Hot Management Info for 2003 

December 2003 - Permit Systems - The Dilemma

Do you ever wonder why your expensive new permit system did not pay off as much as expected?

A high percent of cities and counties now have computerized automated permit systems. Yet in our experience, most find their system a frustration. There are currently two dozen or more permit systems on the market. Each one has some positive as well as negative features. We have yet to find one that does everything we think it should do. However, the problem is much more than software. Problems include:

• Managers assume that the system will solve problems that it is not designed to solve.
• The vendor may give inadequate support.
• Inadequate staff resources are devoted to installation and design.
• The IT department gives the system low priority or inadequate support.
• There is inadequate staff training.
• Only some departments or divisions agree to use the system.
• No one adequately controls the input so the system isn't reliable.
• Some staff simply refuse to use the system.
• Only part of the system is purchased.
• The system is not programmed or used to supply management information.

We recently purchased a new book, Key Management Models, Prentice Hall, 2003. A chapter in this book discusses the stage of development of maturity of an organization for software development. Check your system against these stages.

1. Initial. The development process is characterized as ad hoc, occasionally chaotic. Few processes are defined, and success depends on individual efforts.
2. Repeatable. Basic project management processes are established to track cost, schedule, and functionality. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes on projects with similar applications.
3. Defined. The software process for both management and engineering activities is documented, standardized and integrated into a standard software process for the organization. All projects use an approved tailored version of the organization's standard software process for developing and maintaining software.
4. Managed. Detailed measures of the software process and product quality are collected. Both the software process and products are quantitatively understood and controlled.
5. Optimizing. Continuous process improvement is enabled by quantitative feedback from the process and from piloting innovative ideas and technologies.

to top

Planners, engineers and building staff continually complain that the reason they can't meet reasonable timelines for plan review is the poor quality of applications they receive. We have heard this complaint from virtually every one of the some 150 cities and counties we have worked with. There are a variety of ways to address this issue including:

• Industry Training Some communities routinely have training sessions for industry representatives to discuss submittal requirements. Occasionally, it is the same company or firm that repeatedly turns in poor applications. In these cases, we recommend that county department heads meet privately with the president of the firm to talk about needed improvements.
• Pre-Application Meetings Optional pre-application meetings should be available for all permits. For complex permits, mandatory pre-application meetings should be considered.
• Submittal Requirements The use of submittal requirements is a complex topic that is practiced in a variety of ways. In all cases, the function should have a very clear list of submittal requirements. Some communities will not take in an application until all submittal requirements are met. This obviously solves at least part of the concern for poor submittals. On the other hand, other communities feel that this is not friendly customer service. We fall somewhere in-between. We normally feel that all submittal-required items should be in place at time of submittal. However, if one or two items are missing and they could be submitted in the next day or two, we suggest the submittal be accepted with the understanding that the missing items will be forthcoming.
• Intake versus Drop Off For complex submittals, some communities require a submittal appointment where an intake person checks through the submittal. We agree with this procedure for complex submittals. Other communities allow submittals to be dropped off, mailed in, or submitted via the Internet. In these later cases there should be a submittal review conducted in a day or two after receipt with the applicant notified that the application has been received and is complete for processing.
• 30-Day Rule for Completeness A number of states, including California and Oregon, have a state-mandated rule for applicant completeness. Under this system the government body receiving the application must declare the application complete within 30 days. If it is not complete, they must list what would be needed to make it complete. We tend not to like these systems. We find that it allows staff to continually stretch out the timelines and there is often confusion regarding the meaning of the word "complete."
• Detailed Engineering or Architectural Requirements In development, there is a natural sequence of events as related to when detailed engineering or architectural drawings are needed. Normally, the applicant wants to know they can proceed prior to completing these details. Staff and Planning Commissions often want to see more details than they should need to make a decision to proceed. If too much detail is asked at the wrong time in the process, it encourages applicants to make partial submittals and creates extra cost when changes are required.
• Timelines - Playing the Game If timelines are too long or if there is a long wait to get in queue, it encourages applicants to make incomplete submittals simply to get a place in line. If timelines are reasonable, there is no longer a reason for applicants to play this game.

