CHANGE DOES NOT come easily, and the more sweeping it is, the more difficult its execution. One area that provides an opportunity for implementing sweeping change is reengineering a companywide policies and procedures system.
Reengineering, of course, requires revolutionary change, not incremental. It requires developing a dramatically new way of doing business. Reengineering policies and procedures involves radically changing the modus operandi. It requires identifying and reducing complex, outdated material and adding a simplified infrastructure. In a sense, reengineering policies and procedures is akin to recodifying laws and regulations.
In the spring of 1997, the Boeing Executive Council chartered a team to reengineer Boeing's policies and procedures. A team was formed, consisting of policies and procedures focal points from each business unit and a representative from Internal Audit. The team's specific purpose was to simplify companywide policies and procedures infrastructure, commonly known as Command Media.
Policies and Procedures at Boeing
Making a sweeping change to Boeing policies and procedures was not trivial. Prior to the McDonnell Douglas merger, Boeing had its own Defense and Space Group, which had grown from its acquisition of the space and defense business of the Rockwell Corporation, thereby creating Boeing North American. There was also the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, which was responsible for commercial business, and Information and Support Services, now Shared Services Group, which provided support to other business units. Of course, then came the merger with McDonnell Douglas. Coupled with a long history and mergers and acquisitions, Boeing had a policies and procedures system that was complex and redundant, and sometimes contained outdated content. The result was a companywide policy and procedure system that exceeded 250 documents and was at the top of a document tree that numbered in the thousands. It was under this circumstance that executive leadership for the company decided to simplify the 250 companywide policies and procedures.
Fifteen Key Steps
Reengineering policies and procedures for the project involved 15 key actions. Although appearing sequentially here, for the most part they occurred concurrently.
Acquire Executive Sponsorship. One of the first actions was to acquire top executive-level support for the project. Without such support, the chances for success would have been minimal. Each group, division, and business unit had invested in its own policies and procedures infrastructure and had to simultaneously adhere to a companywide one. Each division also had a unique culture and customer base that would challenge the very existence of such a project. Senior executive support was imperative. This support came when the top executive leadership of the corporation granted its approval to proceed.
Gauge the Level of Dissatisfaction With the Status Quo. The very act of approval by the top leadership of the corporation indicated dissatisfaction with the status quo. However, more than mere approval was necessary to proceed. The current situation necessitated capturing what was “good” and “bad” about the existing companywide policies and procedures system. Several sessions were held with representatives from each business unit, and at these sessions, qualities of the existing system were recorded as well as the drivers for the future system. This information provided the basis for developing recommendations for change.
Involve Customers. Customer involvement, of course, occurred when gauging the level of dissatisfaction with the status quo. However, more involvement was necessary. A project team was formed that included subject-matter experts in policies and procedures from each of the divisions and an individual from the Internal Audit organization. Participation by Internal Audit was necessary to ensure that eventual recommendations included required management controls, particularly those related to compliance. The team met weekly and via ad hoc working sessions with customers to receive their input and feedback.
Determine Requirements. Of course, determining requirements was done earlier, too, when attempting to identify the shortcomings of the existing policies and procedures infrastructure and the drivers for the future one. However, the earlier requirements were from a user viewpoint. This time, exact operational, legal, and regulatory requirements for having policies and procedures were identified. Knowing these requirements enabled the team to identify what policies and procedures to keep, remove, or merge with other ones. Agreed-upon definitions were developed on what constituted legal, regulatory, and operational requirements, as well as the identification of specific elements constituting each one. This information enabled a determination of what specific policies and procedures to retain or remove.
Define Goals. The key was to identify and focus on goals that the executive sponsors wanted to achieve. All subsequent activities would be predicated on achieving goals; anything outside of them was superfluous. For this project, there were five such goals: (1) retain only necessary writings, (2) improve access to writings, (3) reduce release cycle time, (4) increase the value of the system, and (5) support one company. This limited number of goals enabled us to focus our energies and resources in the midst of tight schedule and budget.
Keep the Scope Focused With the Long-term Future in Mind. The five goals provided the necessary direction; however, opportunities existed to expand the scope. For one, the merger with McDonnell Douglas, which occurred in midstream, added challenges. For another, a tendency existed to include other categories of documentation, such as process flows. Throughout the entire project, the opportunity for “scope creep” was ever present. Key was to maintain focus on the goals and restrict coverage to the 250 companywide policies and procedures.
Take an Inventory of What Currently Exists. This task was not easy considering the size of the company even before the McDonnell Douglas merger. The documentation infrastructure was complex despite previous efforts to streamline it. One step, of course, was to identify what companywide policies and procedures did exist, their relationship to one another, and the particulars of each policy and procedure. The particulars included date, governing document, reference relationships, writing owners, and process owners. Using this information enabled data compilation and analysis to occur for identifying characteristics; for example, average number of pages and average age of the documents. This information subsequently enabled focusing attention on salient characteristics that would substantiate the need for improvement.
