While we eagerly await Jeff’s next episode, let’s consider the following example of City West Water that realised that ‘strategic’ and ‘operational’ didn’t have to be in opposition. This happened many years ago, but the message is just as relevant today.
When Melbourne Water was broken up into a headworks company and three distribution companies, City West found itself the owner of the central and oldest part of the network. One of the earliest problems it had to deal with was the repair/ replace decision. Clearly it could not afford to replace every ageing asset that was giving it problems.
On-the-ground decisions had to be made taking into account not only the condition of the asset but future rehabilitation programs and a range of other strategic considerations. This meant that maintenance crews found themselves assessing the condition of the asset, determining the problem, but unable to operate until the information had been fed up the line and assessed by the strategic asset managers. This was costly, delayed action and frustrated the maintenance crews.
The Strategic Asset Manager decided that in the ‘need to know’ context, the maintenance crews needed to be aware of the strategic decisions that affected their actions. So he ran a series of sessions in which he explained not only the strategic decisions that top management had come to – but why they had made these decisions.
Discussion was apparently quite lively. He answered all the men’s questions and then went with the men out on site. He asked the crews to assess the situation and then recommend the action required, in the light of top management strategic thinking. Within a short period he found that they were making the decisions that he would have made
– and then he let them run with it.
Comment?
In every organisation within which I have worked as employee or consultant; the people responsible for physical maintenance had, as a body, a profoundly detailed knowledge of the infrastructure, its condition and ability to deliver service. The more “guided freedom” they have to control expenditure of resources in maintenance and renewal the more efficient operations become.
Instruments like policy, strategy, tactics and plans need to inform their audiences. Regardless of how delivered (written, audio, video, graphic, database, social media), the message must always be constructed to be of use to the people implementing and operating within those instruments.
Very often a strategy will contain useful items similar to a commitment to smart cities, rapid delivery of service and expedited decision-making. The ability of a workforce to implement such strategic goals is minimal. What is often missing is the commitment (funding and resources) to discover what those strategies mean for the workforce, and what the workforce needs to be able to deliver on them.
The writing of strategy and plans may stop at the point it can be understood by other writers of strategy, professional public servants and advisers. What we need is time and effort spent on determining “what does this mean for the workforce?”.
City West is an excellent example. Although reactive, the communication of strategy and plans to the workforce did happen and did the job!