These articles are so thought provoking and well written, Larry.  Everything stated makes perfect sense and I love the Ebola example of how creativity and original thinking is squashed in our bureaucratic government.  There are simply too many departments and experts that think their way is the best way and never consult with other groups to learn from their experiences.

Unfortunately, our government is not run as a business.  For some reason it feels it is above the rest of us.  Nothing has changed since I went to work for NSA all those years ago and I was chastised for getting my work done too quickly.  I made the others in the department look bad!! Imagine!  I loved my decoding job, but quit after only 14 months.  I could not stand watching the idle locked into their positions with no chance of being fired.

Still makes me nuts and I commend you guys for your writings.  I fear however that nothing will ever change despite your clear voices of reason.

Amen.

A

Excellence v bureaucracy

Prologue

This issue of UPDATE is our second in a two part series on bureaucracy as it relates to organizational performance.  As we are coming off a mid-term election cycle and have been inundated with bashing political ads, it brings to mind the critical need for government to look internally.  We spoke about reengineering the government in our last article, in this issue we hope to present some insight into the type of malaise and its affect, permeating governments thereby highlighting the need for politicians and bureaucrats to make a commitment to their constituents to look inward in an objective responsible manner.   To become more focused on results rather than process.  To strive for excellence and integrity in government rather than building layers upon layers of bureaucracy under the guise of fixing things.  

This issue of UPDATE brings together several concepts we have written about recently and over the years.  Our last issue was titled: Government, Bureaucracy, Ethics, and Reengineering. Not too long ago, we wrote about the conflict between common sense, rote adherence/hiding behind rules, and, even worse, staffers interpreting guidelines to perpetuate the bureaucracy.

These issues are all alive and well within the bureaucratic structure of government at all levels. The result is, the bureaucracy kills excellence, incentive, creativity, performance, trust, job creation, and, potentially, human life.  Ironically, the bureaucracy is supposed to have the best interests of the citizens at heart; instead, it supplants common sense and leadership, with potentially deadly consequences in several contexts.

Introduction

We are going to address these issues through a real life example.  We want to address how a government bureaucracy becomes entrenched and how there are no checks and balances. We will also discuss, the disconnect between elected officials who create laws and the bureaucracy that is created to make rules to support those laws. Too often the rules go far beyond the laws, and there is no review of how the law is being interpreted.

Too frequently there is no accountability of the bureaucracy.  In our last article, we described the example of the multiple water bills. When that issue was raised to an elected council member, the response was that he could not get involved in a departmental function.  So excellence, performance, trust, the best interests of the citizens as well as cost savings cannot be addressed by the elected officials – bureaucracy is in charge and the citizens cannot do a thing about it.

For this article we have an example at a state level that shows the same disregard for the well-being and best interests of the citizens of the state.  We are not going to provide all the details since our purpose is not to publicly skewer specific bureaucrats (however satisfying that might be) but to build the case of how our current government model is not working and how, as we presented previously, governments at all levels desperately need some level of reengineering and improvement.

An Overview

The current outbreak of Ebola illustrates a bureaucratic response versus common sense.  Amber Vinson, is one of the nurses who cared for Thomas Duncan, the Ebola patient in Texas. She flew from Dallas to Cleveland and back to Dallas on Frontier Airlines.  Before boarding the airplane, she was showed a low-grade temperature.  She called the CDC and told them that she was about to get on an airplane and she had a low-grade temperature of 99.5° F.  The CDC employee responded that the threshold was 100.4 and cleared her to board the airplane. 

So let’s think about this: Per the bureaucracy, she was good to go. As one medical expert, who was interviewed shortly after the incident, indicated, what happened to common sense?  When Amber Vinson later tested positive for Ebola, it became clear that the bureaucratic response was inadequate, and put hundreds on that Frontier flight at risk. Certainly that CDC official is not accountable here.  He or she was just doing their job per the guidelines.  But how about common sense?  Should this person have thought a minute about the situation and called their supervisor?  We all would like to hope that might have averted this situation.  That did not happen.  This clearly illustrates how a bureaucratic response can have a serious impact on human life.

Let’s look at some other examples of how the bureaucracy is diminishing creativity, performance, trust, and job creation.

Creativity

By definition, a bureaucracy is not a creative entity.  A bureaucrat’s primary concern is process, not outcomes or results. As long as the program they are administering is functioning, and within budget, they are their objectives are being satisfied (at least in their eyes). If it is a program where their contractor/vendor attempts to be creative, they interpret that as a challenge to the process.  In our world, we help many companies to characterize their vision and mission.  Vision is a good example here.  A vision to a bureaucrat is severely constricted to the program. On the other hand, vision to someone responsible for getting the job done is creative, with long term goals, ideas and practices to work toward that vision.  This concept appears to be incomprehensible to a bureaucrat whose vision is constricted by blinders of process, interpretation of regulations plus many other constrains bureaucrats function under.  So what’s the problem?  The problem is when the bureaucracy imposes its blinders on creative people.  Creativity should be looked at as an opportunity to make things better, and to change the constriction under which the bureaucracy is functioning. However, bureaucrats revert to the process and impose that constriction rather than see it as an opportunity to do something better.  Bureaucracy stifles creativity in lieu of process.

