The Energy, Science and Natural Resources Program
Partnering
Improving the Process for Cleanup of Department of Energy Facilites
December 1995
Prepared by Jack McGurk, Graham Mitchell, the Nez Perce
Tribe, Jeanette Wolfley, Laurie Boucher, Ken Alkema, Susan Johnson and Leann Stelzer.
Introduction
Partnering Defined
Issues that Drive the Need for
Partnering
Policy
Recommendations and Benefits
Developing the Partnering Process
Appreciation of the
Systems
Customers as
Partners
Using a
Shared Vision to Drive Partnering
The Importance of Communication
Major Players in the Partnering
Process
Empowering
Partners to Act
Management's
Responsibility for Partnering
Essential Elements for Partnering
The Department of Energy (DOE) created the Environmental Management (EM)
program in 1989 to manage the legacy of nearly 50 years of nuclear weapons
production and research at approximately 130 sites and facilities in more than
30 states and territories. The EM program is charged with handling some of the
highest risk environmental, health, safety, and nonproliferation problems in the
world, including unstable plutonium and potentially explosive underground
radioactive waste tank.
The State and Tribal Government Working Group (STGWG) provides states and
Indian Nations that host DOE facilities or are located in areas potentially
impacted by their operations an organized voice for input regarding
environmental management. In April 1989, 10 governors co-signed a letter to the
Secretary of Energy expressing their concerns about the management, cleanup, and
disposal of radioactive and hazardous wastes at DOE facilities within or
adjacent to their states. The governors and tribal representatives committed to
work constructively with DOE to cleanup all DOE defense and research facilities.
Included in their call for decisive federal action on this matter was an equally
important plea for stable, long-term funding to support the cleanup program.
The Secretary of Energy established STGWG in May 1989 in response to the
governors' and tribes' concerns. STGWG has actively provided DOE with input to
its EM program. Originally, STGWG's focus was to review the Five-Year
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Plans. This focus broadened with
the change in administration, and STGWG continues to provide vital input to the
DOE EM Program.
STGWG held a working session January 19-20, 1995, in Washington, D.C., to
discuss how to improve the environmental restoration process at DOE sites
throughout the country. In addition to STGWG members, several federal and state
officials attended, as well as contractors familiar with DOE restoration
projects. Several presentations initiated discussion about the remediation of
DOE sites. Issues addressed by the group included project planning and
budgeting, communications, and the regulatory process. STGWG held the working
session with the desire to assist DOE in breaking the logjam of environmental
cleanup. Individuals volunteered to continue working on the identified issues
and the group chose "Issue Champions" to spearhead these efforts.
At a follow-up meeting May 8-10, 1995 in Washington, D.C., the Issue
Champions and DOE staff addressed the three major issues that were outlined at
the January meeting. One of these issues, Partnering: Improving the Process,
is the focus of this paper.
Partnering: Improving the Process focuses on defining ways to improve the
cleanup process through 1) improving the working relationships between DOE, the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and State and Tribal regulatory
agencies; 2) streamlining the internal review and approval processes in these
agencies; and 3) collectively building greater public confidence through this
process. The group concluded that partnering held the greatest hope for
improving cleanup at DOE facilities.
Partnering Defined
Partnering is a process by which individuals or organizations that have a
shared vision or common interest can act together to achieve a desired outcome.
Typically, partnering produces a synergistic effect in which participating
organizations obtain mutually beneficial results that go beyond what each could
have achieved individually.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has used partnering in carrying out its
environmental mission. For DoD's environmental mission, partners usually include
staff from DoD agencies, EPA, contractors and state regulators, but also could
include representatives from other federal agencies, local governments and
community groups. DoD guidance on partnering stresses the fact that partnering
is not a legally binding relationship or a formal partnership. Rather,
partnering is a commitment between parties to work cooperatively in a structured
process that uses specific tools to accelerate the creation of teamwork. As more
groups participate in partnering, new tools are being developed to increase the
effectiveness of the process. The DoD guidance indicates that partnering still
is evolving.
The partnering process holds promise for use in site remediation. It can be
used to break down organizational barriers that may exist between the agencies
involved in the cleanup process. Through clearer understanding and improved
communications between the partnering agencies, expedited time frames for site
remediation tasks can be achieved, resulting in cost efficiencies.
