181031 dutch bv session keynote · • $1.5b mainline / trunkline(100+ projects, 6‐10 years) •...

ASU Updates

Just because something is written in a contract does not make it so

• Group of researchers and educators

• Integrated within the parties (clients/buyers and vendors)

• Developed tools, methods, & training to enhance:– Organizational Transformation– Procurement & Sourcing– Project & Risk Management– Performance Measurements

• We integrate with organizations and provide hands‐on education and support to develop organizational mastery and XPD

Simplar Institute

• Become a Client of Choice– Attract & Select High‐Performing Teams– Identify & Leverage Expertise

• Become a Performance‐Based Vendor– Use performance information to increase hit rate– Work like an expert for higher profit

• Other things: organizational change, human dimensions, benchmarking, exploratory, talent development, education and training, workforce, policy & regulations, standards & templates

Simplar Institute

d.

InformationTechnologyNetworkingData centersHardwareCOTS softwareERP systems

Help desk serviceseProcurement

FacilityManagementmaintenancelandscapingsecurity servicebuilding systemsindustrial movingwaste managementenergy management

custodialconveyancepest control

Health Insurance/Medical Services

Manufacturing

Business/Municipal /University Services

Construction/Design/EngineeringInfrastructureMunicipalLaboratoryEducationHospitalFinancialSpecialty

RenovationRepairMaintenanceRoofingDemolitionDevelopmentSupply chain

DBBCMARDBIDIQJOCLow BidIPD

20+ Years | 100+ Owners

2,500+ Projects | $11+ Billion Procured

diningmulti-media rightsfitness equipmentonline educationdocument managementproperty managementaudiovisualcommunications systemsemergency response systemslaundry

retirement fund material recyclingbookstoresfurniture

Research Partners

• +$XXB Tech Site• $100M Office Building• $1.5B Mainline / Trunkline (100+ projects, 6‐10 years)• $400M+ Groundwater Treatment• $50M Hotel• $100M ERP IT • $30M Smart Grid Consultants• $30M Smart Grid Change Management• $900M Smart Grid/Meter Replacement (1.5M Electric/700 Water)• $3.1M Design + $60M Turbine Replacement• $400K Design + $2.5M Solar Microgrid• $15M GIS IT• $4.5M Asset Management System for Electrical Assets, Demand‐Side Management, and an Analytics

System & Database• $3M Substation (x2)• CM Program/VOR Program• COR Program/Audit ($1.2M), Accounting, Other various consultants

Some Current Efforts

• Telecom System ‐ Wire Telephony, Data Network, Video Conferencing & End User Support ($35M)

• Telecom Management Solution ($1.5M)

• Peoplesoft HR, Financial, etc. ($850k per system)

• ERP ($34M‐$85M)

• GIS‐Based Asset And Work Management Software and Implementation Services ($600k)

• DMV Legacy System Replacement ($25M)

• CRM Solution ($1M)

• Identity & Access Management Solution ($1M)

• Radio System Upgrade ($1.5M)

Recent IT Procurements

• Snow Plow Mobile Data Collection ($2M)

• Housing Management System ($200k)

• IT Monitoring Solution ($100k)

• Wireless Network – Residences ($400k)

• eCourse Evaluation Solution ($400k)

• EDRM Solution ($500k)

• ePAR People Soft ($600k)

• Asset Management System ($300k)

• ITS Central Control System ($700k)

• Recreation Management System ($600k)

• Mobility Management and Administration System ($700k)

• Dining (Multiple) ($150k ‐ $1.2B)

• Cold Beverages ($2‐$5M)

• Document Mgt/Printing ($2.5M‐$4M)

• Bookstore ($650M)

• Travel Management ($15M‐$50M)

• Campus Network ($52M)

• Identity Access Management System ($2M)

• Retirement Fund Management ($248M)

• Athletics Financial IT System ($3M)

• Recycling & Waste Management ($900k)

• Janitorial ($25M)

• Security Services ($25M)

Recent Services Procurements• Peoplesoft HR, Financial, etc. (approx.

$850k per system)

• Security System IT ($5M)

• Library System Master Plan ($400k)

• Gym Equipment ($250k)

• Sports Marketing ($80M)

• Furniture ($50K‐$20M)

• Construction Services ($50K ‐ $30M)

• Parking Management System (Tech & IT) ($2M)

• Elevator Maintenance ($1.5M)

• Snow Removal ($400K)

• Transportation Services (Athletics) ($300k)

• Linen, Moving, IT Consultants, Finance Controls, Master Planning, Renovations, Pcard System, etc.

