Change Management

• Introduction
• Leading Change
• Implementing the Plan
• Identifying Trends
• Sustaining Change
• Case Study
• Credits and Additional Resources
• Author

Updated: September 2024

We have all heard the adage that the only thing constant is change. It turns out that this statement is accurate. In fact, change and expectations of change are increasing exponentially. There are changes in customer expectations, changes in building systems, changes in information technology, changes related to building construction and building system performance, changes related to the environmental impact of our operations—including sustainability and energy, changes in security requirements, changes in reporting capabilities, changes in the workforce demographics, on and on. Similarly, access to the web, e-mail, and social media has increased demand for timely and accurate information.

Facilities department and physical plant employees often see change management as something required only of other departments at the college and university. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conversely, facilities departments that fail to change with the times and new demands will ensure their department is doomed to mediocrity. To achieve the world-class service many of us strive for, we must be willing to embrace change and prepare our organizations to do the same.

The true challenge of organizational change lies not in the mechanics of making change but in addressing the cultural norms that define the current organization. This begins with first identifying the need to change and being willing to examine every aspect of the organization honestly. Management must be able to detect trends in the macro-environment, as well as in the micro-environment, to identify changes and initiate programs. It is also important to estimate what impact change will likely have on employee behavior patterns, work processes, technological requirements, and motivation. The program must then be implemented, disseminated throughout the organization, monitored for effectiveness, and adjusted where necessary.

Change will also impact the individuals within the organization. People who are confronted by change will experience a form of culture shock as established patterns of the organization’s culture are altered or viewed as threatened. Effective change management requires an understanding of the possible effects of change upon people and how to manage potential sources of resistance to that change. Management must assess what employee reactions will be and craft a change program that will support workers through the process of accepting change.

Change management includes both organizational and individual change management. Organizational change management includes processes and tools for managing change at an organizational level. Individual change management deals with understanding the people side of change. When combined, organizational and individual change management provides a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state.

Once the facilities manager has identified and accepted the need for change, there are concepts and processes that will make the change effort easier to implement. When leading change, the facilities manager must understand the various roles of a change leader. Facilities managers must be able to develop and effectively communicate a shared vision with a strong sense of urgency. Developing a strong coalition and gaining departmental buy-in will help to overcome the normal resistance to change. It is critical that the facilities manager understands their workplace culture and anticipates resistance to change or any gains may quickly revert to the old norm.

To effectively implement change, the facilities manager must be obsessed with quality, and this obsession must become part of the facilities organization’s culture. The facilities manager must embrace the concept that quality leadership starts with the customer. The organization’s goal should be to meet and exceed customer needs. Quality organizations encourage teamwork to foster a sense of unity in purpose, and everyone within the department must understand that work always has some form of structure. The facility organization can ensure a successful change program by embracing quality service as the “norm,” following prescribed procedures for process improvement, and effectively utilizing teams.

The business world has changed dramatically over the past few decades, and now we live in a connected society where change can be fast-paced, constant, and unpredictable. Rapid advances in technology created an environment where the Internet, smartphones, and social media are common occurrences. Global events, such as the 2008 financial crisis, the COVID pandemic, and world conflicts, have increased the sense of turbulence and unpredictability.

The following sections will assist the facilities manager in preparing for and dealing with the various aspects of change management so they can successfully lead in an unpredictable business world.

The Facilities Leader as a Change Agent

There is a difference between change management and change leadership. Managers are responsible for planning and establishing budgets, organizing and staffing, and controlling and solving problems. Leaders establish direction, align people and resources, and motivate and inspire. Managers tend to be goal-oriented, focus on the current state, and generally control risk. Leaders are visionary and mission-oriented, future and change-oriented, and risk-takers. One analogy is that managers focus on climbing the ladder, while leaders question if the ladder is leaning against the right wall.

Therefore, leadership is critical to the success of any change initiative and requires a change leader or change agent—someone who leads the charge, has the strength and courage to initiate change, sees the vision, leads the implementation plan to fruition, sets milestones, and possess the authority or empowerment to make necessary adjustments. The leader must also inspire the “troops” and re-spark the team when morale gets low.

To be an effective change agent, the facilities leader must fill various roles to guide the change process. At times, the change leader will need to act as a director, directing the organization in particular ways to produce the required change. The change agent will need to take on a navigator role, navigating through the various complexities arising from the change process’ controlled and uncontrolled outcomes. At other times, the change agent will need to function as a coach, reinforcing the values and skills required for the organization to achieve the desired outcomes. The change agent must be a caretaker, caring for the organization through the change process.

Change in some areas may inadvertently create change in other areas, so the change agent must be a caretaker for the entire organization, not just for those specific areas that have planned change. The change agent will need to act as an interpreter, helping the organization make sense and meaning out of the various events and actions that constitute a changed organization. Often, a change agent will need to act as a nurturer. Like a parent’s relationship with a child, future outcomes are nurtured and shaped. Lasting change must emerge and cannot be instantaneously produced. Most importantly, the change agent will have to perform as a motivator. The organization will need motivation to begin the change process and will need to be re-infused at various points during the change process. Lasting change takes time and energy. After working for a few years with no immediate end in sight, it is natural for people to feel tired. The change agent must motivate teams to stay focused and continue.

Change leaders must ensure support and active involvement from top and mid-level management. Active leadership of top management is crucial for effective change management. The most frequent cause of failure of any change effort is uninvolved or indifferent top and mid-level managers. Top-level managers must be actively involved, demonstrate their passion for the change effort, effectively communicate those goals, and assist or guide the implementation process in order to ensure lasting success. Quality cannot be delegated to others. Developing a strong coalition—with active support from top and mid-level management—is necessary to overcome the sources of inertia that resist change. Often top- and mid-level managers will also become the organization’s change leaders, so they too will need to understand the various change agent roles.

Change agents also need to create a sense of urgency. The biggest mistake people make when trying to change organizations is to plunge ahead without establishing a high sense of urgency in fellow managers and employees. This error is fatal because transformations always fail to achieve the objectives when complacency levels are too high. Without a sense of urgency, people will not give the extra effort that is often critical, won’t make sacrifices, and will not be willing to leave their comfort zone. When establishing a sense of urgency, the change agent must overcome the common perception that the status quo is not bad. When the organization does not see a highly visible crisis, the change agent must be able to define the driving force behind the need to change and describe the benefits of improving.

Long-term change and creating a changing culture is a process that requires dedication, patience, and persistence. Facilities leaders and change agents must master these qualities. Declaring a victory to a major change too soon can fail to bring about desired results. New approaches are fragile and susceptible to regression. In turn, declaring defeat during the middle of a long-range change process can frustrate employees and discourage the organization from future attempts for change. People who have been through difficult, painful, and unsuccessful change efforts often become pessimistic and angry. Lasting change will only succeed if new behaviors become rooted in the organization’s social norms and shared values.

Have a Strong, Sensible Vision

Vision plays a key role in providing useful change by helping to direct, align, and inspire actions on the part of large numbers of people. Without the appropriate vision, a transformational effort can easily dissolve into a list of confusing, incompatible, and time-consuming projects that go in the wrong direction or nowhere.

As Stephen R. Covey, former CEO of Covey Leadership Center, states, effective leaders must start with the end in mind. All things are created twice—first mentally, second physically. Organizations and teams shape their own future by creating a mental vision and purpose for any project. Creating a culture behind a shared mission, vision, and values is the essence of leadership. Envisioning the various steps required to bring your vision to fruition will provide the clarity needed to help guide the implementation team. The extent to which leaders begin with the end in mind often determines whether they will be able to create a successful enterprise.

A strong vision serves three important functions. First, it sets the general direction for change. Second, it motivates people to act in the right direction. Third, it helps coordinate the actions of different people.

Clarifying the direction of change is important because not everyone may agree on the direction, be confused, or fail to see the need for change. A clear vision will describe what is leading the need for change and provide compelling reasons for the need to meet those changing demands. The vision facilitates change by motivating action that may not be in people’s short-term interest. Change often involves some sort of pain, such as more work, learning new skills and behaviors, and moving from the norm or comfort zone. There is a natural inclination to deny the future, so an appealing vision can motivate individuals to explore the unknown. The vision is also effective at aligning individuals and coordinating their efforts toward a common goal. With a clear sense of direction, motivated people can perform in remarkably efficient ways.

A clear and effective vision has six key characteristics. First, it describes some activity or organization as it will be in the future. It conveys a picture of what the future will look like. Second, it portrays a set of possibilities in the best interest of those with a stake in the situation. It appeals to the long-term interests of employees and customers. Third, effective visions are realistic and attainable. Pie-in-the-sky visions fail to capture the interest of those who need to be involved in the implementation process. Fourth, good visions should be clear enough to motivate and focused enough to guide decision-making. Next, effective visions should be flexible enough to inspire initiative or to allow for alternatives in response to changing conditions. Finally, an effective vision should be easy to communicate. A vision that cannot be clearly articulated will fail to fulfill the other five key characteristics.

Vision alone, however, is not sufficient to accomplish effective change. A vision is more than a pipe dream, so the leader must also know the roadmap or implementation plan required to achieve the vision. Without a strategy for change, the vision is only “a vision.” This does not mean that every aspect must first be defined in detail, but identifying and developing the resources needed within the organization is a need that should be considered early in the improvement process. Before implementing change-management efforts, questions should be considered such as: in which part of the organization should the transformation start, which potential projects have the best chance of success, what resources are needed, who will provide guidance and technical support, who will coordinate logistics and communications, and do we need external support.

Taking the time to consider the answers to these questions will ensure successful implementation. A common mistake is to involve too many people too soon without considering the supporting structure to ensure their success. Failure to consider this concept can create frustration and dampen enthusiasm, with dismal results.

James M. Kouzes points out that with the importance of being future-oriented, some leaders developed a sense that they were the ones that had to be the visionaries. Exemplary leadership is not about being a prophet uttering divinely inspired revelations. Developing a vision does not have to be a top-down process. To develop a shared vision, leaders need to engage others in a collective dialogue about the future.

The collective dialogue must involve asking the right questions, which should include effectiveness and efficiency. Our jobs as educational professionals and organizational leaders depend on this knowledge.

Common effectiveness questions include: Are we doing the right things? Are we asking the right questions? Are we tackling the right problems? Are we working on relevant issues? Are we making the right investments in facilities operations? Are we making the right investments in our buildings, infrastructure, and programs? Are the customers satisfied with the space and services? Are we doing effective measurements? Are we building a staff that can sustain excellence?

Common efficiency questions include: Are we doing things correctly? Are we taking unnecessary steps? Do we have redundancy? Are the operating funds that we receive being spent in a way that best supports desired outcomes? Do we have efficient work processes?

Developing a shared vision allows others to share in the thrill of seeing a new state, inspires them to apply extra effort willingly, sparks their initiative and ingenuity, and creates a synergy that can help overcome the natural resistance to change. A shared vision empowers employees, develops a sense of ownership, and stimulates self-directed actions. The shared vision is more likely to encourage “buy-in” and can inspire the organization to make it their mission to achieve those goals. A shared vision is a powerful force that the change leader can effectively utilize to inspire a change-oriented culture.

There are a variety of methods to develop a shared vision. One method is a strategic planning session among the organization’s leaders. This strategic planning session often involves developing a mission statement and defining the organization’s guiding principles and core values. The process includes reviewing the organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, commonly referred to as a S.W.O.T. analysis. The ultimate goal is to enhance the organization’s strengths in order to overcome its weaknesses, and to capitalize on the opportunities to the extent that they minimize the threats. The outcome is a shared strategic plan that can guide the change process. Another popular method is referred to as “sensing sessions”. Sensing sessions allow participants to speak freely and openly and can be a useful forum to discuss effectiveness and efficiency questions. The sensing session format that discusses the effectiveness and efficiency questions can help to identify what needs to be kept and what needs to be changed. A sensing session approach can help to develop interest and action from employees across the organization, while breaking down some of the distrust that may be felt at the beginning of the change endeavor. Change leaders may initiate the strategic planning process or sensing sessions or change agents may emerge throughout these processes.

Communicate the Vision

Once the organization has developed a shared vision, it is critical for the change leader to get buy-in, share the vision, and create emotional acceptance. It has been said that “people don’t resist change; they resist being changed”. It is important to communicate regularly and involve people at every step of the process. Since transformation is a campaign, it is important for leaders to win people’s hearts and minds. The best change occurs when people as a group accept it. It is critical to talk to the people who will be impacted by change whenever possible. Help them to understand the need to change. Listen and respond to their needs, fears, desires, and concerns. Help people see what is in it for them and allow them time to warm up to the changes. Major change is usually impossible unless most employees are willing to help, often to the point of making short-term self-sacrifices. Employee’s hearts and minds will fail to be captured without credible communication.