Partnering
is not a new concept although it appears to be gaining in popularity as a new
process to be utilized by organizations. Partnering was discussed in 1969 in the
field of organizational development where it was being used to change
relationships between companies, transforming adversaries into allies. This
resulted in companies being able to compete without adding capacity and offered
the possibility for them to achieve mutual gains. Partnering in the government
arena has been used since 1988 with tremendous results. Outcomes indicate that
90 percent of the partnering ventures either met or exceeded expectations.
Issues that Drive the Need for Partnering
There are several issues that create the need for partnering between the
various groups involved with, or interested in, the cleanup of DOE sites. Many
of these issues have been faced by other groups and agencies that have adopted
partnering practices.
Budget Cutbacks
Budget curtailment is a mandate for changing the
operation of DOE's EM program. Although the exact amount of fiscal cutback has
not been decided, it will be significant and is climbing as the budget debate
continues. Recent congressional reductions to the DOE budget amount to
approximately $10.6 billion during the next five years. Of that amount, $4.4
billion is to be cut from the EM program.
Assistant Secretary Thomas Grumbly reported in EM Progress
(Winter/Spring 1995) that a change in the way EM operates is necessary in
response to budget constraints. He indicated that the new budget constraints
have prompted an acceleration of already-planned changes to improve EM
operations. Formerly, compliance would have cost approximately $46.4 billion
between fiscal year (FY) 1996 and FY 2000. The new administration budget
includes only $29.4 billion for EM, leaving a $17 billion shortfall. Even with
implementation of an aggressive efficiency program within EM, a shortfall of
approximately $7 billion is expected over the five-year fiscal period that ends
in FY 2000.
Much of this $7 billion shortfall is likely to be cut by DOE from regulatory
reform. DOE's EM program will have to work with EPA, the States and Tribal
regulatory entities to achieve compliance within budgetary constraints. STGWG
representatives have expressed concern that budgetary constraints not be used to
excuse wholesale relief of compliance milestones. It is obvious that a
cooperative arrangement between the parties is needed and that partnering may be
the solution to achieve both program efficiencies and prioritization of
site-specific cleanup agreements.
Additionally, the proposed budget
eliminates all funding for tribes who play a vital role in the partnering
process. Tribes are placed in a position where they will be unable to fully
participate in the cleanup program. Partnering with other entities thus becomes
an important and critical tool.
Need for Improvements
Cleanup efforts by federal agencies must comply
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund.
RCRA requirements typically govern cleanup at active sites, while CERCLA
generally applies at sites on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) of seriously
contaminated sites. Responsible parties must pay special attention to cleanup of
sites on or near tribal lands so that cleanup levels are consistent with
post-remediation land use.
As of October 1994, federal agencies had placed 1,945 hazardous waste sites
on EPA's docket of federal facilities that need evaluation for possible cleanup.
There were 160 federal sites on the NPL, 93 percent managed either by DoD or
DOE. Federal cleanup at these sites has continued for more than a decade at a
cost of more than $15 billion; only two high-priority sites have been completely
cleaned up during this time. Studies of site contamination and cleanup options
for NPL sites take an average of two and one-half years to complete and are a
major reason for the slow progress. Limited cooperation between agencies also
has been a problem. DOE's problems were increased by its failure to ensure
effective oversight of its contractors' financial management. DOE's Project
Performance Study also found that its environmental cleanup costs were 32
percent more than those in the private sector and 15 percent more than other
federal agencies.
It is clear that new strategies must be implemented to work better, faster,
and cheaper to achieve cleanup of contaminated DOE facilities and to meet their
share of the cost-cutting strategy for the federal government. Although EM has
instituted several worthwhile improvements for conducting business, partnering
should be included as part of its improvement process. Additionally,
responsible parties should incorporate a holistic approach to remediation
into cleanup decisions at sites that are located on or near tribal lands and,
potentially, at all sites.
Tribal Involvement
A significant example of the need for partnering
arises in the context of tribal issues. The partnering process must include
representatives from Tribal Nations where DOE sites have a potential effect on
tribal interests. Tribal representatives to STGWG have indicated their desire to
be involved in partnering opportunities; every effort should be made to include
them on the partnering team. The tribal role on the partnering team could be
either as representatives from affected communities or as tribal auditors for
site restoration.
In accordance with the principals of sovereignty and the U.S. Government's
trust responsibility, the Department of Energy issued its American Indian Policy
in 1992 that required consultation with federally recognized Tribal governments
prior to the Department taking action that would impact those Tribes. Tribal
involvement does serve an important function in the light of improved
stakeholder involvement and greater accountability; however, the federal trust
responsibility is the primary basis for the relationship. While tribal
involvement is often viewed by DOE officials as purely part of a broader
stakeholder program, Tribes participating in the nuclear weapons cleanup effort
usually come to the table with a fundamentally different view. This disconnect
is the reason for many of the past and potentially future contentious
relationships between DOE and Tribes.
The progress that the Clinton administration has shown in learning what their
trust responsibility entails, in coming to grips with the funding issues
associated with that responsibility, and in seeking to deal with Tribal
governments in mutually agreed to terms is remarkable. However, full recognition
and implementation of DOE's trust responsibilities to tribes is a continuing
process. The Tribes recommend that EM institutionalize Tribal involvement in its
decisionmaking process flow diagrams and practices.
A list of partnership opportunities between the Nez Perce Tribe and DOE
(included in the appendix) illustrates the wide range of interests among various
program areas. Not all this involvement can be viewed as "stakeholder" input.
This is evidence of a fundamentally different kind of relationship, one that the
Nez Perce Tribe hopes to develop and institutionalize in partnership with
DOE/EM. Trust responsibility activities must be seen as part of normal
performance of federal governmental tasks.
Policy Recommendations and Benefits
Such a wide variety of interests and scope of possible involvement requires
several "Tribal" blocks in the DOE/EM decisionmaking process flow diagrams and
practices. Blocks such as "Tribal values," "Tribal decision," "Tribal feedback,"
and "Tribal evaluation" would be placed in appropriate decisionmaking processes.
Placement of these blocks depends on the decision scenario and the Tribe(s)
involved. Negotiating parties should include Tribal decision blocks in
appropriate compliance agreements (such as the Tri-Party Agreement).
These blocks and their appropriate placement can be changed to fit changing
situations, according to mutual consent.
Each Tribal involvement block will
be accompanied by guidance for what is required with each block before
considering the consultation complete. This guidance will be developed in
consultation with the appropriate Tribes and all parties involved in the
compliance agreements.
The following potential benefits were identified as tangible results in
improving the communication/consultation process through the recommended
addition of "Tribal decision blocks" in DOE's decisionmaking flow diagrams and
practices.
Successful completion of the Tribal block development and
placement will constitute an implementation plan of the DOE American Indian
Policy with which each Tribe is comfortable.
Inclusion in the compliance agreements will help assure that funding for
Tribal participation will not be included in the funding cuts anticipated under
the new Congress.
Everyone involved has a clear understanding of what is expected and,
consequently, Tribal involvement process slip-ups and glitches can be more
easily avoided.
The closer working relationship required in this process also will foster
greater education and sensitivity with and from all parties.
Public Accountability
Several issues are relevant to both tribes and
states. Public confidence is an integral part of a successful cleanup plan.
Private firms are receiving increased pressure to make accurate disclosures
about environmental liabilities to their shareholders and potential investors.
This often is a very complex issue because current assessments may not have been
completed, remediation technologies may not have been determined, and only a
range of long-term cost estimates may be known. The Securities and Exchange
Commission has provided guidance to encourage more comprehensive disclosure of
future costs associated with environmental cleanup.
Similarly, public agencies are under increased pressure to disclose the
extent of their environmental liabilities and how taxpayers' money is being
spent to remediate these problems. A chief reason for DOE's Agreement in
Principle program with states and tribes is to account for expenditures and to
increase public confidence in DOE's EM program.
DOE must be accountable to the public from both a fiscal and an operational
standpoint. Partnering arrangements will need to have a public communications
element. This is especially necessary if there is no public or community
participation on the partnering team.
Conflicting Visions
Most Americans have been raised in a culture that
is not only competitive but places an inordinate value on winning. This has
influenced the operation of corporations, businesses and governmental agencies.
