implementation session rt 243 – enhancing innovation in the epc industry paul chinowsky,...

Implementation SessionRT 243 – Enhancing Innovation in the EPC Industry

Paul Chinowsky, University of ColoradoModerator

The Panel• Paul Chinowsky – University of Colorado• Mike Toole – Bucknell University• Howard Irwin – AMEC• Cathy Myers – CH2MHill• Garry King – WorleyParsons

Other Team MembersMauricio Rodriquez – Smithsonian Institution

Matt Hallowell – University of Colorado

John Strickland – CH2M Hill

Agenda

• Review of Phase I – Paul • Objectives of Phase II – Validate the IMM – Mike• Maturity Model Findings - Mike• Case Studies

– Southland – Howard– Ch2M-Hill – Cathy

• Putting This Into Action – Garry• Conclusion - Paul

Learning Objectives

• Understand Innovation Maturity Model• Understand How to Implement in Your

Organization• Understand The Need to Change Innovation

Perspectives

Phase I Objectives

• Determine Innovation Drivers

• Determine Innovation Support Components

• Focus on Enhancing Innovation

After 200 data points and literature review -

8 Key Enablers

• Leadership• Learning• Processes• Risk Perspective• Culture• Collaboration• Customer Focus• Resources

Innovation Maturity Model

Innovation Maturity Model

Q18. Innovation-related activities can be pursued during normal working hours. Work days are not so full that innovation-related activities only occur outside normal working hours.

1=strongly disagree2=slightly disagree3=I am neutral4=slightly agree5=strongly agree.

Averagemax

Score Difference WeightingImprovement Potential

2.87 5 2.13 4.00 8.53

Resources should not be so tightly allocated that there is no time available for activities that may not be tied directly to daily tasks. …

Innovation Maturity Model

Innovation Completion Scores  Raw Score Achievement %

Culture 120.70 77%Resources 118.70 69%Risk 123.33 70%Customer 63.44 70%Learning 124.16 80%Collaboration 95.31 75%Leadership 84.97 71%Processes 71.33 71%

Implementation SessionRT 243 – Phase II Objectives and Findings

Mike Toole – Bucknell University

Objective 1: Validate IMM Evaluation Tool

• Confirm content and focus

• Improve statement wording

• Add demographic questions

• Convert Excel to Web tool

Objective 2: Improve IMM Process

• Discussions with client regarding organizational goals, client IMM sample

• Analysis of client IMM evaluation data

• Selection of IMM recommendations to be implemented

• Monitoring of implementation

Objective 3: Document Case Studies

• Goal: encourage IMM adoption by CII members

– Reduce uncertainty about tool and process

– Share pilot client lessons learned

• Commitment to confidentiality

• Case studies to be included in research report

IMM Case Studies Background• 6 volunteer organizations

– Southland Industries– WorleyParsons– CH2M Hill– Fluor– CSA– US Army Corps of Engineers

• Web based• Sample chosen by organization

Sample size varied

Case Study Comparison

Barrier ComparisonCase Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3

Non-Billable Hours Non-Billable Hours

Non-Billable Hours

Leadership Fostering Innovation

Leadership Fostering Innovation

Funding From Corporate

Funding From Corporate

Funding From Corporate

Work Days Too Full

Work Days Too Full

Work Days Too Full

Innovation Incentives

Innovation Incentives

Multi-Disciplinary Teams Focus on Innovation

Projects Focus onthe Contract

Risk-Taking is Recognized as Part of Innovation

Risk-Taking is Recognized as Part of Innovation

Leadership ToleratesSome Failure

Summary of Findings

• IMM is a valuable evaluation tool

• Results very similar within pilot clients and similar to survey data

• Implementation of recommendations is critical

Implementation SessionRT 243 – Case Study: Southland Industries

Howard Irwin - AMEC

Case Study: Southland

Address two pertinent topics:• Can innovation maturity be measured?

