what did they just say? a performance improvement journey through nomenclature

13

Performance Improvement, vol. 51, no. 8, September 2012©2012 International Society for Performance Improvement

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21293

WHAT DID THEY JUST SAY? A PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT JOURNEY THROUGH NOMENCLATURE

Alicia R. Stephens

A domestic credit union engages in a systematic performance improvement plan to better

leverage a technical application within its organization. By engaging stakeholders early in the

process, standardizing the organization’s nomenclature, and building strategic partnerships, the

credit union was able to achieve both quantitative and qualitative benchmarks of success.

BACKGROUNDHARRIS COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION (a pseud-onym) is a small, domestic financial institution located in southeast Michigan. The credit union, a member-owned and member-managed cooperative financial institution, is known for its outstanding customer service, dedi-cated community involvement, and streamlined port-folio of products and services. However, over the past 5 years, the company’s investment in systems and technical infrastructure failed to keep pace with its competitors’ improvements. In response, the credit union created a strategic plan to modernize its operations.

The strategic plan included a series of new system installations, as well as a commitment from senior man-agement to have each system reevaluated approximately 3 months and 12 months after implementation. The reeval-uation plan aimed to (1) measure the system’s usability, (2) capture the value added to the organization from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, and (3) identify possible system and training enhancements. The list of enhancements was to be prioritized and implemented on a predetermined cycle.

SITUATIONIn the first quarter of 2010, the company installed a new sales system, StraightLine (pseudonym), as part of its infra-

structure improvement strategy. The goal of this system was to facilitate communication among the customer-facing sales staff, the operations associates, and the technical sup-port teams after a product or service was sold.

Shortly after StraightLine’s implementation, the credit union began to focus heavily on upgrading its call center equipment as a top priority. When cost overruns began to plague the project, senior management’s commitment to dedicating resources for StraightLine’s system evaluation plan waned. In the second quarter of 2010, the evaluation was officially canceled for the 3-month and 12-month post-implementation cycles, stating that the organization would engage in this exercise when resources were available.

For the next 18 months, system users experienced growing frustration with StraightLine. In response, a research team composed of two members of each sys-tem user group, a human resource representative, and a member of the senior management team was created to investigate the root cause of the discontent.

CRITICAL BUSINESS ISSUEWhat WasThe research team began by reviewing the original project documentation and interviewing system users to gain a better context of how the organization had been leverag-ing this tool. They uncovered the following:

CASE S TUDY Co l umn Ed i t o r : Gay B r u hn

PFI21293.indd 13PFI21293.indd 13 9/13/12 9:52:12 AM9/13/12 9:52:12 AM

14 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • SEPTEMBER 2012

When the system specifications for StraightLine were • written, the exercise was very fragmented in engaging the three user groups.

Sales staff primarily focused on naming the screens �and fields within the system.

Operational associates were responsible for deter- �mining what type of information should be input into StraightLine’s free-form text boxes.

The technical staff was charged with vetting out the �specification for the reports that would be gener-ated out of the system.

The user group specific training that was developed for • the system launch failed to improve communication within the credit union.

The training materials reflected the disjointment in �nomenclature among the three user groups.

These learning events did not explain the upstream �or downstream effects of each group’s role in the process.

The system did not have a designated associate or • department that was ultimately responsible for the sustainability of the system.

After the system evaluation plan was suspended, a �replacement plan was never drafted.

The organization did not have a method to collect �critical feedback; there was also no process to trans-late feedback into actionable items.

The majority of employees in all three user groups • believed that the most prudent plan of action would be to discontinue the system and select a new commu-nication platform for the organization.

The sales staff completed their work based on their understanding of the field labels, but they rarely provided the operations staff what they needed to complete their work correctly the first time. Additional calls and emails were often needed to clearly communicate the requests.

Due to the nomenclature confusion, the system data that flowed to the reports were often incomplete or incor-rect. In addition, the layout of the reports was difficult to understand. Often sales and operations management had to consult the technical team to have the report results “translated” for business use.

