Creating A Collaborative Virtual Command Center Among Four Separate Organizations In The United States Army: An Exploratory Case Study Teresa Gonda Defense Acquisition University Anne Kohnke, PhD Lawrence Technological University College of Management Abstract Teresa Gonda 586-925-2601 Defense Acquisition University Midwest Region Sterling Hts, MI Campus
[email protected]
While individual leadership skills are an important factor in transforming organizations, leading through a common mission and shared purpose of collaborative and efficient interaction requires leaders to participate in different ways. The purpose of this study was to determine how to create a collaborative and efficient virtual Command Center within the new leadership structure of a Life Cycle
Anne Kohnke, PhD 248-204-3085 Assistant Professor of IT Lawrence Technological University College of Management 21000 West Ten Mile Rd Southfield, MI 48075
[email protected]
Management Command within the United States Army. This case study employed a variety of organization development tools to bring together leadership, change agents, and customers to create a new vision and strategic plan of how to operate effectively. Leadership used the results of this study to implement the structural changes and new processes required for a successful transformation to a virtual business. Keywords: organization development, organization, lean six sigma _______________
virtual
Disclaimer: Reference herein to any specific commercial company, product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the Department of the Army (DoA). The opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the DoA, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Gonda and Kohnke
75
Introduction The United States Army is currently undergoing significant changes in the way it does acquisition, which is the business of acquiring equipment for the services (Carter, 2010). Historically, the size and cost of the Army fluctuates based on the country’s need. Because of the current state of the economy and draw down of two wars, the Army now finds itself in an urgent situation of having to reduce costs by cutting programs and becoming more efficient (Obama, 2012). Within the Army, there are two separate chains of command that have authority in the area of providing and maintaining equipment for the military. The first is a civilian chain of command, headed up by the Army Acquisition Executive, who is a political appointee responsible for controlling funds provided by Congress to acquire new equipment. The second is a military chain of command that reports to the Chief of Staff of the Army and is responsible for the readiness and logistics
to the field, the Army created the concept of a Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC). The function of this new command center is to integrate the acquisition functions, the technology support functions, and the logistics and sustainment functions into a more holistic business model under the care of a commanding general (Kern & Bolton, 2004). Traditionally, command centers are often managed by standard command and control and/ or control of funding, however since few of the organizations brought together in this new concept actually report to the Commanding General, the new leadership is open to leading through a common mission and shared purpose of collaborative and efficient interaction. The purpose of this study was to determine how to create a collaborative and efficient virtual business organization within the new leadership structure of the Life Cycle Management Command within the United States Army. Literature Review
of equipment. This second chain of command is lead by the Army Material Command which is also the home of the Research, Development, and
There are several change models in the literature that look at the process from a variety Engineering function. There is overlap between of aspects and highlight different challenges the chains of command, because the civilian Army (Cooperrider, Sorensen, Yaeger, & Whitney, 2001; Acquisition Executive also holds the title Assistant Anderson & Anderson, 2001; Kirkpatrick, 2001; Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, Mento, Jones, & Dirndorfer, 2002; Leppitt, 2006; and Technology [ASA(ALT)]. Additionally, Light, 2005). There are also competing philosophies coordination and communication are critical and descriptions of the different roles and types of between these two chains of command as funding change agents (Pettigrew & Whipp, 1991; Quinn, for the Research, Development, and Engineering 1993; Dawson, 2003; Kotter, 1995; Pendlebury, Command, which reports up through the military Grouard, & Meston, 1998). Palmer, Dunford, and command is funded by the civilian command. Akin (2009) caution against thinking that change In order to better synchronize the two can be neatly categorized in terms of size and chains of command and create a more collaborative type of change and that there are simple recipes to and efficient method of delivering equipment follow. They do not ascribe to a distinction between
76
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
managing change and leading change, but see the
approaches, especially since some contend that in a
aspects of both being part of the change equation. Senge, Kleiner, Ross, Roth, & Smith (1999) give
traditional organization, information can be seen as
four distinct challenges to initiating change. They are: (a) not enough time, (b) no help, (c) not relevant,
a scarce commodity that is blocked at certain levels. A good strategy will take this into consideration. Kotter and Cohen (2002) provide innovative