• Procurement Related

• Organizational Change

• Human Dimensions

Summary of the Presentation

Procurement

• 2016‐2018 Effort

• Evaluate and Assess RFPs

• 1,000+ Total RFP’s Collected and Analyzed

• RFPs covered all 50 US States and 7 Canadian Provinces

RFP Advancement

Common Challenges• Things to consider about an RFP:

– Does it flow in a logical manner– Does it have a complete schedule– Does it have a clear outline of the criteria and weights– Does it contain the scope of work / desired outcomes– Does it contain the current conditions– Does it contain instruction on what is need to submit– Does it have simple forms for vendors to fill out

•54% did not provide criteria and weights

•81% did not provide a budget

•48% average grading

2016‐2018 Effort

EXAMPLE: Fortune 500 Company

• 68 files (word, excel, pdf, powerpoint)

• No structure• Not logical / difficult to follow• Schedule in 4 different files• Criteria in 2 different files• No weights• No budget

Current Evaluation Criteria1. General Information: Company size, revenue, number of employees, comparative references, etc

2. Pricing: Submit al pricing in excel format using format in Exhibit H

3. Safety Program: Submit a complete copy of your safety program including all policies, procedures, forms, training records, certifications and permits used to ensure the safety of workers, subcontractors and other personnel. Submit a copy of your accident / injury log for the previous 24 months. Provide names and qualifications of dedicated safety personnel to be assigned to the project. Note: A general safety plan is required to support the Tender. Prior to construction, a project specific safety plan will be required and approved by the local Representative.

4. Project Organization Chart with Resumes of Key Personnel: Submit an organization chart with personnel names and roles for key personnel showing the working relationship of all team members to be assigned to the project. Provide resumes for all key personnel listed on organization chart. Chart must include at a minimum supervisory, safety, technical, quality and document control personnel.

5. Quality Control Program: Listing all quality control procedures including document control as well as any applicable quality system certifications and internal audit results.

6. Site Security Program: Submit a security plan that details how the construction site and works will be protected over the course of the project. The plan must include securing against unauthorized access to the site, removal of materials and equipment as well as protection of safety hazards to unsuspecting persons.

Current Evaluation Criteria• The identification of the best‐fit contractor assuming the EPC responsibility is following a methodical process

by evaluating the bidders on a combination of critical success criteria.

1. Contractor Competiveness: The competitive bid process will challenge the bidder to be fully aware of the market conditions when quantifying the construction costs for material and labor.

2. Contractor Localization: The client is committed to achieve a high level of local utilization. The bidders need to comply 100% with the Local Content Act. Following specifics are defined. “Local Content is the quantum of composite value added to, or created in, the local economy through a deliberate utilization of local human and material resources and services in the exploration, development, exploitation, transportation and sale of Local crude oil and gas resources, without compromising quality, health, safety and environmental standards”.

3. Contractor Capability: The Capability to deliver the project is a critical section criterion. The bidder will have the opportunity to provide sufficient data showing suitable references on previous executed projects. Further ongoing projects can be good references demonstrating contractor capability and qualifications. The client reserves the right to visit current construction sites, which are listed in the bidder response

• Overall Format of the RFP• Completeness of Scope of Work• Procedures are Open, Fair, Transparent• Use of Attachments & Submittal Forms• Procedures attracts Expertise

RFP ToolkitRFP Report Card Assessment

• Evaluate/Assess the overall format of each RFP – How well is it organized / structured

– How easy is it to follow

– Are there any duplications

– Are there any inconsistencies

– Are the procedures clearly separated from the scope

• Evaluate the Attachments / Submittals– Does the RFP provide all necessary attachments

– Do attachments contain all information vendor must respond to

– Are the attachments easy to use/follow

• Evaluate the Scope of Work– Is there a high level summary (that is clear and concise)

– Are there high level goals / expectations

– Is there a budget

– Schedule constraints

– Are they sole sourcing any vendor or product

• Evaluate the Current Conditions– Have they provided any (clear and concise)

– Is it clearly separated

• Evaluate how Open and Fair– Is the RFP open to all or only prequalified vendors

– Names in evaluated documents

Assessment Criteria• Evaluate Transparency

– Does the RFP provide evaluation criteria and weights

– Does the RFP describe the evaluation process

– Does the RFP provide a complete debriefing

• Does the RFP Attract Experts– Award based on other factors besides lowest cost

– Has a fair procurement schedule

– Requires limited marketing submittals

– Requires limited general submittals

– Interviews key personnel

• Analyze the Procurement Schedule– Time from RFP release to bid/proposal due date

– Time from bid/proposal due date to award

• Are interviews or presentations requested– Interviews

– Presentations

– Whole team or just critical individuals

Solicitation Report CardFortune 500 Company

OVERALL FORMAT PROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 AVERAGEConcise 10 5 10 5

7.5

Organized 10 10 10 10Easy to follow 5 5 5 10

No duplications 10 10 10 5No inconsistencies 5 5 5 5

No mixing between Scope vs Procedures 1 10 10 10

USE OF ATTACHMENTS AS SUBMITTALS PROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 AVERAGEAll required submittals are attachments 1 1 1 1

1Nothing outside of attachments 1 1 1 1

SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 AVERAGEHigh level summary 10 5 10 10

