Foundational or Core Competencies - When Stakeholders Disagree

"Foundational or Core Competencies - When Stakeholders Disagree" ... That sounds like the name of a ASQ movie or book! However, it is a fascinating reality that my team is currently facing and it will be one of several (hopefully) team-building discussions held during our upcoming team meeting. (How many times can I say 'team' in one sentence? )

This isn't a 'problem' post or a request for help...just thought I'd share some of the outputs as we've prepped for this meeting.

A survey went sent out to our team members with 3 questions. The last two question focused on our core or foundational competencies...skill sets that we believe all members of our team need to have. This has been raised because we are a small team who has lost several key members over the past year, resulting in a rush to ascertain what/who we need to replace them and who can do what in the meantime.

That last two questions were multiple choice and contained the exact same options, however, the premise of the questions were different. The first one was regarding the core competencies we CURRENTLY offer our stakeholders (how we currently add value to the organization). The second one was about the core competencies we SHOULD offer our stakeholders. Essentially, do we offer what people want us to offer and do we have the ability to continue meeting their expectations.

That last question about what we SHOULD offer was also sent out to our main stakeholders.

For both populations, we gave the same list of 12 competencies (with a blank field for including one option if the individual felt it wasn't in the list):

• Project management
• Change management
• Business case development
• QI methodologies
• Software applications (for operations-based software)
• Reporting and data analytics
• Statistical process control
• Process mapping
• Adult learning methodologies
• Policy/Procedure development
• Process redesign
• Innovation practices

The initial analysis of the results will trigger some interesting discussions (we hope):

• Project management - Great to see that all Stakeholders agree this should be a competency.
• Change management - Wonderful to see that we agree this should be improved, although the disconnect from the directors is interesting.
• QI methodologies - Interesting that the Team's future state indicates we need this, yet the directors do not and this knowledge could support other areas where the directors feel we need to excel.
• Applications - Discussion on why Operations personnel feel that we do not need to be experts in this area.
• Data and reporting analytics - Interesting opposite views considering analytics is part of our mandate.
• Process mapping - How can we say we excel at this as a team when the team comes to me for this? And then say we don't need to excel at it?
• Innovation practices - Discussion needed on what this entails.

As an FYI, the graph's legend is:

• Team CS - Current State ... what we currently offer.
• Team FS - Future State ... what we should offer.
• RDs - Regional Directors ... Main stakeholders' input on what we should offer.

Part of the disparity may come from a lack of understanding by the directors of the meaning or benefits of QI Methodologies.

Miner said:

Part of the disparity may come from a lack of understanding by the directors of the meaning or benefits of QI Methodologies.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, although in the survey options we provided an (eg.) list for them...granted, this does not mean people understood the examples. We did not provide any examples for Innovation Practices.

Upper management ALWAYS loves innovation. They often don't know what it means, but it sounds like they ought to do it.

Miner said:

Upper management ALWAYS loves innovation. They often don't know what it means, but it sounds like they ought to do it.

Click to expand...

That response sounds like some the Pointy Haired Boss would say in 'Dilbert'!

That's why so many can relate to Dilbert.