Executive Summary

Vinicios de Oliveira de Miranda; Ana Carla Fernandes Gasques

Summary prepared by the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute focused on synthesis and writing.

This business case addressed the influence of structured communication of operational indicators, supported by People Analytics tools, on the engagement of a production team in a high-cadence industrial environment. The study diagnosed critical interrelated problems, such as high turnover, significant absenteeism, disproportionate overtime, and low engagement. The root cause was identified in the absence of rituals and visual aids to translate goals and results into collective understanding, especially after a cultural transition in the business. The recommended solution was the implementation of an Integrated KPI Communication Model, aiming to strengthen organizational culture and execution discipline.

The organization operates in an industrial context that demands high cadence and multiple shifts, where employee engagement is a critical factor for operational stability. Although operational and people data were already available, the communication of these indicators did not translate into collective understanding or execution discipline on the factory floor. This gap limited the sense of purpose and amplified the challenges inherent in periods of organizational change and cultural transition, as pointed out by Pink (2010) and Kotter (2012), respectively, directly impacting performance.

The diagnosis, conducted in October 2025, combined data from the Leader Dashboard, an internal People Analytics tool, with the results of the “Fale a Real – Engagement Survey 2025” climate survey. This analysis revealed four critical, mutually reinforcing problems. Turnover reached 9.23% in 2025, an increase of approximately six times compared to 2024, when it was 1.56%. Absenteeism, at 2.06%, generated an annualized cost of R$ 50,369.52, with 17 employees (26% of the team) accounting for 66% of this cost.

Disproportionate overtime totaled 3,490 hours annually, costing R$ 88,160.21, equivalent to 1.74 additional employees. This volume of overtime was frequently used as a compensatory mechanism to cover absences and demand variations, indicating chronic team overload. Overall team engagement was assessed at 85.9, about 9% below average, with significant gaps in recognition (36.1%), communication (50.0%), and feedback (52.8%), showing low clarity and motivation.

The analysis of the absenteeism cost concentration showed that a small subgroup of employees concentrated the largest share of the financial impact, indicating the need for targeted interventions. Similarly, the climate survey revealed that the biggest perception gaps were related to recognition and communication, suggesting that these were the most critical points to be addressed to improve team engagement and satisfaction. Lack of clarity on goals and priorities was a recurring complaint, impacting motivation.

To integrate the quantitative and qualitative evidence, an Ishikawa diagram was used, which synthesized the probable causes into categories such as Method, Measure, and Manpower. On the “Method” axis, the absence of consistent rituals, non-standardized guidelines, and reactive communication was identified. In “Measure,” indicators were barely visible and goals were not broken down, with excessive focus on the “number” instead of the “why.” In “Manpower,” inconsistent recognition, infrequent feedback, low proactivity, and unstable priorities were observed, aggravated by the cultural transition.

A causality map consolidated the connections between these causes and effects, clarifying how the structured KPI communication gap unfolded into behavioral mechanisms. Low clarity of goals and priorities, along with low recognition and feedback, led to a drop in engagement. Consequently, this resulted in increased turnover, concentrated absenteeism, and disproportionate overtime, generating overload and task reallocation, and raising the organization’s direct operational costs.

The integrated analysis supported the hypothesis that the organizational transition discontinued communication rituals and visual management mechanisms, without replacement by a standardized model. This gap reduced daily clarity on goals, priorities, and work impacts, degrading recognition and feedback practices. In the current situation, annual direct operational costs associated with absenteeism and overtime totaled R$ 138,529.73. The 9.23% turnover indicated risks of unmeasured indirect costs, such as recruitment, onboarding, and productivity loss.

The desired situation was defined as a state of greater transparency and predictability, where the team would have clarity on shift goals, performance, and priorities, and leadership would maintain consistent communication and recognition routines. To make this ambition measurable, short- and medium-term SMART goals were established for critical indicators. For example, a 10% reduction in absenteeism is projected in three months (to ≤ 1.85%) and 20% in six months (to ≤ 1.65%), with weekly and monthly monitoring.

Similarly, annual overtime hours should be reduced by 10% in three months (to ≤ 3,140 h/year) and 20% in six months (to ≤ 2,790 h/year), also with weekly and monthly monitoring. Turnover, which was 9.23%, aimed to reach ≤ 7.5% in three months and ≤ 6.0% in six months, with quarterly monitoring. For engagement, the goals included increasing recognition to ≥ 45% in three months and ≥ 55% in six months, communication to ≥ 60% and ≥ 70%, and feedback to ≥ 60% and ≥ 70%, all with bimonthly monitoring.

