976 II Lower part of condenser
fabrication
V Tooling items—dies, punches,
fixtures, etc.
April 1976 II Lower part of condenser fabrication
V Hydrogenerator stator frames
May 1976 II Hydrogenerator stator frames
V Condenser stand for tool room
June 1976 II Hydrogenerator stator frames
V Lower ring for HT—stainless steel
welding
July 1976 II Hydrogenerator stator frames
V Rotor spiders for HG
August 1976 II Lower part of condenser
fabrication
V Hydrogenerator stator frames
September 1976 II Condenser fabrication and
hydrogenerator
stator frames
V Spherical valve body (stainless steel
deposits), LC—rear and front part
October 1976 II Condenser fabrication and HG stator
frames
V Water boxes—rear and front, LPC
upper
part
November 1976 II Condenser fabrication and
hydrogenerator
frames
March 1977 V Upper part of condenser
fabrication (3 in
number), 2 LPC—upper part front
and rear,
and any urgent work
Note: Block V group also carried out, as and when necessary, fitting
and assembly of the heater section for the upper part of the
condenser unit.
It appears that despite the new demands on the workers for
involvement in new product lines, their urge to maintain
multiple skills still continued. The minutes of meetings of the
task force indicate a high degree of orientation towards work-
interest issues such as delay in the repair of cranes, repair of
welding sets, improving the system of on-the-job training, a joint
search mechanism in identifying the forces contributing to lower
 productivity, and a search for ways to reduce job tension as
against the usual union–management type of meeting in which
interest-related issues assume a divisive bargaining picture. In
fact, examining the records of the agenda items and the
minutes of meetings of the task forces of Block II and Block V
from April 1975 to October 1976, one can discern the distinct
qualitative shift towards problem-solving orientation with a view
to looking at a problem as a collective one instead of making a
scapegoat of the other group.

GOAL IN SIGHT: SPREADING THE WORD

The work reorganization experiences led to a new supervisory
role in the form of liaison with the input and output
departments, service units, and involvement with central
planning. This became possible because the work groups took
substantial control over the production process, including
routine inspection and maintenance activities in addition to
implementing the norms of discipline. All these experiences
encouraged the management and the task forces to set up
three project teams to deliberate on and submit reports on the
three following themes:
1. Multi-skill training, its role in employee satisfaction and
higher productivity, and encouraging workers to acquire
skills in different trades.
2. Changing role of supervisors, particularly in respect of
coordination, planning, and training.
3. Diffusion of the scheme of work redesign to white-collar
areas such as personnel, finance, and medical departments.
The project teams consisting of managers and the workers
from the three blocks where the work redesign experiments
were on (Blocks II, IV, and V) submitted their reports to the
management.
The diffusion process had been a matter of active
consideration by the workers and the management, but the
initiative in starting new projects in shops was left to the
employees of the concerned shops. In September 1975, Block IV
came forward and, through a series of meetings, improve-ments
started taking place. The management also decided that time
spent reworking on account of certain design changes would not
affect the bonus earnings of the workers.

THE FINAL HURDLE AND BEYOND

The task force became somewhat confident of the success of
the experiment and then, in the month of September 1976, it
decided that there would be a almost complete switchover of
jobs between fitters and electricians. This premature
enthusiasm brought down the work efficiency to 37.5 per cent
and it obviously affected the bonus earnings. The task force, on
 reflection, decided that the misplaced enthusiasm should be
curbed and, in October 1976, it decided to concentrate on
training programmes which would gradually lead to skill
diffusion among electricians and fitters.
From September 1976, the work redesign culture was being
introduced in Block I ( turbo-rotor col section and detailed
assembly section), Block IV (panel fabrication), Block III (rotor
assembly production and blading section), and in the personnel
department, where a matrix type of organization had been
introduced. In the personnel department, there were three
divisions—one dealing with the plant operation and
maintenance, another with the design organization, and the
third with the policy matters located in the office of the
executive director. The personnel department attached to the
plant, consisting of 22 people, organized itself into three
operating groups: one dealing with all the problems of
supervisory, clerical, and ministerial staff; another group with
the skilled category of workers; and the third with the semi-
skilled and unskilled groups of workers. A functional division of
work was replaced by a total service package, but in order to
ensure that the three groups functioning simultaneously did not
come to contradictory conclusions and policy recommendations,
a three-man coordinating team was set up. According to the
reports of the office assistants, who belonged to the clerical
category, this new system of work was much more satisfying
than the fragmented type of work they were traditionally
accustomed to.

REFERENCE
De, Nitish R. (1984), Alternative designs of human systems, New Delhi: Sage.

EXERCISES
Questions
Read and reflect on the case in the light of motivation management and answer the
following questions:
1. What principles of work redesigning were used in BHEL to deal with the problem of
low productivity?
2. Which aspects of role efficacy increased as a result of the changes introduced in the
organization?
3. How was consensus achieved on the changes made in the organization?
4. Did frustration decrease in the organization as a result of work redesigning? Discuss
with some examples.
5. Describe the leadership style of the plant. How did it contribute to the success of the

experiment?