There are several key elements to effective communication of the vision. Some experts suggest that 20 percent of the organization tends to buy-in to the need to change and will commit from the beginning, another 50 percent may not care either way, so do not commit, and another 30 percent that will take a hard stance and oppose change. For this reason, it is important to help them understand the vision. The message should be clear, simple, and easily understood. Trying to impress people with a message full of over-complicated terms only serves to create confusion, suspicion, and alienation. The leader should take time in order to develop a clear, concise and direct description of the vision.

Using metaphors, analogies, and specific examples can help people develop a mental picture of the vision. A picture is often worth a thousand words. Well-chosen words can help express a memorable message. By having a clear and attractive picture of the future, people can transform thought into reality and intentions into action.

Different people learn and retain information in different ways. Some people are more visual and learn from seeing how it is done; some are more kinesthetic and learn from doing; while others are more auditory and learn by listening. The leader should present the message in multiple forums and formats. Present the message in both large and small forums. Use memos, newsletters, and posters. Discuss the vision in formal and informal interactions. When the message arrives in multiple formats, people can remember and comprehend the vision better.

Ideas sink in deeply only after they have been heard many times. Repetition of the message is important since many people do not fully grasp a concept after one exposure. A sentence here and there, a short paragraph, and a brief mention of the vision at various meetings will collectively add up to a massive amount of communication.

A powerful means of communicating the vision is setting an example. The term “walk the talk” may be overused, but change leaders must live by this principle. When the organization sees top management acting out or actively involved in implementing the vision, the question of credibility or sincerity will disappear. Words are cheap, but action is not. Even the most cynical individuals will tend to be impressed by action.

When communicating the vision, the leader should also be willing to listen and accept feedback. Two-way discussions help answer questions and clarify uncertainties. Many people can only accept new ideas after they have had time to process the concept mentally. Allowing time for processing, questioning, challenging, and discussing will help provide a better understanding of the vision and will enhance individual buy-in.

It is also critical that the organization have trust in the leader. Covey stresses that trust from others must first start with self-trust. Covey’s first three habits focus on developing personal integrity. In order to have trust from others, the leader must live a life of integrity. Self-trust is necessary to think and act interdependently. Deming also supported the concept that the first step in transformation is the transformation of the individual. Deming states that the individual, once transformed, will perceive new meaning in life, to numbers, and to interactions between people. Before groups of people can grow and deal with change, the individuals in the group must develop a sense of personal integrity and move along a path toward self-actualization. Only then can they feel comfortable with change and envision it as an exciting opportunity instead of fearing it as a deviation from their comfort level.

To guide the individual transformation process, the organization must trust that the leader prioritizes their best interests. This process requires active communication and interaction on the part of the change leader.

Create Short-Term Wins

Lasting change takes time. Strong believers in the process may stay the course; however, most people will not go on the long march unless they see some compelling evidence within six to 18 months that the journey is providing results. Non-believers will have even higher expectations of results. Without short-term wins, too many employees will lose interest.

Processes that measure incremental change over several years will take four to five years to start indicating any sort of trend. However, the data that is being collected may involve thousands of contact points for those who provide the data. For example, changing from a reactive breakdown maintenance-oriented culture to a proactive preventative maintenance culture may take several years to show improvements. Five years is over 1,000 working days for employees doing preventative maintenance work. Without shorter-term performance indicators, the changes may be so slow that the employees performing the work will not notice those changes. These individuals require feedback on a shorter cycle and need to find short-term wins in order to encourage the desired performance.

Short-term wins show people that their efforts are paying off and that they are improving, and encourage continued support. Short-term wins provide an opportunity to celebrate. Constant tension is unhealthy in the long run, so a celebration offers an opportunity to relax and recover. This is good for both the body and the soul.

At the same time, short-term wins provide concrete data that can be reviewed in order to refine the process if needed. Sometimes, the strategy at the onset is not entirely correct and may need adjustment. Without evaluating short-term wins, problems with the strategy will become apparent too late in the process and will delay efficient progress. Short-term wins help the organization position itself to succeed in the long term.

Short-term wins also serve to build momentum, gain the support from or for leadership, and win over neutral supporters. Everyone, including those in the hierarchy, likes to see that the transformation is on track and making an impact. Those that were neutral or even opposed to change often want to become involved with a successful program. This is especially true if the short-term success confirms that the change is inevitable.

A year or two into a major change program, with no immediate end in sight, people naturally get tired and tend to take a break. They often need renewed motivation, and short-term wins can help rearticulate the vision and reinforce the sense of urgency. Short-term wins are essential to keeping momentum moving forward, but celebrating those wins can be lethal if a sense of urgency is not reinforced.

Develop a Strong Coalition

Because major change is so difficult to accomplish, a powerful force is required to sustain the process. Even the strongest leader needs assistance to develop a shared vision, communicate with a large number of people, eliminate all of the key obstacles, generate short-term wins, guide multiple change projects, and anchor cultural change.

There is an inherent conflict of interest in some organizations towards using teams. One common factor is that teams are not promoted, individuals are. Individuals have a need to demonstrate their personal capabilities to advance. Often teams are not rewarded for performance, individuals are. Additionally, many senior-level executives were groomed in an environment where teams were not essential. They may have experienced poorly functioning committees where everything moved slower instead of faster, so they are more comfortable with the hierarchical format. Leaders need to develop an organization that rewards individuals for their team performance, managers are encouraged to promote team decisions, and teams receive training on effective decision making.

Throughout the change process, the leader must also instill a sense of trust. Teamwork is generally only effective when trust is present. Teams with the right composition, sufficient support, and trust among members can be a highly effective method to implement organizational change. The organization must trust that the leader has the organization’s best interest as a top priority. Teammates must also learn to trust one another. Often, employees develop a sense of loyalty to their specific work unit and a sense of mistrust of the motives of others, even if they are in the same organization. Other times, individuals or entire work units may feel that others are not doing their fair share. Stronger performers should be rewarded for assisting lesser performers and assisted to understand how their specific contribution benefits the group as a whole. Leaders must be able to help individuals and work units transcend these short-term constraints and develop an organizational culture that encourages a sense of trust towards the organization’s leaders and between work units.

Developing a strong, common goal allows teams to have a central focus. The organization’s mission, vision, guiding principles, and strategic plan help to create a shared objective. A true desire to make the organization perform to the highest level possible—true commitment to excellence—can be the common goal that every employee and team can rally around.

Developing a shared common goal becomes significantly easier when a sense of trust is created. A sense of trust and a common shared goal makes for a powerful combination. The resulting coalition will be able to make lasting change and overcome the inertia that resists change.

Understand Workforce Culture

The challenge of organizational change lies not in the mechanics of making change but in addressing the cultural norms that define the current organization. Often the biggest resistance or roadblock to change is the organization’s workforce culture itself.

Organizational culture is a strong influence and often difficult to change. This culture tends to set the rules and boundaries of our organization whether—consciously designed or not. Think of the last time you heard someone say, “That’s not the way things are done around here.” This is an example of the pervasiveness of organizational culture. Organizational culture is re-enforced almost without thought by the members of the organization and is often described as a subtle pressure to belong by conforming.

A series of experiments performed several years ago demonstrated this concept. Five monkeys were placed in a cage together with a series of steps in the center. A cluster of bananas hung from the ceiling above the steps. Naturally, the monkeys would climb the steps to reach the bananas; unnaturally, the researchers conducting the experiments would spray the other four monkeys with a high-powered water hose whenever one monkey attempted to climb the steps. Gradually, the monkeys learned not to pursue the bananas.

Then, the researchers began pulling one monkey out of the group and replaced it with another. The new monkey would immediately head for the bananas, and the other four, knowing what would happen, would pull the monkey down to the ground. The new monkey quickly learned not to pursue the bananas. The researchers continued to replace monkeys one at a time with similar results. Eventually, a group of monkeys that had never seen a water hose would pull a new member down from the steps. None of the new monkeys knew why they were supposed to avoid pursuing the bananas, but a culture had developed. Changing this culture will take a whole new approach.

This does not imply that we are all just monkeys or helpless victims of the organizations to which we belong. However, an organization’s culture is complex and influential. A dedicated change agent needs to recognize that to make effective change; often the organization’s culture requires adjustment. It takes time to develop a new culture that is willing to embrace a new way of doing things. This is not an easy concept since the elements that create the organization’s culture are not sharply defined. Changing an organization’s culture takes patience and persistence because its values reach deeply and integrate into a network of beliefs that tend to maintain the status quo. If the leader does not continue to push forward, the entropy of the organization’s previous culture will naturally slide back to the path of least resistance.

Manage Resistance to Change

One of the first reactions to change is likely to be “What is in it for me?” or “How will this affect me?” Another reaction to change may be “Getting better implies that we are bad.” This is generally not the case. To go from good to great, an organization has to get “better.” However, transitioning to the unknown creates a natural resistance and triggers our innate fight-or-flight response. There is often a natural discomfort with uncertainty. Resistance to change can come in the form of how people feel about the change, how they think about the change or how they act in the face of change. Therefore, it is critical that the change leader understand the signs and cause of resistance to guide the organization through the change process effectively.

People resist change for several different reasons. Some people like stability and dislike changes. Some individuals are uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. Some people are concerned about the impact of change on their personal interests, such as pay, status, or tenure. Readiness for change can be impacted by people’s attachment to the existing culture or their image of the existing culture, beliefs, and values. Some people have a perception of an implied psychological or social contract, and that change is a violation of that contract. Some individuals may feel that change is simply not necessary, that the proposed change is inappropriate, or that the timing is wrong. Additionally, there is a cumulative effect of previous change that impacts people’s perceptions. If they experienced poorly implemented change, they will be leery of additional change efforts.

Change is not the same as transition. Change is situational: the new work site, the new policy, the new process, or the new vision. Transition is people’s psychological process to come to terms with a new situation. Change is external, while transition is internal. Unless transition occurs, permanent change will not take place. Psychological transition requires letting go of the old reality and the old identities. Nothing undermines an organizational change process more than failing to take the time to allow a transition to take place. For example, when a front-line employee first advances to a supervisory position, their role has “changed.” This individual will not be fully successful until they allow their mindset to transition from getting work done as an individual contributor to getting work done through others.

Various models of transition describe a three-step process. This process is based on the cycle of denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment. Denial involves a refusal to recognize the situation is changing and resistance begins with the recognition that the situation is not going away. Individuals in this stage must learn to let go of the old ways. Exploration involves the first step of acceptance and the willingness to explore the possibilities of a new situation. This second step is the limbo or neutral zone between the old reality and the uncomfortable feeling caused by uncertainty of what is ahead. It is not always the change that people resist rather they fear the loss of the old and uncertainty of the future. During this step, there is the temptation to abandon the situation and revert to the old reality. Therefore, leaders must take the time to guide this step of the process. The final step involves acknowledging and accepting change and a commitment where focus is given to the new course of action. With an understanding of the signs and causes of change resistance, the change agent can effectively guide organizations and individuals through change through this three-step transition process.

The first step of the transition process involves departing from the existing state. This step requires overcoming the organization’s cultural inertia and dismantling the existing “mindset.” Normal defense mechanisms have to be bypassed. During this step it is important to set a sense of urgency and to stress the need to leave the old behind. To guide the transition process through this stage, it is important to acknowledge what is being lost, communicate what is being left behind, discuss how any loses will be compensated, and describe what will be retained in as much detail as possible. More importantly, the leader, while honoring the past, must successfully express the vision for the future that will inspire people into action.

Providing clarity of the vision, path and anticipated outcome will help to reduce the perception of uncertainty. For example, consider a facilities organization that wishes to change from a zone maintenance concept to a central shop maintenance concept or vice versa. The change leader must acknowledge that there will be perceived losses by those individuals within the shops and even the customers of the shop services. It is critical to describe how the new central shops will function and how it will affect the individuals involved. Taking time to fully describe the new roles and responsibilities will ease the transition process.

It is not always possible to envision every impact of a change, but it is important to foresee as many impacts as possible. Imagine that the change is a cue ball rolling across the surface of a pool table. There are lots of other balls on the table. Some of the impacted balls were planned, while some were unintentional. In billiards, it is important to foresee as many hits as possible; the same applies when promoting change. The change process has started a cause-and-effect chain reaction, and for each of these, try to envision the people who will be impacted and what impact that change will have on their familiar ways of doing things, their familiar roles, their familiar expectations, and even their familiar values.

