Focusing Change To Win Series – How Can You Lead to Thrive?

Series Introduction

This is the eighth in the series of highlighting contributions from 1072 Business Leaders and Consultants from 80 countries in 19 Industry Sectors detailed in our book Focusing Change to Win. Each blog gives some of the key findings and a sample of useful tips. In this blog we are focusing on How Can You Lead to Thrive? Here are the other book sections we are highlighting:

  1. Why is this book important?
  2. How is your “What” connected to your “Why”?
  3. Why do people resist change?
  4. Why bother measuring change?
  5. How can implementing change gain competitive advantage?
  6. Is your organization thriving or surviving?
  7. How effectively are you communicating change?
  8. How can you lead to thrive?

 

8. How Can You Lead to Thrive?

Clearly from this survey, leadership skills that focus change to win are at a premium. Today, change is the norm. It is neither random nor regular but hovers somewhere between. How these interrelationships arise and how they challenge organizations is not well understood (IBM & KMPG Surveys endorse this)

Why should leaders focus on their organization’s essence?

An organization’s essence is the amalgam of mission, vision, values, intent and ethics. These components should be the focus of aligning and realigning people rather than delivering the corporate directives after a strategic planning retreat. Sustaining an organization’s essence is a dynamic that requires everyone’s engagement to define and redefine under changing situations.

It’s only by leaders “inter-reacting” that they can develop people’s shared clarity about the organization’s essence – “what we stand for!” From shared clarity comes confidence, from confidence comes cohesion and from cohesion comes the freedom to decide and act. That’s how organizations will stay on track today. Many people making many decisions true to their organization’s essence.

It’s also expected that some employees (including some executives) will not “buy into” an organization’s Essence once it is clearly defined.  Leaders should then be ready for those employees and managers to transition out of the organization. This will benefit them and organizational cohesion

What are the dangers of using technology to increase control?

Technology increases the illusion of greater control which can feed a leader’s “Control Addiction”. More measurement equals more control. But measuring what is easy to measure can have the very opposite effect. The problem is that most of what is easy to measure has already occurred. What is difficult is dealing with the factors that are difficult to measure and with forecasting what is likely to happen down the road. We can’t spend more time looking through the “rear view mirror” when we have a winding road ahead of us. Technology’s cheapness and speed feeds this addiction with the past and “looking in the rear view mirror” by access to ever more data and information at the cost of acquiring knowledge and wisdom.

This condition is worsened by technologists clinging to largely sequential design and deployment processes which are not fully user or client inclusive, e.g. “Waterfall Process”.  Contrast this with agile processes which are fully supported by our contributors. See the link to comparing the Waterfall Process with Agile Methodologies.

Why do we have difficulty developing leaders that can thrive in today’s conditions?

Today’s conditions are not good proving grounds for the leaders we need. More of doing more with less, multi-tasking and the growing doubt that we may be doing the wrong things means that decision-making, and expectations are now more compressed. Consequently, entrenched expediency leads us into solving one problem so quickly that we find we have now created five more problems. We are so busy trying to solve problems there’s no time for “Where the hell are we going?” These conditions are not good for selecting or developing leaders who can work well under fluid and complex conditions.

How do we develop leaders that can thrive?

The tension between what Leaders want to achieve and their current culture prevents traditional leadership training from making a significant impact. For example, many leaders’ previous training has left them feeling that they could do a better job doing it themselves. Of course, too often this has not happened together with little sign that they have addressed their own or their junior leaders’ performance issues. The consequence is that leading up to a change they lack confidence and skills to handle the natural uncertainty that change creates. Consequently, they default to avoidance and expediency and as a result staff resistance rises morale suffers.

The conclusion is that Leaders need to develop a better framework to assess their competence to lead people, make the next and later changes more effectively.

In this section we outline how leaders can be developed to increase their chances of achieving both measurable short- and longer term results than traditional leadership training. It is based on approaches:

  • Aligning People – Getting people on the Same Page
  • Action Learning – Solving Difficult Problems while developing leaders’ skills

A Final Thought

Our position is that it’s only by energizing people and harnessing technologies better than anyone else that organizations can survive and thrive. Genuinely aligned, empowered and collaborative people will outperform the competition every time. A leader’s role is to create successful change that fulfills people and avoids human casualties. Leaders need to create working relationships that are rewarding not just superficially productive.

Action Points 7: Leading to Thrive

A Leader’s greatest impact is when they motivate their followers to action by appealing to their shared sense of their organization’s essence. Use these questions to rate your leaders’ abilities:

  • To what extent do your leaders focused on developing rewarding not just working relationships?
  • How reliant are your leaders on “command and control”?
  • How well do they really engage those they lead?
  • How well do they foster a culture of collaboration? Consider both internally and externally.

Leading to the Essence

Do your people know what your organization stands for? Specifically:

  • How well understood is the organization’s essence? (mission, values, intent and ethics)
  • How well aligned are my people with the Organization’s Essence and where it’s headed?
  • To what extent do leaders use the essence to guide and coach their people?

Developing Leaders

  • To what extent are you distributing and empowering leaders at all levels.
  • What evidence do you see of true “inter-reaction” where success and failure are openly discussed?
  • To what extent do they then take lessons learned and use them to repeat success and avoid failure.
  • How well do they use processes to help people stand back, objectify problems and make people’s thought processes transparent?
  • To what extent does the urgent drive out the important and mask how things accumulate, misalign and make each subsequent more difficult?

Problem Solving

  • How often do your leaders try to solve complex problems with processes geared to “benign or simple problems”?
  • How often do leaders face complex or wicked problems?

Leading Learning

  • What expectations do we have of people to develop shared knowledge from similar situations?
  • How much effort have you put into helping people express being puzzled or misunderstood?
  • How well do they lead people on tackling problems and solutions by sharing understandings, resolving differences and producing agreed courses of action?
  • How well have leaders, especially senior leaders, consistently expressed their expectations of learning to all levels across the organization?

To Buy a Copy of Focusing Change To Win: CreateSpace Buy Button

 

 

 

To Buy a Copy of Focusing Change To Win:

Our Corporate Ebola is Failed Change

Just like the disease, corporate change has a 50% mortality rateEbola

 

Boise, Idaho, 10/07/14 – Local management and organization specialist publishes a fascinating new book Focusing Change To Win. It provides a prescription for combating the risks inherent in organizational change. Risks like poor revenues, lost opportunity, competitive vulnerability, increased employee cynicism and fear. The endemic nature of these risks led Nick Anderson and his Nigerian co-author Kelly Nwosu to ask:

Why do some companies thrive on change while other just survive?

Answering this question led to a global study of 6000 comments from 1072 business leaders from 80 countries in 19 industry sectors with over 10,000 years of change management experience provided some powerful and practical advice and tools.

To reach this point, you have to go back to Nick’s experiences with failed change. The list, many of us can relate to includes:

  • “Am I going to have a job tomorrow?”
  • “Why did they let Sue go?”
  • “How am I going to tell Bill he hasn’t got a job?”
  • “What am I going to do?”
  • “We tried this before…”
  • “This (change) is only for them …..not us?”

Since those early days, his work with organizations across the business and public sector encountered a litany of failed change. His ongoing research shows survey after survey reporting that “People are the problem” (as the main reason). Percentages of failed change continue to this day ranging from 40% to 80% and many commentators agree that more changes fail than succeed. Only last September the Project Management Institute’s 2014 Report found that 56% of projects fail to meet their goals.
What is really thought provoking is that Nick and Kelly’s book show that there are those who do get it right.
But, really, isn’t comparing failed change to Ebola ridiculous? Nick Anderson doesn’t think so. The cost of a failed change can be staggering. Organizationally failed change can be fatal to both the organization and their people. Individually the stress of failed change permeates people’s lives, emerging as cycles of addictive behavior, broken relationships and financial hardship. For example, one Swedish study showed increases of heart disease was linked to poor leadership. Job insecurity has been linked to several different outcomes, such as:

  • Negative attitudes towards work
  • Turnover intention
  • Health complaints.

Data from 400 nurses at a Swedish acute care hospital showed that job insecurity affects stress even after taking account for individual characteristics. (Naswall,Sverke & Hellgren)
A 22 country European study concluded that while job loss is traumatizing, it is not common. In contrast, the fear of job insecurity is widespread and its health impact is as bad as losing your job (Mathilde Godard). Or, how about a German study which concluded that after the 2008 recession

“People fearful of losing their jobs are 60% more likely to develop asthma”.

Closer to home, studies from Texas A & M and University of California add weight to the endemic nature of this corporate virus.

So, what can we do about this disease?

Clearly, the last 20 years demonstrates:

  1. Current Theories and prescriptions are not working or user friendly.
  2. The reliance on imported change processes alone are less effective.
  3. Leaders are facing greater complexity, accelerating change, greater competition and more knowledgeable customers.

The critical point of staving off failed change is to recognize that there is no “cookie-cutter” “quick-fix”. Importing new theories from outside an organization increases people’s natural resistance. It truncates thinking about “why will this change work for us?” and creates divisions between the “Importers” from the rest of the organization.
So, this book advocates using facilitated discussions, questionnaires and other tools to engage people in creating their own change approaches, processes and protocols. You may be thinking.

“Why not use what’s worked from outside” “It’s cheaper and faster etc.”

