Jeff Brooke's Slides from the presentation.

1. © 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. 15-0919.
Choosing the Right
Communication Management Model
for Your Organization
Federal C ommunicat ors N etw ork
D ecember 3, 2015
Jef f rey B rooke
Principal, Organizational Communication & Change Management
The MITRE Corp.
JBrooke@MITRE.org

2. | 2 |
Who is
MITRE is a not-for-profit company that manages Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers (FFRDC’s)
 Main offices are in McLean, VA and Bedford, MA. 8,000 staff
 Manage five FFRDC’s
What is an FFRDC? Role defined by law:
 Special status in between government and contractors. Not-for-profit.
 Conduct and deliver unbiased assessments and recommendation
 Conduct experiments, develop prototypes and proofs-of-concept
 Provide strategic guidance to government decision makers
 Required to maintain its independence from government contractors
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
?

3. | 3 |
Agenda
1. Key concepts of loose coupling
2. Communication program design for loose coupling (Case)
3. Stakeholder analysis for loose coupling (Case)
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

4. | 4 |
Bottom Line Up Front
 Organization design options tend to focus on centralization vs.
decentralization. Loose coupling is a third option—not simply
“in between” centralized and decentralized. Being used with
growing frequency.
 Know what’s below. Solutions to communication problems
depend on the underlying type of organization they support.
 Stakeholder relationships are different in loosely coupled
organizations, so we need different tools for stakeholder
analysis.
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

5. | 5 |
 Systems theory…
– A system is an arrangement of interrelated parts.
– Concerned with problems of relationships, structure, and interdependence
– Input-process-output
– Mechanisms that:
 take things in
 process the inputs
 and export outputs
1. Most approaches to organizational design
and restructuring came from systems theory
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

6. | 6 |
 In organizations, these factors were often seen as problems of
centralization vs. decentralization
vs.
1. Most approaches to organizational design
and restructuring came from systems theory
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
*See Burke, W.W. (2014). Changing loosely coupled systems. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 50(4) 423–444.
 But this view assumed that organizations are hierarchical and
that organizational changes come from the top down*
If your only tool
is a hammer….

7. | 7 |
Adaptable vs. Efficient
Flexible AND Stable
Organization theorists sought other ways to look at
the problem of structure and interdependence
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Coupling
• Connected and integrated
• Produces stability to
manage processes
Looseness
• Autonomous and adaptable
• Produces flexibility to innovate,
experiment and respond to
changes

8. | 8 |
Loose Coupling
A Two-Dimensional Systems Concept*
Component Integration
Component
Autonomy
low high
high
Tightly Coupled
Decoupled Loosely Coupled
*Adapted from: Orton & Weick. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. The Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 15(2), 203-223.© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
• Autonomous
• Follows system-
level rules as
needed
• Autonomous
• Rarely follows
system-level
rules
• Not Autonomous
• Always follows
system-level
rules

9. | 9 |
Discussion
 Where is your organization on this map? (Current or former)
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

10. | 10 |
Bottom line #2: Know what’s below.
Solutions to problems depend on the underlying type
of organization.
Therefore:
• Need ability to spot loosely coupled organizations.
• Need ability to design complementary communication
programs.
Case Study:
 Large federal agency, overall loosely coupled
 IT systems historically not loosely coupled
 Situation: New IT operation that IS loosely coupled
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. Communication program design
for loose coupling

11. | 11 |
IT systems were either agency-wide
or business unit-specific
Component
Integration
Component
Autonomy
low high
high
Tightly Coupled
• Not Autonomous
• Always follows system-level
rules
Decoupled
• Autonomous
• Rarely follows system-level rules
Loosely Coupled
*Adapted from: Orton & Weick. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. The Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 15(2), 203-223.© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Business-Unit
specific systems
Enterprise-wide
systems

12. | 12 |
Enter Business Unit X, a “common services” provider
for the agency, which uses a different business model
 Role of Business Unit X
– Identify off-the-shelf technologies for possible use by multiple
business units in the agency
– Provide customer business units access to these technologies as
“common services,” tailoring the service as needed
 Role of business units
– Choose whether and how to use a “common service” offering (opt in
or out)
 Benefits of common services
– Improved efficiency because they use a standard platform and data
– Can be tailored to adapt to a business unit’s unique requirements
 Our task?
– Establish communication processes and structures that will serve
users of Business Unit X offerings
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

13. | 13 |
Business Unit X – Loosely Coupled
Designed to Reduce Burden on Other Systems
Component
Integration
Component
Autonomy
low high
high
Tightly Coupled
• Not Autonomous
• Always follows system-level
rules
Decoupled
• Autonomous
• Rarely follows system-level rules
Loosely Coupled
• Autonomous
• Follows system-level rules
as needed
*Adapted from: Orton & Weick. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. The Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 15(2), 203-223.© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Business-Unit
specific systems
Enterprise-wide
systems
Flexible systems
offered by
Business Unit X
Reduces burden
on decoupled and
tightly coupled IT
systems

