The diagnostics options and follow-through described below provide the user organization with an unparalleled comprehensive set of "numbers" with which to gauge the initiation and sustainment of Change Management System (CMS) operations to achieve an "Ideal" organization cultural capacity. Any one diagnostic or a combination of them will form a "theme" which can be used to label the follow-on or follow-through actions taken as a result of the diagnostic.

A. Pre-diagnostic Assessment. This ten-category assessment is completed by the consulting team prior to a commitment that would result in diagnostic or remediative work. Results of this assessment provide insight into the probable success of using this Change Management System (CMS) methodology based on the condition of the organization before launch of the initial diagnostic and provide the consulting team with cautionary information at the outset.

B. Workforce Baseline Surveys. The initial workforce all-member survey is called the "baseline." Changes in the "numbers" will always be compared to the "baseline" at minimum, although comparisons will also be made to other surveys and metrics.

C. Interim Workforce Metrics. Interim measurements are made based on key items identified in the "baseline" and subsequent survey efforts. Workforce Metrics are normally completed quarterly, normally contain far fewer survey items, and are normally completed by only a fraction of the workforce (typically those who would be impacted by changes being made by chartered teams).

D. External Data Collection Options. External options include surveys designed for any group and all groups interacting with the client organization: customers, vendors, families, etc. This allows for easy comparisons between internal and external data to clarify the level at which the organization is meeting the expectations of those upon whom it depends for growth.

E. Team Progress Metrics. Team facilitators or others designed by each active team may complete a Progress Metric as a means of determining the degree to which chartered teams are engaged in appropriate team activities. The results from Progress Metrics may herald the need to modify team activities to achieve improved results.

F. Approach Assessments. Approach Assessments are made periodically by the servicing consulting team to assure that change agents are using an approach regimen that is likely to achieve the desired results. As weaknesses in the approach are detected, it is likely to trigger coaching sessions that restore the process approach to desired levels of achievement.

G. Special Performance Assessments. Special diagnostic instruments are available that help detect and suggest remediative actions for individuals in positions of authority based on individual input and feedback from those people who influence their performance and are influenced by their decisions.

H. Workforce Annual Workup/Checkup Surveys. At the end of each year (or nearly so) the workforce survey is essentially repeated to determine if improvements in overall scores and improvements in specific item scores are being achieved. These surveys include all-members.

I. RGB Composite Profiles. The completion of RGB Inventories and the creation of RGB Composite Profiles for groups begins to reveal the source of potential dysfunction as seen in survey symptomatic results. As Profiles are completed and working relationships improved, it can be expected that survey results will also improve.

J. RGB-MTT Profiling Regimen. If insufficient improvements are made, advanced MTT technologies can be engaged to bring about improved alignment of the workforce with increasingly compatible task assignments. The RGB Matching Tasks with Talent technology aims to match the best-qualified natural talent with the tasks required to achieve efficient success.

1. Diagnostic Report(s). Several options for hard-copy reporting are available that provide users with specific information they need on the schedule they need it to make the decisions that result in continuous improvements.

2. Change Management Progress Reports. A variety of reports complete with suggested remediative strategies are available that help users understand progress toward objectives. Report options include participation counts, the success rate of selected remediative actions linked with specific problems and, and financial reports that include return-on-investment calculations.

3. Comprehensive Report. The Comprehensive Report is a compilation of "Indexes" that point to conditions that may require attention in order for the organization to accelerate to an "Ideal" condition. The Comprehensive Report is normally available only to members of the change agent team.

4. Client C.H.A.R.T. The Client C.H.A.R.T is a published document that contains client status and remediative technology being engaged to achieve "Ideal" capacity. The Client C.H.A.R.T is available on the Internet to those members of an organization who have been provided with a password.

A. The Sponsor, Client and Primary Leadership Team. An ideal condition within which this change methodology will take hold effectively includes a sponsorship, client and primary leadership team who are receptive to the approach used (See Ten Elements of the QWLC Approach).

1. The Sponsor is normally an individual with the organizational influence to demand that this approach be used or demand that it be stopped once started. Typically, the Sponsor is highly influential in the earmarking of discretionary funds needed to fuel a long-term initiative and sufficient influence over the client that acting contrary to those influences would be organizationally unwise. Normally, the Sponsor is in the position of Board Chairman, or influential in the Division within which the organization is located. The Sponsor need not have any direct contact with the change effort.

