A presentation at the International Society for Performance Improvement on team performance with a model and a couple of case studies.

1. Team Performance
Improvement: Special
Challenges and
Opportunities
Aaron U. Bolin, Ph.D., CPT
Patricia F. Butler, M.A.,
& Mark Steele, M.A.
U.S. Navy Human Performance Center
44th Annual Convention of the International Society
for Performance Improvement
Dallas, Texas
April 2006

2. Agenda
• Background Brief
- Definitions
- Special Challenges and Opportunities
- Hybrid model adapted for the analysis of teams
• Case Study Applications
- Seabees
- Navy Music
• Evaluations

3. Defining a Team
• A distinguishable set of two or more people who
interact dynamically, interdependently, and
adaptively toward a common and valued goal-
objective-mission, who have each been assigned
specific roles or functions to perform
• Salas, Dickinson, Converse & Tannenbaum (1992)

4. Team as an Emergent System
• Configural: every piece matters
- CAT <> CAP
• Emergent value > process loss by design
- C + A + T = CAT
• Focus on the big rocks
- The number of variables that impact team
performance is virtually infinite. However, only a
dozen or so factors make an appreciable difference.

5. The Promise of Teams
• Teams
- drive big performance gains
- tackle larger and more complex tasks
- specialization and divide labor
- self-manage tasks
- are more satisfying for the employees

6. Team Performance Paradox
• Teams with
- average players often perform better than teams
composed of star players
- scarce resources often perform better than teams
with abundant resources
- higher incentives often have lower performance
- the same number of people often perform worse
than individuals
- counterproductive sub-cultures create division and
dissatisfaction

7. Special Challenges and Opportunities
• Challenges • Opportunities
- Levels of Measurement - Cascading Performance
- Culture and Norms - Culture and Norms
- Process Loss - Process Gain
- Team Life Cycle - Mental Model
Development

8. Levels of Measurement
• Individual, Team, Organization
- Different variables, different relationships
• Mapping aggregate business goals to
individual performance is what HPI is all about
- Slippage across levels is common
• Interventions must target appropriate level
- Higher levels of analysis have farther reaching
solutions
- Higher level of analysis have higher potential for
payback

9. Team Metrics Systems Should Be
- Team/Unit Focused – org. group is the unit of analysis
- Hierarchical – relevant to all levels of the organization
- Expandable – drill down to specific areas of concern
- Standardized – common set of measures across units
- Interrelated – both leading and lagging indicators
- Weighted – some measures are more important
- Meaningful – must predict important outcomes
- Vision Directed – contain a ‘should be’ element
- Objective – hard measures rather than ‘gut feel’

10. Culture and Norms
• All performance takes place in a social setting
- When the social situation is structured so that goals
are interdependent, teams often emerge
• Counterproductive norms are common
- Safety climate
- Shunning rate-busters
- Discrimination
• Sub-cultures may develop within teams

11. Potential Process Loss
Play #1: The Pick and Roll
Call Dribble no
Covered? Shoot
GUARD
Play Around Pick
yes
Pass
Set Move to Guard yes Catch no
Covered? Shoot
Pick Open Spot Covered? Pass
no yes
Position
for Rebound Pass

12. Individual Performance Requirements
• Guard • Forward
- Call plays - Set picks
- Dribble - Move to open positions
- Make decisions - Make decisions
- Pass - Position for rebound
- Shoot - Catch
- Pass
- Shoot

13. Team Performance Requirements

14. TEAM COMPETENCIES
Team Collective
cohesion orientation
Knowledge of Collective
Inter-positional Knowledge
teammates’ task efficacy knowledge about signs
expectations
of stress
Belief in the Knowledge
Knowledge of importance of about the
teammates’ teamwork components of
performance
teamwork
characteristics
Team-Specific Team-Generic

15. Team Lifecycle Performance Curve
200
180
160
140
Performance
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time

16. Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering
Information Instrumentation Motivation
Environmental Data Instruments Incentives
Supports
Individual Knowledge Capacity Motives
Repertory of
Behavior

17. Human Performance Focus
Organization
BUT ALSO
NOT JUST
Processes Policy
Equipment Information
Team
Unit
Individual
Individual
Primary Focus on Organizational / Enterprise Outcomes

18. Driskell et al. Team Performance Model
POTENTIAL
PROCESS OUTCOME
(INPUT FACTORS)
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
FACTORS
Group member:
Skills
Status
Personality
PROCESS
GROUP LEVEL GAIN
FACTORS
Group structure GROUP
GROUP INTERACTION
Group Norms PERFORM ANCE
PROCESS
Group Size
PROCESS
ENVIRONM ENTAL LOSS
LEVEL FACTORS
Task characteristics
Rew ard structure
Level of
environmental stress

