SCORING A WHOLE IN ONE*:
ONE ISLAND, ONE MISSION, ONE TEAM
Milton J. Kowalewski, Jr., Team Leader
Spectrum Supply Chain Services
Cedar Hill, TX
milton_kowalewski@tbgna.com
SUMMARY
Partnering with the customer is the key to setting reasonable requirements, expectations, and results. Kalama
Services and DG21 are two of the remote island-contractors that have successfully “Partnered” with their direct and thirdparty customers. As their Quality Manager I facilitated the planning, performance and tracking of commitments made by
each partner. Both contractors are U.S. government joint-venture corporations established for the duration of each contract, 57 years. My efforts resulted in partnering that reached achievable goals, superior mission support, and increased performance
and award fee profits. Designing annual partnering workshops and sessions to meet the contract requirements of a “shared
fate” involves expert contract knowledge and human behavioral insights. The government co-sponsors provide the expert
contract interpretation while consultants provide the organizational effectiveness tools for interactive workshop
environments. Partnering charters are created and signed by the partners to define the goals of success and problem
resolution. In addition, a mechanism for problem resolution is drafted and agreed to by all parties. The formation of
government-contractor teams to take action on issues identified during each annual workshop solidifies the support necessary
for continual improvement in the partnering relationships. Examples of agendas, schedules, tools, games, and issues
identified and tracked to completion are provided in this case-study report. Additional references are included for your use
and application.
INTRODUCTION
Partnering-what is it? Partnering is what is done every time a plane or ship is guided in; is how to communicate
needs and gratitude; is teamwork; is achieving success and excellence; is you and her and him disagreeing, discussing
alternatives, and challenging resource use. Partnering is agreement from the start of a contract to:
 Do everything for the best interest of the mission and personnel
 Establish among all partners clear understandings of contract requirements
 Reengineer processes to improve contract performance and administration
 Cooperate to maintain a safe and environmentally sound program
 Maintain partnering relationships for
o Establishing trust among all parties
o Refraining from “us” versus “them”
o Maintaining open, honest communications
o Working and solving issues at the lowest level, and
o Understanding roles and responsibilities
The agendas for partnering sessions need to be flexible and comprehensive. As can be seen in the following agenda
(Figure 1) for the July 1, 2002 workshop, it was revised as late as June 30, 2002 and reduced to 1 day from 2 days because
the parties involved were busy managing the contract, the island, and engaged in an international conflict in Afghanistan. It is
also critical that the opening remarks made by both the government and contractor sponsors be both motivational and
challenging. They should include relevant and current events, and a passionate vision of the importance of the joint mission
the partners are involved in. For example:
When I left Diego Garcia on April 29, 2002 after 12 months of duty I
returned to the U.S. to vacation and prepare for this workshop. I was
unaware of the significance of our mission and success. It was not
brought home until I attended the change of command at Kessler AFB
Mississippi on May 2, 2002. There they were, 4000 of America’s best
in uniform squared away and ready to go. I realized then how important
our mission execution was here on Diego Garcia. I got excited and
challenge you to do the same.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Taken from the title of the book used during the 2002 Partnering Workshop on Diego Garcia, Scoring a Whole in One:
People in Enterprise Playing in Concert (Best Management Practices), Dr. Edwin Martin Baker, Crisp, 1999. [1]
Detailed Schedule of Events-Revised
Day 1
July 1, 2002
0730
Coffee, donuts, and preparation
0800
Island Room of Turner Club, Building 110
Partnering working sessions begin with introductions and completion of autobiographies [enclosed]
Review of signed November 2000 Partnering Charter
0845
Break 1-Executive Partnering Session in Ace-Deuce Lounge
0900
Review of November 2000 Workshop results
Status reports from responsible parties
0915
Discussion of pre-workshop “ Quality Survey ” results
0930
Introduction to “ Systems Thinking ” by Dr. Russell Ackoff’s video-“The New World View”
1000
Break
1015
Practice Exercise 1: Juran’s Quality Planning Spreadsheet [enclosed]
·In mixed teams of 12 (6 Ktr, 6 Gov’t.)