What Should Have BeenAfter the research team reported its high-level assessment to senior management, Harris Community Credit Union

committed to supporting the StraightLine system and its employees in a more robust manner. It was agreed that this system had fallen significantly short of its targeted goal: to streamline the sales, operations, and reporting process by improving communication and decreasing the time, and thus costs, associated with these activities. Senior manage-ment concluded that a formal team should be assembled to drive the organization toward these goals.

REFINE THE BUSINESS FOCUSFocus on Outcomes or Results A formal project team was established and included members of the research team. The group worked col-laboratively to develop a baseline of key metrics for the targeted end state. This was accomplished by conduct-ing time studies of the major activities completed in the system and calculating the average cost to the organiza-tion to facilitate them. The time studies were carefully designed to capture the true duration of these events, including time spent clarifying requests and fixing errors due to miscommunications.

Then, leveraging the company’s financial projections, the team was able to calculate specific financial bench-marks. By the end of the second quarter of 2011, the organization aimed to:

Decrease the incident of incomplete or incorrect pro-• cessing requests by 50%

Decrease the processing time of sales requests by 30%•

Achieve a 99% accuracy threshold for the system gen-• erated reports

With aggressive goals in place, the project team wanted to ensure that the performance interventions selected would support the organization in reaching these targets. The initial launch of the system yielded lackluster results. It would be important to understand what the deficien-cies were in the original project plan to avoid repeating these missteps.

The project team wanted to ensure that the performance interventions selected would support the organization in reaching these targets.


Performance Improvement • Volume 51 • Number 8 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 15

Focus on Systems ViewInputs. The project team began the exercise by evalu-ating the information they had gathered regarding the StraightLine system. The original project charters and strategic planning documents provided insight into the benchmarks that Harris Community Credit Union had targeted as part of the first implementation. The recently executed time studies provided critical detail regarding the current financial impact of the system. Moreover, the informal interviews the research team conducted were used to formalize a standard interview template. The project team believed that these original interviews provided important information, but wanted to expand this effort to include a larger subsection of the organization.

Process. After analyzing the data, the project team docu-mented reoccurring themes in nomenclature misalign-ment, tracked where these disconnects occurred in the process, and pinpointed how often these disconnects occurred. Next, the team suggested replacement terms and phrases that were considered universal across the three user groups. If adopted, these suggestions could be used to address the organization’s nomenclature chal-lenges. Once the replacement term exercise was complete, each identified misalignment theme was ranked in terms of its negative impact on the organization. This ranking system categorized each theme as low, medium, high, and critical in terms of severity.

Outputs. Next, a presentation to a group of key stake-holders (including members of the senior manage-ment team and system users) summarized the following points:

By addressing the 17 critical and high-impact nomen-• clature misalignments, the organization would solve approximately 70% of the issues reported.

By additionally addressing the medium misalign-• ments, the organization would remedy an additional 15% of the issues reported.

Approximately 80% of issues reported were linked to • misunderstanding regarding:

Eight system field names �

Four system dropdown menus �

Seven procedures (three sales procedures, two oper- �ations procedures, two technical procedures)

Using this information, the company believed that it could create a targeted strategy to improve the StraightLine system.

Constraints. Based on the data that the research team collected, there were two major constraints to achieving the project goals: unplanned capital expenditures and employee lack of confidence in the system and in senior management’s ability to support it. The recommended procedure updates could be accomplished using resources within the credit union. However, changes to system field names and drop-down menus would require intervention by an external vendor. As for lack of confidence in the system, both the management and project team agreed that there had been serious deficiencies regarding the company’s support of this system. It would be critical to address these issues going forward to mitigate risk to the project’s success.

Focus on ValueThe project team first focused on addressing the unplanned capital expenditures this project would require. Over the past few years, Harris Community Credit Union had aggressively implemented cost-saving measures within the organization. The budget for infrastructure improve-ments was lean, and all funds for the current fiscal year had already been allocated to other initiatives.

By focusing on the value of this initiative, the project team set out to contrast the cost of remaining in their current state against the projected financial savings of implementing the proposed changes. Using the data gath-ered during the time studies, the team determined that it would take approximately 15 months for the company to realize a financial benefit from engaging the system ven-dor. Based on this assessment, senior management agreed to provide the necessary financial support.

