Transcript Change - American Public Works Association

CHANGE
Dennis Randolph, P.E., PWLF
April 2014
INTRODUCTIONS
• What do you like to be called?
• What do you do?
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT
CHANGE?
• It can be frightening!
• It is full of the unknown!
• We are better off without it!
• It is bad!
• We don’t like it!
WHAT IS CHANGE?
What is your 5 word definition of change?
DEFINITION
• Merriam-Webster says:
1
• a : to make different in some particular : ALTER <never bothered to change the will>
• b : to make radically different : TRANSFORM <can't changehuman nature>
• c : to give a different position, course, or direction to
2
• a : to replace with another <let's change the subject>
• b : to make a shift from one to another :
SWITCH
<alwayschanges sides in an argument>
• c : to exchange for an equivalent sum of money (as in smaller denominations or in a foreign
currency) <change a 20-dollar bill>
• d : to undergo a modification of <foliage changing color>
• e : to put fresh clothes or covering on <change a bed>
HOW DO WE KNOW CHANGE WHEN WE SEE
IT?
Funding
Constr
Project
Year
Total Cost
Design
Construction
Easement/ROW
B
City
1999 PROJECT A
$3,188,378.38
$193,800.00 6.08%
$2,083,422.03 65.34%
B
STP
2003 PROJECT B
$1,015,425.48
$86,323.00 8.50%
$832,138.36 81.95%
$46,064.23
B
City
2003 PROJECT C
$376,056.76
$43,075.00 11.45%
$329,985.06 87.75%
B
STP
2005 PROJECT D
$528,653.65
$50,000.00 9.46%
$426,294.78 80.64%
B
City
2005 PROJECT E
$522,591.00
B
City
2005 PROJECT F
$1,388,316.60
$97,700.00 7.04%
$934,272.77 67.30%
B
CURS
2006 PROJECT G
$2,656,715.13
CURS fund
B
City
2007 PROJECT H
$934,765.60
B
City
2007 PROJECT I
B
City
A
$787,687.64 24.70%
Inspection
Utilities
Misc
$9,900.00
0.31%
$110,719.05 3.47%
$2,849.66 0.09%
4.54%
$11,098.50
1.09%
$38,088.89 3.75%
$1,712.50 0.17%
$2,010.00
0.53%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00 0.00%
$986.70 0.26%
$28,628.50
5.42%
$1,670.50
0.32%
$20,280.84 3.84%
$1,779.03 0.34%
$181,176.65 13.05%
$430.00
0.03%
$173,070.08 12.47%
$1,667.10 0.12%
$2,388,292.76 89.90%
$46,430.00
1.75%
$145,250.00
5.47%
$56,742.37 2.14%
$101,000.00 10.80%
$792,639.00 84.80%
$1,651.00
0.18%
$37,900.00
4.05%
$0.00 0.00%
$1,575.60 0.17%
$1,549,731.04
$114,000.00 4.29%
$1,141,802.12 42.98%
$30,445.50
1.15%
$0.00
$262,427.82 9.88%
$1,055.60 0.04%
2009 PROJECT J
$1,573,499.96
$120,542.10 7.66%
$1,255,150.48 79.77%
$53,261.00
3.38%
$0.00
0.00%
$142,459.60 9.05%
$2,086.78 0.13%
ARRA
2010 PROJECT 1
$2,495,549.66
$180,361.00 7.23%
$1,405,719.18 56.33%
$666,093.25 26.69%
$8,236.25
0.33%
$241,067.23 9.66%
$2,309.00 0.09%
A
STP
2011 PROJECT 2
$1,470,598.53
$175,423.42 11.93%
$1,021,703.14 69.48%
$56,048.00
3.81%
$8,053.50
0.55%
$206,474.27 14.04%
$2,896.20 0.20%
A
City
2011 PROJECT 3
$1,486,242.14
$262,652.50 17.67%
$1,212,399.32 81.57%
$0.00
0.00%
$10,330.00
0.70%
$0.00 0.00%
$860.32 0.06%
A
City
2012 PROJECT 4
$629,351.86
$75,000.00 11.92%
$436,915.60 69.42%
$23,429.26
3.72%
$0.00
0.00%
$92,578.80 14.71%
$1,428.20 0.23%
A
City
2012 PROJECT 5
$1,520,784.67
$155,811.00 10.25%
$1,327,215.10 87.27%
$1,325.00
0.09%
$7,659.17
0.50%
$26,469.30 1.74%
$2,305.10 0.15%
A
STP
2013 PROJECT 6
$524,999.92
$134,279.00 25.58%
$380,553.47 72.49%
$1,400.00
0.27%
$3,313.88
0.63%
$2,502.88 0.48%
$2,950.69 0.56%
A
STP
2014 PROJECT 7
$1,490,164.92
$190,600.00
$1,100,000.00
$87,128.69
$6,822.23
$102,368.90
$3,245.10
A
STP
2015 PROJECT 8
$2,062,704.36
$290,570.38
$1,500,000.00
$118,811.85
$9,303.05
$139,593.95
$4,425.13
A
FLHP
2015 PROJECT 9
$962,595.37
$135,599.51
$700,000.00
$55,445.53
$4,341.42
$65,143.84
$2,065.06
HOW ABOUT NOW?
