Oligarchy, Polyarchy & Future Leadership Development

December 12, 2016

Is the traditional oligarchy structure of most organizations redundant?  The oligarchy assumptions may be redundant in some aspects.  An example I like to use is the very funny scene in the movie “Office Space”, where the main character has several people in about a three-minute time span, including his top boss, ask if he saw the memo on the new TPX report cover sheets.  This memo mandated a new cover sheet for the TPX reports and the main character inadvertently used the old one.  It is funny to those who may believe that their organization has too many layers of management performing the same functions.  With this example one could argue redundancy from several points of view.  It could be a mistake to label all oligarchic structures redundant.  Every situation is different, and as Obolensky argues in his book, the true leaders are not influenced by potential obstacles.  They flow around them like water in a stream.  I like that analogy and find it a useful tool to add to my personal repertoire.  The true leaders empower their employees and appear to not even be leading their teams.  That is the optimal state of the truly enlightened leader. 

The implications of learning techniques and knowledge during this course (MSLD 633, Strategic Leadership; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) has forced me into a critical examination of myself.  What am I good at?  What am I weak at?  How can I get better?  My personal improvement must start with honestly evaluating where I am at as a leader.  I have put some serious critical thought into these questions and issues.  As part of my own critical evaluation and improvement, I have already begun implementing various techniques into my work as a leader at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).  I have utilized the hard and soft techniques of the Yin and Yang model.  I have started to listen more and talk less.  These are just small examples of an implementation plan that will not be realized overnight.

I have always lived my life with the purpose of continually improving all aspects of my life.  It is hard to try and do a makeover all at once.  The process has been gradual and has taken decades.  I now try to pick out the three most important areas of improvement and work on that list until it is satisfied.  Then I re-evaluate where I am at, and pick another three issues to work on.

My needs over the next three years will include re-looking at the material covered in this course, seeking out additional sources of information, and taking advantage of training opportunities as they arise.  My immediate goal for next year is to complete my lean six sigma blackbelt training and to complete my CP-12 certification.  CP-12 is a nationally recognized program for safety professionals.  It is almost like a leader getting an MBA only illustrated as a safety professional getting a nationally recognized certification.  I have 6 courses to complete out of 38.  One of the six courses, is the 30-hour OSHA certification.

Of course, as I complete my MBA through Embry-Riddle, the courses remaining will also focus on various aspects of leadership and how they relate to different aspects of business.  Finally, the experience gained as a supervisor will also help me grow in the current position and prepare me for the next level of leadership.

I touched on this above, but after I read the 70-20-10 presentation, which describes a person spending 70% of their time on their core competency, 20% of their time on related projects to their core competency, and 10% of their time on learning new information or taking on projects unrelated to their core competency.  The work that I have completed for CCAD over the past year closely mirrors the 70-20-10 breakdown, but it gave me pause as I considered the possibility that I had skewed my own percentages.  I had to critically analyze whether I had broken barriers with the number of projects and areas that I have attempted to influence.  For example, trying to fix the quality deficiency reports (QDRs) for CCAD is a safety officer function, but is not considered a core competency.  Therefore, it must fall within the 20% realm of related projects to the core competency.  It can be argued that nearly EVERY aspect of CCAD falls in some way under the safety umbrella.  However, that begs the question.  Am I ignoring my 70% core competency in regards to my time spent on Aviation Safety?  I am not sure.  I think that will require more self-examination.  I feel that I have been positively influenced by the Strategic Leadership Course and by Nick Obolensky’s book.  I have recommended it to other leaders who make it their business to teach leadership at the senior levels.  Only time will tell as to whether my personal plan will be effective and useful for CCAD.

John H2O

References:

Obolensky, Nick. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership Second Edition, New York: Routledge.

How Do Coaches Help?

How Do Coaches Help?

External Link: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4574314487193895552#editor/target=post;postID=5884130132577284132

Date: December 6, 2016

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best expert capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.  The following questions are answered as part of the material read from the references below.  The answers are based upon the ideas presented in those documents.

Given the statement above what is it that coaches do to provide value to their clients?

