I was faced with the issue of
accountability of sensitive items such as weapons, night vision goggles, secure
communications equipment, and other items while performing combat missions. The
issue we had was within our five subordinate units each unit accounted for this
equipment differently, but no single unit was achieving the standards of
accountability per the unit’s standard operating procedures. I was faced with
not one but now five separate elements that required a system change. If you
think dealing with conflict one on one is hard, try combating five that do not
want to play ball at all. I didn’t dive in head first I thought logically about
the problem and possible solutions. Investigated each unit to discover what
they were doing, what was right and what needed to be fixed or adjusted.
The stake holders in this case were
the property accountability officers, the unit commanders, the personnel
conducting the missions. There were multiple individuals that could land on the
blame line, and thus these stakeholders could also potentially help fix the
system that they are a part of. The first is the unit commander, his guidance
is what started this game, he is involved in every aspect of what we do. His
guidance sets the foundation to the changes needed within the system. Property accountability officers would aid in
identifying the minimum requirements for storage and transfers regarding
paperwork and storage requirements. The personnel involved conducting missions
had various levels of views. These ranged from operator or custodian to
accountability officer. As the tactical operations officer and personnel
recovery officer I was concerned with capabilities of equipment on the battle
field. Lastly, the unit security officer was concerned with the physical
security of each item.
When the conflict arose, units felt
we were micromanaging them and dictating too much over their freedom of
maneuver. However, we had to educate them on the various stakeholders involved
and moreover their requirements per the regulations. This evolved over time and
ultimately through resolution and collaboration we achieved a new system that
met all the requirements and built in efficiencies for the units to reduce any
duplication of effort at their level.
The process was rather robust, I
made a solid attempt to have max participation which meant that I could
incorporate and listen to all the ideas before attempting to redefine the
system. This worked out well in that everyone who participated felt their voice
was heard. I could not accommodate everyone to their liking but made several
compromises. The only other elements that would have made it better would have
been if every unit was able to participate.
One outcome this experience taught
me is no matter how hard you try you cannot please everyone. The second
learning point is that two heads are better than one, three is better than two
and so on. The goal is more collaboration produces a better result. Lastly, I
learned that you have to be patient. You cannot always solve the issue
overnight. Take time to research and discover the whole process before you
engage in fixing something.
No comments:
Post a Comment