My Personal Case Study

I am sorry that this is a longer-than-usual post, but I have a lot on my mind to share.

I have selected a couple of items for my personal case study while here at Harvard.  I will be developing these cases as we complete our studies in the next five weeks.  This development will include a critical assessment of the plans from my learning group members (a diverse group geographically, culturally, and functionally) and also from the Harvard Business School professors.  The professors here are encouraged to take consulting assignments and to sit on boards (such as Coke, Apple, Intel, Shell, Polaris, etc) in order to give them real world experience, so I expect their input to serve as a very valuable “free” consultation.

I will be focusing on two areas.  The first is strategic:  how should Associated position itself to succeed in its mission, given the massive investment required for scrubbers, in light of the uncertainty of Carbon Regulation and New Source Review?  This strategic analysis will include a range of options with direct impacts on our coal-based units.

The second area of focus will address a pressing performance gap in the Power Production Division.  While we have made great strides over the years in improving the operation of our coal-based units, these performance gains are no longer keeping pace with our competitors.  In some cases, we are even losing ground in unit performance.  I believe that part of the reason for this is that our business processes, people skills and corporate culture have not changed to meet the increasing performance requirements.  In order to regain our position as a best-in-class utility, we must make an immediate turnaround.  The details of this turnaround plan will be developed in concert with my Harvard peers and professors.

The management methods that are being taught are not quick-fix “fads.”  Instead we are being trained in a solid process for the analysis of a problem and a development of solutions.  We will be looking at the impact of people, work processes, culture, norms, and organizational structure.  The method is not magic; it is systematic.  We start with the mission, proceed to the strategy, identify performance gaps (or opportunity gaps) and conduct root-cause analysis.  Following this, we go through each element of the organization, checking to determine if this element is in congruence with the desired changes.  If not, we develop the appropriate plans (people, processes, and tools) to support the needed change.  The case-study teaching method employed at Harvard allows us to test these concepts, three times a day, for 56 days.  Good stuff!