Teibel, Inc.

At the risk of alienating those who detest jargon, I lead with the title “Building Organizational Capacity”. If you’ve gotten this far, you’re either A. intrigued yet unsure where this is going B. excited and on the edge of your seat or C. taken enough time away from real work.

Building capacity is one way to look at organizational effectiveness, pointing to a concrete element that is central to any change initiative — your people and how they work together.

Webster’s defines capacity as “the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy”. Building organizational capacity is key to a long-term strategy for organizational effectiveness by focusing on getting more from what you have — i.e. getting more from your people.

The Final Release

When people say “we need to get more from this technology!”, everyone nods their head in agreement, believing there must be some hidden features in the application that will transform organizational efficiency. What would we focus on if there really wasn’t a better way to do something? Imagine your software and hardware being as good as it’s ever going to be. Release 8.027 Final Version Ever. Where would we look for improvements? The same place we should be looking today — in our people.

The Cart Dragging The Horse

Millions of dollars each year are spent in large organizations attempting to get the most from electronic systems, yet efficiency continues to be a problem. In many cases, the problem is getting worse, with software becoming increasingly complex, and people becoming even more insulated from the tools they are expected to get the most from. It is the cart dragging the horse, and smart organizations are beginning to recognize the horse needs to get back up front.

“We’re Not Upgrading!”

An example of reversing the tide is a university I work with has decided not to upgrade to the newest release of their ERP application. I repeat — not upgrading. Blasphemy! The IT department, as well as those familiar with the benefits of the upgrade are left with the unenviable tasks of working with what they got. Management recognizes the dilemma of just focusing on technology to solve organizational inefficiencies.

It’s not that software and hardware upgrades should be avoided at all costs; it’s just that they don’t necessarily address the human side of efficiency. It’s just a fact that it’s much easier to sell and install a software patch than address department collaboration issues.

Putting aside the laundry list of things you can do to focus on people capacity — governance, leadership, defining mission, partnership, and collaboration just to name a few — what is the roadmap to help keep your eyes on people?

KISS

Although most of us will agree that technology is just the tool, there is less of an understanding how to navigate the less quantifiable elements that get people behaving productively. The steps are simple to define, yet complex to implement. Let’s name three.

Step 1: What are you trying to achieve?

Improving people capacity centers on changing human behavior. To get there, you must first know where you’re going. Step 1 involves clarifying where the organization is headed (the mission) and matching those to the actions people need to take to get there. For example, if the mission is “to promote awareness of heart disease”, everyone’s actions need to directly or indirectly contribute to this goal.

Step 2: What skills/competencies do people need to get there?

For example, if you’re trying to promote awareness of heart disease, raising money is a logical contributor to this mission. Developing competent fund raisers would be a skill that your people should have. The technology solution would be to drop 30k on the latest upgrade of fund-raising software, putting minimal focus on the people skills that key people should be developing. A smarter use of time and money may be to initiate a comprehensive training of staff in developing fund- raising fundamentals and interpersonal skills. Maybe both, but don’t be fooled that technology alone will get you there.

A simple question to ask before committing to a solution is: Are we sufficiently focusing on what directly or indirectly contributes to the mission? Shying away from less quantifiable solutions potentially leaves a gaping hole in your plan.

Step 3: How can you sustain sufficient capacity over the long-term?

Finally, the most difficult element of organizational capacity is sustaining it over the long- term. The difficulty stems from people reverting back to old behaviors and no one stepping up to remind others of the new standards of behavior. For example, if an organizational learns how to conduct effective departmental meetings, effectiveness among staff should follow. Although the techniques for getting the most from meetings are not complex, sustaining it over time is difficult.

As the weeks pass after great strides have been made in meeting effectiveness, people start to show up late again, agendas become vague, and people walk out of meetings saying “nothing was accomplished or that was a waste of time”. When this happens, a structure needs to be in place that allows the group to revisit how they’re doing, and putting the correction in to get back on track. It’s just like exercise or dieting — easy to start — difficult to maintain.

What’s KISS? As a former client used to remind me when dealing with him and his staff — Keep It Simple Stupid. The best solutions are simple to understand and simple to follow.

The Bottom Line

It’s time we stop avoiding the difficult conversations and look at setting higher standards for our people. It starts with clearly defining our goals, what actions will support them, what skills people need and how will we remind each other when we get off track. If upgrades and patches are viewed as necessities to continue smooth operations, and not panaceas for solving organizational inefficiencies, you’ve got the best of both worlds. Remember, the latest hammer doesn’t make an exceptional carpenter. It won’t hurt, but you need to know how and when to use it.

Efficiency

“The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.”

— Bill Gates

The Major Premise

What is Mr. Lencioni’s major premise on how groups develop into high-performing teams? It comes down to five qualities that people bring to group dynamics: trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, and a focus on results. When these qualities are present, groups are able to accomplish extraordinary things. In the absence of these qualities, groups become mired in personality and political distractions that take away from achieving their goals.

The book describes the absence of these qualities as dysfunctions that contribute to team ineffectiveness or failure. The dysfunctions are:

1. Absence of trust
2. Fear of conflict
3. Lack of commitment
4. Avoidance of accountability
5. Inattention to results

Each one of these dysfunctions has a direct impact on the group achieving its goals, whether they’re strategic or operational. Trust is the foundation to deal with all the other dysfunctions.

Absence of Trust

As Patrick Lencioni writes: “Trust is not the ability of team members to predict one another’s behavior because they’ve known each other for a long time. Trust is all about vulnerability and is predicated on the simple and practical idea that people who aren’t afraid to admit the truth about themselves are not going to engage in the kind of political behavior that wastes everyone’s time and energy.”

