Saturday, March 31, 2012

Find the Truth Brief


All information has the elements of being, virtue, and essence. In this post, we are concerned with virtue or truth.  Understanding the scope and limits of truth is fundamental to resolving challenges. Operations and project managers must somehow figure out the strength of information fed to them. Some truths are assumptive and others are fact based. Truth based on assumptions are only as strong as the validity of the assumptions. In the Strength of Truth Scale, Figure 1, truth ranges from a correspondent theory of truth to the epistemological theory of truth.

Figure 1: Strength of Truth Scale
While these are grand sounding terms they are quite simple. Correspondent truths are empirical and fact based. For example, water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.  The epistemological truth is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. Epistemic truth is built upon a set of good assumptions at the outset and then explores sound reasoning for higher level arguments. A good assumption is one that is supported through sound inductive or deductive logic and not out of some sort of personal sense of what is good. Simply put, various worldviews begin with a set of assumptions that lead to different conclusions. Unfortunately, not all assumptions are well supported through inductive or deductive  logic. For example, some cosmological beliefs make the assumption that the universe is self-perpetuating despite the lack of evidence to inductively arrive at that conclusion. The well accepted Law of Diminishing Returns and Godel’s Law of Incompleteness both remark that self-perpetuation is impossible. Nonetheless, the assumption of a self-perpetuating universe is made in order to explore thoughts and possible outcomes of a self-perpetuating universe also known as abiogenesis in evolution. Despite the underlying foundational truth being unsupported, higher order reasoning has the appearance of support built on correspondant truths relative to the weak or unsupported epistemic truth. Worldviews are built exclusively upon epistemological truths and often use correspondent truths in order to justify the higher level arguments within the worldview.

Unfortunately, many people are not genuinely interested in an accurate truth. Instead, they choose a truth for various personal or political motives then desperately seek to validate that truth often to the chagrin of hoaxes, pseudo-sciences, fallacies, and poor reason. The objective is to keep the discussion focused on the strongest epistemic truth that is best harmonized with the sound reasoned arguments. These sound reasoned arguments must demonstrate that all the laws, assumptions, and premises are not contradictory demonstrating internal consistency to the original epistemic truths. This is taking into account the whole or whollistic thinking.

A Duty To The Strongest Truth

A project manager often has to deal with many cultures undergirded by Worldviews. Worldviews affect pretty much everything humans do and think. For example, Todd Pitock discusses in his article Science and Islam in Conflict that the Prophet, El Naggar, claims there are 360 joints in the body and that Islamic researchers corroborate the Prophet's claim as such knowledge is only given by Allah. However, the secular medical community reports that the number of joints varies from person to person having on average 307 joints (Pitock, 2008, p 226). The problem demonstrated by Pitock is a lense or filter that does not take into account the empirical findings. While project managers may not deal with issues of the number joints, project managers will deal with these lenses and filters that color truths. Truths influenced by culture and worldviews must be reconciled demonstrating beauty. This beauty is not an erotic beauty but instead an appreciative and harmonizing beauty. A beauty that demonstrates fluid relationships and synchronous charm of the claims made. Nonetheless, there are some fallacies humans commit regularly that disrupt the beauty and weaken truth which leads further into a problem of credible intellectual inquiry that plagues much of the discourse today.

Credible Inquiry

Intellectual inquiry is the rigorous process through which questions are postulated and credible answers are achieved. Reason and commonsense are not one and the same. Reason is the ability to move beyond awareness to develop logical understanding. Whereas commonsense is when an argument appeals to  innate sensibilities. When the discussion comes to truly difficult, obscure, or deep issues there is a human temptation to retreat to unreasoned beliefs often wrongfully calling it commonsense. To deal with this the ancient Greek philosophers attempted to establish formalized human reasoning using unassailable rules of logical deduction. The Greeks would stand upon flat elevated rocks and orate views to those who gathered, questions would be asked and reasoned answered given. In more current times, stereotypical intellectuals would sit in high back leather chairs and smoke pipes in dimly lit mahogany rooms and exchange views. Today, in communities of disciplined thought questions are carefully asked, answers are sought with deliberate rigor, findings are reasoned then published for peer review. The purpose of such conversations is not as much to espouse views, gain followers, or confirm a belief but to discern the strength or weakness of a particular finding based on evidence and reason. This is the model for not only scientific investigation but project managers who need to get at underlying and hidden issues in their projects.

Despite the very rigorous process of drawing conclusions from data in a scientific investigation, common discussions in the public sphere commit numerous fallacies that project managers may encounter. Jamie Whyte argues in his book, “Crimes Against Logic”, that many people feel that their opinions are somehow sacred. They possess a sense that others should handle their opinions with tremendous reverence. They are not open to thoughts that they could be incorrect. Often people argue they have a right-to-an-opinion when disputed in order to deflect the dispute to a discussion of rights. Whyte comments that when there is a right, there is also a duty. He further asks three questions:
  1. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to agree? NO. Both parties have the right to their own opinions and agreeing would violate the right. The duty to support another opinion violates one’s own right to an opinion.
  2. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to listen? NO. Listening to unlimited opinions is not practical. Thus, it cannot be a duty that is fulfilled naturally.
  3. Does a right-to-an-opinion allow an opinion to persist? NO. Any entitlement or merit to an opinion, in an epistemic sensibility, is founded upon good reason such as evidence or sound logic.
If there is a right-to-an-opinion then such a right cannot settle disputes because another’s rights cannot be violated (Whyte, 2004).  There is paradoxical tension in this right if no one can be right and no one can be wrong. Hence, there cannot be a right-to-an-opinion because the duties cannot be executed naturally or practically.

The matter-of-opinion needs to be addressed as well. Whyte furthers his concept remarking that a matter-of-opinion has no objective standard by which to judge. He comments that facts do not rely on opinions and facts do not emerge by having a mere belief in them. Therefore, matters-of-opinion are not relevant, demonstrate no clear understanding, and should not exist. Authoritative opinions do not rely on a voice or character as evidence but instead rely on solid logic, evidence, and reasoned expertise to decide within certain limits or scope of a discipline of thought or responsibility. A fallacy emerges when literal authority is confounded with metaphorical authority transferring truth as a matter-of-fact outside the scope or limits of expert’s literal authority (Whyte, 2004). Transferring truths outside of one’s literal authority has become a challenge in current public dialogues involving scientific inquiry. Everyone seems to be an armchair expert. 

