THE GENESIS OF FAME
James Huzdovich here: FAME originated through a series of engagements completed by myself over a 10-year period. The genesis began with projects in institutional research and the design of a nationwide information system that included decision support algorithms. Although this design was not implemented, users of existing systems implemented the algorithms on an ad hoc basis and the lessons learned provided insight into implementing improvements in existing systems. The genesis then shifted to engagements involving organizational evaluation and graduate research in applying a diagnostic function onto organizational strategy structure, and process. These engagements were augmented by specific tasks in converting data processing systems into bonafide management information systems for several clients in industrial settings. I accomplished the system upgrades by successfully developing and implementing a diagnostic function for the data processing systems that were incorrectly described as “management information systems.” These system upgrades evolved from specific management lessons learned from research and hands-on experiences and lead to a unified management concept.
The last phase of the genesis of FAME culminated in the project work I performed in assisting an industrial facility staff in getting better. This work included a facility-wide reliability-centered maintenance program (RCM), procedural upgrades in 18 major facility maintenance, repair and operations (MRO) areas, an upgrade of the management information system from a data processing system to a bonafide management information system, and training of management and supervisory staff in the functional aspects of management effectiveness (FAME).
The National Data System Project
The purpose of this project was to provide a decision support function to electric utilities in optimizing their expenditure of power plant betterment funds based on operating data. Existing data systems provided data and information but not in the context of decision making and therefore were only data systems not management information systems. One of the main features and objectives of the project was to embed the calculation of power plant reliability and availability statistics in an accessible, automated management information system such that the power plant management staffs could then identify the causes of the loss of production performance from the data used to calculate the statistics through a correlation and causation algorithm. While we completed the management information system design project, it was not implemented. Due to economic and regulatory considerations, an existing data base was used to interface with the algorithms and the algorithms were used to support decisions regarding use of plant betterment funds. Several facilities were able to facilitate use of the two separate systems in a synergistic fashion.
Lesson learned: To change an automated data processing system into a management information system, an analytical function, a decision support process, a feedback network, and a facilitator are required.
Evaluating Organizational Performance
Next up came assignments in evaluating MRO performance at various industrial facilities. What a problem. The evaluation techniques were not adequate to assess organizational performance but were more oriented to assess a manager’s performance. For example, emphasis was placed on trying to characterize an organization by using its organization chart as a basis for determining performance. The department head was accountable for poor performance but not necessarily responsible. Also, the same type facilities often had similar organization charts but the performance could be exactly opposite for the organizations in question. So, the organization charts told you about the formal power and authority (a seating chart) but were silent about why one organization performed better than another. Accompanying the seating chart evaluation approach was a series of seemingly important questions that actually had only superficial value. For example, questions that dealt with responsibility, resource availability and allocation, and training needs were important, but could not be related in a cause-and-effect fashion to organizational performance. These questions were more directly related to human resource issues within the organization. They are descriptive in nature and fall into the category of “woulda, shoulda, coulda” findings and solutions. A question about a deficiency culture at the facility is a better question, especially when backed up by a personal tour of the facility that shows the results of a deficiency culture. It is factual in nature and identifies a specific problem to solve that the management staff can address directly. So, what is needed to evaluate organizational performance? A methodology to assess organizational strategy, structure, and process. This idea laid the groundwork for a major part of FAME which is the Operating Infrastructure, the Manager’s Information Flow Network, and the Decision Support Process all wrapped up in the six system functional areas:
Action-Control-Data Recording-Data Collection/Processing-Analysis-Feedback.
The six system functional areas comprised the core of the organizational performance evaluation methodology. An institutional MRO evaluation agency demonstrated high value in using such an approach in identifying the cause of deficiencies and hence, how to improve performance in the dysfunctional performance areas.
