|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to ensure that a continuous improvement mentality was introduced into all processes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The business was divided into 23 projects. The largest one completely dwarfed the rest. This project was in serious need of changes because of costs overrunning, no forecast of the future costs, and a three year history of thirteen major changes agreed to by the customer because of industry nonperformance. Although the project was large (spending about £10 million a week at the peak and the largest U.K. Defence Land System procurement), cost controls had totally broken down with an average of 66 work packages for every engineer! The revenue stream from the customer was still continuing, albeit there was very serious worry that the project would soon collapse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A team of thirty staff, from all levels, was colocated in an open plan office with an aim to develop a new system of operation and to implement it without any delay to the revenue stream. Although we knew what to do, the functional barons could have been our downfall because the staff followed them so closely. The key to success was to develop and implement two initiatives, one to control projects and one to control and improve the functional technical excellence of the company processes. The basic game plan was to get the barons involved with the team, set them hard targets for achieving technical excellence to keep them busy, and then, to implement changes in the project organization which would remove their powers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The project changes were introduced. Then the barons were reintroduced, after about six months, to supporting the projects rather than controlling them. This gave the new project organization time to settle down, and everyone knew who their boss was for project achievement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The changeover was handled with extreme care so that the actual workers (rather than the managers) did not stop their work, but it was now controlled in a different way. The project staff attitudes were grouped in being willing to change with no effort, change with persuasion, or would not change categories. Some of the latter category were so against change that they had to be released. Although the staff was persuaded with buy-in to the development of the process, the actual implementation was by substituting the project manager, followed by team building and a strict program of activities that stretched the staff, so that they had no time to question the changes. Artificial crises were instigated to give tough but achievable targets when there was any sign that the staff was moving away from implementation. |
|
|
|
|
|