2. The Client is the top leader/manager of the organization – titles range from CEO, to President, to Plant Manager.

3. The Primary Leadership Team is comprised of individuals who report directly to the Client.

B. The Guiding Coalition. It is often the case that a small group of 7 to 15 employees have been "chartered" by the client to promulgate change (something that will equate to cultural capacity improvement). Characteristically, the group meets periodically and has engaged in numerous activities to achieve stated outcomes but may not have been entirely successful for a reason that can be identified as "cultural" in its limitation. This group normally reflects the general composition of the workforce and has the confidence of both top management and front-line workers. The Primary Leadership Team may or may not be supportive of this group. One rationale for lack of complete support is the notion that the guiding coalition may be attempting to change or disrupt the current patterns of decision making thus altering the prerogatives of the Primary Leadership Team.

C. Organization Stability. Two conditions are paramount in this category: the "ownership" of the organization (potential change of ownership), and potential shifts in key leadership. Either condition renders the organization less stable than it might otherwise be.

D. In-use and Previously Used Change Technologies. It is of vital concern that the organization may have (or may currently be using) used incompatible change technologies. It may also add to the difficulty if the organization has used too many change technologies (fad of the month orientation) over too short a period of time. Organizations build up an immunity to change if the leadership team tries to incorporate disparate change technology one-after-the-other. Those who are deep into the organization structure often have not had the opportunity to grasp one technology before it is abandoned in favor of another. Managers and supervisors will often develop a "wait and see" attitude about something new. This natural hesitation is highly discouraging for those trying to bring about needed change. On the other hand, shifting between incompatible change technologies creates frustration and lack of acceptable progress. Change technologies that are "process improvement" based often lack the systemic vitality needed to effectively change an organizations cultural capacity. These two technologies are incompatible although they can work in harmony when applied to separate issues, they rarely work well in tandem.

E. Receptivity to "Cultural Facilitation" as a Prime Change Methodology. In organizations governed primarily by the use of specific centrally-vested authority, it may be difficult for people to shift toward "Cultural Facilitation" as the primary change methodology. Developing cultural capacity cannot be accomplished by dictum. Cultural capacity depends upon the discretionary elements of complex organization relationships above all else.

F. Receptivity to Deep Employee Involvement. Although an organizations leadership and management play a central role in letting cultural capacity develop they cannot make it develop. At best they can create the environment within which capacity improves. The front-line soldiers that can make it happen are those employees without legitimate authority – deep in the structure and eventually at all levels simultaneously. In many organizations where the central legitimate authority is more important or more traditional, it may be difficult to accept this methodology.

G. Levels of Urgency, Resource Availability, and Resolve. Three elements combine in this single condition to create "emphasis:" urgency, resource availability, and resolve.

1. A sense of urgency is critical to achieving and sustaining an acceptable pace. If the organization is under little or no pressure to improve capacity, gains will be lost when demands shift emphasis to other areas even temporarily.

2. Closely related is the degree to which necessary resources will be made available for the change effort. Developing capacity takes time, effort, and funding. If these necessary resources are too low on the priority list or suffer disproportionately from cutbacks, the results can be catastrophic.

3. Those engaged in the cultural capacity development efforts must share a clear and consistent resolve to achieve necessary gains or the anticipated results cannot be achieved. The thread of this resolve must run both the depth and breadth of legitimate and parallel organization structure to be effective.

H. Domain Considerations. QWLC specializes in a 24-7 community infrastructure domain – probably the most difficult domain within which to develop cultural capacity improvements because of the intense always-on-the-edge focus on resource concerns. If the client organization fits this domain profile advantages can accrue.

I. Ability and Routineness of Communicating with Workforce. The QWLC cultural capacity change methodology requires that each month a summary of improvement activities be reported to the workforce. This requirement demands that a mechanism be in place. Although newsletter or e-mail options may suffice, an in-person mechanism such as an all personnel meeting is best so that an interaction may occur. In-person communication is also better because it allows judgements to be made regarding difficult qualities such as sincerity and interest levels.

