Dave, you have a real challenge. I work at the DOE site in Aiken, SC
for for the primary contractor. I spent about a year working with my
local DOE rep to change the compliance approach from a "word for word"
to "intent" approach. The "word for word" approach could not work with
this particular DOE Order as it was based on a philosophical INPO
document that describes excellence rather than on prescriptive
regulatory requirements. Our site went through a viscous cycle for two
years trying to start up facilities by satisfying DOE-contracted
consultants and external boards of "experts" we were in compliance with
the Order.
In pursuing the change in compliance approach, we had to convince both
site and HQ DOE. You hit the nail on the head - very few people in the
federal system seem interested in changing the regulations - either
because they feel powerless, or they have no ownership of the contractor's
problems, or perhaps changes to the regs threaten their control. The
momentum (hierarchical structure) to "not change" seems massive in the
federal bureaucracy. But, I kept one of Meg Wheatley's theories in mind -
small changes within the system affect a large, invisible field that
influences system-wide change. I kept referring my DOE rep to her quote
during the long, nine month struggle. Persistence and knowing who and
when to push the buttons (along with faith in that invisible field) were
probably the keys.
I would be happy to answer any additional questions or share any other
thoughts and strategies on this. I had hopes at this site that I could
help change the whole federal bureaucracy beginning here by applying the
LO theories and concepts. Now that the DOE budget is going down (we are
in the midst of our second RIF with future ones probable), the environment
for learning organizations here is weak. Perhaps by networking and
leveraging with the LO contacts within the federal system, we could
succeed.
From: TFYY93A@prodigy.com (MR GEOFFREY F FOUNTAIN)
[Dave Burmaster's orig msg snipped by your host...]