6.6

Current conditions 5 1 1 1Desired high level goals / expectations 10 10 10 5

Budget and schedule 5 1 1 1Detailed technical scope / requirements 10 10 10 10

Not unreasonable / Unrealistic 5 5 5 5Not sole sourcing 10 10 10 10

PROCUREMENT IS OPEN AND FAIR PROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 AVERAGEOpen to all / no prequalification 10 5 5 10

6.0Not sole sourcing 10 10 10 10

No firm/company names in proposal 1 1 1 1Fair procurement schedule 1 1 10 10

PROCUREMENT IS TRANSPARENT PROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 AVERAGEEvaluation criteria and weights 1 1 1 1

2.7Cost/budget constraints 1 1 1 1

Schedule constraints 5 5 10 10Evaluation process 1 1 5 5

Debriefing 1 1 1 1

RFP ATTRACTS EXPERTS / EXPERTISE PROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 AVERAGENo firm names in proposal 1 1 1 1

2.5

Proposal size (minimal page limits) 1 1 1 1Key personnel interviews 5 1 5 1

Open and fair 1 1 5 5Transparent 5 5 10 5

Value‐Based vs Cost‐Based 1 1 1 1

Solicitation Report CardCity of L.A.

2015‐2016 RFP2018 RFP

Score Card Tools

• RFP exercise pointed to the importance and criticality of a high‐quality scope within the solicitation

• Many clients struggle with scope quality, specificity, and accuracy

Core Objectives:• How to develop an “Effective” Scope of Work• A tool to attract Expert Vendor Teams• More accurate pricing• Greater differentiation in proposals and evaluation• More certainty in the selection

Scoping

• Higher quality scope = greater competition (Statistically significant correlation, p = 0.05)

• Higher quality of scope = higher quality proposals (Statistically significant correlation, p = 0.05)

Need to Invest in Scope Development

Differentiation between Competing Vendors

25%

17%

24%

8%

15%

18%

14%

7%

13%

27%25%

9%

Cost Technical Proposal Interviews Past Performance

A/EDB/CMARDBB Construction

Scope Definition

Varia

tion in Evaluation Scores

N = 347 projects (1,850 individual proposals)

Poor

HighModerate

What would an Expert Vendor need (or want) to know?

What will help them provide the client with the best price?What will help them minimize their contingencies?What will prevent them from walking away?What will incentivize them to send their best people?

An “effective” Scope‐of‐Work:

• Difficult to train on a single project endeavor – not enough time

• Level of knowledge of project various widely across clients and their project teams

• Pressure to release RFP often inhibits spending correct amount of time in scope development

• Biases of project team greatly influence scope development– Over 70% for the built environment (which competitor helped or is favored)

– Over 90% in services

Teaching Scope Development

Leverage expertise from the industry to check:• Is our approach feasible? What are realistic options?• What information do vendors need to prepare an accurate proposal with minimal contingency?

The Client DOES NOT need to know every detail!1. Define current conditions2. Define objectives / requirements / Scope3. Leverage industry feedback

When in Doubt…Issue an RFN!!!

• What is an RFN?• A process to help solidify your scope (and other items) prior to RFP release.

• How does an RFN work?• Release a “draft” Scope of Work to the vendor community. • Get feedback from across the industry.

• When should we use the RFN process? • Any time you are unsure of your scope.• All projects that require a software integration.

• How long does an RFN take?• 1 week to 1 month. • And can be done in parallel with RFP development.

Request for Needs (RFN)

RFN Template

• RFN

– Section 1 – Overview and Background – Section 2 – Current Conditions– Section 3 – Desired Outcomes– Section 4 – Questions– Section 5 – Format of Submission

EX. Travel Management Services

1. Are the Universities’ expectations/desired goals, as stated in Section 3, realistic? If they are not, what changes would you recommend and why?

Questions

No Criteria Response*

1The system will help the Universities with achieving/securing a significantdiscount/cost savings from airlines, hotels, rail, and car rentals.

Yes / No

2The vendor can provide an online system to make and book travel (similarto an Orbitz/Expedia website).

Yes / No

3Although the online system will be the preference, the vendor/solutioncan also provide telephone services and support

Yes / No

4The system can allow each individual user to input and use their own‘frequent flyer’ or ‘customer loyalty’ program numbers

Yes / No

5The vendor can negotiate discounted rates with airline, hotel, car rentalagencies on behalf of the University

Yes / No

6The vendor can provide marketing materials to entice/attract individualsthat currently don’t use the system.

Yes / No

7The system will provide timely and accurate reporting of information tosenior university staff.

Yes / No

8The system can be customized to meet some unique needs of eachUniversity.

Yes / No

9The system can integrate into existing systems like ‘Concur’, ‘Peoplesoft’,etc

Yes / No

10The University expects to issue an RFP in February/March 2014 to procurea new contract with regards to a Travel Management Solution.