Funding
Constr
Project
Year
Total Cost
Design
Construction
Easement/ROW
B
City
1999 PROJECT A
$3,188,378.38
$193,800.00
6.08%
$2,083,422.03 65.34%
B
STP
2003 PROJECT B
$1,015,425.48
$86,323.00
8.50%
$832,138.36 81.95%
$46,064.23
B
City
2003 PROJECT C
$376,056.76
$43,075.00 11.45%
$329,985.06 87.75%
B
STP
2005 PROJECT D
$528,653.65
$50,000.00
9.46%
$426,294.78 80.64%
B
City
2005 PROJECT E
$522,591.00
B
City
2005 PROJECT F
$1,388,316.60
$97,700.00
7.04%
$934,272.77 67.30%
B
CURS
2006 PROJECT G
$2,656,715.13
CURS fund
B
City
2007 PROJECT H
$934,765.60
B
City
2007 PROJECT I
$1,549,731.04
$114,000.00
B
City
2009 PROJECT J
$1,573,499.96
$120,542.10
$13,734,133.60
Total
8.16%
$1,248,557.60
per year
11 Years
10 Projects
A
Inspection
$787,687.64 24.70%
Utilities
Misc
$9,900.00
0.31%
$110,719.05 3.47%
$2,849.66 0.09%
4.54%
$11,098.50
1.09%
$38,088.89 3.75%
$1,712.50 0.17%
$2,010.00
0.53%
$0.00
0.00%
$0.00 0.00%
$986.70 0.26%
$28,628.50
5.42%
$1,670.50
0.32%
$20,280.84 3.84%
$1,779.03 0.34%
$181,176.65 13.05%
$430.00
0.03%
$173,070.08 12.47%
$1,667.10 0.12%
$2,388,292.76 89.90%
$46,430.00
1.75%
$145,250.00
5.47%
$56,742.37 2.14%
$792,639.00 84.80%
$1,651.00
0.18%
$37,900.00
4.05%
$0.00 0.00%
$1,575.60 0.17%
4.29%
$1,141,802.12 42.98%
$30,445.50
1.15%
$0.00
$262,427.82 9.88%
$1,055.60 0.04%
7.66%
$1,255,150.48 79.77%
$53,261.00
3.38%
$0.00
0.00%
$142,459.60 9.05%
$2,086.78 0.13%
$ 130,817.17
6.08%
$ 22,916.56
1.41%
$666,093.25 26.69%
$8,236.25
0.33%
$241,067.23 9.66%
$2,309.00 0.09%
$101,000.00 10.80%
$ 1,131,555.26
75.60%
$
89,309.85 4.95%
$
1,714.12 0.16%
ARRA
2010 PROJECT 1
$2,495,549.66
$180,361.00
7.23%
$1,405,719.18 56.33%
A
STP
2011 PROJECT 2
$1,470,598.53
$175,423.42 11.93%
$1,021,703.14 69.48%
$56,048.00
3.81%
$8,053.50
0.55%
$206,474.27 14.04%
$2,896.20 0.20%
A
City
2011 PROJECT 3
$1,486,242.14
$262,652.50 17.67%
$1,212,399.32 81.57%
$0.00
0.00%
$10,330.00
0.70%
$0.00 0.00%
$860.32 0.06%
A
City
2012 PROJECT 4
$629,351.86
$75,000.00 11.92%
$436,915.60 69.42%
$23,429.26
3.72%
$0.00
0.00%
$92,578.80 14.71%
$1,428.20 0.23%
A
City
2012 PROJECT 5
$1,520,784.67
$155,811.00 10.25%
$1,327,215.10 87.27%
$1,325.00
0.09%
$7,659.17
0.50%
$26,469.30 1.74%
$2,305.10 0.15%
A
STP
2013 PROJECT 6
$524,999.92
$134,279.00 25.58%
$380,553.47 72.49%
$1,400.00
0.27%
$3,313.88
0.63%
$2,502.88 0.48%
$2,950.69 0.56%
A
STP
2014 PROJECT 7
$1,490,164.92
$190,600.00
$1,100,000.00
$87,128.69
$6,822.23
$102,368.90
$3,245.10
A
STP
2015 PROJECT 8
$2,062,704.36
$290,570.38
$1,500,000.00
$118,811.85
$9,303.05
$139,593.95
$4,425.13
A
FLHP
2015 PROJECT 9
$962,595.37
$135,599.51
$700,000.00
$55,445.53
$4,341.42
$65,143.84
$2,065.06
6 Years
9 Projects
$12,642,991.43
$ 2,107,165.24