(d) walking the talk. They provide an analysis and examples of change that not only target getting series of articles by contributing authors on each of to the right people, but getting to the heart of the these topics. Time is shown to be a factor of many receiver in a meaningful way, so that it will have an contributions, not the least of which are multiple impact. Caffrey and Medina (2011) describe why change initiatives, but the fact is, if there is not time for reflection, for planning the initiative, working wholesale continuous improvement efforts in on the initiative, or for more reflection, the initiative general fail. They cite lack of leadership engagement will stall. In terms of the help needed, an initiative to drive vision and ride the change process, will need coherent, consistent, knowledgeable overlooking the need for change management in coaching, guidance, and support or it will fail. If pushing past what they describe are nine signs of the initiative does not have a clear and compelling resistance, inadequate communication including business case for learning, it will not survive. And no change management communications plan and finally, if there is a gap between espoused values implementation, poor project selection and scoping and the actions of those championing the change, of projects and people, and not establishing good the initiative is vulnerable. Van de Ven and Sun (2011) also state that unprecedented change unfolds in ambiguous and uncertain ways and requires continuous reflective
metrics and measurement system. Because relationships are important in interventions, trust can be an issue in change. Transforming to a virtual organization can bring
communication among the change agents. Frahm and Brown (2007) state that management theory is firm on the notion that communication is the very foundation of change efforts and that the need for a formal change communications strategy is critical throughout an effort. They add that the first step is making certain that change communication is receiever-oriented and that in continuous change, the communication is continuously reframed. They recommend those leading emergent change in continuous change efforts need to ensure that the managers and the employees have aligned expectations with the change goal and the accompanying styles of communication. They recommend participative types of communication
up even more significant issues of trust (Msanjila & Afsarmanesh, 2008). A virtual organization (VO) has been defined as an “association of (legally) independent organizations (VO partners) that come together and share resources and skills to achieve a common goal, such as acquiring and executing a market/society opportunity” (Msanjila & Afsarmanesh, 2008). A virtual business environment (VBE) has been defined as “an alliance of organizations (VBE members) and related supporting institutions, adhering to a long term base cooperation agreement, and adopting common operating principles and infrastructures, with the main goal of increasing both their chances and preparedness toward collaboration in potential
Gonda and Kohnke
77
VOs (Msanjila & Afsarmanesh, 2008). Msanjila
the distrust) and trustworthiness demonstration
& Afsarmanesh (2008) provide an analysis and set of tools to assess trust in VBEs. They look at
(demonstrating positive promotion of behaviors
causality (with an analysis of past performance and behavior), transparency, fairness, and complexity
benevolence and integrity). This process involves continual cycles of evaluation, intervention,
they also look at trust between members, between
and re-evaluation. They conclude that while the external environment should not be overstated,
external stakeholders, and between VBE members and the VBE administration. The trust between members enhances efficiency and success, the trust between members and the administration enhance the chance of the member remaining loyal to the VBE, and external stakeholders need to trust the VBE if they are to become members or customers. But what happens when trust breaks down across virtual organizations? Gillespie and Dietz (2009) say the research suggests that it can
and verbal responses that actively demonstrate
organizational level failures provoking trust issues often occur in response to structurally embedded pressures and constraints. Signals about which behaviors are rewarded and punished are sent from many directions. Methodology The new leadership of the Life Cycle
be repaired if the perceived violator responds Management Command (LCMC) agreed to govern appropriately, but that most do not. Most act too themselves by creating an LCMC Executive late with more attention to external relations than Committee chaired by the Commanding General. internal. Drawing from the literature, they describe The Executive Committee made a decision to three dimensions of trustworthiness: (a) ability use Lean Six Sigma (LSS) practices to run the - an organization’s collective competencies and interventions required to create the new LCMC characteristics to function reliably, (b) benevolence operating construct. Using the LSS model from - organizational action demonstrating care and Frigon and Jackson’s Enterprise Excellence concern for the well being of stakeholders, and (c) integrity - organizational action that consistently adheres to moral principles and a code of conduct acceptable as honest and fair. They contend that failures at an organizational level have multiple contributory causes, which they say is supported by systems and multilevel theory and by the research. They acknowledge that once trust is broken, there is a cognitive tendency to privilege the negative. This cognitive bias to the negative leads to sinister assumptions about motive and character and competence. The primary focus of repair means addressing the cognitive bias. They suggest distrust regulation (avoiding the behaviors that caused
78
(2008), an executive champion was elected for each intervention, and a Black Belt was selected to lead each intervention. One of the interventions chosen was to focus on the technology planning and insertion aspects of the acquisition process and determine how to align the Research, Development, and Engineering Center (RDEC) with two separate Program Executive Offices (PEO) into a common LCMC construct. The RDEC and the PEOs had separate reporting chains, separate funding streams, separate cultures and no one reported directly to the LCMC Commanding General. This intervention was called RDE Alignment.
