© 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Version 1.0 1 1 © 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Mission Partnering Using Integrated

1 © 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Version 1.01 © 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Mission PartneringMission PartneringUsingUsing

Integrated Product and Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD)Process Development (IPPD)

Version 1.0Version 1.0

Mike Bloom

And

Joe Duquette

June 2004

MITRE


Version 1.0

IPPD Concept

Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame. Benjamin Franklin


Version 1.0

Agenda

• IPPD Context• Program Management Context• Personality Types• Applying IPPD to the Program• Introduction to Partnering• Preparing for Partnering• Communicating With Industry• Evaluating Proposed Approach• Conducting Top Management Workshop• Establishing IPTs• Implementing IPPD Procedures• Managing Integrated Teams• IPPD Decisions• Summary


Version 1.0

A New Acquisition Paradigm

• Environment Changes

• Post Acq. Reform Business Environment

• Evolutionary Acquisition Complexity

• Event Driven Acquisition and IPTs

• Stakeholders and Process PartneringContractors

Operations

•Sustainment

Acquisition

Partnering& Shared

Processes

Partnering& Shared

Processes


Version 1.0

Environment Changes The Way We Used to Do Business

Acquisition Operations

Sustainment Contractors

Independent Organizations

FormalFormal

Communications

Communications

Large

Defense Budgets

80s Technology

Stovepipe

Systems

Time and Money Permitted Independent Organizational Processes


Version 1.0

Environment Changes Today’s Acquisition Environment

• Constantly changing threats, priorities, & budgets• Emphasis on joint and coalition warfare • “Net Centric” or system-of-systems focus• Operational capabilities emphasis• Decreasing size of acquisition and government system

engineering workforce• Emphasis on agility and evolutionary acquisition • Modernization efforts focused on affordability

– How much is the system worth (top down)?– What do we do without to develop and field it?– Can we fund its operation when fielded?– What is the “business case”?


Version 1.0

Environment Changes Today’s EnvironmentToday’s Environment

Contractors

• Fewer and Bigger• ID/IQ Contracts• Fewer New Starts• Out-sourced Work• View CMMI as Imperative

Operations

• Smaller Force• Coalition Operations• Interoperable Systems• Increased OPSTEMPO• Changing Missions• Changing Threats• Global Commitments

•Sustainment

• Lean Logistics • Experience Drain • Technology Pace • Outsourced Work• COTS vs MILSPEC• Smaller Workforce• Just-In-Time Supply • Contractor Logistics Support

Acquisition

• System of System Demands • Spiral Development & EA• Constant Initiative Flow• Increased ACQTEMPO• Performance Contracts• Outsourced Workforce• Lifecycle Management • Impatient Customers• Acquisition Reform• Experience Drain• Smaller SPOs/ PMAs• “Capabilities”• “Agility”

Partnering& Shared

Processes

2000’s2000’sInterdependentInterdependentOrganizationsOrganizations

SystemEngineering

• Smaller Workforce• Increasing Complexity• Life Cycle Scope• Multiple Organizations• Changing Roles• Who is responsible?


Version 1.0

Source DAU – Dave Brown

Ongoing Mission Area Analysis

D

O

T

M

L

P

F

Approved

Enterprise Architecture

ICD

MS A

Analysis of

Capability Solution

SetsDemo

Demo Increment 1Increment 1

Demo

Demo

Demo

Demo

Increment 2Increment 2

Increment 3Increment 3

MS B

MS C

MS B MS C

MS B MS C

Refinement of Solution Sets

CDD

CPD

Capability and Technology Development

LRIP

LRIP

LRIP

SDD

Oversight

RequirementsAcquisitionIntegrated Decision MeetingsIntegrated Decision Meetings

MDARA

MDARA

MDARA

FRP

FRP

FRP

Evolutionary Acquisition Complexity

DoD Favors Evolutionary Acq. and Spiral Dev.

DoDRequirements/Acquisition

Process


Version 1.0

All 4 Levels Exist Simultaneously

Concept Definition Transition Baseline Planning and Control

Operational Baseline Planning and Control

Operational Baseline

Operations & Support

Operational

Shortfall

Mission Integration Level

Enterprise

Shortfall

Integrate and Field Enterprise Increment 1


Component System Baseline Planning and Control

Enterprise and Infrastructure Baseline Planning and Control

COTS/Technology Insertion

User Requirements Definition

Process Reengineering

CONOPS

Subsequent Spiral

NoIntegration

Only?

Stop

YesConcept And Technology

DevelopmentPlanning and Experimentation

Transitionto

Development?

Yes

No

No

Plug &Play

?

Yes

NoExperimentation

Try Again ?

Yes

Yes

Development Increment 3

DEMONo

Beta Testor

Defer FieldingDevelopment

Program Office



Concept Definition Transition Baseline Planning and Control

Operational Baseline Planning and Control

Operational Baseline

Operations & Support

Operational

Shortfall

Mission Integration Level

Enterprise

Shortfall



Component System Baseline Planning and Control

Enterprise and Infrastructure Baseline Planning and Control

COTS/Technology Insertion

User Requirements Definition

Process Reengineering

CONOPS

Subsequent Spiral

NoIntegration

Only?

Stop

YesConcept And Technology

DevelopmentPlanning and Experimentation

Transitionto

Development?

Yes

No

No

Plug &Play

?

Yes

NoExperimentation

Try Again ?

Yes

Yes


DEMONo

Beta Testor

Defer FieldingDevelopment

Program Office



Evolutionary Acquisition Complexity Concurrent Baselines


Version 1.0

Event Driven Acquisition and IPTs Traditional Development Oversight

IntegrateIntegrate

CI 1 PDR CI 1 CDR CI 1 TRR CI 1 FCA CI 1 PCA


CSCI 1 PDR CSCI 1 CDR CSCI 1 TRR CSCI 1 FCA CSCI 1 PCA






SRR SDR


Integrate System Test FQR




Approval Approval Approval Approval

Approval

Proof

ProofEntry/Exit Entry/Exit Entry/Exit

SystemEngineering

Logistics

Test

Software

Production

IntegrateIntegrate









SRR SDR


Integrate System Test FQR




Approval Approval Approval Approval

Approval

Proof

ProofEntry/Exit Entry/Exit Entry/Exit

SystemEngineering

Logistics

Test

Software

Production

CI Developers and Reviewers




System Engineering, Interface Control, Program Management

Logistics and Site Activation Management

Test and Accreditation Management

Software Development Management

Production Preparation and Management


Version 1.0

SRR SDR

CI 1

Integrate

System Test FCA/FQR

CI 2

CSCI 1

CSCI 1

PDR

CI 1

Integrate

CI 2

CSCI 1

CSCI 1

CDR

CI 1

Integrate

CI 2

CSCI 1

CSCI 1

TRR

CI 1

Integrate

CI 2

CSCI 1

CSCI 1

CI 1

Integrate

CI 2

CSCI 1

CSCI 1

PCA

ApprovalApproval Entry/Exit Entry/Exit Entry/Exit Entry/Exit ProofEntry/Exit

HardwareSoftware

TestProductionReliabilityLogistics

***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

HardwareSoftware


***

System orSubsystem

IPT•Management•Engineering•Interfaces

•Integration•Test

System orSubsystem



System orSubsystem



System orSubsystem



System orSubsystem



Event Driven Acquisition and IPTs IPT-Oriented Development Insight


Version 1.0

Subsystem A Subsystem B

CSCI 1 CSCI 2 CI 1 CSCI 3 CI 2 CI 3

Sys Eng, Integ, Test Pgm Mgt

System

IntegratedMaster

Plan

IntegratedMaster

Schedule

RqmtAllocation &Specification

Tree

Earned Value Management

Structure

WorkPackage

Definition

IntegratedProduct Team

Structure

SpiralGrowth

Approach

IntegratedDigital

EnvironmentStructure

RiskManagement

Structure

ProgramMonitoringand Control

Structure

DesignReview

Structure

ProductDeliverySchedule

InterfaceControl

Approach

SystemDesign andIntegrationApproach

Product-OrientedProduct-OrientedWork Work

BreakdownBreakdownStructureStructure

Award FeePeriods &Criteria

FunctionalSpecialty

Assignment

Stakeholders & Process Partnering Organizational Framework


Version 1.0

Program Planning & Allocation

SystemDevelopment

& Demonstration

Production&

Deployment

Operations&

Support

ConceptRefinement

TechnologyDevelopment

AcquisitionStrategy

Involvement: MUST MAY NOT Decision Maker

Infrastructure CIO

Director of Operations

Director of Plans

Director of Budget

Director of Logistics

Acquisition Executives

Sr. Acquisition Mgrs.

Capability Managers

SoS Node Sponsor

SoS Node Manager

Program Manager

System Contractors

Leader

Sustainment “Developers”

System Operators

System Maintainers

Opr. Test Director

Certification

Training

Infrastructure CIO


Director of Plans

Director of Budget




Capability Managers

SoS Node Sponsor

SoS Node Manager

Program Manager

System Contractors

Leader


System Operators

System Maintainers

Opr. Test Director

Certification

Training

Infrastructure CIO


Director of Plans

Director of Budget




Capability Managers

SoS Node Sponsor

SoS Node Manager

Program Manager

System Contractors

Leader


System Operators

System Maintainers

Opr. Test Director

Certification

Training

Infrastructure CIO


Director of Plans

Director of Budget




Capability Managers

SoS Node Sponsor

SoS Node Manager

Program Manager

System Contractors

Leader


System Operators

System Maintainers

Opr. Test Director

Certification

Training

Infrastructure CIO


Director of Plans

Director of Budget




Capability Managers

SoS Node Sponsor

SoS Node Manager

Program Manager

System Contractors

Leader


System Operators

System Maintainers

Opr. Test Director

Certification

Training

Infrastructure CIO


Director of Plans

Director of Budget




Capability Managers

SoS Node Sponsor

SoS Node Manager

Program Manager

System Contractors

Leader


System Operators

System Maintainers

Opr. Test Director

Certification

Training

Stakeholders and Process PartneringLife Cycle Stakeholders


Version 1.0

Stakeholders and Process Partnering System Engineering Process Sharing

ProcessImplementation

Enterprise Integration

Continuous Program Planning

Ris

k

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Test

Collaboration & Process Sharing

Capability Maturity Model - Integrated




Ris

k

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Test



InstitutionalizedIndustry Processes

System Development

Program Planning

Ris

k

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

Co

nfi

gMg

mt

Inte

gra

ted

Te

st

Co

ntr

ac

tin

g

Inte

gra

tio

n

De

sig

n

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Qu

ali

ty


Integrated Product and Process Development


System Development

Program Planning

Ris

k

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

Co

nfi

gMg

mt

Inte

gra

ted

Te

st

Co

ntr

ac

tin

g

Inte

gra

tio

n

De

sig

n

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Qu

ali

ty



IntegratedProject Processes



Ris

k

Req

uir

emen

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Tes

t

Co

ntr

acti

ng

Inte

gra

tio

n

Des

ign

Man

agem

ent

Qu

alit

y

System Development


Collaboration and Shared Processes




Ris

k

Req

uir

emen

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Tes

t

Co

ntr

acti

ng

Inte

gra

tio

n

Des

ign

Man

agem

ent

Qu

alit

y

System Development




Version 1.0

Integrated System Life Cycle SE Processes

Prime Contractor Integrated SE Processes

Subcontractor / Team Member Integrated SE Processes


Contractor Team Integrated SE Processes

Integrated Government Sustainment SE Processes

Integrated Government Acquisition SE Processes

Integrated Government Sponsor SE Processes

Single Manager Integrated SE Processes

Integrated System Life Cycle SE Processes

Prime Contractor Integrated SE Processes



Contractor Team Integrated SE Processes

Integrated Government Sustainment SE Processes

Integrated Government Acquisition SE Processes

Integrated Government Sponsor SE Processes

Single Manager Integrated SE Processes

Stakeholders and Process Partnering The Whole Team Using Integrated Processes

For the System Life Cycle


Version 1.0

IPPD Definitions

• DoD – Integrated Product and Process Development: A management technique that simultaneously integrates all essential acquisition activities through the use of multidisciplinary teams to optimize the design, manufacturing and supportability processes. IPPD facilitates meeting cost and performance objectives from product concept through production, including field support. One of the key IPPD tenets is multidisciplinary teamwork through Integrated Product Teams (IPTs). (Source: DoD Integrated Product and Process Development Handbook, August 1998)

• FAA - Integrated Teaming: The purpose of Integrated Teaming is to identify and maintain the disciplines and stakeholders necessary to effectively accomplish appropriate multidisciplinary/cross-functional missions, to create integrated teams as appropriate, and to establish and maintain a supportive teaming environment. (Source: FAA-iCMM, V2)

• IRS – Integrated Product Team (IPT): An IPT is a multi-disciplined, cross-functional team brought together to implement the processes necessary to deliver a defined product or set of products. (Source: ELC Guide, Volume 2, Version 1)


Version 1.0

IPPD Tenets(1 of 4)

• Customer Focus - The primary objective of IPPD is to satisfy customer's needs better, faster and at less cost. The customer needs should determine the nature of the product and its associated processes.