68.8%
Total 14.09%
per year
Difference - BeforeAfter
$ 1,009,389.53
72.76%
$ 112,186.84
5.76%
$
6,451.06
0.45%
$
97,355.46 6.77%
$
2,498.31 0.21%
INTRODUCTION
• From
• PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION – APWA
LETS TALK ABOUT ORGANIZATIONS!
• Before we can talk about CHANGE
• We need to know about the BASICS
PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATIONS
Director
Assistant
Director Engineering
Chief of
Engineering
Chief of
Wastewater
Operations
Assistant
Director Operation
Maintenance
Superintendent
TRADITIONAL STRUCTURE OF
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Director
Admin
Assistant
Engineering
Division
Operations
Division
Personnel
and Finance
Division
EVOLUTION OF THE PROFESSION
FROM JACK OF ALL TRADES TO THE
SPECIALIST
Public Works
Department
Public Service
Department
Engineering
Engineering
Operations
Operations
Administration
Administration
Everything
Else
CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS TO
PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURING
• Flatter structures
• Larger spans of control
• More specialists
• Technical
• Communications
• Customer relations
• Offices more distributed
OUTSOURCING OF PUBLIC WORKS
FUNCTIONS
Pro’s
Maintain or establish smaller
organizations
Ability to deal with peak loads
Con’s
Less stability
Less opportunity for advancement
in-house
Opportunity to have different ideas Need to hire consultants/temps
(new people)
Less long-term costs and liabilities Cost difference
Less space requirements
Easier to reconfigure organization
SERVICES TYPICALLY OUTSOURCED
• Payroll
• Special studies
• Public relations
• Grant writing
• Construction management
• Design
OUTSOURCING AS A SOLUTION TO
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS
• Less direct reports
• Less time in admin and personnel matters
• Easier to find “new” people
• No long-term commitments/ liabilities
OUTSOURCING TO OTHER PUBLIC
WORKS AGENCIES – COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS, JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENTS, ETC.
• Ability to minimize special fleet costs
• Ability to engage in tasks you might not normally be able
to do
• Ability to do more with less
• Opportunity to see how others operate
REGIONAL PUBLIC WORKS AGENCIES
• Special districts
• Water districts
• Sewer districts
• Planning agencies
• Transportation agencies
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO LOCAL
PUBLIC WORKS
• Regulators
• Sources of funds
• Owners and operators of facilities
REGULATORY AGENCIES
• EPA
• Corps of Engineers
• Health Departments
FUNDING SOURCES
• Grant programs
• Loans
SO WHAT MAKES THEM DIFFERENT?