1030
Practice Exercise 1 Reporting of teams to all participants
1100
Lunch
1200
Introduction to Block Agreement/Trust Model
1230
Practice Exercise 2: Peter Block’s Agreement/Trust Model
· Identify your allies, adversaries, bedfellows, and opponents (individually on form enclosed)
1245
Break
1300
“ Scoring a Whole in One ” by Dr. Edwin Martin Baker-Systems theory in the management of projects
-review of highlights
1330
Practice Exercise 3-What are your partnering challenges?
Prioritize issues from Executive Partnering Session [none identified for general group, issues will be
addressed at the executive level] and for focused teams and counterparts (15 member teams)
1345
Break
1400
Practice Exercise 3 continued-Prepare action plans: what, who, when, how, where, cost/resources needed for
highest priority issues. Turn into facilitators when done.
1445
Break
1500
Share results of action plans
1530
Wrap-up and signing of 2002 Charter
1600
End of Partnering Events
· Farewell by Base CO
· Comments from sponsors
Figure 1. Agenda for 1 Day Partnering Workshop
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
There is more than one way to identify and track existing and new issues. One way is brainstorming, where all
participants voice and document their concerns. Another way is through the use of surveys like the one published in the
Quality Management Journal, Volume 8, No.3, 2001, ASQ. [2] The survey is administered by sending a copy of it to all
participants (100 in 2002), collecting the results, synthesizing them, plotting them, and reporting them to the participants at
the workshop as follows: (Table 1 and Figure 2)
The number of responses from agree to strongly agree for all questions, all respondents that are above the average
rating of 4.6 are:
1. Responses to Question No. 6: Do it right the first time (5.0)
2. Responses to Question No. 20: Team members committed to quality (5.0)
3. Responses to Question No. 29: Others work output is acceptable (5.0)
This category represents 7.69% of all responses, 3 of 39 averages.
The number of responses for somewhat disagree to somewhat agree for all questions, all respondents that are below
the average rating of 4.6 are:
Responses to Question No. 19: Tools, materials, and equipment available (3.8)
This category represents 1.21% of all responses, 1 of 39 averages.
Table 1. Results of Quality Survey Performed before Workshop (Survey used with permission of QMJ)
Table 1. Results of Quality Survey Performed before Workshop, is a sampling of the results of the survey
administered to the 100 participants of the July 1, 2002 workshop. Thirty-nine of the 100 participants responded to the preworkshop quality survey. This is an excellent percentage, as most large population surveys only receive 2-5% returns. The
entire population of responses is represented in Figure 2 by averages of the responses for each question. Perceptions of the
participants are able to be evaluated before the workshop for reporting to the attendees so that they can better relate to the
agenda and each other during the workshop and following months of contract work and partnering. As the reader knows
Likert survey type responses do not provide for open and free dialogue within the confines of the survey. That is why an open
question for additional feedback is used. The fifteen additional comments received provide more perspectives from the
participants for consultant use. Partnering does not only occur at the annual meetings. It goes on each day of the project
between contractor and customer counterparts. The annual meeting sets the stage for a review of previous successes and
failures and future challenges and action plans.
Survey Responses
Average of all
survey
responses
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.04.9 4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.84.74.84.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.64.54.6
4.5
4.64.64.6 4.5
4.5 4.5
4.44.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3 4.34.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.0
3.8
4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6 4. 6
3.5
3.0
Resp
1
Key
4
7
10
13
1= strongly disagree
2=disagree
3=somewhat disagree
4=somewhat agree
5=agree
6=strongly agree
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
Question Number
Figure 2. Survey Results
PROGRESS REPORTING AND NORMS
Each year the progress of issues identified in the prior year are reported so that everyone can share in the successes
and failures resulting. Of the 19 major, with some minor, issues worked on from 2000 to 2002 on the DG21 project 13 are
completely resolved, 4 are half-way completed, and only 2 are completely unresolved. The status of each item is discussed in
an open session so that the experienced participants and the new ones (the on-island military counterparts change every year)
are kept up-to-date on closed and open issues. In addition, new issues are identified and discussed during executive break-out
sessions for presentation to the entire group for brainstorming problem solving recommendations. To maintain a productive
and positive partnering environment it is essential to set expected norms of behavior for the large group of participants. Table
2 lists the norms discussed early in the DG21 workshop in 2002.
