Oakland

Imagine an organisation that has been in existence for 500 years.  It is an acknowledged world leader in its field, and a household name in the English speaking world.  It is a large, profitable enterprise.

Why would an organisation in such an enviable position be considering change and seeking the help of a company such as Oakland?  There are, of course, pressures to change in today's business environment which everyone faces. The publishing arm of Oxford University is Oxford University Press (OUP). OUP, and, in particular, the OUP UK Publishing Services Division faced a number of such pressures.

The organisation employs some 500 people in the UK and is located at three main sites - the historic Oxford Head Office, the warehouse at Corby, Northamptonshire and a mailing centre at Milton, Oxfordshire.  The organisation also has an annual turnover of around £35 million and an instantly recognised high value brand name.

A number of factors were present in OUP. Firstly, the arrival of a new UK Publishing Services Managing Director, David Fry from outside the publishing industry. David Fry was particularly concerned to open up the culture, sharpen up service provision and to reduce costs, but not necessarily at the expense of people.

At the same time, there was pressure to provide the University with much needed revenue. Terry O'Reilly, the HR Director was by nature committed to people development, whilst at the same time wishing to meet business objectives.

The challenge for Oakland was to develop an approach to a change and organisation development project which included cultural change, people development, and a bottom line contribution and which would allow the OUP to be self sufficient in a period of time. OUP also did not just want to tinker with processes.  They did not want to have just one "hit" at the problems and did not want to build up a dependency on outside consultants.

 STARTING UP

The initial approach was to conduct a thorough analysis of the issues facing OUP.  This included a survey using postal questionnaires plus individual and group interviews; 35% of the employees were involved.  Factors which emerged included a growing dissatisfaction with the organisation’s paternalistic management style, a concern with individual management style, a lack of confidence in how change was being managed and poor communication - too much of the wrong type.

A range of desired outcomes became apparent.  From discussions with senior managers,  OUP was looking for a solution that would benefit the organisation as a whole - to change culture and enhance results, improve departmental performance and enhance individual skills and attitudes.

THE DESIRED OUTCOMES

Oakland was able to identify the desired outcomes on three levels:

Organisational

• provide a sustainable business management development approach that was systematic and supportive of business process re-engineering
• assist in a cost reduction process through improved management techniques
• help implement culture change, moving the organisational culture to one of "no blame", which had the support of the management and supervisory team
• ensure that managers and supervisors increased their contribution to the organisation and the desired change processes
• develop knowledge and skills to enable task teams to complete projects successfully
• demonstrate that personal development is on the company agenda and thus increase commitment and motivation.

Departmental

• increase the effectiveness of departments through improved management and staff performance
• recognise the contribution that each department makes to other internal customers and to define the requirement of internal customers better
• deliver the required services on time and within agreed costs
• improve communication between departments supporting the service chain concept.

Individual

• identify individual knowledge and skill gaps and recommend/provide appropriate training and development using a range of methods
• improve motivation and individual contribution
• support the senior management team more effectively
• reduce levels of pressure by increased involvement and ownership of the change process

SELECTING AN APPROACH

Oakland’s report was presented to the Publishing Services Board.  It recommended an approach, Action Learning, conducted within a framework of Continuous Improvement; a process where the participant ends up being "bigger" with greater knowledge and skills to harness in their own job and future projects creating a continuous improvement cycle.

Why Action Learning?  Oakland was primarily concerned about getting the right solution for OUP, rather than the latest fashion, and Action Learning has been established for decades as a continuous improvement tool.

Oakland saw clear advantages for using Action Learning:

• It helps managers learn the skills needed to manage a real business related project with clearly defined deliverables
• It will encourage the delegation of tasks of real importance and empower staff to deliver. It makes getting things done important
• There will be tangible rewards and satisfaction plus measurable financial gains in completing the projects.
• It emphasises and promotes team working and it encourages cross functional working
• It is a highly visible development technique, which continues towards a high profile event, the final project presentation. This is an ideal shop window for management to review the talent within the organisation.
• It will spread knowledge of the company aims and objectives.
• It will create a positive not a blame culture.

SO WHAT IS ACTION LEARNING EXACTLY?

Action Learning is as relevant today as it was when Professor Reginald Revans developed his ideas in the 1970's when he first practised them in Britain.  For one thing, it is concerned with answers to questions for which there are no ready answers.  It is concerned with bringing about changes and is a rigorous approach to challenge conventional thinking.

Revans said : "...In taking action one is obliged to expose one's motives to colleagues,
and one is obliged to explore what you so often take for granted."   He also went on to say elsewhere:  "Our ability to adapt to change may be defined as learning.....those able to do tomorrow, what there is no need to do today, will have learned."                    

"Knowledge is the consequence of action, and to know is the same as to do". Action Learning is above all a project based approach to learning and development which uses the issues facing everyone in the workplace, which Oakland felt would lend itself admirably to OUP's needs.
 
Whilst Oakland use many methods, experience over many years in organisations such as Prudential Assurance, Nationwide Building Society, Fujitsu, Sovereign Housing Association, the Thomson Organisation and the Nova Scotia Civil Service in Canada with similar Action Learning approaches also gave the confidence to recommend this to OUP.

Oakland are then, unashamedly, adherents to Revans' ideas but Oakland are also committed to the belief that the projects tackled must be business driven i.e. they must increase revenue, or reduce cost or improve quality or all three!  They must also develop people.   The projects must above all else, in our experience, be managed within a tight framework.

IMPLEMENTATION WITHIN OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

What is this rigorous framework and approach?  Oakland believe firstly, that top management must "buy in" to the approach.  Oakland had that commitment from David Fry and his team.

Oakland believe that the projects must not be simply dreamed up by anyone.  They have to be real and meaningful.  Revan’s first principle of Action Learning Projects: Problems not Puzzles!  In other words, if the problem can be solved easily and does not challenge the individual, then its not worth the time and trouble for an Action Learning approach.

There must also be deliverable results within the timescale of the project.  Our management framework is also carefully assembled together from us and our customer.  So there is a Steering Group, Projects Sponsors and a Facilitator for each group.  There is, too, a rigorous timetable for each group tackling projects which includes group meetings at intervals (the Set meetings), an interim presentation to the Publishing Services Board and a final presentation at the end of the six months.

Oakland are also involved in a programme of training of internal facilitators, to ensure that OUP became fully self sufficient in the Action Learning process within a year.

RESULTS ACHIEVED

So where are OUP now?  Oakland completed the tenth group of projects completed involving some 60 members of OUP staff, and trained five internal facilitators. There has been considerable personal development in many staff members and the financial outcomes attributed to the projects amount to some £2 million according to OUP.  The project and personal successes are outlined in the examples of projects completed below.

Projects have ranged both in size and impact and have included:

• A reduction in IT contract costs.  OUP favoured a particular method of approaching contracts.  However, a rigorous analysis and market testing led to the realisation that immediate cost savings could be made with an innovative approach
• Use of security staff.  OUP faced a motivation and turnover problem which had real cost implications. A whole range of options were looked at, including contracting out.  A creative look at other non-related costs gave an insight into how staff could be used differently.   A major part of the project also involved Industrial Relations and gaining acceptance of change.
• Improvement of Journal dispatch turnaround.   Setting of improved service level agreements that would attract more business..  The project required the leader to actively negotiate with suppliers and customers alike.  There were also implications for staff utilisation and major storage and materials handling issues. 
• A reduction in Printer maintenance.  OUP wished to reduce to amount of  time  and support spent on PC printer maintenance.  The project required the project leader to investigate the number, type and utilisation of printers and present a new policy to the Board.  This policy was implemented within the six month timescale of the project.          
         
   
  PITFALLS TO AVOID

Oakland would love to say that it’s all been plain sailing, but of course life is not like that.  So if you are encouraged to tackle a similar approach, here are some of the pitfalls to avoid.

