Upload
aaronbolin
View
308
Download
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
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
Agenda
• Background Brief
- Definitions
- Special Challenges and Opportunities
- Hybrid model adapted for the analysis of teams
• Case Study Applications
- Seabees
- Navy Music
• Evaluations
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)
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.
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
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
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
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
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’
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
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
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
Team Performance Requirements
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
Team Lifecycle Performance Curve
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Time
Perfo
rm
an
ce
Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering
Information
Instrumentation
Motivation
Environmental
Supports
Data
Instruments
Incentives
Individual
Repertory of
Behavior
Knowledge
Capacity
Motives
Human Performance Focus
Individual
Team
Unit
Processes
Equipment
Policy
Information
Organization BUT ALSO
NOT JUST
Individual
Primary Focus on Organizational / Enterprise Outcomes
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
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
Case Study
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
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
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
Measuring Team/Unit Readiness
Actual
EquipmentActual
Manning
Actual
Training
NMETLS /
Mission
PlanningBudget
Equipment
RequirementsManning
Requirements
Training
Requirements
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
Case Study:
Navy Music ROI
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
Mission Goal
• Increase the return on investment of the
Navy Music program by 10% over
baseline in FY06.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
Questions and Comments
For More Information Contact:
Aaron U. Bolin
Phone: 901-874-2961