Additionally, some applicant professionals will play other games with their clients. They make incomplete submittals and then tell their client that it is the government that is holding them up. A good way to get around this problem is to copy the client on all correspondence given to the professional.

to top

We recently completed a study of Fort Collins Development Review Process. As part of that work, we discovered underlying community concerns related to growth or no growth issues. We suggested the City clarify its policy stand as related to the development process, which they did by adopting the following resolution:

Resolution 2003
Of The Council Of The City Of Fort Collins
Stating The Intent Of The City To Conduct
Its Development Review Process In A
Politically Neutral Manner As To Growth

WHEREAS, the City's land development policies have been established and set out through the City's comprehensive plan, and particularly "City Plan;" and

WHEREAS, The City's land development policies, and growth policies, as contained in the City's comprehensive plan are implemented through the City's Land Use Code; and

WHEREAS, the City has recently engaged the services of Zucker Systems to prepare a report entitled "Quality Improvement Plans for Development Review Process," which report has suggested that the City's development review process should be clear and reasonably predictable and should be "policy neutral" such that the process is not used to either speed up or slow down development depending upon attitudes about growth; and

WHEREAS, by this resolution, the Council desires to clarify its intentions and eliminate any perception that the development review process is used as a tool to either promote, prohibit or inhibit growth.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that it is the intention of the City to conduct its development review process in a manner which is "policy neutral" as to the promotions, prohibition or inhibition of growth.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 7th day of October, A.D. 2003

to top

Good permitting and development systems operate best with good performance standards. While we see that many cities and counties have adopted performance standards, they generally measure only part of the process. The standards normally state that the department or division will respond within "x" working days to any submittal. The use of working days rather than calendar days is a good approach as it indicates response time. However, the systems being used often have a number of potentially fatal flaws as follows:

• Monitoring of Timelines—The timelines exist, but often there is no comprehensive way to monitor the timelines or alert management if timelines are not being met.
• City or County Time vs. Applicant Time—The applicant is concerned about the time from submittal to approval. However, the city or county is in control of only part of this time. The applicant is responsible for how long it takes to respond to the city or county requirements. Often the systems do not monitor or separate out applicant vs. city or county time.
• Applicant Time—Even though the city or county cannot be responsible for applicant time, they do have a responsibility to help reduce applicant time. This relates to things like the clarity of submittal requirements, training of the private professionals who are active in the community, adequacy of city or county response to submittals, and assisting the applicant with obtaining outside agency responses.
• Completeness of Reviews—Applicants often say that government does meet their review times but that the reviews are incomplete. New items are added in second or third reviews that should have been caught in first reviews. Generally, there is no process to examine or monitor the completeness of first reviews.
• Timelines for Second, Third or Fourth Reviews—Most functions that set timelines use the same timeline for second, third or fourth reviews. They also review items in the order received. In other words, a second or third review still goes to the bottom of the pile. Good review systems should cut the review times in half for each subsequent review.
• Triaging Permits—There is a tendency in many communities to put all permits in the same pile. A better system triages permits so permits that can be handled in one or five days do not go in the same pile as permits that require 15 days.

In summary, features of a good performance system should include:

• The automated permit system should be programmed to:
  1. Monitor and report weekly or monthly on how well performance standards are being met.
  2. Track city or county time and applicant time as two separate numbers.
• Each function should review its experience with applicant time and develop assistance to help applicants reduce their times.
• Each function should establish a goal of comprehensively complete first time reviews.
• Each function should develop a quality control monitoring program to monitor performance on first time reviews. Ten to 25% of the permits should be randomly monitored for this purpose and applicants should be encouraged to provide feedback to function managers.
• As a guideline, the time for each subsequent review should be set at half of the prior review time.
• Permits should be triaged, i.e., simple permits should follow a different track and priority from more complex permits.

to top

I could have titled this article "Ethics" but then I knew that many of you would not have read it. As planners, we do have the AICP code of ethics that gives us some advice, but I thought it would be helpful to share some of the new private sector ideas. The comments below are taken from two new books reviewed in the American Management Association, Summer 2003 edition. The books are A Business Tale, by Marianne Jennings and Absolute Honesty, by Larry Johnson and Bob Phillips. Ideas include:

1. Setbacks
   Sometimes we do suffer setbacks because we do what's honest and right. Sometimes those who are less than honest even pull ahead of us in our quest for success. We build our reputations over time. The little ethical shortcuts that we take often come back to haunt us while the ethical choices we make come back to help us.
2. Ethics is Hard
   Doing what's right and what's honest is a much more difficult path in the short term. But, integrity can be the building blocks to our long- term reputation and success.
3. Like Water
   Ethics is like water — it starts at the top and flows down.
4. Tell the Truth
   Your ability to lead others depends on their trusting you.
5. Tackle the Problem
   Learn to confront tough issues in a healthy and straightforward manner.
6. Disagree and Commit
   Everyone in the organization needs to express his or her opinions openly and clearly. However, once everyone has reached consensus on a particular decision, all are expected to commit to the decision.
7. Welcome the Truth
   A culture of honesty depends on being able to criticize and accept criticism in an open, healthy and nondestructive way.
8. Reward the Messenger
   If managers punish people for expressing their opinions, those opinions will simply go underground.

to top

Summarized from June 2003 Training Magazine

Promising managers may get derailed and cost the organization lost time and wasted talent. The manager's boss should look for the signs and take corrective action. This is also a good self-help checklist for all managers, particularly planners, who aspire to the next level.

