Sunday, May 24, 2015

The Power of Partnership - Alliancing in Australian Healthcare Part II

This is the second article in a three part series investigating Alliance contracting within the Health sector.  I am talking to Anthony Osborne and Sandra Quinlan, from Seeds of Possibility, about Alliancing and its potential for application in Australian health industry projects and health organisations.  Through their backgrounds in the Energy, Construction and Utilities sectors, Sandra and Anthony both have many years experience in Alliancing, a model of project management that grew, in Australia, out of the construction industry.

In the first article, we reviewed how Alliances have become a significant form of contract partnership and management within the New Zealand health industry yet do not play a major role in Australian health management.



Chris: What is the most important part of the Alliancing Model?

Anthony: The essence of alliancing is the principles, rather than the legal documents.  It’s about the underlying philosophy.  We could go into a hospital right now and say that we’re going to create the whole concept of an alliance.   The legal structure is an upfront cost to an outstanding result, but will still have the vision of creating something with you and for you.  This is a structure and a process that we would be able to do, without the big set-ups that have built in New Zealand.

Some of the example principles that were held within Alliance I have been involved in include Equality, ‘best for project’ decision making, integration, open and honest conversation, a culture of ‘no-blame’ but accountability for action, trust, respect and integrity, proactive pursuit of innovation, mutual support and collective responsibility.

Anthony: Most organisations that don’t have an alliancing capability will bring a consultant in to fix the problem.  The problem doesn’t get fixed, so they sack the consultant and get anther one in.   In reality, its not the consultants job to fix these types of problems its the consultants job to facilitate a process so that the organisation can heal and grow.

Chris: Do Alliance members ever come into alliancing groups with pre-conceived notions of how problems should be solved?

Sandra: Of course!   Yes, everybody comes in with his or her beliefs and what they usually ask those around them is ‘what’s this got to do with [expletive] anything!’ 

People come in thinking that this meeting is going to be like every other meeting they have attended.  That is will be structured in a particular way and immediately focused on the project or on brainstorming ideas or whatever the usual format that is followed in the business.  When this doesn’t happen, people can get annoyed.  They can ask that we stop this nonsense and get down to business.  All sorts of stuff like this.

A good example of this was with an alliancing project for a huge multinational oil company.   It was a safety project for the tanker drivers and high crash incidences.  In the group they talked about family issues and home life and all sorts of seemingly unrelated topics.  But it worked.  In the end their safety issues were cleaned up because all sorts of ‘supposedly’ unrelated systems were improved like roster scheduling for example. 

You see the problem in this situation was not the obvious one of ‘wearing hardhats or boots or having driver training’.  The real, underlying issues was ‘why are the tanker drivers angry and therefore not concentrating and losing control of their vehicles’.  Well it turned out that they were angry because the schedules were poor and nobody had ever listened to them.  They were being sent into peak hour traffic at 8am in the morning with an excessive number of runs to do.   

But until we have the opportunity to really explore these issues to get to the bottom of them, people will ask on the surface ‘what has this got to do with safety?

This is why I always ask upfront ‘what is it what would get in the way of people speaking openly and honestly today’.  Sometimes, this is enough to open the dialogue and get productive conversations started.

Chris: Are there health organisations that are not ready for alliancing?

Sandra: Yes, there probably are.  Lets consider those organizations, whose leader is very autocratic and who has only one way of doing things.  I would doubt that this leader would even want to talk about alliancing.  I know that there are plenty of those managers out there. 

But there will be somebody who is a leader in the industry who is prepared to take a risk, because an alliance is a risk.  But there will be somebody out there who is a leader who wants to do something really different.  But once that happens, as it happened with a Victorian Government Transport Authority that took a leap of faith and trialed it for the first time all those years ago, is that everybody watches it and they see the success and they become curious.

Anthony: The leader needs to be open to new ways of being and doing things.  They might not know what alliancing is, but they are open to new ways of doing things. 

Sandra – As an example, one of the pioneers of alliancing in Australia had been a manager at this Victorian Government Transport organisation for years. He’d always had a dream that work could be done a particular way and he just happened to be talking to someone about alliancing, and it fitted with his dream. 

