CHANGE MANAGEMENT + SUSTAINABILITY SAMPLE REPORT

INTEGRATED OPERATIONS CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

“Practice isn’t the thing you do when you’re good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good”

-Malcolm Gladwell, Social Psychology Author

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archipelago partnered with OSO to efficiently stand up a new organization. We provided organizational performance assurance through coaching and facilitation.

Each OSO function developed an ambitious, 12-week change management plan to stand up their respective teams. Accountability to the plan was high, with adherence ranging from 80% to 100%. As our engagement concludes, 68 of the deliverables are on schedule.

The results of this joint effort:

• 35 new work processes,

• 75 deliverables, with

• 348 associated readiness activities (identified as necessary to stand up the new organization),

• >430 hours of coaching, and

• 20% improvement in Meeting Quality

We would like to recognize the six OSO functional groups for closing over 150 of the Readiness activities by week 12, 85% on schedule

Change is hard. 71% of change programs fail.

The major risk moving forward is a lack of adoption of new processes by the site-based stakeholders. Therefore, we recommend further iterations of process implementation and improvement in the next calendar year, as well as more intentional active communication by leadership. Field-based coaching, with occasional office-based help, is suggested.

The Process Design, Governance, and Performance Sustainability activities, results, and forward analysis follow this executive summary.

PROTOTYPING IS ONE OF OUR WAYS OF RAISING AWARENESS AND PREPAREDNESS SIMULTANEOUSLY

63% OF PROCESSES ARE COMPLETE AS OF THE END OF OUR ENGAGEMENT.

Loading up the front-end is the best possible investment. What is done (and not done) in planning has more bearing on outcomes than anything else.

OUR COMMITMENT

Process Design and Measurement:

Coach leaders and team members in the design and operationalization of core work processes. Ensure that accountability is embedded within the processes, from management to the front-line.

Observe, identify, and coach to formalize performance metrics with leaders and key contributors to drive long-term accountability.

Organizational Governance:

Assess, design, and facilitate engagement (meeting) cadence and terms to foster strong decision-making. This is done through automation (where possible and necessary), intentional Terms of Reference, and structured meetings that are as long as they need to be (and no longer).

Performance Sustainability:

Develop a single project charter for the six Integrated Operations Core Capabilities. Our charter will include Roles and Responsibilities, an implementation schedule, deliverables, metrics, and risks.

Embed process-mapping, coaching, performance indicator development, and facilitation techniques within the leadership team.

The next section will share progress, insights, risks, and recommendations.

The Appendices will highlight tools and artifacts from our engagement.

“They say a champion is not made when he wins races. It’s the seconds, minutes, weeks, and months when he prepares that matter.”

-Eliud Kipchoge World Record Holder, Marathon

THE ENGAGEMENT: PROCESS DESIGN

To ensure that accountability be embedded, we coached the appropriate leadership on how to manage and own the process.

For example, we structured, scheduled, and facilitated the first few process design workshops, in concert with the designated leaders.

As key stakeholders became more comfortable with the process, team members took over the workshops, including real-time facilitation, action capture, and map design. This transferred ownership to ConocoPhillips employees.

In the interest of measurement and transparency of progress, all process mapping deliverables and activities were scoped and included in a web-based (accessible and visible) action tracking tool: Readiness Tracker01. Each team had ownership of their deliverables as they placed them in the plan (with guidance to focus on the

“

Each week, the six leads shared progress and collaboratively course corrected. Archipelago developed a weekly one-page report sharing progress, insights, and potential risks for our sponsor and stakeholders. (See Appendix G)

With Archipelago in a coaching role, ConocoPhillips’ long-term capability in process design, process mapping, and accountability will be sustainable after we depart.

Big 3”: Plan of the Day, 120-day Schedule, and 2-year Plan).

INSIGHTS

The process mapping journey progressed smoothly. Each of the six OSO Leaders worked with their teams to identify and visualize the processes and sub-processes required to stand-up their respective teams and ‘roll-out’ new systems.

Several teams leveraged the existing high level process maps developed prior to the formal event kick off.

Figure 01: sketching and prototyping become an important part of the mapping and design process <60d-29d Integrated Scheduling Process>

Challenges

The challenge to this (and many) initiatives undertaken over the past 12-weeks was the remote aspect of work and collaboration. Early in the engagement, small groups were able to gather in the office. This did not last long, as most employees were mandated to work remotely.

Figures 01 + 02 demonstrate how we were able to bridge the gap between disparate, remote teams and in-person process building. The prototyping process is an effective way to convert ideas into functional, testable products.