Here’s what the authors concluded. Excluding people from deciding how their organization handles change risks creating greater resistance and less sustainability. Fundamentally, it excludes middle level leaders so they cannot develop to their leadership skills and risks their resistance to the point of ensuring that change will fail.
Those who thrive on change really understand this. They recognize that so many “imports” are too often seen as disrespectful of people’s skills and expertise, especially when those people have experienced failed change. Importing prescriptions needs far more thought on how to reduce the toxicity of past failures. So, why is this book important for leading successful change?
As Bill Connors, President & CEO, Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce) said:
“Focusing Change to Win is a must read and reference for business people regardless of their company’s size. Whether you run a family business or public corporation, this book has thought provoking tools and questionnaires you can use immediately. Nick Anderson and his co-Author Kelly Nwosu have done a masterful job in distilling over 6000 business leaders’ comments into such a practical set of tools. If you want your next change to be successful, this is essential reading.”
To find out more go to focusingchangetowin.com or amazon.com. Also Nick will be at the Boise Chamber of Commerce for a book signing on Wednesday 29th October from 8 am to 10 am.

For more information,
Nick Anderson
(616) 745-8667
nanderson@thecrispianadvantage.com
For more information on 10/06/2014:
http://focusingchangetowin.com

Tracking Expectations to Avoid IT Project Failure

(Abstract from Take Control of Your Project – Using Expectation Alignment to Avoid IT Project Failure by Terry Merriman, PCO Associates LLC)

Whether large or small, IT projects are complex change events. They need cross-functional collaboration between two or more departments or teams. Their success or failure reverberates throughout the organization and often impacts customers. Countless studies and papers on reasons for IT Project Failure cite two critical factors:

  • Poor interpersonal communications
  • Lack of professional project management

Numerous studies have shown that up to 70%  of IT projects fail. Over 20 years, Terry Merriman  and the other IT Project Failurecontributors to the White Paper – Using Expectation Alignment to Avoid IT Project Failure continue to uncover the usual cast of suspects like:

  • Customer requirements not being adequately defined
  • Customer requirements kept changing
  • Acceptance testing was slim to non-existent

These failure statistics are fully in line with the findings of the survey of 1072 business leaders and consultants summarized in my book Focusing Change to Win which I wrote with Kelly Nwosu.

How can that happen with professionals on both sides of the design effort? Weren’t they in the same meetings? What happened to the agreed requirements? testing regimens? and change request process?

Of course, they did all those things. What they didn’t realize is what they believed they understood of each other was at best misaligned. The IT professionals and the business professionals each assumed that the other understood the precise meaning with each communication; each assumed specific activities were part of the other person’s normal routine in a development project. So, projects failed to achieve the desired results due to::

  • Expectations not being made specific to the project or explicit to each other
  • Tasks not done as expected
  • Delivered Functionality did not meet expectations
  • Requirements weren’t met

If you are interested in having the authors speaking to your organization fill out this form.

Continue reading

Getting the Best out of the Matrix

Introduction

For 40 Years few have challenged Matrix Management’s viability. Most writers remain convinced that a matrix approach is superior to a hierarchy, but why hasn’t it been more successful? This blog looks at pointing the reader to answer:

How do ensure we get the promised rewards of the Matrix?

First,  a definition for SHRM

In a matrix structure, an employee reports to two managers who are jointly responsible for the employee’s performance. Typically, one works in an administrative function, such as finance, HR, information technology, sales or marketing, and the other works in a business unit related to a product, service, customer or geography.

The matrix model is a network of interfaces between teams and the functional elements of an organization. As its simplest it is:

 think horizontal – think vertical – think interface.

Here are some of the challenges facing those thinking of improving or moving to a matrix based organization.

Continue reading

Ensuring Oilsands Project Success – Whitepaper

Authors: Brant Sangster, IMC (former Sr. VP Oilsands Petro Canada),Dr. Paul Clark, IMC (former CEO Nova Chemicals Technology, Board Member NRC, CCEMC),Dr. George Jergeas, Dept of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Nick Anderson, Senior Partner, PDS Group, Editor: Rolf Wenzel, IMC, Director Business Planning

Overview

Mobilizing armies of skilled labour from diverse locations and cultures, moving large equipment into remote locations in harsh climatic conditions and managing to budgets while costs are escalating make oilsands projects among the most challenging ever undertaken. Perhaps the most critical success factor  in managing such complex projects is establishing and developing productive relationships. This key factor is very difficult to measure yet is cited repeatedly as the number one reason for project failure. Consistently,  project  managers’  expectations  of,  colleagues,  teams,  subcontractors,  workers  and project  partners  are  substantially  different  from  what  they  actually  think  is  expected  of  them.    Such misalignments result in expected tasks not being completed in the way required for project success, tasks  being  completed  in  a  sub-optimal  sequence  or  excessive  time  invested  on  “low  return”  tasks. These  misalignments  cascade  into  scheduling  conflicts,  delays,  cost  overruns,  personnel  turnover, increased stress, safety and legal issues.
The take-away: New methods have been developed for the gathering and analysing of expectations from both the expectation originator’s and expectation receiver’s point of view. This enables the diagnosis of misalignments critical to project success, and facilitates the timely conversations required to align expectations and to keep projects on track before they become critical variables. Resource and competency gaps are exposed  and addressed. High achieving managers can be identified. A culture of communication, alignment and accountability can be measured and developed.

Listen to an introduction by Nick Anderson

CONTENTS

1.0 Oilsands Projects – What Makes Them Unique
2.0 Why do Projects “Fail”?
3.0 Expectation Alignment for More Effective Project Planning and Execution
4.0  Case Study – Large Construction Project
5.0 Project Teams as a Neural Network – The Foundation for a Culture of Alignment and Accountability
6.0 The ROI for Oilsands Projects

1.0 Oilsands Projects – What Makes Them Unique

The Opportunity

With over 170 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, the Alberta oilsands represent a unique opportunity for North America to achieve a greater degree of energy independence in a low risk operating  regime.    Total  oil  supply  from  Western  Canada  is  expected  to  grow  from 2.4 million barrels  per day  in 2005  to  over  3.6  million barrels  per day  (bbl/day)  in 2015,  an increase of 50%.  This requires an investment of between $94 and $125 billion.1 While  some  bitumen  reserves  are  accessible  using surface mining  techniques,  most of the recoverable reserves  are  deeper  and  accessed  using  Steam Assisted  Gravity  Drainage  (SAGD)  technology  that requires far less surface land disturbance. While not without  reservoir  risks,  SAGD  enables  operators  to expand  production  more  gradually  than  mining operations because the minimum economic size of a SAGD  project  can  be  scaled  down,  perhaps  even below 10,000 bbl/day.

 

Suncor Oilsands Plant

The Challenges
Size – These large projects are large, with capital budgets currently ranging from $250 million to $7  billion,  or  US$25,000  to  US$70,000  per  flowing  barrel.    Projects facilities range  in  size from10,000  bbl/day  to  over  100,000  bbl/day.      Every day  of  schedule  slippage  could  cost between $1 million and $10 million in lost revenue. Complexity  –  These  projects  are  characterized by  a  large diversity  of functional  areas  each with  separate  project  managers, budgets  and  schedules.    There  are  many  project  elements, requiring  a  long  build  schedule  with  the  possibility  of  multiple  EPCs  and  many  and  diverse suppliers and contractors.
For example: Designing and constructing a $3-billion oilsands project can involve the following:
(Why Cost and Schedule Overruns on Mega Oil Sands Projects?, George F. Jergeas, Ph.D., P.E.1; and Janaka
Ruwanpura, Ph.D., PQS2; Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE / February 2010)

Engineering effort:

  • 3.5 million work hours at a cost of $100/h.
  • 40–50,000 design drawings.
  • 10–20,000 vendor and shop drawings.

Construction effort:

  • Typically runs at 5,000 work hours for each million dollars invested, i.e., 10–15 million man-hours at $85–$100 per hour for a $3 billion project..
  • Supported by 500–800 staff personnel.
  • Labor force of 10,000 workers with a turnover of 30,000 people. (Even using the lowest North American average estimates of replacement costs for $8.00/hr employees of $3,500, this equals a cost of $105 million!)
  • Organize order, store, and retrieve 80,000,000 material items.
Procurement and transport logistics challenges to a remote location can be  exacerbated by long lead  times  on  key  equipment,  increasing  the  risk  of  scheduling  conflicts  and  slippage. Personnel training, scheduling and logistics are complex and include continuous flights bringing workers in from Eastern Canada and elsewhere.   There are complicated communications lines among the functional areas, contractors, locals business and governments.  The  involvement  of  multiple  equity  partners  with  substantial  financial  interests  adds  another level of accountability and can be a bottleneck in decision making.  Partner communications can add significant project overhead and makes it more difficult to respond to change, or innovations arising mid-project that could benefit the project.
Climate – Harsh climatic conditions affect productivity, health and safety, and project costs, especially for workers unused to working in these conditions. Health & Safety – In addition to working in a harsh climatic environment, cultural and language barriers with foreign workers can affect safety.  High turnover and inexperienced workers pose dditional safety risks.
Labour – Availability and Productivity – As projects begin to ramp up again, the risk of shortages of experienced project managers and skilled labour may again increase.  Personnel retention was a major issue during the construction boom up to 2008.  The cost effective integration of aboriginal  contractors  requires  special  attention.    The  balance  between  union  and  non-union labour must be planned and managed.   Housing and the cost of living are expensive in the Ft. McMurray area. Workforce scheduling and logistics are a major challenge and there has been  lack of  cooperation among operators  in this area,  largely based on concerns around  losing personnel to other projects.
Environmental – Oilsands projects have become the centre of media attention in the past few years.  Thus, even the design and construction phases of these projects must demonstrate a proactive stance, rather than just compliance.
“In summary, future oil sands projects are going to be more complex due to both a set of external and internal factors interacting dynamically with each  other.  This  means  that  the  industry’s  ability  to  manage  socio-political, economic and technological fluctuations over a project’s life will be  critical.  This  is  not  an  advocacy  for  throwing  out  the  tried  and  true project management disciplines but learning how to use them in far more fluid circumstances”
(Richard Westney, Westney Consulting Group)

2.0 Why do Projects “Fail”?

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Albert Einstein

The State of Oilsands Projects

During the 2005 to 2008 period, oilsands  projects were notoriously over budget and behind  schedule.   With  the  current  ramp  up  of  projects,  can  we  face  similar  cost escalations and labour shortages  in the coming years?
Randy Ollenberger, (BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.), points to the expansion of  the Athabasca Oil Sands Project as it was the biggest project to continue construction throughout the entire market crash. But  rather  than  costs falling, they  continued to  rise.  If  there were great  savings to be had, they should have captured them. And clearly they haven’t,” he said.
Steve Laut, President, Canadian Natural Resources (05/21/10) fears that cost escalations may be an unavoidable outcome of the rush to get back into oil sands.
“There will probably come a point in time that people feel confident oil prices aren’t  going  to  fall  to  $30  [U.S.]  again  and  everyone  will  have  their engineering done more or less at the same time. So there’s potential that you could get some overlap in projects. Canadian Natural is already struggling with the lingering effects of the last boom, when triple-digit oil prices propelled a mad building scramble. That has resulted in operational problems at the first phase of its Horizon oil sands project, which Mr. Laut admitted has been “bumpy.”
A recent Booz Allen Hamilton report, “Capital Project Execution in the Oil & Gas Industry”, indicated that the majority of energy industry executives:
  • Are dissatisfied with project performance (40% of capital projects overrun) his level of dissatisfaction is the highest ever.
  • Agree  that  poor  project  performance  is  not  acceptable  when  the  market  expects predictability and strong returns.
  • Accept that they cannot afford to miscalculate project risks, yet they do not have a good grasp as to how to manage them.
According to Richard Westney, Westney Consulting Group,
“Everyone in the industry is aware of the major cost overruns and schedule  delays  associated  with  major  projects  today.  An  often overlooked  fact  is  that  these  overruns  are  often  announced  when projects  are  well  into  construction—long  past  sanction  and  at  a  time when traditional project risks have (or should have) been mitigated. How is this possible when conventional wisdom suggests that all project risks should  have  been  understood  and  under  control  by  this  time? Conventional project risk management is based on two assumptions:
• Good “front-end loading” ensures a high level of confidence in the estimate of time and cost at sanction.
• Project risks decrease with time and progress.”
Since it is not uncommon for projects with good front-end loading to experience major  overruns  well  after  sanction,  we  must  ask,  “What  is  missing  from  the conventional approach?”

Symptoms and Causes

The symptoms of “project failures” or significant negative variance from plan are obviously manifested  in  easily  measurable  parameters  such  as  budget  overruns,  lateness  and  safety issues. However, problems can start long before these measurements of tactical activity are possible. Jergeas  et  al5  point  out  that  the  trend  towards  project fast  tracking  can  result  in  appropriate planning time being traded for overly ambitious construction schedules which can result in more overtime  and  higher  materials  and  equipment  expenses.  In  addition,  inadequate  time  spent planning  in  areas  of  risk  management,  project  control,  communications,  organization, contracting, design, procurement, site layouts, utilities, commissioning and external stakeholder  management, among others, can result in a fundamentally misaligned project strategy. Conversation  with  oilsands  operators  and  a  review  of  the  2004  multi-sector  study  by PricewaterhouseCoopers  (PWC),  “Boosting  Business  Performance  through  Programme  and Why Cost and Schedule Overruns on Mega Oil Sands Projects?, George F. Jergeas, Ph.D., P.E.1; and Janaka Ruwanpura, Ph.D., PQS2; Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE / February 2010
Project Management”,  among  the  top  reasons  cited  for  “project  failures”  were  issues  and misalignments in the following areas:
  • Late scope changes

    Nearly but Not Quite

  • Change in environment
  • Insufficient resources / Poor support
  • Poor communications
  • Poor project processes and controls
  • Poorly developed teams
  • Poor partnering strategies
  • Poor contracting strategies
  • Team turnover
  • Inadequate definition of stakeholders
Late Scope Changes – To what extent are scope changes the result of inadequate communication of  expectations  between  owner  and  EPC,  or  EPC  and  contractors?    At  the earliest stages of the project, inadequate specifications can be a root cause.  The owner may expect the EPC to have conducted a thorough review of specifications prior to start of drafting. Was this expectation communicated and detailed evidence of completion requested?   The later in the project these sorts of changes occur, the more expensive they become. Attempts to appease, accommodate or just to get things done means change orders or scope changes  are  too  readily  accepted  without  sufficient  impact  analysis.  This  situation  is  often compounded by having no firm and set date beyond which no further changes are accepted.   It is  reminiscent  of  Mr.  Creosote,  a  fictional  character  in  Monty  Python’s  the  Meaning  of  Life. Creosote  is  an  impossibly  obese  man  who  is  served  an  enormous  amount  of  food  in  a restaurant. After being persuaded to eat one more mint, he explodes in a very graphic way. The key error is the consequent layering of changes creates an almost blinkered approach of approvals or rejections while losing sight of bigger, end repercussions.
Changes in EnvironmentIt may be beneficial to ask the question, “How can we improve our  ability  to respond to  environmental  and other  changes”?   To  what  extent  could  improved communication of expectations mitigate these issues?  Have the owner and EPC clearly relayed their expectations of rapid communications from contractors and suppliers when circumstances change?    Does  the  project  have  a  change  management  plan  with  specific  communication protocols for managing crises?
Insufficient Resources  /  Poor  Support –  Supply  chain  logistics  are  both  critical  yet vulnerable aspect of oilsands project execution. It relies heavily on proper communication and tracking agreed and unmet expectations.    Shift scheduling and logistics optimization offer large opportunities for efficiency gains.  To what extent are the expectations of efficient and proactive communications  relayed  to  all  levels  of  the  project  structure?    What  mechanisms  exist  to facilitate this and ensure monitoring of logistics operations? Especially  lacking  are  those  inter-professional  expectations  which  don’t  really  specify  what  is being  agreed  to.  The  act  of  agreeing on  an  expectation  is  too  easily  accepted.  The problem emerges when the expectation’s Receiver doesn’t deliver what was expected by its Originator. The problems often lies when the Originator doesn’t ask the Receiver to state what evidence they think meets the given expectation. This  situation  is  often  compounded  under  stressful  and  changing  conditions  where  the ramifications of meeting the new expectation are not fully considered on existing commitments.
Poor Communications – The number of possible lines of communication in a project can be expressed as n2 – n, where “n” is the number of people assigned to the project.  Thus a 100 person project would have 9,900 possible communication links.   Regardless of matrix, project or siloed command structures, there are still many cross functional and contractor expectations that are not surfaced or managed and that impact project execution. These lateral links are so numerous and not so obvious that important connections for timely and  accurate  communications  are  missed.  Many  would  say  with  all  the  technology  now available, all those involved have access to what everyone else is doing or challenged by. The reality, as one Project Manager expected of a design engineer: “If you find out you can’t make your deadline, don’t email me – pick up the @#$% phone…” Communications technology has become a two- edged sword – efficient yet overwhelming. While  many  respondents  cited  poor  communication  a  significant  problem,  to  what  extent  are poor communications or processes a root cause of the other cited project failures?  Following are quotations gathered from participants in various projects:
1. “We could be better at identifying problems and their solutions before they actually occur.  We are too reactive and this slows us down”
2. “The way we allocate resources and feedback on their (subcontractors’) performance compounds problems in managing projects”
3. “People get so absorbed in what they are doing that Key Stakeholders are not actively involved. This has led to tension between them and the project team”
4. “We are reactive and respond too quickly to changes to understand the implications and impacts on other elements and groups”
5. “We don’t reuse what has been done before – “Reinventing the Wheel” is costly and takes time”
6. “Measuring the impact of what we do is too subjective and lessens our ability to stay within  budget”
7. ‘Cost overruns and missed milestones are too common and compounded by finger pointing”.
Some of which are directly attributable to expectation gaps:

Project Team Dysfunctions

Dysfunction #1: Absence of Trust
This occurs when team members are unsure what others really expect of them as opposed to what their company has committed to legally.
Dysfunction #2: Fear of Conflict
Teams that lacking trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered, passionate debate about  key  issues.  This  causes  situations  where  team  conflict  can  easily  turn  into personal, veiled discussions and a retreat to pure self interest.
Dysfunction #3: Lack of Commitment
Without conflict, it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions, creating an environment  where  ambiguity  is  comfortable.  Lack  of  direction  and  commitment  can make project partners and teams disgruntled, fall into formal communication and lack of responsiveness.
Dysfunction #4: Avoidance of Accountability
When teams don’t commit to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven individuals  hesitate  to  call  their  peers  on  actions  and  behaviors  that  may  seem counterproductive early enough to correct a situation for the overall good of the project.
Dysfunction #5: Inattention to Results
Project team members naturally tend to put their own needs (ego, career development, recognition, etc.) ahead of the collective goals of the team when individuals aren’t held accountable. If a team has lost sight of the need for achievement, the project ultimately suffers.
The above dysfunctions are rooted in problems with aligning expectations.
(Adapted from Patrick Lencioni “Five Dysfunctions of a Team”)
“Expectation Gaps are like pot holes, the more you leave them the deeper they get. The impact of misalignment leads to projects overruns.” (Nick Anderson, PDS Group LTD)
Poor Project Process and Controls Execution – It is the daily execution using project process  controls  that  makes  the  difference.  Senior  management  can  be forgiven  for  thinking that if processes and controls are in place that they are being used diligently.   However, the early  clear  communication  of  specific  expectations  around  development  and  use  of  these systems is foundational to success. Increased complexity and changing dynamics in running oilsands projects means the industry has to pay more attention to the costs of misalignment.
Poorly Developed Teams – While projects of this size and complexity usually command the best available personnel, Alberta companies often have large experience gaps between senior managers and junior managers.   Bridging these competency gaps requires clear expectations communication  of  responsibility  not  just  tasks.    Then,  crucially,  conversations  must  align expectation originators with the expectation receivers, including deliverables. Only then can the originator effectively rate the receiver’s competence and performance.
Poor Partnering Strategies – Staffing for inter-partner communications, that add millions of dollars to the cost of a project, buffer the project teams from regular and ad hoc reporting and information requests.  The less work that is done up front in explicitly defining expectations in geographically remote and culturally different partners, the more cost in communications.  Far more  important  however  are  the  potential  for  delays  in  the  project  where  unexpected circumstances  need decisions  requiring  consent  from  partners.        These  may be  changes  in project  circumstances  or  opportunities  for  applying  improvements  or  innovation  with  potential positive economic impact on the project.
Poor Contracting Strategies – Failure to document performance guarantees and risk sharing  obviously  undermines  contractual  relationships.  However,  on  site,  it  is  really  about avoiding ever to having to use them.   As many say, “if you have to get the contract out then we really are in trouble!”. Partnering starts to fail when specific expectations aren’t communicated, agreed,  discarded  or  are  unresolved  to  avoid  using  these  contractual  devices.      Successful partnering is founded on: ”Getting personal to  prevent ever getting contractual”.
Team Turnover – Poor communication and alignment of expectations often causes of turnover.    When  expectations  like  budgetary  discretion,  scheduling  flexibility  and  safety protocols are not only agreed but managed to, employees may not wish to stay and face the consequences. This will be a major factor again if the industry goes back to its practices of the last boom in Alberta. Apart from cost and experience and project knowledge “walking out the door” from the project managers risk losing well  established relationships  both  within  and  outside the  team.  They  then  hobble their replacements with no clear commented expectations to help new team members get up to peed with the right people.
Inadequate Stakeholder Engagement – Oilsands project stakeholders are diverse, typically  including  owners,  EPCs,  contractors,  suppliers,  logistics  providers,  regulators,  local communities, local businesses, aboriginal communities, environmental groups and others. It’s  natural for those  planning projects  to focus on  project execution.  Yet  how  often  has  their apparent disregard of some stakeholders led to delays, scope creep and cost overruns?  Here the illusion of efficiency fails to take into account those that need to be onside for the project’s success.    This  then  creates  a  corrosive  element  to  relationships  when  stakeholders  feel disregarded.  By  the  time  Project  Staff  realize  the  need  to  align  they  have  an  uphill  battle  to convince these parties of there inadvertent lack of alignment. The key concern is: How many of these stakeholders and project staff will then be involved on subsequent projects. Mutual suspicion built up from one project bleeds over to the next project.
Summary
In summary, planning, whether “fast track” or not, still requires a clear concise and communication  of  expectations  by  stakeholders  along  key  aspects  of  the  project strategy.   While  this  paves  the way  for  successful  project execution,  simply  allocating the resulting tasks does not ensure success. Without project   manager’s expectations being  understood  and  “bought  in  to”  by  the  engineering  or  construction  domains, improved performance will not occur.   Fast Tracking methods of strategic planning and construction  risks  getting  ahead  of  stakeholder’s  ability  to  measure,  manage  and facilitate communication. New methods of more effective communication and alignment of  critical  expectations  are  needed  to  cope  with  this  decade’s  accelerating  project dynamics.

3.0 Expectation  Alignment  for  More  Effective  Project Planning and Execution

You Can Only Manage What You Can Measure

Effective interpersonal communications is  a  recognized  cornerstone  of successful  project  management.    Why then  is  it  so  metric  and  data  starved? How  can  we  manage  what  we  cannot measure?
Many people who run projects will tell you:
“Building the thing is not difficult compared  to  managing  all  the  people involved”
So,
  • How do we develop measurable ways of working more effectively?
  • How do we assess people’s expectations  of  others  with  those  others have of them
  • How can we help people be more aligned and focused
  • How can we drive performance discussions  between  groups  and individuals  on  their  expectations  and assumptions that result in:
o Specifying clearer performance criteria against which individuals/groups will be measured
o Removing expectations that are non-value added and not strategically aligned
o Identifying significant issues to address for project advancement
o Creating an accountability framework

The AlEx™ Expectation Alignment Methodology

The AlEx™  Expectation  Alignment  methodology  is  a  key  driver  of  change  which  accelerates alignment  and  tracks  the  development  of  working  relationships.  Such  tracking  includes:
  • Distractions that impact work loads
  • Misaligned expectations which reduce flexibility, risk rework and cost overruns

    Human glue

  • Factors that reduce cross functional competitiveness
  • Misalignment with organizational principles and strategies
  • Productivity issues between managers and their staff
  • Quality of interpersonal communication
  • Integration of new team member
  • Performance tracking & management
  • Recruitment & talent management
The impact of this approach is:
  • Insurance against projects delays
  • Faster project execution
  • Better productivity
  • Improved employee retention
  • Attracting people who are naturally better aligned
Essentially these benefits accrue when all people understand:
  • What is expected of them
  • What they can expect from others
  • How well they are strategically aligned
  • How their performance is measured and compensated
  • What they can stop doing
  • What they need to focus on
  • What information and resources can be used to achieve their goals
  • How they are going to be supported and coached

How AlEx™ Works

Using the AlEx  Easy Entry™ web application, individuals  identify  their  expectations  of  others and what they think is expected of them. AlEx™  is  then  used  to  analyze  content,  quantity,  and quality of the Expectations generated. AlEx™ Cross-Hairs Alignment Tool™ provides targeted data pictures of groups and one-on-one relationships as shown on the right.
For  example,  the  relationship  between  Tom and Cliff  looks  aligned  if  you  only  look  at  Tom’s expectations of Cliff (13) and what Cliff thinks Tom expects him (12). But, Cliff’s expectations (22) & What Tom thinks Cliff expects of him (4) tells a different story. Users are then shown how to use their AlEx™ Cross-Hairs Alignment Tool™ to “rifle-in” on data  to  prioritize  which  alignment  meetings  are  really  needed.  Then  users  meet  and  decide which of their expectations are:
  • Discards
  • Unresolved
  • Agreed
This ability to “rifle-in” on key issues before they cause entrenched discord is much like “clash identification” in BIM (Building Information Modeling).
AlEx™ is the “human cousin to BIM”
Dick Ortega, President, Alternative Mechanical
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is the process of generating and managing building data during its life cycle[1]. Typically it uses three-dimensional, real-time, dynamic building modeling software to increase productivity in building design and construction.[2] The process produces the Building Information Model (also abbreviated BIM), which encompasses building geometry, spatial relationships, geographic information, and quantities and properties of building components.

AlEx™ Outputs

1. Distraction Index
The Distraction Index identifies which individuals  or groups are aligned or distracted from achieving strategic goals:

Closing the Distraction Gap

  • Aligned,  and  Doing  Things  that  are  Expected —  expectations  and  assumptions  of  these expectations are in balance.
  • Distracted,  and  Doing  Things  that  are  Not  Expected —  individuals  are  making  incorrect
  • assumptions about what others expect of them
  • Distracted and Expecting Things that are Not Done — expectations exceed assumptions of those expectations.
 

Designers & Owners Tension Ratings

2. Tension Ratings

Expectation originators rate each of their expectations on a scale from High (project critical) to
Low Tension if an expectation is not met. Tension rating filtering enables users to see how well they are aligned
in terms of stress and the importance others place on different areas of the construction process.
3. Cross-Hairs Communication Channel Analysis
Un-Channeled
In a construction project, groups are often expected to change who they communicate with and about  what.  If  for  example,  the  General  Contractor’s  Project  Executive  is  expected  to  work closely  with  the  Chief  Superintendent  to  adopt  Lean  Construction  practices  to  meet  Owner expectations and they d 

Misaligned Core Group

o not have any expectations of each other! Conversely, if the Design Engineers  now report directly  to  the newly appointed Owner’s  Engineer and  not  the  Owner’s Facilities Manager then you would not want to see people still having expectations of the GM.

4. Cross-Channeled
Medium levels of expectations are often needed between different professions and trades as the main construction phase begins. This is especially true in Design-Build Projects
Highly-Channeled
High levels of expectations are needed where people work in the same function or project, e.g. Owners and EPCs.
5. Dealing with Change
Changing project circumstances require timely responses. AlEx™ is a real time system that enables adaption of existing or creation of new expectations to handle change.  E-mail updates of  such  changes  can be automatically  broadcasted.   AlEx™  has  adjustable granularity,  i.e.  it can  deal  with  high  level  expectation  alignment  through  to  execution  level  task  alignment, depending on the changed circumstance.
6. How Does AlEx™ Integrate with MS Project™ and Other Project Management Systems?
AlEx™ acts as a project management “front end” to keep existing project reporting systems updated with not only task completion status, but also with changed expectations required by changing internal or external circumstances.   Thus expectation alignment can be maintained without having to change pre-existing reporting systems. The interface between AlEx™ and existing systems is done via scheduled batch file updates. Thus  even  if  the  project  “playing  field”  changes,  the  benefits  of  aligning  team  members  are realized  continuously  throughout  the  life  of  a  longer  project  using  existing  reporting  systems. Adding  AlEx™  can  make  existing  project  management  systems  more  than  just  dashboards, they can become navigation systems, to keep the project on course as circumstances change.