Without trust among players on a team, people will hide their weaknesses, concerns, and doubts about the direction the organization is going in. Trust is the cornerstone of dialogue, and having satisfying business relationships. It’s the lack of trust, or reluctance to reveal oneself to others that lead to the second dysfunction:

Fear of Conflict

In the absence of trust, individuals do not challenge each other constructively, but hold back out of fear of interpersonal conflict. One example of avoidance of conflict is how people deal with a co-worker who is constantly late to meetings or work. Unless it’s explicitly stated by management that being on time is expected, and management holds themselves to the same standards, people will quietly tolerate others being late at the expense of team effectiveness. Another example is someone having a genuine concern about the goals of the team, but choosing to keep it to themselves. This is often out of a fear of producing interpersonal conflict.

When people in business environments choose to not avoid difficult conversations, the makings of healthy conflict take shape. Passionate debate is an example of healthy conflict. When present, it allows for the next dysfunction to be dealt with.

Lack of Commitment

Instead of discussing difficult topics in group meetings, we focus on what’s comfortable. No one wants to step forward and be the lone voice for why something can’t be done. But it’s precisely this voice that allows for the group to achieve true buy-in.

As stated in the book, “The next dysfunction of a team is the lack of commitment and the failure to buy in to decisions. And the evidence of this one is ambiguity.”

In the absence of discussing the difficult topics, groups leave their individual and collective commitments vague. This is apparent at the end of meetings when people walk out the room, privately asking themselves “Did we agree on anything?” or “Did anyone commit to anything?” Passionate, unfiltered dialogue allows all the issues (positive and negative) to surface, giving skeptics and sponsors a true sense of buy-in. It’s only when groups are able to have dialogue that produces buy-in do they come face-to-face with the fourth dysfunction:

Avoidance of Accountability

Accountability is about follow through. And follow through on commitments requires answering the following three questions:

1. What’s the action?
2. Whose going to take it?
3. By when will it get done?

Accountability is about rigorously and consistently asking these questions, then following up with people around what happened. Accountability is not about getting it done on time, but being responsible for everything that comes up along the way. You can count on things getting in the way. It’s how you deal with it when it slips that determines the strength of your accountability.

Organizations that produce great results have a strong sense of accountability. It is built into the culture. In the absence of accountability, commitments may be clear in the moment, but don’t get realized in a timely fashion and sometimes not at all.

Inattention to Results

Finally, making it through the first four dysfunctions allows groups to stay laser focused on results. Teams that produce great results:

“Trust one another, engage in conflict, commit to decisions, and hold one another accountable.”

— Patrick Lencioni

Recognizing the five dysfunctions in your organization and consciously dealing with them will go a long way to improving the success of your teams. If you are interested in a copy of “The Five Dysfunctions of A Team”, you can find it here:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0787960756

If you’re inspired by the ideas in Patrick’s book, call or email us to learn how we can translate these ideas into action for your organization.

Accountability

“People aren’t going to hold each other accountable if they haven’t clearly bought in to the same plan.”

— Patrick Lencioni
Author and Lecturer

What is a Business Analyst?

The business analyst can go by many names — Business Systems Analyst, Systems Analyst, and Functional Analyst. Each description points to a common title for the person responsible for “analyzing the business needs of their clients and stakeholders to help identify business problems and propose solutions.” — Wikipedia

Whatever name you assign, the role comes down to translating ideas, knowledge, and data into collaborative behavior that has the potential to produce real change in an organization.

From management’s point of view, the role is about helping them steer the ship with quantifiable data to measure results against organizational vision and goals. It’s about being able to synthesize a set of conditions in an organization (financial, strategic, process and relationship) to improve the bottom line.

Whether internally developed or brought in from the outside, there are certain competencies someone should bring to the table. These competencies fall in three categories — organizational knowledge, business process and interpersonal skills.

I Organizational knowledge

This skill is about language and relationship. The business analyst needs to understand internal jargon and be able to converse with groups that use it, along with being able to translate “business speak” into English.

They also need to be able to navigate key relationships on projects (both management and staff) and work with these groups to uncover problems and opportunities.

Organizational knowledge is often stronger in an internal candidate, who has had time to acclimate themselves to the business. For external candidates, having strong interpersonal skills is key to establishing good working relationships, and getting up to speed quickly on demystifying jargon that people throw around so easily.

II Business Process Skills

The second competency is business process, or the language of how work gets done. At the most basic level, business process is the series of steps taken to perform tasks in your organization. There are high-level business processes (Overview of a procurement process) and detail processes (Paying a vendor, getting purchasing approval etc.).

Business process skills include:

• Applying analytical skills to business requests (which are often high-level or lacking in detail)
• Understanding the requirements from the business perspective and translate them into a form that can be understood and acted on by the customer. Go to www.teibelinc.com/pdf/sample_process_map.pdf for a Sample Process Map.
• Synthesizing business requirements, including recognizing patterns and conceptualizing processes

III Interpersonal Competencies

Finally, the last competency is being able to work with other people and be an effective “translator” among groups. This competency includes:

• Being an effectively facilitator
• Building relationship across teams that need to work together
• Understanding and negotiating the needs and expectations of multiple stakeholders

Together, these three competencies make up the critical elements for a business analyst to make genuine impact in an organization.

Advantages of the In-house Business Analyst

The advantages of developing the in-house business analyst include the following:

1. The person already has relationships and network in place
2. Over long-term, it can become a cost effective investment over hiring repeatedly from the outside
3. It creates a sustainable internal focus on managing change and improvement

On the other hand, the challenges associated with positioning an internal candidate is that internal politics and personalities may make it difficult for them to produce timely change. Sometimes an outside perspective and unbiased point of view is needed to unstick something that has been in place for a long time.