Successes

The ConocoPhillips software ecosystem made communication and collaboration easier. Coupled with Archipelago’s remote work tools, Process Design and Mapping sessions were completed.

Figure 02: 1/35 process maps created by the OSO team <60d-29d Integrated Scheduling Process>

Technology Recommendation: Using a tablet and pencil/stylus within virtual meetings proved to be the biggest enabler of visible, real-time sketching and prototyping.

When and where appropriate, and following strict organizational protocols, coaches and leaders met in person to brainstorm, design and prototype. The willingness and urgency shown by OSO Leaders to work with Archipelago (in-person and virtually) removed a common barrier: resistance to change; and allowed the for 12-weeks of effective work.

The concept of design thinking was presented to OSO teams and a larger organizational audience - with great enthusiasm. It represents a desirable way of working and reinforced the benefits of rapid prototyping, testing and iteration. This was especially useful for Process Design and Mapping.

RECOMMENDATIONS + RISKS

As of this writing, only 13 process maps remain to be completed. The capability to do so exists within each of the six teams.

The challenge, therefore, is not in developing these or other sub-processes. Instead, the biggest risk is lack of uptake of the processes as they are rolled out, starting December 1, 2021.

We have several recommendations when it comes to fostering successful adoption of the processes post ‘go-live’:

1. Increased active Senior Leadership support of the change process. Senior Leadership = the OSO Supervisors, the OSO Manager, and our sponsor, the VP of Operations.

“Active” support is not emails, town halls, nor other forums of broadcast communication (but those are necessary). What we mean by active is: field trips, lessons to be learned workshops, after action reviews, decision

“[The concept] of rapid prototyping could be a game-changer for this organization.”

meetings, etc. In these sessions, in-person wherever possible, senior leadership must:

• re-iterate the purpose of the OSO change program,

• actively engage the stakeholders, and

• regularly and actively follow-up.

Metrics can be used for this initiative. For instance, make field trips mandatory for OSO Supervisors that lead functions with field-based interfaces (1x per month for the next 3-6 months). These should be tracked in a tool just like the Readiness Tracker.

2. Field trips by the OSO Supervisors and +1 Leads. When possible, the trips should occur during the week of handover to spend time with the off-going and on-coming personnel. The focus shall include, at a minimum:

• rapport building,

• scenario review (from the previous quarter)

• OSO big 3 process deep dives, and

• Q+A sessions.

3. Development of an OSO Business Review: a recurring OSO-focused check-in with Ops Managers and OSO Supervisors.

The business review is a data-driven conversation to track and trend progress, share successes, and discuss barriers or threats to the overall OSO initiative. KPIs will need to be identified (the OSO initiative needs to be connected to existing KPIs, as opposed to creating new ones).

Additional recurring connections between OSO Supervisors & Leads. Some informal elements of this exist, however, we advise formalizing it with fieldbased interfaces to share topics and issues pertaining to the OSO’s “Big 3”.

4. Focused, Field-based coaching support.

We strongly believe that the “sprint” style 12-week implementation of the change program in Calgary was effective. The time constraint focused the team on the tasks at hand.

Therefore, we recommend a similarly intense focus, primarily for the fieldbased stakeholders, after the holiday sojourn. Interface management with Calgary would also be addressed.

At a high level, we propose 2 coaches who will rotate mid-January to midApril:

• ~1 week in office in Calgary, working with OSO Supervisors and Leads, followed by

• ~1 week in the field (Surmont and Montney respectively)

• Field time would be scheduled to overlap with the field handovers, where applicable.

We believe that ensuring that the field is not “left out” from a coaching engagement is important. Not only would this increase the likelihood of change, but it would create and empower site-based stakeholders to continuously improve and advocate processes. Since two full-time ConocoPhillips field-based “champions” have been identified, our proposal is half the size of the initial stand-up in the Calgary office.

Archipelago prides itself on being 100% supportive, yet 100% objective.

THE ENGAGEMENT: ORGANIZATIONAL GOVERNANCE

To support the implementation of this organizational change program, Archipelago assessed, designed, and facilitated engagement (meeting + communication) cadence with each OSO Leader. We reviewed and collaboratively designed functional meeting Terms of Reference (TORs). Often times this included a linking to new sub-processes designed by the OSO teams.

We scored each engagement (one-on-one coaching, workshops, or meetings). We shared those results with our coachees. We scored 422 sessions in 12 weeks.

Our engagement was an iterative and agile process, with check-ins regularly (through surveys and 1-1s) to assess the meeting quality, psychological safety, and high-performance teaming.

+4% +3%

INSIGHTS

Challenges

Remote engagement once again proved to emerge as a barrier - but unlike our process design efforts, opportunities for informal ‘friction’ and ‘touches’ were limited due to strict protocols.

Ideally, OSO Leaders would have opportunities to collaborate and literally ‘bump’ into one another to share progress, ideas, challenges, etc. Culture is defined by what you consistently do. It shows up in your language, your 1:1 interactions (both scheduled and informal), your meetings and communication, and the quality of your work.

Spatial Recommendation: Whenever possible, OSO Functional Leaders and their +1 leaders should have designated space adjacent to one another. This would further cultivate relationships, collaboration and positive friction.

Successes

From day Ø, the reception from ConocoPhillips to coaching support was one of “pull”. In our lexicon, “pull” means that leaders and their teams were asking for coaching and welcomed our assistance. Our Client Openness metric was benchmarked at 8.3, and rose to 8.7 over 12 weeks (+4%). This was the highest score within our Coaching metrics.

Secondly, we saw rapid adoption of the Learning Sessions shared within OSO. For example, within days of the Design Thinking concept being introduced amongst the OSO, multiple teams adopted prototyping, embraced creative confidence, and began to rapidly future-cast, design and test concepts.

In another example, the simple concept of, “saying no” (to stay focused) went from an ice breaker to a tool for managing expectations. The exercise helped the OSO leadership understand the difficulty and necessity of focusing on less to achieve more .

Table 01 summarizes metrics from our Governance, Meeting, and Coaching KPIs. Detailed metrics are found in Appendix D

Meetings starting on-time improved by over 30% (41% to 71%); however, meeting finish time remained a challenge, with 57% of meetings running long.

Based on our observational data, each OSO team member was spending an extra 30 minutes/week in meetings that ran longer than scheduled. Additionally, each leader spent about 15 minutes waiting for meetings to start. Lack of meeting time management resulted in ~45 minutes/week of waiting time + meeting overrun.

The lowest scoring metric was Accountability. The main driver for low Accountability scoring was Action Item Quality.

Table 01: Governance and Coaching Scores <Week Ø to Week 12>

Actions were taken in about 37% of the observed meetings. Even when actions were taken, 69% of the time, action due dates were missing. The complete breakdown of items measured are in Appendix D.

Consistently good governance/cultural behaviors we observed:

• Involving the right people (90% of observed meetings), indicating a very inclusive team environment.

• Asking questions that allowed others to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, or abilities (82% of observed meetings)

• Aligned and supportive of decisions reached (96% of meetings where decisions were reached). This was the most impressive behavior observed. We did see plenty of disagreement and strong opinions, but when a decision was reached, teams would be aligned and supportive. Not every meeting reached a decision, but when one was reached it was almost universally supported coming out of the meeting.

(0.75 hours/week/person) x (170 OSO team members) = 127.5 hours/week (127 hours/week) ÷ (1 FTE/40 hours/week) = 3.2 FTE

The time equivalent of 3.2 Full Time Employees is spent waiting for meetings to start and meetings running over their scheduled time.

RECOMMENDATIONS + RISKS

Some of the risks and recommendations described in the previous section (Process Design) are relevant to Organizational Governance. We will not repeat them. Our recommendations for continued development of effective communication, governance and high performing teams are:

1. Any new interactions or meetings, should make use of Terms of Reference(s), and pre- and post-meeting coaching/feedback. The Calgary-based OSO team have been coached and scored for 12-weeks; maintaining this momentum would be prudent to the goals of change sustainment.

2. A clear and consistent value proposition to engage the field-based personnel does not exist. We have heard various value propositions in dry runs. This only serves to confuse the audience. Development of a Communication + Stakeholder Alignment Plan(s) by OSO leadership should address a fieldengagement strategy. See Appendix H for initial reference.

3. Continued use of prototyping and dry runs (or rehearsals) when implementing a new process. As detailed in Appendix B, consistent rehearsals are one of the five elements present in high performing teams.

Within OSO, we were able to test processes and ideas earlier. This allowed participants to provide candid feedback and course corrections much earlier than if the dry runs had not been done.

Our philosophy is that go-live should not be the first time that we try something.

4. Score your meetings. The metrics are simple to look at, they trend, and they give impetus to change behaviors.

For instance, in week 7, we shared results on meeting timing: 77% of the meetings in OSO went over their allotted time. You can imagine that this cascades, with back-to-back meetings running long because they started late. When meetings start late and end late, this begins to normalize within a group. However, with weekly scoring and associated coaching, you can measure and refocus the group towards better behaviors.