• Concurrent Development of Products and Processes - Processes should be developed concurrently with products which they support. It is critical that the processes used to manage, develop, manufacture, verify, test, deploy, operate, support, train people, and eventually dispose of the product be considered during development. Product and process design and performance should be kept in balance.

• Early and Continuous Life Cycle Planning - Planning for a product and process should begin early in the science & technology phase (especially advanced development) and extend throughout the product's life cycle. Early life cycle planning, which includes customers, functions, and suppliers, lays a solid foundation for the various phases of a product and its processes. Key program events should be defined so that resources can be applied and the impact of resource constraints better understood and managed.

(Source: DoD Integrated Product and Process Development Handbook, August 1998)


Version 1.0

IPPD Tenets(2 of 4)

• Maximize Flexibility for Optimization and Use of Contractor Unique Approaches - Requests for Proposal (RFP's) and contract should provide maximum flexibility for optimization and use of contractor unique processes and commercial specifications, standards and practices.

• Encourage Robust Design and Improved Process Capability - Encourage use of advanced design and manufacturing techniques that promote achieving quality through design, products with little sensitivity to variations in the manufacturing process (robust design) and focus on process capability and continuous process improvement. Utilize such tools as "Six-Sigma" process control and lean/agile manufacturing concepts to advantage.

• Event Driven Scheduling - A scheduling framework should be established which relates program events to their associated accomplishments and accomplishment criteria. An event is considered complete only when the accomplishments associated with the event have been completed as measured by the accomplishment criteria. This event-driven scheduling reduces risk by ensuring that product and process maturity are incrementally demonstrated prior to beginning follow-on activities.



Version 1.0

IPPD Tenets(3 of 4)

• Multidisciplinary Teamwork - Multidisciplinary teamwork is essential to the integrated and concurrent development of a product and its processes. The right people at the right place at the right time are required to make timely decisions. Team decisions should be based on the combined input of the entire team (e.g. engineering, manufacturing, test, logistics, financial management, contracting personnel) to include customers and suppliers. Each team member needs to understand their role and support the role of the other members, as well as understand the constraints under which other team members operate. Communication within teams and between teams should be open with team success emphasized and rewarded.

• Empowerment - Decisions should be driven to the lowest level commensurate with risk. Resources should be allocated at levels consistent with authority, responsibility, and the ability of the people. The team should be given authority, responsibility, and resources to manage their product and its risk commensurate with the team's capabilities. The team should accept responsibility and be held accountable for the results of their effort.



Version 1.0

IPPD Tenets(4 of 4)

• Seamless Management Tools - A framework should be established which relates products and processes at all levels to demonstrate dependency and interrelationships. A single management system should be established that relates requirements, planning, resource allocation, execution, and program tracking over the product's life cycle. This integrated approach helps ensure teams have all available information thereby enhancing team decision-making at all levels. Capabilities should be provided to share technical and business information throughout the product life cycle through the use of acquisition and support databases and software tools for accessing, exchanging, and viewing information.

• Proactive Identification and Management of Risk - Critical cost, schedule and technical parameters related to system characteristics should be identified from risk analyses and user requirements. Technical and business performance measurement plans, with appropriate metrics, should be developed and compared to best-in-class industry benchmarks to provide continuing verification of the degree of anticipated and actual achievement of technical and business parameters.



Version 1.0

Serial vs IPPD Approach

INTEGRATED PROCESSES

PRODUCT

Process B Process C Process D Process EPRODUCT

Process A


Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Why Use CMMI

• Government Industry Consensus Standard

• IPPD Component of the CMMI– Integrated Teaming– Organizational Environment for Integration– Integrated Program Management

• Generic Practices for Institutionalization• Assessment Methodology


Version 1.0

IPPD, as Defined in CMMI®

IPPD provides a systematic approach to product

development that achieves a timely collaboration of relevant stakeholders throughout the product life cycle to better satisfy customer needs

– IPPD is not a discipline.– IPPD is a way of doing business.– IPPD is employed in conjunction with the rest of the

model and it shapes how work is performed when using CMMI® SE/SW/IPPD.

© 2001 by Carnegie Mellon University November 15, 2001


Version 1.0

Nine Fundamental Concepts in IPPD

Five concepts embedded in CMMI SE/SW/IPPD• Design of Downstream Processes During Product

Design• Timely, Appropriate Collaboration of

All Relevant Stakeholders• Focus on the Customer’s Needs

During Product and Process Development• Continuous, Proactive Identification and

Management of Risk• Focus on Measurement And Improvement of

Processes to Develop and Deliver the Product



Version 1.0

IPPD Process Areas Add Four Concepts

Four concepts introduced in the IPPD component of the CMMI®

• Leadership commitment to IPPD

• Appropriate allocation and delegation decision-making

• Use of multifunctional teams

• Organizational structure that rewards team performance



Version 1.0

Leadership

Characteristics of leadership and teaming in an IPPD environment

– What kind of leadership is needed?– What are the teaming requirements?– What does the organization

need to do to support leadership and teaming for IPPD?



Version 1.0

What is Leadership?

What is Management?• Managers administer• Managers maintain• Managers have a short-

range view• Managers accept status

quo• Managers get things done

right

What is Leadership?• Leaders innovate• Leaders develop• Leaders have a long-range

perspective• Leaders challenge it• Leaders get the right

things done


Managers manage things; leaders lead people.Grace Hopper

Adapted from Warren Bennis


Version 1.0

Approaches to Leadership and Management

• Theory X• Authoritarian• Top-down, High Control• Utilize Personal Rewards• Engender Dependency

• Theory Y• Participatory• Encourage Treating The

Business as Own• Utilize Meaningful Work• Engender Autonomy


In IPPDPeople are recognized not as the tool or means to the end,but as part of a mutually beneficial collaboration to achievethe objectives.

Adapted From Peter Block


Version 1.0

Leadership Skills Important InIPPD

• Communicating Purpose and Vision• Influencing Others to Achieve the Shared

Vision• Building Skills and

Experience of Staff Members

• Building Teams• Empowering People and Teams



Version 1.0

Leadership Challenges in IPPD

• Ensuring all Team Members Mutually Understand their Roles and Responsibilities

• Employing People in their Intended Roles

• Effectively Integrating Specific Expertise Resident in The Organization into the Integrated Team Effort



Version 1.0

Leadership of EmpoweredTeams

Manager/Leader Responsibilities• Defining Work• Guiding and Motivating Team Members• Handling Customer Issues• Dealing with Management• Monitor and Maintain of Process Discipline• Resolving Team Issues• Maintaining Communication

– Within Team– With Management


In IPPDLeadership Characteristics Cannot Be Viewed As

Solely Embodied In The Manager/Leader.


Version 1.0

What is a Team?

• A group of people with complementary skills and expertise who are committed to delivering specified work products in timely collaboration. (CMMI SE/SW)

• A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. (Katzenbach)

• A team consists of– at least two people, each with a specific role,

– <who> are working toward a common goal, <and>– completion of <their> mission requires some form of

dependency among the group members. (TSPSM)



Version 1.0

Integrated Team Members:• Provide skills and advocacy appropriate to

all phases of the work product’s life cycle

• Are collectively responsible for delivering the work products as specified.

• Include empowered representatives from organizations, disciplines, and functions that have a stake in the success of the work products.

In an Integrated Team...



Version 1.0

• Independent• Functional• Attention To Specific Part• Particular Goals• Hierarchical Decision-

making• Solution Provided• Specialists Only• Minimal (Formal)

Communication• Performance Reviewed By

Managers

Traditional or IPPD with Teams

• Interdependent• Multi-functional• Attention To Final Product• Shared Vision• Empowerment• Solution Developed By

Team• Specialists And

Stakeholders• Consistent (Direct)

Communication• Performance Reviewed By

Team Members.


Comparison of ExtremesTRADITIONAL IPPD


Version 1.0

Successful IPPD with Teams...

• Shared Vision (Team Aligned With Organization, Project)• Defined Processes for Team Work, Including

– Defined Roles, Tasks, Operating Procedures and Charter– Defined Authority/Empowerment– Managed Relationships to Other Teams, Projects

• Shared Responsibility for Product• Multi-functional Team Membership• Adequate Resources, Proactive Management of Risks• Training in IPPD Unique Skills• Specialized Tools and Communications Mechanisms



Version 1.0

What Can Organizations Do?

Redesign structure, including....– organize around major processes, not functions

– redefine jobs -- at all levels

– be ready to overhaul related systems / functions

Change culture, including....– trust and respect across all levels

– consistent actions & messages from senior management

Expect a long iterative process of social as well as technical learning

Need a strong business reason to make this change© 2001 by Carnegie Mellon University November 15, 2001

"It is nearly impossible to impose a team structure on a traditional organization structure.“ Wellins, Byham & Dixon

INTEGRATED PROCESSES


Version 1.0

What is Needed?

Organizational Culture, Policies, Procedures to provide:

– Vision and goals that permeate planning and work– Workforce competencies - multi-skilled and flexible– Teamwork– Defined responsibility and

authority (Empowerment)– Focus on people– Rewards and recognition



Version 1.0

Provide Team Training

Studies of IPPD and Teaming Consistently Point to the Need for Training in the Following Areas:

Cross-functional Skills– What do Other Disciplines Bring to this Effort

Skills for Working in Teams– Meeting Management, Decision-making, Process and

Quality Related Skills, Planning, Performance Evaluation

Interpersonal Skills– Communication, Interaction and Negotiation, Listening,

Giving Feedback, Conflict Management



Version 1.0

IPPD LeadershipRequires “People Skills”

Organizational Skills– Strategic Planning, Team

Development, New Training Efforts

Skills for Working with Teams– Coaching, Facilitating, Problem Solving, Handling

Team Issues, Performance Management

Interpersonal Skills– Communication, Interaction and Negotiation,

Listening, Giving Feedback, Conflict Management



Version 1.0

Empowerment Definition

• The term empowerment relates to how responsibilities and authority is distributed throughout the program. – Maintenance of empowerment is important to promote member

ownership of the development process. – If members do not have personal ownership of the process,

the effectiveness of the team approach is reduced or even neutralized.

The quickest way to destroy participant ownership is to direct, or even worse, overturn solutions that are properly the responsibility of the team (or those delegated to a team member). The team (or team member) begins to see that the responsibility for decisions is at a higher level rather than at their level, and their responsibility is to follow orders, not solve problems.

Source: DSMC System Engineering Fundamentals publication, January 2001, Chapter 18


Version 1.0

Empowerment Requires

• The flow of authority through the hierarchy of teams, not through personal direction (irrespective of organizational position). Teams should have clear tasking and boundaries established by the higher-level teams.