Various operational units within these organizations end up competing with one
another. It should be no surprise, therefore, that relations between the various
agencies involved with environmental cleanup may become strained because of
conflicting or competing visions. It is not uncommon to find adversarial
relations between staff from these organizations, which can lead to
communication problems, excessive studies to assess cleanup requirements, and
rigid cleanup specifications. All these actions result in delays that add
unnecessary costs to the cleanup process.
Parties can use partnering to improve the current process and resolve the
problems noted above. Partnering helps break down the organizational barriers
that hamper the spirit of cooperation that is essential to achieving successful
environmental cleanup. Partnering produces a shared vision of the future for the
site and empowers the members to act as a team to realize that vision. The
partners take ownership of the strategic plan for cleanup because they have
designed the plan. Partnering expedites the cleanup process and produces cost
efficiencies because staff from partnering agencies are working toward a common
goal and shared vision.
Developing the Partnering Process
Developing a partnering process between DOE, EPA, state and tribal regulatory
agencies, and community representatives is a difficult task. There can not be a
general plan that will be successful at all sites. Each site has individual
needs and specific concerns. Although helpful general guidance can be developed
and distributed, each site will have to individualize the process to fit
particular needs. To be successful, a partnering plan must take into account
several factors. This section identifies those factors necessary to development
of a successful partnering process.
Appreciation of the Systems
Organizations typically operate through a series of systems and sub-systems.
All components of these systems play a role in the success or failure of an
organization to meet its mission, goals or objectives. Too often, management
fails to appreciate that such systems are involved with delivery of the
organization's mission.
Governmental organizations have followed the private sector example when
developing operational structures. Most goods or services flow horizontally
through an organization; but most governmental agencies have a top-down,
hierarchical arrangement. This results in wasted effort as issues and directives
flow up and down the organization, while access to assistance from other systems
within the organization is delayed.
The DOE mission is accomplished through a hierarchical system. While EM is a
part of DOE's overall mission, it also has its own mission and systems.
Partnering players also participate in systems within their own organizations.
The regulatory process system may be a responsibility of the partnering
organizations that will be working with EM to assist in its site remediation
activities, which is itself a system.
Competition that normally exists within systems can work against the timely
accomplishment of goals when organizations working together have different
goals. For instance, partnering to accomplish the DoD environmental mission
often has involved organizations that normally have had an adversarial
relationship. This may be the case with some of the organizations with which EM
will partner to help achieve its site cleanup mission. A key requirement for
partnering is the development of a team of people from different organizations
who will work together to successfully achieve an agreed upon objective, instead
of working at cross-purposes.
The organizations involved in the partnering process need to first understand
the operational strengths and limits regarding partnering, and then understand
the interaction of the systems. The variations in state and tribal makeup must
be recognized and processes must be developed that recognizes those differences.
It is important that roles and authorities are preserved. It is the
responsibility of EM program management--as well as the various organizations
that will be working with EM to achieve cleanup of DOE sites--to appreciate that
systems are involved with this process. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of
these managers to optimize the systems for maximum efficiency.
Customers as Partners
A customer is one who receives a product or service from the providing
organization. Internal customers include those next in line to receive the
product that is currently being worked on. The EM program has a varied group of
customers. The Secretary of Energy is a customer, as is the public that supports
the EM mission with tax dollars. Other customers include federal, state and
tribal regulatory groups; stakeholders; and elected officials.
To be
successful in today's "marketplace," an organization must know its customers'
expectations and then develop goods and services that add value and go beyond
those expectations to delight the customer. EM needs to determine customer
groups with which it can partner to meet its cleanup mission. The selection of
customers with which to partner can take place on the national level, at sites,
or even within sites. Once these customers are identified, their expectations
must be determined. It would not be surprising to discover that the expectations
of many EM program customers are in alignment with EM's mission. Partnering can
be built upon a mutual desired outcome of the remediation process as a whole or
for a specific site.
