top of page
IT Service Delivery Restoring Respect In a Contentious Relationship
Problem:
This large automotive divisional CIO’s reputation was in peril – “I hear snickers from my colleagues on the Senior Leadership Team when I present my plan for future technology – they say ‘Dave, how can we believe you; you can’t even deliver a damn PC in a reasonable amount of time!’” Six months later, this changed so dramatically it became a rallying cry for the CIO: “If we could do THAT, what’s stopping us?!” On first impression, his predicament seemed to be a process improvement problem – but digging deeper, this was about restoring trust and credibility.
Initial situation:
Iron clad 3rd party Service Level Agreements (SLAs) had to be offset by hand-carried expedites to get IT related things when you needed them. To make matters worse, a full-time team of IT ‘smart hands’ were needed to fix delivered solutions, which happened 84% of the time. Fingers pointed in every direction and resentment wasn’t being hidden; it was downright toxic. Business Unit managers were irate, and they laid the blame squarely on Dave.
As outside consultants brought in to straighten out the mess, we asked about process documents. We were shown a series of ‘red folders’ that contained forms and steps to follow for requesting anything you wanted – that is, assuming you could find the right folder. We were advised that two systems were used – one on the front end for employees and managers to enter and submit IT requests, the other on the backend for sequencing and marshalling delivery by the 3rd party vendor. When asked about process delivery metrics, the 3rd party vendor showed us a whole array of queue metrics that were all ‘well within SLA’ compliance.
Diagnosis:
Constructing control charts clarified end-to-end process performance, as seen below, indcated an average cycle time was approximately 26 days, with an upper limit of 72 days – meaning expected delivery of any new submission required between 1-72 days, not counting time required to ‘fix’ what was delivered 84% of the time. No wonder the business unit managers were unhappy!
Reconciling the cycle time differences with the 3rd party vendor revealed an admission that gave them an out – called ‘carve outs’. Anytime there was a problem with the request, the clock stopped until the issue was resolved. For example, if a price had to be agreed on a non-standard item, the clock stopped. If the item being requested was not on hand, the clock stopped. Turns out there were any number of reasons for stopping the clock. According to the 3rd party, the problem was on the client side; their approach worked like ‘clockwork’ when the process was followed!
Another problem that surfaced upon further questioning was how the 3rd party ‘marshaled’ the process. They had adopted an ‘assembly line’ approach i.e., a series of queues that work was moved into, completed, and then moved onto the next queue based on logically worked out sequences. This was part of their core IP, and they had metrics to prove it worked.
Diagnosing coordination effectiveness from the perspective adapted from the 4-phase Flores-Winograd action cycle shown below, this process reflects a pathology we call ‘working from the queue’ wherein the ‘performer’ i.e., 3rd party staff, see their job as “doing what I’m told”, with no real sense of taking care of a customer i.e., the person making the request. In fact, no single person is accountable for delivery – the system is accountable!
As a result, the two organizations functioned as tribal cultures -- each with its own entrenched Vision, Products, Operations, and KPIs – finding themselves all too often with conflicting priorities and sub-par performance, far from synergistic culture envisioned when the union of the two companies was conceived.
Intervention:
To put a foundation in place that would enhance performance, we advised the CIO to orient the end-to-end process based on a simple question to frame a common Objective: “what promise, if reliably kept, would satisfy the business unit managers and their employees?” The heart of good coordination is always centered on fulfilling agreed upon conditions of satisfaction, within a background of an established desired outcome. In this case, the desired outcome was getting employees working productively quickly, upon getting hired, being promoted to a new role, or transferred to a new function.
After a bit of back and forth between managers and 3rdy party management, a shopping cart of products and services was agreed, provided they could be delivered in ‘a reasonable amount of time.’ This included combinations of things employees needed to do their work – e.g., laptops, software, printers, cell phones, and even cubicle.
Soon after a Core Team (represented from both sides), mapping out a process, focusing on how much time was needed for major phases of the process e.g. the time needed to compose and authorize a valid request (i.e. ‘special’ requests required higher level authorization), customize the delivery sequence, coordinate all the queue functions needed for delivery, and ensure it worked when delivered. Eventually, a ’10-day promise’ was established and the engagement was dubbed “QuickStart.”
Two key factors were central to the new process:
Configuring an Operation that was aligned around accountability, especially in regard to a new Service Delivery Manager role, now the single point of accountability for delivery, as shown in figure 4. This required a shift in service tower managers; they now had to answer to a ‘customer’ who was not their functional boss, but nonetheless, someone who needed to be satisfied with their work on every single IT Delivery iteration.
Deploying an application that provided end-to-end visibility, with built in alerts. This also gave customers visibility to the status of their orders – something they didn’t have before. The tool selected to manage the process had built in control charts with drill down to ‘action history’ on each submission. This proved invaluable for uncovering ‘root causes’ that had to be worked out during initial deployment.
Results: Within four months of initiation, QuickStart was reliably delivering the 10 day promise, as can be seen in figure 5. The process was deemed ‘capable’ of achieving the desired performance. Notably, quality improved dramatically as well.
But the biggest win was a shift in mood – from resentment to respect. Gone were the expedites. When problems surfaced, the fingers were more apt to point inward. Pride and confidence replaced skepticism and resentment. The CIO could now lead his peers in discussions about the future without worrying about the snickers. He’d restored a trusted partner status.
In the final analysis, what can be learned from this case study is the power of leveraging resilience to enhance synergy by creating a mutually aligned Strategic Framework -- even among tribally structured organizations. More details about performance-based cultures and how they can be enhanced can be found by visiting our website.
bottom of page