|
At the time the author moved to the newly formed engineering group
which began his
conscious journey into creativity, the Department of Energy was
undergoing a significant change in mission and outside oversight
requirements. The results of a variety of required management
upgrades caused the author to rethink prevailing management
approaches and look deeper into the nature or organizational
management.
What was interesting about the Department was given its multitude of
diverse energy related objectives there were a similar diversity in
approaches as to how those objectives should be met. There were the
typical civilian management views and approaches as suggest by the
management “gurus.’ There was the competing military management
views of the three services let alone off shoots within each
military community like the competing naval nuclear, surface and
aviation perspectives. Externally observed, these perspectives are
seen as similar. Internally in application, they can be very
different. There was the academic view encouraged by the National
Laboratories often management by Universities. There was the
influence of the nuclear industry and, of course, the military
industrial complex.
All the approaches seemed to want the same quality and safety. Yet
their priorities and approaches had different emphasis and often
seemed to be at odds. When their individual demanded upgrades were
explored by their different approaches, there was a great different
in both what was being required and how it was to be done. Yet,
although the approaches differed and had different priorities, each
one could point to a list of safety and quality successes. That is
they all demonstrated that they could achieve an objective doing it
in a safe manner with a quality product. But was any one better than
the other? All did have their evidence to suggest they were the best
at what they did.
Although priorities and approaches did differ, they all claimed the
same objective of safety, health and quality. As such they all would
have to addressed the facts of the situation. A true safety and/or
quality issue is determined by the facts and requirements for
operation which can be observed by any person and not the result of
an opinion. It was assumed by the author that for a given product or
operation, the safety requires and quality requirements should be
the same for any management approach. Analogously, if you were to
travel from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco, there are an number
or routes you could take as there are a number of methods of
transportation. You could go by car, plane, train, bus, truck, boat
(even from Washington), walk or run. In the end, you would get to
San Francisco. Of course, some ways are faster and maybe more
efficient. Nevertheless, the endpoint is the same.
The Laboratory Integrated Prioritization System was one attempt to
make some sense out of these different and often conflicting
approaches. However, one significant problem with this System was
that it was perceived by many who did not really understand it to be
just another management approach. They did not view it as a way of
actually sorting out and dealing with the facts. In responds to
this, the author found it necessary to look for another approach.
His choice was to look for what was common in all the proposed
management approaches. It was hoped that in looking to what was
common in the various approaches, it was something all the advocates
of the different approaches could agree upon.
At this time, the author was actively looking at improvements and
upgrades to the training and qualification of the staff. He reasoned
that if he knew the common essential attributes to create safety and
quality used by these various approaches, they could be taught along
with, and overlaid with the technical training requirements. In
essence, get the proverbial two birds with one stone. He could get
both technical competency and the understanding to create safety and
health.
The author commissioned one of his support contractor organizations
to review the various prevalent management approaches actively being
pursed by the Department or being encouraged for application in the
Department. He wanted to know what were some common attributes. If
they could then be taught and instilled in the staff as they were
being trained, then no matter what management approach was used,
there would be a solid foundation on which to build safety and
quality.
What was found surprised the author and those involved with the
review. Rather than finding the expected set of common key
attributes that each approach addressed, few attributes were common.
Those that were common were not common across all approaches. Other
than approaches that seemed to arise from a common root, there was
little consistency. The only conclusion the author could make was
that any approach would work and give you the kind of results that
was desired. All that was required was a was consistent and
organizational focus in that approach and all were held accountable
to it. In essence, the organization needed make whatever approach
they took a
single point focus.
Yet, one of the most significant issues facing the Department was a
lack of continued single point focus. It was not that a single point
focus was not achievable. Rather, a single point focus for a way of
doing business could not be agreed upon. Alternatively said, there
was not a consistent organization culture across the entire
department which could give rise to an organizational singe point
focus
What become clear was thee was several issues that kept the
department from achieving the success it desired. In addition to the
lack of a single point focus and cultural approach, pessimistic as
it sounds, and what we confirmed in the Laboratory Integrated
Prioritization System project, was all levels of management did want
to see the fact for what they were. Many became managers to
implement an agenda they carried and that agenda was not always
consistent with what needed to be done. Additionally, what was often
overlook by many managers at all levels, but especially at the
senior levels, was how and why the organization had evolved the way
it did. In failing to appreciate those reasons many of the same
mistakes were made again, in a new way. In the end, the organization
kept repeating the past in a new way.
Index of topics related to the origins of the Releasing Your Unlimited
Creativity Technology and applications
The pieces of the puzzle
Origins and Occasions
for the Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity Technology and it
applications
Index of origins and occasion topics
Related topics
The Password
Protected Area provides access to all
currently posted
(click for current loading) Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity
related discussion files and applications.
Top |