In addition to the challenge of transferring truths outside the limits of literal authority, is credible inquiry. During a speech made by Michael Crichton at CalTech, Crichton called the famous Drake Equation used by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, SETI, a serious-looking equation. He suggested that the equation gave SETI a footing as legitimate intellectual inquiry. Then Mr. Crichton exposed a fallacy with the formula remarking that none of the terms can be known or reasonably estimated. He comments that the formula is simply prejudice. He concludes that the Drake equation is pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings (Crichton, 2003). Again this a demonstration when a truth is being pursued through the appreance of legitimate inquiry.  Project managers may encounter this problem with financial justifications and other studies that have prejedice or bias built in to them.

In conclusion, today’s public sphere is wrought with a lack of honest discourse. Sides draw a line and square off before throwing irreverent jabs at each other’s desperate attempt to prove their choice of a truth. Discussions and debates are often met with vile rejection of opposing viewpoints that are often based on a high confidence in a personal opinion that pre-empts the searches for understanding and truth. Simply put conclusions come before the research. Worse yet is condemnation-without-investigation which assumes that truth is already known and is very dangerous in projects. Many believe that each human has a right-to-an-opinion which never resolves the dispute but prolongs the banter. Incumbent upon all humans is a duty to pursue, advocate, listen, evaluate, and embrace the strongest truth avoiding opinions. The ole adage still applies; the strongest truth will set you free. Once free of pseudo-sciences, fallacious rights, and weak arguments, one may meaningfully arrive at greater successes. 

For the project manager, success mean projects that complete under budget and on schedule with the grade of excellence desired. The project manager must always focus the effort on the project. For example, arguments and debates between indivuduals need to be refocused between the project and an individual. People enjoy fantastizing which can obfuscate truth. Einstein once remarked, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” (Calaprice, 2005, pg 9).  The human imagination helps unlock knowledge making breakthroughs. Nonetheless, there is a difference between the sage use of the imagination and fantasy truths. Again the project manager needs to be on guard for presumptions of having the truth or truths that are of fantasy.  

Truth is not evasive. Although, one must persue truths seeking the strongest support for truth. The project manager has such a duty to truth and the resultant ethics during a project. 

References:

Calaprice, Alice (2005)  The New Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press

Critchton, Michael (January 17, 2003) Aliens Cause Global Warming, Referenced June 14, 2009 from www.MichaelCrichton.com

Pitock, T. (2008). The best american science and nature writing: science and islam in conflict. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. pp 224-237.

Whyte, Jamie, (2004) Crimes Against Logic, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-144643-5

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Earned Value Management Made Easy?

Earned Value Management Made Easy?

Earned Value Management, EVM, made easy? Is that possible? Perhaps much of the confusion can be found in conflicted terminology and the abstract thought of numbers. The Federal Government has a program under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, DAWIA, that has from the 1960's established cost performance measures of projects. The Project Management Institute, PMI, closely follows the Federal Governments methodology.  The different terminology contributes to confusion, Table 1. 

          Table 1: Earned Value Management Cross Terminology
CROSS - TERMINOLOGY
PMIGovernment
Earned Value ManagementEVMBCWPBudgeted Cost Work Performed
Planned ValuePVBCWSBudgeted Cost Work Scheduled
Actual CostACACWPActual Cost Work Performed

The idea behind EVM is to track project schedule and cost progess in relation to the plan. Thus, EVM is only as good as the project manager's estimates and plan. If the plan is unrealistic then that has serious implications for the project manager. The trick is too manage the project schedule and cost as close to the plan as possible. The ideal project would have both cost and shedule converging on the plan at the end. However, most projects go over the planned budget and schedule for a variety of reasons most often being changes. 

Essentially, the project manager baselines the project which is the plan then tracks actual cost and time to complete work packages. This actual information, also known as actuals, is then compared the plan to determine if the project is ahead or behind schedule or if cost are under or over the planned cost. Earned Value, EV, is nothing more than the sum value of completed workpackages to date. Likewise, Planned Value, PV, is nothing more than the sum value of planned workpackages to to date.

EV = Σ (hourly rates) x (hours worked)

PV = Σ (hourly rates) x (hours planned)

The project manager looks at the relationship between EV and PV during the project to determine project status. In Figure 1 the project is behind schedule and under planned cost. Whereas, in Figure 2 the project is Over planned cost and behind schedule. A shifting of the EV curve up or down indicates either an increase or savings in cost for the project on a whole. A shift upward may be due to labor cost increases resulting from a Union strike causing an increase in pay for example. A shift downward may be caused by cost savings resulting from a renegotiated contract with outsourced services following a dispute.



From the basic relationships between PV and EV other measurements are determined. For example the Cost Performance Index, CPI, and Schedule Performance Index, SPI.  These indexes hover around 1.0.  Index values over 1 indicate more than planned cost or ahead of schedule. Indexes less than 1 indicate cost savings or behind schedule.

CPI =  EV / AC

SPI = EV / PV

Other indexes are used as well for forecasting and estimating outcomes. Once the project manager has a behavioral grasp of the concepts then the numbers and formulas become second nature. However, before these numbers can mean anything, the project manager must develop strong estimates for the planned values and have a grasp of the error in the estimates. 

Sunday, March 25, 2012

What is Win-Win?

Comment: Over the years, I have watched the commercialization and commoditization of operation management practices. Consulting firms, professional organizations, and marketing companies take operation managment practices packaging them into programs and certifications then marketing them to industries for non-operations management professionals often in lieu of Master degree's. This practice dramaitically increased during the 1990's. In some cases, older certifications or programs were repackaged and sold again as a new program.  In this post, I want to focus on Win-win discussing what it is and is not.  

What is Win-Win?

Many people think of Win-Win as the everyone gets something equally, an even split. Others think of Win-Win as some sort of compromise where every everyone gets a little something they want and gives up a little something in the process. In truth, Win-Win is not either of these outcomes. Win-Win may be a little overstated and more of a way of negotiating outcomes than negotiating contracts. For a project manager and/or operations manager Win-Win is the art of managing people in the projects and operations. 

