Blending a Distributed Transformation Team

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

It is no secret that Politicians and Senior Executives in the Federal Government are Washington DC based. In the corporate world, they are equivalent to the Corporate Agency Headquarters as well as many regional offices. These HQ’s lead new policies, budget decisions, funding distribution and forming core principles and program direction for defense and civilian programs. Most Senior Executives in DOD and Civilian Agencies are based in DC. So, a common question from agencies, partners, and candidates is why would a transformation and management consulting firm providing government executives be based in Colorado?

In short, the work is not done in DC – its done in the programs. A not very well known fact is that a very large amount of those programs – especially Engineering, Earth, Energy, and Land based programs – are actually run out of Colorado. Colorado has over 53,000 Federal Government employees (Denver Post June 2011), not including federal contractors. The concentration of Federal Labs, Military Bases, Land and Science Program management, and multiple Science and operations centers are the main culprits. Specifically, for the civilian programs, Denver, has over 10,000 Federal Employees and contractors running the operations, hosting, and mission functions for those programs are in and around the Denver Federal Center. A majority of these agencies are Earth or Land Program focused. See a list of over 100 Agencies and functions.. In the commercial world, Denver also has a large presence in Communications, Satellites, Financial, and Restaurant Headquarters given its central U.S. location.

This means for example, DOE EERE in DC sets direction and budget for NREL, but the NREL program R&D National Lab is in Golden, CO performing the Solar, Wind, Biomass, Hydrogen, Geothermal, water power and other renewable studies and preparation for commercialization and technology transfer. Or USGS program headquarters are in Reston, and USGS is located around the world, but a major hub is Denver based with thousands of employees and contractors performing water quality analysis, tracking eathquakes, making geospatial data. 
We have seen two-approaches to transformation in distributed organizations: Headquarter Located Survey models, and Collaborative Blended Location Models

Headquarter Located Survey models: Data Calls

Lets use a Federal Government example. When it comes to program mission transformation or migrating programs to shared services or consolidations, the DC-based Senior Executives set the direction, from DC. DC-based consulting support in transformation for the common executive corporate functions – budget formulation, IT Policy setting, Financial Accounting, Workforce statistics and strategy development, and other more corporate commodity services. 

What gets lost though is the real mission business transformation analysis, ideation buy-in, actual migration issues, consolidation, and recommendation implementation will be in the field.

No corporation survives by “crystal tower” decision making, and thou shalt execution perfection. So, there shouldn’t be any expectation that true transformation needs to include the collaboration – not upward data-call reporting – but transformation working with the non-DC program management to construct the needs, deem the appropriate strategic or tactical improvement opportunities, identify the quality improvement, process efficiencies, lifecycle management changes from supply to enablement to use, and examine the sequence possibilities of their program, investment, system, facility, and asset portfolio.

An example pathing of this mistake is that DC-based executives will ask DC consultants to perform data calls as a way to reach out to programs as a way to collaborate. So, the unknowing consultant creates the template, it looks good – and it really does. Performs the data call (this may include a local visit or literally be a phone call) that no one likes, but needs to be done. But ultimately, the result is flawed in a few ways. Typically, the data call is presented from a corporate point of view void of the unique program mission factors that impact on programs such as: Science Data Management, Geospatial and Geography Services, Earth Observation and Remote Sensing, Natural Resource Planning, Policy, and Protection, Wildland Fire Management, National Environmental Protection Act Management, Land management, Park Management, Agricultural Study, Energy Lifecycle Management, Emergency/Hazards Management, Health Information Management, and other mission Information and Data Engineering & Research.

The DC consultant was brought in for executive corporate analysis, and does not typically have context to the program being done in the field, but does collect the information as requested. Based on that completes a very good analysis of the information provided. Provides some analysis and recommendations based on the data calls input and reception of that in DC.

THEN, the results come back, and the problems start as the saying “garbage in, garbage out” goes. And worse, the strain seen in the public eye between DC and citizens grows very akin to the strain seen between DC and non-DC management. It is widely publicized that DC is very unpopular in the public eye right now, but as well, internal management between beltway decision making and program management are at huge odds due to the same climate of having to respond to the current political climate.

Turns out the system manager who provided the information didnt have the context of the overall policy. The System architect didnt realize a certain integration point and provides several technical reasons of why that cannot work. Managers weren’t on the data call, so some core change context was missed and unfortunately misrepresented, causing consternation and delay in accepting any recommendations and requires further revision. Program executives in hearing all the consternation respond with lack of support towards the initiative fearing another change revolt.