5. Capture action items more thoroughly. Quality action items were captured less than 31% of the time. This metric continues to improve (relative to the baseline), but reminding participants that quality actions are written down, have a single owner in the meeting, have a due date, and have general agreement from meeting participants. Our research shows that lack of the aforementioned leads to false promises, forgotten actions, and a general culture of ineffective communication.

Figure 03: Meeting Scoring Metrics (clockwise from top left: Meeting Impact, Conversation Quality, Action Item Quality, Accountability

6. Evaluate and decrease time spent in meetings. We translated the recurring meetings within the OSO Organization’s calendar into the abstract diagrams below.

For each asset’s busiest week, each ‘bubble’ represents a specific meeting, with the diameter reflecting the duration. Each subsequent block, moving from left to right, represents the days of the week from Monday to Friday, and the subtle horizontal split representing morning and afternoon. Lastly, the coloration within each day’s block represents the relative intensity (meeting time commitment), with red being most intense and green being least intense.

The conclusion from this ‘high-level’ view is that little time is available for non-meeting work. We recommend a ‘meeting audit’ to course correct towards specific days being recurring-meeting-free, and creating space for critical thinking and innovation.

SURMONT MEETING DENSITY

MONTNEY MEETING DENSITY

Figure 04: Meeting Density + Heatmap Diagrams

THE ENGAGEMENT: PERFORMANCE SUSTAINABILITY

CONTEXT

The focus of this implementation was to enable process mapping, coaching, performance indicator development, and facilitation techniques with ConocoPhillips’ OSO Team.

This aligns with our goal within every Archipelago engagement: to leave skills and competencies with our client. The following summarizes what we have shared, what we have left behind, and some of the risks associated with failing to practice the right behaviors.

INSIGHTS

Over the 12-week engagement, we worked with our six OSO leads and the OSO Manager to explain, embed, and practice the tools and principles stated above.

As change management implementation experts, we have developed our own frameworks to ‘leave behind’. Artifacts (presentations, resources and one-page summaries) have been uploaded and shared within a centrally located folder within the preferred OSO communication and data management tool (Microsoft Teams).

For example, elements of our coaching and feedback model, in Figure 03 below, were shared and consistently emphasized with our coachees.

Teaching to Learn Recommendation: Formalize OSO Leaders

Out of all tangible goals Archipelago has, this is among those that requires the most balanced effort from consultants and clients. We coached leaders, developed a frequent reporting framework, and led a number of specific learning sessions.

as internal resources to leverage all they’ve learned with their respective coaches and the Archipelago reference material to act as mentors to their peers and direct reports.

However, for this endeavor to maintain its trajectory, tools must be used and principles must be practiced.

We worked with the OSO HR Business Partner to map out our Psychological Safety system to one already used by ConocoPhillips. We scored these metrics daily, distributed insights weekly, shared how and why we look at specific metrics, and how to course correct (if necessary). Beyond this, it is the responsibility of the OSO leadership team to consistently practice the right behaviors, and in this instance, cultivate a culture of safety.

The same depth and breadth applies for our meeting effectiveness toolkit, our facilitation techniques and our process mapping handbook.

Lastly, we ran four dedicated “learning sessions” multiple times across the OSO organization (with the functional leaders, and with various combinations of groups within each function). These are identified below, within our shared folder, and summarized within the appendices.

• Psychological Safety

• High Performance Teaming

• Design Thinking + Creative Confidence

• Focus

Figure 03: Archipelago Coaching + Feedback Model

Process Recommendation: We introduced the concept of a ‘charette’ to the OSO Leadership team. This is a concept from a design context where creation is cross-functional and time constrained. In support of rapidly creating, testing, and iterating: use time constraints and inter-disciplinary perspectives to challenge the status-quo and sprint towards deliverable iteration.

RECOMMENDATIONS + RISKS

The primary risk is that implementation lags (or fails) the design of new processes.

A secondary risk is burnout of team members. A 12 week change initiative can be energizing. However, if poor communication, unproductive meetings, nonpsychologically safe environments, or lack of team support become the norms, the team’s collective energy will fade, and poor performance will follow.

Our recommendation for program sustainment is: periodic audits.

We recommend a 6-month time frame for the program to settle and take shape within the organization. We propose an initial audit in late Spring 2022, with subsequent assessments being proposed based on results of the audit and the required steps towards course correction (if necessary) .

An audit would assess at a minimum:

• progression against process design,

• process uptake,

• communication quality,

• coaching behavior

• meeting quality, and

• implementation of the Archipelago Learning sessions:

• High Performance Teaming,

• Design Thinking + Creative Confidence,

• Focus, and

• Psychological Safety

If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?”