Tool to Assess Internal Candidate

Assessing an internal candidate is about identifying someone who recognizes this role as an opportunity to take the next step in their contribution to the organization. At the heart of a good candidate is personal motivation to transition into this role. Without it, no amount of assistance will help them become an exceptional business analyst.

If you are interested in a tool we designed to help identify potential candidates and their strengths, download the assessment tool below. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it.

Assessment Tool To Develop The Business Analyst

If you are interested in an assessment tool to evaluate internal candidates, go to this URL: www.teibelinc.com/downloads/pdf/assessment-business_analyst.pdf.

You can also inquire about our consulting services and workshops that enable individuals to develop business analyst skills.

There are two concerns people bring to the meeting experience; “Why am I here?” and “Where are we going?”

These concerns come up because meetings are often placeholders to guarantee face time with coworkers. This rationale for meetings, however, rarely impacts individual or group productivity and is a low standard for meeting excellence.

So what can be done to transform meetings so they are a valuable use of people’s time and contribute to group productivity?

The Five Phases

When exceptional results are realized in meetings, the following five phases are navigated effectively. They are:

Phase 1: Define objectives for each topic
Phase 2: Identify type of actions needed for the topic
Phase 3: Conduct focused dialogue
Phase 4: Transition to decision-making and accountability
Phase 5: Validate results (what was heard and what was said)

Phase 1: Define objectives for each topic

Often overlooked, people dive into a topic without a clear sense where they want to end up. It usually is characterized as an “update”, which actually means the presenter hasn’t thought through why they are bringing this topic to the team.

Groups that regularly meeting often do not distinguish topics that require a decision from those that could simply be communicated offline. The mistake is thinking the topic itself is the objective, versus it being the background that leads to an objective. Define the outcome in terms of “What do I want individuals or the team to do differently as a result of discussing the topic”?

Phase 2: Identify type of actions needed

Often unspoken, groups leave it up to each person to determine the mechanism for achieving objectives. Consider ten people planning a trip to California from Boston, each having a different idea how they are going to get there. Some want to fly, others drive, while still others think a bus is the best alternative. Now imagine these alternatives don’t get discussed. What a surprise when people discover the trip never happens.

This ambiguity happens constantly in meetings. Like planning a trip, groups need to be explicit with each other about HOW they are going to achieve meeting objectives. Will it be a vote, consensus, thumbs up or down or maybe it’s just information gathering? As an example, if you were attempting to come up with quarterly goals for your organization, the type of actions needed might be brainstorming, prioritizing, then voting.

Framing how the objectives will be achieved gets people on the same page. By taking time to identify the “type of action”, you’ll have a better chance of getting out of the parking lot and on the trip.

Phase 3: Conduct focused dialogue

Focused dialogue is that phase in a meeting when people get to express opinions, ideas, facts, arguments and counter arguments. It’s basically an opportunity to engage in discussion so that everyone is up to speed on the topic.

This is not decision-making, but information sharing, a critical step to insure buy-in for the next phase of the discussion.

Phase 4: Transition to decision-making and accountability

Once sufficient dialogue has happened, the discussion must move into this phase, which is the equivalent to “We’ve heard everyone’s point of view. Now it’s time to focus on our agreed to method to achieve the outcome.”

It’s critical that the group collectively agrees to make the transition to decision-making. Often groups unconsciously move into this phase out of frustration that the dialogue is going on too long. Then someone slips back into expressing an opinion, easily digresses the group back into unfocused dialogue.

However, when it’s been explicitly stated that the team is in phase 4 (decision-making) and someone slips back into an opinion, it’s possible to express “I just want to point out that Johns comment will move us back into dialogue. Is that what we want to do right now?”

Being able to ask this question at that moment will keep the group focused on the task at hand, and is only possible if the group has the awareness where they are in the five phases.

One more thought on decision-making. Don’t confuse buy-in around a decision with the need for consensus. Buy-in is about agreeing to approach the problem in a specific way. Everyone does not need to agree with the approach, but everyone does need to express that they are willing to go along with the decision. Buy-in is not necessarily consensus.

Phase 5: Validate results

Finally, one of the most critical pieces to meeting effectiveness is validating results. It’s an opportunity for those people who committed to something to verbally reflect on what they will do. It’s also the leader asking the group “What did you hear me request”, and then letting people speak what they heard.

You will be surprised how often what was heard was not what was requested, or some key piece was left out. Validation takes the ambiguity out of who made what decision and each person’s understanding of what they committed to.

By conducting your meetings with these five phases in mind, you’ll have greater success getting to meaningful outcomes, potentially transforming the meeting experience from one of frustration to one of value to you and the organization.

Meeting Effectiveness Model

If you are interested in a visual representation of our “Meeting Effectiveness Model”, send an email to hteibel@teibelinc.com. I’ll send you a copy. You can also inquire about our programs that teach this skill to individuals and teams.

After all is said and done, consultants are only as good as their ability to leave the client in a better position. Whether we’re assisting with integrating a new technology, developing a sales or marketing strategy, or doing an organizational assessment, there is a common element in each of these initiatives; you and your people.

What are you really buying?

A new financial system is going in? — get an expert who can help you. Doing an organizational merger? Hire someone who can navigate these choppy waters.

What are you buying when you retain consulting services? In a nutshell, it’s the promise that you won’t have to reinvent the wheel. It’s the hope that by relying on someone who has been through it before, you’ll get the best path to success.

