Involvement and Partic LO5150

ToCOLLABR8@aol.com
Fri, 26 Jan 1996 22:10:17 -0500

Replying to LO4966 --
[Subject line shortened by your host...]

On Jan 18, Julie wrote:

[snip]

>It seems to me that there is an alternative option... Model C
>which sees the whole thing as a collaborative partnership each
>party (slice of the heirarchy) having a different set of
>strategic information which needs to be taken account of... which
>means dialogue and understanding and common strategic database of
>information which will allow for decisions by either party (when
>based on the information) to make sense to all concerned.
>
>Participation thus ensures that it is not abdication... there is
>learning for all to do ... we must beware blaming the senior
>managers as much as blaming the workers....

I like Model C, Julie. I believe you have successfully described a mental
model I share.

In the next paragraph, you raise questions concerning something I omitted
out of my original message. I realized it the next day as I was reading
it and I'm glad you asked for clarification. I won't retype all of my
message, but here is your response:

>What was the thinking around working the groups separately? Did you
>consider having them all work together? It might have given some
>insight as to the interactions and dynamics of the whole system?

We did work as one group, moreso than we did indivually. As for the
thought process behind having the different levels meet separately (in the
beginning): The facilitators were from outside the organization. They
wanted a better understanding of "how things were" vs. how we professed
things to be collectively. This only lasted for a few weeks and was done
also to gather details about the work of each level that would have bored
those at other levels. We all learned general things about each others
work later in the group meetings, but some of the details that came out in
the individual group meetings were important. Also, this was not a "team"
from the stand-point of full time. Those facilitating the project were a
full-time team, assigned to come up with a new process. Because we had to
do our regular work, we participated 2-4 hours per week, for about 10
weeks as a "user-group". We were feeding the full-time team with
information they needed to develope a process acceptable to all levels
that would use it.

I wrote:
> ..... I was not happy with the thought that we were not included as
>"full-time" for the 10 weeks. Now that it is completed, I think that this
>would have been a waste of time and would have hindered the process.

Julie responds"
>Could you say some more about the specifics of how working full-time
>on this would have hindered the process?

Sure, but once again you caught me giving only a part of my thought
process -- good job!!!!

All of us in the users-group had our primary jobs to be concerned with.
Some areas were short-handed already without losing us for 10 weeks or
more. So, they wanted to involved the community and did so by allowing us
to meet and provide feedback during the developement of the process.
Maybe we would not have hindered the process by being included, I think
that it might be better to rephrase it. We effectively participated in
the developement of a process that we will use, while continuing in our
"front-line" work. Much of the work done while we were not there involved
work on the details that would make the process work for us. Some were
computer related; others were statistical (note that these people were
involved in the full group meetings as well so they could hear our intent
also.)

>How did you get community buy-in?

Many of the participants of the user group were not real enthusiastic
about the task we agreed to take on. In essence, we accepted something
because we were told in few words or less, "We will have a measurement
process for (____fill in the blank), if you leave it up to us (execs) you
may not like what we come up with .... if you (workers, supervisors,
managers who will use it) develope it, we are less likely to experience
problems with the quality of the process." What happened over the course
of a few weeks was interesting. In the beginning you could tell none of
us wanted to be there but we did not want them (execs) coming up with a
process that we knew would not work because they were too far from "the
action." We later laughed and discussed our transitions over the course
of the project and there were some other notables that took place:

1) In the first half the user's group seemed to be collaborating "against"
the measurement process we were suppose to come up with. The full-time
team spent considerable time addressing our concerns and empathizing with
what we felt, but kept us moving forward (somehow). In the end, when
someone seemed to be taking shots at the measurement process, other users
(several at a time) would enthusiastically explain how they were able to
move forward. The full-time team was able to take a back seat more often
than not during our user group meetings. There are still one or two (out
of about 15) who have not bought-in to this thing. Important to note that
these same people missed more meetings than did those who support the
process.

2) About half-way through, the user's group seemed to have a collective
"Aha" with regards to measurement. We had been complaining about some of
the same things for years and no one seemed to be getting anywhere
correcting the problems. We realized that this was our opportunity to
prove them out (or negate them) with numbers. Things then started to turn
more enthusiastic and we loosened up considerably. We were able to
include these items in the measurement process -- much to our
satisfaction. We finally bought-in to this thing we did not like at the
start.

3) In the community, we workers seemed to blame the supervisors for not
doing anything about the problems, the supervisors would blame the
managers and so on. After the collective "aha", I realized that the
supervisors and managers were as frustrated as we were and listening to
them, they really did have their hands tied with the lack of data being
generated. For the first time, I did not feel angry towards them, I had
empathy and a strong desire to create a process that would capture the
things frustrating all of us in our day-to-day work. I can't speak for
any of the other users, but the atmosphere reflected the potential that
others felt this way, as well.

4) The community had not had a chance to buy-in the process because they
did not have the benefit we did through our period of "discovery". They
did sense some enthusiasm out of us and I was confronted many times. I
was actually losing friends when I finally "came out of the closet" on the
issue and having bought in. It was difficult.

To answer your question, "community buy-in" was one of the "objectives"
(if you want to call it that) of the training sessions. I believe they
are training about 40-50 at a time. After much debate, they decided (much
to my satisfaction) that supervisors and managers would take their
training with us so that we would all be hearing certain things at the
same time. It will be a few months before we know the impact of the
training.

As far as continuous improvement goes, training and implementation are
taking place in stages. As of today, there are about 80 that have gone
through it and they have implemented the process. They will evaluate
through the end of February, at which time adjustments will be made and
another set of groups will be trained. I believe this first two month
pause will be the only one. Feedback will be looked at and changed at set
intervals for the first few months (one complaint was that forms being
used were changing to frequently in something similar). Feedback and
other elements from within the process itself will be used to improve it
as time goes on.

Sorry for being long-winded. I hope this answers all of the questions
raised. If not, I'll clarify as much as I feel I can. ;-)

--
Diane Korzeniewski
ToCOLLABR8@aol.com