Win-win is not compromise, an even split, relationship building, or achieving satisfaction. Win-win is better known as integrative negotiations which leverage all creative opportunities leaving no resources on the table. The telltale signs of win-win are:
  • Does the negotiation contain more than one issue?
  • Can more issues be brought in?
  • Can side deals be cut?
  • Do the involved parties preferences vary across all the issues?
The idea behind Win-Win is to bring multiple issues to the table and refocus the negotiations in such a way that a modicum of outcomes is found benefiting holistically the organization or project. The tactics that work during discussions include perspective taking, asking questions, information sharing, unbundling issues, package deals, and simultaneous offers.

Win-Win can be used by project managers on a routine basis to manage conflict and personalities in addition to negotiating contracts. For example, two principles on a project are engaged in a heated debate that is escalating becoming more personality than professional. The project manager may view the heated debate as counter productive and decides to inject. Using Win-Win tactics, the project manager first takes each persons perspective learning their issues asking pertinent questions. The project manager then shares information about the project refocusing the debate issues between the project and the individual opposed to between individuals solely as he unbundles the issues. Then he may incorporate elements of each argument into the project in a package deal benefiting the project. Had the project manager not refocused the argument between the individuals then a win-lose battle would have been sought.

Win-Win can be a valuable tool negotiating contracts and the paradigm can also be applied to conflict resolution. Win-Win has little to do with compromise and more to do with finding the modicum of outcomes that benefit the organization and/or project over the individual. Although, the individual achieves satisfaction in recieving benefit from the higher preference issues on the table. Win-Win is really a way of life or a way of conducting business. The skills, strategies, and tactics come with training and experience. Win-Win, even though an overstated program, has valuable elements that if applied well benefit everyone. 

Friday, March 16, 2012

The Tiger Team Improves Outcomes

Comment: Often complex or elusive problems arise that require a special look. Tiger teams are one way to achieve this special look. The tiger team is a short term specialized team. The more diverse the team's expertise the more precise and accurate the solution possible.  

Tiger Teams Improve Outcomes

Many companies have hired consultants to solve a problem, analyze situations, and inject fresh ideas into their organizations. A challenge with consultants is they often have preferences for solutions, can be product evangelists, and are limited to thier own experiences and education. Essentially, consultants are one or a few persons in a crowd. The book Wisdom of Crowds, by author James Surowiecki, presents the concept that a crowd is smarter and wiser than any one person in the crowd. The notion goes further as crowds have network models that possess probabilistic outcomes based on Baynesian mathematical principles. Surowiecki offers an example in which there was a down US Navy submarine in the Atlantic whose location was unknown. In a rush to locate the submarine a Navy Commander assembled several teams of various knowledge bases to locate the down submarmine. The best individual estimate was out of the playing field. The best team was miles away. When all the team estimates were take into account through Baynesian mathematical formulation the estimate was off by feet.  The conclusion is that the crowd of experts was far more accurate than anyone person in the crowd. How can a business apply the concept in a cost effective manner?

The tiger team has been the solution for solving complex issues. The concept originated from aerospace design efforts in which the complex interrelated issues of spacecraft and aircraft design were vetted and resolved. Since then the tiger team has spread to a variety of other technical fields to include emergency management and information technology. However, the tiger team can be utilized in nearly any business setting. 

When assembling a tiger team, members are selected for their expertise in a specialized area of knowledge. Member character traits include energy level, imagination, and creativity. Team members may use mind tools of combinatory play, image streaming, mind mapping, and other instruments of creativity and imagination. The use of multiple teams could be pitted against each other. For example, in the military the Red Team is the enemy and the Blue Team are allied forces. In business, the Red Team could be a direct competitor or market forces against the company or supply chain who is a Blue Team.  The ultimate goal of a Tiger Team is to stress the imagination in order to vet out new market possibilites or harden the business against austere business conditions.  

Tiger Teams have been incorrectly used as well. Tiger teams should not firefight gapped business issues, expedite operational shortfalls, or as a think tank. The Tiger Team is different than a Think Tank.  Think tanks are purely intellectual and folly with theory based or radical thinking approaches. The tiger team is more normative thinking having direct affects on immediate issues.  Think tanks are also more long term. Also the tiger team should not be a long term solution or institutionalized as a stable routine process in the operations. This is a misuse of the tiger team.

Correctly utilizing tiger teams, organizations can improve outcomes over the use of a consultant or consultation groups. Tiger teams, if structured, properly can reduce bias and produce more reliable results. Organizations utilizing Six Sigma may already be utilizing the Tiger Team to some extent. However, the Six Sigma team is often limited to "Champions", "Master Black Belts", "Black Belts", "Green Belts", along with local or internal staff. They may understand and mentor the process but can introduce bias into the solution.  Tiger Teams resource people based on their expertise and not so much their locality to the problem.  

Sailors always start their stories with, "This is the honest truth so help me God." Well, this is really a true story so help me God. In Jacksonville, Fl a large organization was conducting Six Sigma / lean continuous improvement projects in order to find cost savings. In the airframe shop was a 55 gallon drum that collected water.  The water needed to be checked every day then dumped if any water had collected. The over the years staff turned over and several Six Sigma teams had come through looking for cost saving measures. At first, a hose was placed on the drum to replace the manpower required to check and dump the accummulated water. Then a sump pump was added at some point to deal with the rapid intake of water at times in order to prevent flooding. Six Sigma teams did analysis indicating that with regular preventive maintenance schedules pump failures could be reduced thus saving more money. Over the years the barrel showed up in executive level briefings being herald as cost saving successes. This alleged success coupled with others was not showing the cost savings they were hoping to achieve. So leadership commissioned a tiger team. One of the first actions of the Tiger Team was to question why was the barrel collecting water in the first place. As it turned out, many years prior the organization had constrained budgets and could not afford to repair the roof so the barrel was emplaced to collect water from the leak. The early installation had a drip pans fashioned from scrap aluminum sheets to collect the water in the rafters then duct the water into the barrel.  The Tiger team suggested repairing the roof and eliminating the barrel altogether. Being close to the problem presents some challenges in finding the correct solution. Tiger teams are most often outside the processes offering stronger perspectives. 