Yes / No

2. What information would you need to see in a potential RFP to submit an accurate proposal with minimal uncertainty and contingency included in the cost? Please be as specific as possible. (1 Page Max)

3. Knowing that the Universities are not experts in this industry, are there any other options, ideas, goals, or new/next practices that the Universities might want to consider? (1 Page Max)

Questions

• Unsure if vendors can provide a leasing type of cost structure• 2 days to draft the RFN• 1 week for vendors to respond• 1 day to analyze responses

Radios RFN Example

No. Assumption and Clarifying Questions Responses

1The Offeror can provide the complete digital Radio System (including Infrastructure, system, software, radios, service, support, maintenance, and repairs).

Yes (100%)

2 The University may lease the digital Radio System. Yes (100%)

3The University will not have any expenses for maintaining and managing the Radio System.

Yes (100%)

4 The Offeror has leased a digital Radio System to another client. Yes (100%)5 Is the Proposed Cost Evaluation in Figure 3 complete? Yes (100%)

6 Will the Offeror purchase the current University‐owned radios (i.e. buyback)? Yes (86%)No (14%)

1. What information do Vendors need to develop an accurate proposal with minimal contingency?– Reduce the # of scope gaps– Increase the chance of “tighter” pricing

2. How should the scope be structured (and why)?

3. What can the Owner begin working on now to facilitate an efficient project once it is awarded?

4. Other project‐specific questions…

Questions that an RFN can Answer

• Contracts, specifications, requirements typically to a significant degree have standardization around them

• RFPs do not have a standard

• In conjunction with industry participants (vendors and owners)

• Develop an RFP Standard

• Several Surveys, 3000+ RFPs, Focus Groups, etc.

Standardization Issue

ToolkitRFP Standardization

ToolkitRFP Standardization

Scope of Work

Current Conditions

Administrative Requirements

Evaluation Procedures

Submittal Forms & Exhibits

1

2

3

4

5

6

Proposal Requirements

• OBJECTIVE– Over 100 pages– Reference tool– All procedures and checklists– Train‐the‐trainer

• TOPICS1. Developing a Scope of Work2. Preparing the RFP3. The Evaluation Process4. Preplanning and Clarification5. Award, Metrics, and Closeout

ToolkitCritical Resources

• Maturity Assessment– Performance Outputs– Capability of People– Maturity of Processes– Sophistication of Tools

• 11 Indexed Categories– Personnel & Staffing– Org. Structure– PO & Solicitations– Principles, Policies, & Procedures– Technology– Data Reporting & Analytics– Etc….

Organizational Assessment & Diagnostics

• Work to make yourself (owner/buyer) more attractive

• Vendors want to work for you over other owners

• Vendors send you their best teams

• Vendors spend the time to put together an accurate proposal

Becoming a “Client‐of‐Choice”

• Fair

• Transparent

• Open

• Values expertise & preplanning

• Does not micromanage

• Listens

• Is consistent across their organization (does not vary based on PM)

• Wants their vendors to make a fair profit

• Pays on Time

Attributes of a “Client‐of‐Choice”

You Can’t Just Trick Vendors Into Believing That You Are A “Good” Client!

Organizational Transformation

• Greatest barrier to learning something new is what you think you already know

Iron Curtain of Knowledge

Understanding Your OrganizationThe Capability Of Your Personnel

High

Low

Resistan

ce

Increased

Minimal

Patie

nce & Effo

rt

Longer

ShorterTime To Im

plem

ent

Dunning–Kruger Effect

ROI alone does not drive change readiness & acceptance.

It is simply part of the puzzle.

Common Misperception

The Greatest Risk to any

Change Effort is…

Types of ResistanceRank Displayed Resistance Behavior

1 Changing the process by reverting to traditional practices2 Finding fault with how the implementation was conducted3 Passive Resistance4 Active Resistance5 Hiding information / Lack of transparency6 Finding fault in the specific change being implemented 7 Changing traditional processes beyond the specific change8 Striving for perfection at expense of implementation effort9 Negative feedback from external sources

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

RFP DEVELOPMENT

EVALUATIONS PRE PLANNING METRICS

21% 20%

39%

20%

Observed Frequency of Resistant Behaviors(Owner Contract Officers & PMs)

Simplicity | Effort | Resistance

54

CLARIFICATION MANAGEMENT& METRICS

SELECTION

Top 5 Resistance Behaviors

1. Reversion

2. Reluctant Compliance

3. Arguing

4. Lack of Transparency

5. Delaying

Resistance to Change

Passive43%

Active20%

Inadvertent37%

Change Adoption

Innovators & Early Adopters

(make it happen)

EarlyMajority

(support it happening)

LateMajority

(let it happen)

Laggards

(begrudge it happening)

Fighters

(stop it from happening)

Chasm16% 33% 24% 20% 7%

N=104

Need to keep this group at 30% or less

Partial Adoption

Changed

Transparency

30% 29%

52%

78%

39%

53%

64%

89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

On‐Time On‐Budget

Transparency alone is proven to drive change

None Some More FullIncreasing Transparency

Transformational Key

Accountability + Transparency Drive

Behavioral Shift

Fostering Actions:• Education• Measurement• Patience• Forgiveness

Adoption Metrics

• Percent Adoption Measure of progress of full

implementation of change • Speed of Adoption

Measure of planned vs. actual implementation milestones achieved

• Percent Adaption Level of consistency across

organization • Resistance Summary

By main behavior types (i.e. avoidance, reversion, reluctant compliance, etc.)