Performance

Excellent job performance is another somewhat alien concept to bureaucrats.  Their definition of performance is constrained similarly to Creativity discussed above.  As long as the process is fulfilled in some sort of ‘acceptable’ manner, they consider themselves productive.  One of the classic examples of this is the ‘low bidder’ concept.  A job or project goes out to bid from a governmental agency.  Proposals are received with one from a firm who has done the job before and knows what needs to be done and how to do it, but their bid is higher than the others.  Then let’s suppose there are a few more ‘qualified’ companies who have submitted bids, with the lowest bid coming from the most minimally qualified vendor.  In most cases, the bureaucracy accepts the low bidder (if qualified).  Typically there is no further consideration of prior experience and job performance.  The determination of what constitutes ‘qualified’ is usually broad, vague, and subject to interpretation.  If the low bidder proves to be unqualified or less experienced and defaults on performance, then the bureaucracy and the public have lost.  Would you like to have the lowest bidder building bridges? Would you like to have the least qualified and experienced doctor doing your heart surgery?

Finally, from the business perspective, the direct and indirect cost consequences of an inexperienced low bidder far outweigh any benefit realized by the reduced price.  To a bureaucrat, though, the process has been fulfilled, and they have done their job.  To be fair, we have experienced lower level bureaucrats who do realize this effect, and also understand that the decision may well impact them and the job they are contracting for, but they look up the chain and say their hands are tied.  The momentum and impact of the bureaucracy is perhaps unstoppable.

Trust

Trust is a very special issue in the example we are discussing.  We believe that when people trust each other, they behave differently.  They actually look out for the other party within the context of their engagement.  Trust is a two way street and works both ways.  Our case study here is one of a governmental agency and a contracting partner.  With a high level of trust, the partner's projects and programs flourished.  No one took advantage of the other because there was no incentive to do so.  The problem arose when trust diminished.   How did this happen?  In this case, it is not so much anything any one of the two entities did or did not do to dilute the trust factor, it is a situation where success fosters resentment or even fear.  What we mean is when an involved third party such as another contractor (who may feel threatened), calls into question that success, they in effect are exploiting the bureaucracy’s bureaucratic behavior.  What we mean by this is bureaucrats like to be perceived as above reproach, and must address the challenge regardless of its validity.  If someone throws a barb at the success of the current vendor, or challenges a bureaucratic decision, a whole other bureaucratic process begins.  When that happens, investigators, auditors, etc. become involved.  The game has changed from cooperation and collaboration to "who can we throw under the bus?"  The contractor/vendor who has worked so hard to be creative and perform well becomes a scapegoat. 

The bureaucrat is just doing their job under the guise of being a responsible manager.  So, it is easy to see how trust can take an exponential slide down.  This downward slide can happen extremely quickly, in contrast to the amount of time it takes to build the trust, and the fact that the initial level of trust will never return.  The damage is significant - but who is the real loser?  The public – the people the bureaucracy is supposed to be helping and protecting.  Unfortunately in this situation the public are not even considered – protection of the sanctity of the bureaucracy and its process is paramount.

Job creation

In our work over the years, we have worked with organizations to develop strategic staffing plans, workforce planning tools, and retention strategies.  Our experience demonstrate the value of these initiatives in the terms of definitive staffing (the right person in the right job), well-defined training programs, and a stable/improving workforce.  Every politician talks about job creation.  The irony is, in our story here, the bureaucracy actually killed jobs.  Perhaps this situation resulted because the bureaucrat’s jobs were at risk?  We are not sure.

Those companies or organizations that do not focus on investing in their people tend to struggle with staffing, retention, performance, and loyalty.  To a bureaucrat though, loyalty is not defined within the language of the program they are tasked with administering.  To a bureaucrat, people are commodities, not valued assets to protect and develop.  Specifically, when the bureaucrat administers a program and does not understand the above concepts, they challenge the need for people, for training people and investing in people, so they cut budgets and commoditize the program hence reducing the workforce, thereby killing jobs. 

Much of this goes back to our article about Quants and bean counting.  The process becomes exacerbated when bureaucrats get complacent, don’t understand the work they are tasked with administering.  Now everything we discussed above escalates and the downward slide is even worse.

Who Measures the Bureaucratic Process?

This is a question that everyone should ask.  In the CDC example, who is measuring the performance of the staffer who told the nurse she was OK to fly? Better yet, who is measuring the effectiveness and management of the organization as a whole?  While we are not sure what happened internally at the CDC, we do feel there should have been some level of training, briefing or other form of communication, informing the staff that they should err on the side of caution including what to do when they are confronted with serious inquiries associated with the latest threat of Ebola. 

The culture of an organization should establish the common sense perspective such that the people within the organization support each other.  In the Ebola case, we are not suggesting the staffer make uniformed decisions on their own or assume the responsibility to provide inaccurate advice. Instead, we are suggesting the staffer reach out to appropriate people in their chain of command and attempt to resolve an issue, and those people provide responsive support. 