Even though there was a powerpoint giving an overview of the effort, the call was performed flawlessly, and even a web site with some PDFs and facts providing some context, the reality is, it was in the context of the DC-based effort, it still failed. There was no account for the program context and how it is associated to localized change. The executives brought it didn’t come in through the program, so their staff didnt have the proper impetus. And, when the realization of how important it really was came about, it was too late to ask questions.

Collaborative blended location approach for providing Agency and Program Executive Analysis Design and Planning Services

Whether its a Major Data Center Consolidation initiative, move to shared services, migrating financials systems to single point solutions, executive driven efficiencies engagement, or moving up the maturity model chain for that program, a blended model for leveraging outside consultancy in this area helps address – not avoid – these issues much more complete and efficiently, and sometimes less painful.

Xentity’s approach is to engage and involve early and often the programs by working with the local presence – both in DC and in the program presence – which has typically been Denver to date. Denver is in the “Interior” and for the Department of the Interior, for instance who manages 1 in 5 acres of the United States, mostly West of the Mississippi, key DOI presence are in Albuquerque, Sioux Falls, California, Portland, Seattle, etc and similar for USDA and many of those on the list of over 100 Agencies and functions are at the bottom of this article based in Denver. DC isn’t the only place with daily political fires or lacking clear communication directions – Programs have lots of fires too. It seems odd to even say this, but the “Potomac Fever” or Headquarter myopic views tend to forget that programs are more than a robotic factory (even if they are just that). Local response to new technology acquisition governance gone awry. Rogue process or technology developments going the wrong way resulting in server down time or premature application deployment. Standard Workforce management issues causing re-swizzling of assignments. Failure in a processing batch that causes a mini-industrial engineering assessment as to the quality, mechanistic, process, or workforce failure. 

This context – this hands-on context – helps with grounding the recommendations in realities and in context almost in an ethnographic way. Rather than surveying what is happening asking the wrong people out of context, ask the people while they are in context so the right answer is gotten right away with the right perspective and next steps. As well, by being near by, as factors dance around what needs to be discovered, the local context begins to show the true issues that need to be addressed. In the end, by keeping the ideas where the problems are to how they can fit into the target approach tested and ultimately with and by DC-based, the end solution is likely to be more readily implementable, have higher accuracy, mitigate more risks, and, for what its worth, increase corporate morale as the “cheese is moved”.

An example of doing this as a lesson learned at the Department of the Interior, in the latter phases, is for a major financial business and management system consolidation driven from DC, but the DC-led effort also has an on the ground transition team training, triaging, and guiding the local migration issues. The analysis phase did not do this, and resulted in several start and stops, restarts, lawsuits, etc. The original effort considered a handful of systems, a second effort resulted in a dozen, and then a local analysis results in discovering a couple hundred interfaces. It was at this point, the DC-led team started to look at batches and phases, based on locational presence and complexity. It is still a very difficult problem transitioning one-hundred plus year old accounting processes into a modern single financial service, but the local presence in both places has resulted in later batches having increased success.

How Xentity executes the local presence blended model
Xentiy is Colorado based but with staff in both Colorado and DC amongst other client headquartered areas. All staff will be trained in our Services Catalog, transformation methods, and leadership qualities. An added advantage is our cost of living adjustment over DC headquarters is passed on through our general administration and overhead costs. This, on top of our 8(a) acquisition benefits and Commercial and GSA Schedules, and partner agreements help get started quickly as we are very accessible.
 
Headquarter Local Consulting – Our or are prime partner staff can support on-site the Senior Executives are responding to political pressures, last-minute calls for action, and advisory and supporting consultants will get pulled in for quick response. If you are not in DC, you can quickly be put out of mind as you are out of sight which in this model is a benefit, so the Denver-based staff can focus on the program management and design needs. In addition, we train our staff or select partners who are well versed in the Corporate context, jargon, lingo, portfolio, players in that agency to help accelerate ramp-up.
Program Local Consulting – Our Colorado based staff bring the actual mission subject matter expertise analysis, design, and planning skillset where it tends to be. They are trained on the earth, land, and mission subjects. They work with the programs, and as well, living in the Interior of the United States, next to Federal Lands, Recreating in National Lands, and experiencing the wonders and threads (Wildland Fire, Water, Climate) issues of the Interior tend to build an internal drive as well. This means our staff will be familiar with the
  • Metro-based Hosting, engineering, Technical, research, Service or Operation Center effiiciencies, status, portfolio current state and key influencers in various agencies, bureaus, and programs. 
  • Understand the Laboratory Portfolio of work and challenges for technology transfer and quality, yet efficient science that the Denver Metro based national and regional labs encounter
  • Trust factors and gaps between DC decision makers and Denver-based upper management. 
Xentity recommends a blended model to help with better understanding of the true program portfolio, understand the value chain as it goes through the actual centers, and also, help build the bridge of better understanding, clarity, increased context and risk mitigation between Headquarter (DC) and major Programs and Centers. This engages the Program Middle Management, Labs, Centers to be inclusive, like in any transformational leadership guide, allows the solution to be collaboratively developed to better help mitigate risks in migrations, understand the true portfolio alternatives, sequencing, and again, and building trust. 