-Coach John Wooden, UCLA Men’s Basketball

ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS:

READINESS

In Week Ø, we internally scored the OSO’s Stand-Up Readiness. And we repeated the exercise in Week 12. This section shares our analysis.

Strengths

There were four main drivers that improved the OSO readiness score. These items were all scored low at the beginning of the engagement but increased over the 12 week period:

• Effort/Scope Planning (awareness): clear deliverables, effective activities, clear accountabilities and validated and approved scope.

• Effort / Scope Execution (preparedness): focused on goal over plan, scope management and KPI performance to target

Figure 05: Archipelago Readiness Matrix

• Governance Framework (awareness): KPI established Team reporting and Effective organizational structure

• Governance Sustainability (preparedness): Right people making timely decisions, and sufficient capacity for workload.

The scores within our Readiness Assessment are aligned with our work scope. Our mandate was to help define process re-design scope(s) and coach through execution of the plan to ensure sustainability after Week 12.

One consistent strength throughout the duration of our engagement was the Resource Planning (awareness) / Funding & Resource Management (preparedness). This is a sufficiently staffed team with every possible resource available to support their stand-up effort.

Staff transition to their OSO specific roles was delayed and not always smooth, but the structure is good. There is adequate staffing for the work to be done, despite some work inefficiencies and the proper allocation for field engagement.

Opportunities for Course Correction

We did observe a strong Office to Field connection at the beginning of the project, with many OSO leaders having worked in the field, specifically with the teams and assets they are currently supporting.

What became clear as we moved towards process implementation was that the majority of site visits that did occur were not focused on engaging site-based stakeholders in service of OSO processes. Furthermore, communication to and in the field was inconsistent across the groups. This resulted in a lower score within the Office to Field metric of our Assessment.

The two biggest weaknesses we identified are Communication Framework and Vision. The OSO team did establish goals, and showed alignment and commitment to achieving these goals. However, clearly communicating the value (and consequences) of success (or failure) would have strengthened the connections to the vision, and contributed to a consistent message.

Throughout the duration of the 12 week engagement, we heard things like: ‘Make Canada competitive’, and ‘save time’, or ‘lower cost of supply’. However, these statements were never quantified and void of tangible meaning and a measurable target.

The Communication Framework consists of a Communication Plan, a Stakeholder Engagement/Alignment Plan, and clear, consistent messaging. The framework does not yet exist, and the recommendation is to create and act upon it. Accountability lies with senior leadership.

When asked what value OSO and their new processes provide, we heard 7 very good answers; but we heard 7 very different answers. We recommend collaboratively developing a single comprehensive and value-based message.

As simple as it sounds, leaders should review and rehearse this message such that there is no hesitation when asked to communicate with stakeholders or potential resistors.

Table 02: Readiness Assessment Scores <Week Ø to Week 12>

CONCLUSION

Most organizational change programs fail. Consequently, one key to success is to not do what most organizations do: otherwise you're risking the 70% failure rate.

OSO decided to do be different:

• by leveraging Change Management Experts early on,

• by quickly Prototyping with a Design Thinking approach, and

• by embedding High-Performance Teaming and Psychological Safety into the culture.

From a Readiness perspective, awareness and preparedness have improved enough to catalyze the change program. To continue it, 12-18 months of focused change management will be required. The journey has not stopped. And it never stops. But we believe OSO has begun in a strong way.

To succeed, a team need disciples; we can count numerous amongst our coachees that are empowered to carry the journey forward.

Andrew Zakaluzny Founder + CEO Archipelago

_ Adam Onulov

_ Germaine Holden

_ Ben Flanagan

_ Andrew Zakaluzny

APPENDICES

Additional resources + References

APPENDIX A: DESIGN THINKING

Design Thinking is a solution-based approach to problem solving. This methodology is inherently rapid, iterative and collaborative. It enables the designers to understand and empathize with users, challenges assumptions/anchors and re-frame problems.

One of the biggest challenges of designing is accepting imperfection and iteration. It is rare to create the perfect solution on the first try.

Rapidly prototyping helps with communicating initial concepts – quick sketches and models that enable potential users to test scope, scale, and intent. These are (potentially) disposable, editable and invite improvement.

The clearer the picture, the clearer the path.

At Archipelago, we love future casting. When envisioning a future state, immersing oneself into that narrative through all perspectives and experiences ultimately generates the most tangible actions towards that desired future.

We like to have our partners write short stories. Whether they are about the most effective meeting in the world, or the greenest ESG program in history – we want to know what it feels like. Who is there? Who does it impact? What are the results?

A charette is defined as an intense period of design or planning activity. It could refer to any collaborative session in which a group of designers draft a solution to a problem. In other words: a focused, cross-functional and time constrained working session in support of rapidly creating, testing and iterating.