J. Access/Proximity. An ability for QWLC consultants to visit the organization on a routine basis is also important. Sustainment often requires quarterly involvement. If conditions do not allow this level of frequency because of access or proximity, the quality or effectiveness of remediation efforts may suffer.

A. Determination as to Metric Template. The selection of a periodic metric regimen is a safeguard that the client or client organization will be able to protect remediation resources from engaging in a faulty strategy that will not yield desired or acceptable results and not being able to detect this fault until it is too late. Metrics are an insurance policy that a selected strategy is doing what it is expected to do - increase capacity to the organization greater than what it will cost to gain that capacity. The Metric process is normally engaged following a routine diagnostic from which priorities are established and strategies formulated. The Metric allows the client to know that the strategy is correct and that desired results are on track. The selection of a Metric Template is an important decision.

1. Review-of-Options Meeting. Three Metric options are available:

2. Decision. The final authority for this decision is normally the client unless it is delegated to another individual or a team. Once that decision has been clearly articulated, progress can be readily made.

B. Identification of Respondent Group. Metrics are normally completed by "mystery employees." Typically, if members of the Metric group are known the reliability of the resulting data is questionable even though it may be statistically valid. Any or all of three options can be used to identify those who are asked to complete Metric instruments:

1. Initial Diagnostic Package Declaration. When the initial survey is completed, the respondents can be asked to identify if they would be willing to serve on a Metric Team. This does not mean they will serve, but will be used to contact sufficient people to obtain a reliable respondent group. Normally, this is a difficult option to pursue on the first (baseline) data collection effort as the explanation may be confusing. See the Diagnostic Series Map, Step 2.

2. Data Fair Declaration. Following an open explanation at a Data Fair, potential respondents can be recruited at this time. See Diagnostic Series Map, Step 6.

3. Independent and Blind Invitation with Response to QWLC. The client can correspond with members of the organization asking them to participate and make their willingness known directly to QWLC. This is a preferred method. Members of the Data Collection Team and well as others may also be used to recruit members on an ongoing basis.

C. Preparation of Metric Instruments. The use of Metrics to validate or adjust change strategies is relatively new. Members of the Metric Team will likely never meet each other. Instructions must therefore be clear and complete. The team embers must be responsive with having a "ax" to grind with the organization leadership. It is an important task, not to be taken lightly. Therefore, the creation of the Metric Package will be important.

1. Engage Template(s). Determine which of the Template options will be used. It is possible to use all of them, although it is not recommended with the same respondent group.

2. Template A - Select Items. CapacityWare™ will require one item in each UHS Category, but two or three are recommended. It is important that low-scoring items be chosen carefully and that the organization plans to make changes in those items chosen, otherwise results will be unreliable.

3. Template B - Prepare Element Improvement Reports. Each of the ten UHS elements will require a short description of improvements made in that category. These paragraphs will be used to report to respondents improvements that they will then be expected to react to on the Metric. Were improvements observed? Were they the right things to be working on, given other possible priorities?

4. Cover Letter and Instructions. The cover letter and instruction will come from QWLC following a baton pass communication from the client organization. The instructions must be clear and ask that people call in the event they have questions.

5. Periodic Feedback. Each Metric distribution may also include the response profile from the previous Metric for the specific respondent so they can track their own results. This will insure that scores increase, as perceptions become more positive.

The ten fundamental elements of the QWLC approach are:

A. Team-based Collaborative Efforts. The fundamental unit of change in all organizations is at the team level. Team size is less important than the context for problem identification, problem solving, and solution implementation. Selected people chartered to tackle important issues, and then unleashed to implement their solutions, provide a powerful structure. Truly collaborative efforts incorporate the best thinking of everyone involved. Teams can be comprised of members from a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal "slice" of the organization and may even extend beyond traditional boundaries. When properly prepared to do so, teams will accomplish astounding results.

1a. How many teams are routinely facilitated?

1b. How many team members, as a ratio, believe their views are accommodated (not necessarily accepted) in the team dialog process?

1a. Team recommendations are normally implemented.

1b. Teams have wide latitude to redefine problems.

1c. Teams are comprised of people who volunteer.