So why is it still such a common experience that organizations feel less than satisfied with external involvement? Yes, there are consultants who far surpass client expectations and deliver lasting value. But far more frequently, the client is unable to perform the tasks on their own, or make the changes permanent.

The Missing Piece

Consultants enter a project in one of two ways — Do I catch fish for you or help you learn to catch fish yourself?

Consultants and customers often have different expectations — the consultant delivers recommendations, while the client expects measurable benefits. These are potentially two very different outcomes.

What’s really going on is both parties are often unwilling to do the difficult thing, that is, uncover how little the organization is prepared to inherit change.

So what is a better model for transitioning responsibility and skill to the true owner of the change, i.e. you and your people?

Helping Vs. Doing

The shift that needs to take place in organizations is “helping learners help themselves”. Take any initiative where a set of skills needs to be transferred from one group to another. What would it take to make the learning stick? Here’s a hint. It’s not about recommendations, assisting, coaching or doing for you — but simply “helping you help yourself”.

We’re all so good at doing, but turning things over to others requires a different skill, sometimes described as “delegating”. But delegating only is only the first step in transferring skills.

Helping others help themselves is about incorporating the following approach:

1. Model the correct behavior or point out the ineffective behavior
2. Observe your people in action
3. Provide correction and feedback
4. Step back and observe again

Try these steps the next time you’re demonstrating how to perform a task – running an electronic report, incorporating a speaking skill or performing a new business process. It’s step 2 and 4 that are key, but are the ones we avoid doing.

Your Worst Culprits

Who are they? It’s those “experts” running around your organization doing everything for everyone. They are the worst culprits because we buy into their excuses of “it’s faster for me to do it myself” or “I’m just not a great delegator or teacher” etc. etc. etc. “Those that can’t do, teach — those that can’t teach, consult”.

A Personal Story

Over the last eight months, I’ve had the privilege of applying the principle of “helping others help themselves”. A formal practice even exists that exemplifies these principles, i.e., the practice of “Process Consultation”. My role with a particular client is to help them become a high performing senior management team — not by making recommendations or taking them through exercises, or even coaching. I observe them in action every two weeks during their all day staff meeting, continually looking for opportunities to apply the four steps described above. To their credit, they insisted that Process Consultation be used, which forced me to be disciplined about “what does it really mean to not do for you, but to get you to do for yourself?”

At first it appeared to be the ideal consulting gig. I listened, did very little talking, maybe even made an observation here and there, finally letting them deal with the problem. Sounds simple right? It’s probably the hardest consulting work I have done to date and required the highest level of patience on my part.

Why? Because I am so accustomed to being the expert, the solver, the guy to make it happen. As the consultant, I’m expected to provide out-of-the- box ideas, lay out a plan, and to my private desires — save the day. Clients don’t ask “Can you make sure whatever you’re doing outlives your involvement?” and it’s definitely not in my contract to make sure they integrate my recommendations.

Process Consultation

We underestimate what it takes for people to make new behavior and skills their own. The book “Process Consultation Revisited”, by Edgar Shein so exemplifies the challenges and value around the “helping relationship”. His work is at the heart of making customers effective versus creating an enabling behavior between consultant and client. A must read for any internal or external consultant.

What’s fascinating about this philosophical approach is becoming aware how much customers inadvertently turn over their power to suggestions, recommendations or coaching, as if our ideas are sufficient to make the change happen.

What Can You Do

Start by asking the question “How can I help prepare this group to help itself”? If you’re the client, ask “What can I do to take ownership of this process?”

Once you shift the focus from doing to helping, an entirely new set of questions emerge.

“What does it take to genuinely transfer knowledge or skills?”

“What are the barriers to someone being capable to perform the task themselves?”

The Bottom Line

Consultants should help more and solve less. This is not to say that there isn’t a place for expert consulting, bringing years of knowledge to a problem, evaluating it, then recommending a course of action. But how many times have the most well respected consulting firms participated in one of your projects, only to leave before the change is implemented. What’s missing is genuine listening for what it’s going to take to leave your organization in a stronger position, not just with good ideas that don’t make it past a report.

If you’re consulting, just know there are a million “fix- it” firms and individuals ready to solve clients problem. If nothing else, be different. Start applying a helping role in your work. You’ll discover new areas of value you can bring to organizations.

And if you’re using consultants, stop listening to everything they tell you and ask them to help you help yourself. Don’t wait until they leave to realize you don’t know where to start. This focus on accountability to results will serve all of us in the long run.

Quote About Learning

“We learn more by looking for the answer to a question and not finding it than we do from learning the answer itself.”

— Lloyd Alexander

Number 10: “You’re right; we’re billing way too much for this.”

Come on. We’re not all that bad. Exceed client expectation and billing rates becomes secondary. End of story.

Number 9: “Bet you I can go a week without saying “synergy” or “value-added”.

OK. Maybe I can’t. Jargon is our security blanket, a way to feel connected to others who have also left the comforts of a 9-5 job. We use phrases like knowledge transfer, business process or strategic initiative because it feels good. Maybe it even makes us feel important. Now can we get on with this collaborative dialogue?

Number 8: “How about paying us based on the success of the project?”

Now let’s not get carried away. On further thought, I’m not sure some clients would like this arrangement. By success of the initiative, do we mean the value we’re delivering? So, if we can help save a client two million dollars and take just 5% of those savings, that would be $100,000. When do we start?

Number 7: “This whole strategy is based on a Harvard business case I read.”

Expertise used to mean experience. Now you could build the facade of a consulting practice by googling “Consulting Methodologies”. Thankfully, most customers know the difference between talking the talk versus walking the walk.