He didn’t know how you could get people working together and working for something bigger than them but he knew intuitively that this was his goal.  So he just needed to come across somebody who was able to introduce him to alliancing.   Now the risk to him, and I remember him saying it, was that it would define his career.  He said ‘I am either going to go out as a hero or my reputation will be gone’. 

Anthony:  You see the normal model is that you contract out the job to somebody, and they’re an independent person doing the job for this government department so you immediately have conflict and an adversarial relationship, underpinned by an official contractual relationship.  So if anything goes wrong, people immediately point to the contractual relationship.  The different with alliancing, is that the partners come into the group and become an intimately connected part of it and what it does.

Most people don’t want to go to work to argue and fight.  There are some, but I believe that they are few and far between.  I believe most people want to work together to be productive and do something great.  People who go into the health sector generally go into the industry because the want to help and have an underlying commitment.  If you look at an A&E department in a hospital, when things go wrong people take it very seriously because they are so committed. 

If you just give them the opportunity to work together they will want to make it work.  And importantly, they will know how to do it.  You think about how innovative you have to be when you have to make split second decisions.    

Further, if you look at the highly demanding health and safety minefield that healthcare workers have to work within.  Working constantly under the threat of being sued, while also focusing on saving a persons life managing an ailment.  Health and safety rules, when done poorly, can be the biggest block to innovation and creative thinking that there is.  And yet managers sometimes impose health and safety systems without consulting the workers.

What is it about the alliance model and process that allows projects to succeed where they haven’t in the past?

Firstly, it’s about bringing the people together.  If you have systems that cross over three different departments in a hospital, its about bringing the people in those departments together to ask how can we design a new system that works for all of us.  It may be re-working the

If I think back to the alliances I have been involved in, one might involve three different companies but they will work together to decide what is the best system for this situation.

It’s got nothing to do with the division or department that the individuals may have come from.  Divisional power struggles are not allowed.  What has to happen is for people to talk about what is best for project irrespective of what is best for their department? 

It’s the way that they come together that is key in how they work together.  The success largely relates to how this process is facilitated.  From our experiences both facilitating and working in alliance groups, people need to come in with an attitude that ‘we’re going to find a solution to a problem. 

Every alliance requires a neutral facilitator because otherwise some participants wont speak up.  A facilitator has to be able to help people see what they are not currently aware of because they are caught up in the process of it.  A facilitator therefore needs to have a neutral perspective.  They need to be able to stay ‘outside’ of the process.

If a facilitator is not neutral, they also become part of the process because of their background.  This affects their ability to stay outside.  Participants will think that the facilitator has some bias.  For example, that they are aligned with the Doctors group or the Nurses group or have some bias towards the administrative component.  A good way of describing it is like coaching in a group setting.
 
INTRODUCTION TO SEEDS OF POSSIBILITY 

Seeds of Possibility are a business performance consultancy.  They bring a wealth of experience in alliancing across different industries and Sandra has also worked closely with a Key consultant to a New Zealand District Health Board, who pioneered Alliancing within the New Zealand Health system.  What Seeds of Possibility do differently is that they work with clients to improve systems and engage people both at the same time.
  
As Anthony highlights ‘ I saw a recent Gallup poll that revealed over 70% of people in the workplace are not engaged with the work they do which astounded me.  ‘But it’s no use engaging with your people if your systems are no good, because if your systems are no good, the people disengage”.

When you get those elements right and include how you align everybody – the alliancing component - the organisation becomes powerful and strong and make a difference and get great results.  Their contact details are:
 
Anthony Osborne
Conscious Leader
anthonyosborne@seedsofpossibility.com.au
Mobile +61 413663360

Thursday, May 14, 2015

The Power of Partnership - Alliancing in Australian Healthcare Part I

Since the completion of a 2010 Pilot, 'Alliance Partnerships' (commonly called Alliances) have been introduced nationwide across the New Zealand healthcare system with the aim of combining resources, jointly solving complex problems and better integrating care.  The New Zealand Ministry of Health website identifies that:

'Health alliances are nine networks of primary health care providers and district health boards that are implementing the Government’s ‘Better, Sooner, More Convenient’ care initiatives.