From the diagnosis, three alternatives were evaluated to address direct costs and engagement gaps. The first alternative, “Status Quo”, consisted of maintaining operations without structured intervention. The second focused solely on leadership training in communication and feedback, without altering rituals or visual aids. The third alternative, the “Integrated Model”, combined visual management, short shift rituals, and continuous monitoring of team perception, this being the chosen option due to its comprehensiveness and potential impact.

An integrated decision matrix, with weighted criteria, justified the choice of the Integrated Model. The impact on KPIs and engagement received a weight of 50%, the attack on the root cause (process and visibility) 30%, and the implementation cost 20%. The Integrated Model obtained the highest weighted score (4.4), surpassing training (2.2) and the status quo (1.8). This alternative stood out for offering infrastructure and routine to translate data into collective understanding and execution discipline, acting not only on leadership behavior but also on operational routine and visibility.

The choice of the Integrated Model was reinforced by benchmarking evidence. A meta-analysis of 456 studies and 2.7 million collaborators, cited by Gallup (2020), indicated that units with higher engagement presented, on median, 81% less absenteeism and up to 43% less turnover. Although the literature did not allow for direct causal inference in the specific context, the findings supported the premise that interventions that increased clarity, autonomy, and recognition would tend to reduce indirect costs and improve operational predictability.

Within the scope of production management, studies on visual management, such as those by Bateman et al. (2016), indicated that communication boards and structured routines on the factory floor favor alignment, problem-solving, and collective learning. To be effective, the design of information must consider cognitive principles and team participation. Thus, the intervention prioritized a lean design of KPIs, accessible language, and short, repeatable rituals, ensuring that the proposal was simple and easy to adopt, maximizing its impact potential.

The project’s logical model illustrated the linkage between inputs, activities, deliverables, outcomes, and expected impacts. Inputs included TVs/panels, leadership time, People Analytics data, and HR/BI support. Activities consisted of defining KPIs, establishing daily rituals, training leaders, and promoting recognition. Deliverables would be installed dashboards, standardized routines, shift checklists, and perception surveys, fundamental for the operationalization of the proposed solution and for ensuring communication consistency.

The expected results in 0-6 months included greater clarity, better communication, and more effective corrective actions. The projected impacts in 6-12 months were the reduction of absenteeism, overtime, and turnover, in addition to increased engagement. The minimum scope of the solution covered the definition and standardization of KPIs per shift (production, losses, safety, overtime, and absenteeism), the installation of panels/TVs in high-traffic areas, the training of shift leaders for conducting rituals and recognition practices, and the application of a bimonthly survey.

The scope excluded staffing changes and corporate compensation policy alterations, focusing strictly on communication and engagement. The implementation was divided into four phases over nine weeks, aiming to transform the proposal into operational routine. The logic sought simplicity: define responsibilities, install visual aids, train shift leadership, and monitor ritual consistency, focusing on creating a management habit, not just implementing a physical dashboard.

Phase 1, “Diagnosis and design”, lasted weeks 1-2 and involved the consolidation of the baseline, the definition of KPIs and rules, the design of the dashboard layout, and the alignment of recognition criteria. Deliverables included the KPI kit, the dashboard layout, and the ritual checklist. Phase 2, “Preparation and kick-off”, in weeks 3-4, comprised the acquisition and installation of the dashboards, data access testing, ritual training and simulation, and launch communication, resulting in installed operational dashboards and trained leaders.

Phase 3, “Pilot (cycle 1)”, spanned weeks 5-8, focusing on conducting the daily ritual, recording actions, weekly adjustment meetings, and capturing team feedback. The main deliverable was the stabilized routine, with a list of actions and impediments, as well as adjustments to the dashboard. Finally, Phase 4, “Measurement and adjustment”, in week 9, included the application of the survey, evaluation of KPIs, review of governance and standards, and the scaling decision, culminating in a results report and a revised scaling and standards plan.

The implementation costs were estimated at R$ 10,000, covering the acquisition of three panels/TVs (R$ 6,000) and four hours of training for leaders (R$ 4,000). The tangible benefits were calculated from the annualized costs of absenteeism (R$ 50,369.52) and overtime (R$ 88,160.21). To reduce uncertainties, the financial assessment considered three scenarios for combined reduction of these costs: conservative (10%), conservative-target (20%), and probable (50%), allowing for a robust analysis of the return on investment.

In the conservative-target scenario, with a 20% reduction, the projected annual gain was R$ 27,705.95, resulting in a payback of approximately 4.3 months. In the probable scenario, with a 50% reduction, the annual gain would reach R$ 69,264.87, with a payback of only 1.7 months. These values did not include potential gains associated with reduced turnover and improvements in quality and safety, which were treated as intangible benefits, but which represent significant strategic value for the organization in the long term.

