A630.1.4.RB_RuggerioSteven

Fly, Fight, and...Centralize?

My son keeps two old and dirty stuffed animals in the top drawer of his dresser.  They are held together by thin lines of thread. Normally, this wouldn’t surprise anyone except my son is nineteen and in college.  He also has his first skateboard, pieces of his first bike, and clothes he has long outgrown.  My son struggles with change.  It seems he’s not alone.

It’s one of the most publicized challenges in business.  It echoes in the halls of our government and is forced down the throat of commoners. It’s witnessed up close as a baby grows and perceived through tears when a loved one dies.  There is no getting around it.  And, planning for it can feel futile: Change.

The Center for Creative Leadership said, “Today there seems to be very little business as usual. Turbulence is common, with organizations facing a dizzying array of changes. Your success as a leader will very likely depend on how well you deal with such change.”

In the United States Air Force (USAF), change is a constant.  It begins with changing your identity (basic training), changing your location (orders), and changing your job (policy and promotions). One of the most significant changes I experienced in twenty years of active service in the USAF occurred from 1997 through 2000. 

Prior to 1997, USAF logistics operated under a decentralized concept.  In short, supply-related support functions were managed and conducted at base-level by large supply squadrons.  However, in 1997 Air Combat Command (ACC) directed all combat-coded bases to centralize their supply functions to one location.  That meant, the primary support functions normally conducted by hundreds of AF men, women, and civilians would be transferred to a central location (out of their control and off their base) and managed via Internet, email, and a centralized computer operating center.  Supply personnel were speechless while maintenance leadership was screaming. 

ACC stood up a supply center known as the Regional Supply Squadron (RSS) at Langley AFB in Virginia.  With one-third of the personnel, the RSS assumed responsibility for the bulk of supply tasks at 19 active bases.  I was a member of the “advon-team” and acted as “practitioner” visiting each bases and briefing senior leadership on the transition.  Our motto hitting the ground was, “We promise as good or better support.”

Transferring all supply functions to another location meant senior leadership at the Air Force bases would not have access to a “warm body” and would be unable to reach out and touch when support was less than expected.  Most metrics and measurement tools would be viewed and accessed over a central database.  Leaders struggled with the concept of dedicated support, sortie-generation success, and the lack of loyalty focused on their local needs. 

As practitioner, developing the relationship with senior leaders during the visits and assuaging their fears proved to be an important determinant of our success or failure in regionalizing supply processes.  Brown (2011) stated, “The exchange of expectations and obligations (the formation of a psychological contract) depends to a great degree upon a good first impression or match between the client (AF base) and the practitioner (ACC)” (p. 15).

In discussing the action research model, Brown (2011) said, “The manager also needs to be aware of the processes that should be considered when one is attempting to create change” (p. 15).  As we demonstrated how the new processes would function, we maintained sensitive to their fears and concerns.  Little by little, both senior leaders and younger airmen began to accept the regionalization concept and even believe it may work.

However, even though many began to believe, many more remained pessimistic.  We heard comments such as, “It will never work.” “The aircraft will be grounded all over the country.” “How will anyone get answers?” “The project is going to fail!” We continued to demonstrate an empathic resolve and identified that the process was already working on a smaller scale at Langley by supporting deployed locations overseas.

While the pessimist was unwilling to give the idea credence, the pragmatist tried to dissect the concept by picking apart the processes. They refused to envision any possibilities that operations could function at heightened levels from a central location. Brown (2011) said, “Question the client’s diagnosis of the problem, because the client’s perspective may be biased” (p. 16).  As a result of the pessimism and pragmatism, we continued to move forward with vision of a streamlined operations promising exceptional support.  With strong leadership from headquarters, a governmental directive to reduce personnel and money, the regional concept proved to be the best way forward.

So we proceeded.  One base a month.  The RSS assumed responsibility for all routine and priority orders.  They inherited the functions of records maintenance, stock control, funds, and the most critical supply function at a base: Mission Capability Section responsible for chasing parts for grounded aircraft.  It wasn’t easy.  There were hour-long phone calls and daily video teleconferences.  In the end, it worked.  Air Force logistics support is now managed by two regional supply centers.

Change started with a command from the Pentagon: reduce defense spending and service manpower. Over 15 years later the RSS has evolved into a central supply center housing over 200 people responsible for managing aircraft all over the globe.  What started as a practitioner and client discussion for streamlining supply functions has grown into a global logistics supercenter. 

Retired for nearly a decade and working alongside supply people as a Lockheed contractor, I still get to witness the continuing change of USAF supply.  It’s funny, young supply airmen often come into my office and talk about how their jobs have changed in the past year.  Leaning back in my chair I smile and ask, “Is that right? Please, tell me about it.”

Legacy evolves.

Steve

References:

Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Center for Creative Leadership. (2013). Adapting to Organizational Change. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

A521.6.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

                      An Unbeatable Team: Air Force Maintenance and Supply Personnel

New York Times best-selling author Patrick Lencioni (2005) said, “Teamwork doesn’t require great intellectual insight or masterful tactics.  More than anything else, it comes down to courage and persistence.” Furthermore, he continued by stating, “I honestly believe that in this day and age of informational ubiquity and nanosecond change, teamwork remains the one sustainable competitive advantage that has been largely untapped” (p. 3).

When most people think of teams their minds race to football championships and World Series wins.  Corporate gurus use Google, Southwest Airlines, and GE as standards of great teams.  Teams operate every day all over the world.  From the Girl Scouts to the Marines, teams permeate every facet of our lives.  Since, as John Maxwell said, “One is too small a number for greatness,” then true success lies in the ability to synergize efforts and create great teams.