19. Hybrid Team Performance Model
Horizontal
Analysis Level Input Process Output
Alignment
· Within Role
· Knowledge
Behavior
· Task
Individual · Capacity
· Extra-Role Accomplishments
Behavior
· Motives
· Team Structure & Size
· Communication
· Norms / Culture · Team
Team or Group
· Coordination Accomplishments
· Shared goals
· Allocation of Effort
· Information & Materials · Goals & Strategy
· Selection & Placement
· Performance
Environmental Measurement
· Instruments & Tools · Business Results
Supports
· Incentives / Consequences
· Feedback
· Policy & Procedures
Vertical
Alignment

20. Case Study

21. What Seabees Provide
• Forward Presence • Construction Support • Crisis Response:
– Exercise Related – SRM Backlog Reduction Force Enablers
Construction (ERC) – AT/FP upgrade – Contingency
– Joint Forward Operating – Critical infrastructure Engineering
Locations (JFOL) improvements – OPLAN/CONPLAN
– Range improvements support including
– Humanitarian Aid Consequence
projects Management (CM)
Exercise Disaster
Related Relief
Construction Limited
Humanitarian Regional
Action Contingencies
Forward-Deployed Major Theater
Engineers War
Requirements span the spectrum from Construction Skills to Combat Skills

22. Case Study: Seabee Teams
• Presenting problem: Lack of confidence in
current assessments of operational readiness
- Build a versatile construction team
Make it able to build and repair most anything
Make it ready to land anywhere within 72 hours
Make it able to defend itself in a hostile environment
- Predict its performance in the field with
accuracy
Multiple threat levels
Multiple construction tasks
Multiple environmental conditions

23. Alignment to Fleet Readiness
Fleet Readiness
Combatant CDR
Missions & Tasks PROCESS MAPPING
JTF CDR IN WORK
Missions & Tasks
JMETL Group CFFC
Missions & Tasks
JTF Warfare CDR
NMETL Missions & Tasks
Group
NMETL Unit
Missions & Tasks
Warfare CDR
NMETL
Unit
NMETL
TRAINING

24. Measuring Team/Unit Readiness
NMETLS /
Mission
Budget Planning
Equipment Manning Training
Requirements Requirements Requirements
Actual Actual
Actual
Equipment Training
Manning

25. Phase I: Identify “As Is” Model
• As Is analysis will provide:
- Comprehensive picture of current readiness model
 Readiness requirements - for each mission area, for each level
of measurement
• Are stated requirements comprehensive / adequate?
 Readiness criteria - standards to be met for each requirement
• Are criteria clearly stated for each requirement?
• Are criteria adequate to meet Seabee missions?
 Readiness assessments - tied to each requirement
• Is performance measured & assessed for each
requirement and at each organizational level?
• Are assessments valid and reliable?
 Map where current gaps and missing links exist

26. Case Study: Seabee Teams
• In the course of reviewing ‘AS IS’ measures, a number
of issues started to emerge
- Padded estimates
- Bad estimating standards
- Missing training / training with no requirements
- Lack of objective measures
- Some reports are not credible
- Can do culture unwillingness to report deficiencies
- Some equipment is seriously outdated
- Lack of measurement integration
- Measurement policies do not always match reality
- Team skills not linked to individuals (for example, 1
individual can have multiple skills. This person may not
be able to work on all projects, leaving skill gap)

27. Surface-Level Sort of Barriers
Barriers The Goal
Raw
Manpower
Materials
Understaffed Mission in flux
planning Incomplete
function Slow data entry requirements
by unit clerks No field data
Individuals do not Poor articulation of
monitor training jackets equip & manning
M+1 is Inadequate
not reality funding Increase
predictive
accuracy
PISTOL skill ‘Can Do’ culture
to 100%
database is not masks problems
complete
No tool to Skill shelf life policy
capture OJT not comprehensive
Incomplete analytic No skill
model of readiness weighting
Training providers Discretionary
not fully aligned unit-level training
Machines Methods &
& Tools Policy

28. Hybrid Team Performance Model Horizontal
Analysis Level Input Process Output
Alignment
· Within Role
· Knowledge
Behavior
· Task
Individual · Capacity Good
· Extra-Role Accomplishments
Behavior
· Motives
· Team Structure & Size
· Communication
· Norms / Culture · Team
Team or Group Poor
· Coordination Accomplishments
· Shared goals
· Allocation of Effort
· Information & Materials · Goals & Strategy
· Selection & Placement
· Performance
Environmental Measurement
· Instruments & Tools · Business Results Poor
Supports
· Incentives / Consequences
· Feedback
· Policy & Procedures
Vertical
Poor Poor Fair
Alignment
Enabler to Performance Neutral Barrier to Performance

29. Performance Architecture
Training
Deliver the right
individual and unit
training at the right time
Organizational Team / Unit Equipment
Outcomes Readiness
Execute the mission in Man, equip, train, & Deliver the right
the most effective, safe, maintain units to deliver equipment with the
timely and efficient a capable Force right quality to the right
manner possible place at the right time
Manpower /
Personnel
Deliver the right quantity
and quality of personnel
at the right time

