A632.7.3.RB_MaceRoyce
Reflect on the role of collaboration and getting to resolution in the process of decision-making. Rarely, if ever, do our decisions affect only ourselves. Consider the importance of getting other stakeholders involved; how can they help you make a better decision for all? Detail a specific situation where you are faced with the decision, describe the process you went through and the outcome you were seeking. Identify 5 ways stakeholder involvement can help you make better decisions. Did you achieve your objective? Looking back at the decision you made and its consequence, was there anyone else that would have added value to the process? Identify 3 ways you may use this learning experience to make better decisions in the future?
In agreement with the prompt, yes.. Rarely, if ever, do the decisions that we make solely affect us only as individuals. Many times our decisions will affect another individual or group - even in the smallest of ways. As an example, if I were to purchase a big, noisy truck, the potential to affect sleeping neighbors in my neighborhood is a high possibility. I may only think of myself in making the purchase, but in making decisions, we should also be considerate of others.
When we involve other stakeholders, we preemptively protect ourselves from potential conflicts. Other stakeholders can bring their shared knowledge, expertise, and resources to the table when collaborating. This invaluable tool can go a long way in avoiding conflict, enhancing resolution when there is conflict, and can help to progress the agenda smoothly and efficiently. As a member of the Air Force for almost 13 years, I have seen a "shared stakeholder" concept help improve processes and projects.
As an example, there were a few times in my career as an air traffic controller where shared stakeholders (other agencies) were involved on a project. This helped make quality decisions much easier and ensure operations continued in less than ideal conditions. The less than ideal condition was a closed runway. Closing this runway reduced us to just one runway.
The problem with having just this one runway lay in the fact that there was not a taxiway leading to one end of the runway. The aircraft that wished to depart or arrive to that runway (depending on direction) would have to back-taxi down the runway to either set-up for departure or exit the runway. This was an issue if we had numerous aircraft who were either trying to land or do a touch-and-go. Low approaches were the only type of landing that was authorized.
In order to alleviate many of the issues that could arise due to this LIMFAC (limiting factor), Airfield Management decided to hold a "stakeholder" meeting. They invited air traffic control from both the radar and tower facilities, and each of the flying squadrons assigned to the base (Dr. Rietsema, I won't go into detail about what these entities are for obvious reasons). This allowed each part of the operational "cog" to voice their concerns with only one operational runway and how it affected them as it related to training, timing, safety, etc.
Although I wasn't apart of any of the meetings that took place, I understood how and why the meeting(s) took place. I knew even as a young, "wet behind the ears" controller that the decision to close the runway affected multiple stakeholders. From an air traffic perspective, the decisions made to close the runway and the procedures that were created to alleviate delays were well thought-out and made everyone's job easier. The flying community had limited complaints from what I remember and safe/efficient operations commenced during the entire runway closure.
Stakeholder involvement was able to ensure a safe and efficient operation where all parties were able to voice concerns and ensure their needs were being met by other agencies. Five ways in which stakeholder involvement likely helped make better decisions for the runway closure involved the following as explained by Levine (2009): efficiency (all agencies contributed ideas on how to keep air traffic operations continuous yet safe), openness (all agencies were open to suggestions from another), long-term collaborations (the runway closed annually with limited hiccups, so a good collaboration was established from the beginning), full disclosure (all agencies disclosed their concerns and/or ideas early), and finally, learning (all stakeholders were able to learn about the wants, needs, and concerns of others).
In conclusion, the objective was met and good decisions were made (from my perspective). I heard no complaints or issues directly form Airfield Management or the pilot community. In hindsight, the only thing that could have made the process slightly better, would have been to contact other Air Force units whose aircraft frequented our airspace. We could have warned them of any delays or LIMFACS to their training. Other than this idea, I will use this example as a means to start collaboration and get all stakeholders involved.
References
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
In agreement with the prompt, yes.. Rarely, if ever, do the decisions that we make solely affect us only as individuals. Many times our decisions will affect another individual or group - even in the smallest of ways. As an example, if I were to purchase a big, noisy truck, the potential to affect sleeping neighbors in my neighborhood is a high possibility. I may only think of myself in making the purchase, but in making decisions, we should also be considerate of others.
When we involve other stakeholders, we preemptively protect ourselves from potential conflicts. Other stakeholders can bring their shared knowledge, expertise, and resources to the table when collaborating. This invaluable tool can go a long way in avoiding conflict, enhancing resolution when there is conflict, and can help to progress the agenda smoothly and efficiently. As a member of the Air Force for almost 13 years, I have seen a "shared stakeholder" concept help improve processes and projects.
As an example, there were a few times in my career as an air traffic controller where shared stakeholders (other agencies) were involved on a project. This helped make quality decisions much easier and ensure operations continued in less than ideal conditions. The less than ideal condition was a closed runway. Closing this runway reduced us to just one runway.
The problem with having just this one runway lay in the fact that there was not a taxiway leading to one end of the runway. The aircraft that wished to depart or arrive to that runway (depending on direction) would have to back-taxi down the runway to either set-up for departure or exit the runway. This was an issue if we had numerous aircraft who were either trying to land or do a touch-and-go. Low approaches were the only type of landing that was authorized.
In order to alleviate many of the issues that could arise due to this LIMFAC (limiting factor), Airfield Management decided to hold a "stakeholder" meeting. They invited air traffic control from both the radar and tower facilities, and each of the flying squadrons assigned to the base (Dr. Rietsema, I won't go into detail about what these entities are for obvious reasons). This allowed each part of the operational "cog" to voice their concerns with only one operational runway and how it affected them as it related to training, timing, safety, etc.
Although I wasn't apart of any of the meetings that took place, I understood how and why the meeting(s) took place. I knew even as a young, "wet behind the ears" controller that the decision to close the runway affected multiple stakeholders. From an air traffic perspective, the decisions made to close the runway and the procedures that were created to alleviate delays were well thought-out and made everyone's job easier. The flying community had limited complaints from what I remember and safe/efficient operations commenced during the entire runway closure.
Stakeholder involvement was able to ensure a safe and efficient operation where all parties were able to voice concerns and ensure their needs were being met by other agencies. Five ways in which stakeholder involvement likely helped make better decisions for the runway closure involved the following as explained by Levine (2009): efficiency (all agencies contributed ideas on how to keep air traffic operations continuous yet safe), openness (all agencies were open to suggestions from another), long-term collaborations (the runway closed annually with limited hiccups, so a good collaboration was established from the beginning), full disclosure (all agencies disclosed their concerns and/or ideas early), and finally, learning (all stakeholders were able to learn about the wants, needs, and concerns of others).
In conclusion, the objective was met and good decisions were made (from my perspective). I heard no complaints or issues directly form Airfield Management or the pilot community. In hindsight, the only thing that could have made the process slightly better, would have been to contact other Air Force units whose aircraft frequented our airspace. We could have warned them of any delays or LIMFACS to their training. Other than this idea, I will use this example as a means to start collaboration and get all stakeholders involved.
References
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Comments
Post a Comment