CHANGEDennis Randolph, P.E., PWLF

April 2014

INTRODUCTIONS

• What do you like to be called?

• What do you do?

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHANGE?

• It can be frightening!

• It is full of the unknown!

• We are better off without it!

• It is bad!

• We don’t like it!

WHAT IS CHANGE?

What is your 5 word definition of change?

DEFINITION

• Merriam-Webster says:

1

• a :  to make different in some particular :  ALTER <never bothered to change the will>

• b :  to make radically different :  TRANSFORM <can't changehuman nature>

• c :  to give a different position, course, or direction to

2

• a :  to replace with another <let's change the subject>

• b :  to make a shift from one to another :  SWITCH <alwayschanges sides in an argument>

• c :  to exchange for an equivalent sum of money (as in smaller denominations or in a foreign currency) <change a 20-dollar bill>

• d :  to undergo a modification of <foliage changing color>

• e :  to put fresh clothes or covering on <change a bed>

HOW DO WE KNOW CHANGE WHEN WE SEE IT?

  Funding Constr Year

Project Total Cost Design Construction Easement/ROW Inspection Utilities Misc  

B City 1999PROJECT A $3,188,378.38 $193,800.00 6.08% $2,083,422.03 65.34% $787,687.64 24.70% $9,900.00 0.31% $110,719.05 3.47% $2,849.66 0.09%

B STP 2003PROJECT B $1,015,425.48 $86,323.00 8.50% $832,138.36 81.95% $46,064.23 4.54% $11,098.50 1.09% $38,088.89 3.75% $1,712.50 0.17%

B City 2003PROJECT C $376,056.76 $43,075.00 11.45% $329,985.06 87.75% $2,010.00 0.53% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $986.70 0.26%

B STP 2005PROJECT D $528,653.65 $50,000.00 9.46% $426,294.78 80.64% $28,628.50 5.42% $1,670.50 0.32% $20,280.84 3.84% $1,779.03 0.34%

B City 2005PROJECT E $522,591.00                        

B City 2005PROJECT F $1,388,316.60 $97,700.00 7.04% $934,272.77 67.30% $181,176.65 13.05% $430.00 0.03% $173,070.08 12.47% $1,667.10 0.12%

B CURS 2006PROJECT G $2,656,715.13 CURS fund   $2,388,292.76 89.90% $46,430.00 1.75% $145,250.00 5.47% $56,742.37 2.14%    

B City 2007PROJECT H $934,765.60 $101,000.00 10.80% $792,639.00 84.80% $1,651.00 0.18% $37,900.00 4.05% $0.00 0.00% $1,575.60 0.17%

B City 2007PROJECT I $1,549,731.04 $114,000.00 4.29% $1,141,802.12 42.98% $30,445.50 1.15% $0.00   $262,427.82 9.88% $1,055.60 0.04%

B City 2009PROJECT J $1,573,499.96 $120,542.10 7.66% $1,255,150.48 79.77% $53,261.00 3.38% $0.00 0.00% $142,459.60 9.05% $2,086.78 0.13%

A ARRA 2010PROJECT 1 $2,495,549.66 $180,361.00 7.23% $1,405,719.18 56.33% $666,093.25 26.69% $8,236.25 0.33% $241,067.23 9.66% $2,309.00 0.09%

A STP 2011PROJECT 2 $1,470,598.53 $175,423.42 11.93% $1,021,703.14 69.48% $56,048.00 3.81% $8,053.50 0.55% $206,474.27 14.04% $2,896.20 0.20%

A City 2011PROJECT 3 $1,486,242.14 $262,652.50 17.67% $1,212,399.32 81.57% $0.00 0.00% $10,330.00 0.70% $0.00 0.00% $860.32 0.06%

A City 2012PROJECT 4 $629,351.86 $75,000.00 11.92% $436,915.60 69.42% $23,429.26 3.72% $0.00 0.00% $92,578.80 14.71% $1,428.20 0.23%

A City 2012PROJECT 5 $1,520,784.67 $155,811.00 10.25% $1,327,215.10 87.27% $1,325.00 0.09% $7,659.17 0.50% $26,469.30 1.74% $2,305.10 0.15%

A STP 2013PROJECT 6 $524,999.92 $134,279.00 25.58% $380,553.47 72.49% $1,400.00 0.27% $3,313.88 0.63% $2,502.88 0.48% $2,950.69 0.56%

A STP 2014PROJECT 7 $1,490,164.92 $190,600.00   $1,100,000.00   $87,128.69   $6,822.23   $102,368.90   $3,245.10  

A STP 2015PROJECT 8 $2,062,704.36 $290,570.38   $1,500,000.00   $118,811.85   $9,303.05   $139,593.95   $4,425.13  

A FLHP 2015PROJECT 9 $962,595.37 $135,599.51   $700,000.00   $55,445.53   $4,341.42   $65,143.84   $2,065.06  

What Do You See Here?

