Response to discussion quesitons

Utilizing Lewin’s three stage framework, section 7.5 of the text (Principles of Management 1.1, 2014), below I will speak on a recent change of issue resolution that was developed and implemented into the NAVAIR METCAL (Metrology* Calibration) Program.

*Yes this is spelled correctly.  Metrology is the science of measurement, not to be confused with Meteorology, weather forecasting and observing.

UNFREEZING:

The plan to implement an information resolution with a single entry and exit point was effectively communicated to the teams located locally.  Urgency was communicated for the need is this system due to a large amount of issues being improperly tracked and, occasionally, answered by those without the authority to do so.  Support was present by being able to use lessons learned from previous failed attempts of accomplishing this mission over the past decade.  Although very few of us were familiar with the operation of Microsoft SharePoint, we became familiar at a rapid rate due to the expertise of an outside government employee with a wealth of knowledge.  The team was able to participate in the construction of this change.  In fact, other than the premise of the idea, we were in total control to develop a version to deploy after approval from the program.

In my opinion, management did a poor job of building a coalition.  The utilization of a hierological structure is blatant in my line of work.  The idea was generated by the program manager, and we were assigned a deadline and the idea of creating a service desk that would cater to all needs.

EXECUTING:

After the initial presentation of the lessons learned, management took a back seat by instructing us to develop and be able to present a “Beta” program.  After a couple of weeks we met and presented our progress.  During this meeting, management presented some new ideas and goals that were missing from the initial task.  This drastically changed our vision and sent us back to the drawing board in order to develop this process.

Small wins were not an option presented to our team.  It was very simply, “Go big, or go home”.  Management also took no action in eliminating obstacles.  The team just adjusted our methods in order to produce a quality product.

REFREEZING:

Management, as of late, has been able to sing our praises to all concerned parties.  They even went as far as traveling with us to sites across the country in order to help us roll out the service desk.

Being that the service desk has only been implemented since November, we are still gathering data metrics and soliciting ideas in order to maintain a more effective service desk.  Just as any business change, there are bugs to be worked out.  We are continuously striving to perfect the process.  During our weekly meetings, management has spoken very positively about those who has adopted the change.  The need to embrace continuous change is paramount.  Being that it is a new process, we have to be able to accept that change is needed until the service desk performs as a well-oiled machine.