Tiger teams work to identify solutions and outcomes to complex situations with heightened precision and accuracy on technical issues and fresh looks on not so technical issues that otherwise would have not been possible.

References:

Surowiecki, J (2005). Wisdom of crowds. Anchor books. New York.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Designing an Operation: Complex Adaptive Management

Commentary: This a further discussion on the Operations Management series regarding complex adaptive systems. Once the nodal conversion is made, the next level is to manage the communications and organization of the nodes.  The why, who, where, what, and when will be addressed regarding the management of the network.


Complex Management Adaptive Management

Under traditional Six Sigma and lean events, an inefficiency is identified then efforts are under taken to correct the inefficiency and then the event is complete as the team moves on. The identified inefficiency is found using the DMAIC process and to some extent preference. Many of these inefficiencies hae arisen out of poor implementation of new projects and organizational design due to ever changing leadership vision and the rush to results. Other ineffiencies arise from regulations and environmental conditions that force fit or drive awkward processes and operations. In order to prevent introducing inefficiencies, Six Sigma has the DMADV process.  The DMAIC and DMADV methods are quality processes that have been extended to business processes other than manufacturing processes. Six Sigma and lean projects are continuous; require costly labor, certifications, and time; and are limited to identified issues that can be subjective despite the intensive analytical efforts involved. Both the DMADV and DMAIC processes are cause and effect based and outside the normal operations. What if the organization  was adaptive to new projects and environmental conditions by design in the first place? This is possible with complex adaptive systems.

If designed correctly complex adaptive systems can respond to changes in near real time. One key metric is organizational latency which is the time to correct a problem from the instant of identification to the instant of recieving the full benefit. Minimizing organizational latency saves cost and strengthens time-to-market / impact efforts. Organizational latency under Six Sigma and lean is very high because the process is external to the operation. Teams outside the process look at the situation in order to determine the corrective action then apply that to the operation at some point in the future. That is Six Sigma and lean are applied to the operation rather than a part of the operation. The identification of a problem, the measurements,  and analysis are required because the team is usually not familiar with the situation and is seeking confirmation and identification of the suspected issue.  Complex adaptive systems are designed in a way that adaptive nodal networks adjust to changes as they emerge as opposed to traditional organizational approaches that have huge latencies.

Nodes are assigned a unique set of related activity-processes and are the single source for the organization for those activity-processes. There is a irreducible state in order to provide the activity-services supported by the node. Contraction beyond that state either causes the node to be outsourced or otherwise non-functional.  Expansion of a node adds discrete levels of staffing and/or a parallel node performing the same function increasing capacity of the activity-processes serviced. Entirely new nodes change the capability of the organization. Design of a new capability requires a DMADV like process that also includes a make, lease, or buy decision for the set of processes and activities of a node. Some capabilities can be outsourced and integrated into the network through control points. Nonetheless, adding capability could be fully encapsulated in a single node or integrated across several nodes based on the nature of the capability. More than likely the capability can be fully encapsulated in one or more additional nodes that draw and/or provide information and materiel support to other existing nodes. Overall, once a node is functional and in the network, decisions regarding information sourcing and communications are generally made locally within the node. They would know which other nodes provide specific information and material support they need then can connect to those nodes in support of the work effort in sort of a interesting variation of datamining. Reporting systems can collect products and performance data from a node's output. 

Management of control points and the network requires a virtual model of the business communications and nodes. Management of the operations would require supervisor nodes that are virtual and monitor the network activity in order to maintain catalogues and performance data.  At this level of management decisions are made about nodes and the communication channels. Financial management can occur along the way rather than top down as each node is an economic center buying inputs and selling outputs to other nodes. Full financial reporting can occur at the node level then rolled up to the whole. Resources can be assigned economically to the node. Nodal balance sheets could reflect retained earnings to be applied towards node development.    

Overall, the idea is to create a operational system that is self-organizing (using supervised intelligent systems) and correctly managed at the appropriate levels. When the system can realign and readily change their information and materiel sources at the right level enormous efficiencies become possible. Discovered shortages and deficiencies as well as surpluses become immediately apparent and addressed in terms of adjustments to capabilities and capacities. Essentially, much of the define, measure, analyze, improve/design, verify, and control process becomes embedded or innate to the system in various forms as opposed to something that happenes to the system. When this happens the organizational latency shrinks, responsiveness or adaptibility increases, and sustainability becomes a way of operating. 

I will hold off on posting further posts to this series for now in order to focus on other topics. I may add new posts to this series as people comment or email concerns to me. 

Friday, March 2, 2012

Tattoo On Your Soul

Commentary: This is a speech that I think has profound thoughts applicable to not only military life but civilian life as well. While General Krulak remarks that the military is about people, the same is true about companies and business. It is all about people.  Industry, business, and companies serve people. Industry would not exist if humans were not present. Companies exist as vehicles to redistribute wealth based on productive work. Through productive work in companies, cash is put into human pockets in order to give levity and dignity to human life. As General Krulak points out we need to rise above the mundane and be eagles.   

The YouTube post  Part 1 and Part 2

General Charles Krulak
The Importance of Integrity, Loyalty, and Loyal Dissent
January 7, 1993

Abstract: General Krulak, Former Commandant of the Marine Corps, spoke to the Naval Academy Leadership Forum regarding the principles of integrity, moral courage, responsibility, accountability, and loyalty. During his discussion he shares personal viewpoints and experiences that molded him into the officer he had become. He concludes his speech with a call to become eagles and soar above the mundane distractions of everyday life. 

General Krulak: Let me tell you how honored I am to be here this morning. One, to talk to the leader’s forum but equally as important is to talk to the first and second class of the United States Naval Academy and those from other service academies who are sitting up in the audience here of the brigade. What I would like to do this morning is to spend a little bit of time reflecting on two events that probably had the very most to do with making me the officer I am today. And whether that is good or bad you will judge as we go on through this morning’s discussion.