MISSION REVIEW
It is incumbent on all parties to review, revise and reconfirm (3Rs) the mission requirements during the annual
partnering activities. In this case-study the goals and objectives of commitment, communication, trust, conflict resolution,
and continuous evaluation were reviewed and reconfirmed for the following year. These concepts can be posted on a charter
for all to read, agree to, and sign at the end of the partnering session, as was done on Diego Garcia. (Figure 3)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Get to know each other’s roles.
Discuss issues/successes/frustrations
Identify reasons for successes and identify barriers
Be honest with each other (no free shots)
Rotate from group to group
Breakout into Executive Working Session
Rearrange chairs to see everything/everyone
Make notes on flipcharts as you go along
Collect all notes and plans for a final report
Follow DMAIC system: Define Customer Requirements, measure current performance, analyze
results, improve continually through executed projects, control processes in place
Complete each breakout session
Be open and learn from one another
Read and sign the 2002 Partnering Charter
Follow the problem resolution ladder in the detailed agreement
Have a good time and follow up on all actions identified and reported
Table 2. Thoughts on Partnering Workshop
Figure 3. Signed Partnering Charter
WORKSHOP THEME AND EXERCISES
Every partnering workshop to improve customer-contractor relationships should have a central theme to build the
collaborative activities around. The use of sport’s analogies is a proven technique for development, presentation, and
understanding. The theme selected for this case-study revolved around golf, Scoring A Whole in One, and included the island
mission of One Island, One Mission, One Team. In addition, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, the late “guru” of quality thinking,
admonishes us to learn the theory behind our actions before journeying down their path. To accomplish this the consultant
needs to thread the theory throughout the workshop. Since the text used in the workshop discussed systems theory in project
management, I selected that thread.
To get everyone on the same page early in a workshop a profound concept should be introduced to get everyone
thinking about their status quo and paradigms. The use of a learned professor in “Systems Theory”, like Dr. Peter Senge
author of The Fifth Discipline [3], Dr. Stephen Covey, author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People [4], or the
philosopher and lecturer I selected, Dr. Russell Ackoff, can be used to set the tone for the workshop. I used Dr. Ackoff’s
video on “The New World View” [5] as a catapult for the workshop exercises that followed.
EXERCISE 1: JURAN’S QUALITY PLANNING SPREADSHEET
In order to successfully know how to deal effectively with workshop participants it is important to find out ‘where
they are coming from’. A method to do that is by identifying internal and external customers and what their needs are. By
asking questions about what your identified customers want, how they want it, how you know when they are not getting it,
what you do when they are not getting it, and how you know they are getting what they need is a way to clearly understand
the requirements of the customer-contractor partnership. (Figure 4)
Dr. Juran’s
Quality
Planning
Spreadsheet
Who are my
customers?
What do they
want?
How do they
want it?
How do I
know they are
getting it?
(Answer
the
following
questions)
How do I know
they are not
getting it?
What do I do
when they are
not getting it?
How do I know
they are satisfied?
(metric)
Internal
1.
2..
External
1.
2.
Figure 4. Dr. Juran’s Quality Planning Spreadsheet
All participants complete the spreadsheet in teams of 12-15 for reporting to the general assembly afterwards. In this
way partnership expectations are identified and understood.
EXERCISE 2: PETER BLOCK’S AGREEMENT/TRUST MODEL
I followed Dr. Juran’s exercise with the Peter Block Agreement/Trust Model [6] exercise. It assisted the participants
in identifying their allies, bedfellows, opponents, adversaries, and the fence-sitters. It also provided the characteristics of each
and how to manage the relationships with them (Figure 5).