• Performance in all training types: Attendance Participation Performance in hands‐on

assignments/homework• Supervisor and Change Agent

measurement Adoption and application Knowledge transfer Quality of application Mastery of skills Individual change satisfaction Resource hours consumption

• 3rd Party assessment Quality of application In‐person interactions Consistency of application

INPUTSOUTPUTS

• Adoption as achievement in training activities – attendance, level of participation, and comprehension/assessment of learning.

• Adoption as participation with the change agent – are they working with their change agent (hands on), are they attempting to apply the new tool/process when asked, are they asking questions to ensure correct understanding and application, perspective on usage, satisfaction, and change.

• Adoption as usage in job function – speed of adoption in their job function, correct usage of tools and processes, quality of usage of tools and processes, and level of adaption or change to the requested change.

• Grouping of adoption data – will be a roll up of the site level data (which is a roll up of the individual data). It will be broken down by divisional and site/mill level and tracked against the implementation plan for progress reporting.

• Summary data will be:– % adoption as assessed across all inputs– Speed of adoption/on schedule rate of change implementation as assessed across all inputs– % adaption as assessed across the adoption inputs– Resistance summary

Metrics Breakdown

INDIVIDUAL ADOPTION METRICS SITE‐LEVEL

ADOPTION METRICS

DIVISION‐LEVEL ADOPTION METRICS

Tracking Change Across the Organization

• Identify leaders to assist with increased adoption• There should be executive visibility into real‐time metrics of all sites and divisions• Can be broken down by the specific change/tool/process

Single Site Report Snapshot

Site‐By‐Site Roll Up

Business Unit Report Snapshot

Organization Report Snapshot

Education & Training• Proper education and training reduces internal resistance to change and results in faster organizational

adoption of new methods by a factor of 8x. • Workshops and Hands‐on training at the individual level have proven to increase adoption by 5x on a

person’s first project and up to 8x on their second project.• The training must be consistent• Application of the new processes/tools etc. must initially be monitored to ensure consistent adoption

and usage throughout the organization and its personnel.

People• Effective Change Agents Reduce Resistance by 7x

• 10‐20% will Embrace the Change Upfront

• 10‐25% will Oppose, Undermine, Avoid, Delay

Leadership• Having a strategic perspective for the implementation and adoption of new methods decreases

resistance of internal personnel by a factor of 6x. • Leadership’s perspective should be organizational, but the real change occurs at the level of the

individual project professional. When teams of individual change, the change becomes transformational.

• Transparency Systems during implementation have Doubled Operational Performance

Research Observations

1. Effective Change Agents acting as implementation doers & champions

2. The Org & the People can see clear personal benefit

3. Organizational Measurement & Benchmarks

4. Realistic Speed & Timescale

5. Clear understanding of necessary action steps

6. Senior leadership committed to the change initiative

What Drives Successful Implementation of a Change Initiative?

• Organizational Change Management Study

• 328 responses from Organizations globally

• Each response represents a single, large‐scale change initiative within an organization.

• Survey objective: profile of numerous change initiatives across industry

Org Change Benchmarking Study

• Implement global SAP update

• Document management system

• Project controls technology

• Reorganize customer‐facing operating procedures

• Integrate a major acquisition

• Roll out of formal project management execution process

• Customer Relation Management (CRM) Implementation

• Change in sales & marketing strategy

• Smart plant implementation

Sample Change Initiatives(from survey responses)

• Introducing BIM on projects

• Implement Lean

• Enterprise Resource Planning

• Reorganize customer‐facing operating procedures

• Productivity management system

• Project delivery strategy

• Introduce Material Tracking Upgrade

• Industrialized Construction

• Developing a data foundation program

• Upgraded production software

Personnel Reactions to Change

7.0%

19.7%

23.8%

17.6%

8.4%

13.9%

5.1% 4.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

Championing& Initiating

ActivelySupporting

PassivelyParticipating

ReluctantlyComplying

CovertlyAvoiding

Openly NotParticipating

PassivelyOpposing

ActivelyOpposing

Avoiding & OpposingSupporting & Participating

N=234

Personnel Reactions to Change

14%

28%26%

11%

3%

10%

5%3%2%

10%

19%

22%

15%

17%

6%8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Championing& Initiating

ActivelySupporting

PassivelyParticipating

ReluctantlyComplying

CovertlyAvoiding

Openly NotParticipating

PassivelyOpposing

ActivelyOpposing

MOST Successful Change Initiatives (top 33%)

LEAST Successful Change Initiatives (bottom 33%)