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
Unit of Analysis Four organizations within this Army LCMC were the focus of this study. The four organizations are as follows: 1. Commanding General and staff 2. Program Executive Office ‘A’ 3. Program Executive Office ‘B’
duration of the eighteen month initiative. This room had video teleconferencing capabilities, a large white board, easels with large newsprint, and room to put material up on the walls. 4. Core Team: a core team was created by the RDE Alignment Executive Steering Group
4. Research, Development, and Engineering Center (RDEC)
who chose key individuals from each of their organizations. The core team had 12 members and consisted of the Action Research Team
Participants The participants consisted of five groups: 1. LCMC Executive Committee: this committee comprised of the Commanding General, the PEOs, the RDEC Director, and other executives in charge of additional functions
plus chief engineers from some of the major Project Management Offices within the PEOs and Science and Technology Planning Leads from the RDEC. 5. Subject Matter Experts: additional subject matter experts were called in when necessary
within the LCMC, such as Logistics/ Sustainment, Contracting, and Legal. 2. RDE Alignment Executive Steering Group: an RDE Alignment Executive Steering Group was created to guide all activities and initiatives under this intervention. The group consisted of the Executive Champion
with support from the Core Team and the Executive Steering Group. Analytical Framework In its classic form, Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is meant to improve existing processes (George, Rowlands, Price, & Maxey, 2005). LSS includes an
(Director of the RDEC), the Executive Deputies of PEO ‘A’ and PEO ‘B’, and the Executive for Research in the RDEC. The deputies in this instance also fill the role of sponsor. While the role of the executive champion is to remove obstacles, the sponsors interact on a more regular basis to steer the effort. In this effort, PEO A was also regularly involved and an active participant. 3. Action Research Team: the Action Research Team consisted of three individuals who worked as mentors and consultants in the role of participant observer action researchers. This team was given a large conference room as a “war room” to use full time through the
approach of hierarchical mentoring and training, a philosophy of continuous strategic improvement, and an analytical framework for solving problems. The analytical framework for LSS for improving existing processes consists of five steps which are: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control. Design for LSS is an accepted practice in industry used to create new processes (George, 2003), but it has not yet been adopted wholesale within the Army. Additional tools used throughout this project included qualitative structured interviews, an affinity diagram and scoring matrix to understand and prioritize issues, a Pareto diagram to examine interdependencies, a fishbone structure to identify cause and effect, a failure modes and effect analysis
Gonda and Kohnke
79
(FMEA) to evaluate the processes, and the Labovitz
process owners were identified, and the process was
and Rosansky Organizational Alignment model to develop a solution set of recommendations. As the Define phase started, the problem was scoped out and included identifying the leadership
transferred to the process owner.
team and team members, creation of a team charter, and the development of a problem statement. Initial
The Define Phase
Results
To help scope the change effort, the project
data was collected to help understand the problem. team participated in an exercise that included Structured interviews were conducted to determine brainstorming, the creation of an affinity diagram, the priorities, concerns and insights of the leaders and and a scoring matrix. The core team assembled and process owners. The data were gathered and then the
using sticky notes brainstormed issues affecting
core group performed a brain storming and Affinity Diagram process to further analyze, understand, and
alignment of the organizations. The notes were then assembled into affinities or themes using a group
prioritize the issues around the problem. The results thematic analysis process whereby the team quietly were reported back to the Executive Steering Group moves the notes into common themes and then the with this data for validation. The issues were scored group determines the name of each of the themes. in a decision matrix to examine any Pareto effect The team then created a matrix with the themes and an interdependency analysis was performed to written across the top of a matrix. Next, the team assess root causes. A charter that clearly defined the placed scoring criteria across the left hand side problem, the roles and responsibilities, and time line was developed and signed during this phase. The measure phase is the data gathering phase that included more in-depth customer interviews based on the refined issues. A literature review was performed, best practices were
of the matrix. The scoring criteria were: program performance, cost risk, schedule risk, and overall risk. The items were then scored by the group as a facilitated consensus. The results were laid out to create a Pareto diagram and sorted in order from
highest to lowest. The desired result was that a few investigated, and process mapping of existing items would account for eighty percent or more of processes was performed. The data collected during the problems and that these would stand out from the measure phase was then analyzed. A Cause the rest in what is called a Pareto effect (George, and Effect (Fishbone) exercise was conducted and Rowlands, Price, & Maxey, 2005). These items failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was became the priority problems that were addressed performed. An interdependencies analysis was in this initiative. Figure 1 below shows the Pareto chart conducted on root causes. The FMEA was then used as a predictive tool by having subject matter experts resulting from the brainstorm and affinity exercise. rescore projected results based on the recommended Several issues became apparent such as the need improvements. Based on the recommended to align priorities, improve communication, improvements, implementation and sustainment improve data overload problem, define roles and metrics were then developed; communications responsibilities on each side, and improve response plans and an implementation plan were created, time and credibility with the project managers.
80
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
Another relationship revealed from the diagraph was with the three items numbered ‘2’: align ATOs with life cycle, the need to improve RDE response time, and the need to improve credibility with project managers. What became clear from the interdependency diagraph was the need for a quality management system to address individual and whole-scale themes that emerged. Figure 1: Pareto chart for RDE Alignment Define Phase
At this stage of the process, the Action Research Team determined that the data suggested
While “alignment of priorities” is seen the first project in the initiative was to establish a as the top priority, no clear Pareto effect is seen formal alignment process between the RDEC and in the plot. To understand if there was another the PEOs to align priorities. This was called a method in order to gain clarity of distinctions portfolio management process and the project was between the issues, the Action Research Team performed an interdependency analysis results. An interdependency analysis can provide valuable insights into the relationships and dependencies of complex analytical problems. The results of the interrelationship diagraph are shown below in Figure 2.