By the way, when searching in Google, use quotation marks to help narrow your search.

The Number 6 thing you’ll never hear from a consultant is:

“Actually, the only difference is that we charge more than they do.”

Not us. Fixed price projects, defined scope of work; you know exactly what you’re getting and what it’s going to cost. (A little shameless self-promotion)

You’ll definitely never hear Number 5:

“I don’t know enough to speak intelligently about that.”

So here’s the problem. We believe not knowing something means we’re not as valuable to our clients. I say it’s time we collectively show our true selves, even the less than perfect side. Here’s a little exercise. If you’re consulting, repeat after me: “I don’t know”. Again. “I don’t know”. One more time. “I don’t know”. Good.

Number 4: “Implementation? I only care about writing long reports.”

Why does every consulting gig have to end in a report? Is is really necessary? I say quantify the problem, solve it and move on. We’re not being paid for long reports, are we? Read through those hundred page documents you’ve written or received. If you can’t find a clearly described problem and road map to solve it, you’ve basically got a hefty paper weight.

Number 3: “I can’t take the credit. It was Ed in your purchasing department.”

It’s no secret that consultants have a strong need for attention. I’ll admit it. Although it’s not our most flattering trait, it’s consistent with our desire to save the day.

Think Doug Flutie in the final seconds, throwing the famous touchdown pass for Boston College. That’s how we put ourselves to sleep at night. Alright, that’s how I put myself to sleep at night.

Number 2: “The problem is, you have too much work for too few people.”

The nice thing about bringing us in rather than additional employees is it’s so much easier to boot us out the door. For a short period we get to be part of the family. You may even invite us to your parties. And then, bam! projects over, thank you very much, we’re out. Yes, we all succumb to the occasional project where we go on “permanent adopted status”? Long term projects do create stability in our uncertain consulting lives, but don’t kid yourselves – we’re still outside the family. Don’t forget that.

And the Number 1 thing you’ll never hear a consultant say:

“Everything looks okay to me.”

At least once in every consultant’s career, the following words should come out of our mouths, “I can’t help you.” What an honest expression of our commitment to customers. What an exhilarating thrill and ethical stand to turn down work outside our scope of expertise.

By the way, if you do find that courage to turn down a project, congratulations! Now call me and I’ll figure out how I can get it done.

Public Speaking Quote

“It usually takes more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech.”

— Mark Twain

When you car battery dies, you jumpstart it or buy a new battery. Simple problem, straightforward solution. In your organization, when voices are heard up and down the hallways that people feel misled, kept out of a process, or don’t think changes are necessary, the remedy is not as straightforward as replacing your car battery.

Complex enterprise projects are unique from conception to completion. There is no script that guarantees success.

“Problems can be solved while dilemma’s need to be managed.” Enterprise projects are perpetual dilemmas.

Unfortunately, human nature attempts to place simple labels on these complex projects; Success, failure, good, bad; these are insufficient descriptions of what’s really going on.

In a commentary by Lloyd Rain titled “IT Project Failure”, he states:

“The truth is that the great majority of IT projects do not fail – most simply do not go as well as originally hoped, take longer than planned and cost more than anticipated. These are really not failures at all; you might classify them as “discouraging successes.” Almost all IT projects are discouraging successes. Unfortunately, managers, outsiders and even users view them as failures to some degree.”

“Discouraging successes” is that grey in the middle, which points to one of the least understood elements of project work; the art of communication and managing expectations.

“Don’t Look Behind The Curtain”

Too often, the early-selling phase of an IT project focuses exclusively on buy-in from senior management. As long as funding is secured, the rest are just “details, details, details”.

The problem starts with the dialogue and decision- making leading up to the actual execution of the work. It can be characterized as “don’t look behind the curtain”. In order to get this buy-in, vendors, consultants and even internal project teams get caught up in creating a misleading or incomplete impression of the “true value” of an IT implementation.

How else can you explain The Standish Groups CHAOS report of thousands of IT projects;

• 31% cancelled before completion
• 53% doubled their original cost estimate
• 16% completed on time and on budget

Of those completed on time, only 42% had the original proposed features and functions.

Less than one tenth of all projects deliver on the proposed features after making it through the acceptance phase!

What factors contribute to these statistics? It starts with the tone and execution of communication. The two extremes could be characterized as “full disclosure” and “complete fluff”. Full disclosure might look something like this:

“The price for this project will triple by the time all the functionality is in place. Our people will be overworked for the next 12-18 months and stakeholders will continuously question management’s rationale for this investment.”

OK. I think we all agree. Too much information. How about…

“We’ll be on-time, on-budget, with all functionality on day-one.”

At best, this one is disingenuous, at worst – irresponsible. So what should be communicated?

The Middle Ground

Selling the project means balancing the need to create positive momentum (funding, enthusiasm and resources) with setting appropriate expectation. “Full disclosure” doesn’t work but neither does playing it so close to the vest that no one knows what’s coming.

The grey in the middle means recognizing the importance of creating a shared vision, along with an acknowledgement of the very real challenges in bringing change to an organization. And if you don’t believe these challenges are real, re- read the statistics.

A simple yet infrequently performed task is to initiate a dialogue with sponsors and project champions around the type of communication desired.

• Will we share bad news?
• Will we include difficult stakeholders in the process?
• What does it mean to have a balanced communication strategy?

Having this conversation will go a long way toward establishing a clear message throughout the project.

Influencers Vs. Decision Makers

Think of the following complementary roles: Nurses and doctors, administration and faculty, staff and managers. What makes them complementary? Some roles hold the key, while others know how to open the door. Both groups are critical to running a smooth organization or implementing a successful project.

An influencer may be a respected employee, an effective communicator or a trusted advisor to management. Influencers don’t control the final decision, but they do provide key information to decision makers about the direction the organization should go. Decision-makers rely on influencers more than you know.

Find out who the influencers are in your organzation. Ask the decision makers who they will use to help make their key project decisions? And finally, approach the influencers and find out what their concerns are. It’s selling 101 – “What’s the pain they want to avoid or what opportunity do they want to take advantage of?”

The Language of Senior Management

It comes down to putting yourself in the shoes of those making the decision. The language of senior management is simple. It’s either:

• What is the risk they’re trying to mitigate?
• How can they improve the bottom line?

Everything else is just details. Remember, senior management is also responsible to someone, whether it be the board or other governing bodies. You can help senior management by giving them a simple framework to evaluate projects.

Using the following four categories, ask management to place each project in its proper place:

1. Not important and not urgent
2. Important, but not urgent
3. Urgent, but not important
4. Important and Urgent

This will do a number of things. One, it will clarify which priorities will probably get funding. Two, it will reveal which projects need more data before they can decide and third, it will help you understand senior management goals and where to put your own resources.

“To Be or Not To Be”

Finding that middle ground in your communication strategy, drawing up influencers in the decision-making process, and speaking the language of senior management – these are three elements that have great impact on getting a project off the ground properly.

Facilitation Tip

Regardless of how much information you need to speak to in your presentation, reserve the last twenty minutes for group reflection, otherwise known as “the debrief”.

The most frequent mistake made is not leaving enough time to recognize what attendees have learned. Say something like:

“There’s more content that we can cover in the last 20 minutes. Instead, let’s look back on the last 3 hours and discuss what we’ve learned or next steps that should be taken.”

This is one of those common sense actions that most agree with, but few make happen.

Remember, what YOU say is less important than the results you produce in others.

Process maps can be used in a variety of venues. In organizational mergers and acquisitions, they can set proper expectations for the organizations new structure and uncover redundancy of work tasks. In enterprise technology projects, process maps can facilitate design dialogue between all levels in an organization and can become the foundation for communication and training content.

What is a process map? It can be defined as:

“A clear and comprehensive picture of the way business is done.”

“Any method used to depict a process in a manner similar to the way a map depicts an area.”

“A method for depicting information flow in a diagrammatic form, defining key input and outputs along the way.”

These definitions describe three important elements: the way business is done; its use as a guide or map; and key inputs and outputs. Let’s look at each:

The Way Business is Done

Process mapping is not just about back office use of Visio to represent complex technical designs. Its greater value lies in demystifying how people conduct business and clarifying jargon that is too freely used in business redesign.

Even more important, these visual depictions open dialogue for non-technical people to intelligently inquire and understand how work gets done across groups.

A Road Map

Think of process maps as a visual guide to go from A to B. For example, the entire procurement cycle in an organization can be visually represented from the point of a purchasing need through payment to the vendor.

Designed in a user-friendly format, process guides help stakeholders, end-users and project team members with a shared view of the organizations structure. It can serve as a critical communication tool to help stakeholders speak the same language around change.

To see an example of a procurement cycle map created for an organization, go to: www.teibelinc.com/pdf/sample_process_map.pdf.

What Goes In Must Come Out

Process maps also provide a view of what it takes to get information in and out of a manual or electronic system.

An input might be entering a purchase requisition or new employee into a system, while the output is the payment on that requisition or a summary report of the HR record. Inputs and outputs are key components to process map content.

When inputs and outputs are graphically represented, key milestones become clearer, giving further meaning to the successful completion of a task. If nothing else, capturing the critical inflows and outflows of a process puts the team in a much better position to understand who’s involved in what task and the interdependence of each others work.

What to Include

Business process maps often take into account a horizontal view of an organization, cutting across many departments and central administrative groups. Four things should be captured in process maps:
Who (people or roles performing the tasks)
What (tasks they perform or electronic steps that take place)
When (proper sequence and timing of tasks)
Why (to what end is this work performed? ex: Hiring process, purchasing cycle or new organizational structure)

Two additional elements should be considered in process maps; business jargon and helpful hints. Out of context, business jargon can be confusing. By introducing acronyms and organization specific terms into process maps, this in itself can clarify the jargon. In addition, helpful hints can be inserted to assist people with performing steps in the process (i.e. queries they can run at a given point, who to call to confirm posting of an HR record etc.)

Balancing Simplicity and Complexity

For process maps to be an effective communication tool, they need to be user- friendly. This means non-technical people are able to follow the flow without having to know business process jargon (multiple flows, logic Time, and FIFO lane, just to name a few).

If your primary audience doesn’t find the visual representation appealing and simple to follow, it won’t communicate value. So who are your best candidates to design these maps? The work of designing process maps is to put complex tasks in the context of a business need. People with strong technical background may not be the best resource to build these diagrams.

Your best people are those who:

• Can think conceptually
• Are able to focus on how others learn (strong communication skills)
• Are good translators of complex tasks into simple steps
• Are able to use visuals as metaphors (ex: passing a baton in a relay race to represent collaboration, the space shuttle for “go-live” etc. )

Assume Less

Finally, don’t underestimate the value of capturing organizational process steps. Although it may not be obvious that your people understand the big picture of how work gets done, they probably don’t to the level you would expect. User-friendly process maps can bring organizational confusion to the surface, where it can be dealt with and demystified. This can go a long way to improve work effectiveness, especially during technology or organizational transitions.