1d. Teams are adequately resourced to achieve their purpose.

1e. Teams are NOT dominated by those in authority.

1f. Team initiatives are well orchestrated by a central authority.

B. Data-Driven Decision-making. Decisions made based on current and relevant data yield improved results. Intuitive decision-making isn’t wrong, but should not prevail altogether. Our experience has been that decisions made at higher levels in an organization are required to be more data-driven because they often must bear the intensive scrutiny of external stakeholders. Bringing more data-driven decisions to all levels of an organization improves overall organization performance. People at every level need the tools to make this fundamental a reality.

2a. How many team activities were pursued directly as a result of data points?

2b. How many organization development team decisions were communicated to the organization’s general population that included the source data that initiated the team effort?

2a. Decisions are made based on reliable data.

2b. As relevant data becomes available it is easily "injected" into the decision-making process.

2c. Data that can aid in decision-making is easily obtained.

2d. Data used in decision-making is collected from those people the decisions will impact.

2e. Decision-makers have the best information available when making important decisions.

2f. Decisions are made following an open collaborative process.

C. Maximum Involvement. Every stakeholder in a system must have some part to play in any change effort if it is to be successful. Many would suggest this is an impossible target - there will always be some people who will do nothing. Our system allows for minimal involvement as an acceptable possibility for those who do not want to participate directly in group activities. We provide clients with ways to offer incentives for involvement early on, and a tool to track metrics for participation. We offer Internet access to reports about events, so those who do not want to attend may find out what happened. We also publish a periodic FIND OUT! Newsletter, tailored specifically to the client workforce, about their change initiative.

3a. What percentage of organization members have participated on organization development problem solving teams in the pervious year?

3b. What percentage of organization members respond to anonymous requests that would invite participation?

3a. Everyone is aware of the current status of important projects impacting them.

3b. Ad hoc projects regularly involve "fresh" volunteers.

3c. Sooner or later everyone serves on an important project team.

3d. People understand, first hand, the frustrations of initiating important change initiatives.

3e. Important change initiatives involve everyone in some way.

3f. "Volunteer" requirements are spread across everyone in the organization.

D. Learning-focused Activity. ODI uses a tool that helps people learn from every event, whether it is a one-hour meeting or a five-day workshop. Our goal is to embed a short but formal "clinic" routine, which will become a part of everyone’s learning regimen. Individual skills are improved as a result of this mechanism, and organizational performance and productivity are improved.

4a. Ratio of team activities that undergo rigorous clinic?

4b. How many teams of those actively engaged in problem solving publish "lessons learned" so that other team will benefit from their learnings?

4a. All activities have a built-in component that fosters learning.

4b. People often question each other’s decisions as a way to learn.

4c. "Routines" are often improved as a result of learnings.

4d. Leaders provide a model for honest and open feedback.

4e. People are receptive to open dialogs that help generate improvements.

4f. Time is regularly set aside for the express purpose of learning ways to improve.

E. Parallel Organization Development. Aside from the formal organization structure, any realistic change initiative will develop a parallel organization through a "loose-tight" structure of teams, whose members come from a diagonal "slice" of the organization. People learn in this parallel structure, create the worklife culture they desire, and carry that experience back to their formal structures. This seeds the client system so that the organization changes incrementally as a result.

5a. How may parallel organization teams are currently active?

5b. What is the meeting rate and duration of each parallel organization team?

5c. What is the ratio of recommendations accepted and implemented by management for each team?

5a. Teams have a formal structure that is known by everyone in the organization.

5b. Some teams have nearly complete authority to implement their recommendations.

5c. The rules adopted by teams creep into routine work in the formal structure.

5d. Leading the organization through cross-functional teams is normal.

5e. Most teams have members that cross organizational boundaries.

5f. Real team work is the way work is done in this organization.

F. Leadership with Followership Development. Traditional leadership training does not involve those who are expected to follow. Leaders are often in a learning cocoon with other leaders, where followership is talked about in abstract terms. QWLC believes that leaders can best be developed when followership is prepared along the same track. Learning can then take place within the realistic context of the workplace, not the traditional abstract cocoon. Some events will be conducted with leadership and followership separately, while other events will include both groups together.