• Responsibility for decision making to be appropriate for the level of team activity. This requires management and higher-level teams to be specific, clear, complete, and comprehensive in establishing focus and tasking, and in specifying what decisions must be coordinated with higher levels. They should then avoid imposing or overturning decisions more properly in the realm of a lower level.

• Teams at each level be given a clear understanding of their duties and constraints. Within the bounds of those constraints and assigned duties members should have autonomy. Higher-level teams and management either accept their decisions,

or renegotiate the understanding of the task • Individuals team members be given a clear

understanding of their duties and constraints. Within the bounds of those constraints and assigned duties individual team members should have autonomy.



Version 1.0

Doesn’t Mean Management

Doesn’t Mean Management

Abdication

Abdication

Enable Empowerment At All Levels

Organizational Level– Provide Clear Direction– Provide Consistent and Constant Support

Project Leader Level– Ensure Resource Availability– Make Large-scope Decisions– Determine Constraints

Team Member Level– Push Decision-making to Lowest Level– Teams to Make Decisions When Ready– Team Members also take Responsibility



Version 1.0

VIDEO

20 Minute Video

Click to See


Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Personality Types


Version 1.0

Extroverted (E)

Sensing (S)

Feeling (F)

Judging (J)

Meyers-Brigs Type Indicator

(I) Introverted

(N) Intuitive

(T) Thinking

(P) Perceiving


Version 1.0

Introverted vs Extroverted

• Introverted (I)– Get energy from inside– Being in crowds of strangers drains their

energy– Parties are a nightmare

• Extroverted (E)– Get energy from others– Outgoing, expressive, little problem

talking to strangers– Parties are an opportunity


Version 1.0

Intuitive vs Sensing

• Intuitive (N)– Innovators always thinking of new ways to do

something– Like imagery and metaphors– Focus on the big picture and frustrated with details– What time is it? – “around 4:00”

• Sensing (S)– Practical, want the facts, dislike change– Don’t like hypothetical, stick to reality– Highly observant, focus on details not the big picture– What time is it? – “4:03 PM”


Version 1.0

Thinking vs Feeling

• Thinking (T)– Calm and objective– “Cold hearted”– More concerned with being right than liked– Use criteria for decisions

• Feeling (F)– Engaged and empathetic– “Touchy feely”– More concerned with being liked than right– Use emotion for decisions


Version 1.0

Perceiving vs Judging

• Perceiving (P)– Spontaneous and open– Defer decisions looking for more information– “What’s the hurry?”– Indecisive or wishy-washy

• Judging (J)– Structured and organized– Want to make decisions and achieve closure– “Let’s get the job done”– Driven, pushy, inflexible


Version 1.0

Profession Profiles

Healer

(INFP)

Architect

(INTP)

Protector

(ISFJ)

Crafter

(ISTP)

Champion

(ENFP)

Inventor

(ENTP)

Provider

(ESFJ)

Promoter

(ESTP)

Counselor

(INFJ)

Mastermind

(INTJ)

Inspector

(ISTJ)

Composer

(ISFP)

Teacher

(ENFJ)

Field Marshal

(ENTJ)

Supervisor

(ESTJ)

Performer

(ESFP)

Artisan Guardian Rational Idealist

©AdvisorTeam.com 1998 - 2003


Version 1.0

Temperament Types

Artisans value freedom and spontaneity. They want to be without constraint, at liberty to act on their impulses, play, and create.

Guardians value belonging to a group or community. They maintain stability through responsible, conservative, traditional behavior.

Idealists value personal growth, authenticity, and integrity. They yearn to develop themselves fully as individuals and to facilitate growth in others

Rationals value competence and intelligence. They strive to learn, know, predict and control the resources in their environment



Version 1.0

Temperament TypeDistribution

Guardian, 43.61%

Idealist, 30.03%

Rational, 13.87%

Artisan, 12.49%


Version 1.0

Group Temperament Map

Rational (NT)

Artisan (SP)Idealist (NF)

Guardian (SJ)

Mary Joe

Fred Sam

PamMike

George

MissyAmanda



Version 1.0

Idealists

Characteristics• Search for meaning and

authenticity• Empathetic• See possibilities in institutions

and people• Communicate appreciation,

enthusiasm, approval• Highly responsive to

interpersonal transactions• Keep in close contact with staff• Highly personalized• Give and need strokes freely

Facilitation Tips• Give them opportunity to talk

• Take time out of project to let people socialize and build relationships

• Have them buddy up with others when working on a task

• Discuss the “human” or “people” side of decisions

In a brainstorming session, Idealists are going to want to sit and talk

©Ken Miller – The Change Agent’s Guide to Radical Improvement


Version 1.0

Rationals

Characteristics• Hunger for competency and

knowledge• Work well with ideas and

concepts• Intrigued and challenged by

riddles• See systematic relationships• Focus on possibilities through

nonpersonal analysis• Like to start projects but not

good with follow through• Not always aware of other’s

feelings• Responsive to new ideas

Facilitation Tips• Delegate “system” or “conceptual”

issues to them• Have them research issues, best

practices, and possible solutions• Involve heavily in idea phase of

projects; don’t expect much during implementation

• Be prepared to be challenged on the ideas, methods, and tools you present to the group

• Reinforce the big picture and how what currently does fits in

• Help maintain the self-esteem of other team members

In a brainstorming session, Rationals are going to challenge the process©Ken Miller – The Change Agent’s Guide to Radical Improvement


Version 1.0

Guardians

Characteristics• Hunger for belonging and

contributing• Prize harmony and service• Orderly, dependable, and realistic• Understand and conserve

institutional values• Expect others to be realistic• Supply stability and structure• More likely to reward institutionally

than personally (trophies, letters, etc.)

• Can be critical of mistakes more easily than rewarding of expected duties

Facilitation Tips• Delegate “fact-finding” to them• Use them as devil’s advocates in

ideas• Will be wary of challenging rules

and authority; find ways to reinforce that it is okay to question and change things

• Will want approval / recognition from higher ups; find opportunities for that to happen

• Excellent during implementation phase; not strong during idea phase

• Pair them with Rationals during supporting ideas stage

In a brainstorming session, Guardians are concerned about doing it right



Version 1.0

Artisans

Characteristics• Hunger for freedom and action• Deal with realistic problems• Flexible, open-minded• Willing to take risks• Highly negotiable• Can be perceived as indecisive• Challenged by “trouble spots”

but not long term• Best at verbal planning and

short-range projects

Facilitation Tips• Build activities into team’s work;

let them be active• Involve them in “coordination”

activities (setting up focus groups, planning celebrations, etc.)

• Use tools to help them make decisions, but allow Artisans time to reflect and get comfortable with decision

• Involve heavily in implementation; use them to help sell ideas

• Make meetings fun

In a brainstorming session, Artisans are going to want get up and move around



Version 1.0

Rogues Gallery - 1

Blabber Mouth• Talks all the time about “whatever”

Brick Wall• Won’t budge … on anything

Buddha• Group will not make decisions without this person’s wisdom

Devil’s Advocate• Always raises the opposing viewpoint

800 Pound Gorilla• Dominates every discussion

Einstein• Already has the whole thing figured out



Version 1.0

Rogues Gallery - 2

Best Friends• Always talking to each other during meetings

Church Mouse• Says nothing … ever

The Pack Mule• Does all the work for the team

Needler• Makes a sarcastic comment about everyone and everything

Senator• Cannot make a decision without talking to his “people” first

2Cool4U• Pops in and out of meetings & answers every cell phone call



Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

CMMI IPPD Goals and Practices

EstablishA TeamCharter

Establish aSharedVision

Manage PeopleFor Integration

Govern Team Operation

EstablishLeadership

Mechanisms

EstablishIncentives

For Integration

EstablishMechanisms for

ResponsibilityBalance

DetermineTeam

Structure

Develop aDistribution ofRequirements

EstablishIntegrated

Teams

OrganizeIntegrated Teams

Define RolesAnd

Responsibility

EstablishOperating

Procedures

CollaborateWith Interfacing

Teams

Use the Project’sShared Vision

Define theProject’s

Shared VisionContext

Establish The Project’s

SharedVision

IdentifyTeam Tasks

Identify Knowledge And Skills

AssignAppropriate

TeamMembers

Establish Team Composition

OEIIT

IT

IPMIPM

Establish theOrganization’s

SharedVision

Establish AnIntegrated

WorkEnvironment

Identify IPPD-Unique Skill

Requirements

Provide IPPD Infrastructure

OEI

OPDIPM

SAMPP


Version 1.0

US ArmyPartnering Process


Version 1.0


(IPPD) Process

Yes(Continue)

Step 7Manage

Integrated Teams

Step 5Establish Integrated

Product Teams

Step 6Implement

IPPDProcedures

Step 1Prepare forPartnering

Step 2CommunicateWith Industry

Step 4Conduct Top-Management Workshop

Step 3Evaluate Proposed

Approach

Team Problem or New

Member?

Yes

NoIsPartneringWorking

?

No (Continue)

ContractingProcess

ProgramManagement

Process

ProgramMonitoring

ProgramPlanningProcess


Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

PartneringIntroduction and Evolution

• Partnering Definition• The Partnering Concept• Partnering In Construction

Industry• Evolution of Integrated

Product Teams• DoD and Integrated Product

Teams• Benefits of Partnering


Version 1.0

Partnering Definition

“A project-specific interorganizational dispute-avoidance process”

– Project specific• Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) does not permit long term

commitments (exclusive arrangements) to individual companies that exceed the duration of the contract (but contract durations are getting longer)

– Interorganizational• A number of different organizations are joined together to form a single

project team (i.e. integrated project team)

– Dispute avoidance• Partnering works to eliminate the root causes of conflict

– Process• A process provides guidance and tools rather than just good intentions

Source: US Army – Partnering for Success


Version 1.0

The Partnering Concept

• Partnering is the creation of a government-contractor relationship that promotes achievement of mutually beneficial goals.

• Partnering involves an agreement in principle to share the risks involved in completing a project, and to establish and promote a collaborative work environment.

• Partnering is not a contractual agreement nor does it create any legally enforceable rights or duties.

• Partnering seeks to create a new cooperative attitude in completing government contracts.

– To create this attitude, each of the stakeholders (user / customer / developer / supporter / tester / contractor) must seek to understand the goals, objectives, and the needs of the others and seek ways that these can overlap in the establishment of overarching goals to develop, test, field and support a successful project.



Version 1.0

Partnering Worked Well in the Construction Industry

1994 construction industry survey of 8,000 construction industry attorneys, design professionals, and contractors on partnering– Design professionals indicated it was a

“superior method” for achieving desired results– Contractors viewed it “as a highly effective

vehicle for achieving a host of goals on construction projects”

– Design professionals and attorneys indicated a favorable to unfavorable experience ratio of five to one

– More than 70% of all three groups predicted an increase in the use of partnering



Version 1.0

Construction Industry Benefits of Partnering

• Successful, profitable contracts– Construction industry experienced

• Completions on schedule

• Two thirds reduction in cost overruns

• Two thirds reduction in paperwork

• Increased Value Engineering

• No time lost injuries

– Kansas City Army Corps of Engineers experienced

• Reduction in cost growth by 2.65%

• Reduced contract modifications by 29%

• Virtually eliminated schedule overruns (previously 26%)



Version 1.0

Construction Industry Benefits of Partnering (Concluded)

• Improved morale– In a conflict-free environment people can

concentrate on the job rather than potential claims– Army experienced improved morale of entire team

over previous non-partnered contracts

• International success– USSOCOM experienced success with the concept on an

international project with the United Kingdom

• Reduced litigation– Army Corps of Engineers indicates not a

single dispute has gone to litigation on a

partnered project in over six years



Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Program Manager Decides to Partner on the Program Assess Program Suitability for PartneringProgram Manager Directs Program Team to Implement

Identify Government Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholders Commit to Government Team Stakeholders Provide Sufficient Resource to Team

Government Team Commits to Partnering Senior Manager’s Buy-In Stakeholders are Trained and Empowered to ParticipateGovernment Partnering Champions are Designated

Government Team Establish Partnering Vision and Rules Establish Partnering Vision (e.g. “Picture of Success”)Establish “Government Code of Conduct” in Partnering

Plan for Partnering Resources•Allocate Funding for Partnering Resources (e.g. Facilitators, Training etc.)•Plan for Integrated Digital Environment (IDE)

Action 1:Decision to

Partner.