The leader must realize that everyone reacts to change differently. Compassionate communication will help reassure that the change process is for the benefit of everyone. The change leader must take time to listen openly, honestly, and sympathetically. Loss is a subjective experience, so the leader must take the time to acknowledge their feelings even if they appear objectively unfounded. Failure to do so will give them the feeling that the leader does not care, will lower trust levels, and make the transition process more difficult. It is critical that the change leader not overreact to the initial resistance. People impacted by change will experience a sense of loss and grieving this loss is normal. Failure to guide people through this grieving process will create an emotional deficit that impairs the transition process. Therefore, change leaders must expect and accept the signs of grieving, such as anger, denial, anxiety, sadness, disorientation, and depression.

The next step in the transition process involves the journey into unknown territory. The change leader must effectively guide individuals through this neutral zone. During this step there is often some sense of confusion. The difficulty of this step is that the organization enters a situation where neither the old ways nor the new ways work satisfactorily. People feel caught between the demands of conflicting systems. People are aware that the old ways are being challenged but do not have a clear picture to replace them with yet.

If the change is minor, simply waiting for it to pass may be an option. However, if the change is deep and far-reaching, this transition step may take many months or even years. It is not uncommon for change leaders to abandon a program at this stage due to impatience or frustration. Abandoning the program at this stage is more detrimental than not embarking on the change process in the first place. During this step of the transition, people will experience anxiety, and motivation may fall. People will feel disoriented and may experience lower levels of energy. Old weaknesses may resurface, i.e. if customer service has always been a little weak, it is certain to take a further dip while the organization transitions through the neutral zone. During the neutral zone, employees may feel overloaded as they try to manage the old processes and implement the new ones. It is for these reasons that the change leader must effectively manage the neutral zone. Managing the neutral zone is not something that would be nice if there were plenty of time. It is the only way to ensure the organization comes through the change intact and that the necessary changes actually work. Neutral zone management saves time in the long run because it means the change leader does not have to implement the change a second time, people are not permanently discouraged from implementing additional change processes, and the organization will not totally fall apart during the transition between the old ways and the new.

The transition period during the neutral zone is not a step function that happens in one easy step. It is a journey and takes time. It is a time when a necessary reorientation and redefinition takes place. There are a variety of actions a change leader can use to guide the organization through this neutral zone.

• Leaders must provide everyone with an important role to play. People need to have a clear understanding of what is expected of them and need to feel that they are contributing. During the transition process, roles and expectations may change so the change leader must take time to redefine these new roles. In turn, defining how these new roles contribute to the overall vision is important. These new roles may also require training or resource reallocations.
• Leaders can create a theme for the transition period that suggests a journey from the old to the new. People are not just literal-minded; they also react symbolically to events. Creating a theme for the change process can be an effective method for rallying the troops toward a common goal.
• Leaders can utilize short-term wins to build momentum, gain support from or for leadership, and win over neutral supporters.
• Leaders should provide consistent and effective communication. This communication must keep people informed and advertise the changes’ positive impacts. Effective communication also includes taking the time to listen to input from those being affected.
• Leaders should implement effective support systems, provide constant encouragement, look for opportunities for additional improvement, and encourage ingenuity. An effective suggestion campaign can help the change leader address the uncertainties that arise. Input may also offer suggestions on how to improve the original concept. Nothing can undermine the transition process more than the appearance that good suggestions are being ignored or not taken seriously. As noted earlier, not every impact can be anticipated, so empowering people to solve the unknowns that may arise will gain their support and help them to feel a part of the solution.
• Leaders must establish and reinforce a perception of trust. People are more willing to undertake change if they trust their manager. There are actions the leader can do to reinforce their trustworthiness. Leaders must do what they say they will do. Leaders must listen to people carefully and understand what matters most to them. Leaders must act with honesty and integrity and extend their trust to others. An effective leader can increase their level of trust by being decisive and creating a constancy of purpose. Trust often has to be earned, so the leader must get started immediately.

By following these concepts and using time in the neutral zone to create a sense of belonging and purpose, a change leader can effectively guide the organization through the most difficult stage of the transition process.

The final step is acceptance or attaining a new equilibrium. The new mindset is crystallizing, and comfort levels return to previous levels. At this point, a new culture begins to develop. People begin to see their new role in the change process. The combination of trust and a common shared goal will create the environment that enables individuals to reach this step quickly. As the change becomes more accepted, it is critical that the organization celebrates successes every step of the way. The leader must then use these successes to reinforce a culture of change. The leader must publicize the successes and justify any necessary adjustments. To sustain acceptance, it is imperative that praise be given when recognition is deserved and input from employees be used to make successful adjustments.

To promote a culture of continuous improvement, the leader will need to guide the organization through this three-step process continuously. It is not uncommon for organizations to quickly become comfortable with the new equilibrium. Continuous improvement requires a continuous circular path through this three-step process.

During the change process, the change leader must focus on demonstrating empathy, patience, flexibility, and openness but remain decisive and committed to the strategic change initiative. Since relationships that are established during the change process can be considered the foundation for long-term sustainable change, the way resistance to change is addressed is very important. Understanding the three stages of transition will enable the change agent to not only reduce resistance but also integrate people into the change process in a positive manner. By following the above advice, a change agent can help reduce the stress and anxiety of change for both themselves and the employees.

Dr. W. Edward Deming theorized that quality leadership must focus on improving how work gets done (the method or process) instead of simply focusing on what gets done (the results). Deming also theorized that the principles of quality leadership must include customer focus, obsession with quality, recognizing the structure in work processes, teamwork and unity in purpose, and continued training and education.

• Management by results often focuses on profit and losses, or return on investment. Quality leadership starts with the customer. The organization’s goal should be to meet and exceed customer needs. Quality organizations recognize both internal and external customers.
• Obsession with quality must become part of an organization’s culture. Quality must be pursued through the services that delight customers, and efficient and effective processes.
• Work is not haphazard and always has some form of structure. The structure may not be readily evident and can often be hidden behind inefficiencies. For this reason, processes must be studied, measured, analyzed, and improved. Great people with a poor process may be able to provide good service, but great people using a great process can provide great service. Process measurements guide process improvement and are recognized as a means rather than an end.
• Quality organizations encourage teamwork and partnerships to foster a sense of unity in purpose. The effort to provide quality service should be the goal of everyone in the organization. A clear and widely understood vision is necessary to create a sense of community and to reinforce that we do excellent work. The notion of a common goal of quality also applies to the relationships with suppliers, regulatory agencies, and local communities.
• In a quality organization, everyone is constantly learning. Management should encourage employees to elevate their level of technical skill and professional expertise constantly. Employees should be encouraged to master their jobs and broaden their capabilities.

One approach to translating these theories into practice has been referred to as the Joiner Triangle. One corner of the triangle refers to quality as defined by the customer. A second corner represents the scientific or data-based approach to studying processes. The third corner represents employees working together as a united team to learn and apply these principles. These three elements must function together to ensure success.

Defining Quality

In process improvement, the concept of the customer and supplier takes on a slightly different perspective. In this process, people or organizations who precede the process being studied are the “suppliers,” and those who follow are considered the “customers.” The various campus stakeholders are indeed customers, and obviously, it is important to satisfy and even delight these people. However, inside the organization, employees who pass on work to another employee are considered suppliers, with internal customers. Similarly, external suppliers supplying materials, information, or services are critical to the entire process. Therefore, each worker in an organization has suppliers and customers.

Once the concept of processes, including the concept of customer and supplier relationships, is understood, people will be in a better position to appreciate what quality means. If customers are those who are the recipients of services or products, then only the customer can determine what quality means to them. That is the basis of the term “quality begins with the customer”. Therefore, quality must be a part of the entire process, not just a part of the final product or service. Quality must be built into every step, process and system to assure a quality product or service. “Customers” and “suppliers” must be considered and collaborated with during every step.

It is critical to remember that top management is responsible for quality. Only they can establish the organization’s commitment to quality. They must make certain the organization is asking the following questions: Are we doing the right things, and are we doing things right? Only top management has the ability and influence to provide employees with the support needed to deliver quality products and services to the ultimate stakeholders.

While the customer-supplier relationship takes on a different perspective in the process improvement environment, it is still critical to understand the ultimate reason for improving the facilities management service delivery—to provide quality service to the various campus stakeholders. This requires the organization to develop a customer-driven focus. It requires listening to your customers and identifying and anticipating their needs and concerns. Organizations should strive to go beyond customer satisfaction to customer delight. Competition from outsourcing is a constant threat to any university facilities organization. To remain competitive the facilities organization must look for opportunities to improve service delivery. There is no room for mediocrity, and those who refuse to change with changing demands will soon disappear.

Past APPA President, Chris Ahoy states that superior services and relationships depend on knowing that customers are:

• The most important entities on the premises.
• Not dependent upon the facilities organization. The facilities organization is dependent upon them.
• Not interruptions to the facilities work, but instead are the purpose of it.
• Not an outsider to the business, but a part of it.
• Doing the facilities organization a favor by giving them an opportunity to serve.

Therefore, it is critical to include the various facilities customers in any facilities change process. Customer focus is a key component of effective facilities management. Various stakeholders (faculty, students, staff, and other administrative departments) must feel their needs are heard, understood, and acted upon. Various tools must be in place to assure customer communication, assess and assimilate what is said, and implement procedures to act on expressed needs.

The Scientific Method

People who view work as a series of processes understand how the quality of what comes out is largely determined by the quality of what goes in. Whole new insights develop when people see tasks as related events. If people see how their role contributes to the entire process, then they have a better understanding of how their role contributes to the final product. Better processes lead to better quality, and often better service delivery. With a common understanding, workers can define starting and ending points to a process and figure out what must happen in between in order to provide the desired service level. For example, consider the work request from the customer. If the desired goal is to provide regular and meaningful status, then those providing the front-line service delivery must understand their role. If the completed work orders do not include descriptions of the services provided, then the service center cannot adequately inform the customer. If service delivery is delayed due to parts availability, then the service desk cannot notify the customer of a delay. Therefore, the front-line service delivery staff must understand that their role includes more than just performing the work; they are a critical link to the customer communication process.

A series of tasks is called a process. A series of processes is referred to a system. Sometimes, if a project improvement team feels overwhelmed, it is possible that they are studying a system and not a process. Unless the team narrows its focus, it stands a good chance of getting mired down and will not make adequate progress. Teams should try to focus on one process at a time unless there are two or three closely related processes that would be difficult to study separately.

Information and analysis are essential to evaluate performance and drive future performance improvements. The scientific approach studies the quality improvement methods and helps answer the question: how well are we doing? Although it may sound complicated, the scientific method is simply a systematic approach to study processes. Although it can involve complicated formulas, data, and statistics, it is more often a simple means for teams to study the root cause of problems rather than relying on hunches or perceptions of superficial symptoms.

Dr. Joseph M. Juran conjectured that the concept that “organizations would have fewer problems if only employees would do their jobs properly” is incorrect. In fact, the potential to promote quality improvements lies more with improving the processes, not improving the workers. This concept has evolved into the 85/15 Rule: at least 85 percent of the problems can be corrected by improving the process (which is determined largely by management), and only 15 perecent are under the employee’s control. In fact, if it appears that the problem lies with the employee, often the trouble lies with poor instructions or inadequate training, which are both also system problems.

Once leaders understand that systems and processes create most of the problems, they will stop blaming individual workers. They will start to focus on improving systems, start asking which processes are inefficient, and will be more likely to seek out solutions that will have long-term benefits.

The Scientific Method was first described by Francis Bacon around 1620. The scientific method can be described as hypothesis, experiment, and evaluation. Shewhart described manufacturing under statistical control as a three-step process of specification, production, and inspection. He specifically related this to the Scientific Method of hypothesis, experiment, and evaluation. Shewhart says that statisticians must improve the quality of goods by showing how to tighten the tolerance range. Deming later described this process as Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA). It is also known as the Deming Cycle, Shewhart Cycle, Deming Wheel, or Plan-Do-Study-Act.

A fundamental principle of the scientific method and PDCA is iteration – once a process is defined, measured, and analyzed, executing the cycle again will extend the knowledge further. Repeating the PDCA cycle can bring the process closer to the goal, usually a perfect operation or improved quality. One can envision an open coil spring, with each loop being one cycle of the PDCA cycle, and each complete cycle indicating an increase in our knowledge of the system under study. PDCA provides feedback in spirals of increasing knowledge of the process to incrementally improve the next cycle.

PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) (Figure 1) is an iterative four-step problem-solving process typically used in quality control.

Figure 1.
The Deming Cycle

PLAN: Establish the processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the objectives or specifications.
DO: Implement the processes.
CHECK: Monitor and evaluate the processes and results against objectives and specifications and report the outcome.
ACT: Apply actions to the outcome for necessary improvement. This means reviewing all steps (Plan, Do, Check, Act) and modifying the process to improve it before its next implementation.