The F-22 Raptor is known as the greatest advanced fighter aircraft ever created.  Yet every pilot will tell you, they accomplish their missions because of the teamwork on the ground.  Nowhere is this more important than during a deployment.  The combined efforts of the maintenance and supply team are instrumental in facilitating successful flying scenarios.

Denning (2011) identified six elements of high performance teams in his book The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling.  By demonstrating the following principles of high performance teams, the deployed coordinated efforts of maintenance and supply create meaning beyond operational success:  

1.     Actively shape the expectations of those who use their output and then exceed the resulting expectations.

a.     When fixing aircraft in a deployed location, it is essential that maintenance personnel receive their parts when they need them.  Backorders cause delays and missed opportunities.  Supply personnel help shape the expectations of maintenance by ensuring the right part is available when needed.

2.     Rapidly adjust their performance to the shifting needs of the situation. They innovate on the fly, seizing opportunities and turning setbacks into good fortune.

a.     Maintenance personnel understand the challenges of meeting mission requirements with reduced budgets. It is not economically feasible to deploy with every part just in case it may be needed.  As a result, when parts are unavailable, maintenance personnel must act fact and take subsequent steps to avoid delay. Cannibalization (removing parts from one jet and install it on another) is one way maintenance maintains available aircraft.

3.     Grow steadily stronger.  

a.     In a deployed environment, maintenance and supply personnel increase the knowledge of each other’s strength and weaknesses.

b.     When deployed, personnel work in close quarters. The austere situations, while difficult, facilitate a greater understanding of each other.  As a result, by finding the strengths and weaknesses of a maintenance crew, supply personnel can anticipate potential system failures and plan accordingly.

4.     Grow individually. Mutual concern for each other’s personal growth helps develop interchangeable skills and create greater flexibility.

a.     Raising the bar, minimizing failures, and providing the necessary training when necessary result in a stronger deployed team and ultimately, a stronger Air Force as well.

5.     Purposes become nobler; team performance more urgent and team approach more powerful.

a.     Supporting the world’s best fighter aircraft is a daunting task. Maintenance and supply personnel do not take it lightly.  Combining skills to support the freedom of American citizens generate pride and enthusiasm in the Air Force support units.

6.     Carry out work with a shared passion.

a.     Working side by side in a deployed environment, both maintenance and supply have a great desire to see the Raptor where it should be—in the air.  When an F-22 is parked on the flight line unable to fly, both maintenance and supply personnel take whatever actions necessary to fix it and get it flying again.

Though the effectiveness of deployed maintenance and supply personnel are measured with different metrics, the end result is the same: mission capable aircraft. Supply measures stock levels, fill rates, and issue effectiveness.  Maintenance keeps a close eye on cannibalization rates and aircraft turn-times.  However, both units understand the overarching metric and shared value of the equipping the Air Force to fly, fight, and win. 

Denning (2011) said values are often diminished when there are “Sayings without substance” (p. 158).  Moreover, he continued, “Shared values in an organization create trust.  People have confidence that others will do what they say” (p. 149).  Deploying tons of support equipment, nearly one hundred people, and twelve aircraft to a potentially dangerous environment requires trust on many levels. 

The patriotic motivation undergirding the Air Force core values of Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do act as catalyst for creating teamwork and maintaining focus.

There are many relational interactions among military members.  Denning (2011) identified four patterns of working together (pp. 161-162).

1.     Work group – defined responsibilities and report to the same person. Little need for collaboration.

2.     Team – Each member has defined responsibilities and the work itself depended on the ebb and flow of the organization; required gathering intelligence, identifying threats, and accomplishing objective.

3.     Community – self-organizing.  The leadership responsibilities were shared by those who volunteer to facilitate meetings, organize events, and contribute expertise and information to the group.

4.     Network – rarely meet face-to-face. No mutual engagement to do anything in particular except stay in touch by way of a list.

One of the Raptor success stories with teams occurred in a value stream mapping (VSM) event to curb the high failure rate of canopies.  The team brought together expertise from many areas to improve the identification, repair, and investment toward canopy support.  Improving canopy management required a high degree interaction among the team members.  Each expert contributed potential process improvement ideas and sought to make changes where necessary.  At the conclusion of the 5-day process, transportation times were decreased, turn-around times improved, and failure rates dropped by 12 percent in the first six months.

Conversely, as part of a senior manager directed work team, we were assembled to improve support of the Raptor’s Air Recharge System.  While supply brought the necessary historical data to the equation in a timely manner, the engineers were caught dragging their feet and causing significant delays in improving the process.  By the time they arrived with the data, some of the historical data collected by supply was outdated.  Since work teams often have their own timeframe to accomplish objectives, it required a great degree of flexibility from the supply team.  When supply complained about the engineer delays, the group supervisor was often reluctant to apply pressure to the engineers.

Looking back, it may have reduced frustration if the supply managers waited on the engineer data rather than conducting a tremendous amount of research and leg work up front.  By communicating a new schedule to the group supervisor, some of the deliverables could have been reworked to facilitate a better investment of people’s time.

To quote Lencioni (2005) again, “The true measure of a team is that it accomplishes the results it sets out to achieve” (p. 7).  In short, a team is only as successful as its end goal.  Keeping shared values in mind, coordinating with respect toward the team member’s expertise, and maintaining focus are key factors motivating high performance teams.

Steve

Reference

Denning, S. (2011). The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

            Bass.