A tagline for the South Island Alliance proclaims 'More Efficient Through Collaboration'.  Is there any truth in this?  Robin Gould, a Professor in Health Policy certainly thinks so.  He has written extensively on the topic, including an interesting article in 20 October 2014 in theconversation.com titled NHS: Lessons from New Zealand on how to integrate care and an article in theguardian.com titled NHS Can Learn Alot From New Zealands Healthcare System.  In these articles he reviews the New Zealand Alliancing model as a mechanism to improve Care Integration in the NHS.  He argues that:

New Zealand’s nascent alliance model has yet to be fully tested. It does, however, offer a promising alternative for public health system and integrated care governance, which NHS policy makers could consider if they’re serious about finding a fair and workable system. 

Do alliance partnerships have a place in the Victorian or Australian health system?  In this three part series of articles, I am talking to Anthony Osborne and Sandra Quinlan, from Seeds of Possibility, a Melbourne based management consultancy, about Alliancing and its potential for application in Australian health industry projects and health organisations.

Through their backgrounds in the Energy, Construction and Utilities sectors, Sandra and Anthony both have many years experience in Alliancing, a model of project management that grew, in Australia, out of the construction industry.
 
-->
Chris: So what is alliancing and why does it have potential for health organisations?

Anthony; Alliancing is a way of managing projects that has been around in Australia for about 10 years or so.  One of the key things that alliancing is, is game breaking.  How can we not just meet what we want, but how can we exceed it.

In with alliancing model a number of organisations get together to do a piece of work and actually create a new temporary entity that will have an entirely new culture with genuine alignment to values.  

Three organisations for example might get together, and the alliancing structure means that the group can be totally focused on the project.  This new group can establish new principles, practices and processes that are ideally suited to the project.

You see there is a problem in many organisations where we employ people for their differences then we beat them into submission to think the same.  And most organisations are not good at nurturing creative innovation from within the group.  Generally the bigger the organisation the more it happens, it is more common to see a ‘don’t rock the boat’ type attitude.  

The alliancing model allows for a group of people to make a fresh start, and a combined understanding that ‘we’re all going to work together’.   

To date, in Australia alliancing has primarily been implemented in large complex projects where technology is changing quickly.  If we were to consider the relevance to hospitals, we can see that technology is ever changing and evolving.  For example the technology in an operating theatre is constantly being developed and its fast and its constant.  

Sandra: I remember recently talking to a surgeon about the changing environment of a surgery and he was saying that in a few years time there won’t be items positioned around the room, it’ll all be coming from up in the top.  The way he started talking made the room sound like a spaceship to me. 
Now he wasn’t talking about the happening in the distant future, it was in a few years time.  This sort of change can be a quantum leap for people in how they work and think.  Many have the attitude that ‘I have been doing my job for 15 years, I’m really comfortable with it and now your bringing that strange machine or technology in!’  If the culture is a blame culture, learning doesn’t thrive in that!

Chris: What are some of the advantages of Alliancing?

Creative Innovation

Anthony: Alliancing allows creative innovation to flourish.  There are times where people have been talking to their managers about doing creative things for a long time unsuccessfully.  When I was working in Health and Safety and we were using these principles of pulling the operational workers to find things, if they weren’t asked, they would generally just sit back and wait for things to go wrong.  They wouldn’t contribute unless they were convinced that management we’re listening. 
We realised that if you want people to give you ideas you need to act on it.  People need to see that happening.  For me, the important thing is working with a management team to ensure they are committed to the process and are rewarding it.  The operational people actually see their ideas becoming reality and buy in, they become more committed to the process.

With an alliance, a new entity is created, that allows for different ways of doing things.  Suddenly, people realize that they are being listened to, and this can lead to their engagement! 

This element happens right at the beginning of the alliancing process.  Right from the beginning, there is an outcome focus, so that everybody has a vested interest in the results.  For an alliancing entity, all the key areas of cost, schedule, quality have business as usual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), but also have ‘game breaking ones’.

Sandra : When I was working with teams on this part of the alliance creation, we would be working on ideas that normally people would see as ‘totally impossible’.  If every part of the project was estimated to take 12 months, they group might look at it and set a goal of completing it all in 6 months.   They would then work towards making that happen, so that everybody gets actively involved in doing things differently.

What this creates is the possibility for people to go, well what if we could?  Its this possibility that peoples minds love to play with.  And the group might end up saving millions of dollars on a project by making a few simple but fundamental changes.

Managing conflict

Sandra : This new entity also provides the opportunity to change the way the group manages and values conflict.  In all organisations there are a mixture of people including some who like conflict and others who do anything to avoid it.  

There are often people in the room that try and quiet down conflict and anger.  As a facilitator I allow it to come out.  People that try to quiet it down need to listen and let it happen.

The alliancing entity provides an opportunity for people to discover and appreciate that there is value in conflict.  That doesn’t mean that you’re punching each other in the face, but simply that you are able to acknowledge that on a particular point or issue that I may have a different opinion to you.  As long as you are prepared to hear me and we can meet at the boundaries then this is where new ideas can come from.

Often it’s not the first workshop that people really open up, but the second one.  I have found that when I am working really closely with a team, and they are all really passionate and vocal in their opinions.

People Taking Responsibility 

Anthony : There is a really big difference between accountability and responsibility and when I run alliancing workshops we do a whole lot of work around this difference.  You see a responsibility is what somebody actually chooses to take on.  A person can be held accountable but I can’t force you to be responsible if you choose otherwise.    

Sandra : In the workshops I work with the group on owning the responsibility.  When you are part of the design of something and have input into something you are usually more willing to take more responsibility for it.  It highlights a really important concept held within those alliancing principles, which is ‘awareness of the choices and decisions that you are making’.  

In business, a lot of times, when questioned about decisions people will say that they didn’t have a choice.  In reality they did.  They may not have liked the consequences of the choices that they were making but they do have the choice.  Gaining awareness of this and appreciating how this affects a persons own behavior, particularly in conflict situations is important.  Even if you are the angriest person in the world, how I respond to you is going to either increase or decrease it.  I can’t take responsibility for you, but I can take responsibility for how I react to any situation.

Personal Growth

Anthony : An interesting advantage of this model is that it leads to personal growth.  In the alliance projects we were involved in we called it personal development.   

Sandra : My aim is always that if somebody has worked with me, they’ve learnt something about themselves that they didn’t know before they started the process.   I had a manager once who trusted me so much, and I didn’t think I was really worthy of that trust, but he taught me something.  But I really started to live up to that trust that he gave me.  I learnt something about myself, because I upped my standard because he trusted me.  There was an expectation that there wasn’t much I couldn’t do.  This is what Alliancing does, it lifts the bar and everybody starts to rise up to that place.
I would say that when people go through that process in the most successful projects, everybody’s taken a personal career risk of some description.  For example the quiet people in team who never contribute, might actually start contributing.  

Anthony: Another example is the principle of not taking things personally.  It sounds easy, but in practice as soon as somebody gets into a sensitive spot and pokes us we react rather than respond..  Another one is to not make assumptions.  With all these ideas its not about whether our understanding is right or wrong, its about raising our awareness to it.

Most organisations that don’t have alliancing capability, will bring a consultant in to fix the problem.  The problem doesn’t get fixed, so they sack the consultant and get anther one in.   In reality, its not the consultants job to fix these types of problems its the consultants job to facilitate a process so that the organisation can heal and grow.

Chris : Alliancing in the Health Industry – why hasn’t it taken off and what is needed?

Sandra – I simple don’t think that anybody has pushed for it.  Alliancing took off in the construction world in Australia, in around 2004, and I think consultants simply got very comfortable in construction.  

There was big money in construction and people didn’t have to move to different industries.  There was no major incentive or demand to move into health and for a consultant to go this way you would have to promote it heavily to gain acceptance.  

I remember being in an engineering conference.   We were there to talk about what we were going to do with this first alliance in Victoria.  There were managers in there saying this is never going to work and other people even laughing at us.  Gaining acceptance for a new concept takes hard work! 
I have a colleague who has gone on to do a lot of work on alliancing in the New Zealand health industry with District Health Boards, but at that time one thing led to another but Australia didn’t end up doing anything at the time.

I was reading about the vision for the Royal Women’s Hospital from the new CEO.  I am majorly impressed with her.   What she wants for her patients, clearly comes from her experiences because she talks about treating people with dignity and care.   It was clearly coming from a deep emotional place that was a fundamental driver for her. I thought, that is somebody who would be an ideal candidate who has the vision to take on a new concept like alliancing.  