Facilitation Tip

Common sense dictates saving conclusions for the end of a talk. This can inadvertantly confuse your audience. Consider starting your talk with the conclusion, support it with a few key points, then end by reinforcing the conclusion. This has a number of benefits:

1. Unlike a mystery novel, your audience wants to know where you’re going. Summarizing your conclusions up front gives them a road map for where you’re going.
2. By cutting to the chase, you will require less formal content to support your conclusions. Instead, you’ll find yourself synthesizing supporting content with talking points, versus slide upon slide of mounting evidence.
3. Finally, with a stronger connection between where you’re going and how you’re trying to get there, you’ll be creating better opportunities for people to engage in dialogue.

In the book Organizational Paradigm Shifts, Kidwell and O’Brien argue The new economic realities confronting higher education require a serious rethinking of the way that work is done, the way it is organized, and the systems needed to support the academic enterprise.

Alternatively, as described: Today’s “corporate” re-engineers are taking apart current hierarchical business models and are developing in their stead process-oriented organizational structures.

Slowly but surely process-focused business structures are making their way into higher education. On the administrative side of the house, project teams are the means to lead and manage enterprise technology initiatives, organizational efforts that require significant business process redesign.

What Makes Project Teams So Critical?

Project teams are a byproduct of the lack of process-focus in the traditional hierarchy of business units. For example, in enterprise initiatives, project teams manage the redesign of a procurement process, with representation from the finance division. The finance division will eventually inherit elements of the new system, but is not in a position to take apart the current system and reassemble on its own.

With consultants having implemented elsewhere, partnering closely with “loaned” internal experts in the procurement process, the new team works to unravel the current business practices that make up procurement. When the new system comes into being, management’s expectation is that the project team will disband, consultants will depart, and employees will return to their permanent roles, albeit with a new set of skills. It’s when these employees move back to their respective jobs that the disconnect in process-oriented work and hierarchical structures reveal itself.

What Is A Process?

By definition, processes are about inputs and outputs, with sequential steps that lead to a recognizable benefit for a customer. (however you define the customer) Pick any example of business activity in your organization-paying a vendor, buying supplies or hiring a person. These processes run horizontally across the organization, traversing multiple business units. At the same time, the business units responsible for specialized administrative functions are managed vertically, each owning a piece of the larger process.

The basic dilemma with hierarchical structures is that they are primarily set up to maintain control, not manage ongoing change. But in the words of Yogi Berra “It ain’t over til it’s over”, and these projects ain’t ever over.

Are We Done Yet?

One of the problems with process projects is what is meant by the term “over”. Redefining a business process may appear to be simply replacing an existing system with a new one. On the surface this is true, except that it always takes longer than expected for the “new” process to become “old” again. Is the project “over” when the system goes live? Is it when the project team disbands? The truth is once a new process is in place, the process of acclimation is just beginning. And it’s those hierarchical structures that end up inheriting the responsibility for bringing acclimation of the new process to the larger organization.

Information Flow-Vertical Or Horizontal?

Hierarchical structures manage up and down, but not across units. Processes, on the other hand, flow horizontally across business units. The result is administrative structures have little understanding how current and new systems touch departments outside their own.

When employees who participated on the project move back into permanent positions, they are often given the responsibility over some piece of the new system. It doesn’t take long for them to realize that the existing administrative structures, (such as HR, Payroll, Student Services or Finance) each own a piece of the new process, but are collectively an impediment to supporting ongoing improvement. The communication and activities that flowed easily within the project team now don’t exist among these structural silos. With this pattern repeating itself over and over again on technology projects, management ends up keeping the project team intact and/or retain consultants, both options interpreted as unexpected consequences of poor project management.

In hindsight, these projects are bound to create an ongoing need for external departmental support. Sponsors should consider at the very least to open the question of how the transition will flow back from the project team to the administrative departments. This conversation should happen early in the project, when business structures can be evaluated and potentially modified to accomodate new processes. Unfortunately, this is rarely done and causes much misunderstanding and chaos at the end of the formal project phase.

The Greater Dilemma

An even greater dilemma facing senior management is this: Just when they are looking for the benefits of their investment to start paying off, does it become apparent that the strategic value outline in the project charter has been hijacked by the sea of technical and structural hurdles. It becomes almost impossible to effectively manage IT, HR and Finance groups through this maze of challenges. In this case, the structural silos play havoc on the expectations for a timely return on investment.

So What Can Be Done?

Without completely re-engineering the administrative function (which is a great idea but may not happen in your tenure) what would it look like to loosen up the top-down approach? First, it needs to be acknowledged that project-style work more closely supports these strategic initiatives and must be integrated across organizational structures, especially when the project is perceived as “over”. The inter-relatedness of department activities and employee day-to-day work demands more people understand the big picture and where they fit in.

Secondly, faculty and administrators need to demonstrate better collaboration across administrative and academic departments. This is critical to improving process flow. Institutions can no longer afford to have the highest form of problem-solving across these two groups be faculty complaining about administrator’s lack of mission focus and administrator’s complaints about lack of faculty compliance. Both sides need to genuinely start working together if business processes are going to improve.

Finally, sponsors of administrative initiatives needs to take a more active role in leading people to the promise land of improved business performance. There is so much inertia to maintain traditional hierarchical structures as they are. Leadership needs to get creative in taking apart existing departmental structures and bring more process-style thinking directly into the groups that own these systems. It’s only then that the disruption created by taking apart old systems and creating new ones that the intended benefit will get realized in a more fluid and timely way.