We are certain most bureaucracies have some established performance measures for staff members, but whether these are based on results or blind compliance is another question.  We know of a case of a very skilled engineer who was hired into a state organization.  Since this person was the “low man on the totem pole” (despite much higher skills that most of the rest of the staff), he was told that he had to work on a holiday when someone had to be on call.  He was also told that he was not to do any real work because he was getting things done too quickly and his performance was reflecting on the rather marginal performance of the organization as a whole.  If marginal has become the accepted norm, a higher level of performance becomes a serious challenge to the rest of the people around.  So what can be interpreted as the performance measure of that organization – if you stretch work out you are doing a good job and if you get work done quickly (and accurately) you are a trouble maker. 

We know this is not an isolated situation.  In the state and federal governments most bureaucracies are headed by either an appointed or sometimes elected person.  Whether that person is really qualified (on several fronts – technically, managerially and from a leadership perspective) is not always a factor.  So the bureaucracy just slogs along with self-generated rules and measures. 

Oversight remains a function that becomes important when there is an upset and the scramble begins to save face, one’s own job or public scorn.  Measures based on organizational improvement and effectiveness are foreign concepts, by definition, of the function of a bureaucracy.  We are confident that we will receive push back from people on this article, but we do feel that what drives an organization that focuses on a mission of excellence is quite a bit different than one that focuses on process alone.  We are not sure why government can’t work towards excellence much the same way other non-governmental ones do, but we do feel that there are tools to help governments do better and provide more of a servant culture rather than one that functions to perpetuate itself.

Something more for you to think about

In this and the prior article we have attempted to present the case of how our government model of bureaucratic organizations is not working effectively, and herein how it actually works against excellence and effectiveness.  Yes there need to be organizations to interpret the many laws passed by our elected officials, but those organizations need to be held accountable and expected to improve their functioning and their performance just like companies do.  If a company doesn't improve they will lose business and suffer on their bottom line. 

For government, the bureaucracies don’t have a bottom line that they worry about, despite what you may hear regarding budget cuts, etc.  They manage by the numbers within their budgets.  Accountability for performance is reverse.  If they manage well and do their job effectively resulting in a budget surplus there are penalties.  Those penalties may not be punitive from a job loss perspective, but the penalties manifest themselves as reduced funding in the future, making it more difficult to plan for growth and additional service to their constituents. 

In the business world, we could characterize this dysfunction as a form of failure.  In government it is unfortunately business as usual.  Not only do we see no incentive for improving performance but we see too many examples of bureaucracies that function only to protect “their turf” and show little regard for the people they are to serve.  For instance, we can go back to FEMA and Katrina, the IRS and losing emails etc., the VA and keeping two sets of ‘books’ as premier examples of failures.  

The challenge to our readers: we have underlined several words in this article.  We have listed those words below, and ask you to think about them in the context of how that word and your associated context or meaning contributes to the malaise we discussed.  Then we ask you to rank order them from the most important to the least as far as its contribution, or lack thereof, to our case.

Accountability	Common Sense	Vision and Mission
Blinders	Productive	Process
Incentive	Collaboration	Loyalty
Culture	Leadership	Effectiveness

Now compare and contrast how you rank ordered these words based on our case here with an experience you may have had with a bureaucratic entity.  Perhaps you will see a common theme playing out.  What we are not asking you to do is answer the question of why these failures exist.  That is another topic in and of itself.

Of course we would love to see a ground swell of pressure put on governments to stress the need to improve performance and be held accountable.  We elect, those elected appoint, and those appointed hire to fill positions that are budgeted, whether it is enough or too many.  And the bottom line is that no one is accountable to the constituents, regardless of what is touted by the elected and appointed.  What is wrong with this picture?

We are certainly not alone

“Bureaucracy destroys initiative. There is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept. Who enjoys appearing inept?”
― Frank Herbert, Heretics of Dune

“If you are going to sin, sin against God, not the bureaucracy. God will forgive you but the bureaucracy won't.”
― Hyman G. Rickover

“In our time... a man whose enemies are faceless bureaucrats almost never wins. It is our equivalent to the anger of the gods in ancient times. But those gods you must understand were far more imaginative than our tiny bureaucrats. They spoke from mountaintops not from tiny airless offices. They rode clouds. They were possessed of passion. They had voices and names. Six thousand years of civilization have brought us to this.”
― Chaim Potok, Davita's Harp

“The atmosphere of officialdom would kill anything that breathes the air of human endeavor, would extinguish hope and fear alike in the supremacy of paper and ink.”
― Joseph Conrad, The Shadow-Line

“But [in bureaucracies], too, decision making takes place in a world full of uncertainties. Any actual system of information processing, planning and control will never be optimal but merely practical, applying rote responses to recurrent problems and employing a variety of contingency tactics to deal with unforeseen events.”
― Manuel De Landa, A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History

“Bureaucracies are inherently antidemocratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients.”

―  Alan Keyes

“Bureaucracy is the death of all Sound work”

―  Albert Einstein

Government, Bureaucracy, Ethics, Reengineering

 Prologue

A while back my colleague Ozzie Paez and I wrote several articles for UPDATE on various topics ranging from resilience to leadership and terrorism.  Since those articles, Ozzie has focused his work on decision making as it pertains to organizational leadership.  Interestingly, one of Ozzie’s more recent writings touches on the shortcomings of reengineering in the context of decision making.  The following is an excerpt from that paper as a lead in to this article.

“Many business process re-engineering efforts fail because the re-engineered processes come into direct conflict with informal social processes on which organizations have long relied to carry out their operations….