Design thinking is a non-linear, iterative approach to problem solving. It is one approach – but one that we like to use with our clients to help with visualizing designs and re-framing perspectives on achieving desired future states.

APPENDIX B: HIGH PERFORMING TEAMS

Researchers identified 5 signals evident in High Performing Teams. Our goal is to intentionally embed those signals in our teams every week.

01 Framing

02 Roles

The Leader conceptualizes within the team that this journey is a “learning”, not simply an “add-on”.

It is a journey worth doingIn the end, we will be better off.

The Leader explains and reinforces to the team why their individual and collective skills are vital to the team’s success.

Without you, we don't suceed.It is something reinforced through action; not just saying it a handful of times.

03 Rehearsals

Successful teams do dry runs of their key executables, and they have communication plans

We practice in sports... why not at work?

-

'Go-Live' cannot be the first time we try something.

“There is a difference between people in music and sports talent hotbeds and ordinary people everywhere else—talented people have a vastly different relationship with practicing.” -Daniel

Coyle, The Culture Code

04 Encouragement

05 Active Reflection

Team members are coached and feel empowered to speak up (psychologically safe)

After Action Reviews and associated learnings are intentionally incorporated between executables

Active tools are used to foster the surfacing of ideas and the airing of disagreements.

Candid feedback before and after practice.

In the Navy Fighter Weapons School, immediate after-action reviews after every dogfight (Rehearsals combined with Active Reflection) was a fundamental game changer. Their win-loss ratio went from 2.4 to 12.5.

APPENDIX C: PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

Psychological Safety is the model that informs how we observe clients in action. It is the shared belief about the consequences of interpersonal risk-taking, which blends three main components: trust, respect for each other’s competence, and caring about each other as people. Psychological safety is demonstrated in your culture, which is what you consistently do.

We score client meetings and interactions to establish and track changes to a psychological safety score.

The focus should not be on the overall scores, but rather on improvements within each element*.

• Structure: team applies good structure to promote learning, encourage inclusion and help manage conflict

• Baseline: 67.5%

• Final <12 week average>: 73.3%

• Improvement: 5.8%

• Conflict: team does not shy away from constructive conflict, effectively manages destructive conflict, and reaches resolution

• Baseline: 70.1%

• Final <12 week average>: 78.8%

• Improvement: 8.7%

• Communications and Connection: team communication is inclusive, respectful, and above the line

• Baseline: 69.5%

• Final<12 week average>: 73.8%

• Improvement: 4.4%

• Failure: team encourages openness about mistakes, and learns fast, whilst still holding itself to account

• Baseline: 62.7%

• Final <12 week average>: 71.4%

• Improvement: 8.7%

• Learning / Diversity of Thought: team values diverse viewpoints and is intent on learning

• Baseline:65.3%

• Final <12 week average>: 73.3%

• Improvement: 8.0%

Within the “Conflict” element was the improvement in the number of interactions where team members shared challenges and others offered meaningful resolutions to those challenges. There was an 18% improvement (46% - 64%) in just that one component.

* The categorizations and definitions within the ConocoPhillips Psychological Safety model are provided by Symmetra, and were mapped againts the Archipelago metrics.

APPENDIX D: ENGAGEMENT SCORING METRICS

APPENDIX E: PROCESS MAPPING BASICS

define the purpose of the processa nd communicate why it exists what is your objective?

define the scope for each process; how will you know when you are done? what iss uccess?

make note of the core activities within with a processo r function wouldf ail

establish the logical order of activities to ensure process success

visually represent and test your work-flow

Process: An organized group of interrelated activities that work together to achieve specific, discrete outputs that are of value to a customer, user group, or other key stakeholders.

Activity: An activity is a unit of work performed by one accountable function – often one at a time and in sequence. Activities consume resources and result in a work product/deliverable/artifact.

Task: A task is a step performed to complete an activity. Several work steps may be required to complete an activity. In other words, a task is the lowest logical work unit within a process.

Process Map:

A visual representation of a sequence of interactions between supporting activities and tasks.

It identifies what and who is involved in completing each necessary step; and provides an end-to-end perspective of all work being performed.

Beyond identifying which processes to design and visually represent, here are some key considerations:

• Define and communicate the purpose of the process. Why does it exist? What does it do for us?

• Establish an immersive narrative. Start from the end and describe what our future state looks and feels like.

• Define the following:

• Process Owner

• Interfaces

• Inputs and Outputs

• Metrics

• Test your process. Ask “what if?” and “so what?” and establish or eliminate redundancy, recursion or verification points.