formally created as a Green Belt project. The core team performed a stakeholder analysis and then interviewed key stakeholders as to what they wanted to see in a portfolio management process. The stakeholders were asked what aspects were critical to quality for the portfolio management process and what information they desired. The data was collected and the core team, along with additional subject matter experts group, performed a new
affinity process on this information. The result was a list of over fifty key insights of information needs such as the need to provide a centralized database of existing technology and technology under development, links to detailed project information, process flows, and a conflict resolution process. The group then prioritized this information using the same scoring matrix exercise. Figure 2: Interdependency diagraph of problems from Pareto Best practices of portfolio management chart. The interdependencies numbered ‘7’ (roles were investigated and the Action Research Team and responsibilities and improve communication) found related processes in place at two other is an insight that, although known, the diagraph Army Commands and a commercial portfolio validated what the participants already understood— management IT solution that could facilitate the communication is improved when organizations process. The research suggested that a much higher have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. level of organizational and process maturity was Gonda and Kohnke
81
required to perform portfolio management than
RDEC where an overarching business process was
what was currently in place. The data collected also showed the desire for a mature portfolio
defined. The team also uncovered DoD references on acquisition and technology management that
management process that allowed top decision provided guidance on working collaboratively makers the capability to understand the prioritized across the training and doctrine community of the needs across the LCMC in both the acquisition, Army (referred to as the “user”), acquisition (PEO/ logistics, and technology communities and to see
PM), technology, and logistics all across the phases
where the resources were being applied and if of the Life Cycle (Office of the Under Secretary of changes needed to be made. The desired future state Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, process would then allow the leaders to leverage 2003). From the literature, the Action Research the resources of one another and move them to top priorities to gain efficiencies. However, the data collected also showed that there were no integrative processes, existing process owners, or specialized
team looked at the McKinsey 7-S organizational alignment model (Waterman, Peters, & Phillips, 1980) and the Labovitz and Rosansky model (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997).
In follow-up interviews and in meetings skills currently in place for this desired process to be built. At this point, the team faced a dilemma of the Executive Steering Group, the PEOs (A & in the scope of the project—either the team could B) began to speak of a desired future state. They produce some sort of capability in the short time wanted the ability to tap into a government center frame allowed for the Green Belt project or the team of excellence of engineering analysis services that could pause and define the bigger picture that would could be used across Project Management Offices allow for the creation of the mature process being called for by the results of the initiative thus far. The team recommended a pause to define the larger systemic environment needed to allow for portfolio
and cost shared. Key aspects of the vision included expertise in modeling and simulation, sophisticated systems analysis (e.g. design of experiments),
systems engineering (particularly risk management, management and this decision was supported by the configuration management, and requirements analysis), systems technology integration, and Executive Steering Group. subject matter expertise in particular areas such as survivability and specific platform engines The Measure Phase The Action Research Team, along with four and transmissions. Critical to this working was a project managers, process mapped the business demonstration of good project management skills planning process for each of the PMs. These by the systems and technology community and ranged from the steps of collecting needs and data transparency of cost of the operations. The Program Executive Office’s intent with from the user and the representatives in the field, to the point of putting a solution on contract. The this future state was to save day-to-day acquisition team then process mapped the two science and costs, as well as to provide the specialized analysis technology project planning processes. There was expertise to make the individual project managers no overarching business process identified within within the PEOs smarter buyers when they went out the RDEC. Research revealed a project from another to seek industry services. A solution to the problem
82
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
statement began to emerge. In order to create a in processes across the LCMC, the Science and collaborative and efficient organization, one of the Technology and Program Management process answers was to create an organization that could time lines are not synchronized and do not feed into consistently, strategically, and collaboratively plan one another. Concerns identified in Policy included: together.