• Their organization –
• How they are shaped!
• How they are managed!
STAGE THEORY OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
• History, Key Concepts and Application of Stage
Theory
• While Kurt Lewin is credited for creating one of the
earliest stage models, modern stage theory is based
on both Lewin's work and Rogers' Diffusion of
Innovations theory.
FOUR STAGES OF STAGE THEORY
1.Awareness of a problem and possible solutions
2.Decision to adopt the innovation
3.Implementation that includes redefining the innovation
and modifying organizational structures to accommodate it
4.Institutionalization or making the innovation part of the
organization's ongoing activities
ESSENCE
• Stage Theory is based on the idea that organizations pass
through a series of steps or stages as they change.
• After stages are recognized, strategies to promote change can
be matched to various points in the process of change.
• According to Stage theory, adoption of an innovation usually
follows several stages.
• Each stage requires a specific set of strategies that are
contingent on the organization's stage of adopting,
implementing, and sustaining new approaches as well as
socio environmental factors
KEEP IN MIND
• There has been less research on the factors that influence
how an organization moves from one stage to the next and
more research on the activities that occur during each stage.
• Different leaders or "change agents" within the organization
assume leading roles during different stages.
• Strategies that organizations use depends on their stage of
change and whether the nature of the social environment
surrounding the innovation is supportive or otherwise.
WHY DO WE CHANGE?
• To fix problems
• To make things run “better”
• To reflect our personality
• Because we must
MODES OF CHANGE
Evolutionary
Telelogical
Life Cycle
Political
Social cognition
Cultural
Why change occurs
External environment
Leaders; internal
environment
Leaders guiding
individual’s natural
growth
Dialectical tension of
values, norms, or
patterns
Cognitive
dissonance,
appropriateness
Response to
alterations in the
human environment
Process of change
Adaption; slow;
gradual; nonintentional
Rational; linear;
purposeful
Natural progression;
result of training and
motivation; altering
habits and identity
First order followed
by occasional second
order; negotiation
and power
Learning, altering
paradigms or lens;
interconnected and
complex
Long-term; slow;
symbolic process;
nonlinear;
unpredictable
Outcomes of change
New structures and
processes; first order
New structures and
organizing principals
New organizational
identity
New organizational
ideology
New frame of mind
New culture
Key metaphor
Self-producing
organism
Change master
Teacher
Social movement
Brain
Social movement
Examples
Resource
dependency;
strategic choice;
population ecology
Organizational
development;
strategic planning;
reengineering; TQM
Developmental
models;
organizational
decline; social
psychology of change
Empowerment;
bargaining; political
change; Marxist
theory
Single and doublelooped learning;
paradigm-shifting;
sense making
Interpretive strategy;
paradigm-shifting;
processual change
Criticisms
Lack of human
emphasis;
deterministic quality
Overly rational and
linear; inability to
explain second order
change; plasticity of
people
Little empirical proof;
deterministic
character
Deterministic; lack of
environmental
concerns; little
guidance for leaders
Deemphasizes
environment;
overemphasizes ease
of change; ignores
values and emotions
Impractical to guide
leaders; focus on
universalistic culture;
mostly untested
Benefits
Environmental
emphasis; systems
approach
Importance of change
agents; management
techniques and
strategies
Change related to
phases; temporal
aspect; focus on
people throughout
the organization
Change not always
progressive;
irrationality; role of
power
Emphasizes socially
constructed nature;
emphasis on
individuals; habits
and attitudes as
barriers
Context; irrationality;
values and beliefs;
complexity; multiple
levels of change
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT
CHANGE?
• It can be frightening!
• But the challenge can be thrilling!
• It is full of the unknown!
• But discovery is always learning
• We are better off without it!
• Not if we learn and do better every time!
• It is bad!
• Who Says!
• We don’t like it!
• Only if you have never tried it!
WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU
HAVE?