APPENDIX F: PROCESS LIST

REMOVED

APPENDIX G: WEEKLY REPORTING

Integrated Operations Change Management

Recognition

ALL for your time and commitment to embracing the purpose to the program (and our presence)

Patrick Stanley and Debbie Sleith for the overall project kick-off, preparation and coordination of a ‘well-oiled’ team and program.

• Overall session quality is generally high; this metric is measured as a function of openness, duration, content and accountability

is vital for any high performing team. High performing teams, in this context, are those that are satisfying organizational needs, effectively challenging one another, and constantly in search of information that will enable them to improve.

Coaching sessions with respective OSO Supervisors;

• Assist with workshop facilitation regarding calendar and communication cadence; Begin development of Communication Philosophy (coordinate with HR);

5.5 5.3 50.0% 31.3%

Highlights

Witnessing two OSO Supervisors hug in a meeting; we have never seen that kind of camaraderie and gratitude before

Integrated Operations Change Management

Recognition

ALL for exhibiting behaviours of vulnerability, support and gratitude within team meetings and working sessions

Eric Thomas for initiating workshops with the Archipelago team to understand the organization and establish several ways to collaborate.

ahead: Next Week [ September 13 – 17, 2021 ]

HR-led OSO Leadership Team Sessions scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday (15 + 16); Many teams are conducting their respective ‘Kick-Off’ meetings; Progression of How We Work: Communication principles;

• Progression of Communication/Meeting Cadence planning;

Look ahead: Next Week [ September 6 – 10, 2021 ] 7.3 6.8 33.3% 16.7%

Highlights

Organizational Governance and relationship building has been the primary focus of weeks 0 and 1 – process design and coaching will become more of a focus once personnel transitions are more complete; The Archipelago team conducted their respective Personality Dimensions profiles:

Adam Onulov:

• All coaching session metrics have been trending upwards this week, with the largest increase being number of engagements;

• Baseline values are established as of this week

Safety is vital for any high performing team. High performing teams, in this context, are those that are satisfying organizational needs, effectively challenging one another, and constantly in search of information that will enable them to improve.

Integrated Operations Change Management

• Sessions were almost exclusively remote this past week;

• Coaching and meeting sessions have been transitioning to whiteboarding, scoping and mapping sessions towards the end of this week.

OSO leaders to begin scoping specific deliverables and accountabilities for their three primary focus areas (90d plan + 120d plan + 2 year plan); Engagement with internal and external stakeholders (with process mapping exercises) to commence next week.

Success Metric: Meeting Effectiveness

6.7 6.4 0.0% 0.0%

Highlights + insights

6/6 (100%) OSO teams have had initial kick-off meetings with larger;

• There have been concerns expressed about the volume of work versus the timing of the work – prioritization and scoping are critical next steps; Public health protocols forced all but one engagement to be conducted remotely –Archipelago will continue to be available by all means;

• Archipelago team is expanding their coaching reach, up to 14 coaching relationships and 21

Integrated Operations Change Management

Success Metric: Scoping + Schedule

Continued scoping and data input into the action tracker;

• Formal Process Mapping + Scheduling workshop scheduled for Monday morning; Review of deliverables and identified processes to occur Thursday/Friday with a consolidation of all deliverables into one timeline to follow.

Look ahead: Next Week [ September 20 – 24, 2021 ] 6.6 6.8 35.8% 79.2%

Highlights + Insights

Action Tracking tool introduced to 6/6 OSO leaders with clients conducting ‘keystrokes’ and navigating the tool; and the initiation of client driven inputs into the tracker (Scoping)

• P&O team did their first deep dive of the Integrated Operations processes, as part of their scoping and scheduling exercise

• Hearing the Discipline Engineers’ mapping their capabilities and gaps to understand their competitive advantages

Reviewing initial scopes and process maps with Operations Technologies + Analysis

Integrated Operations Change Management

6.3 6.6 50.8% 88.9%

Highlights + Insights

We are starting to see some of the team storming & norming” taking place. People are become more comfortable with their new jobs and are settling into their new teams. Levity and expressions of gratitude are slightly under average and constructive conflict in meetings and quality of conversation are up, too. We want to see differences of opinions and willingness to challenge one another while still being able to come back together and align on decisions being made.

Iteration 01 of our action plan until the end of

Integrated Operations Change Management

Success Metric: Scoping + Schedule

• Archipelago to work with key clients establish a realistic update cadence with the intention that it will become part of how they manage their business (activities, deliverables, dates, etc.);

Session 02 with Discipline Engineers on establishing core strengths and preparing to be the 2nd wave of change after optimization processes are established;

• Readiness (Action) Tracker has been populated, but the OSO Leaders have not established the habit of updating their Deliverables / Actions;

Leaders are intentionally engaging their teams with conversations about being high performing and working on how they work;

Getting the items into an accountability tool has forced the team to pragmatically think what's actually achievable over the next 3 months. It's also forced the team to really consider stakeholders, since most process-mapping activities involve others.