The check or study phase of the PDCA cycle uses many established quality management methods for analyzing and enhancing organizational performance. The following list provides an overview of the various methods used to measure and analyze processes.

• 5 Whys
• Analysis of variance
• ANOVA Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)
• Axiomatic design
• Apollo Root Cause Analysis (ARCA)
• Business process mapping
• Catapult exercise on variability
• Cause & effects diagram (also known as fishbone or Ishikawa diagram)
• Chi-square test of independence and fits
• Control chart
• Correlation
• Cost-benefit analysis
• Critical to Quality (CTQ) Tree
• Customer survey through use of Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM) systems
• Design of experiments
• Failure mode and effects analysis
• General linear model
• Histograms
• Homogeneity of variance
• Pareto chart
• Pick chart
• Process capability
• Regression analysis
• Run charts
• SIPOC analysis (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers)
• Stratification
• Taguchi methods
• Thought process map
• TRIZ (Russian acronym for “The theory of solving inventor’s problems”)

The following is a brief description of some of the more common tools for analyzing and enhancing organizational performance.

Flowcharts

Flowcharts are a simple tool that models each step in a process. Once the team can see the sequence of actions, they will have a common reference point for further analysis. There are a variety of formats for flow charts.

A detailed in-line flow chart (Figure 2) is one option but can be very time consuming and generally is the least effective option. As the name implies, this type of flow chart contains a lot of information and describes in detail what happens at every step in the process. This type of chart would include everything, such as loops caused by rework or other steps that evolved over time to eliminate quality problems. Use detailed flow charts sparingly. The detail they provide often includes unnecessary steps and can take weeks to develop one that everyone agrees on. By this time, the team can already be discouraged and has not even started on the more challenging step of analysis.

Figure 2.
Detailed Flowchart

A top-down flow chart (Figure 3) is a picture of the major steps involved in a process. To construct a top-down flowchart, first list the most basic steps across the top of a page of a flip chart. This step should have no more than six or seven primary process steps. Then, below each primary step, list the major sub-steps (again, no more than six or seven). By limiting the amount of information on any single chart, the team is forced to narrow their focus on those steps only necessary for the completion of the process. Over time there are invariably steps or complexities added to a process to prevent rework or fix problems. The advantage of a top-down flow chart is that it eliminates the need to include tasks that are not essential for the completion of the process, such as inspections, steps to prevent rework, or other steps that evolved over time to eliminate quality problems. Top-down flow charts allow teams to focus only on the steps that need to happen, not what is happening. Once the team can see the major steps, they can take the time to ask questions such as “Where do we go off track?” or “What causes us to go off track?” The answer to these questions points the team towards potential solutions, not just the problem itself. This process is typically faster and more efficient than developing detailed flow charts describing every step.

Figure 3.
Top-Down Flowchart

Deployment charts (Figure 4) combine the two ideas: what happens in a process and who is responsible for each step in the process. This method is useful for teams to track what each person or work unit is supposed to do, where they fit into the process sequence, and how they relate to the other players at each stage. To construct a deployment chart, list the major steps of a process vertically on a page or flip chart. List each player (individuals or work units) across the top, and draw lines to create columns under each heading. Then, mark the key action at each step in the appropriate box, denoting which players are involved in which steps. The benefit of this format is to allow the team to visually see the major steps and the major players simultaneously.

Figure 4.
Deployment Chart

Work-flow diagrams (Figure 5) depict the movement of people, materials, documents, or information in a process. It is developed by tracing the movements on a sketch of the floor plan or similar map of the workspace. The power of these sketches lies in illustrating a system’s inefficiency in a clear picture. Places where work can be simplified often practically jump off the page. The interest lies in whether excessive or unnecessary movements can be eliminated by a more ideal layout, arrangement, flow path, or change in a process.

Figure 5.
Work Flow Diagram

Pareto Charts

Pareto charts (Figure 6) contain a series of bars whose heights reflect the frequency or impact of process problems. The bars are then rearranged in descending order in height from left to right. This format allows the team to easily identify the problems that have the most impact. The name of this chart derives from the Pareto Principle that 80 percent of the troubles are caused by 20 percent of the problems. This concept was first developed by the economist Vilfredo Pareto and later applied to Juran’s idea of management. Juran advises concentrating on the “vital few” sources of problems and not being distracted by those of lesser importance. Of course, in continuous improvement efforts once a large problem is resolved, then lesser problems now show up as the next major cause of additional problems. The team can use tools such as brainstorming to identify the problems in a process or solutions to a problem, and Pareto voting (also referred to as multi-voting) to rank them.

Figure 6.
Sample Pareto Chart

Cause-and-Effect Diagrams

The cause-and-effect diagram (Figure 7), also referred to as a fishbone diagram because of the appearance, allows teams to map out a list of factors thought to affect a problem or desired outcome. This type of diagram was invented by Kaoru Ishikawa and is also referred to as an Ishikawa diagram. The concept behind the cause-and-effect diagram is to identify and organize possible causes of problems or factors needed to ensure the success of a particular effort or process. The problem, situation or event is listed on the right of the chart. A central arrow is drawn to the left of the problem. Branches off the central arrow indicate main categories of factors that impact the problem. Each primary branch can include sub-branches that impact that primary branch. The advantage of this format is that it allows the team to visually see the relationship between the various factors that impact the process. Common factors that impact the process or solution typically include equipment, personnel, methods, materials, and environment. Since this format typically generates significant and detailed discussions, cause and effect diagrams are best used after the process has been described and the problem is well defined. By this time, team members have a good idea of which factors to include on the diagram. It is important to remember that a cause-and-effect diagram will only identify possible causes to the problem. Only data can identify the actual causes.

Figure 7.
Cause-and-Effect Diagram

Time Plots

Many factors that affect a process may change over time: ingredients decay, new people are hired, tools and equipment wear down, and suppliers may change. Any of these changes can impact the data being collected to analyze a problem. Detecting these time-related shifts, trends, or patterns is an essential step in making long-lasting improvements. Time plots (Figure 8) are a useful tool to track these process variables over time.

Figure 8. Time Plot

Control Charts

A control chart (Figure 9) is a time chart that has an added feature; it includes the range of variation built into the system. This type of chart often includes upper and lower statistical control limits, which are calculated according to statistical formulas from data collected on the process. This type of chart allows the team to monitor a process to see whether it is in statistical control. Points that fall outside of the upper or lower control limits or fall into particular patterns indicate the presence of a special cause of variation and deserve investigation. The control chart provides the team with information on variations that may come and go unpredictably. Data points that stay within the upper and lower control limits indicate the process is performing as intended or that any slight variances are coming from common causes. It is important to note that control limits do not indicate what a process is supposed to do or what managers hope to achieve. Instead, they merely describe what the process is capable of. The only way to make improvements is to fundamentally change the process; however, the control chart will help monitor the impact or effectiveness of those changes. Once the team has identified and modified the root causes of the variations, the distance between the upper and lower control limits will narrow.

Figure 9.
Control Chart

Dot Plots

Dot plots (Figure 10) are simple graphs that show the frequency of various values or events. A dot is added to the plot above a particular factor or event each time that factor or event occurs. Dot plots are easily constructed and readily convey information. A quick look at the chart tells the team the range of measurements, the central values (mean, median, average), and how the data is distributed. These types of plots are typically used to get a quick look at the data prior to conducting further analysis. Sometimes, the data will appear in the shape of a bell formed by the natural tendency of the data to cluster around a central value, such as the average or mean, and taper off on either end. Other times, the data may show abnormal patterns, such as those caused by errors or process variations.

Figure 10.
Dot Plot

Scatter Diagram

Scatter diagrams (Figure 11) vary from dot plots in that they show the relationship between two variables or characteristics. In fact, the most powerful aspect of a scatter diagram is its ability to visually show the relationship between variables. The control parameter or independent variable is customarily plotted along the horizontal axis. The measured or dependent variable is customarily plotted along the vertical axis. A scatter diagram can suggest various kinds of correlations between variables with a certain confidence level. Correlations may be positive (rising), negative (falling), or null (uncorrelated). If the pattern of dots slopes from lower left to upper right, it suggests a positive correlation between the variables being studied. If the pattern of dots slopes from upper left to lower right, it suggests a negative correlation. A line of best fit, or trend line, can be drawn to study the correlation between the variables. An equation for the correlation between the variables can be determined by established best-fit procedures. For a linear correlation, the best-fit procedure is known as a linear regression.

Figure 11.
Scatter Diagram

Process Improvement Methodologies

The rate of change or improvement is a key competitive factor in today’s world. PDCA allows for major jumps in performance or transformational breakthroughs, as well as frequent small or incremental improvements. The PDCA cycle or improvement activities can be implemented in several methods. Some of the most popular include Lean, Six Sigma, Kaizen, and Business Process Improvement.

Lean

Lean production, often known simply as “Lean,” is the optimal way of producing goods or services through the removal of waste and implementing flow and value stream mapping. The theory is based on the concept that removing wasteful or non-value-added activities will improve productivity and improve the organization’s ability to provide quality products or services. The focus of Lean is to increase speed and information feedback. Two key components in the Lean process include the “pull” system and Value Stream Mapping.

The “pull” system is an important concept in Lean production and involves looking at the throughput or yield. Traditional manufacturing uses the “push” concept, making large batches of product and “pushing” them to each downstream operation whether they are ready for them or not. The pull concept involves controlling cycle time, process time, lead time, touch time, and the rate of pace at which the customer expects to receive goods, products, or services. This leads to the concept of just-in-time delivery. The Lean process can lead to reduced inventory, quicker delivery, and lower costs related to delivering the final product or service.

Value Stream Mapping is a Lean technique used to analyze the flow of materials and information currently required to bring a product or service to a consumer. It is also known as Material and Information Flow Mapping. The process includes the following steps:

1. Identify the target product, product family, or service.
2. Draw a current-state value stream map, which shows the current steps, delays, and information flows required to deliver the target product or service. This may be a production flow (raw materials to consumer) or a design flow (concept to launch). Standard symbols are typically used to represent supply chain entities.
3. Assess the current state value stream map in terms of creating flow by eliminating waste.
4. Draw a future state value stream map.
5. Implement the future state.
   
   

Six Sigma

“Six Sigma” is a registered service mark and trademark of Motorola, Inc., and is a business management tool that seeks to identify and remove the causes of defects and errors in system processes. It uses a set of quality management methods—including statistical methods—and creates a special infrastructure of experts within the organization. Each Six Sigma project follows a defined sequence of steps and has quantified targets.

Six Sigma was originally developed as a set of practices designed to improve manufacturing processes and eliminate defects. Still, its application was subsequently extended to other types of business processes as well. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as anything that could lead to customer dissatisfaction. Six Sigma was heavily inspired by six preceding decades of quality improvement methodologies such as quality control, TQM, and Zero Defects, based on the work of pioneers such as Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Taguchi, and others.

The term “Six Sigma process” comes from the notion that if one has six standard deviations between the mean of a process and the nearest specification limit, there will be practically no items that fail to meet the specifications. Processes that operate with “Six Sigma quality” over the short term are assumed to produce long-term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO). Six Sigma’s implicit goal is to improve all processes to that level of quality or better. (See Figure 12).

Figure 12.
Six Sigma Process

Like its predecessors, Six Sigma asserts that:

• Continuous efforts to achieve stable and predictable process results (i.e., reduce process variation) are vital to business success.
• Business processes have characteristics that can be measured, analyzed, improved, and controlled.
• Achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the entire organization, particularly from top-level management.
• A clear commitment to making decisions based on verifiable data, rather than assumptions and guesswork.

A feature that sets Six Sigma apart from previous quality improvement initiatives is a special infrastructure of experts to lead and implement the Six Sigma approach. Six Sigma borrows martial arts ranking terminology to define a hierarchy that have several key roles for its successful implementation.

• Executive Leadership includes the CEO and other members of top management. They are responsible for setting a vision for Six Sigma implementation and empowering the other role holders with the freedom and resources to explore new ideas for breakthrough improvements.
• Champions are responsible for Six Sigma implementation across the organization in an integrated manner. The Executive Leadership typically selects them from upper management levels. Champions also act as mentors to Black Belts.
• Master Black Belts, identified by the Champions, act as in-house coaches. They devote 100 percent of their time to Six Sigma. They assist Champions and guide Black Belts and Green Belts. Apart from statistical tasks, their time is spent on ensuring consistent application of Six Sigma across various functions and departments.
• Black Belts operate under Master Black Belts to apply Six Sigma methodology to specific projects. They primarily focus on project execution, whereas Champions and Master Black Belts focus on identifying projects.
• Green Belts are the employees taking up Six Sigma implementation and their other job responsibilities. They operate under the guidance of Black Belts.