When you bring in any new concept you get a lot of push back.  I know for me, that she would be a really great ally because she would want it to work.  She would be able to see the concept on how that would work.  As a facilitator, she would be able to guide me through her vision.  Her vision is strong and it’s the best one I have ever seen.

Chris : Is Australia ready for Alliancing in the health industry?

Sandra: I Iook at the hospital system in Australia now and I think that there is a readiness that wasn’t there before.  There is a level of discontent with what is happening the health system and people need a level of dissatisfaction to be able to try new things.  Also people will be aware of what has happened in New Zealand.  They will have been sitting on the fence and will have gathered the evidence that they need to be happy to make a decision.           

Author:
Christopher Eastham,
Health Industry Manager


INTRODUCTION TO SEEDS OF POSSIBILITY

Seeds of Possibility are a business performance consultancy.  They bring a wealth of experience in alliancing across different industries and Sandra has also worked closely with a Key consultant to a New Zealand District Health Board, who pioneered Alliancing within the New Zealand Health system.  What Seeds of Possibility do differently is that they work with clients to improve systems and engage people both at the same time.
  
As Anthony highlights ‘ I saw a recent Gallup poll that revealed over 70% of people in the workplace are not engaged with the work they do which astounded me.  ‘But it’s no use engaging with your people if your systems are no good, because if your systems are no good, the people disengage”.

When you get those elements right and include how you align everybody – the alliancing component - the organisation becomes powerful and strong and make a difference and get great results.  Their contact details are:
 
Anthony Osborne
Conscious Leader
anthonyosborne@seedsofpossibility.com.au
Mobile +61 413663360

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Health Service Integration Project - a lesson in project governance


Health service integration means different things to different people.  In this article I am referring to the integration of health services between two different healthcare organisations following the commercial acquisition of one business by another.  

This is slightly different idea from the traditional concept of health service integration, which is a commonly defined as bringing about "the management and delivery of health services so that clients receive a continuum of preventative and curative services, according to their needs over time and across different levels of the health system."

I am using a bit of literary license here and have been vague on purpose to highlight the issue of good governance.  Any integration project, whether its integrating newly acquired business entities or integrating the delivery of health services, requires the foundation of good governance and seemless integration between strategy and operational activity for success.  

Project Governance is simply 'the mechanisms, processes and relations by which organisations are controlled and directed'.  A project can have a really great strategy, but if the project management mechanisms, processes and relations are not set up properly and inhibit people from actively carrying out the taking required actions then the integration of the services is blocked before its even started.

A  while ago in my career, I was involved with a health organisation that purchased another business (a commercial acquisition).  Within the new business was a unit that provided health assessment services directly related to those performed by the department that I managed.  This business unit had around $1 million revenue per annum which was not huge but still significant in relation to our department.  We were not directly involved in the commercial acquisition process, instead the integration strategy was devised by senior executives who were responsible solely for sealing the deal.  It was assumed that once the purchase went through, that my team would be able to take over the services carried out by this other team.  The strategy looked good in theory and the responsible executive had created a 90 day plan onboarding plan.

As I previously mentioned, my department which included the primary operational team were not involved in the purchasing decision or strategic planning and were only told about the purchase and planned integration two days prior to the purchase.  In addition, once it did go ahead, it seemed that nobody was responsible for the project.  The service revenues and expenses were moved onto my P&L statement, but there was nobody or no governance group ultimately responsible for signing off on major decisions.  This was pretty messy for an organisation of over 200 people. 

It was assumed that the two services were similar and one could just be plugged into the other.  This was a big mistake!  Of course there were a host of relationships, systems and processes that were unique to each department and could not simply be 'plugged in' and if the operational workers has been asked about this up front they could have informed the decision makers early.  There is an interesting article from Harvard Business Review, titled When Emotional Reasoning Trumps IQ that outlines the neuro-psychology behind integrating project strategy and operations.

I did what I could to manage and lead the project from here.  I was not and still am not an accredited Project Manager but I did have a reasonable amount of experience managing small to medium sized projects.  My primary experience was in PMI project management methodology with some understanding of agile/lean working environments so I was able to prepare a framework and drive things forward to a point,  but we were playing catch up and at the time I did not have the seniority in the orgnisation or the required influence to be able to make the important decisions.  The way the organisation operated I was unable to directly influence project governance.