1. APPROVAL DEPENDENT. Seek and need praise or reassurance from others, particularly from people higher in the organization.
2. ARGUMENTATIVE (DISTRUSTFUL). Skeptical, tense, perhaps paranoid or suspicious, focused on protecting their own interests and likely to resist coaching and feedback.
3. ARROGANT. Overly self-assured or confident resulting in poor listening skills and dismissal of feedback from others.
4. ATTENTION-SEEKING. Gregarious, charming and persuasive—perhaps escessively so—which can result in melodrama and self-promotion.
5. DISTANT. While seemingly pleasant and cooperative, tend to be preoccupied with their own agendas and may prefer to address issues covertly (avoiding more direct solutions), thus being perceived as a procrastinator, manipulator or stubborn.
6. ECCENTRIC. Creative and different from others, perhaps to the point of being unorthodox or odd.
7. IMPERCEPTIVE (ALOOF). Not naturally inclined to read others' behavior, intent and motivations.
8. IMPULSIVE. Impatient, unpredictable and inclined to act before considering the consequences of actions.
9. PERFECTIONIST. Micromanaging, controlling and demanding of others.
10. RISK AVERSE (CAUTIOUS). Indecisive, too deliberate or reluctant to take unusual or unconventional actions due to overemphasis of the prospect of failure.
11. VOLATILE. Have difficulty controlling emotions, moody and quick to erupt in anger.

to top

The Influentials
From The Influentials*

One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy — And How Good or Bad the Planning Department Is.

What are they? They are the most influential Americans — the ones who tell their neighbors what to buy, which politician to support and where to vacation. They aren't necessarily who you expect. They aren't the richest 10% or the best educated 10%. They aren't the early adopters who are always the first to try everything. They are, however, the 10% of Americans most engaged in their communities — where they wield a huge amount of influence. They're the campaigners for open-space initiatives and friends of the public library. They're the Influentials. Together they are the best marketing tool around — using word of mouth to create spirals of influence. With word of mouth increasingly important, they've never been more powerful than now. Today, a fragmented market has made it possible for Influentials to opt-out of mass-message advertising, which means that you must take a different route to reach them.

Who are they? They tend to be well educated — the vast majority have attended college and 20% have done graduate work. Most are employed full or parttime, are married, have children and own homes, median age is 45 and median income is $55,000. They're technologically literate and politically centrists.

How to reach them?

• Be Where the Information Is. Offer them good, high-quality information. Don't exaggerate. Be where they are.
• When Critics Come Knocking, Invite Them In. When Influentials have a problem with a service, they do something about it.
• Get Out Into the Community. Become active.
• Make it Easier and Then Make it Easier Still. Make life easier for the Influentials.
• Know the "Exceptions" and Keep Up With Them. They are utilitarians in many areas but make exceptions in homes, automobiles, travel and personal health.
• Be a Brand and Tell the World. They believe a particular brand is worth paying for.

What Does This Mean For You? While this research was private sector, I believe it has something to say for planning and planners. APA has been talking about "branding" for planning. I've been talking about constituency building for planning. Many of our readers complain about the lack of respect in their communities for planning. I believe that all planners need to develop a political profile of their community. This should include finding out who the Influentials are and how to use them for better planning. What do you think?

*The Influentials, by Ed Keller and Jon Berry, The Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 2003

A great article to share with planners! Bruce McClendon's concept of a brand for APA was harshly criticized in some circles because some thought it was a waste of time and others were concerned about the "commercialization" of planning. Yet, his concept of having an identity for APA is the very problem that APA and AICP continue to experience. Planners are too often seen as obstructionists (if one works in the public sector) or opportunists (if one works in the private sector). What happened to the concept of professionalism? We are constantly shown by the press that doctors can make huge life-ending mistakes and lawyers substantial wealth-eliminating errors when serving their customers, but we still use them when the need for their services occur. Planners need to have the same image of being seen as professionals serving the public to make better and more livable communities. The steps identified in the article were excellent guides and one that we must be taking to heart if we're going to get any respect for the efforts to which most of us have devoted our entire careers.

Mike Harper
Washoe County, NV

to top

Once you learn how to listen, your managerial skills will improve dramatically. You’ll get better feedback, communicate better, and solve more problems. Here are some exercises that will improve your listening skills, and help you get the most out of each meeting.

• Clean off your desk. If there are loose papers on your desk, you’ll unconsciously start to fiddle with them—and may even start to glance over them. Clear your desk for every conversation, so you can focus your attention on what they’re saying.
• What is the color of the person’s eyes? Train yourself to notice eye color at the start of every conversation. It ensures that you’ll make significant eye contact—which leads to more productive conversations. Important: Don’t focus so much on eye color that you don’t listen to what is being said.
• Train yourself to ask questions instead of making statements. Example: Don’t say, “Joan, don’t forget that the Anderson report needs to be in on Monday morning.” Rather, say, “How is the Anderson report coming along, Joan? Any problems with making the deadline?” By asking questions you’ll start a dialogue, and you never know what you might learn.
• Learn to “lubricate” conversations. Phrases such as “Yes, I see” and “I understand” do two things: 1) They show that you’re listening, and encourage the other person to keep talking; and 2) They keep your attention focused.
• Don’t blurt out questions as soon as the person is finished speaking. It looks as if you were formulating your reply rather than listening. Before you ask a question, paraphrase the person’s words. Example: “So what you’re saying is….” Then, ask your question: “Well, let me ask you this….” This cuts down on miscommunication.
• Don’t smile the whole time. A lot of managers do this because they think it sends a friendly message. It can, but people also often mistake it for mental absence, or a sign that you’re not taking them seriously. Save smiles for humorous remarks.

to top

From Harvard Business Review, December 2002

He's a rising star. He's also arrogant and unseasoned. Denying him that promotion might be the best thing you could do for his career - and your company.

It's not unusual for a star performer to be promoted into higher management before he's ready. Yes, he may be exceptionally smart and talented, but he may also lack essential people skills. Rather than denying him the promotion altogether, his boss might do well to delay it - and use that time to help develop the candidate's emotional competencies. Here's how.

Deepen 360-Degree Feedback. Go beyond the usual set of questionnaires that make up the traditional 360-degree-feedback process. Interview a wide variety of the manager's peers and subordinates and let him read verbatim responses to open-ended performance questions.

Interrupt the Ascent. Help the inexperienced manager get beyond a command-and-control mentality by pushing him to develop his negotiation and persuasion skills. Instead of promoting him, give him cross-functional assignments where he can't rely on rank to influence people.

Act On Your Commitment. Don't give the inexperienced manager the impression that emotional competencies are optional. Hold him accountable for his interpersonal skills, in some cases taking a tough stance by demoting him or denying him a promotion, but with the promise that changed behaviors will ultimately be rewarded.

Institutionalize Personal Development. Weave interpersonal goals into the fabric of the organization and make emotional competence a performance measure. Also, work to institute formal development programs that teach leadership skills and facilitate self-awareness, reflection, and opportunities to practice new emotional competencies.

Cultivate Informal Networks. Encourage the manager to develop informal learning partnerships with peers and mentors in order to expose him to different leadership styles and perspectives. This will provide him with honest and ongoing feedback and continual opportunities to learn.

Could you please give me a quick definition of what “emotional competence” means as it relates to this article?

The Management Doctor suggests it relates to a person’s essential people skills. How does the person relate to his or her peers, subordinates and boss? Is the person still of the “I’m the boss” mentality or does this person understand contemporary management relies more on teamwork and coordination rather than authority. Good interpersonal skills are not just nice in a manager but are essential.

I hope this helps,

The Management Doctor

to top

From December 2002 Training.

Do employees learn best when they teach themselves? When American Re-Insurance Co. (Am-Re) established its corporate university, Thom Smith wanted to find out. So he started a companywide employee book club.

“It’s a simple approach, the cost of entry is low, the time commitment is low, yet the relevance to business can be extremely high,” says Smith, the president of American Re-Insurance University (ARU). While most book clubs are pouring over a New York Times bestseller, the ARU book club is reading Built to Last (HarperBusiness 2002), The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (Simon & Schuster, 1990) and Who Moved My Cheese? (Putnam Publishing Group, 1998).

Every few months Smith announces what the club will read next with a companywide e-mail. Once interested employees have registered online, he buys the books, distributes them, and assigns employees to a book discussion group. Smith tries to avoid having people from the same division in the same group. After everyone has read the book, participants meet over their lunch hour to discuss what they have read. Each group has a volunteer leader, who guides the discussion with a series of questions Smith provides.