HOW ABOUT NOW?  Funding

Constr Year

Project Total Cost Design Construction Easement/ROW Inspection Utilities Misc  

B City 1999PROJECT A $3,188,378.38 $193,800.00 6.08% $2,083,422.03 65.34% $787,687.64 24.70% $9,900.00 0.31% $110,719.05 3.47% $2,849.66 0.09%

B STP 2003PROJECT B $1,015,425.48 $86,323.00 8.50% $832,138.36 81.95% $46,064.23 4.54% $11,098.50 1.09% $38,088.89 3.75% $1,712.50 0.17%

B City 2003PROJECT C $376,056.76 $43,075.00 11.45% $329,985.06 87.75% $2,010.00 0.53% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $986.70 0.26%

B STP 2005PROJECT D $528,653.65 $50,000.00 9.46% $426,294.78 80.64% $28,628.50 5.42% $1,670.50 0.32% $20,280.84 3.84% $1,779.03 0.34%

B City 2005PROJECT E $522,591.00                        

B City 2005PROJECT F $1,388,316.60 $97,700.00 7.04% $934,272.77 67.30% $181,176.65 13.05% $430.00 0.03% $173,070.08 12.47% $1,667.10 0.12%

B CURS 2006PROJECT G $2,656,715.13 CURS fund   $2,388,292.76 89.90% $46,430.00 1.75% $145,250.00 5.47% $56,742.37 2.14%    

B City 2007PROJECT H $934,765.60 $101,000.00 10.80% $792,639.00 84.80% $1,651.00 0.18% $37,900.00 4.05% $0.00 0.00% $1,575.60 0.17%

B City 2007PROJECT I $1,549,731.04 $114,000.00 4.29% $1,141,802.12 42.98% $30,445.50 1.15% $0.00   $262,427.82 9.88% $1,055.60 0.04%

B City 2009PROJECT J $1,573,499.96 $120,542.10 7.66% $1,255,150.48 79.77% $53,261.00 3.38% $0.00 0.00% $142,459.60 9.05% $2,086.78 0.13%

  11Years $13,734,133.60 Total 8.16% $ 1,131,555.26 75.60% $ 130,817.17 6.08% $ 22,916.56 1.41% $ 89,309.85 4.95% $ 1,714.12 0.16%

  10Projects $1,248,557.60 per year

 

A ARRA 2010PROJECT 1 $2,495,549.66 $180,361.00 7.23% $1,405,719.18 56.33% $666,093.25 26.69% $8,236.25 0.33% $241,067.23 9.66% $2,309.00 0.09%

A STP 2011PROJECT 2 $1,470,598.53 $175,423.42 11.93% $1,021,703.14 69.48% $56,048.00 3.81% $8,053.50 0.55% $206,474.27 14.04% $2,896.20 0.20%

A City 2011PROJECT 3 $1,486,242.14 $262,652.50 17.67% $1,212,399.32 81.57% $0.00 0.00% $10,330.00 0.70% $0.00 0.00% $860.32 0.06%

A City 2012PROJECT 4 $629,351.86 $75,000.00 11.92% $436,915.60 69.42% $23,429.26 3.72% $0.00 0.00% $92,578.80 14.71% $1,428.20 0.23%

A City 2012PROJECT 5 $1,520,784.67 $155,811.00 10.25% $1,327,215.10 87.27% $1,325.00 0.09% $7,659.17 0.50% $26,469.30 1.74% $2,305.10 0.15%

A STP 2013PROJECT 6 $524,999.92 $134,279.00 25.58% $380,553.47 72.49% $1,400.00 0.27% $3,313.88 0.63% $2,502.88 0.48% $2,950.69 0.56%

A STP 2014PROJECT 7 $1,490,164.92 $190,600.00   $1,100,000.00   $87,128.69   $6,822.23   $102,368.90   $3,245.10  

A STP 2015PROJECT 8 $2,062,704.36 $290,570.38   $1,500,000.00   $118,811.85   $9,303.05   $139,593.95   $4,425.13  

A FLHP 2015PROJECT 9 $962,595.37 $135,599.51   $700,000.00   $55,445.53   $4,341.42   $65,143.84   $2,065.06  

  6Years $12,642,991.43 Total 14.09% $ 1,009,389.53 72.76% $ 112,186.84 5.76% $ 6,451.06 0.45% $ 97,355.46 6.77% $ 2,498.31 0.21%

  9Projects $ 2,107,165.24 per year

        68.8%Difference - Before-

After                    

INTRODUCTION

• From

• PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION – APWA

LETS TALK ABOUT ORGANIZATIONS!