Six Sigma has two key methodologies: DMAIC and DMADV, which were both inspired by Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle. DMAIC is used to improve an existing business process; while DMADV is used to create new product or process designs.

DMAIC

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

• Define process improvement goals that are consistent with customer demands and the organization’s strategy.
• Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data.

• Analyze the data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the relationships are and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered.

• Improve or optimize the process based on data analysis.
• Control to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects and continuously monitor the process.

Figure 13.
DMAIC

With strategic goals in mind, an executive team identifies areas or processes on which to focus that are consistent with customer demands and the organization’s strategy. Based on that analysis, an improvement project is then initiated. Through a rigorous methodology, a project team determines customer needs (DEFINE) and gathers information on the current (as-is) process performance (MEASURE). This examination reveals issues and problems in the existing process. In ANALYZE, the root causes of the issues or problems are identified and confirmed with data. Once the causes have been established, solutions are developed and implemented (IMPROVE), followed by actions to ensure that the improved process is standardized and resulting gains are maintained (CONTROL). (See Figure 13).

DMADV

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

• Define design or process goals that are consistent with customer demands and the organization’s strategy.
• Measure and identify characteristics that are critical to quality and process capabilities.
• Analyze to develop and design or process alternatives to select the best alternative.
• Design details, optimize the design or process, and plan for design or process verification.
• Verify the design or process, set up pilot runs, and ultimately implement the process.

Figure 14. DMADV

In DEFINE, the purpose and scope of the project are established. In MEASURE, customer data are translated into critical quality characteristics (i.e., design measurements) that the design must meet. Next, the project team generates and evaluates innovative concepts to determine the one that will best meet the design requirements (ANALYZE). High-level designs are then developed and tested (DESIGN). At this point, the design that has tested best is verified against the design requirements and validated against the intended use (VERIFY). Finally, the new design is transitioned to the process owners for rollout, implementation, and control, completing the DMADV methodology. (See Figure 14).

The difficulty of Six Sigma is that it was designed for manufacturing processes. The biggest variance in the service delivery arena is the variance related to the non-standard behaviors of people. However, the concepts can be effectively applied to facilities management since every service is process driven. Leaders should guide the process to help resisters change and adopt new methodologies that remove non-value-added work. To provide Six Sigma service, an organization must be proficient at managing existing processes, committed to process improvement, and willing to adopt new processes.

Kaizen

Kaizen (Japanese for “improvement”) is a Japanese philosophy that focuses on continuous improvement throughout all aspects of life. When applied to the workplace, Kaizen activities continually improve all business functions—from maintenance to management, from the CEO to front-line workers. By improving standardized activities and processes, Kaizen aims to eliminate waste. Kaizen was first implemented in several Japanese businesses—including Toyota—during the country’s recovery after World War II and has since spread to businesses throughout the world.

Kaizen is a daily activity, the purpose of which goes beyond simple productivity improvement. It is a process that, when done correctly, humanizes the workplace, eliminates overly hard work, and teaches people how to perform experiments on their work using the scientific method. With this philosophy, people learn to spot and work to eliminate waste in business processes.

To be most effective, Kaizen must operate with three principles in place:

• Consider the process, and the results, so that actions to achieve effects are discovered;
• Systemic thinking of the whole process in order to avoid creating problems elsewhere in the process;
• A learning, non-judgmental, non-blaming approach to the re-examination of the assumptions that resulted in the current process.

While Kaizen usually delivers small continuous improvements, the culture of continual aligned incremental improvements and standardization yields large results in the form of compound productivity or process improvement. Hence, the English usage of Kaizen can be a “continuous improvement.”

Business Process Improvement

Business Process Improvement (BPI) is a systematic approach to help an organization optimize its underlying processes to achieve more efficient results. Most BPI techniques were developed and refined for manufacturing, though many of the core principles and methodologies can be successfully adapted to work in a service-based environment.

Like other improvement methodologies, BPI works by:

• Defining the organization’s strategic goals and purposes (Who are we, what do we do, and why do we do it?)
• Determining the organization’s customers (or stakeholders) (Who do we serve?)
• Aligning the business processes to realize the organization’s goals (How do we do it better?)

Although BPI shares many of the same tools as the other methodologies, its goal is a radical change in an organization’s performance rather than a series of incremental changes (compared to TQM or Kaizen). Hammer and Champy stated that the process was not meant to impose trivial changes, such as 10 percent improvements or 20 percent cost reductions, but was meant to be revolutionary.

Employees Working Together

Creating project teams is an important dimension of change management. A single person can make a significant difference in an organization. But rarely does a single person have enough knowledge or experience to understand everything that goes on in a process. Major gains in quality and productivity can be achieved through the use of teams. Pooling the skills, talents, knowledge, and perspectives of various individuals invariably produces better results than individual investment. With proper training, teams can often tackle complex and complicated problems with long-lasting and effective results. Besides the pooling of individual skills, the team also provides mutual support between team members. The synergistic energy created by an effective team can produce results that far exceed the original vision.

Therefore, it is important to understand where project teams fit into the overall quality effort and how to use them properly. Active involvement and high visibility of project teams can determine the success or failure of any quality effort. To ensure the team’s success, it is critical to consider certain aspects. The team needs to have a clear and precise mission. Leaders must meet regularly with the team to help the team stay focused, provide necessary resources, or tear down organizational cultural roadblocks. The team members need to understand how to blend teamwork and scientific methods. The team needs to be empowered to think outside of the traditional hierarchical boundaries. The team needs to understand that making improvements is not easy; patience and persistence are necessary. Team members also need to understand team dynamics.

It is important that the leaders and the teams not get discouraged if, during the middle of a three to five-year plan, they have not noticed immediate results. Too often, an organization losses sight of where it intends to go and makes radical changes in mid-cycle. Consider the concept of the rule of doubling. If you start with one lily in a pond, with the goal to have the pond full in thirty days by simply doubling what was in the pond on the previous day, by day 20, the pond is less than one-tenth of a percent full. It is easy for the team to feel nothing is happening when, in fact, the process is at the edge of the asymptotic growth spurt. Patience, persistence and an eye on the end goal are necessary virtues of any effective leader or quality improvement team. The ordinary project team is complicated. Team members must work out personal differences, find strengths upon which to build, balance commitments, and learn how to improve. When a team runs smoothly, members can concentrate on the primary goal of improving a process. In contrast, a team that fails to build relationships will waste time on struggles for control and endless discussions that lead nowhere.

Knowing what to expect as the team progresses will allow leaders to be able to anticipate and address difficulties. Leaders can help avoid many disruptions and be better prepared for those that cannot be avoided. On the surface, managing the team efforts are simply related to improving the process. If indeed, these were the team’s only concerns, progress would be easy. However, when people form into groups, something always seems to get in the way of efficient progress. Team members bring in many personal aspects including conflicting emotions: excitement and anxiety about being on the team, loyalty to their divisions or departments or previous processes, and nervousness about what they have to offer or their role on the team. If left unattended, these personal aspects can inhibit the team’s effectiveness.

As the team gradually learns to cope with the emotional and group pressures they face, the team goes through predictable stages: forming, storming, norming and performing. More experienced teams and team members will progress though these steps rather quickly. Less experienced teams may take longer to progress through these steps and the leader must reinforce that these steps are to be expected.

During the forming stage, members cautiously explore the boundaries of acceptable group behavior. This is a stage of transition from individual to member status. Because there is so much going on to distract members’ focus in the beginning, little that concerns the specific goal is accomplished. This stage is perfectly normal, and leaders must allow time for the team to formulate.

Storming is probably the most difficult stage for the team. They begin to realize the task is different and more difficult than first imagined, so members can become testy, defensive, blameful, or overzealous. Impatient about the lack of progress but still too underdeveloped as a team to know much about decision-making or scientific methods, members can argue about just what actions the team should take. Team members try to rely solely on the personal and professional experience, resisting any need for collaboration. During this stage team members may have little energy to spend on the task at hand; however, with guidance they will begin to understand one another.

During the norming stage, members begin to reconcile competing loyalties and responsibilities. They begin to accept the team, team ground rules, their roles on the team, the individuality of other team members, and the individual qualifications that each member brings to the team. Emotional conflict is reduced as previous individual competitiveness is replaced with group cooperation. As team members begin to work out their differences, they now have more time and energy to focus on the primary goal. At this point the team can start making significant progress.

During the performing stage, the team has resolved its many relationships and expectations. The team can start performing, diagnosing and solving problems, and have an impact on implementing changes. At this point, team members have discovered and accepted other’s strengths and weaknesses and have discovered how they can contribute. Members begin to develop insights into personal and group processes and are better able to identify productive process changes. The leader will know when the team has reached this point because they are able to accomplish significant progress.

Understanding this normal pattern for maturing groups will keep the leaders from overreacting to normal problems and setting unrealistic expectations that only add to the frustration. Many team efforts have failed because the leaders did not recognize this normal and necessary process. Teams have been dismantled because leaders were not seeing immediate results or were experiencing their own frustration with the process. It is often said that group decisions are far more effective than individual decisions, so leaders must allow the group to mature before the team concept can achieve its full potential. Abandoning a team approach to process improvement can often have far more detrimental effects than not having started the team in the first place. Abandoning a team during the maturity process can create employee disillusionment, squelch initiative, and create an atmosphere of distrust in the leadership.

Leaders must also recognize that teams have a normal roller coaster of emotional highs and lows. With every step forward, the future looks bright, and team members are optimistic. However, no matter how well a team works together, progress is never smooth. As progress swings from forward to stalled—and then from stalled to backward—the team’s mood will swing as well. The positive feelings of hopefulness and optimism may last for a while, but they usually change to boredom and impatience as the project gets underway and the team realizes how much remains on the road to success. Often, the elation that results from certain stages of the process can change to despair if the team does not understand these highs and lows of team dynamics. For example, often, the initial data collection and analysis process uncovers mistakes in data collection procedures and the team must go back and do it again.

At this point the leaders need to provide encouragement. Improving each step of the change process is part of the process. If the data collection determines that the process for gathering the data is flawed, the team needs to understand that this is a success. The flaw in the data gathering process was not known until the data was first gathered and analyzed. It has pointed to a part of the process that needs to be improved to develop more meaningful measurement factors. Had the initial data not indicated a problem with the collection process, the problem would never have been uncovered, i.e., the team cannot adjust something they are not aware of. The team will occasionally need the leader to reinforce this concept to re-spark the team’s emotional state.

The maturity pattern and emotional state of each team is different. Guidance leaders need to understand and accept that changes in attitude, just like growth stages, are normal and must be accepted. The leaders and the teams must develop patience and persistence. Too many process improvement efforts have been abandoned in mid-cycle because these concepts were not fully understood and accepted. Abandoning a change process, just like abandoning a team in mid-cycle, can create disillusionment, squelch initiative, and create an atmosphere of distrust. Once employees reach this state of mind, it is very difficult to encourage them to partake in another change initiative. Deming notes that lack of constancy is one of several deadly diseases that will stand in the way of any effective quality transformation effort.

Tools for Making Team Decisions

Anyone who has any experience working with teams will appreciate the difficulty in developing creative ways to approach a task. It is sometimes even more difficult to select only one or two items to focus on from all the available options. Three of the most common techniques used by teams to ease this effort include brainstorming, multi-voting and the nominal group technique.

Brainstorming is one of the easiest and most enjoyable ways to generate a list of ideas. A successful brainstorming process allows people to be as creative as possible and does not restrict their ideas in any way. This free-form approach can generate excitement in the group, equalize involvement, and often result in original solutions to problems. The team needs to discuss the ground rules before starting the brainstorming process. Typical guidelines include there are no silly ideas, think outside of the box, hitch-hiking on someone else’s idea is perfectly acceptable, no discounting of ideas, and no discussion of ideas (there is plenty of time for that at the next stage). It is not uncommon for ideas that may seem totally unorthodox when first suggested to be the best solution in the long run.

Multi-voting (also known as Pareto voting) is an effective method of reducing the number of ideas to the most important or popular. This is accomplished through a series of votes; each cutting the list in half. Even an extensive list of 30 to 50 items can easily be reduced to a workable number in four to five votes. Multi-voting often follows a brainstorming session to identify the few items worthy of immediate attention. The process involves the generation of a list of ideas. If two or more items seem to be related, they should be combined, but only if the group agrees. Once all related items have been combined renumber the items if necessary. The team then begins the voting process.