there is no priority placed on an integrated event driven schedule, policies from higher headquarters
The Analysis Phase
are forcing a disconnect between the RDEC and
The Action Research Team began to construct the necessary pieces for the future state
PEOs. Examples of Communication difficulties were: RDECs and PEOs do not understand or
vision. The decomposition resulted in the need for communicate on roles and responsibilities needed an overarching collaborative planning process, a for transitioning technology, RDECs and Project central planning function to manage the process, Managers not aware of each other’s needs or a center of excellence for systems engineering and capabilities. Some key issues found in People were: integration, and the governance structure to bring
people on both sides lack an understanding of the
the pieces together since the virtual organization had no other means of centralized decision making. In order to better understand the missing pieces and
big picture, no strategic plan to develop people with the right skill mix, some people resist change. Themes found in Requirements/Priorities included:
problems, the team decided to analyze the problem No data to prioritize (only pet projects), priority using a Cause and Effects (Fishbone) exercise on process and criteria vary by organization and are not the general issues around alignment and to perform shared, there is no synchronization of the users who a failure modes and effects analysis on the existing create requirements and conflicting requirements processes before they designed the future state result. process. For the Cause and Effects exercise, a large eight foot fish bone was created on the war room wall with masking tape. The branch labels were chosen based on the results of the previous affinity process. The core team and other subject matter experts were invited to place sticky notes on the fishbone during a two hour exercise and then throughout a three week time period. The Action Research Team performed a preliminary analysis of the findings in the Cause and Effects exercise and saw that communication was a significant factor. The branches in the fishbone were Process, Policy, Communication, People, Requirements/Priorities, and Miscellaneous. Examples of problems found in process were: no metrics to measure alignment, no consistency
To capture more fidelity and to put the issues into context, the Action Research Team next guided the core team in a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) of the existing processes. In an FMEA for transactional processes, the process step under evaluation was listed first. Each of the key inputs to the process was evaluated separately for potential defects. The key or importance was determined by the process team working with the FMEA data. The question “what could go wrong?” was asked and the potential failure mode was recorded. The next question asked was “what is the impact on the key output variables as they relate to the customer (the one receiving the output)? This was then recorded. The severity, sometimes referred to as “impact” in standard risk analysis, was then scored. A ranking
Gonda and Kohnke
83
system and criteria were agreed upon ahead of time. before product advances to next or subsequent The values for the ranking system ranged from 1-5 process. Once again these are scored against prewith 1 considered minor and 5 a hazard. Table 1 determined criteria. Table 3 below shows the below shows the severity levels and a description of likelihood of an existence of detectability and the the criteria. ranking of 1-5 with 1 being almost certain and 5 almost impossible to detect.
Table 3: Detectability of the Existence of a Defect Ranking Table 1: Severity Criteria and Ranking
Since a robust analysis of every step of each process was determined to be too lengthy, the Next, each cause that could create the failure to happen was listed. The correct process Action Research Team guided the core team in a was to continue to ask “what would cause that to prioritization of the key steps. The steps that were happen” until a root cause is determined. There determined to be in the scope of the effort and could be several root causes listed, but only one the top priority were Collect and Analyze Data, was listed per line. Next the question asked was Clarification of Requirements, Development of “how often does the failure mode or the cause Priorities, and Select Valid Approach in the PM occur?” The FMEA process team had to decide how processes and Develop Science and Technology it would score this depending on the situation and proposal and Research, Development, and the team chose to score the cause. This is called Engineering Command (RDECOM) Proposal
the “occurrence.” Table 2 below shows the Criteria Review in the Science and Technology development values and definitions that were assigned to each process. The FMEA of the process steps resulted in criterion. 117 issues or causes of risk. The group also added issues from the Cause and Effects results that were not already accounted for in the FMEA. In the end, the Master FMEA had 170 issues that were scored with severity, occurrence, and detectability. Table 2: Occurrence Criteria and Definition The Action Research Team performed a thematic analysis on the data. Figure 3 below outlines the Next, the participants were asked to describe categories of the thematic analysis. the current controls in place to prevent the cause and/or failure from occurring. These were recorded and the participants were asked “how detectable is the cause or the failure mode?” This value is the likelihood the existence of a defect will be detected
84
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
facilitate this process. But it wasn’t clear whose role or responsibility it was to make this happen. The picture was a cyclical loop of interdependency. A comparative analysis of these results with the data collected from qualitative interviews, best practices, original Affinity Exercise, and Interdependency Analysis Figure 3: Thematic Analysis of the Master FMEA data
The nine categories of risk from the thematic analyses were the following: Unclear Roles and Responsibilities, No Formal Process, No Strategy, Incorrect Skills, Lack of Collaboration, Lack of Coordinated Users, Funding Problems, Poor Communication, and Organizational Structure Problems. Unclear Roles and Responsibilities accounted for 29% of the cumulative risk. No Formal Process accounted for 17% of the cumulative risk. No Strategy accounted for 13% ; Incorrect Skills 11%, Lack of Collaboration 11%, Lack of Coordinated Users 7%, Funding problems 4%, Poor Communication 4%, and Org. Structure Problems 3% of the cumulative risk. An interdependency analysis of the nine issues revealed that they were all relatively equally dependent on one another suggesting that these issues were part of a larger systemic problem. In fact, the top four issues were revealed to be very interdependent. The literature suggests that in order to determine clear roles and responsibilities, processes needed to be mapped and clear roles assigned in terms of RACI charts (Frigon & Jackson, 2008; George, Rowlands, Price, & Maxey, 2005). In order to stop and process, map, and set aside the resources to accomplish this task, a strategic planning process was required. In order for all of this to happen, the right skill sets needed to exist to
exercise
suggested
that
a
quality
management system that addressed the issues of basic organizational alignment was missing. The Improvement Phase Based on the results of the analysis phase, the Action Research Team then used the Labovitz and Rosansky Organizational Alignment Model to develop a solution set of recommendations to be able to consistently, strategically, and collaboratively plan together (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1997). This solution set created the foundation for a quality management systems of interdependent elements designed to align the organization and deliver the organizational behavior aspects determined critical to quality by the leadership. Figure 4 below outlines the solutions that were identified based on the model.