• Before we can talk about CHANGE

• We need to know about the BASICS

PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATIONS

Director

Assistant Director -

Engineering

Chief of Engineering

Chief of Wastewater Operations

Assistant Director - Operation

Maintenance Superintendent

TRADITIONAL STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Director

Engineering Division

Operations Division

Personnel and Finance

Division

Admin Assistant

EVOLUTION OF THE PROFESSION FROM JACK OF ALL TRADES TO THE

SPECIALISTPublic Works Department

Engineering

Operations

Administration

Public Service Department

Engineering

Operations

Administration

Everything Else

CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS TO PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURING• Flatter structures

• Larger spans of control

• More specialists

• Technical

• Communications

• Customer relations

• Offices more distributed

OUTSOURCING OF PUBLIC WORKS FUNCTIONS

Pro’s Con’s

Maintain or establish smaller organizations

Less stability

Ability to deal with peak loads Less opportunity for advancement in-house

Opportunity to have different ideas (new people)

Need to hire consultants/temps

Less long-term costs and liabilities

Cost difference

Less space requirements

Easier to reconfigure organization

SERVICES TYPICALLY OUTSOURCED

• Payroll

• Special studies

• Public relations

• Grant writing

• Construction management

• Design

OUTSOURCING AS A SOLUTION TO PERSONNEL PROBLEMS

• Less direct reports

• Less time in admin and personnel matters

• Easier to find “new” people

• No long-term commitments/ liabilities

OUTSOURCING TO OTHER PUBLIC WORKS AGENCIES – COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENTS, JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS, ETC.

• Ability to minimize special fleet costs

• Ability to engage in tasks you might not normally be able to do

• Ability to do more with less

• Opportunity to see how others operate

REGIONAL PUBLIC WORKS AGENCIES

• Special districts

• Water districts

• Sewer districts

• Planning agencies

• Transportation agencies

STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO

LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS• Regulators

• Sources of funds

• Owners and operators of facilities

REGULATORY AGENCIES

• EPA

• Corps of Engineers

• Health Departments

FUNDING SOURCES

• Grant programs

• Loans

SO WHAT MAKES THEM DIFFERENT?

• Their organization –

• How they are shaped!

• How they are managed!

STAGE THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

• History, Key Concepts and Application of Stage Theory

• While Kurt Lewin is credited for creating one of the earliest stage models, modern stage theory is based on both Lewin's work and Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory.

FOUR STAGES OF STAGE THEORY

1.Awareness of a problem and possible solutions

2.Decision to adopt the innovation

3.Implementation that includes redefining the innovation and modifying organizational structures to accommodate it

4.Institutionalization or making the innovation part of the organization's ongoing activities

ESSENCE

• Stage Theory is based on the idea that organizations pass through a series of steps or stages as they change.

• After stages are recognized, strategies to promote change can be matched to various points in the process of change.

• According to Stage theory, adoption of an innovation usually follows several stages.

• Each stage requires a specific set of strategies that are contingent on the organization's stage of adopting, implementing, and sustaining new approaches as well as socio environmental factors

KEEP IN MIND

• There has been less research on the factors that influence how an organization moves from one stage to the next and more research on the activities that occur during each stage.

• Different leaders or "change agents" within the organization assume leading roles during different stages.

• Strategies that organizations use depends on their stage of change and whether the nature of the social environment surrounding the innovation is supportive or otherwise.

WHY DO WE CHANGE?

• To fix problems

• To make things run “better”

• To reflect our personality

• Because we must

MODES OF CHANGEEvolutionary Telelogical Life Cycle Political Social cognition Cultural

Why change occurs External environment

Leaders; internal environment

Leaders guiding individual’s natural growth

Dialectical tension of values, norms, or patterns

Cognitive dissonance, appropriateness

Response to alterations in the human environment

Process of change Adaption; slow; gradual; non-intentional

Rational; linear; purposeful

Natural progression; result of training and motivation; altering habits and identity

First order followed by occasional second order; negotiation and power

Learning, altering paradigms or lens; interconnected and complex

Long-term; slow; symbolic process; nonlinear; unpredictable

Outcomes of change

New structures and processes; first order

New structures and organizing principals

New organizational identity

New organizational ideology

New frame of mind New culture

Key metaphor Self-producing organism

Change master Teacher Social movement Brain Social movement

Examples Resource dependency; strategic choice; population ecology

Organizational development; strategic planning; reengineering; TQM

Developmental models; organizational decline; social psychology of change

Empowerment; bargaining; political change; Marxist theory

Single and double-looped learning; paradigm-shifting; sense making

Interpretive strategy; paradigm-shifting; processual change

Criticisms Lack of human emphasis; deterministic quality

Overly rational and linear; inability to explain second order change; plasticity of people

Little empirical proof; deterministic character

Deterministic; lack of environmental concerns; little guidance for leaders

Deemphasizes environment; overemphasizes ease of change; ignores values and emotions

Impractical to guide leaders; focus on universalistic culture; mostly untested

Benefits Environmental emphasis; systems approach

Importance of change agents; management techniques and strategies

Change related to phases; temporal aspect; focus on people throughout the organization

Change not always progressive; irrationality; role of power

Emphasizes socially constructed nature; emphasis on individuals; habits and attitudes as barriers

Context; irrationality; values and beliefs; complexity; multiple levels of change

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHANGE?

• It can be frightening!

• But the challenge can be thrilling!

• It is full of the unknown!

• But discovery is always learning

• We are better off without it!

• Not if we learn and do better every time!

• It is bad!

• Who Says!

• We don’t like it!

• Only if you have never tried it!

WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE?