Phase 4, Work Regimen
Short Description - A recommended pre-workshop reading.

The following information is provided to familiarize Work Regimen workshop participants with the terms used and the rationale for dialog around each of the five core elements. A handout will be provided to participants during the workshop to expand on these short descriptions.

Goals.

A statement of a desired critical condition which, when attained, will satisfy one or more internal and/or external resource providers.

The words goals and objectives in common vocabulary have a common meaning. In this technology they mean different things. Work groups (comprised of teams), establish goals most effectively. Goals are not attributable to any one specific individual. When the goals is attained, the entire work group will have cause to celebrate, and it should celebrate.

Goals may be stated in either a "be" statement, or a "feeling" statement. For example, "To be a recognized source for unique organization development education," may also produce the feeling of "pride" in that achievement. Under the best of circumstances, goals may be either stated or understood in both ways.

Goals may be of two types (at least). Goals are related directly to both "systemic" elements (the ten Unifying Human System elements, for example), and alignment Mission(s). Achieving the first set of goals will improve the quality of the system as a whole, while the achieving the second set of goals will assure focus on satisfying resource providers in each of the Mission(s).

Systemic goals would typically be a part of a ten-element set. Ideally, each of the ten Unifying Human Systems elements will have an associated goal connected directly with it. The element "organizations" might have the following goals, for example: Customers and clients feel secure that they are served by a team of people organized into teams that challenge members to synergize their efforts to best meet identified needs.

Mission(s) goals, on the other hand, are tied directly to mission attainment. Since Missions are what ultimate customers will pay to have performed for them (or to them in some cases) goal statements directly reflect the customers desires in each Mission area established for the organization. Naturally, more than a single goal can be established for each organization mission, but at least one goal is required for each mission. Normally, the goal is not to "provide" something, rather it is to "create" something within the customer that will yield satisfaction (or better yet -- excitement).

If, for example, a mission area is to "do" organization diagnostics for clients, the goal might be to create confidence within the client that they know the status of the organization and can therefore make timely and high quality decisions concerning situations that effect its future. Thus, the ability to "do" diagnostics creates "decision-making confidence" for the client or customer. If the goal is stated as "decision-making confidence" then the goal measurement is clearly in the client domain. As a mission provider, every effort must be directed at "creating decision-making confidence" for the client -- other efforts may contribute to this end, but failure to focus on success from the client perspective will fall short of mission attainment.


Programs.

A complete plan for the attainment of Objectives (fixed in a future state) that focuses on an aggregate of procedural and process implementation.

Programs are a collection of work procedures and processes that, joined together, achieve goals and satisfy Mission(s). Programs are typically funded in their entirely. Execution of a program is likely placed under the authority of a single individual. Programs may, but seldom do, cross mission/functional lines of authority in a bureaucratic environment. Resources acquired through Missions are expended through programs. Normally, more than a single program contribute to attainment of a single mission. It is rare indeed that any program will be associated with more than a single mission area, however.

There is no clear distinction between programs, procedures, and processes except that processes are the lowest design element of all three. Several processes combine to create a procedure. Several procedures combine to create a program. More than one program combines to accomplish a mission. Specific labels are not important -- it is the hierarchy of these elements that are important to know.

To illustrate, the following example combines several data gathering processes (interviews, surveys, and personal inventories) into an information development procedure. The procedure of developing information also incorporates identifying trends and drawing implications. Combined, these elements constitute an organization assessment program. The hierarchy might look like this:


Program: Organization Assessment

Procedures: Identify Trends and Draw Implications and Develop Conclusions

Processes: Interview and Survey and Inventory and Observe and Research


Identifying and understanding these hierarchical elements is important because of the degree of depth required in the alignment system. Normally, organization realignment efforts are taken to the program depth in a mission group stakeholders setting, while procedural and process depth is undertaken at the team and work group implementation configuration. Under ideal conditions, all program elements fall under a single mission implementation structure, either in the "official" organization or within the "parallel" structure.


Objectives.

An articulation of specific results to be attained through deliberate actions taken by a specific individual (or team) on or before a certain date and/or time, or event.

Objectives are normally attributed directly and specifically to a single individual although identifying a team of individuals may be more productive in some cases. One person can normally be held accountable for attaining specific objectives. Often, objectives are tied directly to procedures or processes within program structures. When this occurs, one might be able to reasonably "schedule" objectives to assure program completion on-time.

Objectives also contribute directly to goal attainment. For example, in the mission goal illustration used above: "Create decision-making confidence," objectives leading to this goal might be "involve the client in selecting survey questions before conducting the first pilot test." In this manner, objectives can often be reduced to a check list format and readily measured -- done or not done. Because objectives are tied specifically to individuals (or teams in some cases) people can reasonably be held accountable to completing or achieving objectives.

Often in an organization it becomes critical for each individual to gain an appreciation for the composite objectives of the group with whom they must successfully interact. Knowing who will do what by when develops a sense of security and surety in each person in the group. Typically, although not necessarily, the development of position descriptions for individuals is based on sets of routine objectives. In many organizations, formal position descriptions are giving way to more realistic documents within which people initial-off on the processes that they and fellow teammates are held accountable for completing.

While accomplishing goals is cause for organization celebration, accomplishing objectives is cause for individual or team celebration close to the work. When the organization accomplishes a goal everyone must participate. Accomplishing objectives ought to be tied directly to the reward and award system in the organization. Recognition for objective attainment ought to be visible and powerful in the organization.


Priorities.

That regimen used to establish precedence of sequence between to or more tasks, activities, missions, values, programs, initiatives, and the like.

When two or more elements in the alignment structure of an organization are in competition, and at least two elements always are in competition, clearly articulated priorities allow a choice to be made between those conflicting elements. Priorities may be highly situational and therefore depend on the organizations Beliefs Set structure for stability and continuity.

Priorities establish a sequence of consideration or implementation and ought not to be confused with the elimination or discontinuance of programs or other initiatives (although that may happen independently). Placing elements in priority merely establishes precedence in advance so that choices can be more readily made, and predictable courses of action well articulated for planning purposes -- although this is not a guarantee of effective and efficient implementation.


Tasks.

Individual actions and activities influencing the attainment or sustainment of Objectives - stated or otherwise.

Each group of tasks for a team, work group, or organization is generally unique to an individual. There may be 50 people in a typing pool on day one, for example, but by day 25, the unique task talents of each individual will have begun to separate. Some will do letters better than others, some will be asked to do manuscripts while others will be avoided for this task.

Tasks will always be in competition for time to complete them. Any individual will have more than a single task competing for time at any given moment. Priorities, discussed above, will spring from tasks in competition.

Often, when realigning an existing organization, new tasks not generally already being completed in an organization will be isolated and separately identified. This group of tasks must be compared to the skill sets required for success to determine if the individual or team have the skills needed to perform to established Standards. If the skills are not present, they must be acquired quickly by those expected to support the initiatives being planned.



Copyright 1992 Leadagement Technologies, Inc. -- All rights reserved.
92/12/31