Action 4:Establish ProgramPartnering Vision

& Rules

Action 3:Commitment to

Partnering

Action 5:Plan for Partnering

Resources

DecideDecide Form the TeamForm the Team CommitCommit Vision & RulesVision & Rules

PM

Buy

-In

PM

Buy

-In

Stakeholder Buy-IN

Stakeholder Buy-IN

Partnering Vision

Partnering Vision

ResourcesResources

IPPD Step 1Prepare for Partnering

Action 2:Identify Government

Stakeholders

PlanPlan


Version 1.0

Step 1 – Action 1Decision to Partner

• Partnering has a higher payoff when– Extent of interaction with the contractor is high

– The contract is very complex

– The contract is very important to the stakeholders

– The duration of the contract is long

• Partnering has a low or no significant payoff when– There is little or no interaction with the contractor

– The contract is simple (e.g. FFP)

– The contract is of minor importance to the stakeholders

– The duration of the contract is short


When Partnering Pays Off


Version 1.0

Step 1 – Action 1Decision to Partner

With Government Stakeholders• Start prior to Capabilities Development Document preparation if possible• Start not later than acquisition strategy definition• Initial partnership involves all stakeholders except the contractorWith the Contractor• Develop Formal partnership with all stakeholders including the contractor after contract award

– Hold an initial training workshop for the key personnel for all participating organizations

– Subsequent initial training workshops for all personnel in each IPT– Hold periodic follow-up workshops for new team members or

reinforcement of desired behavior– Use facilitators for the workshops

When to Start Partnering



Version 1.0

Step 1 – Action 2 Form the Team

• Operational Testers• Certification Testers• Operations Personnel• Support Personnel• Program Sponsors• Prime Contractor• Subcontractor• COTS Suppliers• Associate Contractors

• Integrating Contractors• Civil Service• Support Contractors• Government Engineers• Depot Personnel• PMs• Military


Version 1.0

Step 1 – Action 3Commitment to Partnering

• Obtain top management commitment– Subordinates in stakeholder organizations watch what management does

rather than what it says

• The Army’s Natick Labs management required virtually all of their programs to partner with their contractors

• I asked the “troops” if the partnering initiative was successful• They told me that 95% of the time they got the promised benefits of

partnering with their contractors• I asked why it failed the other 5% of the time• They told me that it was when there was an adversarial relationship between the government and

contractor program managers – the two groups followed their leaders and ….

• Obtain necessary resources to partner– Time and funding are necessary to

• Train all participating personnel• Attend workshops• Effectively communicate with other stakeholders

Mike’s Natick Labs War Story



Version 1.0

Step 1 – Action 3Commitment to Partnering

(Concluded)

• Encourage continuity– Stakeholder organizations commit team members for

duration

– Overlap between old and new members when change is unavoidable

• Select champions, one at top and one at working level– Carry the partnering philosophy throughout the

organization

– Help key participants change their actions to implement partnering



Version 1.0

• Our role on the contractor’s IPT will evolve as the program does• However, we used the following “Rules of Conduct,” as the foundation of our relationship with the prime contractor

1. We do not lead or manage the IPTs.2. We serve as “Customer Representatives.” 3. We do not do prime contractor’s IPT work. 4. Government IPT members can offer: Personal opinion, Expert opinion, Guidance as to

customer opinion. 5. Government IPT members can not authorize any changes or deviations to/from the

SOW or specification. .6. Government IPT members cannot authorize prime contractor to perform work that is

beyond the SOW. 7. Government IPT member participation in contractor IPT activities IS NOT Government

consent that the work is approved by the Government or is chargeable to the contract.8. Government members do not approve or disprove IPT decisions, plans or reports. 9. Your primary job is to perform those functions best done by government employees

Step 1 – Action 4Vision and Rules

© US Marine Corps – AAAV Program

Code of Conduct


Version 1.0

Step 1 – Action 5Plan for Partnering Resources

• Plan Funding and Schedule for:– Facilitators– Training– Off-Site Facilities– Admin Support– Celebrations– Rewards– Infrastructure (e.g. IDE)

113


Version 1.0

Step 1 – Action 5Plan for Partnering Resources

(Concluded)

ProjectEngineering

Viewt

ProjectManagement

Viewt

ProjectSupport

Viewt

UserORD(s)

Viewt

AFOTECTesting

Viewt

SMFunding

Viewt

Shared Data from Shared Processes

EngineeringProcesses

SupportProcesses Management

Processes


Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Extend Invitation to Industry to Partner • Notify Industry of Intent to Partner (e.g. Announcements, Industry Days etc.)

Review Program Partnering Vision with Industry• Discuss in Pre-Solicitation Activities (e.g. Pre-Solicitation Conference)• One-On-One Visits

Include Program Partnering Approach in Program Plans• Incorporate in Integrated Master Plan and Schedule• Incorporate in Plans (e.g. SEP or SEMP, AP or SAMP, TEMP etc.)• Account for Partnering in Cost Estimates and Budget Allocation

Incorporate Program Partnering in Request for Proposal (RFP)• Section L – Instruct Offerors to Provide Materials Necessary to Understand Their Partnering Approach• SOO/SOW – Include Provisions for Partnering

InvitationInvitation UnderstandingUnderstanding Program PlansProgram Plans

Action 1:Invite Industry

To Partner

Action 2:Review Partnering

Vision With Industry

Action 3:Include Partnering In

Program Plans

Action 4:Include Partnering InRequest for Proposal

Include in RFPInclude in RFP

IPPD Step 2Communicate With Industry


Version 1.0

Step 2 – Action 1Invite Industry to Partner

• Communicate with the offerors– Tell them at the pre-solicitation conference

– Tell them at the bidders conference

– Tell them in the RFP cover letter

– Put language in Section L (see Appendix B of the Army Partnering Guide

– Let them know that you are serious about partnering


Start the Communication Process As Early As Possible


Version 1.0

Step 2 – Action 2Review Partnering Vision



Version 1.0

• Our team will develop and deliver a Joint Tactical Terminal (JTT) and Common IBS Modules (CIBSM) capability to provide the intelligence broadcast connectivity for enhanced situational awareness for the warfighter. We will accomplish this through a cooperative teaming approach, based on trust and open communications among Raytheon, PM JTT/CIBS-M, CECOM, DCMC Raytheon, and the Users.

• WLMP will provide agile, reliable, and responsive services by leveraging best practices and technology that enable the AMC to deliver world class logistics to the warfighter and will advance with the challenges in the Army vision.

• We, the Multiple Launch Rocket System team, share a common objective to provide the premier fire support system, responsive to our nation’s and allied customers’ needs for the soldier of the 21st Century. We will accomplish our mission through an inspired, trained, capable and focused government and industry team.

• We, the members of the Improved Cargo Helicopter, Engineering, Manufacturing and Development Team (Team ICH) share a common objective: To Design, Test, and Build the remanufactured CH-47 Helicopter to provide the best weapon system to the soldier in the field within the budget. We are committed to working together to solve problems quickly and preclude non value-added requirements from eroding program success. We will continuously seek to improve our process so that our product contributes directly towards the successful production effort to follow.

Example Vision Statements


Version 1.0

Step 2 – Action 3Include Partnering in Plans

– Incorporate in Integrated Master Plan and Schedule

– Incorporate in Plans (e.g. SEP or SEMP, AP or SAMP, TEMP etc.)

– Account for Partnering in Cost Estimates and Budget Allocation


Version 1.0

Step 2 – Action 4Include in RFP

– Section L – Instruct Offerors to Provide Materials Necessary to Understand Their Partnering Approach

– SOO/SOW – Include Provisions for Partnering

Source: US Army – Partnering for Success, App B


Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Evaluate the Contractor’s Proposed IPT Structure• Consistency with the Contractor WBS• Interdisciplinary Representation

Evaluate the Contractor’s Integrated Program Management Approach• Partnering Approach is Reflected in the Integrated Master Plan (IMP)• Collaborative Program Management Oversight

Evaluate Contractor’s System Engineering Process Approach• Process Sharing Plan (Gov’t to Prime to Sub)

Evaluate Contractor’s Resource Allocation for Partnering• Suitability of Contractor Integrated Digital Environment (IDE)• Support Assets (e.g. Workspace, VTC, Facilitators etc.)

Evaluate Contractor’s Partnering Training • Scheduled and Facilitated Management and IPT Training

Contractor Agreement to Post-Award Partnering Workshop

StructureStructure ManagementManagement SE ProcessSE Process TrainingTrainingResourcesResources

IPPD Step 3Evaluate Proposed Approach

Action 1:Evaluate Proposed

IPT Structure

Action 2:Evaluate Integrated

Program ManagementApproach

Action 3:Evaluate System

Engineering ProcessApproach

Action 4:Evaluate

PartneringResources

Action 5:Evaluate

PartneringTraining

Action 6:Agree toPartner

AgreeAgree


Version 1.0

Step 3 – Action 1Evaluate Proposed IPT Structure

– Consistency with the Contractor WBS

– Interdisciplinary Representation

Integrated Set of

Timely Decisions

Engineering Test Manufacturing

Supplier

Contracting

Customer

Logistics

Financial Management


Version 1.0

Step 3 – Action 2Evaluate

Integrated Program Management Approach

• Does Contractors Partnering approach– establish mutual goals and objectives

– build trust and encourage open communication

– help the parties eliminate surprises

– enable the parties to anticipate and resolve problems

– avoid disputes through informal conflict management procedures

– avoid litigation through the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution

– reduce paperwork

– reduce the time and cost of contract performance

– reduce administration and oversight

– improve safety

– improve engineering efforts

– improve morale and promote professionalism in the workforce

– generate harmonious business relations

– focus on the mutual interests of the parties



Version 1.0

Step 3 – Action 3Evaluate SE Process Approach




Ris

k

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Test






Ris

k

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Test




System Development

Program Planning

Ris

k

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

Co

nfi

gMg

mt

Inte

gra

ted

Te

st

Co

ntr

ac

tin

g

Inte

gra

tio

n

De

sig

n

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Qu

ali

ty




System Development

Program Planning

Ris

k

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

Co

nfi

gMg

mt

Inte

gra

ted

Te

st

Co

ntr

ac

tin

g

Inte

gra

tio

n

De

sig

n

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Qu

ali

ty






Ris

k

Req

uir

emen

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Tes

t

Co

ntr

acti

ng

Inte

gra

tio

n

Des

ign

Man

agem

ent

Qu

alit

y

System Development






Ris

k

Req

uir

emen

ts

Co

nfi

gM

gm

t

Inte

gra

ted

Tes

t

Co

ntr

acti

ng

Inte

gra

tio

n

Des

ign

Man

agem

ent

Qu

alit

y

System Development




Version 1.0

Step 3 – Action 4 Evaluate Partnering Resources

Do IPTs Have Access To:• Sufficient Workspace• Meeting Facilities• VTC Services• Facilitators• Administrative Support• Support Resources

Is the Contractor IDE Suitable for Partnering

Resources Foster High Performance IPTs


Version 1.0

Step 3 – Action 5Evaluate Partnering Training

Does All IPT Member Training Include:• Mission Orientation• Team Skills• Effective Meetings• Conflict Resolution• Leadership• Technical/Process Training

Plus Individual & Team Coaching where needed

All Team Members Receive IPT Training Together


Version 1.0

Step 3 – Action 6Agree to Partner

• Agree to partnering– Establish executive-level personal

relationships

– Jointly plan Executive Workshop with Post-Award Conference

• Plan kickoff workshops– Initial workshop for all key personnel

and senior management to assure understanding of the concept and commitment for success