4.0 Case Study – Building Construction Project (See Case Study)

Symptoms
This large construction firm manages and constructs large projects around the world. Some of their most complex work is on hospital projects. In  this  case,  the  number  of  change
orders, RFI’s (Requests for Information) and building decisions awaiting government  regulatory  agency  approval had  pushed  a  $500  million  hospital project into crisis.
The owners and prime contractors were faced with escalating change orders brought on by a number of factors including drawing quality, owner groups changing their specifications and a series of contractual changes. Consequently, the overall contingency fund for a three hospital project was being depleted at an accelerated rate.
Relations between owners, engineering firms, architectural design professionals, subcontractors and the general contractor had become strained.
The leadership group representing the major players became increasingly concerned about the ineffectiveness of OAC meetings (Owner/Architect/Contractor), and the cost of having so many rofessionals/consultants on hand, all charging professional level hourly rates.
Diagnosis and Therapy
The AlEx™ Expectation Alignment methodology was employed with the following approach:
  • Facilitation of meetings with each of the main group’s leaders to elicit their perspective on the key issues and what they wanted to be better aligned on with other groups/individuals.
  • Development of consensus of six key issues or “components” on which all 7 groups (a total of 35 people from 17 companies) agreed would require alignment
  • Coaching of all these players in generating expectations for each of these components (within and between groups)
  • Providing analysis and feedback to the leadership team, isolating several key initiatives.
For example:
  • Aligning OAC representatives to focus on key initiatives in each of the three projects
  • Setting up structured coaching within owner, general contractor and architectural firms
  • Aligning the change order process across the three projects
  • Accelerating the decision to replace the incumbent architects and help integrate their replacement
  • Aligning three architectural firms on fostering better co-ordination and common design policies
Outcome
The leadership group recognized the following tangible benefits from applying the AlEx™  system:
  • Cost hemorrhaging was stopped.
  • The project was completed on schedule.
  • There was no post project litigation among the 17 organizations involved in project planning and execution.
Other intangible benefits noted by the client:
  • Created a more productive environment for all of our building Partners Reduced or eliminated conflicts of all kinds by improving the way we communicate with each other
  • Reduced schedule blocks and re-work, thereby maintaining the approved construction  schedule
  • L ed the way for our partners (Client, Design Team, Inspection Agencies, and Subcontractors) in conducting business in a fair, open, and trusting way as the means to eliminate profit erosion, conflicts, and claims
  • Utilized “Partnering” as the means to accomplish our initiatives In a “design-build” environment which included a government owner, we were able to resolve several major conflicts using AlEx™ to expose hidden and unspoken expectations in “real time.
  • Ongoing communications became much more interactive and without conflict.
  • Tools from our partnering sessions are long lasting were used by all parties almost daily to insure the success of each stake holder. A reduction in lost time and resources resolving “festered” conflicts, because most were resolved before they reached such a state.”

5.0 Project Teams as a Neural Network – The Foundation for a Culture of Alignment and Accountability The Project “Brain”

Consider each team member a neuron in a “Project Brain” and the lines of expectations with other team members as synaptic connections. A one  way  expectation  will  be  a  weak  synaptic connection

Project Synapses are essential to neuronal function: neurons are cells that are specialized to pass signals to individual target cells, and synapses are the means by which they do so.

until it is acknowledged and accepted by another neuron.The AlEx™ expectation alignment process facilitates  and  measures  the  creation  of aligned expectations  so  the  Project  Brain  grows  and learns to better able to handle change. Thus,  like  brain  plasticity  now  being  discovered  in  humans,  the  Project  Brain  will  adapt  to changing circumstances by discarding synaptic connections (fulfilled or dropped expectations) or making new connections (new or altered expectations).The Project Brain is effectively self-diagnosing, exposing the squandering of energy (on unnecessary tasks) or resource deficiencies (lack of materials, knowledge or support).  It can also regulate the release of hormones to stimulate action (tension ratings).

Tools Facilitating a New Project Execution Culture

We have seen how one of the most important aspects of project management, expectation alignment, can now be measured and managed.  However, a toolkit and system to enable this does  more  than  measure  and  manage,  it  promotes  a  culture  of  communication  and accountability. Aculture of accountability is fostered  by AlEx™ because it ensures team members gain a feeling of control over what is expected of them but also that their expectations of others are understood  and  evidence  of  task  completion  documented.      As  the  entire  AlEx™  process requires more effective communications, team members must incorporate it in their regular work activity.
Competency Development

Like any habit, coaching and repetition are key factors in adoption. Initially, facilitated expectation  alignment  sessions  are  combined  with  training  on  the  web  input  of  expectation parameters.    Periodic  monitoring  of  alignment  progress  then  helps  ensure  the  most  efficient adoption  of  this  methodology.      Corporate  internalization  of  the  system  is  accomplished  with relatively  simple  “train  the  trainer”  sessions  that  enable  provision  of  in-house  facilitation  and monitoring services. AlEx™ identifies  communications  weaknesses  among  managers,  where  coaching  may  be needed, thus strengthening the project team going forward.
Optimized Resource Allocation – Top Down and Bottom Up
For an improved accountability culture to take root, it must be not only top down and bottom up but  omni-directional.    It  takes  root  because  expectation  originators  are  accountable  to  the expectation  receivers  to  ensure  they  have  the  required  competencies  and  tools.  This  is  the neural connection that builds the Project Brain’s capacity because people explicitly know:
  • What leaders expect of them (typically 70% of leaders’ expectations are either not known or understood by those executing the project)8
  • What team members expect of their project leadership.

6.0 The ROI for Oilsands Projects

Sources of Payback

Adoption of any new process must have a return on investment. While Expectation Alignment has  been successfully  employed midstream  to  “projects  in  crisis”,  it’s  highest  ROI  is  realized when  used  in  real  time  to  diagnose  and  address  communications  weaknesses  and  enable proper project planning and execution. Reviewing our key sources of failure, we can now see where payback can be expected applying Expectation Alignment:
Project Planning – Early alignment of all stakeholder expectations avoids expensive surprises and delays. Alignment facilitates “faster track” planning while reducing the problems of rushing to “Get on with it”, then paying the price later in areas ranging from design, project control and procurement.
Minimized scope changes – The owners’ expectations of the EPC  to have conducted a thorough review of specifications can be conveyed in a very detailed manner using Expectation Alignment.  This can avoid delays due to RFIs and change orders on critical path items.  With delayed revenue costing millions of dollars per day, the investment in expectation alignment can payback in a single avoided change order.Expectation alignment can facilitate  efficient assessment and incorporation of innovation that may  have  a  significant  long  term  benefit  to  the  project  economics.    This  is  accomplished  by enabling faster alignment and decision making among multiple project partners.
Change in environment – Even with a change management plan in place, a methodical and efficient way to incorporate new and discard old project expectations can mitigate costs by:
  • Improving response time,
  • Discarding activities quickly
  • Refocusing project teams to the new realities
Resource and support issues- – Early definition of resource expectations all the way down the chain of command can avoid costly delays and expenditures.  Similarly, competency gaps
can be identified sooner by engaging in expectation alignment processes.
Improved communications – With numerous stakeholders involved in planning, financing, permitting, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning and operation of an oilsands asset,  static  definitional  documents  such  a  project  charters  and  conventional  project management  tools  are  not  designed  to  manage  thousands  of  changing  expectations. successful  project  execution  rests  on  agreeing,  discarding  or  identifying  the  unresolved. Expectation alignment methods identify managers who are especially strong or weak at communicating with their teams.  Coaching or other remedial actions can thus be undertaken and the results monitored. Employing Expectation Alignment in materials supply chain and personnel scheduling / logistics stakeholders can have big paybacks in avoided scheduling problems. Improved  project  processes  and  controls  –  Expectation  Alignment’s  regular  and measurable  process  of  developing  and  agreeing  project  expectations  are  taken  to  a  level needed  for  a  given  project.    Unlike  project  reporting  which  can  often  identify  symptoms, Expectation  Alignment  tools  also  make  accountability  for  task  execution  highly  visible. Expectation Tension Ratings may also reveal important tasks that are not necessarily on the critical path but can have huge ramifications to project schedules or budgets.
  • Late scope changes
  • Change in environment
  • Insufficient resources / Poor support
  • Poor communications
  • Poor project processes and controls
  • Poorly developed teams
  • Poor partnering strategies
  • Poor contracting strategies
  • Team turnover
  • Inadequate definition of stakeholders
Stronger teams The Expectation Alignment process demands that Expectation Originators ensure  that  Expectation  Receivers  have  the  competency  and  resources to  complete  the required  tasks.      In  situations  where  senior  managers  are  working  with  junior  personnel, assumptions  are  often  made  on  their  level  of  process  knowledge  and  industry  practices. Expectation Alignment addresses these issues by facilitating the alignment conversations that reveal experience gaps early enough to develop people and avoid later termination.
Stronger partnering strategies – Early definition of equity partner expectations among all key project themes and issues can be achieved using expectation alignment.   This can reduce inter-company  communications  staffing  requirements,  but  most  importantly  accelerate partner decision making when circumstances change or opportunities arise.
Improved contracting strategies – Incorporating  subcontractors and  key suppliers  in the Expectation Alignment process often reveals owner expectations and other stakeholders are not captured  in  specifications  and  contracts,  yet  play  a  significant  part  in  them  being  effective. Diagnosing and addressing these issues avoids later conflicts and delays.
Retention of talent – Again consider the 5 key” Project Dysfunctions”. ( Absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability and inattention to results). Getting teams  participating  in  facilitated  expectation  alignment  sessions  creates  an  objective assessment of  team  stressors  and progressively  builds  a  more robust and  productive  project team culture. Based  on  this  foundation,  Expectation  Alignment  becomes  an  effective  tool  to  getting  new people up to speed and address competency gaps before their credibility is damaged.
Better  stakeholder  engagement while  inclusion  of  all  stakeholders  is  an  obvious apparent  remedy  to  avoiding  later  project  problems,  the  explicit  definition  of  mutual expectations,  especially  of  external  stakeholders,  can  yield  big  paybacks.  For  example, proactively  establishing  a  local  community’s  expectations  before  major  decisions  are  taken builds inclusivity and provides a more objective basis with which to resolve later conflicts and political  changes.    Projects with  international  partners  can  address cultural and other barriers with explicit expectation alignment methodologies.
Summary
In summary, where delays are measured  in millions of dollars a day, improving  the  speed  and  agility  of  construction  has  been  the  “holy  grail”. This pursuit encourages putting in place more controls and systems which often  fail  to  adequately  cope  with  increasing  project  complexity  and dynamics.  Effective  decision  making  needs  the  marriage  of  authority  and accountability  on-site,  not  its  divorce  to  some  remote  decision  maker. Simple, methodical alignment and monitoring of expectations reinforces this marriage to yield very tangible savings in time and money.