In considering government structure, power and reach, the same questions help us gage the balance and locus of decision-making control, which reflect the level of social and political freedom in the society at large; and related economic factors such as innovation, investment, agility and growth, which depend on distributed timely awareness and decision-making.  Of particular concern are areas where the power of decision-making rests with individuals who are not well informed, do not bear direct responsibility for their actions or inactions and are personally insulated from feedback.”  More on this in future UPDATE issues—hope you enjoy this one.

Introduction

When many people hear the words government and ethics in the same sentence it connotes an oxymoron.  Are there ethical people in government?  Absolutely!  Are there unethical people in government?  Absolutely!  But the same can be said for any slice of people or society as a whole.  Why single out government – and here we are talking about government at any level̶—because government is so visible to all of us, whether it is the seemingly non-functioning federal government or your state, county or local governments.  All have problems and all are visible to the citizens they supposedly represent.

Our intent in this edition of Update is not a treatise on ethical government.  That might come in a subsequent issue.  We think government, bureaucracy, and ethics are all aspects of a problem that is pervasive in our society today.  We want to focus on government, since at all levels it impacts every one of us.  It also represents organizations that don’t have the flexibility of some businesses and don’t have necessarily the best and most forward thinking leaders.  Government has the strange dichotomy of elected officials, who are the face of government in the public, with staff behind the scenes making many day to day decisions without full public accountability.  Government also has the ability to fund by just raising taxes.

We are going to offer the view that government desperately needs some form of reengineering.  Now some of you are tempted to yawn and say that reengineering is so passé.  Yes, much of what we saw in the past, under the name reengineering, was not as successful as was intended and in some cases, smoke and mirrors gaining big consulting fees for many people.  However, the basic tenets of reengineering were sound – look at what and how you are doing things, identify ways to improve those things, and implement the improvements.  This process is easy to describe in a sentence, but very difficult to achieve. 

Reengineering 101

Reengineering was the “flavor of the month” several years ago.  Many large and medium sized consulting firms made their names with corporate-wide reengineering projects .  Often the reengineering initiatives included large new computer systems.  Many of these projects met with only limited success or failed outright.  Chief among the reasons for the failures was unsupported ambition and lacking patience; with limited buy-in from the various management levels, disappointing results led to large scale layoffs and downsizing.  (We’ve written about the short horizon of the bean counters).  The process of these reengineering projects was often very disruptive to day- to-day operations and quickly became viewed by the working level staff and lower-level management as just a means to eliminate people. 

The basic concept was sound – understand how a particular process or part of the business was working and then, using the knowledge of the workers involved in the process, identify ways to make improvements.  Some of the improvements were small, others, significant.  The goal was to work smarter and use existing resources better. Also, if management and leadership are always be doing its job, conditions shouldn’t deteriorate to a level requiring reactive initiatives such as reengineering.  Suffice it to say, the ambitious nature of reengineering, the lack of adequate pre-planning and buy-in, and the process’s disruptive nature limited the outcomes of reengineering’s potential.  But there is much value in the basic tenets of reengineering.  We would like to explore applying those basics to improving government.

Why Does Government Equal Bureaucracy?

When you think about the federal government, the state government or your county or local government, you probably start to think about all the different departments and all the people involved – in other words the bureaucracy.  Walking through Washington, DC, you look at all the granite buildings and realize that most are some branch of the federal government and house hundreds or thousands of people doing something.  The same holds true for your state capital or your local town hall and annex buildings.

By our government’s nature, there is no incentive for efficiency in most government organizations.  All the salaries and program costs come from taxes and fees.  If costs go up, simply raise taxes and fees.  Unfortunately there is no consideration of whether this behavior is ethical or in the best interest of the constituents; it’s “just the way things are done.”  This seemingly unlimited ability to raise taxes and fees removes any incentive to explore improving how things are done.  We are non-partisan here – we are looking at government from a leadership, management and business perspective. When a new law is passed, changed, or a new requirement is set, it implies implementation. Some department is now charged with additional duties.  Too often, that new work is either piled up on existing workers without considering whether all the work can be properly handled or, at the federal and state levels, it becomes a new bureaucracy.    Why not start to look at the existing work and see if it can be done smarter, or even eliminated, and free up the resources to be able to handle new work?

We are directly familiar with the public utility industry.  In the “old days – late 1980s/1990s” these very large companies functioned much like governments.  They were regulated monopolies.  There was little incentive for them to be efficient.  If someone was not carrying their load, and it appeared more people were needed, the case was brought in front of the Public Utility Commission, and based on our experience the request was granted – perhaps for not as much as requested, but it was granted—so staffs became enlarged with minimal metrics to measure effectiveness or value added.  

New procedures continually are added but rarely are old and obsolete procedures eliminated.  Bob Lutz writes in his book, Car Guys vs Bean Counters – The Battle for the Soul of American Business, that a procedure at General Motors specified criteria for wheels and tires based on, as he says, “the wilds of Alaska”, so tires would not burst and wheels would survive the roughness.  This criterion was inappropriate for modern roads, but only when it got to the point where the GM product appeared obsolete did anyone ask the questions, then realize why things were the way they actually were.  After that, the designers could move wheels further out, design car bodies for larger wheels and tires, improve the design and appearance, and improve competitiveness.  The reengineering methodology can reveal these out of date procedures which impact current progress and effectiveness.   By not discarding old and obsolete procedures, the organization gets bogged down.