These two events impacted on some fundamental traits of leadership that I think we all need to fully understand and traits I would like to discuss this morning. In order to do this, though, I am going to have to, refer back in time, back in history a little bit, so that you can kind of get in my head, get inside of my body, and understand why they were so significant.

In the early spring of 1966, the 324th Bravo North Vietnamese Army Division was pulled South from its position along the border between North Vietnam and China. As I am sure you all know North Vietnam and China are ancient enemies. This division was pulled South, through North Vietnam and positioned along the demilitarized zone that separated South Vietnam from the North. The 324th Bravo North Vietnamese Army division was the same crack division that had spearheaded the assault against the French at Dien Bien Phu. They had now been pulled South and were poised to lead the first direct invasion of South Vietnam by the North. Their mission was to attack and seize Quay City.

In order to blunt that attack the United States Marine Corps supported by Army, Navy, and Air Force put together an 11 battalion size operation to defeat the enemy in zone. The operation was code named ‘Hastings’. With that as a little history, let me take you back in time.

0630 in the morning, June 3, 1966, First Lieutenant Chuck Krulak Commanding Officer Gulf Company Second Battalion First Marines, had just been landed with his company by helicopters in a small valley surrounded by jungle covered mountains about 2000 meters South of the Demilitarized Zone.

This valley was really nothing more than rice patties, about six football fields in length. I’ll put it in measurements that Admiral Lynch will understand, six football fields in length, two football fields in width. Down the Eastern side was a stream bed, a dried out stream bed, that offered both cover and concealment. No sooner than when we hit the deck, helicopters pull out, we were immediately taken under heavy small arms, automatic weapons, and mortar fire.

Fortunately, the vast majority of my company managed to move off to the side, get into this dried streambed, and we were pretty much safe. But one platoon, found itself landed a little bit further to the West. They could not move. They were pinned down by both the indirect fire weapons and direct fire weapons. And one squad within that platoon found itself directly in the line-of-fire of an enemy 50 caliber machine gun. And within a matter of seconds, I had two marines killed and two more seriously wounded.

It became very obvious to me, as I sat there and watched that this machine gun was going to kill every man in that squad. It was going to shift to the next squad. It would kill all of them. And it would end up killing every Marine in that platoon. There was no question about that.

I got on my radio and talking to my First Platoon Commander, a Second Lieutenant by the name of Oliver North. And told LT North to move his platoon up that tree line, up that creek bed, get on the flank of that gun and the tree line that the gun was in and to be prepared to assault when I gave him the signal. At the same time I had my other platoon putting down a base of fire into this tree line hoping to keep that machine gun somewhat silent.

As I was doing this my radio operator grabbed me by the sleeve and pointed out into the rice patty and he said, “Look at Lance Corporal Grable”.

And I looked out into that rice patty. And a young Lance Corporal squad leader a black Marine from Crump, Tennessee had gotten to his feet. He had locked his rifle into his hip and like something I swear to God right out of a John Wayne movie. This Marine started running back and forth firing his weapon. And for every 20 or 30 yards he ran laterally, he probably went two or three forward.

You could see the enemy machine gun pick right up off the squad and start tracking Grable. You could literally see the bullets kicking up behind him. Tracking him; tracking him; until they hit him. Picked him up like he was a dish rag, threw him through the air backwards.

In the amount of time that, that took, Ollie North move up on the flank, gave me the word he was ready to go, and I popped the green star cluster that signified for him to begin the assault. And as I did that my radio operator grabbed me again and this time he did not say anything. He just pointed out into that rice patty. And this young black Marine had gotten back up to his feet, this time no fancy stuff. Put his weapon into his shoulder, got a good sight picture, a good trigger squeeze. And he walked down the line-of-fire of that enemy 50 caliber machine gun.

About 5 minutes later, I got up to that now silenced, enemy machine gun. There were nine dead North Vietnamese soldiers surrounding it. And as God as my witness, draped over the barrel of the gun itself was Lance Corporal Grable. When we turned him over he had 5 entry holes in him. But you could not, see where they came out because he had no back left. Six months later I stood in the parking lot of the Naval Annex Headquarters Marine Corp. And Lance Corporal Grable’s widow was awarded the Navy Cross medal our nation’s second highest military decoration. And with her was a little baby boy that Lance Corporal Grable had only seen in a Polaroid picture.

So what, So what! What’s that got to do with the leader’s forum? What’s that got to do with the class of 1994 or the class of 1993 at the United States Naval Academy? A great story but that happened a long time ago. And it does not have anything to do with us.

Wrong! Wrong! It’s got to everything to do with you all. It’s got everything to do with me. Everything!

Too often, we forget, that the reality of our existence as a service is found in the willingness of our Lance Corporal Grable’s to walk down the line-of-fire of a 50 caliber machine gun, or in our, the willingness of our Seamen Smiths to go into a flooded compartment in order to stem the rushing water that is coming in as a result of a collision with a mine.

One of the things that worries me about service academies, and I say this as a proud a graduate of this great institution called the Naval Academy, is that we have slowly moved away from a focus on people to a focus on things.

Let me tell you that the profession of arms is not about things. It is about people. If your heart is set on flying an FA-18, leading a platoon of MA-1A tanks, sailing on nuclear submarines or aegis cruisers, then you are in the wrong business. Cause you ought to be focused on people.

If you are not willing to buy in that concept, that people is what the services are all about. Then you need to get out just as soon as you can.

And you say to yourself, holy mackerel, who is this little guy telling me to do that.

I am telling you, you have to think that way for one very good reason because it is people not things that you are going to lead into harms way.

It is people not things that you are going to lead into the valley of the shadow of death. It is the deeds of men and women who have sacrificed for us that have literally made us what we are today.

And when we fail to live up to the standards set for this profession of ours then we fail the Lance Corporal Grable’s and the Seamen Smith’s who have gone before us.

And believe me if you don’t know it, know it now, you are in the profession and it is called the profession of arms. It is as much a profession as the medical or the legal profession. There is one big difference though. We do not have malpractice insurance.

When we fail to serve our clients which are, in fact, the citizens of this great nation of ours, when we fail to serve our clients there is no outside agency that is going to pay the bill. The payment comes directly from the reservoir of faith that our countrymen have in us. A reservoir filled by the sacrifice and the blood of the Lance Corporal Grable’s and the Seamen Smith’s that have gone before us.