Great, but how can this help me?

This is probably the  first thing on your mind after reading this Blog.   How about asking us?  The first call is free!  Just email me to set it up.  Don’t wait, get PDS working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching on change, alignment, and executive performance that improve the bottom line.  If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.

____________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page
Nick Anderson, Senior Partner, PDS Group LTD
Ray Plamondon, PDS Group (Western Canada)
Rolf Wenzel
Ian Murray & Company Ltd.

direct 403-875-3310  fax 403-444-2008
www.imcprojects.ca

Listen to the Radio Show of this blog

© Copyright All Rights Reserved, IMC & PDS Group LTD and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds, [2010-2011]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nick Anderson, PDS Group LTD and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.


Leadership Skills Series 2: Developing Profitable Ideas

Now That’s Viable!

This the second in my series to help leaders assess their interactive skills. In my last blog I introduced the research based model that led to many useful insights into what the more effective communicators do in different settings and focused on what happens when meetings become imbalanced by getting stuck in too much Initiating, Reacting or Clarifying.

In this blog I want to get readers thinking about getting more productive meetings i.e. generating more commercially viable ideas to compete and improve.

What type of research was involved to develop these models?

I want to focus on two key Initiating Behaviors and their relationship to meeting success, namely

  • Proposing – putting forward ideas, suggestions courses of action
  • Building – sounds like a proposal, which extends or develops another person’s proposal

The difference between them is the Proposing is an independent idea and Building must be dependent on another person’s idea.

What I want readers to think about is the proportion of these two behaviors in their meetings  at work, church etc. and how it influences meeting outcome.

So, I am assuming that you would need to consider both the quantity and quality of ideas put forward?

That’s an excellent point. The research looked at the sort of Initiating going on and could it be more effective.

The research was based on 23 working teams to see if there was a connection between effective performance and Initiating Behavior. The teams were mostly research and project teams. We established their levels of effectiveness against three criteria:

  1. The number of ideas brought to management’s attention
  2. The number of ideas accepted for implementation
  3. The estimated commercial payoff

The results clearly showed that these three criteria were significantly related to the ratio of proposing and building behavior. The more building, the better the performance

Sounds like “Building is a good thing!”

Unfortunately, like so many simple conclusions it is only partly true.Studies of other groups that were efficient and effective used no building at all.

Why should it prove to be a strong predictor in some situations and not others?

It puzzled us until we started to look at how a group deals with ideas. Groups seemed to take two very different approaches by either focusing on Proposing or Building.

We first looked at groups that were very much higher in Proposing Behavior and used little if any Building. Here’s a typical sequence

  1. First person puts forward the first idea (P1)
  2. Others don’t like it and it gets rejected (DS)
  3. On the next agenda item another idea is put forward and then countered by another person.(P2/P3)
  4. The second and third ideas are considered and the group likes the third idea.(P3 +SP)
  5. A change of topic and another idea is not fully accepted e.g. buy five machines gets reduced to 3 machines.(P4> p4)

So, What’s happening to how this group handles ideas?

It sounds like ideas would not be fully considered before being either accepted or rejected?

That could be true if the ideas were complex and impactful. But your description is accurate, this group either filters or reduces the number of proposals – FILTER MEETING


Because of the low level of building, proposals are not develop by others. They are either accepted, rejected or reduced.

Too many people think that all meetings should focus on building on each others’ ideas. However, Filter meetings can be incredibly efficient and effective where management has too many ideas already and needs to pare down and get focus on doing something.

So, how do you judge when a filter meeting is not the right way to go in handling ideas?

Essentially it comes down to four negative impacts:

1.  Ownership and the Win-Lose Problem
Defensive – clinging to own ideas and not listening
with politicking occurring before, during and after the meeting.

2.  Lack of Integration

3.  Lack of Commitment and Motivation

4.  Problem of Self-Reinforcement – filtering gets ingrained into regular meetings.

In fact, in one case study a group was observed over six meetings. In meeting 1, there were 24 Proposals (PR’s) to 20 Building (BU’s) but by meeting 6, Proposals were up to 39 with no Building!

It illustrated for us why there are so many Filter meetings in commercial life and so few meetings with High Building Behaviors. Such meetings which are high on Building and low on Proposing deal with Initiating very differently. The Key is that several people contributed to the final idea by Building on one another’s proposal – so an idea was AMPLIFIED – Thus we use the term Amplifier Meeting

I think I would rather be in that sort of meeting, what did participants say differently from those in the Filter Meetings?

Well, the impact on participants is very different.

1.  There’s a sense of excitement. In Filter meeting the range of possibilities is known before the meeting and the outcome if often predictable. Whereas in an Amplifier Meeting outcome are frequently unexpected and ideas are developed dynamically.

2.  There is increased commitment to action. “It’s our idea!”

3.  There is increased quality as ideas are more full bodied and thought through as they harness all the group’s resources.

How did they judge quality of ideas?

There was a panel of independent judge’s assessed the commercial viability of ideas. They found that in Amplifier Groups  there were over twice as many high quality ideas as in the Filter Group.

Of course Amplifier meeting do take more time and a lack of structure

How do you get out of the Filter Rut and get an Amplifier Meeting going?

Well, what I do, which seems to work most of the time:

1.  Choose an issue where nobody has fixed preconceptions

2.  Give no advanced warning or agenda of the issue

3.  Stop the Meeting after the first proposal

4.  Encourage Building

5.  Dealing with Criticism

6.  Not moving on too soon

How do you know when you have a Filter vs. Amplifier Meeting?

It turns out that comes down to ratios of Proposing to Building Behaviors. When you find there are two proposals for each Build(2:1+ PR:BU) it identifies an Amplifier Meeting. Whereas when Proposals to Building Ratio is (4+:1 PR:BU) you have a Filter Meeting

In their research how frequently do the different meetings occur?

Out of 312 meetings observed:

  • 78% Filter
  • 4% Amplifier
  • 18% Neither one or the other

Overall, we questioned the need for more Amplifier meetings. At a perceptual level, post meeting questionnaires revealed that:

Filter meetings were perceived as:

  • Efficient
  • Competitive
  • Organized

Amplifier Meetings were perceived as:

  • Creative
  • Exciting
  • Participative
  • Useful
  • Committed to meeting outcome
  • Better Quality of Decisions

So, How do you decide when to have a Filter or Amplifier Meeting?

Filter is on

A Filter Meeting is needed when you:

1.  Need to reduce the many choices for action available

2.  Have to work to tight time constraints

3.  Do not need individual commitment for successful implementation

An Amplifier Meeting is needed when you:

1.  Need to create solutions where no predetermined alternatives exist

2.  Need individual Commitment for success

3.  Need high quality solutions

Great, but how can this help me?

This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog.
How about asking us?  The first call is free!  Just email me to set it up.
Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching improve bottom line results.
If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.

_________________________________________________________________________
For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page 
Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage

E-mail I Web I Linkedin

© Copyright All Rights Reserved, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds, [2010-2012]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Leadership Skills Series: 1. Developing Profitable Ideas in Meetings

Getting People on the Same Page

During the last 6 months I have been coaching different professionals in how to reduce project costs and delays. This got me thinking about the last few blogs. The theme has been Aligning People for Change – coping with the economic turbulence we live in today. So, I got to thinking about practical tools that most leaders can use to “Talk Their Talk”. When there is a lot of uncertainty and turbulence leaders need to “up their game by communicating better and more effectively.

This is the start of a series on developing leaders behavioral Skills. It is based on my 11 years with Huthwaite Research Group where we used research based models to develop groups and leaders effective communication skills including:

  • Developing effective solutions
  • Negotiating
  • Selling
  • Facilitating

In this Blog, I want to start with a core leadership skill – Developing Commercially Viable Ideas in Meetings

What type of research was involved to develop these models?

All these models and subsequent research projects are based on a large scale research project in the late 60’s

(Warr, P. B., Bird, M. and Rackham, N., The Evaluation of Management Training, Gower, 1970, Rackham, N. and Morgan, T., Behaviour Analysis in Training, McGraw-Hill, 1977. Rackham, N. et al., Developing Interactive Skills, Wellens, 1971.) to develop a truly descriptive and useful system for classifying

behavior. This long and tedious process considered many potential categories. The researchers finally concluded that a practical list of categories could be produced if the selected behaviors met 5 basics criteria. They were:

1. Measured accurately

2. Easy to understand

3. Distinct from other categories

4. Change how often it is used

5. Related to effective performance

What sort of things did they come up with?

Initiating

Initiating behaviors are proposals or suggestions to the group that call for action. After all, a discussion has got to start somewhere. New proposals and an addition to a proposal are both examples of initiating. There are two initiating behaviors: Proposing and Building.

Proposing brings forth a new suggestion, proposal, or course of action (e.g. “I suggest that we organize the project into five modules.”.

