42
Team Performance Improvement: Special Challenges and Opportunities Aaron U. Bolin, Ph.D., CPT Patricia F. Butler, M.A., & Mark Steele, M.A. U.S. Navy Human Performance Center 44 th Annual Convention of the International Society for Performance Improvement Dallas, Texas April 2006

Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A presentation at the International Society for Performance Improvement on team performance with a model and a couple of case studies.

Citation preview

Page 1: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Team Performance

Improvement: Special

Challenges and

Opportunities

Aaron U. Bolin, Ph.D., CPT

Patricia F. Butler, M.A.,

& Mark Steele, M.A. U.S. Navy Human Performance Center

44th Annual Convention of the International Society

for Performance Improvement Dallas, Texas

April 2006

Page 2: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Agenda

• Background Brief

- Definitions

- Special Challenges and Opportunities

- Hybrid model adapted for the analysis of teams

• Case Study Applications

- Seabees

- Navy Music

• Evaluations

Page 3: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Defining a Team

• A distinguishable set of two or more people who

interact dynamically, interdependently, and

adaptively toward a common and valued goal-

objective-mission, who have each been assigned

specific roles or functions to perform

• Salas, Dickinson, Converse & Tannenbaum (1992)

Page 4: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Team as an Emergent System

• Configural: every piece matters

- CAT <> CAP

• Emergent value > process loss by design

- C + A + T = CAT

• Focus on the big rocks

- The number of variables that impact team

performance is virtually infinite. However, only a

dozen or so factors make an appreciable difference.

Page 5: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

The Promise of Teams

• Teams

- drive big performance gains

- tackle larger and more complex tasks

- specialization and divide labor

- self-manage tasks

- are more satisfying for the employees

Page 6: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Team Performance Paradox

• Teams with

- average players often perform better than teams

composed of star players

- scarce resources often perform better than teams

with abundant resources

- higher incentives often have lower performance

- the same number of people often perform worse

than individuals

- counterproductive sub-cultures create division and

dissatisfaction

Page 7: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Special Challenges and Opportunities

• Challenges

- Levels of Measurement

- Culture and Norms

- Process Loss

- Team Life Cycle

• Opportunities

- Cascading Performance

- Culture and Norms

- Process Gain

- Mental Model

Development

Page 8: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Levels of Measurement

• Individual, Team, Organization

- Different variables, different relationships

• Mapping aggregate business goals to

individual performance is what HPI is all about

- Slippage across levels is common

• Interventions must target appropriate level

- Higher levels of analysis have farther reaching

solutions

- Higher level of analysis have higher potential for

payback

Page 9: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Team Metrics Systems Should Be

- Team/Unit Focused – org. group is the unit of analysis

- Hierarchical – relevant to all levels of the organization

- Expandable – drill down to specific areas of concern

- Standardized – common set of measures across units

- Interrelated – both leading and lagging indicators

- Weighted – some measures are more important

- Meaningful – must predict important outcomes

- Vision Directed – contain a ‘should be’ element

- Objective – hard measures rather than ‘gut feel’

Page 10: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Culture and Norms

• All performance takes place in a social setting

- When the social situation is structured so that goals

are interdependent, teams often emerge

• Counterproductive norms are common

- Safety climate

- Shunning rate-busters

- Discrimination

• Sub-cultures may develop within teams

Page 11: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Potential Process Loss

Call

Play

Set

Pick

Dribble

Around Pick Covered? Shoot

Pass

Move to

Open Spot

Catch

Pass

no

Covered? Shoot

Pass

no

yes

Guard

Covered?

Position

for Rebound

no

yes

yes

GU

AR

D

Play #1: The Pick and Roll

Page 12: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Individual Performance Requirements

• Guard

- Call plays

- Dribble

- Make decisions

- Pass

- Shoot

• Forward

- Set picks

- Move to open positions

- Make decisions

- Position for rebound

- Catch

- Pass

- Shoot

Page 13: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Team Performance Requirements

Page 14: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Team-Specific Team-Generic

Belief in the

importance of

teamwork

Collective

efficacy

Team

cohesion

Knowledge of

teammates’

performance

characteristics

Knowledge of

teammates’ task

expectations

Collective

orientation

Knowledge

about signs

of stress

Inter-positional

knowledge

Knowledge

about the

components of

teamwork

TEAM COMPETENCIES

Page 15: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Team Lifecycle Performance Curve

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time

Perfo

rm

an

ce

Page 16: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering

Information

Instrumentation

Motivation

Environmental

Supports

Data

Instruments

Incentives

Individual

Repertory of

Behavior

Knowledge

Capacity

Motives

Page 17: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Human Performance Focus

Individual

Team

Unit

Processes

Equipment

Policy

Information

Organization BUT ALSO

NOT JUST

Individual

Primary Focus on Organizational / Enterprise Outcomes

Page 18: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Driskell et al. Team Performance Model

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

FACTORS

Group member:

Skills

Status

Personality

GROUP LEVEL

FACTORS

Group structure

Group Norms

Group Size

ENVIRONMENTAL

LEVEL FACTORS

Task characteristics

Rew ard structure

Level of

environmental stress

GROUP INTERACTION

PROCESS

GROUP

PERFORMANCE

PROCESS

LOSS

PROCESS

GAIN

POTENTIAL

(INPUT FACTORS)PROCESS OUTCOME

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

FACTORS

Group member:

Skills

Status

Personality

GROUP LEVEL

FACTORS

Group structure

Group Norms

Group Size

ENVIRONMENTAL

LEVEL FACTORS

Task characteristics

Rew ard structure

Level of

environmental stress

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

FACTORS

Group member:

Skills

Status

Personality

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

FACTORS

Group member:

Skills

Status

Personality

GROUP LEVEL

FACTORS

Group structure

Group Norms

Group Size

GROUP LEVEL

FACTORS

Group structure

Group Norms

Group Size

ENVIRONMENTAL

LEVEL FACTORS

Task characteristics

Rew ard structure

Level of

environmental stress

ENVIRONMENTAL

LEVEL FACTORS

Task characteristics

Rew ard structure

Level of

environmental stress

GROUP INTERACTION

PROCESS

GROUP

PERFORMANCE

PROCESS

LOSS

PROCESS

GAIN

POTENTIAL

(INPUT FACTORS)PROCESS OUTCOME

Page 19: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Hybrid Team Performance Model

·        Knowledge·        Within Role

Behavior

·        Capacity

·        Team Structure & Size

·        Allocation of Effort

·       Information & Materials ·        Goals & Strategy

·        Selection & Placement

·        Instruments & Tools

·        Incentives / Consequences

·        Policy & Procedures

Vertical

Alignment

Analysis Level Input Process Output

·        Extra-Role

Behavior

·        Communication

·        Coordination

·        Task

Accomplishments

·        Team

Accomplishments

Horizontal

Alignment

Individual

Environmental

Supports

·        Norms / Culture

·        Motives

·        Shared goals

·        Performance

Measurement

·        Feedback

Team or Group

·        Business Results

Page 20: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Case Study

Page 21: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Exercise Related

Construction

Disaster Relief

Limited Regional

Contingencies

Major Theater War

Humanitarian Action

Forward-Deployed Engineers

• Crisis Response: Force Enablers

– Contingency Engineering

– OPLAN/CONPLAN support including Consequence Management (CM)

• Forward Presence – Exercise Related

Construction (ERC)

– Joint Forward Operating Locations (JFOL)

– Range improvements

– Humanitarian Aid projects

• Construction Support – SRM Backlog Reduction

– AT/FP upgrade

– Critical infrastructure improvements

Requirements span the spectrum from Construction Skills to Combat Skills

What Seabees Provide

Page 22: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Case Study: Seabee Teams

• Presenting problem: Lack of confidence in

current assessments of operational readiness

- Build a versatile construction team

Make it able to build and repair most anything

Make it ready to land anywhere within 72 hours

Make it able to defend itself in a hostile environment

- Predict its performance in the field with

accuracy

Multiple threat levels

Multiple construction tasks

Multiple environmental conditions

Page 23: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Alignment to Fleet Readiness

Combatant CDR Missions & Tasks

JMETL

JTF CDR Missions & Tasks

JTF NMETL

Group Missions & Tasks

Group NMETL

Warfare CDR Missions & Tasks

Warfare CDR NMETL

Unit Missions & Tasks

Unit NMETL

CFFC

Fleet Readiness

TRAINING

PROCESS MAPPING

IN WORK

Page 24: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Measuring Team/Unit Readiness

Actual

EquipmentActual

Manning

Actual

Training

NMETLS /

Mission

PlanningBudget

Equipment

RequirementsManning

Requirements

Training

Requirements

Page 25: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Phase I: Identify “As Is” Model

• As Is analysis will provide:

- Comprehensive picture of current readiness model

Readiness requirements - for each mission area, for each level

of measurement

• Are stated requirements comprehensive / adequate?

Readiness criteria - standards to be met for each requirement

• Are criteria clearly stated for each requirement?

• Are criteria adequate to meet Seabee missions?

Readiness assessments - tied to each requirement

• Is performance measured & assessed for each

requirement and at each organizational level?

• Are assessments valid and reliable?

Map where current gaps and missing links exist

Page 26: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Case Study: Seabee Teams

• In the course of reviewing ‘AS IS’ measures, a number of issues started to emerge - Padded estimates

- Bad estimating standards

- Missing training / training with no requirements

- Lack of objective measures

- Some reports are not credible

- Can do culture unwillingness to report deficiencies

- Some equipment is seriously outdated

- Lack of measurement integration

- Measurement policies do not always match reality

- Team skills not linked to individuals (for example, 1 individual can have multiple skills. This person may not be able to work on all projects, leaving skill gap)

Page 27: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Increase

predictive

accuracy

to 100%

Manpower Raw

Materials

Machines

& Tools

Methods &

Policy

The Goal

Understaffed

planning

function

PISTOL skill

database is not

complete

Incomplete analytic

model of readiness

Mission in flux

No field data Poor articulation of

equip & manning

Slow data entry

by unit clerks

Incomplete

requirements

‘Can Do’ culture

masks problems

No tool to

capture OJT

Skill shelf life policy

not comprehensive

Discretionary

unit-level training

Training providers

not fully aligned

No skill

weighting

Individuals do not

monitor training jackets

M+1 is

not reality

Barriers

Inadequate

funding

Surface-Level Sort of Barriers

Page 28: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Hybrid Team Performance Model

·        Knowledge·        Within Role

Behavior

·        Capacity

·        Team Structure & Size

·        Allocation of Effort

·       Information & Materials ·        Goals & Strategy

·        Selection & Placement

·        Instruments & Tools

·        Incentives / Consequences

·        Policy & Procedures

Vertical

AlignmentPoor Poor Fair

Analysis Level Input Process Output

Poor

·        Extra-Role

Behavior

·        Communication

·        Coordination

·        Task

AccomplishmentsGood

·        Team

AccomplishmentsPoor

Horizontal

Alignment

Individual

Environmental

Supports

·        Norms / Culture

·        Motives

·        Shared goals

·        Performance

Measurement

·        Feedback

Team or Group

·        Business Results

Neutral Barrier to Performance Enabler to Performance

Page 29: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Performance Architecture

Team / Unit

Readiness

Training

Equipment

Manpower /

Personnel

Organizational

Outcomes

Man, equip, train, &

maintain units to deliver

a capable Force

Execute the mission in

the most effective, safe,

timely and efficient

manner possible

Deliver the right

equipment with the

right quality to the right

place at the right time

Deliver the right quantity

and quality of personnel

at the right time

Deliver the right

individual and unit

training at the right time

Page 30: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Inputs (Ingredients)

Processes (Assembly Methods)

Outputs (Products)

Individual

CB Skills (NECs) Motivation Knowledge, Skills, & Abilities

Fitness Reports

Role-specific behavior

Driving the trucks

Firing the weapons Extra-role or teamwork behavior

Backing each other up

Taking the initiative Skill decay and cert. lapse

Task completion Reports Skill acquisition through OJT and practice

Team

TOA Budget Composition and Structure (1500.1 and BA) Command Climate

Morale

Cohesion

Norms Membership Stability and Experience

OPTEMPO

PERSTEMPO

Transfers

Leadership / Chain of Command

Appropriate utilization of personnel

Clear direction and vision

Shared mental models CBCRES

7.1 Convoy Planning and Organization

7.2 Route Reconnaissance

7.3 Vehicle Protection

7.4 Convoy Operations

7.5 Convoy Communications

7.6 Immediate Action Drills

Mission complete Field data

On time

On location

No casualties Team Maturity

Cohesion

Viability

Experience

Skill attainment

Readiness

Performance

Establishing Linkages

Page 31: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

The Vision

• Interlocking layers of metrics at different levels

• Roll up summaries &

drill down analyses

• Different views for

different purposes

• Identified KPI’s,

leading &

lagging indicators,

& links

• Standard set of

metrics across domain

• User friendly

• Integrated IT solution

Page 32: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Case Study:

Navy Music ROI

Page 33: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

The Charge

• Increase the value of the music program to the

Navy

- Define the most appropriate metrics

- Establish baseline measures

- Demonstrate measurable value of Navy Music

products

- Determine cost effectiveness of different

organizational configurations

- Identify opportunities for improvements

• From discussion with Navy Music Program Director

Page 34: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Mission Goal

• Increase the return on investment of the

Navy Music program by 10% over

baseline in FY06.

Page 35: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

ROI Baseline

Time

Period

Navy Music Program Performances

Performance Value Estimated Cost ROI

2003 $43.3M $45.8M -5.6%

2004 $51.3M $45.8M 11.8%

2005 $52.6M $45.8M 14.8%

Average $49.1M $45.8M 7.0%

Note: Values are expressed in FY04 dollars. Navy Music

provides additional tangible and intangible value beyond music

performances that is not captured in the current analyses.

Page 36: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Performances & Market Demand

2003-2005 Average Market Demand, Performance,

and Cost by Activity

$- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000

Atlantic Fleet Band

Navy Band Southwest

Navy Band GLAKES

Navy Band Southeast

Navy Band New Orleans

Navy Band Northeast

Pacific Fleet Band

Navy Band Mid-South

Sixth Fleet Band

Seventh Fleet Band

Allied Forces Band Naples

Navy Band Northwest

US Navy Band

Naval Academy Band

Valu

e in

FY

-04 D

ollars

Cost Performances Market Demand

Allied Forces + 6th Fleet

Pay $3.5M for 58 billets

Get $2.5M of Music

GLAKES

Pay $2.9M for 45 billets

Get $6.5M of Music

Page 37: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Hybrid Team Performance Model

·        Knowledge·        Within Role

Behavior

·        Capacity

·        Team Structure & Size

·        Allocation of Effort

·       Information & Materials ·        Goals & Strategy

·        Selection & Placement

·        Instruments & Tools

·        Incentives / Consequences

·        Policy & Procedures

Vertical

AlignmentPoor Poor Fair

Analysis Level Input Process Output

Poor

·        Extra-Role

Behavior

·        Communication

·        Coordination

·        Task

AccomplishmentsGood

·        Team

AccomplishmentsPoor

Horizontal

Alignment

Individual

Environmental

Supports

·        Norms / Culture

·        Motives

·        Shared goals

·        Performance

Measurement

·        Feedback

Team or Group

·        Business Results

Neutral Barrier to Performance Enabler to Performance

Page 38: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Key Performers & Goals

• Groups with the most potential for impact

- Bandleaders – increase efficiency by 10% over

baseline, measured as value added per billet, by

FY06 end.

Page 39: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Ideal vs. Actual Performance

Mission Goal Performance Goal

Music Program

ROI

Value Added

per Billet

Ideal

Performance

17% $75,254

Actual

Performance

7% $68,413

Gap 10% $6,841

Page 40: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Root Causes

1. Sub-optimal resource alignment to demand.

2. Direction on how to prioritize performance

categories and rate bandleader performance

is missing.

3. Current policy to manage customer demand is

not uniform across activities.

4. Performance data is not detailed enough to

accurately capture full value.

Page 41: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Recommendations

Recommendations Implementer(s) Root

Cause(s)

Est.

Costs

Est.

Annual

Benefit

1. Realign billets to match customer

demand and optimize ROI.

PERS-64 1 $180K $3.4M

2. Develop and communicate

bandleader performance standards;

collect better performance data.

PERS-64 2, 3, 4 $25K $916K

3. Re-position activities closer to

customer concentrations.

PERS-64 1 $450K $75K

Page 42: Team Performance Improvement V3.0

Questions and Comments

For More Information Contact:

Aaron U. Bolin

Phone: 901-874-2961

[email protected]

[email protected]