– Subsequent workshops for all participating personnel on an IPT basis if there are a large number



Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Jointly Select Experienced Facilitator for Partnering Workshop Prepare for Partnering Workshop

• Workshop Held in Conjunction with Post-Award Conference• Invite Key Stakeholder (Government and Contractor) to Attend• All Stakeholders Review Contract for “Rocks-In-The-Road” (e.g. Risk and Issues)• Involve Facilitator in Preparation and Selection of a Neutral Site (e.g. Hotel)

Conduct the Partnering Workshop• Facilitate Executive Team Building• Identify Roles and Responsibilities of the Partners

Prepare Partnering Tools During the Workshop• Develop Partnering Charter, Risk and Issues Process, Conflict/Issue Escalation Procedure, Alternative Dispute Resolution Approach, and Reinforcement Techniques

Agree on Joint IPT Structure• Identify Leadership and Ensure Consistency with WBS and IMP

Identify Government and Contractor Partner Champions (e.g. Deputy)

FacilitatorFacilitator PreparePrepare ConductConduct StructureStructureToolsTools

IPPD Step 4Conduct Top Management Workshop

ChampionsChampions

Action 1:Select A

Facilitator

Action 2:Prepare for

Partnering Workshop

Action 3:Conduct theWorkshop

Action 4:Prepare

PartneringTools

Action 5:Agree on IPT

Structure

Action 6:Identify

Champions


Version 1.0

Step 4 – Action 1Select a Facilitator

• Obtain a facilitator (see next two slides)– Get one who is qualified, experienced, trusted and “fits well”

with the parties– Should participate actively in initial workshops, assist IPTs in

getting started, and conduct remedial training for IPTs that backslide


Role of the facilitator: The facilitator is a neutral person who helps the partners get organized from the outset of the process. The facilitator helps develop and leads the Partnering Workshop and is instrumental in having the parties design the tools for the Partnering arrangement -- Charter, goals and objectives, “rocks in the road” and Conflict/Issue Escalation Procedure. The facilitator also plays the role of the “honest broker,” deals with any skepticism or bias brought to the Workshop, and keeps the team focused on the Partnering process.


Version 1.0


(Continued)

Roots Professional Services Institute for Conflict Mgmt POC: Michael E. Root POC: Sam Imperati [email protected] (360) 491-1381 (931) 393-2082 fax: (931) 454-2315 Galileo POC: Jerome S. Arcaro Alsop & Associates (603) 882-4616 POC: Bill Alsop [email protected] The Mediation Group (TMG) (505) 887-3609 POC: Stephanie Moura fax: (505) 887-0935 (617) 277-9232 FMI Integrative Management POC: Bill Spragins POC: Laurie A. Boucher (can request Tom Quinn) (906) 387-4718 [email protected] (303) 377-4740 Brown & Associates fax: (303) 377-3535 POC: F. Dale Brown (618) 997-2400 Heifetz-Halle POC: Stan Halle Conflict Management Institute (360) 866-8367 POC: Carl L. Shirmer (619) 588-7799

Source: US Army - Kathy Hall (309) 782-3850 DSN 793-3850

2 Yr

3 Yr


Version 1.0


(Continued)

Strategic Sense POC: Cecilia Rotelli Southwest Trng & Ind Research [email protected] POC: Darlene Shelton (253) 265-6248 (888) 325-1748/(405) 547-5455 cell phone: (253) 225-3670 web/www.southwesttraining.com ATI Senergy POC: Dennis Eriksen Richard Harrington (818) 347-3280 5303 Sagehen Place West Richland, WA 99353 Hartnett Partnering Consultants (509) 967-2817 Home POC: Joseph J. Hartnett (509) 376-2331 Work (407) 452-4316 FAX (509) 372-1397 Email [email protected] The Management Edge POC: Gayle Waldron (727) 588-9481 Trauner Consulting Services POC: Tracy M. Doyle (215) 546-0285

Source: US Army - Kathy Hall (309) 782-3850 DSN 793-3850

1 Yr

Note: Army recommends changingfacilitators every three years or so to keep a fresh perspective.


Version 1.0

Step 4 – Action 2 & 3Prepare and Conduct Workshop

• Prepare for the workshops– Make sure top management understand the goal of

partnering prior to the workshop to obtain active

support at the session

– Ensure all Government participants understand

the basics of IPTs and partnering

– Identify all the players participating in each workshop

• Conduct the workshop– Define partnering and process expectations

• Partnering is not to facilitate constructive change• Identify pitfalls associated with Government insight role• Indicate expectations each party has for partnering



Version 1.0

Step 4 – Action 3Conduct Workshop

– Get to know each other• Detailed introductions for all participants• Use an industrial psychology instrument

to identify participant communication styles (see http://www.advisorteam.com/temperament_sorter/ )

• Conduct facilitated team-building exercises to work on empathy and listening skills

• Indicate each individuals authorities and responsibilities

• Identify common program goals



Version 1.0

Step 4 – Action 4Prepare Partnering Tools

– Establish partnering charter goals• Ensure realistic expectations, goals and

objectives early in the partnership• Set sights high, but make them achievable so they can endure for the duration of the project

– Minimize risk• Strive for problem solutions that minimize risk of

system or program failure (see SEPO Risk Toolkit and Appendix E of the Army Partnering Guide)

– Generate a partnering charter (see Appendix C of Army Partnering Guide)

• Set for the intent of the parties to work together towards a successful project, the commitment of the parties, and common measurable goals

• Have all parties sign and display the charter



Version 1.0

Step 4 – Action 4Prepare Partnering Tools

(Continued)

– Establish methods of resolving conflict• Develop conflict resolution process such as

automatic conflict escalation to prevent festering of problems (see Appendix F of Army Partnering Guide)

• Agree to use alternative dispute resolution process when good faith disputes arise (see ADR reference link and Army Partnering Guide Appendices G and H)

– Generate a meaningful evaluation process• A sample questionnaire (see Appendix I of Army

Partnering Guide)• The evaluation should be made at about six

month intervals



Version 1.0

Step 4 – Action 5Agree on IPT Structure

Integrating IPT

Overarching IPT (OIPT)

MDADAB or MAISRC

TestContractor PMA

Sponsor

Execution

Oversight& Review

Program IPTs

WIPTs

Level AProgram

System Team

Level BTest & Eval

Team

Level BProj Mgt

Team

Level B

SYSTEMTEAM C

Level CSubsystem 2

Products Team

D

D

D

Level CSubsystem 4

Products Team

D

D

D

D

D

D

Level CSubsystem 1

Products Team

D

D

D

Level CSubsystem 3

Products Team

D

D

D

Level BSys Eng

Team

D

D

D

Level AProgram

System Team

Level AProgram

System Team

Level BTest & Eval

Team

Level BProj Mgt

Team

Level B

SYSTEMTEAM C

Level B

SYSTEMTEAM CC

Level CSubsystem 2

Products Team

Level CSubsystem 2

Products Team

D

D

D

DD

DD

DD

Level CSubsystem 4

Products Team

D

D

D

D

D

D

Level CSubsystem 4

Products Team

Level CSubsystem 4

Products Team

D

D

D

DD

DD

DD

D

D

D

DD

DD

DD

Level CSubsystem 1

Products Team

D

D

D

Level CSubsystem 1

Products Team

Level CSubsystem 1

Products Team

D

D

D

DD

DD

DD

Level CSubsystem 3

Products Team

D

D

D

Level CSubsystem 3

Products Team

Level CSubsystem 3

Products Team

D

D

D

DD

DD

DD

Level BSys Eng

Team

D

D

D

DD

DD

DD


Version 1.0

Step 4 – Action 6Identify Champions

Senior-level and program-level “champions” should be designated by each partner. – The senior-level champions are individuals who play a powerful and

influential role in the process and are generally at the PM level. • They will oversee the project, reinforce the team approach, overcome resisting forces,

participate in resolution of issues escalated to their level, celebrate successes, and maintain a positive image for the project. They also communicate with senior management officials (e.g., Commander, Program Executive Officer, or Chief Executive Officer) to keep them apprised of Partnering efforts and to solicit their continuing commitment.

– The program-level champions are high-profile individuals, generally at the senior program level, who are involved in the daily affairs of the program.

• They provide the leadership to ensure that the Partnering process moves smoothly throughout performance of the contract. They coordinate activities of team members, maintain regular contact with the other partners, provide information to senior-level champions (and others in senior management), and encourage adherence to the Partnering process and compliance with the terms of the Partnership.



Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Identify the Required Skills for the Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)• Identify Discipline Mix for Each IPT• Identify Critical Government Skills (e.g. SMEs, Testers) Needed and Obtain Commitment

Assign Appropriate IPT Team Members• Qualified, Available, Empowered, Committed, and Consistent Representation• Establish Balanced IPTs (i.e. Mixed Temperament of Team Members)

Conduct IPT Training• Provide for an Experienced Facilitator for Training• Train IPTs Members as a Group

Establish IPT Charter and Scope• Establish Charter for Each of the Program IPTs• Identify Requirements, Responsibility, Schedule, and Budget

Facilitate IPT Team Building• Provide for an Experienced Team Building Facilitator• Adopt High Performance Team (HPT) Building Approach

Identify SkillsIdentify Skills AssignAssign TrainTrain H.P.T.H.P.T.

Action 1:Identify Required

Skills for IPT

Action 2:Assign Appropriate

Team Members

Action 3:Conduct IPT

Training

Action 4:Establish Charter

And Scope

Action 5:Facilitate Team

Building

ScopeScope

IPPD Step 5Establish Integrated Product Teams


Version 1.0

Step 5Establish IPTsBackground

DoD Definition of IPT

An Integrated Product Team (IPT) is a multidisciplinary group of people who are collectively responsible for delivering a defined product or process. The IPT is composed of people who plan, execute, and implement life-cycle decisions for the system being acquired.

Source: DoD IPPD Handbook


Version 1.0

Step 5 – Action 1Identify Required Skills for IPT

Integrated Set of

Timely Decisions

Engineering Test Manufacturing

Supplier

Contracting

Customer

Logistics

Financial Management

Dr. John R Snoderly, George Mason University


Version 1.0

Step 5 – Action 2Assign Appropriate Team Members

• Select qualified, empowered team members– Empowerment is critical to making and keeping

the agreements essential to effective partnerships

– All IPT representatives must be empowered by

their leadership and be able to speak for their

superiors in the decision-making process

– They are expected to keep their leadership informed and reach back if necessary to ensure that their advice is sound and will not be changed later (barring unforeseen circumstances or new information)

– IPT members must be aware of the limits of their authority and not exceed them

– The IPT leader should stress that, in general, the decisions of the IPT are final and binding on the members of the IPT (barring unforeseen circumstances or new information)



Version 1.0

Step 5 – Action 3Conduct IPT Training

Campus DirectoryO: OrientationI: The Business Case for IPTsII: Understanding IPTs – A Systems ViewIII: Implementing IPTs – An Action ViewIV: Best PracticesV: Practice FieldVI: New DevelopmentsVII: Reference Library

http://www.abm.rda.hq.navy.mil/aosfiles/tools/ipt/html/map.htm

DON IPT Learning Campus


Version 1.0

Step 5 – Action 3Conduct IPT Training

(Concluded)

Leading Project Teams Schedule

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Updated: 11/15/2003

0800-0945WELCOME/

INTRODUCTIONS/COURSE OVERVIEW

Course Manager

1000-1200TEAM

DECISION MAKING(NASA Exercise)

DAU Faculty

1200-1300LUNCH

1300-1700PERSONALITY TYPE

(MBTI) IN LEADERSHIPAND TEAM BUILDING

DAU Faculty

0800-1100TEAM PROBLEM

SOLVING EXERCISE(Gold of the Desert Kings)

DAU Faculty

0800-1200TEAM BUILDINGPRINCIPLES & PROCESSES

DAU Faculty

1000-1200THE “RIGHT STUFF” FORPROJECT LEADERSHIP

DAU Faculty

1200-1300LUNCH

1100-1230CLASS LUNCH

AT FT BEVOIR O CLUB

1200-1300LUNCH

1500-1630IND. SKILLS ASSESSMENT(PROFILOR 360-FEEDBACK)

DAU Faculty

1230-1630IND. TEAMING STYLE

ASSESSMENTS(FIRO & KAI)

DAU Faculty1300-1500

SETTING TEAM STRATEGY

DAU Faculty

0800-1000LEADERSHIP & TEAMS

IN ACTION(JDAM Case Study)

DAU Faculty

1500-1700EMPOWERMENT

& COACHING

DAU Faculty

1200-1300COURSE SUMMARY

& GRADUATION

Course Manager

0745-0800REVIEW / OUTLOOK

Participants & Course Manager







0945-1000Break/Collect Admin. Forms

OPTIONAL DINNEROUTING WITH THE CLASS

OPTIONAL ONE-ON-ONE APPOINTMENTS WITH

DAU FACULTY

1000-1200ACTION PLANNING

& LESSONS LEARNED

DAU Faculty

0800-1000LEADING CHANGE

DAU Faculty

0745-0800FIND SEATS AND COFFEE


1300-1500MANAGING

TEAM CONFLICT

DAU Faculty


DAU FACULTY


DAU FACULTY

DAULeading Project Teams


Version 1.0

Step 5 – Action 4Establish Charter and Scope

The Integrated Product Team Charter is a Powerful Document that:

1. Helps you clarify your expectations of the implementation and understand what will be necessary to achieve them

2. Provides direction and guidance to the IPT, proactively answering the most important questions members have about a process implementation.