 

Xentity chosen to help re-arch data.gov

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

Xentity has been brought on as subcontractor to Phase One Consulting Group to support adding geospatial and help update some of the user discovery and supplier coordination patterns for data.gov

UPDATE 11/2011:

  • Xentity delivered architecture recommendations in early 2011
  • data.gov implemented the first phase of the architecture by retiring and initial migration of geodata.gov to geo.data.gov
  • Future phase recommendations are procurement sensitive, but project results were very exciting to see where data.gov could go.
  • What does geodata.gov mean to data.gov – Xentity Supports presenting Architecture findings at International Data Conference.

What are our Integrated Change Management Concepts

Blog post
added by
Wiki Admin

Improve Performance – Plan and Manage your change

Your project, program, or organization leadership typically hinges on your effectiveness to implement relevancy. Usually that means improving performance or integrating change – both of which helps garner the goals.

Issues clients may encounter requiring these services include:

  • Program Management: Few delivered on time, on budget, on scope, on quality. Sponsorship lacking, not insuring/governing/buying risk, still not agile PM
  • Planning to the beast and not the customer: There is a fear at operational level of making decisions that lead to a innovative approaches or straying from norm – risk adverse. And why not, what is the reward for doing things better?
  • Your Team is thinking about surviving, not thriving: Is your mission management model or system designed to manage sustained change and transition proactively and built into the culture? Or is it setup to run operations, and as issues come up, react distinctly to each issue. You may have organizing units by a product or service, but are your metrics setup about growing, increasing relevancy?
  • Enterprise Planning flavor of the day: Due to either past failures, or perception that new approaches are repackaged ways tried before kills internal buy-in towards integrated or collaborative techniques. Enterprise architecture, team functional/segment analysis, or agile project management may have been “tried” before, but instead of evaluating failure as tried to take on too much scope, other factors not resolved above, or simply, was over-engineered, are usually not labelled as the cause. The baby gets thrown out with the bath water or enterprise planning gets tossed aside due to lack of leadership, mistrust or burn-out.
  • Shopping hungry (aka Funding Mismatch): You have a great new change plan, great new architecture, but its unfunded both short and long-term. How do you work within your budget which is a constraining variable in all work formulas precluding optimization across elements. These may be synthesized or aggregated – mixed and matched as you see fit. Some programs may actually be funded right, but key functions of program budget are misaligned limiting what can be accomplished as a whole.

Many of these issues need to be addressed before engaging in a change management initiative, and many may be noted as part of the new change plan. But a concept, or set of recommendations is just that. There needs to be a way to continue buying back the risk of implementing the changes in an integrated, efficient, and effective pattern.

Our management services focus on introducing the right performance management or/and change management tools to help your initiatives achieve.

We use an Integrated Change Approach

The key to Xentity’s success at executing  business transformation, governance, and excellence in communication management has been in the knowledge of how to integrate and tie all domains of program engagements together to create a sum value greater than the individual parts. In 2006, Xentity published an approach on enterprise planning business intelligence and management for the Department of the Interior to improve the change management coordination between CIO investment and information management including CyberSecurity, Privacy, Capital Planning and Investment Control, Enterprise Architecture, Project Management Plans and coordinating OMB required PAR and other strategic performance reports. In commercial organizations, some of the rigor, policy, or other aspects may very, but the tenets remain the same.

To make changes among these previously disparate and uncoordinated efforts, an Integrated Change management approach was recommended. This includes an integrated oversight of the parts that need to be connected, understood, and communicated prior to significant investment, supported by excellent  communication and project management skills to facilitate the changes.

This is crucial to the executing of enterprise information management, program management offices (PMOs),and data lifecycle management concepts with multiple driving force directions pulling on it (i.e. policy change, regulations and compliance, mission direction including strategic plans and transformation blueprints, and change budget pressures). These approaches help ensure Enterprise Architecture plays a key role in being a coordination component to organizing strategic principles, product and service roadmaps, transformational blueprint recommendations, and resulting plans such as product, capital, integrated strategic, and even future business cases, yet at same time, is just one of many key change leadership and management components. 