The nominal group technique (NGT) is a more structured approach than brainstorming and multi-voting to narrow down a list of options. This approach is called “nominal” because, during the session, the group does not engage in the usual amount of interaction typical of a real team. NGT is an effective tool when there are highly controversial issues or when the team is stuck in disagreement. The first step is formalized brainstorming; however, this step is conducted in silence, with each member writing down their own ideas. When everyone is done, go around the table and allow each member to read aloud one idea off their list. Each idea is added to a flip chart. Continue around the table until everyone has completed their list (or until a previously agreed-upon time has expired).

Once all of the ideas are listed, the facilitator asks if there are any questions about any of the listed ideas. This process is designed to allow the group to clarify and understand the ideas on the list. Once this step is completed, the facilitator assists with combining similar ideas, but only with agreement from the originator of the idea. The next step is like multi-voting, but again is more formalized and conducted by silent voting. Depending upon the number of items to choose from each member is allowed to select their four to eight top choices. These choices are then ranked in priority order. Once all members have voted, the votes are collected and tallied. The tally results will produce a Pareto-like chart that ranks the group’s results. The group can then discuss the results. If there is agreement, then the process is complete, and the group can decide what to do next. If there is continued disagreement, the group can focus on investigating the top two or three items that received the highest scores.

It is important that team members understand the concept of consensus building. Consensus building is the process of finding a proposal acceptable to enough that all members can support it; no member opposes it. Consensus building is not a majority vote. Consensus building requires time; active participation by all team members; skills in communication, listening, conflict resolution, and discussion facilitation; creative thinking; and open-mindedness. To reach a consensus, the team must allow each member to participate equally, and this may require several rounds of discussion and solution modification. Not all decisions require consensus, and it is probably impossible to have such agreement in any group, so the team should agree in advance as to when to push for consensus. When consensus building is required, the three techniques, brainstorming, multi-voting, and NTG, can be effective structured ways to reach consensus.

Basic Steps in Using the Scientific Method to Solve Problems

When teams are formed to assist with the change management process, they need to be aware of the basic strategies of the scientific approach to problem-solving. These steps include understanding the process, collecting meaningful data, identifying the root causes of problems, developing appropriate solutions, and making effective changes.

The first step in any team process improvement effort is to understand the process. The team should understand how it operates, who is involved with what steps, what it is supposed to accomplish, who the customers are, and what the customers expect. Discussing these issues will generally help the team come to a common understanding of the process and its goal, identify any inconsistencies, and highlight any glaring problems. With this knowledge the team will almost always be able to develop better procedures.

Many mistakes or errors are related to the process and can be eliminated by making simple changes to the process. The team should take time to evaluate where the most common mistakes occur. The team can identify procedures that are less error-prone by asking questions such as whether changing the order of the steps prevents mistakes, whether changing a form prevents mistakes, whether using a checklist prevents mistakes, or whether providing clear instructions that are graphically illustrated and prominently displayed prevents errors. The team should discuss whether changes in the work environment would be beneficial, such as changing the work layout or using a device that checks the completion of a procedure. The team should also take time to be creative and think of entirely new procedures that are less error-prone.

Collecting meaningful data may be one of the most important strategies teams will use. Collecting unreliable data or developing poor collection methods can lead teams in the wrong direction, bring teams to the wrong conclusion, or fail to bring about the desired results. Collecting too much data can lead to analysis paralysis. Therefore, teams should take time to discuss why they are collecting data, what data will be the most meaningful, how will the measured data help improve the process, and what process is most effective for collecting the data. Meaningful data must be both consistent and stable. Data is consistent if two people who measure the same thing get essentially the same results. Data is considered stable when the results do not show signs of variation due to special causes. Ignoring these two concepts usually leads to wasted effort.

Identifying the root cause of problems is essential for developing permanent solutions to problems. Sometimes it is easy to tell when a problem is first observed, but hard to know when it first occurs. At other times employees may think a particular problem happens all the time, when in fact the specific cause of the problem is isolated. Jumping to conclusions without identifying the root cause of problems often wastes time and resources. The team should spend time discussing the definition of the problem and studying the cause of the problem. They may invite other people who have specific knowledge of the process. The more time spent understanding the cause and effect of the problem the better the team will be at identifying the root cause. Statistical methods are often useful in this step of the improvement process.

The crux of the Scientific Method is developing solutions that solve the problem. The only way to truly solve problems is to eliminate their causes. For the team to develop effective solutions, they may need to investigate various alternative solutions. The team should avoid jumping to conclusions since it is common for people to assume they know the cause of the problem and the solution before they even start the process. Data should support all hunches, or they are not data-based decisions. There is value in having a “gut” feeling. However, if the gut feeling evolved is based on erroneous data, it can lead to erroneous conclusions, and developing meaningful and lasting solutions will generally not be successful. If the hunch turns out to be correct and is supported by data, invariably the team still learns something about the process. More often the best solution turns out to be something different than what was originally anticipated. The team should be patient, and collect data on a variety of alternative strategies, avoiding simply charging ahead with what appears to be the best solution. Once special causes of variance are eliminated and the process becomes closer to statistical control, the team can discuss how it might make fundamental changes to the process to tighten the variance.

Once the team has identified the root cause of a problem and identified an effective solution, the next step is to implement the change. This may sound easy; however, as noted earlier often the organization’s culture can be the biggest roadblock to making effective change. The team should make certain to include the organization’s leadership in the plan. The team should identify the major sequence of events that are required to implement the plan. The team should look ahead, anticipate resources and training, if necessary, discuss the best method to communicate and sell the proposed changes, and think about what to do if they run into problems, i.e. PLAN. Once the plan is accepted, the next step in the change process is implementation, i.e. DO. When the plan is successfully implemented, the team should monitor the progress and effectiveness of the change, check the validity of the conclusions, and check for side effects and backsliding, i.e. CHECK. Finally, the team should determine from the check process if there are opportunities to refine the plan, i.e. ACT.

By this time, the team should have a solid understanding of the process and eliminated the sources of problems from the process. Before bringing the project to an end, the team should develop a plan to make continuous improvements—a constant, never-ending part of the process. This may include keeping records up to date, monitoring key performance indicators (KPI’s), and benchmarking.

It is well known that managing something that cannot be measured is difficult. So, how does the change leader identify current trends or areas that need improvement? What is available to help the leaders answer questions such as: are we making adequate investments in our infrastructures to remain competitive? Are we making adequate investments in our resources to sustain excellence? Are we providing quality service? Are we providing an environment that creates employee satisfaction? Are we addressing the changes that drive actual or perceived performance excellence? Are we effectively utilizing available technologies? Are we changing with the times and fast enough to keep pace?

Various aspects of the facilities management organization can be measured to provide feedback to the change leader. Some of the relevant measures and indicators include facilities inspections and audits, financial and expenditure reports, operating costs, staffing ratios, and utility data. Other pertinent measurements include process key performance indicators such as work order utilization, planned versus unplanned labor hours, schedule compliance, PM versus breakdown labor hours, storeroom turnover, and percentage of work order backlog.

One way to stay current is to remain active, listen and network. Active involvement with national and regional professional organizations, such as APPA, and attendance at available educational forums can provide valuable trend information. Participation in the APPA Thought Leader Series can provide invaluable insight into current and emerging trends. Networking with peers provides information on what others are doing or how they are doing it. Reading trade journals such as Facilities Manager, or publications such as Educational Facilities and the Impact of Technology, Expectations and Competition, an APPA Thought Leaders Series publication that includes the top ten critical facilities issues, can provide information on current and progressive industry changes.

There are also more formal tools available to the change manager. The Balanced Scorecard is a tool that can be used to measure progress in various key areas and ensure change efforts align with the organization’s strategic plan. Measurements using key performance indicators (KPI) and benchmarks can provide both internal and external assessments of progress and status.

Balanced Scorecard

An organization’s strategic goals should provide the key direction for any change management effort. This alignment can be brought about by integrating programs like the Balanced Scorecard into the change initiative. For example, when deploying BPI or Six Sigma, identification of projects can be done based on how they fit into the Balanced Scorecard agenda of the organization.

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a performance planning and measurement framework designed to execute and monitor the organizational strategy by using a combination of financial and non-financial measures. It is designed to translate vision and strategy into objectives and measures across four balanced perspectives: financial, customers, internal business process, and learning and growth. It gives a framework ensuring that the strategy is translated into a coherent set of performance measures.

The BSC complements financial measures with operational measures on customer satisfaction, internal processes, and the organization’s innovation and learning activities. It allows management to look at the organization from various perspectives such as:

• How is the department viewed by its customers?
• What must the department do to excel?
• Can the department continue to improve, change, and create value, in order to remain effective?
• Is the department effectively utilizing its resources?

Implementing Balanced Scorecards typically includes four processes:

• Translating the vision into operational goals;
• Communicating the vision and link it to individual performance;
• Business planning;
• Feedback and learning, and adjusting the strategy accordingly.

These four stages should be representative of the organization’s shared vision. Ultimately, these measures should help to communicate the organization’s strategies and goals, motivate actions, and provide guidance and feedback for their attainment. Thus, for an organization to reap full-potential of the balanced scorecard process, it must first define its mission, determine major departmental objectives, and select strategic initiatives. The entire balanced scorecard design and implementation process can easily take up to two years or more, so it is critical for the organization leaders to remain patient and persistent. Utilizing effective change management skills will help to guide the process.

The grouping of performance measures in general categories (perspectives) is seen to aid in the gathering and selection of the appropriate performance measures for the enterprise. Four general perspectives have been proposed by the Balanced Scorecard:

• Financial perspective;
• Customer perspective;
• Internal process perspective;
• Learning and growth perspective.

The financial perspective examines whether the organization’s implementation and execution of its strategy are contributing to its bottom-line improvement. This perspective can be used to evaluate the organization’s effectiveness in managing its operations and costs.

The customer perspective defines the value that the organization will apply to satisfy customers. The measures selected for the customer perspective should measure the value that is delivered to the customer which may involve time, quality, performance and service, and cost. Fast-changing customer needs underscore the importance of aligning business processes to achieve higher customer satisfaction. It is imperative in any change initiative that the “voice of the customer” be known and factored in when reviewing or redesigning any process.

The internal process perspective is concerned with the processes that create and deliver value to the customer. It focuses on all the activities and key processes required for the organization to excel at providing the value expected by the customers both productively and efficiently. These can include both short-term and long-term objectives as well as incorporating innovative process development to stimulate improvement. This perspective measures internal processes for functions such as operations management (improving asset utilization, supply chain management, etc.), customer management (expanding and deepening relations), innovation (new products or services), regulatory (effective control and compliance), and social (establishing good relations with the external stakeholders).

The learning and growth perspective is the foundation for sustaining an organizational change culture. It focuses on the intangible assets of an organization that are required to support the value-creating processes. The learning-and-growth perspective is concerned with the jobs (human capital), the systems (information capital), and the climate (organization capital) of the enterprise.

Ahoy suggested adding two additional perspectives: information technology and knowledge management.

The information technology perspective is concerned with all aspects of managing and processing information in an organization. This includes hardware and software, internal, and external applications.

The knowledge management perspective is concerned with how everyone in the organization collects, disseminates, and analyzes pertinent data, information, and knowledge in a timely fashion for the benefit of the entire organization.

It is important for the organization to understand that these various perspectives are not independent of each other. Performance drivers in one perspective may impact outcomes in other perspectives.

An effective BSC can be the catalyst for stimulating and sustaining continuous improvement. It can serve as the starting point for an organizational-wide performance improvement system that pinpoints each division’s key contributions to the overall strategy. When used effectively the BSC provides the framework necessary for an organization to systematically and fundamentally change its culture and the way it goes about doing business.

Benchmarking and Key Performance Indicators

Change management tools emphasize measurable results. Accordingly, benchmarks and key performance indicators assume an important role in any change initiative. Depending on the lifecycle of the process in question, benchmarks may be internal to the organization, external to competing or noncompeting organizations, or dictated by senior management as an aspirational target. Key performance indicators (KPI) are financial and non-financial metrics used to help an organization define and measure progress toward organizational goals.

Benchmarking

The key to organizational survival is to stay current by actively seeking and implementing best practices, both internally and externally, in the organization. Benchmarking can directly contribute towards this effort. Benchmarking is a process in which organizations evaluate various aspects of their processes in relation to best practice. This then allows organizations to develop plans on how to adopt such best practice. Used effectively benchmarking can assist organizations in their pursuit of continuous improvement by allowing them to continually challenge their practices.

Benchmarking can help set realistic goals and strategic targets, while also creating a sense of urgency. It can also help increase sensitivity towards the changes in the expectations or industry practices. Benchmarking varies from comparative cost studies, since comparative cost studies tend to measure against averages, not best practice.