Integrated Operations Change Management

• Specific item that should/will be a focus for Archipelago will be Accountability; which equates to clear actions and direction. When actions are being taken – they are of increasing quality, but are only being captured in 1 out of every 3 meetings.

of

Driven” conversations where leaders are using the tool and it’s outputs to drive productivity and clarity.

• We had our first intentional social engagement (fellowship). This is important for OSO leaders to reinforce their rapport with Archipelago and each

Integrated Operations Change Management

Success Metric: Scoping + Schedule

• Deep dive into Psychological Safety with the OSO functional leaders;

and follow-up learning session focusing on principles of Process

revisit communication strategies (content and cadence); how can we communicate more and close the gap between expectation and execution?

Highlights + Insights

• Increased cross-functional working sessions as clear evidence that there has been a transition into execution and integration;

• Conflict, has jumped over 20 percentage points compared to baseline measure. Conflict, which is meant as constructive conflict, is measured as a combination of observable behaviors: openness, good questions, challenges, resolutions, conversation quality, constructive conflict, aligned & supported decisions;

• Introduction of design thinking and prototyping principles with the OSO Leads and some of their teams; observable trickle-down of language behaviours and concepts.

Integrated Operations Change Management

Integrated Operations Change Management

Success Metric: Scoping + Schedule

• Formalization of communication framework; functional teams will have to transition into education and communication mode as we near significant golive dates (December 01); Continuation of narrative building and prototyping desired state processes; testing sessions are expanding to cross-functional and field-based audiences

• High Quality testing and prototyping sessions were observed in multiple groups; design thinking principles could prove to be transformational to pace of process design;

Discipline to overcommunicate with more broad and more granular audience will be critical prior to go-live dates;

• Expressing gratitude to others in a meeting is quite low right now, observed in only 54% of the meetings this week. Expressions of gratitude are simple ways of reinforcing desired behaviors or thanking someone for a job well done;

Pursuit of new ways of thinking and communicating will prove to be beneficial to potential organizational savings and efficiencies (ex: meeting intensity calculator + visualization)

Integrated Operations Change Management

• Readiness Assessment. We measured the organizational baseline in the first week of September, and will conduct a pulse-check next week.

Session: High Performance Teaming will take place next week with opportunities for each functional lead to share content with their respective teams.

Highlights + Insights

• Challenge: The absence of a clear value proposition to engage the field-based personnel, it will likely be incredibly challenging to align the execution to the expectations.

of Meeting Frequency and Density has created the right sense of urgency to broadly communicated an evaluation of how much time is spent in meetings.

• Acknowledgement that gaps between now and Dec 1 still exist, and closing them won't be easy - the stress level has increased, but in our opinion not to an unhealthy level, but to a "we need to sprint to the

Integrated Operations Change Management

Success Metric: Scoping + Schedule

Readiness Assessment. Presentation of findings, which initially show the resourcing, sponsorship and people components are scoring very high, and alignment (site-based) and communication need added focus..

Learning Session: High Performance Teaming, will take place next week with opportunities for each functional lead to share content with their respective teams Final Program Report scheduled for November 26th, with document to be distributed shortly after.

Observing the them allowed for additional insights and coaching opportunities to support High Performance.

Kick-Off and first learning session with nominated site-based ‘champions’; this is a hugely important initiative towards bridging the gap between concept and execution.

APPENDIX H: REFERENCE COMMUNICATION FRAMEWORK

OSO Communications Plan:

Our Objectives: Operations Support + Optimization

The objectives of establishing the Operations Support + Optimization Team is as simple as the name implies: Support Operations. We are going to cultivate a One Canada identity and optimize Canadian assets to succeed.

We will re-design new processes, and introduce efficient tools to support value-based decision making, evolved organizational culture and time back.

Our Objectives: Communications Plan

In the interest of open communication, it is our intent to create positive awareness of the OSO initiative, across all functions.

Establish clarity by sharing OSO objectives, milestones, insights and future developments. Continue to cultivate the essence of ConocoPhillips company culture by sharing knowledge throughout our organization.

Our Plan

The proposed communication plan identifies our audience, the frequency with which we will communicate with our audience, and the methods we will use to share information *

web: www.archipelago.one email: info@archipelago.one social: @archipelago.one