14. | 14 |
IT systems were either agency-wide
or business unit-specific
Component
Integration
Component
Autonomy
low high
high
Tightly Coupled
Decoupled
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
User
communications
handled by
corporate
communication
(efficient)
Form follows
function:
Communication
processes
parallel the IT
systems
User
communication
handled by each
business unit
communication
office (tailored)

15. | 15 |
Business Unit X:
Loosely coupled, third approach
Needed a parallel communication process
Component
Integration
Component
Autonomy
low high
high
Tightly Coupled
Decoupled
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
User
communications
handled by
corporate
communication
(efficient)
User
communication
handled by each
business unit
communication
office (tailored)
Add:
User
communication for
systems by
Business Unit X
(efficient and
tailored)
Desired end
state:
Comms groups
share resources
and knowledge,
agree on
approach, but
maintain
accountability in
their domains
Loosely Coupled

16. | 16 |
16
Communication Program Management
Models
Central
Direction
Central
Control
Central
communication
function sets
common policies
and programs;
relies on unit
communication
staffs to
customize
Fully centralized
communication,
making all strategic
and functional policy
decisions
Coordinating
Mechanisms
Central
Coordination
Formal systems
and committees
to discuss key
decisions and
resolve cross-
organization
issues; no
centralized
direction or staff
Central staff plays
coordinating and
supporting roles,
frames the agenda
for key decisions,
distributes
information, and
driving consensus
on plans
Autonomous Informal
Cooperation
No coordination Informal
coordination among
units, occasional
meetings, and best
practice exchange
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Adaptedfrom:CommunicationsExecutiveCouncil,"WhitePaper:
Buildingacollaborativeglobalfunction,"Washington,DC,March2006.

17. | 17 |
Group Discussion
 Which communication
program model does your
organization use?
 What is your sense of its
effectiveness?
 Is it the right fit with your
organization?
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

18. | 18 |
3. Stakeholder analysis in
loosely coupled organizations
Bottom line #3: Stakeholder relationships are different in loosely
coupled organizations.
When planning communication for change, we need stakeholder
analysis tools specific to loosely coupled organizations.
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

19. | 19 |
Typical stakeholder analysis
Factors Explored
 Stakeholder Importance to
Project
 Level of Support: current and
desired
 Work Needed
 Level of Disruption to
Stakeholder
 Cost of Implementation to
Stakeholder
 Stakeholder Concerns/Interests
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Methods
 Most methods developed for
tightly coupled organizations
 E.g. Burke-Litwin model, or
force-field analysis.

20. | 20 |
Relationships are different in loosely coupled
organizations
For example:
 Goal consensus is different and more difficult among autonomous
organizations
 Leadership is disbursed
 Business practices and information systems may be different and
incompatible
 Performance management and motivation and are difficult to direct
with different HR practices and cultures
Consequently, managing change is different. Need different
methods to analyze stakeholders in loose coupling.
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

21. | 21 |
Mega-Change Profiler
Development
MITRE research project analyzed 22 case studies of multibillion dollar
change initiatives to:
1. Isolate factors associated with successes and failures of mega-
change initiatives
2. Determine which factors can be controlled
3. Establish guidelines for achieving mega-change
Most critical factors relate to stakeholders. Essentially making it a
stakeholder analysis tool.
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

22. | 22 |
Mega-Change Profiler
Status
 Tool to help leaders discuss the factors critical to success, and
develop strategies
 Successfully used on various projects—between and within
agencies
 Remains a “working model”
– Will be revised and customized based on further use.
– Join us in our research partnership to continue to refine and
improve this model.
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

23. | 23 |
Mega-Change Profiler*
For SOME loosely coupled circumstances
IF
 Stakeholder importance is high
AND
 The stakeholders will be loosely coupled
AND
 The program and the stakeholders will be close
partners in achieving the goal
THEN
 Consider Mega-Change Profiler as a tool to analyze
and engage the stakeholders
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
*J. Piescik, R. Creekmore and N. Gershon, "Megachange Profiler How-to Guide," The
MITRE Corp. , McLean, VA , 2010.

24. | 24 |
Mega-Change Profiler
Business Unit X Example
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

25. | 25 |
Mega-Change Profiler
Example: Consensus About Goals
Example Questions Example Findings Implications
• Are there clearly
articulated goals?
• What led to the
formulation of the goals?
• Do all stakeholders
accept these goals?
How much?
• How stable are the
goals? Are any
stakeholders trying to
change them?
• Is there agreement
around the prioritization
of the goals?
Consensus about
Business Unit X goals is
mixed.
• Executives are in
agreement because they
see the longer-term
challenges to the
agency.
• Managers are focused
on their unit and on
incremental
improvement, with little
sense of a problem that
needs to be fixed.
Communication should
reinforce the upcoming
problems shared by
leaders, such as the
growing caseload that
will outstrip capabilities.
Additional messages
need to be tailored to the
problems that will
resonate with individual
units and sub-units.
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

26. | 26 |
Discussion
Questions?
 How do you analyze your stakeholders?
 What are your thoughts about the Profiler?
© 2015 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.