Architecture Method Overview

Blog post
added by
Wiki Admin

In 2004, Xentity supported the Department of the Interior CIO office (OCIO and all bureaus in implementing a DOI standard Methodology for Business Transformation (MBT) and governance.

 This approach built on using appropriately collaborative facilitated approach and balanced level of analysis to discovering such business improvement (i.e. process, data, application, technologies, resources, budget) to meet the mission needs. Through all these Xentity has supported IT and Business Resource Objectives addressing avoiding problems such as Paving Cow Paths, Resistance to Change Planning, RedundantBuyingProgram Management, Poor Modernization Blueprints, Islands ofAutomation, Poor Cyber Security and several other anti-pattern core architecture concepts

The method results in a sequenced set of strategic improvement opportunity set of recommendations that can be fed into a facilitated Enterprise Architecture management construct (i.e. Program Management Office, Governance, supporting service). Meaning, we do tend to prescribe to enter in Segment Architecture level first:

Source: OMB (FINAL_FEA_Practice_Guidance_2006121406.pdf)

Though enterprise architecture often provides and defines a set of high-level decisions that will strongly influence the integrity and structure of the system, but is not itself the structure of the program or the system which is what the business is in need of.

And solution architecture is where the system structures are created, taking into account system priorities and constraints, and ensuring that the system will achieve the system objectives and architectural requirements. This work is informed and constrained by the decisions made in the Enterprise architecture typically for technology, but the business will need to define its own compromise of scope, timing, qualities, etc, based on its budget allocations it negotiated with the enterprise.
While it is true, the segment analysis will struggle to not simply reinvent itself into another silo without enterprise architecture Guidelines and Policies to help maintain workforce strategies and system integrity guiding or constraining lower-level system design and workforce tactics.This is why a method for approaching segment architecture definition, with re-usable patterns connected to the program and enterprise line of sight is so important. Otherwise, without engaging at the segment, typically, the program will be in the hands of the IT cost or service center, which may not, and many times does not, have purview into the overall program nor enterprise domain, thus workforce, I/T Specialists and Software Programmers, tend to develop their own subset of technology code, lack refactoring guidance, and we are back into lacking the Architecture Concepts and into those anti-patterns again.

Developing a Clear Line of Sight

The Method development – which can be reviewed in the blog on “Developing a Transformation Approach” had its basis in developed a clear line of sight between needs from the business and analyzing the programs goals, its portfolio of products and services, process effectivity and efficienices, and supporting workforce and systems, with an understanding of the capaital and operational investment for that total cost of ownership view. 

The program or segment view would be compared against other enterprise or common resources, patterns, and capabilities for improvements. These findings, based on where strategically the core team would seek opportunities to improve, would be analyzed for alternatives ways to address, progress, or resolve issues and provide a key set of sequenced recommendations aligned with the organizations capability to absorb the change and the organizations longevity factors for not addressing the change.

In summary, some key tactics leveraged are:

  • Help the design be vet into client process, acquisition language and principles
  • Assure a reasonable investment plan by aligning with executive directives
  • Use the core principle best practice analysis built into design for implementers
  • Collaborative based designs improve likelihood of implementation success
  • Communications is primarily strategic outside of the core team to gauge interest and reaction i.e. Knowledge Management, Chess, Sun-Tzu, Movie Production

Where is the method today?

The core principles, and a large portion of the analysis methods and tools has since been used as the core of the OMB’s Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM). As well, Xentity has been tapped by the OMB Chief Architect to support in further revisions of FSAM given Xentity’s handsHon practitioner and thought leadership in the transformation space.

This method, which has been used to support over twenty blueprints at DOI and Bureaus, is now a federal standard for approach coordinated efforts for EA-driven change. As a specific example, Xentity has provided such support since 2007 to the USGS National Geospatial Program (NGP) in coordination with the USGS Science Strategy and NGP Strategic Plan development. Xentity’s experience with USGS NGP gives a proven understanding of what it will take to support the USGS objective of implementing DOI Geospatial Modernization Blueprint recommendations for standardization and optimization of geospatial data and services. Xentity supported the collaboratively created and completion of four transformative and modernization blueprints in response, and is strongest positioned to support the shift towards executing, monitoring, and supporting the implementation of those blueprint recommendations.

Using these tools, Xentity has supported DOI and USGS since 2003 in Enterprise Architecture. In such, in 2004, Xentity supported DOI in its first blueprints. In 2007 thru 2009, Xentity supported USGS achieve tactical modernization in its delivery services and planning functions. In 2009 through 2011, Xentity supported the creation of 4 modernization and transformation blueprints within USGS National Geospatial Program.