Now for those of you that are in the service I’ll tell you right now that we are entering critical times, times that are going to demand stout hearts, keen minds, and the purest of motives. For the Naval Service, times when incidence such as Tail hook have caused our professionalism to be questioned like it has never been questioned before.

At the highest levels, these are times when Congress is asking the services why they need to look like they do. Why do we need a twelve carrier Navy? Why do we need a Marine Corps? Why do we need four air forces? All of these questions flying around at the highest levels.

But to you all here today, the most important thing for you to understand is that these are the times when those fundamentals dear to this profession of arms of ours are rapidly being taken off the shoulders of people like myself and Admiral Lynch and are being placed around your shoulders, your shoulders, as the people who are going to lead, lead us into 21st century.

Let me say that again, these are the times when those fundamentals that are so dear to the Profession of Arms that are being taken away from me, I am an old man, and they are being given to you, they are being entrusted to you, and you are going to lead this nation into the 21st century. And for the next the couple of minutes I just want to talk to you about some these fundamentals that must become so dear to you.

Integrity and moral courage, integrity and moral courage, these fundamentals go hand in hand. Those officers who demonstrate these fundamental traits are the ones the nation will count on in the most difficult times.

All of our services have enjoyed their greatest success when their officer corps has been unafraid to demonstrate the full measure of these two traits.

Integrity that is the most precious possession you own. If it were not that I was afraid that the needles would be dirty, I would ask you to follow me this weekend out to a tattoo parlor and get the term integrity tattooed somewhere on your body. For me it would obviously have to be a little tattoo. For some of you it would be bigger.

But I am afraid of the needles. So what I would like to ask you to do is I would like you to tattoo the term integrity across soul, across your soul.

Your integrity prevents you, prevents you from lying, from cheating, from stealing, from being something less than a true professional. If you ever loose your sense of integrity then you are no good to your service, you are no good to your nation, and you are no good to yourself. You must be ever watchful because your integrity can be lost bit by bit without you even knowing it.

I will tell, though, the men and women that you will lead will know it immediately. Your word is your bond. Your actions must be above reproach. What is so terrible about incidences such as Tailhook is that it calls into question the integrity not only of certain individuals but of our entire officer corps.

Tied closely to integrity is the concept and fundamental trait of moral courage. This is in many ways a difficult trait to really understand. Moral courage in my opinion means the willingness to put your heart and soul into doing the right things vice doing things right. Let me say that again; the willingness and courage to do the right thing instead of worrying about doing things right. There is a very, very big difference between the two.

People in this audience, as well as officers around our services know what I mean. There are officers that are far more interested in looking good than being good, that are interested in show over substance.

Officers who are not willing to stick their necks out for fear that their necks are going to get chopped and their heads will fall, officers who are not willing to be steeple shakers because they believe that steeple shaking is not conducive to promotion.

There is no room for officers like that in our brotherhood. No room for officers like that in our profession. We need officers who have the moral courage to speak out when they see something wrong no matter what the risk. And it is here that the idea loyalty comes into play. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who view loyalty as some kind of blind following of their boss or of a concept. This is not loyalty. I am sure you understand that. Loyalty is the willingness of an officer to tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes. That is what loyalty is.

Loyalty is assuring that your boss is protected from making a lousy decision. Additionally, and equally important I might add, loyalty is getting behind your boss once he has weighed your input and the input of other people and has made his decision. Then you get behind him. So long as the decision is a legal one and does not call into question your integrity. If it does then my fellow officers, and you all are officers, you must make a hard decision. If you have understood what I mentioned and talked about in so far about integrity is concerned that decision becomes a lot easier.

Let me talk about another fundamental. It is called accountability and responsibility. I do not mean to insult you or insult your professional knowledge. But as you know we are all responsible and accountable for everything that we do and fail to do, everything that our commands do and fail to do. We are responsible for that and accountable for it. This fundamental has been the bedrock of the services since their inception. But I will tell you from a personal viewpoint this concept has become very fuzzy over the last couple of years.

I am going to give you two incidents that will support in my opinion in that and then I will give you a personal experience, the second experience that I told you I would share with you.

First incident, the Beirut bombing, a terrible, terrible, disaster took place that many apologist blame on a series of external errors. The commitment of forces to begin with, the rules of engagement that failed to change when the political climate changed, the cumbersome and poorly defined chain of command. Yet the bottom line remains a marine commander of a unit in a hostile environment, contrary to his training, his common sense, his tactical ability, did not disperse his troops, but gathered them into a single location where they were vulnerable to their enemies. A terrible tragedy took place and what happened to our principle of accountability? Nothing, nothing, no courts martial. No reliefs, nothing.

On Thursday 01Oct1992 at approximately 2345 the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga launched two Sea Sparrow missiles that slammed into the bridge of a Turkish destroyer. Killing the Captain and four others on the bridge and wounding fifteen. A board of inquiry was held. Approximately two months later the results of that investigation were made public.

The investigating panel of three admirals found that quote deeply rooted problems and structured deficiencies in major training areas contributed to the disastrous launching. And as you all know no one in CDC told the petty officer manning in the target acquisition console that he was participating in an exercise. There was no routine checklist for fire control safety onboard that ship counter to regulations.

The unannounced anti-ship missile exercise was just that, unannounced. Contrary to regulation the ships CO was not informed, the ships XO was not informed. Throughout the incident the investigating panel found that there was little or no, quote, following of standard Navy training procedures. In December, five officers and three enlisted men received either, punitive letters of reprimand, letters of admonition, or letters of non-punitive letters of instruction.

No courts martial. The captain of the ship was not relieved. Rather he took part in a regularly scheduled change of command approximately a week before he went in front of an Admiral for Captain’s mast. Accountability?

In an interview with the ships captain he said, “It was an accident. I am in this because I am the CO and not much more. It’s too bad.”

Let me tell you members of all the services that if our nation ever perceives that we are reluctant to be accountable for our performance then we are going to be in serious, serious trouble. There can be no excuses given to the citizens of this great nation of ours if we foul up. We must be accountable.