Using a Shared Vision to Drive Partnering
It is management's responsibility to provide and communicate the
organization's vision to the rest of the organization. The vision provides
overall direction for the organization. The vision projects the future state in
which the organization will function, and the vision should provide motivation
and inspiration to the work force. Everything done within the organization
should be in alignment with the vision. In his book, Visionary
Leadership, Burt Nanus states that 21st century organizations will demand
visionary leadership. He indicates that most organizations are faced with
accelerating technological change, a diverse staff of intelligent workers, the
requirement to meet a variety of individual customer needs, and demands of
multiple constituencies that would cause most organizations to self-destruct if
they didn't have a vision of the future to guide them.
A shared vision should be developed with the participants in the DOE
partnering arrangement and used to guide progress of the cleanup. Agreement on a
shared vision and the goals and objectives needed to achieve it is key to
successful partnering. In developing the shared vision, it must be remembered
that the individuals on the partnering team come from varied backgrounds. Their
personal needs and the needs of the entities they represent may differ
significantly. This process also may be complicated at sites that have dual
missions such as site remediation and production. The shared vision statement
should represent what the partnering team identifies as the future state it is
attempting to reach through the project.
Before developing the shared vision, goals, and objectives, the partnering
participants may want to discuss team dynamics, and how to maximize those
dynamics to create a successful partnering team. For instance, the partnering
team may develop ground rules for team operation. Some teams have successfully
developed a team contract that the individual members commit to follow. The
contract generally explains the ground rules under which the team will operate.
Thus, the team begins to develop its identity and has completed its first step
on a successful journey.
Then, once the shared vision is developed, the partnering team should
identify the goals and objectives to achieve it. These goals and objectives
should be in alignment with the shared vision statement.
The Importance of Communication
Partnering begins with developing good communication. This is especially
important during the formative stages of the partnering team when discussions
are held to develop the expectations of the partnering team, the ground rules,
and the shared vision. Partners must recognize that it takes time to develop
good communications and constant care must be given to the communications
process to make it successful. The responsibility for communications development
and care is shared by not only public relations staff, but by all involved in
the partnering process. Good communications develop trusting relationships
between the participants and must be open, frequent, and early in the process.
Some teams have fostered communication by having the members take personality
tests to better understand how they and others on the team make decisions. The
results may be used to develop and understand team dynamics and establish ground
rules necessary for successful operation.
The partnering process can be enhanced when team members strive to develop
dialogue among each other, instead of mere discussions. The dialogue process
treats all participants as equals and promotes input from all so that everyone
builds a better understanding about the issue. Discussion, on the other hand,
often is an attempt by one person or group to win others to their viewpoint. The
latter scenario can result in a win-lose situation that may eventually result in
a lose-lose case because the best solution may never be discovered. Dialogue,
however, allows complex issues to be explored in search of a new understanding.
Society has traditionally viewed communication skills and sound working
relationships as relatively unimportant issues. More recently, these skills have
become recognized as essential components of successful team efforts. The best
cleanup technology for a site must be accurately and skillfully communicated
both to the other members of the partnering team and to the general public if
the technology is to receive support. Efforts to improve communication and
working relationships therefore can result in real environmental and economic
benefits as environmental cleanup problems are solved at DOE sites.
Major Players in the Partnering Process
Several organizations are candidates for participation on partnering teams to
assist with DOE cleanup activities. Representatives from the following groups
and organizations are likely to be major partnering participants: DOE staff, DOE
contractor staff, State and Tribal representatives, EPA staff, and community or
public members. While the process should be developed recognizing that all
parties have limited resources, these representatives must be able to commit
time and energy to participate on the partnering team. Partnering participants
must balance partnering demands with their other responsibilities. Similarly,
community and public members may not be able to commit as much time, which may
limit their role.
Empowering Partners to Act
To be successful, the participants on the partnering teams must be authorized
to take action. This may be difficult because DOE uses contractors extensively
in various roles and with variously delegated authority. Contractors are used as
consultants, especially in site remediation activities. Contractors also supply
goods, equipment and materials to DOE. In several cases, contractors operate and
manage DOE sites. When a contractor represents DOE on a partnering team, it may
have to consider both the interests of its organization, as well as DOE
interests.
It may be more complex to implement partnering arrangements at DOE facilities
that have the dual mission to conduct cleanup and, at the same time, conduct
ongoing defense-related activities under the overall DOE mission. Implementing
partnering at sites where there is a single mission of cleanup and remediation
should be less complicated and involve fewer players. DOE's guidance to its
contractors will be an important factor in the partnering process.
