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

• 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.