Version 1.0

Step 5 – Action 4Establish Charter and Scope

(Concluded)

The IPT Charter has these Components:– The Vision (What are we trying to achieve together?)

– The Product and Process Goals (What does success look like?)

– What are the Partnering Goals (What do you not want to have happen from the partnering relationship?)

– The Scope and Boundaries of the IPT (What’s off the table? Where does the IPT start and stop?)

– Identification of Interfacing IPTs (What is your relationship with other program IPTs? – Horizontal or Vertical)

– The IPT Members (What functions need to be represented, and who should represent them?)

– The Amount of Time and Resources the IPT Can Dedicate to the Project. (What is the WBS, work packages, schedule, funding responsibility of the IPT?)


Version 1.0 Source: SEI Mastering Process Improvement Course

Step 5 – Action 5Building High Performance Teams


Version 1.0

Orientation Concerns - 1

Purpose• Do each of the team members know what the group is formed to do?• Can members state the team’s purpose clearly and with conviction?• Can members describe what first sparked the idea to create the team? Do they feel part of a larger process?

Personal Fit• Can each member imagine and describe how their skills will contribute to the team’s goals?• Can each member see how their personal development will be furthered?

1. Orientation

Source: SEI Mastering Process Improvement Course


Version 1.0

1. Orientation

Membership

• Some individuals may wonder whether the team’s other members will accept them and whether they are qualified to contribute to the work.

• Feeling a sense of membership frees individuals to move on to the other stages of a team’s life and their related concerns.


Orientation Concerns - 2


Version 1.0

1. Orientation

UncertaintyOften, a team’s purpose is not clearin the beginning, or some membersknow the purpose while others do not.

If members are uncertain about why the teamhas been formed, they will more thanlikely resist moving forward.

FearDisorientation may trigger anxiety or even fear.

In the void of not knowing a team’s purpose, or having noinformation about personal fit or membership, members may befearful of what team membership offers.


When the Team is Blocked…


Version 1.0

2. Trust Building

Mutual Regard

• Teams with mutual regard recognize that each member is important to the team and understand how diverse contributions make up the whole.

• If the team is highly interdependent and requires a high level of trust, then they need to build respect for team talents and different points of view.


Trust Building Concerns -1


Version 1.0

2. Trust Building

Forthrightness• Trusting teams are willing to be open and explicit in dealing with each other. Is the team sharing hidden agendas and difficulties?• All teams have underlying “second-level” concerns. Does the team work to surface them or avoid them?• The team will require forthrightness in direct proportion to the level of interdependence and high performance it wants to attain.

Spontaneous Interaction• A sure sign that members have begun to trust each other is the bubbling conversation associated with freely flowing information.• Discussion topics that allow everyone a chance to participate, build confidence, and help people overcome fears of being judged.


Trust Building Concerns -2


Version 1.0

2. Trust Building

Mistrust

Political manipulation and deceitquickly undermine team spirit.Simple withholding can do the same.

Caution/Facade

Skepticism, suspicion, passivity, silence and mask-like exteriorsamong your team members are signs that they feel cautiousor may mistrust each other.

Blocked information flow is a sure sign of unanswered trustconcerns.


When the Team is Blocked


Version 1.0

3. Goal/Role Clarification

Explicit Assumptions

Your assumptionsare explicit when they are exploredopenly in discussions and, better yet,recorded in writing.

Clear, Integrated Goals

Focused teams are able to describe the specific goals and workproducts necessary for success.

Identified Roles

Before moving to full commitment, you probably want to feel thatthe responsibilities you are being asked to assume are clear and fit your skills.


Goal/Role Clarification Concerns


Version 1.0

3. Goal/Role Clarification

Apathy, Skepticismand Irrelevant Competition

Different people respond in a range of waysto unclear rules and roles:

• Quiet, sensitive people may find themselves retreating from argumentative discussions.

• Analytical people may find themselves skeptically questioning the team’s readiness to move on.

• Take-charge people might aggressively challenge ideas and people even on minor points. They probably feel that no progress is being made and are interested in getting any kind of action started.




Version 1.0

4. Commitment

Shared Vision

Can you and your teammates easilyand succinctly communicateyour vision to others?

Allocated Resources

Resources usually seem limited in comparison to visions. You willexperience resource allocation as hard, constraining work, butfundamental to success.

Resources are allocated when you have a budget,assignments, space and timetables to get your project done.

Resources are not allocated when individuals have not been Identified to back-fill the responsibilities that you gave up to participate as a member of the improvement team.


Commitment Concerns


Version 1.0

4. Commitment

Dependence/Resistance

You can tell when your team is notcommitted when you see people actingin one of two ways:

1. People are dependent. They do not feel they really understand how the work should proceed and what commitments have been made.

2. They are resistant. They act annoyed. They actively resist whoever is providing direction, even though they do not have a good alternative.

These behaviors appear because the call to make the turn to implementation was premature and the team as a whole lacks the commitment it needs to proceed.




Version 1.0

5. Implementation

Clear ProcessesWell-implemented teams have spentthe time required to have everyoneunderstand the work processes in use.The training needed to master new technologiesand methodologies is scheduled.

AlignmentWhen a team is aligned, everyone is heading in the same direction. Atdeeper levels, it means personal values support the work goals.

Disciplined ExecutionWell-implemented teams are willing and able to be accountable todeadlines and standards. You will find people fixing problems as they occur and not passing them off to others.


Implementation Concerns


Version 1.0

5. Implementation

Conflict, Nonalignment,and Missed Deadlines

If you just missed your fourth deadlineand find yourself blaming team members(or others) behind their backs, you haveimplementation problems.

Other signs might be disagreements (or fights) about qualityindicators with members of the MSG. These are signs that “teamprocesses” are not clear and trust is weak.

If the team is blocked, reflect on the earlier stages of team processand see if you can spot areas you rushed by or neglected.

Suggest a team meeting to build up the missing understanding and commitments.




Version 1.0

6. High Performance

FlexibilityHigh performance is marked by an ability to not only achieve goals but to change them(if necessary).

Changing signals from the MSG, middle managers, and others are challenges that serve as opportunitiesto fine tune your procedures and improve results.

Intuitive CommunicationIt is almost as though you are thinking and communicating at a grouplevel, rather than at the individual level. Obstacles and challengesbecome opportunities for higher performance.

SynergySynergy is experiencing a larger result than any single part suggests.

In high performance, you feel this meshing of talents and leap beyond predicted results.


High Performance Concerns


Version 1.0

6. High Performance

Overload and DisharmonyHigh performance is not stable.Successful teams may becomehyperactive, accept too much workor become workaholic.

If you are thinking, “We used to work so well together.Now I feel a sense of friction with my group,” you may beexperiencing the unresolved side of high performance.

Overload and DisharmonyMaybe you notice that your team, which used to meet everychallenge, now responds with confusion and reluctance. Worse,yet, you do not seem to be learning from mistakes.

Perhaps the team needs to take a break or a retreat to review oldagreements and visions.




Version 1.0

Renewal Concerns

7. Renewal

RecognitionRenewing teams make time torecognize the achievements of members.

Change MasteryExcellent teams take the time to develop new-member orientationpractices. If you change members frequently, it is essential to learnhow to bring them up to speed as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Staying PowerTaking time to learn lessons from whatever you do is a key to stayingpower. Team performance involves continual reflection andadjustment. As people move to new teams, learning inevitably carriesover.

Staying power also involves knowing when to rest and take time off.(Workaholics usually are not high performers for long.)



Version 1.0


7. Renewal

Boredom and Burnout

If you take no time for renewal, you willinevitably burn out.

Working nights andweekends may be necessary on occasion,but it is generally an indication that a teamis not practicing renewal.

Other signs are boredom or feelings of deadness. Have yourfriends called recently?

Are members of your team complaining a lot or counting the hoursuntil breaks? It may be time to take a long look at your teameffectiveness and start over.



Version 1.0

IPT Example AAAV Program



Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVIntegrated Product Team

Invert Your Management Thinking

• WRONG– Dictate strategies– Decree structure– Establish systems

• RIGHT– Work with processes

for people to create value

Info

rma

tion

Flo

w

Info

rma

tion

Flo

w



Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVIPT Organization - Consistent with WBS

• Multi-disciplined Including government representatives

• Empowered

• Decisions made at lowest level

• Self-contained (requirements, resources and constraints)

• Teams participate in Award Share Program

ProductTeams(Level D)

15

4DesignTeams(Level B)

AAAV SystemTeam

(Level A)1

8 PerformanceTeams(Level C)



Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVIPT Structure

Cont’s &Displ’s Team

Comm/NavTeam

Software Team

Elect/PwrMgmt. Team

Fire ControlTeam

ArmamentTeam

AuxiliarySystemsTeam

HullTeam

TurretAssemblyTeam

BTest & Eval

Team

Level AAAAV

System Team

Government

CStructures &Auxiliary Sys

Products

AAAVProduct Design

TeamLevel B

BSys Eng

Team

BProj Mgt

Team

CFirepowerProducts

CMobilityProducts

CC41

Products

Modeling &Simulation Team

Logistics Team

Specialty Engr.Team

Suspension Team

Hydro Syst. &Appendages Team

Marine Drivetrain Team

AutomotiveDrivetrain Team

Engine Team

Hydraulics Team

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DInt. & AssyTeam

D

D

D

D

D

D



Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVHuman Side of IPTs

• Trust

• Resolving Conflict

• Communication

• Leadership

• Managing Change

• Group Dynamics

• Principles of Teamwork

• Reward & Recognition

• Measurement

• Performance Feedback

• Organization Knowlege

• Customer Focus



Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVIntegrated Product Team Training

0 Mission Orientation

0 Team Skills

0 Effective Meetings

0 Conflict Resolution

0 Leadership

0 Technical/Process Training

Plus Individual & Team Coaching where needed

All Employees Receive Nine (9) Hours of IPT Training



Version 1.0

• Our role on the contractor’s IPT will evolve as the program does

• However, we used the following “Rules of Conduct,” as the foundation of our relationship with the prime contractor

1. The IPTs are prime contractor-run entities. We do not lead or manage the IPTs.

2. We serve as “Customer Representatives.” Primary purpose is to reduce cycle time of contractor/government communication. (Daily Vice Monthly/Quarterly)

3. We do not do prime contractor’s IPT work. But, government IPT members will take an active part in the deliberations during the development of, and participation in “on-the-fly” reviews of deliverables.