6a. What is the monthly ratio of events/meetings that are conducted with attendance of management/supervisors versus general attendance?

6b. What is the ratio of participation (as measured by actual person/dialog) of non-supervised versus supervisors?

6a. Having leaders and followers learn together is productive.

6b. Followers that learn leadership skills are better prepared for advancement.

6c. Leaders gain special insight from followers that help them learn in ways they might not otherwise learn.

6d. By learning together, both leaders and followers benefit.

6e. Followers are able to inject realism into leadership training.

6f. Leading is more effective when followers feelings are understood.

G. On-site and Off-site Event Design. The worklife culture change effort is programmed to take place both at the normal work site and at off-site locations. Some client or community facilities can be used for this purpose. There will be many opportunities for participants to attend scheduled workshops and seminars.

7a. How many organization development people/events are conducted each month in an "outside" facility?

7b. What is the ratio of inside versus outside organization development events each calendar quarter?

7a. The facility we use for organization development activity meets our needs.

7b. We use a variety of effective locations for our organization development activities.

7c. We use a combination of on-site and off-site locations to maximize our learning.

7d. Off-site locations are used effectively to achieve organizational changes.

7e. We use a variety of on-site conference or meeting rooms to meet our organization development needs.

7f. Our organization-change design incorporates on-site and off-site locations.

H. Literature Research. ODI has an extensive organization development library and is a member of a wide range of professional organizations, each having their own publications. As new materials are received they are systematically reviewed and used as a potential resource for our own Technology – we strive to keep it fresh and vibrant at all times. We also suggest reading selections for members of our client organizations as specific materials become relevant to their progress. Continually reviewing the latest and best materials allows us to offer a Compatibility Guarantee that assures our organization development Technology integrates with whatever current venue is popular in the client organization.

8a. How many reference materials are introduced into the organization each month dealing with cultural capacity issues?

8b. How many books and other publications are read by managers, supervisors, or general population employees each month from sources outside your industry that deal with universal organizational capacity issues?

8a. I have documentation that lets me know we are on the right track.

8b. When confused about our course, I have literature available that helps me clarify the rationale for our actions.

8c. I am reassured by popular literature that our current course of action is right for us.

8d. I am confident that we’re on the right track because of the literature we receive.

8e. We are involved with preparing literature that will help others learn from our experience.

8f. Our experience is well documented so that learning is enhanced.

I. Systemic Interventions. ODI takes a whole-organization view of planning

changes. We know that solving one problem can create others, so we take great pains to determine the implications of changes in advance in order to minimize the potential disruption to on-going work and existing plans. We believe that collaboratively designed methods will constitute a new way to accomplish current and future work without unnecessarily adding additional work to the formula.

9a. What percentage of the membership of organization development teams are comprised of individuals from each organizational element?

9b. What percentage of the membership of customer service teams are knowledgeable of the services offered by the entire organization?

9a. We pay attention to issues that have a broad impact.

9b. We think through the implications of a change before we implement it.

9c. We try to understand the "root" origin of an issue as part of our problem solving efforts.

9d. We evaluate change efforts as they are implemented.

9e. Changes are well planned and implemented.

9f. If something is not going as planned, we determine how to correct it.

J. Comprehensive Validation. Experience has taught us that an organization must be prepared to validate changes or people will not believe they are occurring. This often means that new conditions are "captured" through stories or through documentation (or both) that can be used to amplify positive changes early. This important validation effort accelerates changes, and contributes to more accurate return-on-investment calculations.

10a. How many all-personnel pieces of literature have been published that contain information related directly to cultural capacity improvement issues?

10b. What is the ratio of words used for cultural capacity improvement issues relative to routine communications?

10c. By count, how many agenda items at routine meetings are devoted to cultural capacity improvement issues?

10d. What is the ratio of "air time" consumed by cultural capacity improvement issues at routine staff meetings?

10a. Positive shifts in the way we do business are "traced" to a root initiative.

10b. "Best practices" are widely broadcast to assure everyone understands what works well.

10c. Stories are retold frequently throughout our organization that attests to achievements.

10d. Our change-management success stories are well known by most people.

10e. People know what causes positive changes in our system.

10f. We repeat what works well as a way to make continuous improvement.