N=234

Communicating the Change Message

3% 3%

8%

20%

17%

14%13%

23%

3%

15%

7%5% 5%

16%

29%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

InstructionalVideos

Speeches Manuals &Guidebooks

InteractiveWorkshops

On‐the‐JobSupport

Meetings Memos &Emails

TrainingPresentations

MOST Successful Initiatives (Top 18%)

LEAST Successful Initiatives (Bottom 18%)

N=234

• 3 were fully successful (adopt & sustain, met goals)– Unique to the three

– Effective change agents– Speed to implement felt realistic– All three were trained in workshops and/or hands‐on– All three had active support from senior leadership

• 4 were able to implement (met goal) and not revert, but had limited adoption– Inconsistent support from senior leaders– Inconsistent use and effectiveness of change agents– Only one of the four used workshops (none used hands‐on)

23 Implemented ERP

• 3 achieved partial adoption and partial goal achievement– None had strong support from senior leadership– Limited to no use of change agents– Only one used workshops

• 13 did not achieve partial success (low or no adoption, goals not met, and did not sustain)– None used workshops– None had effective change agents– Leadership support inconsistent

23 Implemented ERP

• We had corporate leadership but had to convince project managers to adopt, one by one. Until the BL President place as a KRI for his people, then it became a flood of adoption.

• Senior leadership• New method perceived to take more time than previous method• Obstruction, Blocking and unwillingness by many at site.• Access/time available of project staff to participate in trainings & workshops• Maintaining current work loads during change over • Lack of resources to implement• Poor preparation for implementation • Lack of training• Amount of resources required• Training to maximize user adoption• Availability of training• Not enough time allotted for training. Many users did not have strong computer skills.• Individuals resistance to change and follow a new process.• Training technology challenged individuals.• Not involving the end users at the beginning of the change process• Turf wars among the siloed departments. Using a "high tech, low touch" approach and not engaging in

face‐to‐face interactions. Lack of an understanding of the operational business process that was being implemented

• Many didn't understand why we needed to change; dislike of the move to uniform processes; generalized dislike of the software

• Inability to communicate effectively

Software ImplementationsBarriers to Success

• Senior leadership • We had corporate leadership but had to convince people to adopt, one by one. Until the BG President place as a KRI for his people, then it became a flood of adoption.

• Certain area managers not on board, created pockets of resistance

• Maintaining current work loads during change over • Lack of resources to implement / Lack of training / Not enough time allotted for training

• Not involving the end users at the beginning of the change process• Poor prep for implementation / Lack of understanding of operational business processes being implemented by the ERP system / Time & HR & prioritization for applications to integrate with the ERP

• Turf wars among the siloed departments. Not engaging in face‐to‐face interactions. Lack of an understanding of the process that was being implemented / Accounting group not on board, fought the change

Software ImplementationsBarriers to Success

• Involvement of executive level management, championing• Management who actively supported the project• Unwavering management support for the new system• Upper management support of the new process.• Senior Management support and demonstrated buy in• Top down driven schedule• Monthly reporting on implementation success• Training and refresher courses easily available• Finding “Supertrainers” that would take the implementation out to the different

projects.• Diligent support from staff level implementers.• Pilot groups, reporting and measuring, communication• Champions and forcing the spending of resources. Everyone wanted to save money

and just "try harder." Spending more money on training and hiring more staff to cover for extra time spent on training

• Persistence of the implementation; desire to improve; incremental implementation allowed success to build and steamroll. (There's still plenty to do 7 years later.)

• Allocated dedicated, senior resources to the project. Provided ample time to develop the project. Employees had to use the new system because the old on was turned off.

Software ImplementationDrivers of Success when it Occurred

• Unwavering management support for the new system• Top down schedule / Monthly measures of implementation

• Finding “Supertrainers” that would take the implementation out to the different groups.

• Pilot groups, reporting and measuring, communication• Training and refresher courses easily available

• Champions and forcing the spending of resources. Everyone wanted to save money and just "try harder." Spending more money on training and hiring more staff to cover for extra time spent on training

• Persistence of the implementation; desire to improve; incremental implementation allowed success to build and steamroll.

Software ImplementationDrivers of Success when it Occurred

Be Mindful of the Nocebo Effect

• Change is hard

• Traditional approaches yield inconsistent results

• Keys to success– Transparency through measurement (adoption, adaption, etc.) – Change agents & champions are key– All training is not equal – Workshops & hands on are best– Leadership throughout the organization w/ consistent messaging

• Success means:– Goals achieved – Less pain / Less Effort / Less Cost– Faster time to full adoption– Less adaption & Less resistance

Summary for Change Research

Human Dimensions &

Performance

While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty

‐ Sherlock Holmes

It’s Elementary

PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS

Over 30 Master Degrees and 4 PhD Dissertations–What Phycological Tools are Available–How to Assess People and Teams–How to Collect Data–What Data to Collect

