Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Civilian World
    Posts
    1,343
    Likes (Received)
    213
    Thanks (Received)
    24

    Thumbs up Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    Probably one of the better commentaries I have seen on the site. Unfortunately, too many people are busy doing PT and filling squares to worry about minuscule things like improving their process for the betterment of their customers. It is much simpler to do it as it always has been done.

    Utilize an "outsider" perspective to determine if steps in a process are value added for the end user or an internal requirement. If a step doesn't add value, determine if it is required by law or instruction. The idea here is to eliminate waste or legacy processes that are no longer applicable to what you do today. ...
    Love this response comment too...it is pretty true...

    You can't change the process until someone else changes the reg they won't change the reg until someone else recommends it someone else won't recommend it until someone else performs an analysis someone won't perform an analysis until someone else funds it someone won't fund it until someone else propose it someone won't propose it until someone else suggests it someone else won't suggest it until someone complains about it but the office is closed for a function or PT or furloughs so really nobody cares and even if someone did care they don't have enough rank to complain.
    http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123355176

    I don't like the author's suggestion of creating an OI though. This just ensures the "new process" remains in place and becomes legacy years later and no one takes the initiative to change it again. This is why many legacy process exist in the first place. If people simply followed AFI's and TO's without adding unnecessary local processes we wouldn't have the problems noted in the article. Local processes are often a result of some over-achiever trying to get an award or cool bullet for an EPR.

    But if you do have a complaint about an agency on a base, there is a process for that... The Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) website. I have had better results using this than using any chain of command process.

    http://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm
    Last edited by VFFTSGT; 07-09-2013 at 07:50 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    1,029
    Likes (Received)
    241
    Thanks (Received)
    46

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    It doesn't take a process to change a process. It doesn't take a "USAF Approved Change Management Program". What it takes is people with the attitude that their job to is to get things done.

    As a loadmaster my job wasn't to not load airplanes, it was to figure out how to get the cargo loaded. Period.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    114
    Likes (Received)
    67
    Thanks (Received)
    5

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    I hate when people say we cant do this or that. The answer is help me find a way to legally and ethically make it happen. There is a waiver for everything in the AF.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,028
    Likes (Received)
    261
    Thanks (Received)
    28

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    You have the Midas touch? When I am asked if we can do something that makes sense, the answer is an automatic no. Why? Because the morons appointed above me that I swore to obey will say no. They will say no because they don't want things to be easy, simple, cheap, or effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by UH1FE View Post
    I hate when people say we cant do this or that. The answer is help me find a way to legally and ethically make it happen. There is a waiver for everything in the AF.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tinker AFB, OK
    Posts
    147
    Likes (Received)
    10
    Thanks (Received)
    2

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    "You can't change the process until someone else changes the reg they won't change the reg until someone else recommends it someone else won't recommend it until someone else performs an analysis someone won't perform an analysis until someone else funds it someone won't fund it until someone else propose it someone won't propose it until someone else suggests it someone else won't suggest it until someone complains about it but the office is closed for a function or PT or furloughs so really nobody cares and even if someone did care they don't have enough rank to complain."

    Sounds a lot like my job. I work AF requirements and everytime we find stuipd, wasteful or nonsensical goings on and recommend how to fix it or improve it. We almost always get shot down at MAJCOM and HAF level. Even when the base level folks know its stupid or non-value added.
    Cheers!

    Dickie

    ----------------------------------------------------
    3S373 AF Manpower Requirements Analyst
    1P071 Aircrew Flight Equipment
    1T171 Aircrew Life Support

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Right about.....HERE
    Posts
    4,357
    Likes (Received)
    319
    Thanks (Received)
    43

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    Quote Originally Posted by VFFTSGT View Post
    But if you do have a complaint about an agency on a base, there is a process for that... The Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) website. I have had better results using this than using any chain of command process.

    http://ice.disa.mil/index.cfm
    You would be surprised what base agencies you cannot do an eval on.... Some of the ones you would MOST like to complain about....
    “I say, imagine in your private life, if you decided that I’m not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two—first of all you’re not saving money by not paying your mortgage. You’re just a dead beat. “

    --Barak Obama


    You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not
    --John Lennon

    Lord of the Pings

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    73
    Likes (Received)
    33
    Thanks (Received)
    2

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    Quote Originally Posted by UH1FE View Post
    I hate when people say we cant do this or that. The answer is help me find a way to legally and ethically make it happen. There is a waiver for everything in the AF.
    If it is okay to waive it, then we really need to look at if the rule is necessary and if not, do away with it. If it is necessary, then we probably shouldn't waive it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    114
    Likes (Received)
    67
    Thanks (Received)
    5

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    Quote Originally Posted by TWilliams View Post
    If it is okay to waive it, then we really need to look at if the rule is necessary and if not, do away with it. If it is necessary, then we probably shouldn't waive it.
    There are exceptions to everything. You can't make a one size fits all, look at the PT stupidity, and EPR stupidity. This is why we have waivers for those unique situations that don't fit the mold.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    73
    Likes (Received)
    33
    Thanks (Received)
    2

    Default Re: Leading Change - af.mil commentary

    Quote Originally Posted by UH1FE View Post
    There are exceptions to everything. You can't make a one size fits all, look at the PT stupidity, and EPR stupidity. This is why we have waivers for those unique situations that don't fit the mold.
    Many rules are arbitrary so we don't even need the mold in the first place. Since you mentioned it, look at PT for example. You would think that the PT requirements that existed prior to the bike test were fine, but soemone in authority decided to change it for whatever reason. Then the bike test wasn't good enough (surprise!) so we got the new testing program which didn't last too long before it too was tweaked. We're still messing around with PT today. If we're able to waive the requirement to have a passing score to deploy to do our wartime job (which is the reason we need to be fit to fight), then really how important is the PT standard in the first place?

    P.S. I'm sorry it only took 8 posts to derail this thread to PT but I couldn't resist.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •