|
 This example
comes from Strategos' consulting experience. The client's identity
is disguised for competitive reasons but the essential facts and
events are real.
The Background
"ConCom" was a
telecommunications company that operated in a number of cities and
regions scattered throughout the United States. Although a mid-level
firm in the telecom industry, ConCom would be considered a
large organization by most standards.
They employed well over 10,000 people. Some parts of the firm dated
to the early 1900's and the general culture was
bureaucratic, functionally organized
and centralized.
Top
management recognized that radical change
was necessary for long term survival. They decided to
experiment with a Kaizen Event aimed at improving a major process.
However, they had larger goals than those
for the usual Kaizen Event. They wanted to deal with
large-scale, company-wide processes
and they also wanted to begin a
major cultural change that would make the firm more
responsive to the changing environment and changing technologies.
A rather
long list of problem areas that were
critical to competitiveness had been developed. From this
list, a small Steering Committee selected one particular problem for
the initial event.
The Problem
ConCom
had developed a networking product that used very expensive existing
infrastructure to network customer organizations having scattered
locations. For many business and technical reasons, this product
offered significant advantages for both ConCom and their customers.
The problem was that ConCom required an
average of three months to install the system.
Competitors were installing functionally equivalent systems in
weeks.
A small
headquarters group had investigated this problem. This group had not
clearly identified the root causes or developed viable solutions due
to the complexity and internal politics
of the situation. Nevertheless, their work was valuable in
developing the project scope and in planning for what became a sort
of Super-Kaizen Event. One thing
that was clear from the headquarters investigation was that
the problem was highly complex and involved
many functional groups. These groups often did not
communicate well.
The Action Learning Team
Because
of the scope and complexity of the problem, a rather
large team of about 35 people
was assembled for a three-day event.
The team had representation from
every region, from every functional group and from all levels of the
organization. It included line installers, clerical
workers, supervisors, managers and senior managers. It represented
sales, engineering, Operations, Scheduling and other functions. Some
of these people knew each other from telephone conversations but
most had never met.
The
Steering Committee recognized that a broad,
company-wide consensus was a necessary part of any
solution. They publicized the event widely within the firm and
requested nominations for team members. It
was important to ensure that not only was the solution a good one,
but that it would be acceptable to the various constituencies.
Top management gave absolute support to the
team. It was made clear to all concerned that the team's
recommendations WOULD be
implemented. they ensured that the best people were sent. They
provided travel and accommodation for the team and rented a
first-class meeting facility with luncheon accommodations and
breakout rooms.
Ultimately, the team resembled (at least in some respects) the
constitutional convention of 1788. From the intensity of debate, the
rhetoric, the negotiation of provincial interests and the
seriousness of attitudes one would think they were founding a
nation.
The Results
Within
the three-days of sessions the team identified root causes and three
viable solutions. The root cause was a cumbersome and
little-understood process for planning and implementing an
installation. This process was centrally controlled at corporate
headquarters but the control was illusory. Moreover, the process did
not allow for wide variation in the nature of individual
installations. Thus, every installation was planned and executed as
though it were the most complex and difficult installation.
Solution #1
This
solution made minor changes to the existing process. It was least
disruptive to the organization and power structure, acceptable by
most constituencies but offered only minor improvements in
installation time.
Solution #2
This
solution made major revisions to the process but retained corporate
control. It would reduce installation time by 50%.
Solution #3
This
solution radically changed the nature of the process. It delegated
management of each installation to local project managers and
provided for installation teams that would absorb the activities of
several functional groups. It offered much greater reductions of
installation time but required a major disturbance of the
organization and power structure.
|
 In
Congress Assembled
"It is expedient
that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of
delegates who shall have been appointed by the several
States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express
purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."
Resolution of The
Continental Congress, February 21, 1787 |
|
What They Did
Because
of the members' inexperience with team activities and the time
constraints. facilitators played
an important but not dominant role.
Strategos provided two facilitators. The client assigned several
facilitators from one of their groups with prior team experience.
The facilitators developed an outline schedule, conducted initial
training in teamwork and introduced several analysis techniques.
Strong facilitation proved necessary
in the beginning as some team members had considerable trouble
staying on topic, presenting views concisely and refraining from
interrupting others. However, by the third
day most participants had adapted to group norms and the team had
coalesced and matured considerably.
Aside
from the scope and complexity, the team approached the project in a
typical process improvement way. They used the
problem solving procedure of figure 3, examined the
present state by analyzing existing data, identified root causes
with fishbone diagrams and developed solutions through
brainstorming.
The
most important sessions involved the construction of a
Present State Process Chart. The
chart was extremely complex and covered a large wall. It was evident
from early on that no one person understood
the process. Individuals knew that they received
information or documents, acted on that information and sent
information out. Other than that, almost nobody knew what had
happened before, where information originated and what others used
it for.
There
developed some curious circumstances
surrounding installation milestone dates. These dates
were important to installation personnel.
Missed milestones were dealt with harshly. they showed up
in performance reviews, salary reviews and, occasionally, letters of
reprimand. However, it came to light that when milestones where
accomplished early, this early accomplishment was totally ignored.
The
question was asked, "who sets milestone
dates?" Nobody seemed to know the answer. It finally
developed that milestone dates were set by a clerical employee at
corporate headquarters. Moreover, the time allowed was arbitrary and
set without any knowledge of the complexity of the installation.
Every installation, whether simple or
complex, had the same allocated time and this time was sufficient
for the most complex installation. There were many other
such revelations as the sessions continued.
After
the present state analysis, the group broke
into sub-teams to work on various aspects of the
problems. These sub-teams would convene, report back and then
re-convene with different members
for the next stage of the problem solving.
One
important aspect of the session was the use of
daily newsletters. A scribe was appointed who
summarized each day's activities. Each delegate emailed this
newsletter to their constituencies and asked for comments and
inputs. In this way, news of the team's progress spread through the
organization and feedback was received. This generated a great deal
of interest and conversation throughout the organization as many
others followed the team's activities and deliberations.
At the
end of each day, time was allowed for
reflection and discussion of the team process and
learning experience. Surveys were done to help evaluate the effects
and encourage participants to think about their experience.
While
the team recommended solution #2, they also setup an
online survey to solicit comments and
opinions from others in the organization. This promoted
even broader participation and support.
The
team made a presentation to top management
and then individual delegates made similar
presentations in their various regions. The organization
was enthusiastic about the results and the
process. As a result, additional such events were
scheduled.
Strategic Issues
Another
strategic issue was revealed during the project, although few
appreciated it at the time. This was the
integration of Marketing and Operations strategy.
The
ability of ConCom's infrastructure to
support this new product varied greatly between their
various service areas and it also varied within the service area.
Some locations could install the product quickly and easily; others
could not. Much depended on the history of the infrastructure and
what point in time it had been installed.
It
appears that when marketing rolled out the
product, they ignored these differences. the product was
promoted equally in all regions. This had several effects. First, it
required a major marketing effort in all
regions rather than concentrating resources. In some
regions, the product could be offered quickly and inexpensively. In
other regions the product required major efforts and cost that was
passed on to the customer.
This
also affected cash flow. ConCom
might have done better to concentrate marketing in areas where the
infrastructure supported the product best. They might have
quickly achieved a dominant market share
in those areas. The improved cash flow might then have been used to
upgrade infrastructure in other areas.
From
the operations side, it appeared that there was
little in the way of master planning
that would allow an orderly upgrade of the
infrastructure to support this and similar products. The
result was a hodge-podge of infrastructure technologies and
considerable unnecessary cost.
This Action Learning project was,
hopefully, the beginning of a transformation of ConCom to a true
learning organization. However, it will be several years before it
is known whether the transformation is successful or not.
|
Strategos
Action Learning Projects
 Strategos can facilitate and assist with your
Action Learning projects. We have been applying these
principles for many years in a variety of situations. Please
call me if you would like to talk further.
Quarterman
Lee
816-931-1414
qlee@strategosinc.com
|
|
