Project Vanguard
A letter from Ian Cuthbert and the Branch Secretary's view.
|
Letter from Ian Cuthbert Dear Colleagues PROJECT VANGUARD During the discussions around Project Watford, one of many issues pursued by the negotiating team was that of teamworking, known elsewhere as systems thinking or 'thinking differently'. A commitment to explore what that may mean in Field Service is embedded in the milestones document that is Annex A of the FRS Agreement. Presentations have been given previously of technology that could enable this. The issue of new technology has been given a lesser priority in recent times due to other, more pressing, events in Field Service. There has however been a considerable amount of work on the basic concepts of system thinking as they apply to work flow in BT. This work has now graduated to trial status in Bromsgrove Exchange area. The working title of Project Vanguard comes from the hands-on involvement of a company called Vanguard headed by John Seddon - an occupational psychologist - who has pioneered the application of systems thinking to service organisations. It was from this source that the 'thinking differently' way of working in BT Payphones was derived. Vanguard has an active presence in the trial in the form of Barry Wright. The underpinning theory of system thinking is that individuals account for only 5% of performance, with the other 95% being down to the system. It follows then that greater gains can be made in eradicating barriers in the system or indeed changing the whole system of work flow. From this, it is held that the whole panoply of targets and measures placed on individuals are actually worse than ineffective. A team of 9 field engineers, 2 from an RSU environment and 1 from a work management team background, plus managers, was set up. The team also included Barry Wright from Vanguard. At the outset, the principle task was to analyse how BT's system handles work. According to the team themselves, the first thing they learned was that the data upon which so many decisions are made is fundamentally flawed. So too are the internal measures BT uses, since they drive individuals to meet targets rather than help customers. Analysis was made of over 100,000 faults. Of these, some 30,000 were re-reports by customers. The bulk of this derives from the onus placed on people in 151 and then the RSU to cut visits to customer premises and the robotic testing that clears the report as testing ok when the actual problem may be noise. The end result is that customers re-report. Incredibly, in the flow of work, a line can be tested five or six times before the field engineer actually gets the fault. Whilst all of the internal measures are met, the customer has received appalling service. So another of the fundamental tenets is to look at the purpose of the system from a customer's point of view. A full presentation of the data and some of the conclusions has been given to the Executive team. On the basis of the analytical work the project has moved into Proof of Concept mode in the Bromsgrove Exchange area. The group work as a team picking all repair jobs directly from the 151 queue. Each engineer takes the fault at the top of the queue and deals with it to conclusion. If the individual does not have the appropriate skill, they request assistance directly from a team mate. The basic principles the team work to are:
Work will be done jointly on role design for the engineers and working out sensible measures that will accurately reflect both the engineers and the customer's experience. This project has the potential to revolutionise how work is handled within Field Service immediately and throughout BT in general. There will of course be issues of grading, skills, training, impact on various units and we have the assurance that the CWU will be fully involved. It is also obvious that the concepts being proved in Bromsgrove cannot work with the current Field Reward Scheme and this aspect will form an integral part of the negotiations. Further reports will be issued in due course. Yours sincerely IAN CUTHBERT Assistant Secretary
|
|
Branch Secretary's comment. Let me start on a positive note. I believe that as well as providing a challenge Project Vanguard provides the opportunity to change for the better the work experience of members in Field Services. However, I have to say that I was somewhat taken aback by some of the content of Ian's letter. I am willing to think differently but what sort of perverse reality is it where a company, supposedly in the business of generating profit, spends three years concocting the abomination that is FRS based on a panoply of measures that are worse than ineffective in the hope of affecting only 5% of the factors relating to performance? It is also a shame that the company felt the need to employ an occupational psychologist to state the bleedin' obvious. "...... the first thing they learned was that the data upon which so many decisions are being made is fundamentally flawed. So too are the internal measures BT uses, since they drive individuals to meet targets rather than help customers." Oh really!? The challenge and the ray of hope in this letter are in the final paragraph. The challenge is that we will have to be vigilant because of the potential impact on jobs and terms and conditions. The ray of hope is that FRS, as currently constituted, will be incompatible with what is currently being developed. I will finish by restating what Ian said in his letter." This project has the potential to revolutionise how work is handled within Field Service immediately and throughout BT in General." This project is important. Please keep yourselves informed about it and us informed with your views. Regards Brian
|