Ensure that you have got top management support and that Sponsors of projects fully understand their vital role.   Oakland insist not only on briefing sponsors but also on training them alongside their participant before the project work begins.   You have to have the best people tackling the projects and people who will manage their time effectively to complete the work.

The project content is vital.   Pick inappropriate projects and the programme is doomed to failure.  The projects must be big but not too big to outface a project leader and team working on it for six months.

The brief for the project may need to be renegotiated a number of times.  It must also have some finite results, as has been said before. Beware too of Continuous Improvement fatigue!   Participants and the organisation generally can tire of the same messages being circulated.  The projects need to be marketed effectively and presented imaginatively.  

The temptation for all involved in the work, both for facilitators and participants, is to be satisfied with a report as the outcome for the six months spent on the project. This temptation has to be strongly resisted. The purpose of an Action Learning programme is that action takes place. Participants should always be encouraged to do things and to take decisions, not just recommend courses of action. This is the very essence of the programme.  
 
Interestingly, the OUP project selection mechanism did throw up another problem - what to do about business needs which whilst not warranting a full project still needed  fixing.  This has led Oakland to assist OUP in developing a subsidiary programme for simple fast track projects - things that just need doing.

THE TEAM

There was an established, vibrant team of experienced professionals.  The team at OUP consisted of Terry O'Reilly the HR Director, Suzanne Roberts who co ordinates all the projects and participants and Anne Johnson, a line manager, who championed the work Oakland do within the organisation.

Oakland are represented on all the Steering Group meetings and Board meetings, acting as a channel for all communication. 

Oakland act as facilitators and trainers who are responsible for the design and delivery of all the workshops and Set meetings. 

Oakland staff also add years of experience in project management delivery and training.

What is gained, therefore, from experiences such as that with OUP, is the knowledge that the Action Learning process continues to evolve.  Professor Revans was fond of quoting from the gospel of Matthew: ... " We come not to destroy, but to fulfill!"  

(Published in Industrial and Commercial Training Vol. 33 Number 1 2001)

CASE STUDY

Jane Coral , the Senior Finance Manager, had for some time been concerned about the cost and effectiveness of financial reports which were requested by other departments. The issue appeared to be that mountains of computer generated information were produced , but little action was taken on the basis of the information generated.  Seizing the opportunity that the Action Learning Programme offered, she arranged for it to be nominated as a project.

Bill Sheppard , a manager who reported to  Jane Coral was selected to head the project. Bill, was a young manager in his thirties, who had shown great promise in his work and whose appraisal reports were consistently positive. Jane felt, therefore, that something that both trained Bill and at the same time" stretched " him was ideal.

Jane was duly invited to our  Sponsors’ workshop, where Oakland explained her vital role
and responsibilities. Bill, of course, was also invited to attend the final session of the workshop and they both worked on the initial scoping of the project.    

Bill subsequently joined the launch of the programme where he met his fellow participants. They were all from different parts of the organisation and each was tackling a major project. At this introduction he received help and practical advice on running the project , as well as a greater understanding of Action Learning.

Bill and his five colleagues then met at six weekly intervals. There he received our support and encouragement, as well as that of his fellow participants. At times Oakland also challenged Bill's ideas , which made him rethink the action he was about to take.

Jane was, in addition, tracking Bill's progress in regular meetings, and was able to comment on how things were progressing at the two monthly Sponsors meeting. Bill also made an initial presentation to the Board after three months on his initial findings.

Finally, the big day arrived,  which was the final presentation to the Board and other colleagues, of progress. Bill presented his results the last , and also summarised the feelings of his whole group on the Action Learning process. They had all learned a variety of skills, ranging from persuasion skills through to leading a team project. Bill still had results to flow from his project, but he had already demonstrated after six months, the business benefit of reducing the number of reports generated for one major department, without any loss of effective control. This was clearly just the beginning........