Military organizations such as the Coast Guard
contain some unique characteristics that differentiate them from companies in
the private sector. In the military system there are more frequent promotions
and more geographical moves resulting in a continuous cycle of filling
vacancies. Unlike a company in the private sector, the military operates in a
closed personnel system meaning they cannot hire someone "off the street" with
7 years of experience in repairing steam power plants to fill these vacancies.
The job experience for military organizations must be grown from within. This
presents a special challenge for Coast Guard decision makers. Those differences
aside, the Coast Guard enlisted personnel system does posses the same basic
organizational structure of private corporations and the federal government.
A Systems Thinking methodology was chosen as the basis for the conceptual
framework of this problem. The Systems Thinking methodology supported the
simulation of complex processes and the inter-relationships among the
sub-processes and, in the end, produced a desktop tool that realistically
approximated the steady-state effects of personnel flow and personnel
turbulence. The methodology was broken up into four main phases:
-
Phase 1: Identifying key personnel
-
Phase 2: Functional Area Briefs
-
Phase 3: Model Development
-
Phase 4: Validation and Acceptance
In Phase 1, Subject Matter Experts (SME) from the areas of assignment,
advancement, training, budget, and others were invited to the group
facilitation sessions. The personnel selected consisted of managers and
non-managers who possessed in-depth knowledge of processes within their
functional areas. SMEs were educated on the differences between the systems
view of problem solving and the more traditional, linear cause & effect
views of problem solving. By requiring all the different functional areas to
express how their functional areas operated using the common language of stocks
and flows, each individual functional area was treated equally, removing the
necessity to use specialized functional area language which may not be easily
understood by the entire group.
Once educated on the methodology of Systems Thinking, the SME's from each of
the functional areas briefed each other on how their own areas operated, with
emphasis on their specific interaction with the personnel system. Using stocks
and flows, the entire group was able to better understand Coast Guard personnel
processes of functional areas other than their own and how the different
processes affected each other. The functional area briefs cleared up many
existing misconceptions, in part because all functional areas were "speaking
the same language" of stocks and flows.
After each functional area was briefed to the group, the process of capturing
the personnel system using Systems Thinking notation began. These basic models
of the structure of the enlisted personnel system were created in real time,
using the input and discussion of the SME's. CALIBRE spent time translating the
discussion into actual iThink® models and towards the end of the SME
meetings the iThink
® models served as the main discussion piece. The basic models that were
created in the facilitated group session were later expanded and integrated
into a larger model, focusing on the interactions between each standalone
model. Additionally, Coast Guard data was gathered and used in this larger
model to help validate model accuracy.
The final phase of the methodology was an iterative process of playback and
steering from the working group. The model was updated to reflect changes and
recommendations from this group and then played back to validate the changes.
Eventually, everyone was confident that the enlisted personnel system was
accurately modeled.
There were many positive outcomes of this effort that appeared as early as the
group facilitation session. The process of creating small strawman models
created a greater level of understanding before the complete model was even
built. Seeing the structure of the personnel flow, assignment managers were
able to clearly see the natural delays in the advancement and training
processes.
Prior to this effort, Coast Guard managers made decisions in an "organizational
vacuum" where they did not and could not understand the impacts of their
decisions on other areas of the Coast Guard or at best only superficially.
Because these organizational decision making barriers existed, personnel
decisions often resulted in adverse effects on the entire system. For example,
it was policy that after each promotion an employee would be moved to another
duty location to fill a position that required a more experienced person. When
an employee was moved to fill a vacancy, a second employee had to be moved to
replace the position vacated by the first employee. That continual replacement
cycle caused many more moves than the Coast Guard desired and had a negative
effect on unit continuity. The Coast Guard also observed employees turning down
the opportunity to take advancement exams, a prerequisite for advancement, so
that they would not have to move. Soon after the facilitated sessions, Coast
Guard policy makers changed the "move after promotion" policy resulting in less
personnel movement, more job satisfaction and lower costs. The Coast Guard did,
however, make a strategic decision to keep the "move after promotion" policy
for the advancement from middle management positions to upper level management.
The Coast Guard felt this was an important part of retaining and reinforcing
the chain of command, which is critical in a military organization. This
informed decision was made by the Coast Guard with a systemic understanding of
what consequences this would have on the entire system including the areas of
personnel, training and budget.
Using a Systems Thinking methodology to address complex personnel issues was
valuable because it produced an understanding within the Coast Guard that in
complex systems there are "ebbs and flows." Complex policy decisions that are
made today may, in the short-term, produce negative effects on the system.
Managers began to understand that the personnel issues were systems level
problems which could be anticipated and, if allowed, would correct themselves
in time. This mental preparation for expected short-term negative conditions
made it possible to make insightful decisions to prepare for these conditions
instead of being at the complete mercy of the system.
The systems view of the personnel system helped the Coast Guard avoid making
sudden, reactionary decisions after September 11, 2001. Using their systems
view, the Coast Guard was able to show that one proposed aggressive growth
strategy would hurt current mission effectiveness and compromise efforts to
meet the new mission requirements. The ability to communicate these views to
both the senior leaders within the organization and to Congressional leaders
outside the organization was extremely valuable. Instead of implementing this
growth policy and then observing these negative results when it was too late to
avoid them, Coast Guard planners were able to modify their growth plans and
spread the growth over more years, achieving their end goal without sacrificing
current mission effectiveness.
The Coast Guard now possesses a Systems Thinking-based model in the Workforce
Turbulence Strategy Simulator. This tool is invaluable to the Coast Guard for
understanding the implications of decisions as they affect their entire
personnel system. The simulator is not used for point predictions. It is a tool
that accurately models the interactions among all the functional areas that
affect the personnel system. The Systems Thinking view led to a much greater
understanding of how the system actually operates. The Coast Guard is now aware
of the delays and constraints that are inherent to their system. Rather than
looking at possible problems in the individual areas of attrition and training,
they are now able to view system problems, enabling decisions to be made for
the long-term benefit of the organization.
The Systems Thinking methods used for this Coast Guard effort produced many
positive lessons learned, most all of which have application in other areas of
management. Bringing together the different functional areas and expressing
ideas and processes in the stock and flow language presented an arena where
mental models could be challenged and adjusted. A door was opened to
communication between these functional areas that did not previously exist.
Similar methods are being used successfully by CALIBRE in the areas of
strategic planning, IT system integration, logistics planning and operational
planning to achieve organizational goals.