Finally, process is another opportunity for significant improvement.  Typically, technology appears to be a significant upgrade to an organization’s operation.  Many times, though, applying a new technology to an old or ineffective process is the norm.  Rethinking the process and those processes that impact the one being examined is much more difficult and challenging than just overlaying technology and believing that an improvement has been made.

We are confident that our readers, on their daily encounters, witness these phenomena.  The Post Office is a classic example.  Contrast sending a package or letter via Express Mail vs Federal Express overnight delivery.  We do realize there are potential legal implications associated with the Post Office, but the reality is Federal Express is much more efficient and reliable.

Going back to our government example, we read, seemingly every day, about inefficiencies in government, whether at the Veterans Administration, FEMA or state or local governments.  Is there really not enough staff to make things function as they were envisioned?  We submit that the number of staff is not the problem but how the staff is used and the processes the staff is saddled with are the prime culprits.  Instances that make the national news like the VA or FEMA are drastic issues but similar smaller instances exist right at the local levels and may not make the national news but do impact local citizens.

A bureaucratic example from personal experience – seemingly small and insignificant, but when multiplied by the number of different departments and governments around the country it illustrates how this trend can take on a life of its own.  A large condominium development with 44 buildings, 7 pools and two clubhouses uses a lot of water and sewer service from the local authority.  Each month the Property Owners Association, which pays for the service, receives over 50 individual bills, each in a separate stamped envelope.  The Association Manager must then create a spreadsheet that accounts for each bill and calculate a total so a single check can be cut for payment.  The local authority requires the spreadsheet be submitted so they can verify that each bill is paid.  In all other utility services, the Association receives a summary bill from the service provider.  The water and sewer department has been contacted on numerous occasions asking for summary billing but the bureaucratic answer is always “No, it can’t be done.”   The service provider incurs additional mailing expenses, the cost of generating individual bills, and the time and expense of a clerk going through a spreadsheet to verify payment—monthly.  Why not consider an alternative process?  Obviously we don’t know, but it is probably considered job security, and there is little incentive to work smarter--if the workload requires an additional staff member, fees can be raised to cover it.  Dumb things like this triplicate work exist throughout governments at all levels (and throughout many businesses).  Why are they allowed to continue?  In this case, the issue has been taken to the management of the department – with no response.  It has been taken to a city council member who said he would investigate but nothing has changed because the elected officials “don’t have the authority to intervene in staff functions”.  Where is the incentive to make government officials take action? 

How Do We Change This?  Looking Inward – not Outward

While we use the term reengineering, we always attempt to take a balanced and reasonable approach in our thinking, even when assessing the shortcomings of reengineering.  Considering the scope of government, the fact that leaders are typically elected with defined terms, along with the issues discussed above about staff positions being more permanent, a comprehensive reengineering initiative would be naïve, far too ambitious and destined for failure.  Perhaps that’s why we never hear about it or see it in the governmental ranks.  What is achievable and necessary is a commitment to an ongoing or continuous improvement initiative.  The point here is that the organization must look inward and examine several key areas, make the commitment to the ongoing improvement initiative and despite who is elected – the process goes on.  This method is a departure in many respects, because the tendency is to look outward.  What can we cut as far as services, what are we doing that can be done more effectively, what can we do to increase revenue, plus many other considerations external to the efficient functioning of government. 

About 20 years ago, public utilities struggled with the notion of looking inward.  It was a culture shock as well as painful at the time.  Yet, in many respects, despite the pain and shock, those organizations are in a better position today.

So what are these pieces that the organization must look inward upon?  They include:

·         A commitment to implement and follow through on an improvement program

·         A communication strategy

·         Needs Analysis

·         Analysis of Processes/Functions, People, Systems, and Structure

·         Implementation strategy

·         Training

·         Measurement

We will briefly discuss each piece of this puzzle indicating the rationale as well as what might be accomplished and expected from each.

Commitment

Without a commitment from the leaders in an organization nothing will work.  In a government organization, that commitment must be from the elected leaders and the senior staff.  That commitment must be made clear to everyone.  Staff will initially fight change – it is human nature but if they see a commitment and active involvement they will know it is serious and recognize that they need to get on board.  We have seen too many improvement efforts fail because it was clear that senior leaders only gave the effort lip service and were not really committed.

Communication Strategy

        Once the commitment has been made, the improvement effort will require a cohesive and well-coordinated communication initiative to ensure staff and management buy-in and support, as well as ongoing internal and external communication as required.

Needs Analysis

An assessment of why improvement is needed is a key step to start.  What has triggered the effort that is now starting and will end with improved processes?  This analysis can be an elaborate effort or an honest self-assessment to look within the organization and at interfaces with the external “customers”.  For most organizations, it requires admitting the need to improve—a difficult step.

Analysis of Processes

Process analysis sounds laborious and difficult.  It can be a complex process but it doesn’t always need to be.  A process needs to be selected that is recognized as being “broken” or has morphed into something very complex.  It needs to be high value to the organization.   A team of people who are part of the process and are willing to look at it with a critical eye map the process,  flow charting each existing step.  Once done, duplicate or unnecessary steps are obvious.  These can be the easy first improvements.  Here, the guidance of an experienced facilitator can make all the difference.  It is easy to describe in one paragraph but does take a little work.  However, the results can be amazing.  Some processes that function around a software program can be more complex since software interfaces and potential enhancements are more time consuming.