Management's Responsibility for Partnering
Leadership by top officials is essential to a successful partnering process.
Management must establish an environment within an organization that encourages
and welcomes staff involvement in partnering. Leaders should work with staff to
ensure that their new roles are applied. Staff also should receive training and
mentoring to ensure acceptance of their new role and provide accountability for
improving the process to achieve better, faster and cheaper cleanup.
Management also must provide leadership for successful partnering activities
by empowering staff to take the initiative to make partnering a reality.
Managers can take the following specific actions--or can authorize staff to
take--to ensure the success of partnering teams:
- Actively participate in the development of the shared vision, goals and
objectives.
- Ensure alignment of the shared vision, goals and objectives throughout the
organization.
- Support open communication and sharing of information.
- Initiate the change process to make a transition to partnering model.
Essential Elements for Partnering
Many people who have participated in partnering have come away with the
impression that it doesn't work. The word partnering is a misused and
often misunderstood word. Most people fail to realize that partnering applies to
a specific process--that of a long-term effort to conduct business in a mutually
beneficial manner within an "interentity" team culture. This team culture
requires soliciting and valuing the diverse points of view, working to achieve
win-win solutions, and advocating team decisions and actions outside the
partnering process.
For an effective partnering process, the three following elements must be
employed.
1. Full Commitment to Working in a Mutually Beneficial Team
Management, staff, and consultants from all involved agencies must be
fully committed to working in a mutually beneficial interagency team
culture. Commitment of staff at all levels, demonstrated by modeling and
promoting a partnering process within their own organizations, is a key step.
Leaders and top management typically set the pace of operation in the
organizations. If other staff members support the partnering process but fail to
secure the same commitment from their management, the stifling of risk-taking
and use of innovative new approaches may limit results.
Support of the partnering process must consist of more than lip service. It
must be followed by concrete and observable actions by all partnering
participants. Coaching of individuals or groups that are accustomed to a command
and control management philosophy is essential if partnering is to be adopted.
The partnering philosophy represents a definite shift from the past DOE
management emphasis on a high level of secrecy. For the partnering process to
commence or be maintained, it may become necessary to move people who may be
resistant to a team culture.
At both the management and staff levels, partnering teams should work
together in several meetings to develop shared visions; to discuss agency
realities, values, and limitations; and to define individual team expectations.
It also is important for the teams to discuss shared risk-taking--the joint
willingness of individual agencies to take the risk to conduct business in a
team culture to ensure fast, efficient and effective solutions to agency
concerns.
2. A Process to Break Down Communication Barriers
A formalized,
facilitated process approach breaks down barriers to communication. The
different values, business and political agendas, and varying personalities of
the agencies and the staff within those agencies inevitably lead to varying
degrees of an "anti-team" interagency culture. Advocating and implementing the
partnering process requires, essentially, a relearning of attitudes and
approaches to problem solving. Such relearning may require skills that typically
are found in the so-called "soft sciences" of organizations--interpersonal and
personal development.
Trust must be developed by and between all involved parties if the partnering
process is to be successful. Open and honest dialogue can not be fostered within
a group where members cling to past memories of mistrust. Where a past negative
or conflict-driven relationship occurred, several months of "conflict
de-escalation" or attempts to come to understandings and move forward may be
required by the parties before the partnering process can be initiated.
To develop, accelerate, and maintain the multi-entity team culture, parties
must consciously design a structured approach to conducting business in a
partnering paradigm. Training is essential for all participants involved and for
those who can affect the process. This training usually consists initially of a
two- to three-day workshop designed and led by an independent trainer. Follow-up
training, consisting of either additional workshops or training integrated into
the team meetings, is necessary. Managers must routinely be involved with the
team meetings, coach representatives of their entity to work within the team
structure, and model (within their own working level) the behavior of
interagency peers.
Tiers of partnering teams often are necessary. Upper management may develop
its own team concurrently with or before project-level teams are developed.
Frequent meetings with the continued use of an independent facilitator and team
builder are helpful, along with training in meeting management, process norms,
and the solving of real interagency problems.
The use of facilitators may prove to be successful. A facilitator's role is
to help the group with process issues rather than drive or control meetings.