Building takes the form of a proposal, but actually extends or further develops a proposal made by another person (e.g. “…and your plan would be even better if we added a scroll bar at the edge of the window.”)

Since initial proposals are often not the final solution, building is effective in producing an alternative or revised plan.

Reacting

The Blame Game

Reacting behaviors involve the affirmation of or objection to a person, his/her opinions, or an issue. There are three reacting behaviors: Supporting, Disagreeing, and Defending/Attacking.

Supporting is a behavior that makes a conscious and direct declaration of agreement with or supports for another person, or his/her concepts and opinions (e.g. “I like Sandra’s idea bestor “This sounds good”). Generally, this behavior builds cohesion and momentum.

Disagreeing is the direct objection to another person’s opinions or ideas. Disagreeing is an issue-oriented behavior (e.g. “Your third point is counter to regulation 10.3.3…” or “What you’re suggesting just won’t work as the impeller will overheat). This behavior is normal in a discussion and needed to use the full resources of the group to get to an effective idea.

.Defending/Attacking entails attacking a person directly or by acting defensively. This behavior is people-oriented, and involves value judgments and emotional overtones (i.e. “That’s stupid!” or “Don’t blame me; it’s not my fault. It’s John’s responsibility.”). Defending and Attacking will only bring unhappiness and plenty of tension to the group. There are better ways of handling a discussion. If you are being verbally attacked, try not to play into the instigator’s hands by shouting back. Instead try to speak rationally and direct the discussion to the issue at hand rather than playing the Blame Game”.

Clarifying

Clarifying behaviors attempt to clarify an individual’s or group’s understanding of the issues. Exchanging information  and summarizing are involved in clarification. There are four behaviors;

  • Testing Understanding,
  • Summarizing,
  • Seeking Information,
  • Giving Information.

Testing Understanding seeks to establish whether or not an earlier contribution has been understood by the individual. It differs from seeking information in that it is an attempt to ensure agreement or consensus of some kind, and refers to a prior question or issue (i.e. “Can I take it that we all now agree on our tasks assignments for this week?”). This behavior is similar to Summarizing, but takes the form of a question.

Summarizing restates the content of previous discussions or events in a compact form. This behavior can be useful to ensure that the entire group is up to date with events that have transpired (e.g. “So far we have agreed that John will finish module A, while Maria and I begin module B.”). This will insure that you and the rest of the group have a clear understanding…

Seeking Information seeks facts, opinions, or clarification from another person pertaining to a proposal (i.e. “Can anyone tell me which page this is on?” and “What test routine will you use?”). This behavior ensures that you are up to date with the topic of discussion. If you have questions, ask them as soon as possible (i.e. don’t leave questions until the night before the project is due).

Giving Information offers facts, opinions or clarification to a proposal (e.g. “The new system is easier to operate.” and “I’m worried about missing the deadline.”). Feedback is always appreciated even if it is not always positive.

Process Behaviors

Process behaviors entail the obstruction of or opening up of the discussion process to group members. Bringing In and Shutting Out are the two behaviors that constitute Process Behaviors.

Bringing In invites views or opinions from a member of the group who is not actively participating in the discussion (i.e. “Lee, what is your opinion on the layout of the User’s Manual?”). This behavior may introduce some refreshing new ideas from a shy or reserved team member.

Shutting Out excludes another person or reduces their opportunity to contribute. Interruption is the most common form of shutting out (e.g.  “David, what do you think?” Eric replies: “I think…” — Eric has interrupted David and shut him out of the conversation). This behavior may seem harmless, but if it occurs too much it can be felt as disrespectful and can deny others the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

How was this research used to in finding better ways to run meetings?

It turns out effective meetings showed that all three main behavior groups were present in a balanced way. They found that once a group became locked into using one or two of these major classes the results they produced were impaired. Here are some Case Studies

Meeting Case Studies

Here are some groups and their meetings that were either high or low in Initiating, Reacting or Clarifying?

High on Initiating

  • Too many ideas and ideas to handle
  • Lack of attention to detail – “up in the clouds” feeling

Group Case Research team in Chemical Industry

Problem – On surface seemed very creative, innumerable ideas. Management asked for reducing severe dust problems in one of their plants. First meeting came up with 14 viable methods. As this was urgent they reported – Production Director said “OK,which one?” After 5 subsequent meetings they had not reached a decision and generated 6 new ideas!!!

High on Reacting

  • Becomes emotional
  • Misunderstandings become more frequent
  • People take sides – entrenched

Group Case: Shop Stewards in Manufacturing

Problem – Coping with changes in the economic climate. Management started taking a more consultative approach by letting people in advance of potential change. Previously they reacted to Management proposals e.g. wages, benefits etc. They couldn’t get out their traditional mold. They left Initiating to management and were low in clarifying which led to more misunderstandings and became more emotional.

High on Clarifying

  • Very time consuming
  • Obsession with minor details
  • Feels like “swimming in syrup”

Group Case – British Civil Servants

Problem – They became bogged down in the meaning of the meaning. Consequently, 90% behavior was clarifying. Their Initiating Behaviors was

so low that they became stuck in minor detail. This was

Booged Down

compounded by low levels of reacting behavior so no one knew who supported or disagreed with other group members.

That’s the high side of the problem, what happens when you get groups that are low on these three areas?

Low on Initiating

  • Backward looking
  • Lack of enthusiasm
  • Undue attention to detailed analysis

Group Case: Production Control Committee in the Engineering Industry.

Problem: Representatives from Production, QC, Maintenance, Industrial Engineering and Production Planning had jobs which overlapped so that when problems came up there were disputes as to who was blame.

“We seem to be very good at dissecting situations and finding who is to blame. Perhaps we should be spending some time finding ways to prevent things occurring in the first place”

Low on Reacting

  • Tendency for Repetition
  • People withhold important information
  • Awkward and forced

Group Case: Systems Analysts presenting proposals to a group of staff members

Problem: The Systems Analysts came up with lots of proposals for change i.e. High Initiating. As a result Staff became nervous about these proposals and heightened by their use of technical jargon. So they were high in Clarifying and did not make any commitments. The Analysts Reacting already low levels dropped and gave more detail i.e. they were classic Low Reactors so the confusion continued. This is typical of specialists meeting decision makers and most know the discomfort of presenting to decision makers

Low Clarifying

  • Meeting becomes disorganized
  • Hasty decisions are made
  • People cannot agree afterwards on what has been decided

Group: New York Advertising Agency

Problem: This active & dynamic group responded to a client brief with everyone talking at once. There were loads of ideas, plenty of excitement and enthusiasm i.e. extremely high Initiating Behaviors. Also, they were high in Reacting Behaviors with a chorus of approval or disapproval and consequently very low Clarifying Behaviors. So confusion reigned. At the end they were asked to write what had been agreed. There were no two versions that were the same. Later further research showed people leaving a meeting could have an average of 5 misunderstandings per person.

What can we learn from these case studies in terms of where we are in this recession?

Leaders know that meetings are inherently expensive and today there isn’t time to tolerate the sort of problems illustrated. Leaders need to hold themselves accountable to managing meetings so that;

1.  Initiating, Reacting and Clarifying Behaviors must be present and balanced if meetings are to be successful.

2.  They are alert to the impact of High or Low Reacting seriously impairs productivity

3.  They recognize that different meetings have very different needs, so what works for problem diagnosis will not work for evaluating a production plan

4.  Some Meetings need to be high on one of the three – although you need to be cautious of High Clarifying. Leaders have to question if a meeting is the most productive use of meeting where there is High – Information Exchange

In the rest of the series we will cover specific skills that help leaders achieve these goals

Great, but how can this help me?

This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog.
How about asking us?  The first call is free!  Just email me to set it up.
Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching improve bottom line results.
If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.

_________________________________________________________________________
For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page 
Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage

E-mail I Web I Linkedin

© Copyright All Rights Reserved, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds, [2010-2012]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Family Business Transition – Focus on Things You Can Control

Listen to this Radio Show

I was reminded of the topics we covered two years ago through a number of conversations with Financial Planners. Two things stuck out in terms of their frustrations, especially with business owners.1.  Clients don’t want to reveal all their assets the planner2.  Clients will “dither” on the end game. Some listeners will be thinking, rather skeptically, about the self interest motivating such frustration. But, for a minute, most  financial planners are well motivated and they can’t build a book of business by not doing two things really well:1. Know their clients really well2.  Act in their best interests

Other related conversations with businesses owners about when and how to transition:

  • A fast expanding food broking business which is rapidly expanding and the founder is59yo and his son is 32yo have no transition plan
  • A printing company where the 52yo owner was returning to work after a major illnessand his 28yo son ran the business very well in his absence. The owner wants to retireat 60 yet thinks it is too early to plan his transition
  • A environmental remediation company’s owner got caught by the recession and had topull back control from his inexperienced management team.

So, Nick, what is your theme this week?

“May you live in interesting times” Old Chinese curse. Readers don’t want another recital
of the recession litany. Yet, there is opportunity in any downturn.Yes, conditions are unpleasant with loads of “turbling” BUT….

“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; . . . If you can meet with triumph and disaster AND treat those two impostors just the same . . Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.” (Kipling)

My message is for business owners in this blog is  –

Don’t waste time worrying about things you can’t change – Direct things to things you can control: this choices on how are you going to move forward.

That’s easier said than done, in this economic climate
Oh, I am not talking about easy but I am talking about the need to be proactive…
Since the recession started, for Baby-Boomer business owners face the same dynamics of their condition.1.  78m Boomers of whose wealth is held in 12m privately owned businesses2.  70% will change hands in 10-15years3.  Trillions of dollars will transferNow think of the business owner with 180,000 hours, say, invested in their business;
What are they thinking?

