Leadership and Facilities Maintenance Problem: A Case Study Analysis

This case study analyzes the facilities maintenance problem at Midwest University, where the manager, Sean Allen, faces challenges in responding to work-order requests efficiently. Allen's initial analysis reveals issues with the organizational structure, including lengthy response times and the need for multiple crafts to complete routine tasks. The solution proposes restructuring the facility maintenance team by grouping them by craft and centralizing them at the physical plant offices. The analysis emphasizes the importance of a line organizational structure, accountability, and performance-based evaluations. Allen should evaluate personnel based on task completion, efficiency, and quality. To improve task performance, the study suggests rewarding employees based on these aspects and utilizing customer satisfaction metrics. The study references the works of Stone & Cluff, Bardach & Patashnik, and Zemenkov et al., providing a comprehensive approach to problem-solving and organizational improvement in facilities management.

Running head: THE FACILITIES MAINTAINANCE PROBLEM 1
The Facilities Maintenance Problem
Name
Institution

THE FACILITIES MAINTAINANCE PROBLEM 2
The Facilities Maintenance Problem
 The major problem in this context is the organizational structure. As the case study states,
Allen realized that about 85 percent of the work-order requests were taking less than an
hour to be finished. Additionally, he discovered 40 percent of the requests which needed
routine maintenance items such as clogged drains, burned out light bulbs and free towel
tracks(Stone & Cluff, 2015). Other problems that Allen discovered include jobs not being
frequently finished as a result of multiple craft needed.
 I would restructure facility maintenance in such a way that they are grouped by craft and
be centrally located at the physical plant offices.
 Being qualified personnel in the organization, Allen should restructure the organization
structure to the line. This structure will ensure that specific numbers of workers are
accountable in each subsection. As Bardach & Patashnik, (2015) states, this will enhance
task completion and overseeing completion of work. For instance, when redesigning the
work responsibilities, Allen should evaluate his personnel performance based on task
completion, task efficiency and task quality(Zemenkov, Shalay & Zemenkova, 2015).
This implies that an employee who completes his tasks within time presents high quality
and professional service and understands instructions clearly as needed should be
regarded among the top performers in the organization.
 To realize this, Allen must come up with a clear and unbiased scheme of appraisal. This
can be accessed by merely accessing the level of customer satisfaction for the respective
client. Additionally, since each employee is accountable to a departmental supervisor, it
would be easy to get records for each employee on how comfortable they understand
tasks and completes them without complaints (Alrabghi, & Tiwari, 2015).

THE FACILITIES MAINTAINANCE PROBLEM 3
To keep task performance improvement, Allen should reward the employees based on the
three aspects. This implies that employees rated top based on the three dimensions of task
performance, should be paid higher than the rest.

THE FACILITIES MAINTAINANCE PROBLEM 4
References
Alrabghi, A., & Tiwari, A. (2015). State of the art in simulation-based optimization for
maintenance systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 82, 167-182.
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2015). A practical guide for policy analysis: The
eightfold path to more effective problem-solving. CQ Press.
Stone, B., & Cluff, C. (2015). Developing a Planned Maintenance Program That Aims
Towards a Preventative Mindset: A Case Study in Facilities Management
Leadership. International Journal of Facility Management, 6(1).
Zemenkov, Y. D., Shalay, V. V., & Zemenkova, M. Y. (2015). Expert systems of
multivariable predictive control of oil and gas facilities reliability. Procedia Engineering, 113,
312-315.