Top 4 Tools Identified–HEXACO–Myers Briggs– Emotional Intelligence–DISC

Road to Today

Six major dimensions of personality categorized further into four facets

HEXACO Personality Inventory

HONESTY‐HUMILITY

Sincerity

Fairness

Greed Avoidance

Modesty

EMOTIONALITY

Fearfulness

Anxiety

Dependence

Sentimentality

EXTRAVERSION

Social Self‐Esteem

Social Boldness

Sociability

Liveliness

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Organization

Diligence

Perfectionism

Prudence

AGREEABLENESS

Forgivingness

Gentleness

Flexibility

Patience

OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE

Aesthetic Appreciation

Inquisitiveness

Creativity

Unconventionality

‐ Each facet and dimension measured on a scale of 1 to 5

‐ 100 questions

‐ Respondents indicate agreement or disagreement with various statements

‐ Developed by Ashton & Lee

• Four primary skills under two main competencies: personal competence and social competence, measured from 1‐100

• The scores for the primary skills are used to compute an Overall Emotional Intelligence score.

• 28 questions• Respondents indicate how often they demonstrate a behavior (never to always)

Emotional Intelligence Appraisal

Personal Competence

SELF AWARENESS

SELF MANAGEMENT

Social Competence

SOCIAL AWARENESS

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT

• Developed by Bradberry & Greaves

• Four dichotomies, and each dichotomy has two choices – 16 types• 49 questions

Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator

• Respondents choose an option that best describes how they usually feel or act in different scenarios.

• Developed by mother‐daughter duo: Briggs and Myers

• An advanced version of the four‐quadrant behavior diagnostic tool known commonly as DISC

• Provides insight into workplace priorities and preferences

QDISC‐101

• 48 questions• Respondents choose descriptions that are most like them and least like them from groups of four descriptions

• Individualized reports created for every respondent

• Report provides a detailed insight into an individual’s personality type

• Each assessment illustrates how the individual’s personality compares with the rest of the organization, and the overall industry

• Where information about the best‐in‐class in the industry is available, the report provides insight into how the individual compares against the best‐in‐class

Customized Individual Reports

Customized Individual Reports

• Benchmarking Human Dimensions for High Performers

• Benchmarking Human Dimensions for High Performing Teams

• Benchmarking Organizational Performance and Production

• Early Identify Future High Performers

• Laser‐Guided Talent Development

• Organizational Mapping

Profile & Benchmarking

Comparing Levels Org. Senority

Honesty 3.71

Emotionality 2.96

Extraversion 3.56

Agreeableness 3.06

Conscientiousness 3.79

Openness 3.30

EQ 72.62

MBTI ISTJ

DISC S

Performance 8.03

Pot Exec 4.25

Level 1Honesty 3.70

Emotionality 3.00

Extraversion 3.46

Agreeableness 3.07


Openness 3.53

EQ 71.00

MBTI STJ

DISC C

Performance 7.87

Pot Exec 3.83

Level 2Honesty 3.73

Emotionality 2.87

Extraversion 3.49

Agreeableness 2.84


Openness 3.15

EQ 72.27

MBTI ISTJ

DISC D

Performance 8.43

Pot Exec 7.19

Level 3Honesty 3.69

Emotionality 2.99

Extraversion 3.45

Agreeableness 2.67


Openness 3.30

EQ 68.50

MBTI STJ

DISC D

Level 4

The differences between levels

High Performer Profile

Level 1 AverageHonesty 3.71

Emotionality 2.96

Extraversion 3.56

Agreeableness 3.06


Openness 3.30

EQ 72.62

MBTI ISTJ

DISC S

Performance 8.03

Pot Exec 4.25

Honesty 3.83

Emotionality 2.88

Extraversion 3.66

Agreeableness 2.96


Openness 3.37

EQ 74.43

MBTI ESTJ

DISC S

Performance 9.29

Pot Exec 4.62

↑

↓

↑

↓↓

↑

↑E

=↑

↑


AverageLevel 2Honesty 3.70

Emotionality 3.00

Extraversion 3.46

Agreeableness 3.07


Openness 3.53

EQ 71.00

MBTI ISTJ

DISC C

Performance 7.87

Pot Exec 3.83

Honesty 3.83

Emotionality 2.90

Extraversion 3.75

Agreeableness 3.31


Openness 3.66

EQ 74.00

MBTI ENTJ

DISC C

Performance 9.17

Pot Exec 5.00

↑

↓

↑

↓=

↑

↑EN

=↑

↑

AverageLevel 3Honesty 3.73

Emotionality 2.87

Extraversion 3.49

Agreeableness 2.84


Openness 3.15

EQ 72.27

MBTI ISTJ

DISC D

Performance 8.43

Pot Exec 7.19

Honesty 3.78

Emotionality 2.84

Extraversion 3.45

Agreeableness 2.89


Openness 3.02

EQ 72.55

MBTI ISTJ

DISC D

Performance 9.09

Pot Exec 8.00

↑

=

=

↑=

↓

↑=

=↑

↑


Enhanced Decision Making

HiPerf PMHonesty 3.21

Emotionality 2.99

Extraversion 3.33

Agreeableness 2.75


Openness 2.9

EQ 71

MBTI ESTJ

DISC D

“Susan”Honesty 3

Emotionality 2.65

Extraversion 3.9

Agreeableness 3.56


Openness 2.12

EQ 68

MBTI ISTJ

DISC D

Honesty 3.78

Emotionality 2.84

Extraversion 3.45

Agreeableness 2.89


Openness 3.02

EQ 72

MBTI ISTJ

DISC D

“Larry”Honesty 4.51

Emotionality 3.12

Extraversion 3.45

Agreeableness 3.32


Openness 2.56

EQ 78

MBTI ISFJ

DISC D

“Bob”

