When commercial pilots fly a
plane, they navigate by following a series of radio navigation beacons (VORs),
which take them from their departure point through to the destination. Whilst on
the ground at the departure airport the pilot will enter all the en-route
navigation aids and the flight level they want to fly at and the onboard
computers calculate the track, identify the routings required and also calculate
arrival time, fuel usage etc. When en-route, they have onboard equipment, which
picks up the signals from these VORs and tells them the track to fly, and the
distance from the beacon. Meantime Air Traffic Control may call up and ask the
aircraft to make deviations from its planned route to avoid conflicting traffic,
the aircraft makes these deviations and at some point is given permission to
resume track until finally it arrives at its destinations. So we have an initial
plan with precise measurements of time, distance, fuel, etc, which is then
modified as the journey, progresses to take into account ATC, weather avoidance
etc until finally they arrive at the destination.
The
flight stage might be seen as analogues to the Change stage in the 7Cs because
of the need to balance two conflicting goals – to maintain a steady direction
but be flexible in the face of unexpected surprises. However, the closer to the
final destination the less scope there will be for variation in the flight. The
need to increase directional accuracy will increase because quite simply the
pilot doesn’t want to overshoot the runway. In the same way, the consultant
will need to be flexible in how the change is managed but will need to become
more focused in the confirm stage. This is simply because the client and
consultant don’t want to overshoot or undershoot the goals and objective
agreed in the Client stage of the engagement.
Airplanes
now land at airports that don’t have hectares of vacant ground around them.
They have to land in highly congested areas, where any deviation from he landing
plan would result in death and destruction. To do this airlines use
"instrument landing system" approach (ILS). Using this system (especially
in conditions of poor visibility), an aeroplane fitted with appropriate
equipment can approach an airport and receive high-precision signals from an
instrument landing system. It is automatically guided down on to the runway, has
its engines throttled back, and its brakes applied, all without the aid of the
pilot. Now fitted to many airliners, the system was first tried experimentally
in 1964, and first used commercially in 1965.
In the cockpit, the pilot has a Flight Display as seen in Figure 33 , which has a lateral scale (called localiser) and a vertical scale (called glide slope) next to the altitude display. This display indicates where the plane is in relation to the ILS beam. The pilot can use these display to define where they are in the descent, if they are off track and then make a corresponding adjustment to the landing. It is the ability to fly against a reference beam that enables the pilot to land in conditions that would otherwise make the flight impractical and dangerous.
Flight Display
In the same way, an effective consultant will be able to plot a directional heading and set a course the deliver the change programme, even when hampered by poor visibility and bad conditions. The key thing is to find a set of reference measures that provide an indication of success and use these as the landing reference points
The one common reference point against all change programmes will be people. No matter what change is being delivered. In most cases, the resulting success of the project will be impacted by the people’s desire, understanding and capability to use the resulting product.
All human beings have three core dimensions that impact how they manage and respond to change. The key dimensions are affective (how people feel about the change), cognitive (what they know or understand), and behavioural (what they actually do). In confirming action around these three dimensions the key factors are:
 |
Heart:
Evaluates the affective domain, which addresses the manner in which we
deal with things emotionally, such as feelings, values, appreciation,
enthusiasms, motivations, and attitudes. Consider a corporate change
programme where a new system has been installed. The heart factors to be
measured might include how do people feel about the system, are they angry
about the way it has been implemented, when on a coffee break what language
is used to describe the system, or how do they feel the system impacts upon
the business performance. Techniques to do this might include focus groups,
peer observation, diaries or open door sessions. |
|
Head:
Evaluates the cognitive domain, which includes the recall or recognition
of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in the
development of intellectual abilities and skills. This is often tested
written test or a performance test. A criterion referenced evaluation
focuses on how well someone knows something against a known standard or
criterion. You can also use norm-referenced evaluation, which focuses on how
well a learner performs in comparison with peers. For the same example, a
head test will be used to ensure that people understand how to use the
system, know how to deal with specification upgrades, how to follow the
processes, or how to describe problems to the service engineers. |
|
Hand:
Evaluates the skills ability to do something physical. This is measured
in terms of speed, precision, or techniques in execution. A performance test
is also a criterion-referenced test if it measures against a set standard or
criterion. A performance test that evaluates to see who can perform a task
the quickest would be a norm referenced performance test. In the system
example, you might measure the capability of people to translate the
feelings and knowledge into tangible behaviours. The test might be to
observe people using the system whilst dealing with a client call or peer
training at a team meeting to cross test performance standards. |
Although the engagement will have a set of specific measures that relate to the function specification of the process or system being implemented, it is important to understand and manage these three dimensions, it is all very well implementing the biggest and brightest new system in town, but unless the users don’t care for it, know how to use it, and can use it under pressure then the investment will have a limited return.
This
is where the idea of the Confirm Cockpit is used. In partnership with the system
and process measures, you need to define what measures will be necessary around
the Heart, head and Hand factors. These measures are then tracked for the
duration of the engagement and ideally beyond, to a point where you and the
client are satisfied that the value will be maintained. Hence, the three
dimensions are tracked on a longitudinal basis as seen below.
3D Tracking
This chart takes a common example of a change process, one that most of us have experienced. The quality training course that your boss says you needs to attend. You don’t want to go, your in-tray is full and even worse one of your colleagues went on it last month and said it wasn’t great.
|
|
Pre-Course
–
|
||||||
|
|
Course
–
|
||||||
|
|
Post
Course –
|
When the airline pilot comes in to land, he or she will use a number of reference variables to understand actual against planned trajectory. Where the deviation indicates they are off course then corrective action can be taken to get back into alignment. By a simple process of cross checking against planned data, it is possible for the pilot to land safely.
The suggestion is that consultants and client would be well advised to use this process to ensure that the change project lands to the planned cost, quality and time budget. However, although most change projects will focus on management of the task and process deployment, it is also important to pay careful attention to the human dimensions.
At the very outset of the change project, the client and consultant should agree what three dimensions should measure both during the change and once complete. Try to agree what factors will be apparent if negative emotions are surfacing, if people are not buying in to the programme or if there are shadow factors causing dissent. Also consider what signs will be apparent if things are going well, how to measure when people are enthused and what techniques can be used to measure the corridor conversations. On a head level try to define what thoughts people will have if things are not working and what mental maps they will need to have for the programme to be effective. Finally, from a hand perspective, if problems are surfacing what will people be saying and doing and conversely what will their behaviours and conversations be when things are going well. By defining dimensional criteria, it becomes easier to fly a precision approach and land the change project on the spot every time.
(c) Mick Cope