Here is what I did:
  1. IDENTIFIED AND ENGAGED with key stakeholders in the other team and throughout key business departments, primarily our IT and Finance departments. 
  2. DRAFTED A PROJECT PLAN with key requirements, road blocks and contingencies and created a detailed Gannt chart highlighting key dates and relationships to other major projects. 
  3. Having engaged the key stakeholders, we DEFINED THE PROJECT PHASES and required steps:
    1. Planning phase
    2. Urgent transition phase -  identifying capability required to maintain BAU Requirements
    3. Migration planning phase - preparing for overall service integration
    4. Migration of relationships, resources and materials
    5. Synchronised infrastructure switch
    6. Service integration/handover
Unfortunately though, even with a solid project plan the project was fundamentally flawed because there was nobody with clear and defined accountability.   I had taken a certain amount of responsibility but when it came time to make the major decisions there was no owner.

My manager at the time could have taken this role, but it had not been given to her and she had other reasons not to pro-actively campaign to take ownership herself.  The original project manager was leaving the company partway through the project so did not have any vested interest and had effectively signed off.

In my opinion the poor project governance derailed the project before it had even started and as a result it floundered affecting the performance of the department and the company.  The integration blew out from three months to almost one year and in that time client relationships were damaged and a lot of the value of the newly acquired business was lost.  Some entrepreneurs might argue that models of governance inhibit entrepreneurial freedom, but good governance should not be onerous and mechanisms can be built in for handing responsibility down where possible. 

So what can we learn from this?  What could we have done differently to make the project more successful? 
  1. ACCOUNTABILITY - Firstly, I believe that there should have been clear single point of accountability for the project.  By the time this finally happened, it was already 5-6 months after the acquisition
  2. STRATEGIC INTEGRATION - Operational people should have been actively consulted and included in the up front strategic planning so that strategy and operations could have been woven together more seemlessly.
  3. ALLIANCING - Finally, as a bit of a left field idea, I wonder if an 'Alliance governance model' could have been employed to carry out the project. 
What is alliancing?

Alliancing is a method of managing projects where parties work collaboratively to deliver the project.  It is a model with a defined working framework and associated agreements that is generally employed for large complex construction/infrastructure projects where risks are not well known, but interestingly has become increasingly used in the delivery of healthcare in New Zealand.  This model of project management is not generally employed for small scale projects such as this yet, but I believe it has value and should be explored as an evolution idea into the future.

Alliance contracting is characterised by a number of key features, which generally require the parties to work together in good faith, act with integrity and make best-for-project decisions. The alliance participants work as an integrated, collaborative team to deal with key project delivery matters.
Under alliance contracts, risks of project delivery are often jointly managed by the parties.

In a project such as the one I described above, stakeholders from both the departments, the one doing the acquiring and the one being acquired could form the alliance team.  In addition team members from the finance and IT departments could also be involved.  If a team like this was able to collaborate right at the beginning of the project with clear guidelines on accountability, responsibility and reporting, it might have completely changed the dynamics of the project.


  



Thursday, May 7, 2015

Chronic Musculoskeletal Condition Self-Management Resource

Its great to see organisations like Arthritis Victoria creating resources that encourage and support people to self-manage chronic conditions.

I'm excited to be able to tell people about this instructional video that I worked with Arthritis Victoria on in 2013.  It is an instructional video promoting how people with chronic musculoskeletal conditions can use of Warm Water Exercise (or Hydrotherapy) to manage their conditions.

My involvement included designing and drafting the script, and auditing the exercise science content.  I also co-presented with my colleague Renee De Silva, who was the program coordinator for the Waves program, which was a large volunteer led program involving around 120 volunteers and 1000 participants attending classes each week.  The volunteers themselves were inspirational, often having led classes every week for over 10 years and sometimes up to 30 years!

For community based health and wellness professionals working with people with Chronic Musculoskeletal conditions I highly recommend looking at this great resource.  Have a look at this short trailer for an introduction.

 
If you Want to purchase a copy for yourself or others, visit the Arthritis Victoria online store here: https://www.arthritisvic.org.au/Shop