Coaches need to be good communicators, adept at human psychology, and good facilitators of solutions.  With communication, a good coach needs to be able to listen and ask the proper questions that will elicit further information about a topic.  They avoid close ended questions that shut off dialogue.  With the human psychology element, a good coach knows how to read people and dialogue with them to maximum effect.  Many people who are called “people persons” have a natural ability to do this.  Reading people requires delving into external issues that may be affecting the immediate issue without offending that person.  A good facilitator will be able to guide the discussion of an issue towards an optimal solution.

Establishing trust and credibility are important as well.  That is because a coach will tend to provide constructive feedback that may or may not be accepted positively.  A trusted coach with credibility will have an easier time providing constructive feedback that may be resisted on a human emotional level.

Why is coaching a vital aspect of both leadership and strategy?

Coaching behavior is important for an organizations strategy because in makes an investment in individuals in the hope that this investment will pay off long-term dividends for the organization.  In other words, you are developing your future leaders on one hand, and in the other you are formulating a long-term health strategy for your organization.  An organization that actively develops its future leaders is practicing long-term strategy without naming it so.  The additional benefit to the coaching ensures that lines of communication are open, feedback loops are established, and the organization’s goals are known from top to bottom.  Therefore, when the coached individuals attain leader status, they are already dialed in on the direction of the organization.  This includes short term tactics as well as an overall long-term strategy.

How can it make a difference in an organization?

Coaching can make a difference in an organization in two ways.  First, the organization is investing in its people and nurturing the future leaders of that organization.  This requires the current crop of leaders to be enlightened and view this as a long-term investment that will pay off for the organization.  Second, it can have the effect of changing the culture within an organization and prevent it from having bad employee management relations.  Most employees will respond positively to management if they feel that they care about them and their welfare.  An effective coaching program sends those types of positive signals.

What does this mean to you and your organization?

Coach the safety officers and various artisans by selling them on the why, telling them the what, involve them on the how/what, and devolve them by leaving the details to them.

I have identified several people within my organization that deserve an investment of time for coaching so that they can grow into the future leaders of the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).

References:

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that Gets Results, Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths, Harvard Management Update, 4(1), 4.

Obolensky, Nick. (2016) Complex Adaptive Leadership Second Edition, New York: Routledge.

John H2O

Assessing My Leadership Style

December 2, 2016

For the readers of this blog, I highly recommend Nick Obolensky’s book, “Complex Adaptive Leadership 2^nd Edition”.  At the beginning of chapter 10, Obolensky poses some tough questions for the reader to gage what sort of leadership style that he has.  As in many cases throughout this excellent book, there is not an easy answer or a one-size-fits-all solution.  Full Disclosure:  I scored heavily in the strategy 3 range after taking the quiz.

As I thought about why this is so, I thought back to a time when I took a personality test that labeled me as an “equalitarian” type of leader.  An equalitarian leader shies away from making directive commands and authoritarian stances.  Maybe I need to balance this tendency out with a mixture of various leadership styles which are essential to complex adaptive leadership. 

My thinking during this course has changed and has stretched to reach higher levels.  By scoring heavily in the strategy 3 category probably means that I would rather guide subordinates to come up with their own solutions rather than tell or direct them on how to do it.  I think that I may have missed the selling point of explaining new changes and benefits of those changes when answering the quiz questions.  I felt that if I could skillfully guide a subordinate to the proper conclusion, then that would mean that I was empowering them.  Additionally, there are times when directive leadership and telling a subordinate to do something becomes necessary. 

From another point of view, when someone challenges you for solutions to a problem, your brain begins to think of ways to solve the issue or overcome the challenges presented.  My instructor for this course has been successful in getting me to look at myself and figure out what barriers I had to material that was presented.

For my future goals as a senior leader within my organization, I will need to guard against heavily relying on only one strategy as a leader.  I will use Obolensky’s book as a reference if I feel that I am slipping into old, unproductive habits.  I have a type A personality and it can be difficult for me to let others do work that I feel I could accomplish faster or better.  That attitude seems to contrast with the equalitarian label that was bestowed upon me so many years ago.   I need to develop trust in others that they will perform and not “let me down” on important issues.  This course has gone a long way in rounding out my own personal style.  In fact, since I put the needs of my organization above all else, the organization will ultimately benefit from the lessons I have learned as I attempt to implement them efficiently and effectively.