Figure 4: The RDE Alignment Solution Set based on the Labovitz and Rosanksy Alignment Model
The Action Research Team developed several conceptual products of a quality management system to construct a blueprint of the future state
Gonda and Kohnke
85
based on this solution set. The products were: • RDE Alignment Process Framework • Roles and Responsibilities Map for the Framework • RDE Alignment Synchronized Time Map (Annual Operating Cycle) • New Integrative Roles and Responsibilities
The Action Research Team then developed a proposed annual operating cycle by laying out the key milestones of the proposed framework over the year and included other existing milestones for key processes. The synchronization map shows what information needs to flow in what order, from process to process, in order for the framework to
(including Governance) • Implementation and Success Metrics
function effectively and efficiently. The team then identified and developed
The Action Research Team analyzed the business
new integrative roles to execute and manage the
processes of the PMs and those found during the processes. The first priority in achieving the vision ‘best practices’ research that a ‘determined a generic laid out by the Program Executive Office, was collaborative business process’ was evident in the data. The team created a future state collaborative planning process with the following steps. 1. Capture and vet requirements 2. Develop actionable prioritized needs 3. Strategically plan
for the Research, Development, and Engineering Center to create a Chief Systems Engineer and supportive organization to facilitate bringing together the systems engineering and integration activities. Next, the team created the term “RDE Facilitator” to describe a new role of master
4. Develop project plans 5. Execute, monitor, and control projects The team outlined detailed steps to three levels for each of the steps and created a Roles and Responsibility Matrix (RACI chart). Figure 5 below
planning facilitator that also included resources to collect and integrate the planning information of the different organizations and present the information
shows the Process steps down to the second level and specifies who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) for each step.
defined this group to include the Chief Systems Engineers of the Program Executive Office and the Research, Development, and Engineering Center plus the RDE Facilitator who would also function in the role of the chair of the group. The team suggested that the Deputy Executives of the Program Executive Office and the Research, Development, and Engineering Center come together to form an RDE Alignment Executive Steering group and resolve issues and provide guidance to the working group. Finally, the team suggested that there be an RDE Alignment Executive Board that essentially consisted of the executives at the LCMC leadership level, at least the Program Executive Office’s and the Research, Development, and Engineering
Figure 5: The Role and Responsibility Matrix (RACI Chart)
86
to the appropriate bodies. The team then identified the need for an RDE Alignment working group and
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
Center and the Commanding General.
of the blueprint, and assembled a presentation for
Finally, the team developed leading and lagging metrics for the new system. The leading
the LCMC Executive Committee to close out the project. The project was briefed to the Executive
metrics measured whether initiatives were being Committee and it approved the project and concurred put in place to create the pieces of the blue print, that the RDEC Director was the process owner and such as creating a chief systems engineer and implementer for the LCMC. supportive group in the RDEC and establishing Discussion
the other new roles and creating the framework. Next, metrics were defined to measure whether the new processes were delivering expected results. The team then recommended some basic portfolio
While the analytical framework in Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is designed for improving existing
alignment metrics. Finally, the team recommended that the overall RDE Alignment metric of success
stable processes (George, Rowlands, Price, & Maxey, 2005), the Action Research team was able
be a measurement of how many collaborative to effectively use the LSS framework and a variety agreements were being executed on time and within of tools to perform key organization development tasks required to establish a new organizational budget. As a final step, the Action Research Team design. assembled a subset of subject matter experts who went back to the original FMEA and rescored the top Key Lessons Learned The hierarchical training and mentoring eight issues/risks and projected an 84% reduction in model within LSS proved effective for developing risk if the new blueprint was implemented. change agents. This was true for both the Green and Black Belts trained and the leadership who Control Phase The purpose of the Control Phase was to attended specialized executive leadership training. lay the foundation for a successful implementation The Champion and Sponsor roles proved effective phase. The intervention thus far had developed in establishing empowered leaders who could drive a blueprint for creating a new aligned Command aspects of the intervention. In this case study, the Center in the area of technology planning and LSS Black Belt Team Leader model was very insertion. However, in order for alignment to occur, effective in creating the conditions necessary to the blueprint elements needed process owners who transform a technology researcher into a participant could take ownership of each piece and go forward action researcher who was supported in leading and build and implement and refine the concepts into a team that included chief engineers of higher reality. Then the governance structure needed to be organizational rank. The toolsets used were very effective in the built to guide the process of tying all of the elements together into an aligned new Command Center. All organization development tasks of gathering and of this required a new phase of implementation. refining requirements, gathering organizational The team developed an implementation schedule, information to perform diagnostics, and in the proposed process owners for different elements diagnosis of the key problems. Gonda and Kohnke
87
The Action Research Team and participants be able to be completed within a reasonable time found that conducting a failure modes and effects frame. For Green Belts, this is usually around two analysis (FMEA) on transactional processes is very to four months and for Black Belt Projects this tedious, but the discussions that occurred while is approximately six to eight months (George, coming to consensus proved very valuable. The
Rowlands, Price, & Maxey, 2005). At the end of
Action Research Team learned that this exercise was an exceptional method of aligning the thought
these projects, Green and Black Belts are awarded
processes and perceptions of a group of people from different backgrounds and perceptions. Performing a thematic analysis on the master FMEA (that combined the process FMEA
proficiency in the process and tools. In this way, continuous improvement occurs alongside the
and the Cause and Effect data) allowed for a breakthrough in understanding the systemic nature
mentors within the organization. This intervention was beyond the scope of a Black Belt project as it lasted eighteen months and was designed to create a new process (and
of the problems facing the LCMC. By performing a thematic analysis and using the cumulative risk to rank the themes in terms of risk priority, the Action
to the persons who demonstrated leadership and
development of knowledgeable experienced change agents who progress in proficiency to become
hence could not demonstrate actual improvements Research Team was able to see a pattern emerge. at the end of the project). While the objectives of When the team performed an interdependency the intervention were met, there is no mechanism analysis on the themes, it became clear that a for rewarding Black Belts and Green Belts within quality management system was needed to address the Army’s defined LSS deployment policies for this type of project. Without a mechanism to the themes individually and holistically. The Action Research Team found scoring reward the participants of such a large complex matrices and interdependency analysis to be project, enthusiasm waned temporarily for further generally valuable companion tools during the deployment efforts. If the Army had a formal Design Affinity processes of the Define Phase and in the for Lean Six Sigma deployment, this project would thematic analysis of the Cause and Effect and FMEA exercises. The lesson learned was that qualitative data collected can be looked at through the lens of scoring criteria and interdependency to search for patterns and priority of importance of data.
have fit the criteria and this challenge could been avoided. Yet the scope of the project was still a problem and this pattern of choosing projects that were too large to complete in a timely manner ultimately resulted in the stalling of the establishment of the LCMC. The LCMC had established the Executive Challenges There were several challenges with using Committee itself as the LSS Review Board for the the LSS and DMAIC approach for this intervention. efforts launched to address establishing the LCMC An important aspect of the LSS leader development operating construct. This Review Board was not well and strategic change process is in the selection trained in organization development interventions of projects. Traditional projects are meant to be and the leaders did not bring in outside consultants small, have quantifiable improvements, and should to help them through the process. As a result, each
88
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
of the efforts was too large and ill-defined and the teams and the Review Board became frustrated with
and processes necessary to define the new quality management system.
the pace of the progress and eventually stopped the formal deployment after two years. Of the original six interventions, only RDE Alignment and one other project were closed out and successfully moved into an implementation phase. RDE Alignment was also the only project that had dedicated, full-time resources that were brought in from outside the
Conclusion In today’s challenging economic times, leaders are faced with ensuring the sustainable competitive edge of their organizations while at the same time having to do this with fewer
organization. One of the efforts was later resurrected resources—both human and capital. All types of with a full time resource brought in from the outside organizations have been deeply impacted by the and it was brought to a successful completion. economy whether they are for-profit, nonprofit or Finally, one of the most important lessons in the government sector and are forced to evaluate learned was in the area of communication and the effectiveness and efficiencies within their own buy-in for the solution. The Action Research Team operating environments. Organization development utilized the Core Team for many of the exercises, but has proven itself effective as leaders and managers once the Improvement Phase began they performed attempt to build collaborative teams, productive much of the work independently. Because the workplaces, and sustainable organizations. This study demonstrates that care must resulting future state was such a departure from the current state, it proved difficult to communicate a be taken to properly scope interventions and clear vision to the core team and to the leadership. communicate effectively throughout the entire In order to achieve buy-in and clarity by the Core intervention. Asking what conversations need Team and the Executive Steering Group, the Action Research Team determined that they should have designed exercises within the Improvement Phase to allow these groups to better take ownership and refine the concept. The results of this study were used by the Director of the RDEC to shape a transformation strategy designed to significantly alter the RDEC to meet the intent of the blueprint. The Black Belt Lead was transitioned to the RDEC to continue the participant observer action research effort by leading the implementation phase. PEO A and PEO B immediately began holding communication “summits” with the RDEC that aligned topics with the proposed annual operating cycle and each organization began building the necessary roles
to happen is critical at the start of any complex intervention. There are a variety of effective models and tools to aid communication that are available to organization development practitioners including what Dannemiller Tyson Associates (2000) call “converge – diverge” in their action learning model. This model includes questions after each step of the process to ensure the right people have the right conversations to ensure wholeness of the system. A more recent framework that has been developed is called the SOAR Framework. SOAR stands for strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results. It is intended to be a “positive approach to strategic thinking and planning that allows organizations to construct its future through collaboration, shared understanding and a
Gonda and Kohnke
89
commitment to action” (Stavros, 2013; Stavros and
References
Hinrichs, 2009, p.3). A valuable attribute of SOAR is that it “nurtures a culture of strategic learning and
Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. (2001). Beyond
leadership by building a widespread appreciative
change management: Advanced strategies
intelligence—the capability for high performance, creativity and innovation in people by reframing the
for today’s transformation leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
present view, appreciating the positive possibilities in any situation and envisioning how the future Caffrey, N., & Medina, C. (2011). Doomed to Fail. Quality Progress 44(1) , 40-45. unfolds from the present moment.” (Stavros, 2013). As mentioned, the Review Board became frustrated with the pace of the progress and eventually Carter, A. (2010, Sept. 14). Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency stopped the formal deployment of the project due and Productivity in. Retrieved Feb. 20, to ill-defined and outsized efforts. By using the 2012, from ACQWeb - Offices of the Under SOAR framework and the potential to energize the organization to leverage their strengths, the focus of the dialogue and project milestones could have been vastly different. Change models and diagnostic instruments have been instrumental in aiding change agents through the process of creating new visions and strategic plans that allow organizations to think and collaborate in new ways. Carefully choosing the framework and obtaining the skill sets necessary for successful facilitation throughout the change intervention is key. This study demonstrates that by effectively employing and adapting a structured change management framework and tools, the teams were able to create a new vision, blueprint, strategic plan, and implementation plan to build a collaborative and efficient virtual business organization and Command Center. The results helped four separate organizations within the United States Army to identify several issues and implement the structural changes and new processes that were required in order for this transformation to a virtual business organization to succeed.
~~~~~~~~~~ 90
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: http://www. acq.osd.mil/docs/USD_ATL_Guidance_ Memo_September_14_2010_FINAL.PDF Cooperrider, D., Sorensen, P., Yaeger, T., & Whitney, D. (2001). Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. Dannemiller Tyson Associates. (2000). WholeScale Change: Unleashing the Magic in Organizations. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers, Inc. Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding organizational change: The contemporary experience of people at work. London: Sage. Frahm, J., & Brown, K. (2007). First Steps: linking change communication to change receptivity. Journal of Organizational Change, 370-387.
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
Frigon, N. L., & Jackson, H. K. (2008). Enterprise Excellence: A Practical Guide to World Class Competition. Hoboken, NJ: John
Harvard Business Review Press. Labovitz, G., & Rosansky, V. (1997). The power of alignment: how great companies stay centered and accomplish extraordinary
Wiley & Sons, Inc. George, M. (2003). Lean Six Sigma for Service.
things. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York: McGraw Hill. George, M., Rowlands, D., Price, M., & Maxey, J. (2005). The Lean Six Sigma Toolbook. New York: McGraw Hill.
Leppitt, N. (2006). Challenging the code of change: Part 1. Praxis does not make perfect. Journal of Change Management. 6(2):121-142. Light, P.C. (2005). The four pillars of high
an Organization-level failure. Academy of
performance: How robust organizations achieve extraordinary results. New York:
Management Review 34(1) , 127-145.
McGraw-Hill.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust Repair after
Kern, P. J., & Bolton, C. M. (2004, August 3). Memorandum of Agreement Between The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology and The Commander, U.S. Army Materiel Command. Subject: Life-Cycle Management (LCM) Initiative . Department of the Army. Retrieved from https://acc.dau. mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=32646 on 22 August 2011 Kirkpatrick, D.L. (2001). Managing change effectively: Approaches, methods, and case examples. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann. Kotter,
J.P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review 73(2):59-67.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Boston, MA:
Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management 3(1):45-69. Msanjila, S., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008). Trust analysis and assessment in virtual organization breeding environments. International Journal of Research 46(5) , 1253-1295.
Production
Obama, B. (2012, Jan 5). President Obama Speaks on the Defense Strategic Review. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2012, from The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-andvideo/video/2012/01/05/president-obamaspeaks-defense-strategic-review#transcript Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. (2003). Manager’s Guide to Technology Transition in an Evolutionary Acquisition
Gonda and Kohnke
91
Environment V1.0. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach 2nd Ed.
Waterman, R., Peters, T., & Phillips, J. (1980). Structure is not organizations. Business Horizons (June) , 14-26.
cld
New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Pendlebury, J., Grouard, B., & Meston, F. (1998). The ten keys to successful change management. England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Pettigrew, A., & Whipp, R. (1991). Managing change for competitive success. Oxford: Blackwell. Quinn, R.E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P., Kleiner, A. R., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The Dance of Change. New York: Doubleday. Stavros, J. M. (2013). The Generative Nature of SOAR: Applications, Results and the New SOAR Profile. AI Practitioner 15(3), 7-30. Stavros J.M. & Hinrichs, G. (2009). Thin Book of SOAR: Building Strengths-based Strategy. Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishers. Van de Ven, A., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in implementing models of organizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives August , 58-74.
92
Organization Development Journal l Winter 2013
Copyright of Organization Development Journal is the property of Organization Development Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
