Growing up, my father always encouraged me to understand why something happened, not just a problem. Most managers troubleshoot the problem rather than diagnose it to find the reasons for the failures in the first place. To truly increase performance and efficiency, we must go beyond the simple problem and try to understand what might have caused it in the first place.
Recently, while working on a training module related to root cause identification, I remembered a specific experience in the Marine Corps. A few months after I joined my unit, there was a major department inspection, and we failed. They stated that the department had the worst unit performance ever recorded. It went unstated fact that if we failed again, the Commanding Officer would most likely be relieved. A re-inspection was scheduled for 30 days.
During the larger debriefing, being very junior, I was sitting in the back of the conference room at the kiddie table. The Commanding Officer, whose career was now in jeopardy, was screaming and yelling, demanding to know why they failed and how to fix it.  Many ideas were tossed out, including fixing all of the specific defects listed in the report, and if we fixed those, we should at least pass.  This is an example of troubleshooting: you know you have a problem and correct it, but it may not prevent it from recurring.  To further complicate a solution, before the debrief, he fired the department managers and the head of the team that was supposed to be managing these record books. Note you cannot technically be fired from the Marine Corps, but you can be relieved of your job and sent off on temporary duty as punishment.
While he was ranting away, I tried to quickly read the report when the person beside me nudged me in the ribs, getting my attention.  The Commanding Officer asked if I thought he was boring me.  Apparently, you are supposed to give your full attention to senior officers during their moments of rage. The Executive Officer made a snarky comment that my area got an outstanding rating, implying I felt too good to worry about this problem. I stood, apologized, and told the CO I was trying to read through the report to understand why we failed. The commanding officer asked sarcastically if I had found the “real problem” besides incompetence. I told him I saw four root causes.  Over my 30 years of consulting, I have seen these same four issues time and time again with failed projects.
Lack of Knowledge and Training – Some people didn’t know what they were doing. The auditors indicated most defects were caused by team members not knowing that they needed to make a specific entry or have a certain document in the record or how to make the entry.  That defect can be corrected through remedial training.  I indicated I would retrain the entire team on the requirements of the left and right side of the record and do multiple audits of 100% of the records post-training to confirm they understood their job.
Different Opinion – Some of the team knew what to do and either had a different opinion or didn’t care about the rules. Based on the report, the leaders had a different opinion on when some entries needed to be made.   That defect can also be corrected.
For example – 100% of the records lacked a signed rifle requalification exemption. The report indicated that the Admin Officer and Personnel Chief, despite an explicit directive to the contrary, would only add the exemption entry when the Marine leaves the unit.  They did not feel the need to make the entry when they joined the unit.  The problem with their interpretation is that for the entire duration, the Marine is flagged as not rifle qualified, which negatively affects their promotion score. Whereas if the entry were done, and added to the system at join, they would be exempt, and their previous qualification would be used, enabling them to be in higher consideration for promotion
Lack of Coordination and Collaboration – There was no coordination or management oversight between departments enforcing sharing of training and promotion required activities.  This is why the auditors indicated a systemic failure to ensure that the required training and promotion information is current.
For example, a major report flag was the number of missing entries for education, PFT, and other promotion qualification events. While implementing and monitoring these activities is the training department’s responsibility, it is also the admin department’s responsibility to make the entries in the Marine’s record book and the management system.  There is a clear disconnect in that process. The report indicated that 95% of all completed training events were not entered into the record book or the computer system, with zero indication that they were shared by training. We can solve this by having periodic reviews between the departments.
Ironically, the Training Operations officer complained that it would add a lot of work for his team to ensure things were updated.  “Field training was far more important than pushing paperwork.”  My lack of mouth control responded with, “But that is your job, sir,” further stating that while it may seem to be less critical than combat-related training, it is a required activity and, more importantly, it directly affects the morale and welfare of our Marines. If a Marine is frustrated that he’s not getting promoted or is worried about providing enough money for his family, he may not pay attention to detail or perform at their best, risking lives.
Lack of Process, Oversight, and Governance – The root causes noted in the first three issues are enabled by a lack of governance or process. Because of the number and types of defects it is clear there was not a proper onboarding or routine review process.  If there had been some of these issues would have never happened.
For example, the report indicated that 70% of the records were either missing a life insurance form, was not signed, or an incorrect beneficiary. This could have been fixed at check-in by simply opening the record, verifying the form’s presence and a signature and date, and asking the Marine if there were any changes.  It would be impossible not to have 100% compliance if that simple process were followed.  When I checked in, the records clerk had an attitude that I was somehow interrupting him. He stamped my check-in form and tossed my record book into a file box without any attempt to verify anything while I was standing there.
The Commanding Officer looked at me and said, “Excellent Insights and Plan, You’re in charge of it, Go fix it.”  After being shocked by the assignment, later that day I presented my complete roadmap for remediation. I asked him what the metric for success was. He replied, “The only metric you need to care about is being good enough, so I don’t get fired. I’ll support you in whatever you need to make that happen.”
The remediation was pretty intense, working 19 to 20-hour days over the next month. We retrained all of the team members, explaining the many use cases and situations and sample records.  I created audit work streams and QA process auditing every book at least twice.  With each audit, we directly fixed or took corrective action on nearly every record book we had.  In the end, the retraining and the audit process resulted in the team going from the worst audit to one of the best, receiving a grade of outstanding.  The Commanding Officer kept his job and received a special commendation for the fantastic turnaround.
It is often rare that a company or department has all four of these issues simultaneously.  A lack of governance and oversight of the activities will almost always ensure that you have one or more. Don’t look for an issue but focus on why something is not working; from there, you can identify a path forward.  Then, develop ways to measure and monitor ongoing performance, collaboration, and knowledge to ensure it does not go off the rails again.
The team at Back Azimuth uses various interview and audit methods to identify these issues and works with companies to implement corrective actions.