John H2O

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge

The Vicious Circle of Leadership

November 30, 2016

The Vicious Circle of Leadership

The vicious circle for leaders per Obolensky is:

1.      Follower asks for advice – demonstrates low skill to the leader

2.      Leader gets concerned

3.      Leader takes a more hands on approach

4.      Follower’s confidence lowers

5.      Follower thinks he has to defer more

These steps are illustrated as a vicious circle on page 162 of Obolensky’s book (Obolensky, 2016). 

This vicious circle happens at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).  Part of the reason that this happens is because CCAD in the past did not typically promote employees that would make good supervisors.  CCAD tended to promote the best artisans into management positions.  This was, and still is, a tendency to confuse good mechanical skills and knowledge with leadership ability.  Many shops have suffered with poor leadership in which supervisors promoted beyond their capabilities end up getting into the vicious circle and do not have a clue on how to break the cycle.

The effects on the organization is poor morale and a great distrust of upper management.  Upper management makes the selections for supervisors.  Therefore, if their selections are poor, then the artisans suffering under the “rule” of upper management’s choice, they blame upper management for their short-sightedness.  This leads to an un-necessary migration of capable employees into the unacceptable level of I & II followership (Obolensky page 159, 2016). 

To break this vicious circle, a new circle needs to be created.  Since CCAD doesn’t have a sales, marketing, or distribution departments, the new circle would encompass Finance/Accounting and operations.  Here is an alternate circle:

1.      Follower asks for advice and is asked for his opinion on how to solve the issue

2.      Leader feels less burdened by answering questions that he feels subordinates should know

3.      Leader continues to empower his employees and actively solicit their input on decisions

4.      Follower’s confidence and morale climb to new heights

5.      Follower’s productivity and job satisfaction reach record levels

Some may feel that this is an overly optimistic scenario.  It may well be.  However, the longest journey begins with the first step.  Communication and the ability for supervisors to develop their subordinates seems like a good place to start.

John H2O

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick. (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge

Reflections on Chaos

November 16, 2016

Complex Problem Resolution Theory

I just read about an exercise called the chaos game.  It is at the beginning of Nick Obolensky’s book, “Complex Adaptive Strategy”.  The exercise is posted at the beginning of chapter 6.  The purpose of the game is to give a complex task with a few simple rules to the players, and see if they can come up with a solution.  The game has been played in many different training scenarios.  The game needs between 8-50 players with an area large enough to accommodate the players so that they do not touch each other.  The rules are as follows:

1.      Stay within the boundaries.

2.      Use the space when you start and continue – you will want to gravitate towards each other, but this will make it harder – so keep your distance from others and use the space.

3.      Move slowly and make the minimum needed minor adjustments to your position.  Cover the least possible ground – if you make big and/or fast movements across the area you will be unpopular and be breaking the rules.

4.      You can only stand still when your objective is achieved.

5.      Objective:  What you need to do is to adjust your position slowly and gradually so that you are at an equal distance from each person you have chosen as your reference points – equal distance does NOT necessarily mean in between.  You could be at a point such as an equidistant triangle to position yourself.

6.      You cannot let the other two people know that they are your reference points.  It is supposed to be only known to you.

7.      The monitor of the game will start a time hack when the game begins.

The facilitator tells them to begin.  The facilitator needs to be patient and not try to give direction or instructions.  He must also remind the players of the rule not to communicate in any way with the other players.

The lesson learned is that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed.  It is a counter-intuitive concept, but one that I feel has been proven accurate.

The implication of this game on organizational strategy is that it demonstrates the need for complex organizations to evolve towards a polyarchy structure in which leaders empower the workers to accomplish complex tasks efficiently.

It also synchronizes with my point that an oligarchy system has a hard time accepting solutions and feedback from the artisans performing the work.  Perhaps if these organizations consisted of visionary leaders who would recognize the counter-intuitiveness of communication feedback from the bottom to the top, that they would be strong enough to implement such a process.

I will attempt to use this strategy as I attempt to solve one of my wildly important goals (WIGs) at work.  I believe the key to the strategy will be to give out very general guidelines and not try to direct the process.  This WIG has been a thorn in the side of CCAD for a long time.  I am interested in finding out if this tactic can resolve the issue.  If it can, then CCAD will be able to use the template of resolution to enact a long-term strategy with one of its stakeholders.

John H2O

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Taylor and

            Francis 

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

November 9, 2016

The Changing Nature of Leadership

 

The leadership charade as described in Obolensky’s book can only be broken by developing strong, secure, and humble leaders who are able to take input from the lower echelon workers within an organization.  It takes strength and courage for a leader to say “I don’t know”.  Full Disclosure:  My guess for the exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 was close.  I estimated: Top management = 10%, Middle management = 20%, and Lower echelon workers = 70%.  This was to represent the actual breakdown of ideas and solutions to organizational challenges.  I was close, but no cigar!  The actual breakdown was: Top = 10%, Middle = 30%, and Lower = 60%.  I was off by 10% between the lower and middle management levels.  I know that within the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD), which employs a plethora of MBA graduates, has senior managers that have heard about this concept.  However, it doesn’t appear as if our new initiative, the “Art of the Possible” is actively soliciting input from the bottom up.

 

If the charade were to be effectively broken, then mandatory town hall meetings with upper/middle management and the lower echelon of workers would become mandatory.  This would provide the best feedback loop to generate the ideas needed to drive improved processes.  It would also require experienced facilitators that would have to break through resentment, anger, and the charade game of “knowing but pretending not to know” (Obolensky, 2016). 

 

This change format alone allowing the feedback loop from the bottom to the top to be complete would represent radical change for our organization.  As others have probably read on my previous posts, CCAD is a classic oligarchy.  It has a surprisingly small military presence and a very large civilian workforce presence.  The civilian supervisory chain mirrors that of the military.  This structure alone makes it difficult to evolve an organization in a needed direction.  When you throw in complexity of the organization, personalities, history, and culture, it is nearly impossible to foresee CCAD ever moving into a polyarchy type structure that solicits ideas from the bottom up.

 

While the static nature of CCAD doesn’t directly affect my position, nor would it if the evolution were to take place, I feel as if I am working against the trend.  Many of the concepts described in Obolensky’s book were ideas and processes that I was already utilizing.  For example, in an effort to solicit information from the bottom up, I work that into my programs when I am conducting safety training of any type.  I ask for problems, complaints, useful suggestions, and process improvements from the lower echelon of artisans that are doing the work.  One idea they had ended up saving CCAD $350k - $500k in past fiscal year.  I am in a unique position to move freely through all echelons of the organization due to my senior rank and position.  In an effort to ensure that initiatives that I have begun don’t become a “cult of personality” where a concept dies when I move on, I actively solicit strong teams that will be capable of carrying on the process when I am gone.

 

John Hescott

 

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick. (2016). “Complex Adaptive Leadership Second Edition”. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group

Complex Adaptive Sytems

November 5, 2016

Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex adaptive systems are hard to find because it goes against most of what corporate managers have been taught in the past 100 years.  It is a frightening prospect to venture into the unknown.  Taking calculated risks are one thing.  Attempting to change an organization from a current structure that requires evolving and different ways of thinking is challenging. 

In my organization, a current crop of MBA graduates hold the highest civilian spots in management.  Some of the ideas that they are implementing have merit.  For instance, one of our competitors in the helicopter overhaul industry was trying to show that a modulated cockpit would be faster, stronger, and easier to install than the way that the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) did it.  They were pitching the idea to the decision makers at the Department of Defense (DOD).  One of our supervisors approached them and in a classic jujitsu move, he not only acknowledged what they were saying about a process improvement, but he wanted to buy their entire inventory on the spot!  They were speechless and didn’t know how to respond.  We executed a tactic that defeated part of their long-term strategy with that simple maneuver.  I think it was brilliant.  This was an example of not letting boundaries or restrictions be imposed upon an organization from the outside.  It may happen sometimes, but being flexible and able to adapt to the changes is key.

Our organization severely lacks continuous feedback from the employees.  The workers usually produce the best ideas for innovation and change.  These ideas are not formally solicited and acted upon.  I have tried to mitigate that deficiency by doing that in my role as the aviation safety officer.  As I tour the industrial complex, I learn things from the workers that I did not know.  For instance, we developed a liquid metal technique that can refurbish the inside of a turbine engine.  It may not seem like a big concept, but I believe it is one of the reasons that are engines receive high marks for quality and performance from the users of the product.  In that aspect, we have been successful with several examples that could be attributed to the positive side of the ledger labeled the “Butterfly Effect”.

John H2O

Reference:  Obolensky, Nick (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Taylor and Francis

Complexity Science & CCAD

Posted: November 3, 2016

Complexity Science

 

The Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) has two main missions.  They are repairing damaged aircraft and upgrading older models of aircraft into an updated configuration.   These missions have not changed much throughout the years.  As the introduction to new technology has accelerated, CCAD has seen its own strategy evolve throughout the years.  This has happened with personnel staffing, industrial processes, and recently, an influx of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) projects to eliminate waste and cost overruns. 

 

Personnel staffing has evolved over time in key positions.  The Deputy Commander of the Depot used to be a Lieutenant Colonel from the Army.  It is now a civilian GS-15 position.  That transition is one that I agree with because it provides a stable long-term civilian occupying the Deputy slot, rather than a military officer who would only be in the position for a couple of years.  This provides the Depot with long-term continuity and a knowledge base that contains more depth and breadth than would be possible with a military officer.  The flip side of this coin is that leaders can sometimes stagnate.  They are resistant to new ideas or changes that happen within the environment.  This can lead to a mentality when questioned to: “We have always done it that way”.  Obviously, that is not the optimal answer.  There have been other switches between military personnel and civilian personnel.  Many of them in the Flight Test section of CCAD seem to fluctuate back and forth over time.  That being said, the Deputy Commander position is the one that I find the most significant in the realm of personnel changes.  I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that CCAD used to employ nearly 7,000 people.  Of that one half of them were private contractors.  CCAD now employs 3,500 people.  The work load is not the same as it was when the 7,000 employee peak was reached, but there is a significant cost savings realized through the reduction.  Additionally, reductions in workload were a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns winding down.  This lead to a decreased demand for aircraft and a longer lead time in repairing them and returning them to service.

 

CCAD has come up with cutting edge industrial processes covering a variety of skilled trades.  These processes have exceeded the processes of companies such as Sikorsky and Boeing.  There remains much more that can be done.  A limiting factor is where Sikorsky and Boeing draw the line on approving CCAD processes for installation on the aircraft.  As astute observer might note that both Sikorsky and Boeing compete for some of the same contracts for aircraft that CCAD does!  Therefore, they are a supplier and partner to CCAD, while at the same time they are functioning as business rivals!  It reminds me of the Yin Yang model where polar opposites are shown to coexist.  Further, they are shown to be dependent on each other.  That is how the situation between CCAD and its private enterprise competitors compares.

 

LSS has been the rage for a few years now and have provided tangible benefits to many private organizations as well as governmental organizations.  LSS seeks to maximize efficiencies, save money, incorporate ergonomics into a scientific formula.  The problem with LSS is that they operate from a deterministic viewpoint where they feel they can control outcomes and prevent chaotic outcomes arising from complex systems.  They also ignore Edward Lorenz’s butterfly effect.  As a result of a weather modeling system, Lorenz dropped the last three digits in a six digit decimal calculation during the second iteration of his weather experiment.  He didn’t think it would be significant.  It was.  Over time, the simulations varied apart from each other as possible.  This became known as the butterfly effect.  Small changes can induce large (even unintended) changes to a process or an organization over time.  For example, our LSS experts did a project in which their bottom line was that all product defects had to be processed the same way.  That is good except for all of them shouldn’t be processed the same way!  Some of them required executing warranties.  Some were taken care of by certain organizations, while other parts were the responsibility of some other different organization.  The one size fits all scenario developed into serious challenge for CCAD as they struggled to execute product warranties on defective items, only to find out that because they processed them uniformly, they were unable to collect on the warranty work!

 

A hybrid system of LSS, complexity/adaptability thinking, and the “Art of the Possible” is now emerging at CCAD.  With proper guidance of the senior leadership, this could be successful.  An effort needs to be made to solicit ideas from the bottom up and gain the buy in of the employees.  Otherwise, the new venture will be viewed cynically at just another attempt to institute changes because of a crisis.  Older employees have seen these new initiatives come and go.  I will be long retired from military and civilian service 10 years from now.  My hope is that this hybrid system is successful and 10 years down the road, CCAD is still operating and turning out high quality, cutting edge, and aircraft for our armed forces.

 

John H2O

Butterfly Effect

Butterfly Effect

October 29, 2016

The butterfly effect is a common name assigned to Edward Lorenz’s Strange Attractor” theory in chaos mathematics.  The effect was discovered by Edward Lorenz in 1961 as he was attempting to build a weather predicting model.  To save time doing a repeat of an earlier experiment, Lorenz left off decimals in his formulas consisting of mathematical calculations of variables in the weather.  In a six-digit number after the decimal point, he left off the final three numbers.  Lorenz figured that the final three numbers would be mathematically insignificant.  Bottom line was that he was incorrect.  Over time, the small changes effected an outcome that was totally different than the first calculation and subsequent prediction that he had made.  The point of the matter is that small changes within an organization can affect large changes over time.

I began my tenure as the Aviation Safety Officer (ASO) for the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) on January 2, 2016.  My goal when I joined CCAD was to not only perform at a high level as the ASO, but to help induce changes within the organization that would make it better in the long haul.

The first opportunity for me to employ tactics to accomplish my overall individual strategy came during a safety stand-down day in February.  A safety stand-down day end most production and flying activities within Army organizations.  After the program was finished, I announced that the “Winds of Change” (hat tip to the band the Scorpions) were blowing over CCAD and that the open forum that followed was an opportunity for the employees to push suggestions for improvements upward to management.  Two suggestions from the employees stood out.  The first one regarded the aircraft work-stands that needed to be repaired.  The second suggestion regarded the outdated laptops that the crew chiefs and aircraft mechanics were using.

In the past, when work-stands were deemed unserviceable or outdated, CCAD would simply purchase new work-stands.  There were (13) such aircraft stands in my flight hangar.  Not only were some of them in need of repair, they were unsuited for use by the employees due to their design.  They didn’t fit around the aircraft as they should have and therefore did not provide the fall protection clearances required by OSHA and our own safety regulations.  I decided to take a different path.  I submitted an internal work order for the stands to be modified and repaired by our own welding shop.  Engineers and welders visited our hangar, took down the specifications and wrote down what repairs were needed.  The stands were all repaired, modified, and returned to service over the next few months.  The total savings for CCAD was over $400,000.  If one looked at that dollar amount figure alone, it would appear to be a successful project.  However, with the butterfly effect, the small changes on the attitude of the workers will produce greater benefits in the future.  Now they believed that CCAD management cared about their safety and with the quality of the tools that they needed to do their jobs.  Now as a postscript to this and the next example, CCAD posted a record 4^th quarter for aircraft production this year.  I can’t quantify that success due to this action, but in the theory of chaos theory and the butterfly effect, it likely had an effect.

The second part involved a meeting with the IT department at CCAD.  During the meeting, I described the problem of computers crashing, possessing limited capability, and not having enough memory to effectively do the job in our hangar.  I passionately pleaded for “at least (4) new laptop computers for our hangar right now”.  I emphasized that our technical data for repair and maintenance on our helicopters was delivered through our network and that the IT deficiency was hurting production.  The IT personnel were impressed.  One of them asked me how many laptops that we utilized in our hangar and I answered that we had a total of (24).  Their reply was that they wanted to keep all laptops on the same lifecycle, so they would give us all (24) laptops immediately!  Again, this action is hard to quantify into specific benefits.  It would take statistical studies to examine the amount of average per day down time, per computer, and labor cost due to time lost and compare that to the metrics after the new computers were placed in service.  Additionally, even if the laptops cost CCAD $2k a piece, the investment of $48,000 has to be measured not only against the productivity matrix, but against the $400,000 of savings enacted by the work stand modifications.  The IT action happened quickly versus the first example of the aircraft work-stands.  In both examples, the morale and attitude of the mechanics and crew chiefs significantly improved.  Both successful projects represent small changes that should continue to provide long-term benefits to CCAD.

The implications of complexity theory and the butterfly effect are significant.  The goal is to institute cultural change within the organization from the bottom up, in a traditionally oligarchy system that traditionally operates from the top down.  My own personal efforts have involved recruiting other personnel within the organization that are open to receiving input from the employees doing the work and instituting the butterfly effect of small changes to realize larger changes over time.

John H2O

Module 1 Introduction for MSLD 633