IPT Example – AAAVGovernment Role on IPTs



Version 1.0


(Continued)

4. When asked by contractor personnel for the government’s position or interpretation, government IPT members can offer:

• Personal opinion

• Expert opinion

• Guidance as to customer opinion

Define your level of your empowerment with your supervisor.

5. Government IPT members can not authorize any changes or deviations to/from the SOW or specification.

Government IPT members can participate in the deliberations and discussions that would result in the suggestion of such changes.



Version 1.0


(Continued)

6. Government IPT members cannot authorize prime contractor to perform work that is beyond the SOW.

Prime contractor IPTs can alter their work plan at their discretion provided: They stay within the resources identified in the Team Operating Contract (TOC).

7. Government members do not approve or disprove IPT decisions, plans or reports.

You do: Offer opinions, vote as a member and coordinate issues.

You don’t have veto power.



Version 1.0


(Concluded)

8. Your primary job is to perform those functions best done by government employees, such as:

• Conveying your knowledge/expertise on government operations and maintenance techniques

• Interfacing with other government organizations

• Control/facilitization of GFE and GFM

• Full participation in risk management



Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVIPT Lessons Learned Co-Location


Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVIPT Lessons Learned Co-Location

(Concluded)

What is working:

0 Timely decision making

0 Business integrated with technical

0 Intranet

0 IPTs taking “ownership”

0 Co-location

AAAV Co-located, Integrated Product Teams Performance Perspective



Version 1.0

IPT Example – AAAVIPT Lessons Learned

• Conduct training as early as possible, together

• Establish charters at all (especially the lowest) levels as soon as possible

• Make a great effort to change the corporate mentality

• Commit to a maintenance policy

• Listen, listen, listen

• Empower, empower, empower



Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Develop and Use Common IPT Operating Procedures• Obtain Consensus on Operating Procedures from IPTs • Apply Procedures in Execution Environment

Develop and Use High Performance Team Meeting Approach• Focused Agenda, Full Attendance, and Tight Schedule• Documented and Actionable Results

Develop and Use Open Communications• Full Sharing of Information “No Hidden Agendas”

Develop and Use Joint Problem Solving• Full Participation of IPT Members in Problem Solving

Develop and Use Collaboration With Interfacing IPTs• Horizontal Collaboration with IPTs• Vertical Collaboration with Integrating IPTs

Develop and Use an Issue Escalation Procedure•Prompt Identification of Problems that IPTs Can’t Resolve “Bad News Doesn’t Get Better with Time”

GroundrulesGroundrules MeetingsMeetings CommunicateCommunicate EscalateEscalateSolve Solve

IPPD Step 6Implement IPPD Procedures

Action 1:Operating Procedures

Action 2: High Performance

Team Meetings

Action 3:Open

Communications

Action 4:Joint

Problem Solving

Action 6:Issue

Escalation

Action 5:Collaborate WithInterfacing IPTs

CollaborateCollaborate


Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 1Operating Procedures

– Establish procedures for sound IPT administration

• Identify potential program risks and establish a risk identification and handling procedure (see Appendix E of Army Partnering Guide)

• Identify strengths and weakness of stakeholders in partnership

• Establish a fact documentation procedure -- if facts are not in dispute most claims are not pursued

• Develop open, honest, and regular communications among the stakeholders

• Review contract requirements and provisions to identify any areas of confusion or difference of opinion



Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 2High Performance Team Meetings

Guidelines for Meeting Management• Meetings should be held only for a specific purpose and a projected duration should

be targeted.• Advance notice of meetings should normally be at least two weeks to allow

preparation and communication between members.• Agendas, including time allocations for topics and supportive material should be

distributed no less than three business days before the team meeting. The objective of the meeting should be clearly defined.

• Stick to the agenda during the meeting. Then cover new business. Then review action items.

• Meeting summaries should record attendance, document any decision or agreements reached, document action items and associated due dates, provide a draft agenda for the next meeting, and frame issues for higher level resolution.

• Draft meeting summaries should be provided to members within one working day of the meeting. A final summary should be issued within two working days after the draft comments deadline.



Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 3Open Communications

• Hold open discussions with no secrets– All facts placed on the table for each team member to

understand and assess

– Each team member has unique expertise and his or her views are important

– Each view has to be heard but not necessarily acted upon by the team

– All team members should feel their contributions are important and considered

– Encourage team members to explore all alternatives to system problems

– Don’t expect the team to “rubber stamp” a

decision or a document prepared outside

of the team



Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 4Joint Problem Solving

• Write the problem / effect / issue at the top of a flipchart page.

• Using stick-on notes, brainstorm all possible causes of the problem.

• Organize the notes into logical groupings with headers (for example, training issue, policies, equipment, and so on).

• Looking at the ideas / causes under each heading, probe to determine the “cause for the cause.” For example, if possible causes of phone calls are customer errors, then ask, “Why are customers making errors?” Place these additional ideas on stick-on notes, and attach them to the original cause.

• The team selects the most likely cause(s).

An effective way to find the cause of a problem is to reverse the findings of the know / don’t know tool. That is, “What is different about where (when, who, and so on) the problem is not occurring, and how might that be the cause?”

Staffmakingerrors

Policy

Trying to findevery nickel

Forms toocomplex

No trainingprogram

Hard toread forms

Instructionstoo busy

Too muchturnover

Poortraining

Systemedits

too tight

Tax lawtoo hard

Mundanework

Don’t careabout

accuracy

Not enoughtech staff

Haven’tupgradedcomputerprogram

ComputerSystem

Taskstoo small

Paid by thedocument

Too manydocumentsrequired

Instructionstoo complex

Missingdocumentation

Too manypeople use

tax info

Too Many Errors

Source: The Change Agent’s Guide to Radical Improvement by Ken Miller


Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 4Joint Problem Solving

(Concluded)

• Identify a Problem• Generate Causes

– Unstructured brainstorming

– Structured brainstorming (Round Robin; 6-3-5 [6 people - 5 minutes - 3 ideas]; etc.)

• Construct the Fishbone Diagram – Identify root causes (e.g. material, machine, measurement, methods, men) and

secondary causes

Source: Kauro Ishikawa. 1982. Guide to Quality Control: 18-29


Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 5Collaborate With Interfacing IPTs

Vertical Coordination Horizontal Coordination



Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 6Issue Escalation

• Escalate Substantive Fisagreement (i.e. not emotional)– Team should not search for “lowest common denominator”

consensus

– There can be disagreement on an issue if it is substantive disagreement based on an alternative plan of action rather than unyielding emotional opposition

– When an IPT cannot resolve an issue, the IPT leader should raise the issue as quickly as possible to a level where resolution can be achieved (see Appendix F of the Army Partnering Guide)



Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 6Issue Escalation

(Concluded)

Source: Appendix F of the Army Partnering Guide


Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

Provide for Partner Champion Active Involvement• Foster and Support High Performance Team Development in Respective Organization• Continue to Provide Resources and Partnering Support

IPTs Conduct Periodic Health Reviews (Internal to IPTs)• Rate Working Relationships, Effectiveness of IPPD Procedures • Implement Corrective Actions as Appropriate

IPTs Conduct Periodic Work Progress Reviews (See Program Planning Process)• Rate Schedule Status, Product Quality, • Implement Corrective Actions as Appropriate

IPTs Celebrate Team Success• Celebrate Completion of IPT Milestones

Program Rewards Teams and Team Members• Recognize and Reward Team Accomplishment in Public Setting• All Partners Participate in Team Recognition• Respective Organizations Reward Team Members

InvolvementInvolvement IPT HealthIPT Health ProgressProgress RewardReward

Action 1:Active Champion

Involvement

Action 2:Periodic IPT

Health Reviews


Progress Reviews

Action 4:Celebrating

Team Success

Action 5:Rewarding Teams

And Team Members

CelebrateCelebrate

IPPD Step 7Manage Integrated Teams


Version 1.0

Step 7 – Action 1Active Champion Involvement

• Leadership is provided primarily by the organizational authority responsible for the program (Champion), the facilitators, and the team leaders.

• The organizational leaders are usually the program manager and contractor senior manager.

• These leaders set the tone of the: – adherence to empowerment,

– the focus of the technical effort, and

– the team leadership of the system management team.

• These leaders are responsible to see that the team environment is maintained.

• They should coordinate their action closely with the facilitator.



Version 1.0

Step 7 – Action 1Active Champion Involvement

(Concluded)

BARRIERS TO INTEGRATION• Lack of top management support,• Team members not empowered,• Lack of access to a common database,• Lack of commitment to a cultural change,• Functional organization not fully integrated

into a team process,• Lack of planning for team effort,• Staffing requirements conflict with teams,• Team members not collocated,• Insufficient team education and training,• Lessons learned and successful practices

not shared across teams,• Inequality of team members,• Lack of commitment based on perceived

uncertainty,• Inadequate resources, and• Lack of required expertise on either the part

of the contractor or government.

METHODS TO COMBAT BARRIERS• Education and training, and then more education

and training: it breaks down the uncertainty of change, and provides a vision and method for success.

• Use a facilitator not only to build and maintain teams, but also to observe and advise management.

• Obtain management support up front. Management must show leadership by managing the teams’ environment rather than trying to manage people.

• Use a common database open to all enterprise members.

• Establish a network of teams that integrates the design and provides horizontal and vertical communication.

• Establish a network that does not over-tax available resources. Where a competence is not available in the associated organizations, hire it through a support contractor.

• Where co-location is not possible have regular working sessions of several days duration.



Version 1.0

Step 7 – Action 2IPT Health Reviews

• Even if there is no sign of a problem and the metrics look OK– A periodic assessment of the health of the relationship

is recommended

– Use the partnering questionnaire (see Appendix I of the Army Partnering Guide) as a basis for the assessment

– Any negative responses indicate problem areas that need additional effort

• Reinforce training– Periodically conduct follow-up workshops

– Prevent old bad habits from reemerging

– Change facilitators every few years



Version 1.0

Step 7 – Action 3Periodic IPT Progress Reviews



Version 1.0

Step 6 – Action 4Celebrate Team Success

• Celebrate successes– Recognize and

reward those who took initiative to partner (successful or not) with presentations or celebrations


Version 1.0

Step 7 – Action 5Rewarding Teams & Individuals

• Program success is usually the strongest available incentive to making a partnership work

– The future of the key personnel (and their subordinates in some cases) is tied to the success of the program (or at least the success of a major phase of the program)


Partnering Incentives


Version 1.0


(Continued)

• If the program is a success– Successful stakeholders are rewarded by their respective

organizations• Cash bonuses• Medals• Promotions,• Plaques• Dinners• Better assignments• Newspaper articles• Peer recognition

– You should reward everyone on the team– Although recognition may vary with each of the team

members organization



Version 1.0


(Continued)

Compensation Example: F/A-18

The F/A-18 Program Team rewards its members based on competency and the accomplishmentof team-related objectives. Indeed, team-related work objectives carry the most weight. Genericfactors for team performance workplan objectives are as follows.

For Team Member For Team Leader

Meets team deadlines with qualityproduct

Meets/under budget

Keeps team informed Logical, clear, concise task delegation

Committed to the team and team goals Encourages innovation

Respects programmatic issues Uses team effectively in decisionmaking

Provides competency expertise Meets team deadlines

Timely annual performance inputs

Extracted from the F/A-18 Program Team (PMA265) Program Operating Guide, 15 November 1996.

Reward Expectations Example Soruce: (DoD IPPD Handbook ,6 July 1998)


Version 1.0


(Concluded)

• If the program is a failure* - everybody loses– Unsuccessful stakeholders are “punished” by their

respective organizations• Transfers

• Terminations

• Demotions

• Poor assignments

• Peer recognition

– Although punishment may vary

with the organization

* Cancelled, unsatisfied operational customers, fails system or operational test, fails in initial operation, “60 minutes” features unflattering view of program, involved in corporate or military scandal, etc.



Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

Return to Step 5Train IntegratedProduct Teams

Yes

IsPartneringWorking

?

Return to Step 4Top Management

Workshop

No

STEP 7 - Manage Integrated Teams

Step 7 IPPD Decisions

There may be other reasons or events that will require a reworking of the process …….. it is imperative that the program partners be open to this possibility and be prepared to fix the problem because …… Successful Partnering Successful Partnering Successful Programs Successful Programs

Action 1:Active Champion

Involvement


Health Reviews


Progress Reviews

Action 4:Celebrating

Team Success

Action 5:Rewarding Teams

And Team Members


Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

Team Problem

• Consider the Potential Stakeholders• Conflict and How to Deal With It• Sources of Conflict• Consequences of Conflict• Conflict Resolution Strategies

TeamProblem or New

Member?


Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

Consider PotentialStakeholders

• Operational testers• Certification Testers• Operations Personnel• Support Personnel• Program Sponsors• Prime Contractor• Subcontractor• COTS Suppliers• Associate Contractors

• Integrating Contractors• Civil Service• Support Contractors• Government Engineers• Depot Personnel• PMs• Military


Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?Types of Conflict

• A disagreement between two or more parties– Substantive

• Allocation of resources

• Policies or procedures

• Requirements

– Emotional• Values

• Culture

• Management style

• Personal preferences

• Distrust


Minor ProgramIrritant

Threat to ProgramSuccess


Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

• Typical manager spends 20% of time resolving conflicts• Contemporary view - conflict is not good or bad but can be neutral

– A process in which incompatible goals, interpretations or emotions lead to opposition

– Can be beneficial and productive, contributing to effective problem solving and serving as an agent for change

• IPTs change the role of the typical manager– Empowerment of IPT members delegates some program

management authority– IPTs increase the number of individuals required to deal with

conflicts– IPT members are likely to lack experience or training in conflict

management

Management View of Conflict



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?Sources of Conflict in IPTs

• Ambiguous roles– IPT members do not understand organizational goals– IPT members do not understand IPT goals– IPT members do not understand IPT relationship with

program goals

• Inconsistent stakeholder goals– User is preparing for operations– Acquisition agency developing products– Logisticians are preparing for sustainment– Testers are concerned with operational suitability– Contractor is concerned with making a profit



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

• Communication barriers– Exist in most organizations– Compounded by project vocabularies

• Functional and acquisition specialties• Operational community• Sustainment community• Security community• Joint use or coalition projects

• Delegation of and Limits to Authority– Legitimate authority not delegated to IPT members with

stated limits– Failure to recognize “constructive changes”

Sources of Conflict in IPTs (Continued)



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

• Program priorities and schedule– Sequence and timing of critical tasks (Suggest

Using the IMP and IMS to resolve)

• Resource allocations– No unlimited resources (funds, manpower,

facilities, etc.)– CAIV is a particular concern– User involvement in cost-requirement

tradeoffs essential

• Resistance to change– Changes in process, resources, organizations

(Need to “sell” changes to involved personnel)




Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?


• Lack of information– Untimely IPT notification of changes in

• risk

• schedule

• funding

• priority

• requirements

– Poor Communication within the IPT– Poor Communication between IPT members

and Sponsoring organizations– Poor IPT communication to higher level IPTs



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

Sources of Conflict in IPTs (Concluded)

• Product and process conflicts– Incomplete understanding of the user’s requirements– Inability of the contractor to deliver the promised product due to cost

growth– Changes in user requirements for the product– User concerns about development process efficiency– User disappointment in evolving or final product

• Contractor induced conflicts– Requirements interpretation– Lack of cost-realism– Delays in completing internal milestones– Overestimated software productivity



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?Consequences of Conflict

• Disputes between the user / customer and the SPO/PMA– Delays in development of the product– Rebaselining to reduce or change requirements– Correction of defects– Disputes take place in a constrained funding

environment– Mid-program disputes can result in loss of user advocacy and

program cancellation– Late-program disputes may force the user to take

unacceptable products (spiral development reduces risk)• Disputes between the SPO/PMA and the contractor

– All of the above– Claims can and have been referred to the courts– “Marching army” is expensive and reduces product

performance



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?Conflict Resolution Strategies

• Possible strategies– Avoiding– Forcing– Accommodating– Compromising– Collaborating

• Avoiding, forcing, accommodating, and compromising are all adversarial in nature and cause resentment in the other party and a long-term deterioration of the business relationship



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

Conflict Resolution Strategies (Concluded)

• Collaborating is the only strategy that optimizes the benefits to all of the parties involved– Jointly identifies change opportunities and seeks a “win-win” -- approach. – Conflict is clarified, studied, and even refined in an effort to give each stakeholder a solution that can be fully

supported. – Collaborating includes joint problem-solving, consensus-seeking,

and establishing overarching goals in order to achieve full cooperation.

– Major advantage of collaborating is that all parties may be very satisfied with the way the conflict was resolved.

– A disadvantage is that collaborating is likely to be more time-consuming than the other approaches.



Version 1.0

TeamProblem or New

Member?

New Member

• Initiate newcomers– Make provisions to train and orient

newcomers to the program– The induction process should be a

team responsibility that includes the immediate use of the new team member in a jointly performed, short term, easily achievable, but important task.

TeamProblem or New

Member?


Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?

Is Partnering Working

• Partnering Problems

• Partnering Not Working with the Contractor

• Partnering Not Working with the Government Stakeholders

IsPartneringWorking

?


Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?Is partnering working?

• There may be a problem if– Your program is featured on “60 Minutes”– Performance expectations are not being met– Schedules are slipping– Costs are increasing– Data is not being kept up to date– Overtime is increasing– Risks are not being tracked or mitigated– The government is not being kept informed– The contractor is not being kept informed– Requirements are changing but the program isn’t– The IMP and IMS do not reflect what is really happening– The goals being pursued are not those in the SOO– The software metrics are heading south– The lines of code are growing unexpectedly– The interfaces are changing– Action items are opened faster than they are being closed– A “red team” is chartered



Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?

What To Do If Partnering Isn’t Working

With The Contractor

• When the aforementioned symptoms are observed

• Then the government program manager should – Attempt to resolve the difficulties with the contractor’s

program manager before proceeding with any other actions

– If resolution is not possible, then

• Notify the government stakeholders that there will be an implementation of (or an increase in) oversight

• Inform the contractor’s senior management that

– One or more serious problems exist

– The relationship has deteriorated to the point where “normal” government involvement is not working

– The government intends to implement or increase oversight



Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?

What To Do If Partnering Isn’t Working With The Contractor (Continued)

• If significant change has not occurred within 30 days, the government program manager should follow through with the implementation of increased oversight which may include– An increased government presence in the contractor’s plant

– The use of an external “red team” to review the program

– Expertise provided to assist the contractor in critical areas

– Formal meetings to track performance

– More cost and schedule metrics

• Formal correspondence should be sent to the contractor’s parent organization (a level above the organization responsible for the program) advising them– That increased oversight is being implemented

– Next steps to be followed if this effort does not resolve the problems and restore the relationship



Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?


• Schedule a formal review with the integrating IPT and contractor senior management within three months after the start of increased oversight to determine if– The government should return to “normal”

oversight

– Continue increased oversight

– Begin reviewing the program for termination

• Advise the contractor senior management and program manager of the integrating IPT decision within a week after the review



Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?


• If the integrating IPT decides to consider termination, the government and contractor program managers should schedule a joint meeting with the Overarching IPT (including the PEO or CAE) and the contractor’s senior management or CEO to determine if

– Continue the program with the present level of increased oversight

– Continue the program with government oversight above the program office level

– Terminate the program

• If the government elevates the level of oversight it is frequently placed directly under control of the PEO or CAE



Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?

What To Do If Partnering Isn’t Working With The Contractor (Concluded)

• If the government decides to initiate termination proceedings– A “show cause” letter is sent to the contractor

– Progress payments are stopped

– “Stop work” orders for portions of the work are issued

• Although it is possible to restructure a program after termination proceedings begin, it is a lengthy and expensive process

Show CauseShow Cause



Version 1.0

IsPartneringWorking

?

What To Do If Partnering Isn’t Working

With The Government Stakeholders

• If teamwork begins to deteriorate within a group– Conduct an independent assessment to determine

the facts

– Conduct an additional training workshop if indicated

– Assign a facilitator to the group

– May involve personnel or assignment changes

– Elevate issues to program manager and integrating IPT

• External stakeholder issues cannot be resolved at the program level (e.g., unfunded requirements or refusal to compromise in the “trade space”)– May require the external stakeholder to develop a single position

– May involve personnel or assignment changes

– Most issues resolved at this level and not elevated to the OIPT

• OIPT meeting may be necessary if an issue involves changes to the APB (cost, schedule, or performance thresholds)



Version 1.0

Agenda



Version 1.0

SummaryLessons Learned for Better Partnering

• Obtain top management commitment• Obtain necessary resources to partner• Encourage continuity• Select champions at top & working level• Communicate with the offerors• Agree to partnering• Plan kickoff workshop• Obtain a facilitator (Recommended Facilitators)

• Prepare for the workshops• Conduct the workshops• Establish procedures for sound IPT administration• Establish methods of resolving conflict• Generate a partnering charter


Version 1.0

SummaryLessons Learned for Better Partnering

• Generate a meaningful evaluation process• Establish partnering charter goals• Minimize risk• Celebrate successes• Initiate newcomers• Reinforce training• Communicate• Keep promises• Hold open discussions• Select qualified, empowered team members• Escalate substantive disagreement• Get to know each other


Version 1.0

Partnering Summary

• Working in a collaborative fashion we can reduce energy lost to friction– Starting up your program may take a little longer to

develop the partnering environment– However, in executing your program overall

energy savings from partnering can be directed to produce “better, faster, cheaper, smoother” systems

• Partnering is legal, encouraged, and makes sense– “Just do it!”


Version 1.0

Conclusion

• We cannot continue the adversarial “business as We cannot continue the adversarial “business as usual” approach to acquisitionusual” approach to acquisition

– Constantly changing threats, priorities, & budgetsConstantly changing threats, priorities, & budgets– Emphasis on joint and coalition warfare Emphasis on joint and coalition warfare – ““Net Centric” or system-of-systems focusNet Centric” or system-of-systems focus– Operational capabilities emphasisOperational capabilities emphasis– Decreasing size of acquisition and government system Decreasing size of acquisition and government system

engineering workforceengineering workforce– Emphasis on agility and evolutionary acquisition Emphasis on agility and evolutionary acquisition – Modernization efforts focused on affordabilityModernization efforts focused on affordability


Version 1.0

References

• Navy IPT Learning Campus– http://www.acq-ref.navy.mil/tools/ipt/index.cfm?action=Infobank

• Army Partnering and Dispute Resolution– http://www.osc.army.mil/others/Gca/partnering/

• Army Partnering Guide– http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/command_counsel/partnering.html

• AAAV IPT Structure– http://www.efv.usmc.mil/ppi/ippd.html

• Mike Bloom’s Paper– http://www.mitre.org/tech/sepo/acquisition/partnering.html

• Kathryn Hall Paper– http://www.osc.army.mil/others/Gca/partnering/articles.htm

• Software Engineering Institute Mastering Process Improvement Course– http://www.sei.cmu.edu/products/courses/courses.html#PROC

• DAU Leading Product Teams Course– [email protected]

• Mike Bloom – MITRE and Joe Duquette - MITRE– [email protected] [email protected]

• OPM Alternative Dispute Resolution Guide– http://www.opm.gov/er/adrguide/toc.asp

• Find Your Temperment Type at: – http://www.advisorteam.com/temperament_sorter/

• F/A-18 E/F Partnering– http://www.acq-ref.navy.mil/tools/igprg/html/sec7.htm#fa18


Version 1.0

IPPD Concept

Just play. Have fun. Enjoy the game. Michael Jordan

Documents

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Version 1.0 1 1 © 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Mission Partnering Using Integrated