There are various kinds of benchmarking. Some of the most common ones include process benchmarking, performance benchmarking, and strategic benchmarking. In process benchmarking, the focus is on improving process capability, effectiveness, efficiency, or cost, in order to enhance the final output. Performance benchmarking emphasizes the competitive position of an organization within its own industry, with a focus on metrics such as cost or quality. Strategic benchmarking seeks to identify the approaches that make high-performing organizations successful. This form of benchmarking is the most advanced and may require considerable resources and time, yet most breakthrough ideas come from this effort.

Benchmarking can be accomplished internally or industry-wide. Internal benchmarking is the most basic level of benchmarking and analyzes the areas that are most successful within the organization with the goal of establishing similar factors to other internal processes. Industry benchmarking can be accomplished on an individual basis or in collaboration with other organizations.

One challenge that benchmarking presents to the change leader is to prepare the organization for the fact that others may perform better. It is critical to communicate the message that because other organizations may be superior in some processes, it is not a negative reflection of their ability, knowledge, or dedication. Even for an organization that is performing well to improve it must be able to come to terms with the fact that they will need to emulate best practices.

Key Performance Indicators

KPIs are frequently tied to an organization’s strategy (as exemplified through techniques such as the Balanced Scorecard). They are also used to measure the performance or progress of various steps in work processes. The key elements to be considered when identifying KPIs are:

• Have a pre-defined business process.
• Have clear goals or performance requirements for the process.
• Have a quantitative or qualitative measurement of the results and comparison with set goals.
• Investigate variances and adjust processes or resources to achieve the desired goals.

When identifying KPI’s the acronym SMART is often applied. KPI’s need to be:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Result-oriented or Relevant
• Time-bound

The typical off-the-shelf computer maintenance management systems (CMMS) come with over 200 standard reports under the broad heading of asset management. While these technologies have become tremendous tools to help manage work, provide information for decision-making, and measure performance, they need to be carefully managed. The balanced scorecard approach can be used to determine what outcomes need to be measured and relevant KPIs. For example, each perspective of the balanced scorecard may include such KPIs as:

• Financial: facilities condition index (FCI), facility operating index (FOI) and facility renewal index (FRI).
• Processes: preventative maintenance (PM) vs. breakdown maintenance and system reliability.
• Employee: training and productivity.
• Customer: response time and qualitative impressions of facilities by various stakeholders.
  
  

APPA Facilities Performance Indicator (FPI)

The APPA Facilities Performance Indicators (FPI) Survey is an annual collection and reporting of data (KPI’s) creating a baseline for performance evaluation across educational facilities. The FPI Survey and resulting FPI Reports take a comprehensive look at facilities’ operating costs, staffing levels, and expenses, building and space costs and usage, strategic financial measures, and much more to provide a benchmark by which related institutions can compare, contrast, measure, and elevate their facilities’ performance.

The FPI report can depict statistics in three views: statistical reports, bar charts, and dashboard dials. The information is organized around eight main facilities functions: administration, construction/architecture and engineering, custodial services, energy/utilities, landscaping/groundskeeping, maintenance/trades, public safety, and other functions. Detailed reports are available for key indicators in areas such as:

• General Data, covering statistics that provide a broad profile of the participating institutions;
• Operating Costs Report, which covers basic statistics on daily facilities operations;
• Strategic Financial Measures Report, covers key financial indicators such as the Facility Operating Current Replacement Value (CRV) Index, the Facility Operating Gross Square Foot (GSF) Index, the Facility Operating Gross Institutional Expenditures (GIE) Index, the Capital Renewal Index, the Facilities Condition Index, and the Capital Renewal/Deferred Maintenance/Renovation/Modernization Needs Index;
• Building and Space Report, a report that explores statistics on these topics. These ratios provide essential information on characteristics of educational facilities.
• Personnel Data and Costs Report, which looks at trends in salary levels, staffing of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions by position plus ratios and measures that can be used for staffing and analysis of personnel costs.
• Internal Processes Report, which measures important, select facilities business processes.
• Evaluations Report, that displays the institution’s four performance self-evaluations in the survey and the results of their campus-based customer and employee satisfaction surveys. Training and positions filled by internal candidate statistics are found in this section.

The dashboard feature (Figure 15) is a flexible tool for setting goals at various levels within an organization and organizing dashboards into Balanced Scorecard perspectives. The dashboards overlay an institution’s measurement scores onto dials with visual comparisons to overall averages. Goals can be inserted to show the future desired performance positions.

Figure 15.
Sample APPA FPI Dashboard

The FPI report is an essential tool for achieving organizational excellence through continuous improvement. The FPI survey and report enable the facilities professional to assess an organization’s financial performance, the effectiveness of its primary processes, the readiness of its employees to embrace the challenges of the future, and its ability to delight customers. The FPI report enhances the facilities professional’s ability to develop and analyze solid information supporting organizational planning, reporting, operating, and change efforts.

Assessment Programs

There are many assessment programs designed specifically for the facilities management organization to guide the change process. Three specific ones include the APPA FMEP, RMG, and Gordian (previously known as Sightlines). Another valuable resource is the Education Advisory Board (EAB).

Facilities Management Evaluation Program (FMEP)

The APPA Facilities Management Evaluation Program (FMEP) represents a leadership tool designed to serve organizations looking for a proven and successful approach to performance management and improvement. Hug states “It is made to order for the facilities management profession.”

The FMEP takes a system approach that includes seven section criteria and 57 subsections which are all part of a system that must be integrated to optimize organizational performance. The seven FMEP sections are Leadership, Strategic and Operational Planning, Customer Focus, Information and Analysis, Development and Management of Human Resources, Process Management, and Performance Results.

Patterned after the Baldrige National Quality Program Criteria for Performance Excellence, the FMEP criteria provide a framework for continuous improvement. The criteria are designed to help facility management organizations use a comprehensive and integrated approach to organizational performance management and provide a profile of strengths and opportunities for improvement.

It is important to recognize that the work required to prepare for the FMEP is not an individual task. The best method is to involve a team or teams of people who have an interest in better understanding and using the FMEP criteria as a template for improving the organization. A team should consist of three to five members who represent employees from different levels throughout the organization.

The team composition will vary depending on the criteria category. Large facilities organizations may have multiple teams, each evaluating different FMEP criteria. Smaller institutions may only have a single team assembled to assess all seven FMEP criteria categories.

The benefit of going through an FMEP is that the leadership of a facilities organization is required to review current practices. The process allows the organization to identify and make appropriate adjustments and improvements in the overall effectiveness and efficiency. The result is an organization that improves quality and productivity and ultimately provides improved customer service.

APPA also has a relatively new program called the APPA Advisors, who provide assessment, advising, analytic, developmental, and strategic services to assist institutions in leveraging their physical assets, enhancing the student experience, building organizational capacity, developing their human capital, and extracting higher value and better outcomes from their investments in facilities construction, operations, renewal, and modernization. APPA Advisors provide assessments that are tailored, customized, and scaled to address organizational and institutional challenges.

Reliability Management Group (RMG)

Reliability Management Group (RMG) is a firm that offers a framework to guide the organization’s change process. The work management process consists of six steps on what they refer to as “The Wheel.” The Wheel is RMG’s graphic view of good reliability management. The various portions of “The Wheel” include the Pain Zone, the Productivity Zone, Joint Prioritization, Daily Schedule Compliance, Collect and Utilize Data, the Proactivity Zone, Problem Solving, and Work Culture.

The Pain Zone is emergency work which is the most expensive type of maintenance. The Productivity Zone is where productivity is created by planning and scheduling work. Joint Prioritization is teamwork between departments such as Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Materials, who together decide the order in which work should be accomplished. Daily Schedule Compliance is the most important measure in maintenance since it identifies both equipment reliability and work process reliability. Collect and Utilize Data is a critical step in the improvement process. The Proactivity Zone consists of various technologies or procedures that help identify work early to skip the Pain Zone. Some of the most common processes include preventative maintenance (PM), predictive maintenance (PDM), condition-based maintenance (CBM), reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), and total productive maintenance (TPM). Problem Solving consists of work documentation, work measurement and work analysis. Work Culture surrounds and affects every part of the entire process. The RMG “Wheel” correlates directly with the Deming Cycle of PDCA.

RMG’s Reliability Grid is a detailed, comprehensive framework for assessing the Reliability Process. The grid parallels the work management process and “The Wheel”. The grid has 88 cells and 491 criteria that comprehensively describe the characteristics of a low-cost reliable work management process. The grid is a useful tool that brings objectivity and order to an often subjective and chaotic process. If used to its full potential, the grid leads to a thorough understanding of the work management process and the organization’s work culture. This can be a useful tool to guide the change process by defining what is, what can be, and how to get there.

Gordian

Gordian is a firm that also uses a process that follows the PDCA cycle. Gordian states that their goal is to enable colleges and university business officers and facilities leaders to manage the physical assets of a campus with the same analytical rigor with which they manage their financial assets. Gordian has created a proprietary process to measure and monitor the performance of physical assets on college and university campuses to guide the change process. They refer to their process as the Return on Physical Assets (ROPA). The ROPA process was developed to illustrate the interrelationships among four key aspects of facilities management: asset reinvestment, annual stewardship, operating effectiveness, and customer service. Using Gordian’s measurement approach an organization can transform data into action items. They transform data on 170 indicators into information by applying a QVQ (Quantify, Verify, Qualify) Process. This information is transformed into knowledge by applying the ROPA model along with benchmarking to illustrate trends and opportunities. The knowledge gained from the ROPA model is then integrated with institutional long-range program and financial planning to identify action items. The Gordian model can provide independent validation of organizational strengths and weaknesses and help discover the root causes for underperforming areas.

Education Advisory Board (EAB)

EAB provides in-depth research and services for facilities and estate leaders to meet their most pressing challenges, from managing space utilization and maintenance to improving employee engagement and stakeholder communication. The EAB Facilities Resource Hub lists available events, tools, research, and insights that help facilities managers remain current on emerging trends and potential solutions.

One of the biggest challenges in the change process is to sustain a change culture. For an organization to adopt a change culture it must cease seeing change as a transitory practice; it must become the “norm”. In a sustained change culture, people no longer label the process as “change,” which comes with all the normal resistance inertia related to change. Unless this happens, change will be perceived as a passing diversion, simply another diversion from the normal practices, or management’s program du jour. Developing a change culture will only be successful when people’s actions are altered, when new behaviors produce group benefits for a continued period, and after people make a connection between their altered behavior and performance improvement. Lou Gerstner, commenting on his transformation of IBM, states “What you can do is create the conditions for transformation. You can provide incentives. You can define the marketplace realities and goals. But then you have to trust. In fact, in the end, management doesn’t change culture. Management invites the workforce itself to change the culture.” (See Resource #15)

The lasting change starts with planting a seed early in the process. The cumulative effect of nurturing that seed as it grows will determine if change becomes rooted into the organization’s culture. Sustained change is not something that happens once change has been implemented.

Planting and nurturing the change seed may involve organizational changes. The change will likely involve redesigning the roles people play in the organization. Behaviors and attitudes are formed by the context of roles, responsibilities, and relationships. Change may require that the organization’s structure be redesigned. Who plays key positions in the process can have a strong signaling effect. Individuals most willing to adopt change should be put into lead roles, either formally or informally. There are many individuals who are not in formal leadership roles that can be effectively utilized to lead change processes. Change may also require that resources be realigned to give emphasis to the desired goal.

Reward systems must also be redesigned. Rewards must include public recognition of behaviors consistent with the desired change. This both reinforces the desired behaviors and sends a strong message to others. Who gets the praise and recognition? Who gets promoted and why? Is team effort really a value? Is initiative recognized and appreciated? These are all important questions that must be reinforced throughout the change process. One of the most powerful messages is for leaders to reinforce what they truly care about.

Change leaders must take an active visible role in the change process. Active participation, support for organizational redesign, resource allocation, and effective reward programs all indicate the level of credible commitment. People need to see deeds and actions. Simply communicating the desired goals will not have a lasting effect.

Change leaders must demonstrate a high level of interest in measurement. This includes performance measurements, benchmarking, attitude surveys, focus groups, and individual interviews. A balanced measurement program must track short-term and long-term performance indicators, as well as the internal and external perspectives of stakeholders. These will help assess if the organization is doing the right things in the right ways.