94% 85% 78%Aptitude Match

• Significantly Higher Extraversion– Enthusiastic– Confident– Positive

• Significantly Higher Conscientiousness – Organized– Disciplined– Precise

• Significantly Higher Altruism – Sympathetic– Generous spirit– Soft‐hearted

Top Performers ‐ Individuals

Team Performance and Personality

• Problem:– Contractors and Designers typically pick their team for a project based on who is available at the time, not necessarily who is the best match for the owner’s personnel.

Team Performance – Case Study

• HEXACO – Honesty‐HumilityEmotionalityExtraversionAgreeablenessConscientiousnessOpenness

Self AwarenessSelf ManagementSocial AwarenessRelationship ManagementOverall Emotional Quotient

• Research:– A case study of 182 AEC industry professionals working in teams to complete similar project management tasks is presented, comparing the results of teams that were “matched” vs. those that were “random.”

• Research Question:– Do teams assigned using an optimized mixture of Honesty/Humility, Extraversion and Overall Emotional Intelligence perform at a higher level than teams assigned not considering the personality traits of the team members?


The mean rank of team performance of teams assigned based on their personality traits was higher than that of randomly assigned teams by 67.8%.


Top performing teams have: • Significantly higher Extraversion

–More enthusiastic, confident, positive–High variance in Extraversion

• Significantly higher Agreeableness –More forgiving, compromising, understanding–High variance in Agreeableness

• Significantly higher Conscientiousness–More organized, disciplined, precise

Top Performing Teams vs. Others

Agreeableness*8.804 + Relationship Management*2.023 –Self‐Management*6.403 + Variance in Agreeableness*7.75 + 73.042

Predicting Team Performance

Team Performance =

Organizational Profile Mapping

Organizational Benchmarking• How do you stack up?

• Use of human dimensionality through advanced tools will enhance the decision‐making in:– Identifying key talent (if allowed by the organization)– Talent development– Creating optimized teams– Assigning teams to clients based on compatibility– Identifying whom to promote– Identifying whom to retain based on potential– Identifying like‐for‐like+ replacements if a team loses a member– Team to Team Alignment within RFP Response (Team Indicies)

• This helps an organization become more sustainable• If done for long enough, human dimensionality can be used to make better decisions than humans as it will remove emotional bias from decision‐making

What does this all mean?

You can participate in this research effort in the following ways:• Profile your organization• Individual assessment of employees in your organization/team

– Participants will receive their condensed results

• Leadership assessment of employee capabilities– Participants will receive a detailed customized test report

If there is high participation, we will be able to develop an database for future benchmarking.

How can you participate?

• Risk– 750+ projects with 6500+ risk captured– Predictive/Anticipatory risk outcomes

– Project attributes, client factors, etc. to risk prediction– Proposal vs Risk (#, size, type, timing, ability, etc.)

– Single response (winner) & All response– Timing/Type early vs late– Multi‐project (same type) improvement client & single vendor & all vendor

– Proposal improvement/risk reporting improvement over time– Personnel based risk management

– Team and/or Individual Factors for risk probabilities, timing, etc.– Client and/or vendor personnel

– Work assignment, oversight, etc.

Other Updates

When & Who

Risk Prediction Based on PM Factors

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Average Num

ber o

f Risks Tha

t Delayed

or Increased

Cost

Project Schedule

PM 1 (RM Score 4.2)

PM 2 (RM Score 3.9)

PM 8 (RM Score 2.9)

PM 9 (RM Score 2.5)

• Facility Management – Education– Benchmarks– O&M– Healthcare

• Asymmetric Information – Design Error/Change Order awareness– Low‐Bid with Expert Input

• Preplanning– Teaching preplanning, clarification, risk management skills– Scoring methods for clients to evaluate quality of a plan prior to NTP

Other Research

QUESTIONS

Source of Cost Impacts• Owner = 77%• Design E&O = 8%• GC/Subs = 2%• Unforeseen Cond. = 13%

Impact Breakdown

Source of Time Impacts• Owner = 63%• Design E&O = 7%• GC/Subs = 16%• Unforeseen Cond. = 14%

181031 dutch bv session keynote · • $1.5b mainline / trunkline(100+ projects, 6‐10 years) •...

Documents