Let me bring this home from a personal standpoint. I was a young Captain on my way back to Vietnam for my second tour of duty. My wife drives me up to Norton Airforce base to get on a Flying Tiger Airlines plane and go to Dnang. Wife drops me off and kisses me goodbye. She is not a happy camper I can tell you. She drives back down to San Diego. I walk into the hangar where they got all the individuals that are going on that bird. And I am standing there looking around and I see this little PFC. Not little, a young PFC.

And his is carrying a workout bag and it says, “San Diego, The City In Motion.”

Well I am from San Diego! So I of course sidle over to him and start talking to him. His eyes are a little big cause he is kind of worried. And I asked him he is in fact from San Diego. Yes he is. He tells me his name is PFC Cameron. We have a good dialogue. He in fact lived about three blocks from me.

He was a communicator. Word comes get on the plane. We get on the plane. We are flying over the ocean. I see Cameron maybe two or three times during the flight. I am going up to make a head call. He is going up to make a head call. I am going up to get a drink of water. What have ya! Catch his eye. He looks at me I look at him. We go on back to our seats. The plane lands in Dnang. If you have seen the movie ‘Good Morning Vietnam’, Robins Williams gets off the plane in Dnang and it’s hot, dusty, and noisy. That’s the way it really was.

Got off the that plane and this big burly Master Sergeant says, “Ok everybody going to the First Marine Division and going to stay here in Dnang stand here or all you poor guys going up to the third Marine Division go over and stand behind there, a 130’s going to pick you up to take you up there.”

I trot on over because I am going up the Third Marine Division. Here comes ole Cameron with his bag. His eyes are, I mean to tell you, are this big. I said I better get a hold of this kid. And I get over there and said you know, “Its going be alright. Don’t worry; we are going to take of this.”

We get on the plane. Go up to Dong Ha. We separate.

I am given stewardship of Lima Company, Third Battalion, Third Marines. I go out to the company. I meet my First Sergeant monstrous guy, six Foot Six, 240 pounds. He takes me around the company area. He says here is where we are dug in, here is what it looks like. Two days later the same big First Sergeant comes walking up. He is like a mother hen. He’s got a bunch of chickees behind him, seven or eight new guys, coming into the company. You guessed it, number one in line, this time all you can see is his eyes, PFC Cameron.

I say to myself, “Self for some reason this guy keeps on entering into your life. So I had better, better latch a hold of him.”

And I did. I said to the First Sergeant, “I want Cameron to be my radio operator.”

And for the next nine months this young Marine PFC and I became so close, a closeness that can only come from times of stress and times of danger. And we shared everything. I mean we shared not just our food. We shared letters. We shared dreams and hopes. And he became over that period of time like a son to me.

At the end of the ninth month, I was called to my battalion commander’s hootch and he said that we were going up on Mutters Ridge. And I want your company to go up and form blocking position because we are going to have the rest of the battalion plus another battalion sweep down Mutters Ridge hopefully driving the enemy into you.

I said fine. Mutters Ridge was not a great place to go I will tell you. I mean you will go up there and you always got into a fight so I mean my heart was not exactly doing flips of joy. But I said we are going up there and do it.

Being a recent graduate of the Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School and having my act together of course I got all my artillery positions prepped, fires planned, had on air on strip alert, I felt good. Put my company in formation. Two up and one back, my command group in the middle and we startup a finger on this ridge line. And we got about a third of the way up, when we started taking sniper fire. Over, over our heads you could kind of hear the bullets whizin’ by. Got on the hook started callin’ in the artillery. Felt very comfortable. All of a sudden a loud crack, same kind of crack you get when you are out on the rifle range and you are pulling butts and you know the bullet just went over your head.

I kind of ducked to the side because it went right by my ear. I turn around and Cameron was hard down. I mean hard down. And I bent down and ripped open his flack jacket and he had taken a round right through the chest. I mean he was breathing and you all I am sure heard the term sucking chest wound. That is what he had. I mean every breath he’d take you would hear this terrible wheezing sound. And instead of breathing through his mouth he was breathing through his chest. And the blood was coming up and it was bubbling. And I went holy mackerel. I dropped down to my knees. I whipped out my pressure bandage. And I put it on the kid’s chest. And I said hang in there. Hang in there you are going to be alright. And you could see him start to gray, and his eyes start to flutter back and he is going into shock. And I sat down and I pulled him onto my chest. Right up against me and I had his head in my left hand and that pressure bandage is on. And I was just praying and saying you know hang in there. You are going to make it. We are going to get you out of here.

All of a sudden I was hit on the side of my head so hard that I fell to my side and Cameron was dumped onto the ground. And standing above me was that big First Sergeant I had talked to you about. He had his helmet in his hand and he had just beat me across the side of my head.

He said, “What in the hell do you think you are doing. You got a company in contact up there that’s who you are responsible for. What are you doing with this Marine? Get your butt up that hill and fight that company.”

Man! I want to tell you that I went up that hill so fast it was not funny. Got up to the top of the hill. Some unknown reason we had no casualties except for Cameron. I will never forget the feeling I had as we went around and put my men into their defensive positions. And I went back to where my CP (Command Post)) was and the First Sergeant was there.

He says, “Skipper I am sorry I hit you.”

I said, “Don’t be sorry First Sergeant you were exactly right. You did exactly what you should have done. My responsibility was to fight the company. I was accountable for those people. You were exactly right.”

Then he said, “He did not make it.”

I said, “What you mean he did not make it?”

He said, “Cameron he did not make it.”

As he said that he had tears running down his cheeks. This big First Sergeant had tears running down his cheeks. I will tell you that three hour period drove into my soul that concept of responsibility and accountability.

I see my time is running out. I want have some time for questions and answers. So let me bring this home if you will allow me. Let take you back into that rice patty. Let me take you back to the rice patty. Let me remind you that Lance Corporal Grable is laying there hit for the first time.