Take time to celebrate. Change efforts may take many years to become fully integrated into the organizational culture. This can test the patience of internal and external stakeholders and can increase the likelihood of skepticism. There is often no better motivator than celebrating frequent successes. It can keep hopes alive and rejuvenate those who have invested extra effort. Celebrating success can also enhance the credibility of the program. It is important during the celebrations not to declare victory too soon. While it is good to celebrate short-term wins, long-term success is the higher achieving goal. The goal is to win the war, not the battle. The possibility of regression to pre-change practices has a strong pull.

Continuous refining and re-tuning of the process must become a cultural norm. The outcomes of change initiatives are not always fully anticipated. In some cases, there are totally unanticipated outcomes. In turn, conditions that presented the need to change are constantly changing. It is important for the change leader to communicate and reaffirm that these adjustments are consistent with the original initiative. Some change efforts may fail. However, a failed change effort may provide far more information than an unproductive success. For example, people can sometimes learn more about math by learning from their mistakes. It is up to the leaders to make sense of what is going on and to retell the story so that it is consistent with the desired values and core principles.

Successful change leaders actively look for ways to obtain clear performance improvement, establish goals, determine milestones, achieve the stated objectives, and reward the people involved. Continued achievement, celebration, and communication will encourage teams to continue making the effort required to make long-lasting improvements and develop an organization built to change.

To sustain an organization that effectively develops a change culture, the department leaders must accept and embrace a concept that Charlie Jenkins, APPA past president, eloquently expressed, “Change management is a journey similar to climbing a mountain that has no summit: you just have to learn to love climbing!”

After successfully implementing a new work order management system, the University of Colorado at Boulder Facilities Management Department proceeded to the next step. This step involved reviewing the organizational practices to promote effective asset management, improve customer service, and capture opportunities for improvement.

To accomplish this goal, Facilities Management developed an Operations Steering Committee that guided a number of sub-committees. (See Figure 16) These sub-committees include a Work Order Process Review Team, a Shop Planning/Scheduling Team, a Customer Service Team, an Inventory Management Team, a Preventative Maintenance Team, and a Reporting Team. Each sub-committee was comprised of cross-sectional employees who coordinated to accomplish their given charge. The Steering Committee discussed the unit’s mission and vision, monitored sub-committee progress, assisted with removing barriers identified by the sub-committees, determined priorities, and coordinated to assist with aligning the sub-committee interactions since all the team’s missions overlapped.

Facilities Operations used a modified Balanced Score Card, referred to as the Programs of Emphasis. The five strategies included in the Programs of Emphasis are:

• Improve Campus Appearance and Functionality
• Create a Customer Service Driven Culture
• Create an Inviting and Invigorating Work Environment
• Focus on Process, Performance, and Productivity Improvement
• Focus on Responsible Fiscal Management

The Steering Committee ensured that the sub-committee efforts align with these objectives.

The Work Order Process Review Team was charged with reviewing the entire work order process from the initial service request to the final service delivery, work order closure, and customer contact. This process is the foundation for the facilities operations change process and requires coordination with all of the other teams. The process required information on the work order such as who made the request, who was assigned, what materials are needed, status of the request, and work order metrics. The team developed a detailed flow chart to view the various steps in the process. The team recognized that the work order management process was actually a system made up of numerous processes.

The team broke the system into various processes to focus on specific stages without becoming overwhelmed. Work order management requires training internal service providers on how to complete accurate work order status, work order metrics, and timely entry. To keep customers posted on progress and to issue timely billing it was necessary for the service providers to provide accurate daily timecards and work order status. Future analysis for metrics such as the percentage of labor hours spent on various priority codes, worker productivity, and the percentage of work dedicated to various activity codes is only as accurate as the information provided by the service providers.

The Shop Planning/Scheduling Team focused on how work is planned and scheduled. The goal was to plan service requests to notify customers of the service delivery time and date. Often customers felt like their request fell into the void, or they had to shut down their processes for the service request to be completed. Knowing the workload and available resources allowed for better planning and improved service delivery. The process also organized work order requests and reduced the work order backlog. Planner schedulers also reviewed the work orders for metric accuracy and work order notes required to inform customers of service status or actions. This team also reviewed concepts such as a centralized work control center versus a distributed system. Ultimately it was determined to utilize a distributed concept where the planner schedulers reside in the respective shops.

The Customer Service Team focused on contact with the customer. The team reviewed the work process flow chart and inserted key customer contact points. Processes were developed and refined to keep customers informed on the status of their requests. The customers were encouraged to enter their request electronically through the facilities website. This allowed the customer to track the status of their service request at key steps such as schedule date, parts or materials on order, work completion and work order closure. Customers were encouraged to complete a service satisfaction survey upon completion of the service request. The Customer Service Team also met with smaller customer focus groups. With the input from this interaction the team was able to advise the Steering Committee on process changes that were necessary to meet and anticipate the changing customer needs and expectations.

The Inventory Management Team focused on the optimal management of the working capital necessary to maintain the warehouse inventory. This team coordinated with suppliers to improve optimal material delivery and reduce the on-campus storage requirements. Materials such as filters and custodial products are bulky, so improving the delivery schedule reduced the need for on-campus storage space. Coordinating with various suppliers to standardize materials reduced the need to have multiple contracts and allowed for the development of partner relationships that continued to look for improvement opportunities. The team focused on metrics such as the optimal reorder point to improve stock turnover times to optimize the need for working capital. The team worked on reducing non-accounted-for inventory that, over time, built up in the shops and addressed issues such as the optimal level of bench stock and traveling inventory that resided in various service vehicles. The team also worked on improving the electronic catalog to assist service providers in identifying and ordering necessary parts to reduce the “counter” time. Non-stock items were coordinated through and acquired by material handlers to improve the shop productivity levels.

The Preventative Maintenance (PM) Team focused on creating a proactive maintenance approach to maintenance. It was clear from the beginning that this process would require a significant business process improvement approach as opposed to incremental improvements. As a result, there was a major reorganization of the Trades shops to create a PM Shop that focused only on PM activities. The PM Shop received no customer driven service requests to proactively plan and schedule PM activities. The PM Team worked on identifying and labeling all of the major equipment and identified service tasks and service frequencies. This information was entered into the work order management system. Part and material lists were developed and attached to the work orders so that part delivery could be anticipated and ready once the work is scheduled. The PM Team identified level 1 PM tasks such as filter changes, coils cleaning, lubrication, and changing fan and motor belts; and level 2 PM tasks such as chiller tube, fire hydrant maintenance, storm line cleaning, and steam trap maintenance to identify and assign tasks to the appropriate resources. Within the first three years reductions in breakdown maintenance were already evident.

The Reporting Team initially worked independently to gather the information needed to participate in the APPA FPI Survey. Gordian was contacted to assist with the data analysis, in conjunction with use of the APPA FPI webinars. The team worked on description of the various action codes or work types (i.e. PM, Breakdown, Repairs, Inspections, etc.) that were going to be used to provide consistency. Once that was accomplished the team started working on short term KPI’s to assist shops assess their progress and develop short term wins. This required working with the Work Process Team to identify key measurement points. Some of the key performance indicators monitored included shop productivity (billable hours versus total available hours), monthly hours spent per shop by action code, PM work orders opened and closed, and total number of work orders opened and closed. The data provided by the prior code report indicated that over 95 percent of the requested work could be performed within three to 15 days after the service request was issued. This supported the concept that the work could be adequately planned and scheduled.

The Reporting Team also gathered information necessary to benchmark against peers and assess the effectiveness of the allocated resources. The various APPA staffing guideline manuals for maintenance, custodial and grounds were used to determine existing staffing levels and to request funding for new facilities. As the various pieces of measured information come together the team was to be able to provide a comprehensive report to the administration on the state of the department and the institution related to asset management.

Since the change initiative was envisioned to be a continuous effort the Steering Committee had to discuss the concepts of patience and persistence. This team, as with any other team, experienced the various stages that teams go through during the change process. Knowing these stages helped the Steering Committee stay focused, even during the down part of the roller coaster ride. There has some anticipated resistance to change, however by embracing the concepts of patience and persistence the department was able to implement noticeable improvements. Customers commented that they noticed a difference and more employees began embracing the effort. Changing the culture of the organization to be more proactive and customer focused was a journey, with its challenges and rewards, and by staying committed the department was able to be proud of its accomplishments. By following the concepts related to organizational change management, the FM department ultimately was awarded the APPA Award for Excellence.

Figure 16.
Case Study Diagram

1. Adams, Cary W.; Gupta, Praveen; Wilson, Charles E. Six Sigma Deployment. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.
2. Ahoy, Christopher K. Leadership in Educational Facilities Administration. Alexandria, Virginia: APPA, 2007.
3. Anderson, Mac; Feltenstein, Tom. Change is Good…You Go First. Naperville, IL, 2007.
4. Baldrige National Quality Program publication, “Criteria for Performance Excellence”, Gaithersburg, MD, Simple Truths, LLC, 2008.
5. Booth, Nate. Strategies for Fast-Changing Times: The Art of Using Change to Your Advantage. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1997.
6. Breyfogle, Forrest W. III. Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
7. Bridges, Willaim. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Group, 1991.
8. Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: Harper Business, 2001.
9. Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
10. Covey, Stephen R. Living the 7 Habits. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.
11. Creating A Service Culture: Making the Customer Connection. Alexandria, Virginia: APPA, 2007.
12. Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, 1986.
13. Education Advisory Board (EAB), https://eab.com/partner-hub/facilities-resource-hub/.
14. Gerson, Richard F. Beyond Customer Service, Boston: Thompson Learning, 1998.
15. Gerstner, Louis V., Jr. Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance: Inside IBM’s Historic Turnaround. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002.
16. Hammer, Michael; Champy, James. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
17. Harvard Business Review. HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Change Management. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2011.
18. Hug, Jack. “Getting Started with the Facilities Management Evaluation Program”, Facilities Manager, Volume 22, Number 4, July/August 2006, pages 45-50.
19. Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996
20. Keller, Paul A. Six Sigma Deployment: A Guide for Implementing Six Sigma in Your Organization. Tucson, AZ: Quality Publishing, 2001.
21. Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
22. Kouzes, James M.; Posner, Barry Z. “It’s Not Just the Leader’s Vision”, Facilities Manager, Volume 24, Number 4, July/August 2008, pages 22-23.
23. LaMarsh, J; Potts, R. Master Change, Maximize Success, San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2004.
24. Leban, Bill; Stone, Romuald. Managing Organizational Change. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2008.
25. McAlary, Chuck K. “Cultural Change and a Balanced Scorecard: Does Your Organization Measure Up?”, Facilities Manager, Volume 17, Number 3, May/June 2001, pages 39-43.
26. Mind Tools Content Team. “Managing in a VUCA World, Thriving in Turbulent Times”, mindtools.com/asnydwg/managing-in-a-vuca-world.
27. Palmer, Ian; Dunford, Richard; Akin, Gib. Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2009.
28. Padesky, Jay. “Part 1: A Corporate Scorecard: Tracking KPI’s Across Multiple Plants and Business Units”, Maintenance Technology, February 2006.
29. Padesky, Jay. “Tracking KPI’s Across Multiple Plants and Business Units”, Maintenance Technology, March 2006.
30. Pyzdek, Thomas. The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Green Belts, Black Belts and Managers at All Levels. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003.
31. Qayoumi, Mohammad H. Benchmarking and Organizational Change. Alexandria, Virginia: APPA, 2000.
32. Scherkenbach, William W. The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity: Road Maps and Roadblocks. Washington, D.C.: Ceep Press Books, 1988.
33. Scholtes, Peter R. The Team Handbook: How to Use Teams to Improve Quality. Madison, Wisconsin: Joiner Associates, Inc., 1988.
34. Scott, Cynthia D. and. Jaffe, Dennis T. Change Management, Boston: Thompson Learning, 2006.
35. Gordian Promotional Material, Gordian.com. Madison, CT.
36. Smith, Glenn R. “Covey, Deming, Senge: Dealing with Radical and Uncertain Change”, Facilities Manager, Volume 22, Number 4, July/August 2006, pages 37-42.
37. Stephens, Michael. “Reinventing the Wheel”, Maintenance Technology, December 1997.
38. Walton, Mary. The Deming Management Method. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1986.
39. Whittaker, James P., P.E. “Facility Asset Management: Asset Management Performance Measures”, Facilities Manager, Volume 21, Number 5, September/October 2005, pages 62-63.

Author

John Morris, P.E., CEFP, LEED AP, GBE, APPA Fellow
College of Charleston

John has been in higher education facilities for over 35 years with five years at Northern Arizona University, seven years with the University of Colorado Boulder and 24 years at Colorado State University. John is a past RMA president, a past Senior-Senior Rep to the APPA Executive Board, and is currently Chair of the Credentialing Board and the Mentoring Committee. John has also served on several APPA FMEP teams.

Back to BOK