People Analysis

        The step determines a staffing policy and strategy that will allow the organization to be flexible in responding to the changes in the environment/region or area of responsibility.

       

        As the organization’s responsibilities change, so will the staffing needs change.  These changes may encompass areas of experience, education, and staffing level requirements.  It is important for the organization to be flexible in its structure to adapt and respond to any changes it encounters

        As a note, this part of the improvement initiative can be one of the most anxiety-charged efforts of the overall improvement process.  it can (and most likely will) reveal staffers whose relevance is diminishing, or their ability to ‘remain undetected’ within the organization is compromised, or their function is gone.

Analysis of Systems

        A Systems Analysis Strategy establishes a comprehensive and integrated approach for analyzing the systems used within the organization and defines a method for improving these systems and making their configuration more uniform if appropriate.

        A team from within the organization methodically analyzes the systems and tools used as part of performing the work.  It is important to analyze the non-uniformity, as an example, to determine the impact on process improvements.  The systems used by the organization impact departments external to our group and therefore need to be integrated or analyzed.

Analysis of Structure

As part of an organization’s broad-based improvement initiative, the structure used to perform functions must be included.  The structure of the organization is the framework for future success of the organization.  The optimum structure is both flexible and strong to survive the "storms" with a minimum of damage.  In determining the structure, balance must be achieved between functions desired and required by law and our constituents and those that are a viable and cost effective that can be maintained and continuously improved.  The structure must be evaluated concurrently and on an ongoing basis with internal processes and systems to assure that artificial and real barriers are not inadvertently introduced that could negate improvements implemented in these other areas.  Individual and organizational strengths must be identified and capitalized on by structuring an organization in a manner that utilizes human and other resources to their maximum potential.  External forces must be continually analyzed as well to assure our responsiveness and quality now and in the future.

Implementation Strategy

Implementation of improvements should be coordinated and planned to ensure the organization is prepared for the change and can assimilate the change in a timely efficient manner.  Change can have many behavioral impacts, so this strategy is essential to long term improvement. 

Implementation of any change (process, system, structure, etc.)  requires careful planning and coordination for the change to be accepted and assimilated.  Each change may require a special approach and certainly a special action plan.  This effort requires coordination with the sponsor of the change and the departmental or organizational manager.

Training

A Training Strategy should be in place to establish a comprehensive and integrated approach for providing the training needed to support the initiatives of the improvement plan.

Providing adequate training is typically a challenge for any organization. The availability of adequate training is important to the near term as well as the long term success of any improvement initiative.  The training strategy provides a means to integrate training into the improvement plan.

Measurement

Any continuous improvement initiative has several checks along the way to ensure an accurate and effective change mechanism.  The overall programmatic perspective occurs at this point in the process.  Measurement is a longer term view on improvements and their ultimate effectiveness.

As part of a truly “living” improvement process, a determination of long term effectiveness is essential.  This method requires tools and processes to observe and measure effectiveness of improvements.  Measurement tools identify the need for adjustments in the improvement approach or the actual improvements.

Summary

The discussion above highlights an improvement process.  There are some key points to keep in mind.

·         Don’t try to change the total culture in one big effort.  It will fail!  The commitment must come from above but the work must involve those who work the process.  Let improvements come from the bottom up.

·         Beware of “sacred cows” – those items or people or steps that someone in power has a personal interest in keeping alive.  Some may be valid but the analysis will speak for itself.

·         Start simple.  Master the basics.  Try the effort on some simpler processes that may not be mission critical for the organization.  Learn the improvement process and build on successes. We are sure you have heard the term ‘low hanging fruit,’ find the low hanging fruit to realize what success feels like.

·         Celebrate those successes and multiply and grow them.

·         Handle people impacted by improved processes with dignity and respect.  Try to find other positions when possible but don’t create work just to keep someone employed.

How Does This Apply in Business?

We have focused this article on government organizations but all that we have discussed is directly applicable to any organization.  We used the generic term “reengineering” but clearly we are advocating not a drastic redesign of entire organizations (either government and businesses) ,but a measured improvement process.   The result: measurable benefits and excitement within organizations to make continuous improvement an organizational culture.

 Posters from despair.com

Knowledge management:

a question of trust

Prologue
In our last Update issue, we introduced the topic of Knowledge Management and provided an overview of the benefits of a Knowledge Review, as well as a synopsis of the mechanics of conducting such a review.  We also argued for the leadership component necessary to fully realize the benefits of a Knowledge Management System.  Consistent with Andrew’s work, he clearly understands this relationship.  In subsequent writings and presentations, Andrew posits the idea that Knowledge Management is a question of trust.  Considering the leadership component along with the importance of trust, this issue focuses on this relationship and the impact on organizational leadership.

At a recent conference, one participant described knowledge management as ‘the conscience of the organisation and that effective knowledge management depends on a sense and a synergy of moral obligation by employer and employee.’