Block Agreement / Trust Model
High
6/18/2002
Agreement
Bedfellows
Allies
Fence Sitters
Adversaries
Opponents
1100
Low
Trust
High
Figure 5. Block Agreement/Trust Model
Most exercises result in shared information at the end of them. However, in this particular exercise privacy is
recommended since adversaries and opponents may be in the same room.
SCORING A WHOLE IN ONE
To keep with the theme a fun time is included in the workshop atmosphere. Some workshops schedule golf
tournaments to break the ice and get counterparts to know each other better, when time is available. This workshop included
golf, but on a lesser scale. Each team was given a golf putting club and golf balls. A circle was drawn in the center of the
room on the floor and each member tested their skill at putting the balls into the circle, with a prize for the team with the most
hole in ones.
Since the participants usually do not have ample time to prepare for the workshop, other than completing the preworkshop survey, the text given to each participant can be summarized by the consultant during the workshop in preparation
for following exercises. Some of Dr. Baker’s book highlights are listed in Table 3. All of the book highlights were displayed
on the projection screen using a laptop computer and digital projector to facilitate the most efficient use of time during the
one-day workshop. If business partners have the luxury of more than one-day sessions, the consultant can give reading
homework to the participants the first day in preparation for day two.




When Human Enterprise is a System
Whole: healthy; a coherent system or organization of parts fitting together or working together as one.
Consider Golf: serious golfers are always learning. There are not separate parts of a golf swing, no shoulders, arms,
hands, hips, legs, or feet. They all interact as one to accomplish the purpose of the activity-to send the ball to the
target, the hole.
Attempts to maximize local performance can lower overall performance and everyone can lose.
Therefore, what is needed is interdependence, not independence because it ignores the effects of interactions
between local parts of the system. Individuals overcompensate when they think they will not meet their local targets
(just as in golf).
Table 3. Dr. Baker’s book highlights
EXERCISE 3: WHAT ARE YOUR PARTNERING CHALLENGES?
With a foundation set by the consultant from prior year teamwork sessions of the partners, pre-workshop survey
results and new ideas shared in the workshop, the stage is set to progress from the issues identified and resolved in prior years
to the identification of new issues to resolve in the coming year. Brainstorming sessions of teams of 12-15 participants are
organized to document unresolved and new issues on flipchart pads located throughout the room. Team players are instructed
to prepare action plans for additional research and who will do what, by when, where, and the cost/resources needed to be
successful. [Table 4]
Issue
What to do
When
Who
1
2
3
4
Table 4. Issue Identification and Action Plans
Costs
CONCLUSIONS
The completion of a scheduled partnering workshop includes the sharing of old and new issues, and their associated
action plans. It also includes the reading and signing of the updated Partnering Charter document. Following closing
comments by the sponsors and consultants all flipchart sheets, biographical information, and quality planning spreadsheets
are collected for a partnering report that is prepared by the consultant and distributed within two weeks.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals are involved in making the Partnering Workshops successful. They include the sponsors, the
support staff, the travel agent, the host, and the participants. I especially wish to thank Ms. Merlie Custodio of DG21 for
preparing the materials, the carpenter shop for the posters, and Mr. Knowlton for paying the bills.
REFERENCES
[1] Baker, Edwin Martin. Scoring a Whole In One: People in Enterprise Playing in Concert (Best Management Practices),
Crisp, 1999.
[2] Quality Survey. Quality Management Journal, Volume 8, Number 3, ASQ, 2001, pp. 46-47.
[3] Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency-Doubleday, 1990.
[4] Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Schuster, 1987.
[5] “The New World View, Vol.1”, video tape of Dr. Russell Ackoff discussing Systems Thinking principles, Management
Wisdom.com, 2000.
[6] Block, Peter. The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work, Jossey-Bass, 1987.