It would also be critical to promote the financial value of the changes and new managerial support for the initia-tive to all affected employees.

Focus on Establishing PartnershipsNext, the project team focused on establishing and solidifying key partnerships throughout the organiza-tion. Its strategy was to reflect the core values of Harris Community Credit Union in the execution of its new launch. Essentially this initiative needed to embody the principles of outstanding customer service with a strong internal community support platform. Senior manage-ment agreed that this messaging should begin at the top of the organization.

Senior management hosted a series of open forum meetings to update the organization on the progress made toward improving the StraightLine system. They outlined the estimated financial savings and advertised how the technical changes would improve the usability of the system. The audience expressed a significant



amount of concern about how all of these changes would be communicated. Based on this feedback, the project team determined that while these open forum meetings were an important step toward rebuilding key partnerships, more work needed to be completed to select the appropriate performance interventions for this initiative.

ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR SUCCESSBe Systematic in the Assessment of the Need, Opportunity, or ChallengeThe project team sought to methodically analyze their next steps in the process. The group had (1) successfully researched the current state of the StraightLine system, (2) captured the system users’ feelings regarding its usability, and (3) garnered financial support for the proposed techni-cal changes. It was now time for the project team to deter-mine what strategies would be leveraged to communicate and integrate these changes throughout the organization.

Be Systematic in the Analysis of Work, Worker, Workplace, and Worldview to Identify the Causes or Factors That Limit PerformanceSenior management challenged the project team to assess the needs of various levels of the organization. The fol-lowing is a summary of this exercise:

Worker level:• Each worker would need a clear under-standing of roles and responsibilities in the StraightLine system, as well as a more holistic view on how individ-ual actions affect the entire process.

Work level:• All supporting documentation and learn-ing events should reinforce the new standardized nomenclature. This would enable the company to increase performance while offering the support sys-tem to encourage positive behaviors.

Workplace level: • The credit union’s management should have a mechanism to reward employees who act as change enthusiasts for the initiative. This tool could be used to celebrate and advertise associates who exhibit positive behaviors. Adjusting the nomenclature of an organization is to adjust its various subcultures. A posi-tive, nonpunitive tool would help to aid this transition.

Worldview level:• The organization should aim to create a work environment that respects the communication diversity within its company but also recognizes the value in creating a baseline for communication. When these values are embraced, they have the ability to promote positive impact within as well as outside the company.

Be Systematic in the Design of the SolutionThe project team designed a series of performance inter-ventions to achieve its targeted end state. The first was the establishment of a permanent StraightLine roundtable. This group consisted of members of all three user groups and several members of the research project team. At this credit union, the practice was to dissolve project teams immediately following implementation; this permanent team would be pivotal to providing support to system users over time.

To ensure that this team received the organizational support needed to carry out its duties, a senior manage-ment member was appointed to lead it. The team agreed to meet frequently to encourage collaboration and keep their efforts focused.

With the support of the project team, the StraightLine roundtable was charged with the following duties:

Revising the affected procedures•

Communicating the needed system changes to the • vendor

Designing the training courses and supporting materi-• als for implementation

Acting as the single point of contact for feedback • regarding the StraightLine system

Next, subcommittees were formed and tasked with spe-cific duties. The procedure subcommittee designed a new standardized procedure template for the organization. The layout included a section in the margin for key definitions and helpful time-saving hints. The subcommittee respon-sible for system updates engaged a vendor and provided the context of why the organization was requesting these changes along with the specifications. The team realized that by communicating the organization’s nomenclature challenges to its key partners, those resources would be able to better support them going forward.

Adjusting the nomenclature of an organization is to adjust its various subcultures. A positive, nonpunitive tool would help aid this transition.


Performance Improvement • Volume 51 • Number 8 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 17

As for the new training course, its subcommittee con-cluded that an instructor-led event would be most effective. The credit union had the technology to cre-ate distance solutions, but it was agreed that a personal method should be leveraged due to the mixed feelings regarding the StraightLine system and the culture of the organization.