For me there are two key moral concepts to be considered:

• Reciprocal altruism, whereby people share knowledge in the expectation that the favour will be returned in a similar manner at some stage in the future.  There is a delight that we as human beings receive from helping our fellow humans even though at the time we derive nothing from this save for the pleasure of seeing it. 

• Douglas Mc Gregor’s Theory X & Y, where Y management take a positive approach towards people and that for them people want to come in and do the best job they can and that they look to seek out responsibility for themselves and their actions. (X sees people as needing to be coerced and tightly monitored)

The key element in these concepts is trust. From experience, knowledge management thrives in organisations where there are high levels of trust among people within the organisation.

If there is trust, then you don't need as many manuals, checkers and counter signatures that were in organisations when I first started work. People want to sign their work as craftsmen and to receive the credit as well as an acknowledgement of responsibility for that work.

People also desire to share knowledge of that success and, if they feel comfortable, then can also share their failures. I read recently that the World Bank has Failure Fairs highlighting why a project didn’t go as well as expected, but also provide a way to help colleagues to not make the same mistakes.

At Arup we carry out knowledge reviews that try to capture what went well along with what didn’t, and these findings are captured and forwarded to the skills networks.  Crucially, people have confidence that highlighting an area for improvement is not going to be used to ‘beat them around the head’

In a Japanese owned business I worked for in the UK, there were a number of Japanese managers who had relocated to the UK. Junior managers received knowledge transfer from their seniors who saw it as a moral duty to pass on their learning - to leave the organisation and the people in it better than they found it.

Competition was at a reduced level between the participants and co-operation was the key to winning the respect of your peers in the group. This moral obligation meant that KM was not seen as a tick box compliant exercise, but a part of being an employee at whatever level in the organisation.

The group were quicker in sharing knowledge and learning from mistakes because individual participants had confidence in their group to treat their mistakes with respect and in confidence, which reduced the fear element or loss of face. The key element that also came out of these meetings was that because of this relative fearlessness, people talked and bought different experiences both positive and negative to the room, which led to more tacit/ experiential knowledge being discussed and absorbed by participants.

If, as a group, people are sharing and talking about knowledge through their experiences, then this dialogue can be the starting point for people to ask unorthodox questions, experiment with new ideas and ways of working in a safe setting before they expose a creative idea to the organisation.

People naturally want to share knowledge, it is organisations that tend to place barriers in their way, for example not providing a time allowance to reflect and review their work and to share and gather experiences from that work, to help improve the final product and to provide the ability for the organisation and its people to learn, adapt and evolve to meet the clients current & future challenges.

If the organisation does remove the barriers, then people have to invest time in their own personal knowledge management and to recognise that their success is derived from being a sharer, not a hoarder of knowledge throughout the myriad formal & informal networks that exist in today’s organisation. This sharing of knowledge along with a high standard of work should form part of their appraisal both formally and informally by managers and their peers during their time in an organisation.

Organisations struggle with the legacy systems of command and control and need to recognise that today’s knowledge worker is different from the old production line worker.  Organisations shouldn’t be looking to shrink people’s autonomy when they arrive in the office, they should be looking to encourage them to circulate and re-configure their portable knowledge to investigate and provide solutions to the complex challenges that the world is going to provide.

Leadership and Trust

The above all sounds good, and in an ideal world this should work like clockwork.  But we all know we do not live in an ideal world.

Knowledge is a powerful thing and in the any environment where there is any kind of power hierarchy, the tendency to use knowledge as a lever is tempting.   When we start our leadership programs we point out that there are eight types of power.  They are:

• Legitimate power = because of title
• Reward power = a person who controls things you want, and be as simple as a storeroom clerk
• Coercive power = ridicule or punishment
• Referent power = Consistent set of values, goals and ways of getting there even if they don’t agree with you.  Will follow you with a consistent set of values
• Charismatic = who you are as a person
• Expertise power = knowledge and skill
• Situation power = a person who holds a low position but can control people by their cooperation or lack of cooperation
• Information power = Share or holdback knowledge or information which affects power

In today’s world a ninth form of power has come into existence, and we refer to it as Network Power.  Network Power is where people are excluded from a network of influence where knowledge is shared – effectively distributed lateral power, in contrast to the old hierarchical power.  In the context of KM, if you aren’t in the right network(s), you lose out in accessing and utilising knowledge as well as being seen within the organisation as a key influencer. The network will find ways of bypassing the hoarders or non-sharers of knowledge within the organisation who cling to the knowledge-is-power paradigm. The network achieves this over time by searching for and locating other sources of similar or good enough knowledge to help them in their day to day work. In the end the hoarders lose out as their knowledge power diminishes in usefulness as the network bypasses them.

From the above, it becomes evident that information and knowledge involve several sources of power.  Sharing, withholding, and/or hoarding information and/or knowledge can be a lever in both the positive and the negative. The issue here is this: what good is the process of Knowledge Management if the people in the organization first don’t ‘buy-in’ to the concept and then don’t actually share their knowledge because they feel insecure or distrustful in the people around them or the organization itself?  Perhaps the most important aspect of a successful Knowledge Management initiative is safety and trust.  When we refer to safety we are referring to the notion that the people within an organization feel ‘safe,’ that the environment and culture of the organization is safe for them to express themselves without penalty, to openly share their knowledge and expertise without feeling that someone will ‘steal’ their ideas, that favouritism is not part of the culture, in addition to many other dynamics that tend to subvert the health of an organization.  As Andrew states above, organisations tend to place barriers in the way of people sharing information and knowledge.   The word ‘organisations’ is another way of saying leadership.  

