Jason Yip: I don't think accountability is necessarily the problem to solve here. Jason Yip: https://hackernoon.com/it-appears-we-need-more-individual-accountability-31fd2ba2d67a Jason Yip: Wondering what the existing mechanisms are for collective prioritisation / coordination Jason Yip: Good point, it's possilbe that any particular case isn't collectively the most important thing to work on. Jason Yip: My initial gut response was value stream map assessment and some kind of kanban system but then also collective prioritsation across business units Matthew Sinn: My instant reaction is this: we focus on people's accountability for getting work done. Why not focus on the case manager's accountability for driving awareness of schedule overages at the appropriate executive level? John Kelly: Wondering if there are true "hand offs" or if they all get the work at the same time. John Kelly: I also wouldn't want to have a case manager's job in this instance :) Jason Yip: "watch the baton, not the runner" comes to mind. My thought is to focus on visibility before accountability. Pam Daniels: If you are adding a new process on top of another set of processes, I think you will need to look at a solution that considers multiple processes Jason Yip: Ah, that reminds me, what level of influence does Naomi have? Jason Yip: Probably the case managers care... but this is a question of "power". Matthew Sinn: In my organization, all of the responsible/impacted executives would sign off on the expectations surrounding the process. The case manager is responsible for process results. The case manager would have performance targets and would be expected to escalate to the executive table any significant schedule overages or other quality issues. Individual department heads could choose to “accept the risk” associated with having different priorities, but at a VP, SVP, or EVP level, there would need to be awareness that this was happening. Sometimes, missing targets in one area is OK. The rule must be “no surprises.” The escalation would need to rise to the level that is paid to accept that level of risk, conceptually. Jennifer Siefert: In my experience, it is beneficial to have SLAs for the dependent groups so they are accountable as it can illustrate / illuminate where the issues are in the process overall to senior mgt. who will only then make a change Jason Yip: I'm suspicious that most people with authority have no idea that there is a problem, nor the extent of it and I suspect creating this visibility would be necessary to even initiate broader meetings on collective priority, etc. Matthew Sinn: I agree, Jason. Escalation is a critical practice of good accountability. Jennifer Seifert: I would ask about the metrics of losing the licenses and financial impact. That may be the common goal. Does it impact their individual salaries? Jennifer Seifert: My question would be are there enough staff to do the work? Is that part of the challenge ? Matthew Sinn: Right, and to Jason's point, I don't think anybody can make that determination until the case manager makes leadership aware, "Hey, this process is not performing. Are you OK with that?" Matthew Sinn: There's a tactical aspect--the hand-offs--but also a strategic aspect--whether the case manager and his/her leadership can influence performance by groups they don't directly manage. Jason Yip: I'm reluctant to assume this is an external motivation (aka incentives) problem. If we assume everyone wants to do a good job, the existence of the problem still makes sense if not enough people can see the problem. Jason Yip: No problem, no intervention. Until you can make the problem non-controversial, there is no point in attempting intervention. Matthew Sinn: There are plenty of times people own risk. It's just that they need to be aware when they say, "I'm OK with these delays." Pam Daniels: Susan Finerty's book has some great tools related to this issue: http://www.masterthematrixbook.com/ Matthew Sinn: Question: Are we conflating continuous improvement and management accountability? Is the "how" question of how best to do complex work different from the "who" question of who needs to own the problem and have final authority? At some point, there is a person who says, "All of you will have X priority, and I'm going to enforce that because I manage everyone." COO or CEO or department head. Jason Yip: 1. Cross business unit priority 2. Manage workflow acknowledging actual capacity constraints and communicate expected resulting lead times John Kelly: I keep imagining people in each business unit doing the work they've always done. Managing priorities they way they always have. Then this new process comes along that plays second fiddle to everything they have always done. Jason Yip: Matthew Sinn: This is why I started with, I'm not sure "management accountability" is the right problem to solve. Matthew Sinn: It sounds to me like it is, from the point of view of talking about the case manager "being responsible" for people they don't directly manage. This feels like a case where the case manager doesn't have the right tools to influence and escalate. What am I missing? Jason Yip: I was taking the point of view of 1. the case and how it can effeciently move the system; 2. the overall organisation and how to best utilise limited resources Jason Yip: ^^^ through the system Bill Zybach: If the individuals have to prioritize, it won’t work, the prioritization can’t be done effectively at the case worker, the conflict of over priority can’t be solved except at a higher level Matthew Sinn: Ah! OK. I see. I agree. If it's efficiency, it's not a management accountably issue, I think. If it's how to prioritize, it's partly accountability--there needs to be an agreement about who owns X and whether we want to do Y. Matthew Sinn: Agree, Bill. Jason Yip: I'm a little thrown with the use of "accountability" to refer to what I would call "decision authority". I tend to use "accountability" to refer to who can "hold account" or essentially the point of contact for any particular topic. Bill Zybach: Or is the issue with the customers, and not with the organization, managers or case workers? Matthew Sinn: I think you also link the process to a business function (capability a department must deliver) and then to a condition the business has to create (e.g., customer satisfaction, customer retention, rapid processing, etc.). Then you figure out who owns creating the strategy and results for those areas. (Not always the same people who execute the work.) Matthew Sinn: Jason, we use accountability to mean both in our organization. Good point. I've been making some assumptions that don't hold true outside our own walls. Jason Yip: I'm a little wary of going "air war" too early. There may be a lot that can be done just creating visibility and negotiating peer-to-peer. Jason Yip: Isn't a conundrum just a difficult problem? John Kelly: co·nun·drum kəˈnəndrəm/Submit noun a confusing and difficult problem or question. "one of the most difficult conundrums for the experts" synonyms: problem, difficult question, difficulty, quandary, dilemma; informalposer "the conundrums facing policy-makers" a question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle. synonyms: riddle, puzzle, word game; informalbrainteaser "Rod enjoyed conundrums and crosswords" John Kelly: so it could be problem or just a question asked for amusement. Bill Zybach: It would be important to ask the customers if 26 weeks is OK, even if the folks internally think it is fine - are they connected with the customer, and is the customer important enough to drive the organization to shift? Pam Daniels: However, if this is a new process, is it possible that the volume of "input" may increase impacting workload and ability to meet the target timeline? Michael Gold: opportunity versus problem Matthew Sinn: For our organization, all processes link to the functions, which in turn link to broad executive delegations from the CEO. So when we talk about being accountable, some people do have decision authorities to exercise. We define accountability as "managing according to sound business practices." We then defined those practices, which include achieving role clarity, designing processes and achiving consensus, and setting targets, etc. Jason Yip: In which case, the question isn't "is 26 weeks okay?" but "Is it worth turning 26 weeks into n weeks?" Matthew Sinn: At the executive level, sound business practices include achieving clarity and agreement about decision authorities, approved at the executive table. Pam Daniels: Then it sounds more like developing a mindset of process improvement among the participants John Kelly: and that is the problem John Kelly: Naomi, I have dealt with this exact situation multiple times... John Kelly: Thank you! Hajni Sagodi: Great comments all of you here!! Jennifer Seifert: Thank you! Claudia Murphy: i think we’re dealing with this more and more as organizations move to “networked” organizations. Hyunwoo Kim: thank you Matthew Sinn: Thanks, everyone.