– Road test the survey and its output

• Do the recommendations work?– Test the process of assigning recommendations based

on the survey– Test the validity of the recommendations

Case Study: Southland

Case Study Process:1. Maturity Model Survey - Round 1

2. Benchmarking Analysis

3. Recommendations for Improvement

4. Implementation of Recommendations

5. Maturity Model Survey - Round 2

6. Improvement Analysis

Maturity Model: Round 1

Question / Attribute IPQ60. Our organization has an established process for obtaining corporate

funds and resources to support innovation activities. 7.60Q22. Our organization has incentives and/or ways to indemnify a project

that is implementing an innovation. 7.24Q57. Our organization has a process for developing innovations before

implementing on projects to improve likelihood of success. 7.00Q61. Our organization has a process for ensuring innovation-related

learning from one project modifies behavior on subsequent projects. 7.00Q25. Our organization spreads innovation-related risk across multiple projects. 6.86Q23. Risk-taking is recognized as a necessary part of encouraging and

implementing new ideas. 6.19Q48. Our organization expects individuals to share ideas through formal forums. 6.17

Maturity Model: Round 1

Question / Attribute IPQ60. Our organization has an established process for obtaining corporate

funds and resources to support innovation activities. 7.60Q22. Our organization has incentives and/or ways to indemnify a

project that is implementing an innovation. 7.24Q57. Our organization has a process for developing innovations before

implementing on projects to improve likelihood of success. 7.00Q61. Our organization has a process for ensuring innovation-related

learning from one project modifies behavior on subsequent projects. 7.00Q25. Our organization spreads innovation-related risk across multiple projects. 6.86Q23. Risk-taking is recognized as a necessary part of encouraging and

implementing new ideas. 6.19Q48. Our organization expects individuals to share ideas through formal forums. 6.17

Recommendations

– Set aside a “pool” or “incentive pot” of funds for project innovations.

– Establish “contingency” limits (higher than normal) to be applied to projects to offset risks of trying innovations

Q22. Our organization has incentives and/or ways to indemnify a project that is implementing an innovation.

Recommendations

– Assign the responsibility of “Learning Coordinator (LC)” to a COP

– Develop and implement a monthly knowledge letter sent by each LC

– Create a searchable library of innovations

Q61. Our organization has a process for ensuring innovation-related learning from one project modifies behavior on subsequent projects.

Recommendations

– Establish Communities of Practice– Establish a Recognition System for

outstanding performance

Q48. Our organization expects individuals to share ideas through formal forums.

Southland – Case Study Highlights

• IMM provided targeted areas to address.• Recommendations fit well into Southland’s

continuous improvement program• However, base recommendations needed to

be adjusted to fit the organization• Second Round survey showed marked

improvements in the three areas addressed

Implementation SessionRT 243 – Case Study: CH2M HILLElectronics & Advanced Technology

Cathy Myers– CH2M Hill

Background

• Electronics & Advanced Technology – Focus on Leading Edge Industrial Technologies

Using the Maturity Model

• 51 Responses from 2 Groups– Recently Involved in Lean Initiative (Responsibility

Based Project Delivery)– Similar Project Not Using Lean Approach

• Formula for Finding Greatest Opportunity– (ideal score – actual score) x importance factor

Maturity Model Mapping

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Culture

Resources

Risk

Customer

Learning

Collaboration

Leadership

Processes

Findings

• Generally Positive Perception• Areas of Strength

– Culture – Leadership

• Plenty of Room for Potential Improvement

Biggest Opportunities

• Non-Billable Hours• Corporate Funding for Innovation• Leadership Investing in Innovation• Incentives and Project Indemnification• Sharing of Knowledge• Failure Tolerance• Risk Taking for Long-Term Advancement

Path Forward

• Clear Connection to Lean Project Delivery Initiative • Incorporate Findings to Improve Learning • New Thinking on Risk Perspective

Putting the Research to Work Garry King – WorleyParsons

Changing The Game

• Recognize the Strategic Importance • Guide the Culture • Engage the Talent• Stimulate Collaboration and Learning• Create the Processes (transform ideas to action)• Change the Risk Perspective

Syndicating vs. Isolating Risk

Some Industries Make Good Money By Taking Advantage of Multiple Iterations

Where Do I Start?

1. Measure your organization (IMM survey)

2. Analyze IMM results and recommendations

3. Select specific areas for improvement

4. Adjust and implement to fit your organization

5. Measure again to confirm effectiveness

6. Take a long term perspective