“We’re trying to get employees to think more broadly about the business, but we’re also getting presidents in the same room with file clerks and support staff,” says Smith. “It’s a great mix and a safe environment for every employee to offer their opinions and ideas.”

Smith’s goal is that employees understand what they read and how to apply it to Am-Re’s operations. To encourage that, Smith chooses books that are relevant to the company’s current situation.

For example, while Am-Re was in the midst of a reorganization last March, the book club read The Employee Handbook for Organizational Change (Pritchett Publishing Co., 1990). During group meetings, Smith’s questions encouraged participants to discuss how the handbook applied to their experiences during the reorganization. “Any feedback that suggests improvement or an opportunity to do something different gets forwarded to the right department,” says Smith.

Participation remains strong since the book club’s inception in March 2001. About 10 percent of Am-Re’s workforce participates each time a new book is announced, but it’s not the same 10 percent each time. The only expense is $10,000 a year for books. “Compared to other learning expenditures, that’s very reasonable,” Smith says. “To touch that many people with that little money is a good outcome for us.”

to top

A recent letter to the Management Doctor asked: “What in an organizational life can de-motivate people?” This arrived at the same time that I was reading the January 2003 issue of the Harvard Business Review that includes 50 pages on the topic of motivation. This also provided the opportunity for me to once again suggest that most of you managers out there are not reading enough management material and that you should put the Harvard Business Review high on your list.

The January issue is particularly interesting because the four articles on motivation were all published before and the magazine concluded that they were worthy of being re-published. My favorite was, One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? by Frederick Herzberg, originally published in 1968. I continue to use this excellent research in my teaching motivation.

Herzberg tries to clear up the confusion between motivators (extreme satisfaction) and de-motivators (extreme dissatisfaction). His research was based on 12 investigations covering roughly 1,800 events. I believe the general results today are as good as they were in 1968, although some of the percentages might change slightly in a current survey. Based on my other research, I would speculate that Company Policy and Supervision would score even higher as a de-motivator. On the motivation side, control over one’s job and empowerment concepts would score very high. The numbers below are my estimates based on Herzberg’s published chart. As can be seen, each factor can be a de-motivator or a motivator depending on the person.

KEY MOTIVATORS	De-motivation	Motivation
Achievement	10%	42%
Recognition	9%	31%
Work Itself	12%	22%
Responsibility	4%	22%
Advancement	6%	12%
Growth	5%	7%
KEY DE-MOTIVATORS
Company Policy & Administration	34%	4%
Supervision	19%	4%
Relationship with Supervisor	10%	5%
Work Conditions	10%	2%
Salary	9%	6%
Relationship with Peers	7%	3%
Status	5%	1%
Security	3%	1%

Just a reality-check comment on the chart: it would appear that 'salary' and 'security' are under-rated. All the planners I have talked to in a 20-year career have rated both pretty high on their list of desirables.

Of course other workplace factors, job independence and satisfaction are important, but without an adequate salary and job security, everything else is a luxury.

Thanks.

Hiller West
City of Monroe, WA

to top

In a number of our recent employee surveys, as part of our organizational studies, a common complaint has been made. The boss is often late to meetings he or she has called or cancels the meeting at the last minute, sometimes even after the group has already assembled and is waiting.

Much to my delight, the November 26, 2002 USA Today ran an article called, I’m late, I’m late, I’m late. A few items of interest:

• At one company, anyone who comes late to a meeting has to buy lunch.
• Tardiness is a chronic problem among chief executive officers. They arrive late for six in ten meetings.
• Workers wasting time sitting around the table can result in thousands of dollars per hour.
• Chronic tardiness, no matter how innocent, can so gum up the gears of a corporate work ethic, create resentment and hurt a reputation that experts address the topic as if it were a mental disorder.
• At a high-tech company, employees have taken to locking the door two minutes after the start time. They still open the door, but they seem to take a measure of enjoyment in making the boss knock.
• Workers at another company have pretended to be laughing long and hard at a joke when the CEO walks in, hoping he will feel he missed something.
• One executive says he tries to get to meetings a bit early to see what the mood of the team is and have an opportunity to interact informally before they get down to serious business.
• Many executives are “adrenaline-addicted” and hope their phone rings when they are about to leave. Fighting a fire is more fun than attending a meeting.
• Seven golden rules of leadership say: “Rule No. 1 — Everyone’s time is valuable.”

So, Planning Directors and other bosses, don’t be late! And, have a happy New Year.