Garner Support for Change. With clear goals, good requirements and specifications, and a comprehensive knowledge of the existing policies and procedures infrastructure, developing a case for change was possible. To do that required contacting key subject-matter experts and executives to obtain feedback and continued support; executive sponsors were briefed, too, for feedback and continued support.
Build a Project Plan. Having goals, albeit important, is not enough—a road map is necessary to achieve them. A project plan was developed, which included an extensive work breakdown structure based upon specific deliverables, time estimates for each task, a network diagram, and responsibility assignments. This information was entered into Microsoft Project to generate reports and graphics. The project plan not only provided disciplined direction but also served as an effective communications tool with executive sponsors and subject-matter experts who wanted to know what did and was going to happen and when. Additionally, the project plan helped identify priorities and key issues as well as track and monitor performance.
Look “Outside the Box.” A major challenge of the project was to think from the “macro” perspective of managing policies and procedures and not from a narrow, functional perspective. Such a perspective was the only way to address project goals. Most people agreed with taking a process perspective; however, few people really could. Many explanations exist for this difficulty. Some people had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Some people had an inability to see beyond their disciplines. Others found it difficult to adopt a new mental model that would capitalize on using innovative tools and techniques; these people were as much unable to “unlearn” as they were to learn new disciplines, tools, and techniques.
A good approach for instilling outside-the-box thinking was to benchmark policies and procedures infrastructures of comparable companies in size and type of business; for example, manufacturing. It also enabled learning about the challenges that they confronted and overcame. It provided ideas, too, on what they reengineered in their policies and procedures infrastructures.
Identify Pockets of Resistance and Support. There will always be supporters and opponents of any change, which is frequently dependent on self-interest and who feels threatened. The larger and more sweeping the change the greater the challenge for acceptance and the likelihood of resistance. Challenges multiply in a merger environment, which naturally provides all the more reason to have good, solid executive support for the project. It was imperative to identify as early as possible the location and level of support for and resistance against the project. An effective approach was to identify key executives and subject-matter experts in each business unit, brief them, and receive their feedback. This imparted good information for the project and revealed the reasons for levels of support or resistance. This approach enabled ascertaining the reasons behind thinking and developing solutions that would eventually provide a win-win result for most organizations and people and, consequently, the entire company.
Set Up a Project Office. A place was necessary to communicate with key players and manage the project. A project office was the instrument for doing that. Some major activities that occurred in the project office included holding working sessions with participants and centrally locating reference documentation and equipment. In addition, the office was used to display information on its walls as the project progressed through its life cycle. Indeed, the office had a life cycle of its own, as its purpose shifted from a place for managing the project to one communicating the recommendations for support.
Communicate Continuously. Communication is key. Throughout the project, communication with executives and subject-matter experts was conducted to allay fear, learn about key issues, and sustain support. Several approaches were used to communicate, including issuing bulletins to management, holding a “feedback” conference with key people in policies and procedures, and providing tours through the project office. Throughout the entire project, an open-door policy and open-communication policy were stressed and implemented.
Keep the Team Small. The scope of the project was quite large. The size of the scope was not, however, allowed to dictate team size. Indeed, if the scope was the primary determinant of team size, eight people were not enough. The key determinant was the organizations that required representation on the team; that is, they were the policies and procedures focal points for each of the business units.
The desire to keep the team small was deliberate. A too-large team would require more time for deliberation and less time for action. It would also lead to “factioning”; thereby making consensus difficult, if not impossible. Smallness provided the necessary flexibility: quickly acquire the right answers to the right questions from the right people; proceed expeditiously once executive sponsors make a decision; and remain flexible in pursuit of project goals.
Maintain Momentum. Time was critical. Executive leaders agreed upon ambitious red-letter or milestone dates. The push for acceleration grew even more intense when the McDonnell Douglas merger occurred. It became imperative to have a streamlined, relevant set of policies and procedures in place to smooth transition to a new company; therefore, at no time was the project allowed to slow down.
The benefits of maintaining momentum were realized quickly. It caused “things to happen,” rather than lingering until everything settled after the merger. In fact, the merger gave executive leadership and the project team the opportunity to put on the “full court press,” even to the surprise of the project's critics. Timing was everything.
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP ENDORSED all recommendations that reduced the number of policies and procedures. A more efficient infrastructure that capitalizes on intranet technology has been established and visions on using advanced technologies for delivering policies and procedures on a grand scale are being investigated. More important, the project planted the seed for reevaluating other policies and procedures infrastructures that exist throughout the company. Not surprisingly, reengineering companywide policies and procedures will remain and continue to present many additional challenges as the company progresses toward achieving its 2016 vision. ■