Facilitation Tip

One of the most useful low-tech tools that a facilitator can employ is introducing “Post-it” notes into group dialogue. Invented by Art Fry back in the 1970′s, the Post-it’s create the following value:

1. It allows individuals to generate ideas before settling in on any one path.
2. Because of the size of the Post-It, people are forced to describe their idea in succinct ways.
3. Once displayed on a board, the group can participate by reorganizing the information, thereby creating collaborative opportunities for discussion. The next time you want a group to brainstorm, give each person a post-it pad and ask them to write down five ideas. Then post each on the wall and discuss. As obvious as this is as a brainstorming tool, it is rarely utilized by groups working through a problem. Don’t wait for consultants to introduce these in your group!

Excellent Reading!

Here are three books that focus on improving the quality of Administrative functions in Higher Education:

Responsibility Centered Management — Jon Strauss and John Curry
RCM or Responsibility Centered Management is the coupling of financial choice with consequence, seeking to right the imbalance of authority lying with faculty in departments and schools, while most responsibility lying with Central Administration.

The Strategic Attitude-Integrating Strategic Planning Into Daily University Work — Nathan Dickmeyer
Learning how to integrate strategic thinking into day-to-day management can transform an institution into a strategic organization that operates with an effective understanding of environment, mission and values.

Organizational Paradigm Shifts — NACUBO Selected Authors
Collection of essays that explore different methods of seeking, implementing and coping with a new higher education paradigm, i.e. the growing demands institutions face to reduce costs, improve quality, and work harder to meet the needs of their customers.

“In organizations of 10,000 employees or more, 86% have employees who are members of a working group identified as a team. In these organizations, on average, 51% of all employees are in teams of one type or another.”
Training Magazine
Lakewood Publications, Minneapolis, MN

Teams are as prevalent today in the workplace as water coolers in the common area. This is rooted in the nature of project work, often requiring knowledge and skill from disparate groups expected to work together. The rollout of a new technology or improved business process often requires coordination among business managers, external consultants, marketing, training or sales groups, each working toward a common objective. Often, the coordination produces more cross team dysfunction than success.

What’s the problem?

The problem starts with our definition of “team”. Just because different groups are expected to work together does not mean they meet the criteria of a team. A team presumes a common purpose, and regardless of management’s expectation for bottom line, collaborative results, two or more groups working together invariably produce two or more mini projects.

Hot Potato

It’s reasonable to expect teams to collaborate, but human nature leads people to manage their own “slice of the pie”. Top management needs to take a hard look at the real message being conveyed across the organization about getting things done. The question can be boiled down to: Is success measured by realized strategic outcomes or is it about not being singled out as the reason for failure? Too often, senior management assumes that groups are working toward a common goal while at the tactical level, sub-groups are playing hot potato with their unique deliverables.

Being accountable is often about not getting caught holding up the larger project versus being accountable to the overall success of the project, whatever it takes.

When’s the last time you heard this from another team? “We’re not going to make our deadline and we know this will affect your deliverables. Is there anything we can do to help?” You won’t hear this because, one, it’s an admission of failure, two, groups don’t understand the direct dependencies of their actions on others, and three, teams interpret success based on meeting their own deadlines, not others’.

Transforming team silos such as this, starts with making it explicitly clear that what is expected is a commitment to the overall goal versus sub team success. No one wins if everyone doesn’t win.

No News Is Bad News

There is an unspoken dynamic that plays out in organizations around filtering bad news, often related to missing deadlines. Patrick Lencioni puts it this way in his book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. “Politics is when people choose their words and actions based on how they want others to react rather than based on what they really think”.

Too much time is spent concocting appropriately worded explanations for why things are not getting done, rather than describing the simple facts. I’ve listened to many senior managers express frustration about lack of timely results but don’t go out of their way to demand people tell the truth about where the breakdowns lie. Management needs to do a better job communicating their expectations, rather than assuming their people know what’s expected. When you talk to people in the trenches, a common theme is “I don’t know what’s expected of me or management doesn’t understand the real issues.”

What Comes First – The Chicken or the Egg?

Breaking down those communication barriers is no easy task, and it opens the classic question of what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Management is waiting to hear what’s really going on while staff is waiting to hear it’s ok to communicate breakdowns or bad news. (This, by the way, is not the same as complaining, which is communicating bad news with no commitment to action.)

What organizations are left with is the “blame game” being played out over and over again about every missed deadline or poorly rolled out deliverable. The message here to management is – your staff will not take the step of communicating bad news unless you explicitly demand it of them. For staff – you may never get explicit permission from management to stop filtering bad news. Regardless of what your role is, the ball is in your court.

Symptoms

So what are some symptoms of poor team performance? Consider these ten possible observations of a group:

1. Low output and productivity
2. Frequent complaints within the team
3. Internal confusion about roles
4. Ineffective meetings
5. Lack of clear goals or low commitment to goals
6. Problems working with the team leader
7. People do not speak up and contribute ideas
8. Decisions are made that people do not understand or support
9. The team does not appear to have good working relationships with other teams
10. People feel that good work is not recognized or teamwork is not valued

If half of these behaviors or attitudes are present, you’ve probably got a team problem that needs to be dealt with. Most importantly, realize that addressing these issues takes time.

As Patrick Lencioni also writes:

The reality remains that teamwork ultimately comes down to practicing a small set of principles over a long period of time. Success is not a matter of subtle, sophisticated theory, but rather of embracing common sense with uncommon levels of discipline and persistence.

Improving cross team performance is not just a good idea; it’s the difference between an organization succeeding or failing at its goals. A commitment to ending endless games of hot potato, discouraging the politics of choosing words based on how you want others to react, and management articulating expectations over unspoken assumption – all of these will have direct impact on the success of your organizations strategic goals.