HPI Project Paper
TOPPER SUN Energy Technology
By Yen Yu Chu
Anthony R. Garcia, Ph.D.
April 22, 2014
Table of Contents
Page I. Section One – Introduction and Background 2 II. Section Two – Performance Analysis and Cause Analysis 3 III. Section Three – Identifying and Choosing the Appropriate Intervention 7 IV. Section Four – Implement and Change Management 9 V. Section Five – Evaluation and Measurement 11 VI. Section Six – Lessons Learned 11 VII. Section Seven – References 12 VIII. Section Eight – Appendixes 13
I. Section One – Introduction and Background
“TOPPER SUN Energy Technology” is a company that produces solar power generating system. The system is powered by self-manufactured solar cells, which distinguished TOPPER SUN with other companies. TOPPER SUN’s high efficiency and long service life solar power system gives the company a good reputation and popularity in the field.
The major problem of the company is lack of its own engineering team. TOPPER SUN needs to hire engineers from other companies to install the solar panel, which resulted in extra cost. Also, inefficient communication and untrained employees with limited professional knowledge made lots of customers on hold. This not only damaged the company’s performance but also raised complaints from clients. As mentioned before, the company provides a premium product but faces efficiency problems, which is the main point that needs to be fixed. The decision makers of the project include the general manager, the manager of the department, and the manager of human resource. The key stakeholders are HR recruiters who don’t have specific requirements when hiring, which caused the company lacked employees with professional knowledge; the manager of the department who failed to communicate with employees; the after-sales service center; and the sales who had been suffering by being consider as unpersuasive due to the company’s insufficient installation. The project improvement team includes the director of the department, the HPI consultant, and the recruiter for engineers.
According to the Performance Gap Problem Statement, (Appendix A) the desired performance level is solar panel install rate being 100 panels per month. On the other hand, the current performance is installing 33 solar panels per month. The performance gap is 67 panels, and the performance gap problem statement is the solar panel installing rate is 67% below target.
II. Section Two – Performance Analysis and Cause Analysis
Gilbert’s Performance Matrix merges Gilbert’s three stages of analysis (models of accomplishment, measures of deficiency, and methods with improvement) with the three levels of policy, strategy, and tactics. First, an accomplishment model was created to illustrate the desired performance. Second, the actual performance was identified and compared to the accomplishment model to measure the deficiency. Finally, the potential methods for performance improvements were listed.
To apply the performance problem to Gilbert’s Performance Matrix, the accomplishment model is hiring the right people, use engineering teams and install efficiently. Unfortunately, there is a performance gap. The actual performance was 67% below desired, which is due to lack of professional employees, no supportive training and engineering team.
To identify the performance gap, three stages of performance analysis divided by Gilbert’s performance matrix can be illustrated separately. The first stage is stake analysis. In this stage, performance was measured by the statics that the company provided. The ideal performance was installing 100 solar panels per month, but...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document