These 3-hour training events would include par-ticipants from all three user groups (sales, operations, and technical associates) and advertise a holistic view of what StraightLine should accomplish. The course would include exercises to reinforce the new procedures and focus on the most common nomenclature pitfalls. The sessions would also provide information regard-ing how the system was being used today, the targeted future state, and the potential projects the organization would be able to pursue when new targets were reached. Concise performance support tools (job aids) would be provided to summarize key points and highlight the newly established StraightLine roundtable team to encourage the submission of procedure and system updates. The roundtable also created a program to rec-ognize associates who suggested innovative ideas on the internal company website.

Be Systematic in the Development of the SolutionOnce the design was in place and approved, the project team and the StraightLine roundtable approached the development process systematically. A detailed project plan was created to organize tasks into manageable and measurable interim milestones for the procedure updates, system upgrades, and training course materials. Check points and responsible parties for sign-offs of deliverables were also established. Each subcommittee summarized key best practices as well as difficulties and roadblocks encountered during their development cycle.

Progress reports were submitted to senior management twice a month. The volume of this reporting structure was very aggressive for the organization. Traditionally the vast majority of their projects were subject to monthly reporting. However, this new structure allowed for timely feedback and approval for critical items. Senior manage-ment hoped that it would signal to the organization that this project was a priority.

Be Systematic in the Implementation of the SolutionDue to the high-profile nature and high financial impact of the initiative, the project team believed that it would be critical to pilot the changes. The system updates to the targeted fields and drop-down menus were applied by

the vendor into Harris Community Credit Union’s test environment for the StraightLine system. A small number of system users representing sales, operational, and the technical support staffs were selected for the pilot. This group was composed of associates who had been with the organization during the initial launch, as well as those with less tenure. This was to ensure that the program not only appealed to those who had a context for how the organization operated before the original StraightLine implementation but also for future employees as well.

The 4-week pilot was structured to review the new pro-cedures, system updates (including reports), and training program. The pilot participants provided a list of sugges-tions to the project team for prioritization. Those that were most critical were immediately implemented. The remaining items were carefully documented for future consideration during the next system upgrade and mate-rial revision cycle. With a new streamlined performance solution, the program was launched throughout the com-pany. This also marked the launch of the StraightLine roundtable’s feedback email line for suggestions and the new employee recognition program for those who served as model associates in terms of their engagement in the feedback tool.

Be Systematic in the Evaluation of the Process and the ResultsOnce the program was formally launched, senior manage-ment and the project team revisited the evaluation crite-ria. Two main categories of metrics needed to be tracked: (1) the number of issues or errors reported, including the root cause of those incidences, and (2) progress toward achieving the projected financial benchmarks. General feedback regarding the StraightLine system and its sup-porting processing and procedures would need to be captured as well.

With the StraightLine roundtable in place, the organi-zation now had a mechanism to track these metrics over time. This team would be responsible for managing and communicating key information regarding these metrics to the senior management team and the system vendor.

After implementation, this roundtable would provide status updates to the senior management team at the 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month marks. At that time, the frequency of these updates would be reassessed. These updates would be published on the company’s internal intranet site so that system users could review the status of their suggestions and to underscore the organization’s continued support of the initiative.

Over time, Harris Community Credit Union was able to achieve its strategic goals using a systematic methodology.



LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CASEThe lessons learned from this case are as follows:

Understanding and standardizing the nomenclature • within an organization serves to reduce operational inefficiencies that are caused by unclear communica-tions flows.

Engaging stakeholders early in the process and main-• taining open lines of communication are pivotal to clarifying strategic goals, sharpening business focus, and mitigating barriers to success.

Building strategic partnerships across an organization • can be critical to achieving sustainable change.

Integrating and leveraging performance improvement • principles within an organization increases the prob-ability of creating and achieving clear business objec-tives.

Before engaging in remediation activities, it is impor-• tant to investigate the root cause of human perfor-mance deficiencies.

ALICIA R. STEPHENS is a client relationship manager for a domestic commercial bank. She has an inter-est in corporate education programs that support process and systems training. She is also a contributor to the third edition of Fundamentals of Performance Improvement (2012). She is the recipient of many honors and awards, including the 2010–2011 Outstanding Master’s Student Award from Wayne State University. She may be reached at [email protected]


what did they just say? a performance improvement journey through nomenclature

Documents