  • Will I be able to work  less in next five years?
  • Consider leaving the business?
  • How do I get out?
  • I don’t know what the business is worth?
  • What is the best time to sell?

Surely, though, most owners are in survival mode and need to protect their business these days

Why not combine the two?Expand strategy to accomplish both – the reality is they are not mentally exclusive.
In fact, there are real problems if you don’t keep them integrated.Remember the quote “keeping your head”
This is not the time to abandon business planning.It takes at least 2-3years to successfully implement in NORMAL Times. You can argue now
is the right time to put in place tactics that will increase business value when the recession ends.

OK. So what can business owners do now?

Well, the business cycle is alive and well, there’s still timing when you business is at its optimal value.

If you don’t think ahead: you will be in the herd!
9 out of 10 owners who don’t get  anywhere close to what they expected or want for their business, delay in making a decision and for mature businesses “
dithering” erodes the transaction value.

The fact is that less than 40% of businesses successfully transition their business…. Yet,
84% say the need the proceeds to finance their retirement.

There’s been no change to owners lack of urgency:

  • 58% don’t have any plan
  • 33% informal
  • Only 9% have a formal written plan

Ummm, what’s the connection between 1 in 10 get what they want and 1 in 10 have a formal plan.

When are owners thinking of exiting their businesses?
28 % within 5 years, 52% plan on exiting within next 10 years.
Like retirement and personal planning, transition planning works best the longer the timeline to plan and
implement = optimal value.
With such compelling stats for just how much is on the line, what’s holding people back?
There are the three fears of transition:

  • Fear of Loss Wealth
  • Fear of Loss of Control
  • Fear of Conflict
What are the main reasons for not having a succession plan?
It’s a bit like Letterman’s Top Eight Reasons (Excuses) for not getting the right return on 180,000 hours of:

“Blood, Sweat, Toil and Tears! (Churchill)

Top 8

8. Too scary

7. Thoughts of the end

6. Family/Employee conflict

5. Don’t want to think of leaving

4. Can’t get adequate advice

3. Too complex

2. No Time

No. 1 – No time to plan!

In this recession why has transition planning become even more important?
Good question,There will be  more market competition – fewer buyers than sellersWith downward pressure on business values a premium will be placed on well run businesses that stand out
from the pack and can differentiate themselves in the market placePlanners – IO Non-Planners – O Which team do you want to be on?

How does the Family put a brake on transition planning?

Well. Many owners consider passing their business on to their children,It’s one of the most challenging
decisions a parent-owner faces.Impartiality is critical in addressing these emotional family issues and the effects on the business

What are the main reasons for no or little planning?

Sadly, many family-owned businesses are shut down because the Family didn’t handle the succession issue: Why?

  • Parents stays on too long
  • Parent steps down too soon before successors are trained or sufficiently experienced in the leadership roles
  • Fail to face the realities that many children don’t want to be involved with the business or at very least shouldn’t be forced into working together

The reality is that the odds are not stacked in their favor:

30% – 2nd Generation survival

12% – 3rd Generation survival

3% – 4th Generation survival

My Blog Tip
Ask Yourself:What comes first? The Transaction?OR The Management of the Transition?OR The Strategy for the TransitionDon’t put the Cart before the Horse.Talk to your trusted advisor – CPA, Lawyer etc. and ask”Who do we need to create and implement the plan?

Great, but how can this help me?

This is probably the first thing on your mind after reading this Blog.
How about asking us?  The first call is free!  Just email me to set it up.
Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching improve bottom line results.
If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.

_________________________________________________________________________
For Help in Getting Your People on the Same Page 
Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage

E-mail I Web I Linkedin

© Copyright All Rights Reserved, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds, [2010-2012]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nick Anderson, The Crispian Advantage and Walk the Talk – A Blog for Agile Minds with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Aligning Expectations in Construction Projects

AlEx Crosshairs

Your Line of Sight to Successful Projects

Aligning Expectations in Construction Projects

Getting & Keeping People on the Same Page

Clarifying and improving performance contracts between critical relationships, such as:

  • Architects and their Design Engineers
  • General Contractors and their Sub-Contractors
  • Managers and Subordinates
  • Leadership Teams
  • Cross-functional groups

Groups have successfully used AlEx™ to:

  • Improve competitiveness
  • Deliver more customer-focused solutions
  • Deliver a building on-time, on-budget and no legal

issues

  • Accelerate and build partnerships
  • Integrate new Architects
  • Streamline Change Order & RFI Processes

Potential Benefits of the Eternal Triangle: Owner, Architectural Design Team & General Contractor

The Goal: a perfect building with proper design, highest quality, constructed on time and last but not least, built within budget.

 Introduction

What follows are three areas where AlEx can potentially help the “Eternal Triangle” of tension and mistrust that pervades many construction project relationships

1. Managing Conflict and Relationship Tension

2. Managing Complexity

3. Improving Building Performance

1.    Managing Conflict – Benefits of AlEx™

  1. Helps develop a healthy attitude to managing rather than hiding conflict.
  2. Reduces the distracting and destructive products from poorly handled conflict situations.
  3. Helps harness diverse views and experience in the project team for the good of the overall project and Owner.
  4. Helps handle change as the project progresses and manages the constant flow of information between Owners, consultants and contractors.
  5. 5. Addresses the tensions in managing the dynamic and transient nature of the project life cycle process.
  6. Recognizes that as work precedes the relative bargaining strengths of the parties are constantly adjusting. Standard approaches to contracting simply do not take this into account.
  7. Overcomes, the inflexibility inherent in standard building contracts. For example, one contract assumes that the design is complete at the time of bidding and that the contractor employs most of the resources that will be required for the project. The fact is, design is rarely 100 % complete at the time of bidding and contractors subcontract most of the work.
  8. Develops Project Teams while recognizing their different rules of engagement. AlEx™ recognizes and helps facilitate different project needs and rules of engagement, like:
  • Changing Owner demands
  • Rapid learning
  • Generating and maintaining effective interaction between team members so that they can exchange views and debate the consequences of their decisions in an open and honest forum.
  • Changing circumstances over the project’s life cycle.
  • Shifting relationship tensions between the major members of the project team.
  • Building trust for when things do not go as planned.

2. Managing Complexity – Benefits of AlEx™

1.    Designs in flexibility in management structure and style that is essential in dealing with complex and changing business environments.

2.    Deals with the reality that construction contracts are based upon industry-wide standards that often are hastily modified and executed during a hurried design and bidding process. AlEx™ picks up where the contracting process stops. Every project needs a legal contract and a guide to monument – AlEx™ is the formative process to get the contracting parties into alignment.

3.    AlEx™ helps harness conflict that causes the distress and low productivity associated with escalating conflict. AlEx™ helps to develop open, skillful discussion that is needed to turn differences into synergistic gains rather than squabbling losses.

4.    The use of AlEx™ helps project teams build Partnering, a process of building up long term business relationships that reduce the adversarial nature of construction. The expectations approach helps shift the emphasis from a contractual focus to a results orientated management focus.

5.    AlEx™ takes the heat out of how to convert business deals into good contracts which produce lasting positive relationships.

6.    Helps develop the close working relationships needed between all designers and contractors in order to produce an integrated building in which all building services, structural and building elements are fully planned, systematically organized and combined, and brought to fruition as required by an Owner. It really produces teams that actually communicate effectively with each other.

7.    Helps develop the processes needed to cope with the growing complexity of design and Owner needs, e.g. as hospital buildings grow in size and complexity, building services also tend to be more sophisticated and difficult to manage from design to certificate of occupancy.

8.    Helps develop coordination to ensure that services and other building elements are properly planned, managed and coordinated.

9.    Develops protocols for coordinating multi-head Owner, changes of design, conditions of engagement of designers and contractors, division of design responsibilities, allocation of risks, early incorporation of specialty contractors/consultants, forms of contract and quality of design and construction management.  AlEx™ can also have a positive effect on coordination of building services within the General Contractors office.

10. Examines ways in which Owners and various designers, contractors and equipment suppliers can work together as a team in line with the projects procurement path or strategy (The whole process of creation, communication, response and integration in    the context of the project can be defined as procurement).

11. Helps develop Procurement Strategies by guiding decisions early in the project influencing risk allocation, design strategy and consultant/contractor hiring. This ensures that throughout the project the following are all consistent with the selected procurement route:

  • Roles and relationships
  • Project management approach,
  • Communication channels
  • Information systems,
  • Forms of contracts, and
  • Overall management of the project organization

3.    Improving Building Performance – Potential Benefits of AlEx™

1.      Identification of problems and their solutions before they actually occur. This is a proactive approach toward building solutions to performance issues.

2.    Improved space utilization and feedback on building performance.

3.    Improved attitude of building owner through active involvement in the evaluation process.

4.    Understanding of the performance implications of changes dictated by budget cuts and scope changes, add-ons, contract extensions, and government intervention.

5.    Built-in capability for facility adaptation to organizational change and growth over time, including

  • Recycling of facilities into new uses
  • Significant cost savings in the building process and throughout the building life cycle.
  • Accountability for building performance by design professionals and owners.
  • Long-term improvements in building performance:
  • Improved measurement of building performance through quantification.
  1. Exposing and Expelling Pre-Conceived Notions

Project Owners believe Contractors to be _____________.

  • Architects believe Contractors to be _________________.
  • Contractors believe Architects to be _________________.
  • Contractors believe Owners to be ___________________.

Great, but how can this help me?

This is probably the  first thing on your mind after reading this Blog.   How about asking us?  The first call is free!  Just email me to set it up.  Don’t wait, get The Crispian Advantage working for you!. If our conversation leaves you needing more, we offer at a reasonable fee telephone and video coaching on change, alignment, and personal and executive performance that improve the bottom line.  If that still doesn’t do it, we’ll work with you on a solution.