To explore leadership removing barriers and creating a safe environment we can be further refined the notion in the context of a rewards culture.  Rewards for this discussion means both formal and informal rewards systems that live within an organization, and how those rewards are managed.  For those of you who have followed our writings over the past many years, you may recall articles on Prudent Risk.  Briefly, Prudent Risk is the opposite of Zero Risk.  Zero Risk has many negative aspects--excessive costs, bogged down processes, and redundant and multiple approval iterations.  Prudent Risk, however, has a band of prudency where decisions are made and business can move efficiently and effectively.  But the concept of Prudent Risk also allows for a prudent risk to go wrong and without castigation.  Rather, the misstep becomes a learning opportunity which can then be embedded by adjusting the process to reduce or eliminate the misstep repeating itself.  The weak link here is when the concept of Prudent Risk is adopted but the underlying cultural aspects have not been embraced, and a prudent risk gone badly becomes a punitive event, the organisation reverts to Zero Risk.  Much the same organisational behaviour comes into play with Knowledge Management.  

Here’s hypothetical but realistic scenario for KM.  An organisation realizes the benefits of a KM system.  Proclamations go out, along with teams to develop and implement such a program.  All is set, protocols are established, teams begin the process and people start sharing information.  The crux of the issue is when a person who has a unique skill, knowledge or component of information shares that information, another team picks it up and applies the learning and/or knowledge, and that team takes all the credit for that key component of knowledge provided by another person, the process is flawed from onset.  If you shared your knowledge and expertise only to have another person or team take ownership with no acknowledgement of your contribution, how would you feel?  Would you ever share again?  The reality is that is takes a couple of instances for this to occur – people might forgive once or even twice but after then they would disengage. It also depends on how ‘competitive’ the organisation is. If there is pressure on short term wins at the expense of the medium to long term, then this pressure can reduce the critical questioning that needs to happen within the organisation to help it improve and innovate.

We are confident that the majority of our readers can formulate their own scenario or case study of situations where one person willingly shares their expertise only to have someone else seemingly reap a reward.  

The point here is in a safe environment, the leadership of the organisation is keenly aware of these dynamics and stimulates an environment that frowns on this behaviour, and rewards the person sharing.  Where ‘credit’ for something is really a team situation, expectations are such that people within the organisation are not positioning themselves at the expense of others.  That achievement is rewarded appropriately and properly, where there is a system that rewards those who strive to meet the expectation rather than those who are self-serving.  The worst thing that can happen is if the one who is striving to meet expectations feels as though they are being penalized, albeit indirectly, when someone exploits the contribution for their own benefit.

Once again, the effective leadership position must be one that creates a sense of trust, openness, fairness and proper rewards.  As we have stated repeatedly, this is not easy.  To make this happen requires leadership skill and tenacity.  I am sure some of our readers think we don’t understand all the nuance of what is going on within their organisations and it is easy for us as consultants to make these audacious claims; and we understand that.  What we can say though is we see many different organisations and types of organisations. We see different cultures, different people and different businesses, and what we are saying in extremely realistic and achievable.  There are positive examples and to Andrew’s credit, we are fortunate to showcase Arup as a global organization that has instituted a successful Knowledge Management system.  

In closing, the ultimate objective here is rooted in the business case.  To fall back on the old 1980s jargon of “win-win,” if a viable and robust KM process is designed developed and implemented, employees from the start are more effective and they become more productive quicker because they are in touch with the people and the tools that help them do their jobs better. Employees feel more ownership and belonging, the organisation moves forward rather than relearning over and over, litigation costs might well be reduced, competitive advantage increases, and ultimately outcomes in the form of business results improve.

If you’d like to find out more on how a knowledge review process can help your profitability and happier and engaged staff, with a free 45 minute presentation, then please contact either Dean Macris or myself;  

Andrew Trickett,

Global Rail Knowledge and Information Manager, Arup

The Arup Campus Blythe Gate Blythe Valley Park Solihull West Midlands B90 8AE  United Kingdom

t +44 121 213 3000  d +44 121 213 3510

f +44 121 213 3799   m +44 7825 198 044

andrew.trickett@arup.com  —   www.arup.com

Andrew is Knowledge and Information Manager within Arup’s global rail team. Recognised globally across Arup as a subject matter expert on Knowledge Management and Communities of Practice (COP), Andrew has designed and delivered numerous innovative and engaging workshops with employees from numerous disciplines up to executive level.

Andrew has significant knowledge on developing improved knowledge sharing within organisations based on the People, Process and Technology circles and has a high level of expertise on Enterprise 2.0 tools to assist with knowledge sharing and connectivity. Andrew is particularly interested in the use of COP and project reviews as a means of capturing tacit knowledge from people and delivering operational efficiencies within an organisation.

Andrew has a high level of experience training teams and individuals on how to utilise effectively current knowledge tools within Arup in order to access global knowledge as well as training managers in the tools and techniques to obtain key knowledge with minimal loss of time and cost to the firm. Andrew has also spoken at a number of KM conferences and has contributed articles to a number of KM publications.