Risk management was structured to mitigate typical failures of change initiatives, according to the guidelines of PMI (2021) and Kerzner (2017). Risks such as low leadership adherence would be mitigated with training oriented to the “why” (costs and impact) and weekly follow-up with the sponsor. The bureaucratization of rituals would be combated with fixed agendas of 10-15 minutes, rotation of leadership, and focus on problems and recognition. The outdatedness of indicators would be avoided with the definition of a responsible person per shift, an update checklist, and a quick weekly audit.

The undue exposure of sensitive data, an ethical and LGPD risk, would be mitigated by the use of aggregated data, anonymization, access rules, and consent communication. To operationalize structured communication, the project defined a standard shift ritual, lasting between 10 and 15 minutes, performed in front of the visual management board. This ritual was designed to balance transparency (results exposure), focus (shift priorities), and motivation (recognition), reducing the probability of long and unproductive meetings, and ensuring action traceability.

The minimum agenda for the shift handover ritual included stages such as “Safety and conditions”, “Previous shift result”, “People”, “Shift priorities”, and “Wrap-up”, each with a defined time and required record type. For example, the “People” stage addressed absenteeism, overtime, and recognition of good practices. The dashboard design was standardized around the SQCDP (Safety, Quality, Cost, Delivery, and People) logic, including an explicit space for actions and impediments, ensuring that all relevant aspects of the operation were visible and discussed.

To increase responsiveness without overwhelming the team with meetings, the model defined simple escalation rules for impediments. Level 1, resolved in the daily stand-up ritual, dealt with daily issues with local solutions. Level 2, addressed in a weekly leadership review, handled recurring impediments or those requiring cross-functional support. Level 3, discussed in a monthly committee with the sponsor, dealt with structural impediments, such as those involving capex, policy changes, or strategic prioritization, ensuring that problems were addressed at the appropriate level.

The project evaluation was planned to objectively and replicably measure the evolution of operational indicators and engagement perceptions after implementation. The methodology combined before-after comparison (baseline versus monthly cycles), trend analysis using control charts for absenteeism and overtime, and a bimonthly survey for items directly associated with the model (clarity, communication, recognition, and feedback). This multifaceted approach aimed to capture both tangible and intangible results.

Success indicators were defined to reflect both tangible outcomes (costs and indirect productivity) and intangible outcomes (perception and execution discipline). Metrics included absenteeism, overtime, total cost of absenteeism and overtime, turnover, recognition, communication, and feedback. Each metric had a formula/definition, a six-month target, data source, tracking frequency, and owner, ensuring clarity and accountability in monitoring. For example, absenteeism would be monitored weekly and monthly by the supervisor and shift leaders.

As a methodological limitation, it was recognized that, without a control group and randomization, the observed changes could be influenced by seasonality, demand variation, and external events. To mitigate this risk, it was proposed to record relevant contextual changes (stoppages, campaigns, mix changes) and analyze trends by comparable periods (same weeks of the previous year, when possible). The results would be reported at three levels: daily (shift ritual), weekly (leadership review), and monthly (sponsor committee), inspired by the performance management discipline of the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1997).

In conclusion, the business case demonstrated that the analyzed team faced significant direct operational costs due to absenteeism and overtime, in addition to instability in turnover and gaps in perception of recognition, communication, and feedback. The integrated analysis confirmed that the absence of a structured model for communicating indicators at the shift level was the central cause, impacting priority alignment and execution discipline. The proposed solution, the Integrated Model, offers a favorable cost-benefit approach, with a payback of less than five months, even in a conservative scenario.

The approval and execution of the plan represent the most rational alternative to recover clarity, engagement, and predictability in operations, while preserving confidentiality and applicable ethical requirements. Managerial contribution lies in the ability to transform data into concrete and visible actions, promoting a culture of shared responsibility and continuous improvement. This model not only optimizes costs but also strengthens the human foundation of the organization, essential for operational excellence in high-cadence environments.

Bibliographic References:

Bateman, N.; Philp, L.; Warrender, H. 2016. Visual management and shop floor teams development, implementation and use. International Journal of Production Research 54(24): 1-14. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1184349.

Gallup. 2020. The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes: 2020 Q12® Meta-Analysis (10th ed.). Disponível em: . Acesso em: 25 fev. 2026.

Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. 1997. A Estratégia em Ação: Balanced Scorecard. Campus.

Kerzner, H. 2017. Gestão de Projetos: As Melhores Práticas. Bookman.

Kotter, J.P. 2012. Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Pink, D.H. 2010. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Penguin.

Project Management Institute [PMI]. 2021. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 7th ed. Project Management Institute.

Executive summary from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Executive Leadership and Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform