Within the context of Stewart Levine's Cycle of Resolution, collaboration also seems to constitute much of the model's foundation. Several of the steps within the cycle have names that suggest an inherent requirement for collaboration, including words such as "listening" in two steps, and "agreement" in an additional two steps. That means at least four of seven steps within the cycle have an explicit intent of working with other interested parties in reaching ultimate resolution. In doing this, there is greater likelihood of not only arriving at an optimum course of action for the greater organization and the interconnected parties, but also a minimized risk of consequences that may go unseen within the scope of a single perspective.
At one time I was involved with a project to relocate a piece of massive equipment from where it was in storage to our own campus. It was presented to me as a simple, broad, mission type order to "get it here." Little did I know the numerous intricacies involved. It wasn't simply a matter of throwing the equipment on a truck and bringing it over, but it ended up involving many players and countless considerations. I started very simply with only asking around the plans shop I was working with at the time and asking them who to talk to. This expanded over time to involve higher level logistics planners, operational oversight and planning, manning, and eventually infrastructure and facilities. Before long, I even had to work around environmental issues as we aren't allowed to drop anything into just any empty plot of grass. We also had to work around considerations for further development of our campus. Overall though, I admittedly had no process I was working with other than following leads from question to question, and I hadn't developed much of an outcome I was seeking beyond getting the equipment on site and making the boss happy. In the end, even after having to hand the project off when I went on an extended business trip, we're still nudging the thing along over a year later.
There are certainly some ways stakeholder involvement could have made this process less painful. First off, a more exhaustive outreach to potential stakeholders may have cut some time out of the piecemeal discovery of considerations at the initial onset, and may have been conducive to more rapidly bringing together the parties necessary to decide upon resolution. Second, to borrow from Levine's text Getting Resolution, having these parties together would have afforded the opportunity for the different stakeholders to tell their stories and provide greater clarity on the sub-objectives that would directly contribute to the primary objective. Third, to continue from sharing our perspectives a gathering of shareholders could continue following Levine's resolution model and get current and complete information. In having heard different perspectives, the shareholders could highlight what worked or did not work for similar moves in the past and compile a more complete list of issues and questions that need to be worked out. Fourth, having gone through these processes there is greater likelihood of coming to some kind of an agreement on a way ahead and thus there is the opportunity for each stakeholder to have taken on a more active role in the move and help expedite the process. Finally, in having had that initial involvement, I would think we would be much closer to Levine's definition of resolution than we are now and be executing the move in some fashion, vice the current state which still involves much ongoing debate on the questions of how, whom, and what will be used to make the move finally happen (Levine, 2009).
Of course, we still haven't achieved the end objective due to the red tape involved, but there are lessons learned in this experience. First off, it was a hard lesson learned in expeditiously ascertaining who all the stakeholders or parties of interest would be, make contact, and get coordinated to prevent a long drawn out process of discovery and sputtering coordination. Second, if those parties did come together, we would need be upfront fairly quickly on our needs and concerns so as, again, not to waste a great deal of time dealing with them in a piecemeal fashion. Finally, we seem to continue learning the hard way that seeking resolution without an agreement per Levine's models is a recipe for a long, drawn out execution phase. Rather than having actions fall into place as agreed upon in a collaboratively produced framework, the project seems to be stuck in a day by day re-evaluation of how things are going now based upon the actions of the current stakeholders (or lack thereof) and how it impacts the other stakeholders based on regulation or any politics involved.
To summarize in brief, the situation had proved that half-hearted collaboration at the outset in combination with a loosely defined agreement has, as of now, yielded no firm results and a great deal of frustration.
References
Levine, S. (2009). Getting
Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
No comments:
Post a Comment