Question that has been in my mind ever since that happened and reoccurs and enters my mind often is why did he not just lay there. He has been hit by a 50 caliber round. I am telling you he had to be in intense pain and he is laying there. Why didn’t he just stay there? He has a wife. He has children. He had a wound that would get him home. He was on his way home. All he had to do is lay there. But he did not. Why not? He got up and performed an act that he had to know was going to kill him. Why did he do it? In my opinion he did it because flowing through his veins and tattooed across his soul were many of the principles we talked about today; integrity, moral courage, loyalty to his people, responsibility, and accountability.

Now I’ll tell you that he probably did not have them packaged neatly in some list in his mind. I will tell you they were there, they were there, they were there. And if they were there for people like Lance Corporal Grable then they damn well better be there in us. They better be there in us.

For every class that goes through The Basic School, I talk to them about some of the things we just talked about. And I end up by asking them to be something that they probably never thought of being. And that is to be what I call a knight in shining armor in a day and age when people are not interested in knight in shining armor. I asked them to be Joan of Arc in a day when people are not interest in Joan of Arc’s. I ask them to take a page out of the Bible and soar upon the wings of eagles. To be eagles. To not walk around down in the dirt of every day life but to soar above it.

And I get crazy over this and they all they kind of think I am crazy anyhow. They say geeze its General Krulak again giving his eagle talk. One day about a week ago some kid came up to me, some Lieutenant, and he slipped a piece of paper in my hand and I read it. And I said I am going up to the Naval Academy and I am going to read this one little poem that he wrote. Think about this.

There is a great battle that rages inside me,
One side is a soaring eagle,
Everything the eagle stands for is good,
And true,
And Beautiful,
And it soars above the clouds,
Even though it dips down into the valleys,
It lays its eggs on the mountain tops,
The other side of me is the howling wolf,
And that raging howling wolf represents the worst that is in me,
He eats upon my down falls,
He justifies himself by his presence in the pack,
Who wins this great raging battle,
The one I feed,
The one I feed.

Be Eagles. You are about to be great leaders in your services. Be eagles and only feed the eagle. Thank you very much. - General Charles Krulak

Comment: These are a few other posts I have made disscussing leadership.

Leadership and Success

Success is Not an Entitlement

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Designing an Operation: Complex Adaptive Culture Implementation

Commentary:  I have decided to expand the Operations Management series to include additional postings.  With the theory and basics out-of-the-way, many readers expressed interest in how to implement such a concept practically. This posting returns to the base reason for initiating the series and discusses practical applications of the concept.

Implementing the Complex Adaptive Environment

The original post indicated a need for sustainable and adaptive operations. In order to achieve this objective the employment of complex adaptive systems was suggested. We combined the notion with Just-In-Time methods, information management and datawarehousing, and internetworking technologies in order to apply the concept in practical ways across an organization. However, there is a need to migrate away from standing organizational structures towards the complex adaptive culture. There are two approaches to migration; a design approach and a transitional approach. The design approach is generally for a new organization and I'll reserve that for another discussion. The transitional approach is the focus of this post. 

Traditional programmatic transitions such as Agile, Just-In-Time, or lean and others of the like are a limited application to a specific operation kind. For example, Agile re-orders a operation to a production like project culture where sprints are really short production runs. This is terrific if the operation is suited for that kind of structure. However, nearly every operation can dove tail into complex adaptive systems architectures. This is because complex adaptive systems reflect natural systems. In the natural there are economies and efficiencies that are innate in all systems. Complex adaptive systems take advantage of that which is natural rather than contrived or forced fit. Therefore, tranistioning to a complex adaptive culture relies on finding the natural order within the operation. In essence, we are seeking the Qi or Chi for the organization.     

Most organizational structures are the outcome of years of short lived management visions, good ideas, and adaptations to technology and various projects. Most members would recognize this as awkward processes or operations that just do not match up properly. These are often inddicated by stop gap measures that have been taken to bridge the situation and sustain the operations. The transitional approach is applicable when the objective and the current situation are far apart.  

In the transitional approach, a housekeeping effort is undertaken to situate the organization for migration to a complex adaptive culture. The 5S methodology applies well with its sort, straighten, shine, standardize and sustain model. The big push early on is to streamline and standardize the operation as there is no sense in carrying over poor processes, practices, and extraneous information into the new order. This activity may standardize material names and product numbers, eliminate reports, and strengthen other reports. When completed redundancies, confused information, and other poor practices should be eliminated and the true operation should become more clear. Additionally, some services may already be situated in a complex adaptive manner. Logistical services and within Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP, environments some vendors may already be embedded and supportive of complex adaptive systems. These interfaces may need some minor adjustments for the transition as well.  

The next phase of the migration requires closely grouped processes and activities to be organized both physically and virtually in a Just-In-Time manner. This is a U-shaped process cell in which raw materials and information is entered at one point then work is performed producing a output that are goods or services for the cell as well as intellectual capital. These products have, at least, a breakeven value equivalent to the cost of the work that went into them. Additional values for overhead and future cell development can also be assigned.  As cells are formed, their information requirements become better known and the remaining organization can draw their needs from a known single source. The process of organizing nodes continues as the organizational tempo should remain unaffected since the activities and processes never really change. They just become more focused and connected. Nonetheless, I would expect some adjustment anxieties and resistance to change as the old system dissolves away.  For instance, political strong holds, stove pipes, and power empires should fade but not without the human reaction to this cultural shift.

In time the organization will have held its processes constant but organized them into the nodes. These nodes may be a workcenter, a set of cubicals, or fully virtual. Once the nodal framework is in place then the organization begins to look at the infomration exchanges. There may be some ineffiencies and further consolidation to ensure that the information is well honed and single sourced.  The organization should seek to map the information exchanges and understand the network. This will enable better management during times of expansion and contraction. Eventually, a virtual model of the business should be built and managed as a knowledge network. 

Managing the network, would look at bottlenecks, capability, and capacity. Bottlenecks can be relieved by adding capacity or adjusting workflows. Overall, the nodal network should have emerged from the chaos of the older structure in a evolutionary manner bringing greater order to the operations. 

The classic problems of power struggles, politics and empire building otherwise human interferences would be the greatest challenge to overcome.  As petty as these activities are they pervasive and a reality in the workplace. Change and human management practices would need to be at the forefront of the effort. This is another discussion or post. The next post will look more closely at the nodes and network management.