Effective teamworking in partnering environments

Dr Craig Smith, Matra BAe Dynamics

Six Hills Way, Stevenage, Herts, SG1 2DA, UK

e-mail: craiq.smith@def.bae.co.uk

Paper presented at ISMOR, RMCS Shrivenham, 1-3 September 1999

Outline (Key messages and issues): 0 Provides an external view of the OA activity - interactions with the rest of the team

Overall team organisation & structure - distributed management and study groups 0 Team working principles to maximise contribution and co-ordination of team

members from multiple organisations 0 Beneficial working practice - the scoping and tasking cycle, workshops and

homework

Abstract:

Working practices must be adapted to cope with a Smart Procurement environment where there is participation from multiple stakeholders. Operational analysis is one such community that will need to work in a closer way with a variety of other team members that may have different cultural backgrounds. Industrial OA practitioners will have unparalleled access the customer; MOD OA practitioners will deal with system designers. Each will have to develop new skills and relationships.

Recent studies carried out by MBD, teamed with variety of other organisations, have provided lessons on the organisation of studies and on beneficial working practices in a partnering environment. OA will often form a distinct study group and so will need to manage interactions both within and external to the group, playing a full and proper role in the execution of the study.

A key feature is to promote true co-operation at the working level. This can be achieved by establishing study groups with diverse membership but with common skills and objectives. Decisions should be made jointly, with the study group (and the overall team) jointly owning the problem. Appropriate mechanisms are required to allow the study group to organise and review work, some that may be undertaken jointly and some that may be combined from separate inputs.

Success will depend on promoting positive team behaviour and eliminating negative behaviour. The topics of team balance, co-operation, communication and productivity provide insight into how to construct and operate in effective study groups.

1 Introduction The purpose of this paper is discuss the issues that arise as studies become more broad ranging and undertaken increasingly under partnering arrangements. The paper proposes methods that may improve effectiveness of the team. Many of the points made in the paper are applicable to any study participant but the focus is on members of the Operational Analysis community as they begin to play a wider part in concept studies.

The paper first introduces the UK Smart Procurement Initiative. This philosophy has several important features that can promote a partnering and team working environment. Similar environments can be generated in other ways, for example

1

multinational programmes and other collaborations. In fact, many of the ideas presented were developed during the NATO VSHORADS-SHORADS Feasibility Study and are now being applied to UK studies.

The role of the Operational Analyst is discussed from both an industry and govemment perspective. This seeks to determine the objectives and span of involvement in concept and design studies.

The paper then sets out an organisational template that has been used successfully on large studies. The management principles are discussed, together with the benefits they deliver for flexible working.

The next section develops a model of working practice suitable for the study group organisation. Timescales and interactions are discussed.

The critical issues of building a team are discussed. Communications, creating a wmmon vision, and positive and negative commercial relationships are examined.

A summary concludes the paper.

2 Background

2.1 UK Smart Procurement Initiative The Smart Procurement initiative in the UK is based on attaining the objectives of 'better, cheaper and faster' through some liberating principles in which systems engineering thinking plays a major part.

Smart Procurement. involving customer and industry working together to satistj mutual objectives, requires a cross flow of ideas at an early stage.

Increasing ,Timescale

Practical limit

Reducing Effectiveness

Increasing COrt

Figure 1 Smart Procurement Objectives New policies and approaches to achieve "better, faster, cheaper"

Today Smart Procurement in the UK is a vision and a philosophy; it is not a detailed prescriptive panacea for Procurement. Launched, and fully endorsed by the Strategic Defence *Review, the Smart Procurement Initiative recognises a range of project complexities (low risk items, minor and major projects), and it is the last of these - high value, complex development projects - that are relevant for our consideration. Its objectives are to deliver better capability faster, and with reduced through life

2

costs. “Better” may be equipment “good enough for now” - but designed from the outset to allow addition of further capability when needed - termed “Incremental Acquisition”.

Smart Procurement envisages a through life systems approach, addressing cost, time and performance trade-offs early in the project cycle with the benefit of contributions from all the interested parties. Risk is to be reduced, yet with fewer formal approval hurdles. One of the key concepts for Smart Procurement is Integrated Project Teams (IPTs). The review recognised that procurement is a process involving multiple “stakeholders” including the Service User, operational requirements, logistics and industry staff, as well as Procurement Staff. In recognition, Integrated Project Teams, comprising representatives of all these groups, are envisaged to be responsible for projects throughout their lifetime.

A new Industrial relationship is key. Industry were involved in the definition of the Smart Procurement Initiative, and are to be involved in the IPTs. The envisaged relationship is described in SDR Supporting Essay 10 (Procurement and Industry). It is also envisaged that IPT leaders could be selected from industry through competition for these roles. The review recognises the need for innovative ways to incentivise industry, whilst at the same time reducing overall costs. Genuine partnering is intended to expose opportunities to align industrial rewards with customer benefits.

A Smart Procurement “Pilot Guide” is available on the Internet, and a new “Acquisition Handbook” is commencing - the latter to include guidance on international collaboration.

In this paper the terms partnering and teaming will be used interchangeably. Both denote a close relationship between different stakeholders or member companies. Partnering is used in Smart Procurement and covers the government and its agents as well as industry. For simplicity, all participants in a team will be referred to as “companies” or “team members”, even if they are government agencies or groups of stakeholders. The special role of the customer is highlighted where relevant, but in other cases they may just be other members of a group at a working level.

2.2 Previous experience The VSHORADS-SHORADS Feasibility Study has provided experience of forming an effective team from many participants with different backgrounds. Matra BAe Dynamics led a team of 13 other teaming companies from the eight participating nations.

Each company was represented at the managing committee and had the opportunity to shape the study through participation in the eight study groups. Each study group was composed of several members from different companies and countries. The resulting matrix structure is shown in Figure 2. The groups of individuals became an interlinked set of teams through discussion, and the development of convergent views and ideas based on conducting an objective study.

3

Study Groups

Figure 2: Feasibility Study Team Management roles shared amongst fhe team members

Operational Analysis formed one of the study groups. Its role was restricted to the conduct of the battle modelling. The Architecture Study Group defined the threat, the scenarios, the outline force mix and the Concepts of Operation. The author is an operational analyst of many years experience who was a member of the Architecture Study Group - other members of the OA group were in the Operational Evaluation Study Group.

3 Variation in Team Composition & Objectives

3.1 The Breadth of OA involvement Systems engineering is the backbone of Smart Procurement and OA will play a significant part in systems engineering at a high level. This high level is concerned with the interactions of the system with other systems and the environment, and with the functional processes and their associated performance targets. These issues need to be examined at the many-on-many level with attention to the dynamics of the problem - the natural areas for OA. Full participation by analysts in the process will require some familiarity with systems engineering and will lead to a broadening of knowledge.

The participation of Operational Analysts will be much broader than the core battle modelling task. Possible activities are shown in Figure 3, with the core task of operational evaluation in the centre and other tasks arranged according to the likely level of participation. For some definitions of OA, and for the compositions of some OA groups, many of the these tasks will normally be undertaken by the OA group. In other cases different groups may have responsibility, but will already have working links to their own company OA group. It is very likely that the definition of the scope of "OA" will not be the same throughout the team and needs to be defined for the purposes of the study.

4

3

rat (Mi,ibv Mix

analysis

abstraction \

Evaluation

~ c o s ) D o w n effectiveness

Ava’lability jppoj evolution //

Figure 3: Scope of Operational Analysts participation in a project OA influence can spread into several study groups from the core evaluation activity

Some of these tasks are likely to be undertaken by different study groups. For example the threat, military analysis and user requirements set the context for the project and are often the focus of a “requirements capture” study group. The issues of cost-effectiveness, concept of operation and concept refinement might be the focus of a “system of systems” team, who will also undertaken functional analysis and allocation. The result is that analysts may find themselves split into several study groups or may participate in multiple study groups, each with its own objectives.

OA will need to interface with other study groups to accomplish its tasks. At a minimum this is to provide input for the OA assessment but interaction is likely to be much wider. OA is therefore part of the overall dynamics of the study management and working relationships. OA should play a pro-active part in the study - the potential added value of the analysis will be reduced greatly if OA is only done reactively once others have completed their work.

3.2 Multinational OA Issues for Teaming Each nation may have approaches, tools and techniques that have been developed to suit their own needs. Their methods and experience may vary widely and are linked to national policies. Often underlying differences are not manifest and emerge only once more detailed work is undertaken. There is the promise of some convergence between nations, however, due to the consolidation of the defence industry, the changing procurement environment with greater emphasis on systems engineering, and the sharing of best practice through conferences such as ISMOR.

The driver towards similarities or differences are the national doctrines. Different types of conflict may be relevant or viewed with different priority. Different geographical focus will certainly exist. Different traditions or perceived needs have given rise to different weapon system requirements and design drivers, although in the future the increasing number of multinational projects and the declining number of suppliers will lead to greater similarity.

5

6

J I

Finally each nation will have its own data sources. Most multinational projects synthesise their view of the threat and scenarios - these are rarely fully compatible with national eyes only data and some reconciliation may necessary on a national basis.

3.3 Issues for OA Teaming - MOD & Industry A major use of OA by the MOD is to make formal procurement decisions on a cost effectiveness basis through the Dossier system and the supporting COEIA (Combined Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal). This objective has influenced the way in which OA is implemented within CDA, which has the following characteristics as a broad generalisation:

Broad expertise to cover all projects Emphasis on independent assessment - an arm’s length relationship to design and system engineers, and usually undertaken after the options are fully defined Requirement to quantify all options covering products from all suppliers

Industry use OA differently by making it an integral part of the system development process. Again the following generalisations can be made:

Focus on company business areas Emphasis on shaping concept design - OA is part of systems engineering Seldom a need (or the funding) to quantify all options - understanding the issues is more important Vital to identify and eliminate any major limitations to concept performance

4 Objectives of a Teamwork approach The environment described in the preceding section requires that any teamwork approach should possess the following principles to provide the necessary flexibility and co-operation

Succeed or fail as a team, not individuals 0 Harness all experience

- maximise intra-company and intra-team interactions 0 Dynamically managed tasks throughout study

- Provide flexibility - minimise nugatory work, overlaps, mismatches, etc - best use of time and resources Decisions should be made by the empowered team Appropriate visibility of data and processes

The implementation of organisations and working practices that adhere to these principles forms the subject of the remainder of the paper.

- Bo1 Study HSI Study

Management Management Team Team

5 Organisation and Study Groups

Technical and project review of the study - mainly industry, few

A study undertaken by a group of stakeholders must be structured to interface with the customer in a way that respects contractual arrangements. Figure 4 shows a suitable structure taken from a current study. There will be a formal contract that separates those subject to contract(s) from those stakeholders, usually on the customer side, who are not subject to the same contract but have a common interest in the successful accomplishment of the contract. The diagram shows that the customer and his agents can play a full part in the studies at all levels by fulfilling different roles. Figure 4 also shows a situation where the same team holds two separate but related contracts from the customer - each will need its own management focus.

Leaders8 1-1 stakeholders

Q) > (II Managers& .- CI

2 advisors

v) e, Q)-

k @ Observers L L O

5 Working 0 members

0

Overview of entire capability - mainly customer, few if any industry

Co-ordination of y l Business studies - mainly Management issues-

Figure 4: Possible organisational structure for a study Different roles fulfilled by the customers and industry at the different levels

The purpose of the Study Management Team is to act as a management and review body for the teaming companies. Figure 5 shows a possible composition of such a body. The core of the SMT is formed by the study group leaders, who are charged with delivering substantial elements of the contract, plus the project manager who has overall responsibility. The study group leaders provide access to detailed work within their group and are able to flow down decisions made by the SMT. The study group leaders will come from different companies, usually reflecting the workshare. It may not be possible for every company to have one or more study group leaders and so there will be additional SMT members for those companies. It is critical that every teaming company has representation at this top level in the study. There may also be a need for additional people to participate who have a particularly valuable viewpoint to contribute.

7

Figure 5: Composition of the Study Management Team Every teaming company is represented at the SMT

A study group has responsibility for executing a significant and easily identified set of tasks within the study. They are composed of individuals with a common objective, and usually have a common background, domain of expertise or interest. Many of the study groups may have a sub-system or functional focus such as platforms, sensors, missiles, or command and control. Others may take the viewpoint of a particular discipline or skill across the project, such as ILS. systems engineering or OA.

The study group itself will usually have a relatively flat structure. In some cases there may only be the study group leader and the group members. In other cases there may be a deputy or rapporteur to assist with the internal business of the study group. The study group membership will usually be broad, being drawn from a mixture of the teaming companies.

5.1 Balance Each study group, should have at least one member who is a “misfit“. with a different background from the rest of the group. Usefully this background will be an involvement in an interacting group, or a group with objectives needing to be traded- off with those of the group in question (e.g. logistics or cost against operational effectiveness, or technical performance against revisited military requirements). The purpose is to challenge introverted thinking, and to act as a sounding board for new ideas by giving rapid feedback. Such team members will also aid communication and cross fertilisation, providing an element of independent review. In general these individuals should have a systems engineering mindset. although they may have a variety of backgrounds. Within an OA modelling team good misfits include those with a synthetic environment or similar simulation background, military or ex-military officers or those with experience in decision making.

5.2 Benefits and Features of such Organisations The type of structure proposed above has provided the following benefits and features: 0 The Feasibility Study succeeded through achieving the right management and

communication. Management was an organisational force to ensure smooth working and not a directing influence. It provided a review mechanism to ensure that the whole study was kept on course and to adjust emphasis in the light of emerging results and conclusions.

0 Influence through participation - those not prepared to make a constructive input do not shape the output of the study

0 Study groups with mixed membership ensure that there is creative tension within the team and that any consensus is based on a full discussion of the issues

0 Co-operative and distributed management are important, avoiding over- centralisation of information flow by working in groups and promoting widespread working links between individuals and different study groups. The penalty for not doing so is slow convergence of views and a slower pace of study Distribution of work amongst the team - evenly distributed leadership roles to ensure a balanced representation at the

‘top table’ - the right pace and project priority will ensure that there are several full time

workers in each company, providing continuity of involvement, local engineering interaction and widespread buy-in to the results of the study.

- avoid “national” or “company” focus by mixed study group composition

6 Working Practices It is difficult in any broad ranging study to be entirely prescriptive of what is to be done at the start of the study when the contract is placed. It is possible to be flexible in tasking as understanding develops when the task is undertaken by one organisation with a strong leadership. Alternatively, the subject can be broken down to a series of elements, with decision and review points between them where a change of direction can be made. If these changes of direction are made after completion of a contract, the whole cycle time can become quite extended.

Smart procurement requires both a good rate of progress and flexibility from a team of many different stakeholders. Team members will all have their own expertise to contribute and a strongly hierarchical structure is not appropriate. Each individual needs to understand not only their own contribution but how it fits with the others’ contributions. This will allow significant quantities of work to be performed separately but in overall co-ordination.

9

A model of working practice is shown in Figure 6. The work is divided into that achieved collectively, usually in a meeting, and that performed separately, normally at the individuals home base. The study group has considerable delegated authonty to accomplish its tasks, subject to overall review and direction by the SMT. The SMT will only resolve issues that cannot be resolved by the study groups themselves.

Study Management

Collective work = workshop Contributions Individual work = homework Decision making, scoping for group Detailed work

and review consideration

Figure 6: Overview study group working practice Balance between collective work and homework

The basic pattern is of a set of cycles of work, with loose or tight co-ordination between the study groups as necessary. Figure 7 shows a possible timeline for a single study group and its lateral and hierarchical interactions. Each meeting should review and consolidate work performed separately. and organise the next cycle of work. The consolidated work will generate the overview to be used at the higher levels of reporting.

Redirection (for next cycle) I t nvised plan (e.g. which runs next) p==

d -

e.g. first set of OA runs e.g. what are the drivers? I I J

intodm =port/ working paper

Homework

1 ' e.g. contents list for report

liaison: phone, email and video conference

joint B collocated meetings with other groups

Figure 7: Timeline for study group activities Cycle time should be long enough for progress but not too long to allow divergence

Many people have the mistaken perception that a meeting cannot achieve real work. This is only true if people spend all their time talking and do not capture data as they go. Figure 8 shows possible arrangements for mixing dialogue with other activities while the study group are collocated for a “meeting”. The spirit is to create a “bid facility“ for a short duration where people can work together or separately in a co- ordinated and highly interactive manner. Plenary activity can be limited when it adds value - to organise work, set objectives and responsibilities, and to agree content and timescales. Every participant will need a laptop and there must be good printing and presentation facilities.

Day 1

presentations &discussion

outline of proposed worl

sensitivity . .

Last Day

discussion 8 agreement of

I working I Figure 8: Possible content of an extended study group meeting

Balanced mixture of plenary and individual working - you need a laptop!

7 Creating a Team Environment Forming a new team takes time even within a single company - the challenge is correspondingly greater in a partnering environment. We need to make a cohesive team from people with a wide variety of cultures. A shared culture has to be created to bind the team together. This is often the biggest challenge facing a project -the time and effort to be successful cannot be underestimated. It requires real commitment at both management and individual levels.

7.1 Co-operation - Milestones and payment The way in which payment is made to the companies involved can create or destroy true team spirit.

Paying each team member against individual company milestones increases risk. The team member is only interested in delivering what was asked for, regardless of whether it integrates properly or has the correct performance. Any problems belong to the recipient alone as the provider has walked away. This is the traditional prime contract I sub-contract relationship.

Receiving a share of an overall project milestone promotes cooperative behaviour. Each company can only succeed if everyone succeeds. Everyone has an interest in

‘ 1 solving any problems. This is true teaming. It is the only culture that can succeed in a ambitious study where the changing environment requires flexibility.

7.2 A common vision Turning a group of people into a team requires common objectives and vision. The objectives are the project aims and success, but the vision must continually be kept convergent throughout the team as both the project and team composition evolve. Creating the right environment for success is critically dependent on changing peoples’ views from adversarial or non-contributory behaviour to co-operative behaviour where each team member must think flexibility to cope with the continuously developing project.

An early investment of communication and effort to align the minds of the team is very worthwhile. Our experience has shown that it takes a while for people to become “smart”, so there is value in starting some tasks early at a lower level to commence the process of change to the shared culture. But as a consequence, replacement of key personnel will require a further investment - and risks loss of momentum, or even direction, at the changeover

7.3 Communication Communication is natural within a true team - people appreciate the other’s perspective and can readily discuss the issues in an open and productive way. There are specific steps that can be taken to improve communication.

Common understanding of issues - The feasibility study showed that those in the know (SMT members or

members of multiple study groups) generally contribute the most. Therefore management of communications is a key aspect. Setting aside regular and planned time to communicate is important

- More informal methods of communication, such as presentations and document outlines, are required to promote quick iterations between individuals and groups

- It can be particularly difficult to appreciate the dynamic aspects of behaviour and this needs particular attention. Use of presentations, worked examples and Synthetic Environments are useful for this aspect - i.e. interactive media

- communication and understanding of issues could be improved by project co- ordination activities within the participating companies - generally led by their technicaVmanagement committee representatives

- the correct balance of collocation of activities, including joint or collocated meetings between different study groups

- success is based on timely and meaningful information exchange, making maximum use of electronic interchange and video conferencing

The value of feedback depends on the relationship of the reviewer to the team and how the feedback is accomplished - need to avoid being overly formal and tum it into a true dialogue

0 Distributed team working

12

8 Summary The paper has discussed the role Operational Analysis should play in a teaming or partnering environment. This role can be a full and challenging one, suited to the broad nature of future studies, and provides a solid contribution to the overall systems engineering process. Studies undertaken in a team environment will become increasingly common, either through specific initiatives such as UK Smart Procurement, the emerging focus on “systems of systems” studies, or through increasing multinational collaboration, either for specific projects or within industry itself through consolidation of the defence industry

Operational analysts must expand their skills if they are to be fully effective team members. In particular they must enhance their teamworking skills to be able to interface with team members with diverse backgrounds, whether within their own study group or other study groups. Analysts may also need to apply their existing skills in a different ways to meet the broader study objectives - industry and government OA can learn from each other.

The paper has used previous study experience to propose some principles and approaches for effective teamworking. The key elements that have been discussed cover: 0 flexible tasking within the study and study groups

joint scoping and review of work frequent dialogue to ensure continuous relevance and convergence

0 collective ownership of the study - its challenges, successes and output

8

13

i