There are six basic system functions as listed above. The lack of any one of these functions reduces the efficient and effective use of resources in achieving results in maximum benefit for a given quality and quantity of resources. In real-world management systems, one may find only partial implementation of the functions which also results in reduced benefits. Considering the above, a reasonable premise is that the effectiveness and efficiency of a management system are directly related to the extent that the six system functions are implemented, i.e., a system function approach to organization evaluations would be beneficial in improving organizational evaluations. The following definitions were used to describe the characteristics of the management system functional areas:
Action (Management Decisions)-The selection of an alternative accompanied by an irrevocable commitment or resources to facilitate implementation.
Control (Supervision)-Communication and seeing to the implementation of the management decision. The exercise of control may be in the context of various management styles, but the extent to which the control function is implemented is the extent to which the activity is managed. (NOTE: Avoid the command-and-control style of management as this style is obviously just supervision)
Data Collection/Processing–As part of the control (supervisory) function, data is recorded regarding events and resources as close to the origin as possible and in a format that is readily adaptable for collection and processing. The data is then arranged, calculated, summarized, and formatted into useful, accessible management information outputs, e.g., reports regarding MRO parameters for a given period.
Analysis-Comparison of performance to plans, standards, and criteria and application of analytical techniques to evaluate courses of action and provide a basis for decision making. The result of this function will be decision alternatives.
Feedback-The selection of and means to collect, process, analyze and provide to management and supervision the key/critical data necessary to make more effective decisions and adjustments. In another sense, the ability to measure the departure of results from goals and objectives and analyze errors to determine corrective action.
Lesson learned: Organizational information flows at the functional level and the functional level is the key to understanding and fixing organizational dysfunction.
Application of the System Function Concept
Identified organizational deficiencies can be examined in terms of the six system functional areas. The grouping of the deficiencies into the functional area categories results in the emergence of a functional cause for the observed organizational deficiencies. A simple example illustrates this process as follows: execution of certain tasks leads to inconsistent results showing a lack of supervision. When this occurs across several disciplines, the focus should shift to the functional area of work control and not focus on the inconsistency of results. Resolve the control problem and the inconsistencies will take care of themselves.
Since the system functions are fundamental and necessary for effective management performance, the following propositions apply:
Organizational Performance Criteria-If the performance criteria are grouped by system function, one could determine the extent of implementation of that function and thus have a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the subject organization activity.
Corrective Action-Corrective action can be based on improving or establishing the system function found deficient.
Consistency-A consistent approach to organizational performance evaluation can evolve since the system functions, hence criteria, are identical from one organization or organizational area to another regardless of what the organization chart tells the evaluator. This allows for determining what must be done to improve organizational performance by addressing functional requirements in performance areas thus avoiding symptomatic issues.
Lesson learned: Understanding the information flow network leads to a better understanding of cause and effect. The information flow network supports organizational diagnostics and formulation of corrective action.
The Final Shaping of FAME
Research results regarding organization and management were coupled with hands-on experiences in assisting various enterprises to get better. This coupling revealed a synergism within the management staffs leading to the development of an introspective dynamic consisting of job, self, and organizational awareness. To actualize this dynamic, FAME was created to capture the essence of this awakening and present it in a training environment as shown in the FAME outline. This resulted in a ”unified theory” of management by integrating nuts and bolts management with the essence of human resource management and the implementation of bonafide management information systems.
The applied results of the FAME concepts at several nuclear-generating facilities were instrumental in getting one station off of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) “watch list” of problem power stations, and in another application, the NRC summed up their views on the results of my consulting work as follows:
“Through review of the results of a self-assessment of the maintenance program titled “Conduct of Maintenance Functional Implementation Specification” and through review of the licensee’s Maintenance Strategic Action Plan, the team determined that the present policies are being modified to better specify management responsibilities for the review and appraisal of the ongoing maintenance program for incorporating industry initiatives to improve long-term program effectiveness…. The licensee has performed a comprehensive and structured review of the adequacy, formality, and consistency of the plant’s maintenance requirements. The licensee has identified policy areas that need better formalization and has taken the steps to accomplish this.”
The work at this station was further documented in an invited paper presented at an “American Nuclear Society International Meeting on Nuclear Power Plant and Facility Maintenance.”
And there you have it! FAME and my two cents on how it may help you get better.