Independent trainers, however, must be more than facilitators if the partnering
relationship is to be developed and maintained. Such trainers must possess the
credentials and experience in such areas as team building, conflict resolution,
meeting management, process consultation, and interpersonal and team process
dynamics. In addition, these trainers must remain independent from any
decision-making.
3. Implement Team Building and Total Quality Management Principles
Implement, throughout the life of the partnering process, both team
building and facilitation and total quality management principles. "One workshop
does not a partnering relationship make!" An important aspect of the process
that may contribute to failure (aside from lack of senior management and
interagency commitment) is the failure to build methods for continuous
improvement into the partnering process. Team building skills development can
help ensure that continuous improvement becomes part of the partnering routine.
The partnering process has been most successful in cases where regular team
working meetings incorporate new interpersonal skills tailored specifically to
the team's level of development. Similar to breaking down communication
barriers, facilitation and process consultation by the trainer are often
necessary until team members develop these skills.
Teams evolve through predictable growth stages. The four stages of team
growth are forming, storming, norming, and performing. In the forming
stage, team members are changing from thinking as individuals to becoming team
members. Stage two, storming, is generally the most difficult time for
the team. During this phase, members often become impatient with the team's lack
of progress and overwhelmed at the size of the task before them. During the
norming stage, team members reconcile competing loyalties and
responsibilities and accept the team ground rules. A more cooperative
relationship among members unfolds and members assist each other to carry out
the tasks that face the team. When the team reaches the performing stage
it is able to work as a unit to diagnose and solve problems. The team ultimately
can use the individual strengths of its members to benefit all participants.
Parties can achieve continuous improvement for the team meetings if members
take time at the end of each meeting to evaluate what went well during the
meeting and what could be improved for the next meeting. This self-evaluation
can lead to more enjoyable meetings because it identifies problems that hinder
the team and that can be eliminated or improved during the next session.
Just-in-time training can be provided to the team so it can use quality tools
and statistical analyses to improve its problem solving abilities.
There are a number of structured approaches that teams may want to consider.
One such approach is the Deming Cycle, developed by the late W. Edwards Deming,
which structures system improvements. A modified Deming Cycle of
Plan-Do-Study-Act-Support allows improvements or changes to the system to be
planned, evaluated, and implemented. During the planning stage of the
cycle, ideas for system improvements are developed. The change is tested during
the do portion of the cycle. Results of the pilot project are then
evaluated during the study phase. If the data gathered during the do
phase of the cycle indicate a result that is less than intended, the process
returns to the planning phase. If the results are equal to or better than
expected, they are carried forward to the act portion of the cycle.
Action to implement the improvement and adopt it into the on-going operations of
the system are made during the "act" part of the cycle. Encompassing the entire
approach to improvement is the support portion of the cycle. Management
must support the need to make improvements and take steps to remove fear from
the organization to encourage risk-taking concepts. There must be a desire
within the culture of the organization to continuously improve its processes.
Both total quality management (TQM) and partnering have been used
successfully to manage complex projects. TQM and partnering are complementary
processes because they rely on open communication, trust, and employee
involvement. The partnering process develops an effective management process
among staff from two or more organizations, while TQM focuses on continuous
improvement to meet or exceed customer needs. Partnering provides an informal
structure that allows implementation of the TQM process, as if all parties were
part of one organization.
Use of these essential elements for the partnering process should allow DOE
and its partners to move forward with site cleanup. The partnering process holds
promise that cleanup can be achieved better, faster, and cheaper than has been
experienced to date.
Partnering Recommendations
The State and Tribal Government Working Group proposes the formation of a
subcommittee, including DOE representation, to develop a Cooperative
Arrangement for Partnering to implement the concepts presented in this
paper. Implementation should include processes for:
- Improving the working relation between DOE, EPA, and State and Tribal
governments;
- Streamlining the internal review and approval processes in these agencies;
- Building public confidence;
- The DOE decisionmaking process -- in general as well as site specific --
including "tribal decision blocks;" and
- Establishing and implementing cleanup processes that are consistent with
the holistic approach.
Once the cooperative arrangement is presented, DOE should provide guidance to
its staff to use the partnering arrangements, as well as develop a partnering
guidance document to support the partnering process.
|