30. Establishing Linkages
Inputs Processes Outputs
(Ingredients) (Assembly Methods) (Products)
CB Skills (NECs) Fitness Reports Task completion
 Role-specific behavior
Motivation  Driving the trucks Reports
 Firing the weapons
Individual Knowledge, Skills, & Skill acquisition
Abilities Extra-role or teamwork through OJT and
Readiness behavior
 Backing each other up
practice
 Taking the initiative
Skill decay and cert. lapse
TOA Leadership / Chain of Mission complete
Command
Budget  Appropriate utilization of Field data
personnel  On time
Performance Team
Composition and
Structure (1500.1 and
 Clear direction and vision
 Shared mental models
 On location
 No casualties
BA)
CBCRES Team Maturity
Command Climate  7.1 Convoy Planning and  Cohesion
 Morale Organization  Viability
 Cohesion  7.2 Route Reconnaissance  Experience
 Norms  7.3 Vehicle Protection  Skill attainment
 7.4 Convoy Operations
Membership Stability  7.5 Convoy
and Experience Communications
 OPTEMPO  7.6 Immediate Action Drills
 PERSTEMPO
 Transfers

31. The Vision
• Interlocking layers of metrics at different levels
• Roll up summaries &
drill down analyses
• Different views for
different purposes
• Identified KPI’s,
leading &
lagging indicators,
& links
• Standard set of
metrics across domain
• User friendly
• Integrated IT solution

32. Case Study:
Navy Music ROI

33. The Charge
• Increase the value of the music program to the
Navy
- Define the most appropriate metrics
- Establish baseline measures
- Demonstrate measurable value of Navy Music
products
- Determine cost effectiveness of different
organizational configurations
- Identify opportunities for improvements
• From discussion with Navy Music Program Director

34. Mission Goal
• Increase the return on investment of the
Navy Music program by 10% over
baseline in FY06.

35. ROI Baseline
Time Navy Music Program Performances
Period
Performance Value Estimated Cost ROI
2003 $43.3M $45.8M -5.6%
2004 $51.3M $45.8M 11.8%
2005 $52.6M $45.8M 14.8%
Average $49.1M $45.8M 7.0%
Note: Values are expressed in FY04 dollars. Navy Music
provides additional tangible and intangible value beyond music
performances that is not captured in the current analyses.

36. Performances & Market Demand
2003-2005 Average Market Demand, Performance,
and Cost by Activity
Naval Academy Band
US Navy Band
Navy Band Northwest
Allied Forces + 6th Fleet
Allied Forces Band Naples
Seventh Fleet Band
Pay $3.5M for 58 billets
Get $2.5M of Music
Value in FY-04 Dollars
Sixth Fleet Band
Navy Band Mid-South
Pacific Fleet Band GLAKES
Navy Band Northeast Pay $2.9M for 45 billets
Navy Band New Orleans Get $6.5M of Music
Navy Band Southeast
Navy Band GLAKES
Navy Band Southwest
Atlantic Fleet Band
$- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000
Cost Performances Market Demand

37. Hybrid Team Performance Model
Horizontal
Analysis Level Input Process Output
Alignment
· Within Role
· Knowledge
Behavior
· Task
Individual · Capacity Good
· Extra-Role Accomplishments
Behavior
· Motives
· Team Structure & Size
· Communication
· Norms / Culture · Team
Team or Group Poor
· Coordination Accomplishments
· Shared goals
· Allocation of Effort
· Information & Materials · Goals & Strategy
· Selection & Placement
· Performance
Environmental Measurement
· Instruments & Tools · Business Results Poor
Supports
· Incentives / Consequences
· Feedback
· Policy & Procedures
Vertical
Poor Poor Fair
Alignment
Enabler to Performance Neutral Barrier to Performance

38. Key Performers & Goals
• Groups with the most potential for impact
- Bandleaders – increase efficiency by 10% over
baseline, measured as value added per billet, by
FY06 end.

39. Ideal vs. Actual Performance
Mission Goal Performance Goal
Music Program Value Added
ROI per Billet
Ideal 17% $75,254
Performance
Actual 7% $68,413
Performance
Gap 10% $6,841

40. Root Causes
1. Sub-optimal resource alignment to demand.
2. Direction on how to prioritize performance
categories and rate bandleader performance
is missing.
3. Current policy to manage customer demand is
not uniform across activities.
4. Performance data is not detailed enough to
accurately capture full value.

41. Recommendations
Recommendations Implementer(s) Root Est. Est.
Cause(s) Costs Annual
Benefit
1. Realign billets to match customer PERS-64 1 $180K $3.4M
demand and optimize ROI.
2. Develop and communicate PERS-64 2, 3, 4 $25K $916K
bandleader performance standards;
collect better performance data.
3. Re-position activities closer to PERS-64 1 $450K $75K
customer concentrations.

42. Questions and Comments
For More Information Contact:
Aaron U. Bolin
Phone: 901-874-2961
aaron@planetbolin.com
aaron.bolin@navy.mil