REORGANIZATION
PLAN—PHASE 1,
DATED
JUNE 12, 2007
THE CITY MANAGER PROVIDED THE PLAN AFTER HE WAS TOLD OF A LAWSUIT TO OBTAIN IT IOWALIVE NET WORKERS EVALUATED AND SCORED
THE
PLAN, AT NO COST TO CEDAR RAPIDS—and found it to have glaring deficiencies
ANYONE CLAIMING TO HAVE BETTER SCORING NUMBERS
IS
ASKED TO PROVIDE THEM FOR EVALUATION
AND
COMPARISON
7-30-07
EVALUATION
AND SCORE OF CEDAR RAPIDS
CITY
MANAGER’S “REORGANIZATION PLAN—Phase 1”, Dated June
12, 2007
7-30-07
INTRODUCTION
For some unknown reason,
the Cedar Rapids City Manager chose not to prepare a Master Plan to Manage,
Operate and Improve Performance of Cedar Rapids City Government—as competent,
professional, managers would be expected to do, and as he led some people to
believe he would do. Similarly, the
City Manager showed no start or completion dates for anything, which means he is
operating the city as a hobby.
A Master Plan would satisfy
the Mission Statement and address major city objectives—including budgets,
milestones, services, taxes, performance, hiring of consultants, and asset
management etc., etc. The Master
Plan would specify the need to develop a reorganization plan, only when deemed
necessary to meet objectives of the Master Plan. Under no circumstances should lay offs or other actions be
taken prior to completion and approval of the Master Plan.
Unfortunately, the City Manager and Council by-passed the
Master Plan, raised taxes, bought land, talk of selling land, talk of building
an arena or amphitheater, hired consultants, etc., etc. and prepared a
reorganization plan--out of the blue, or on whims—who knows!
This is a classic example of getting the cart before the horse.
The second largest city in Iowa has no Master Plan for its management, operation or improvement.
The Reorganization Plan is
the only Plan the City Manager made available to Iowalive, for evaluating and
scoring. Parts of it are posted on
website: http://www.cedar-rapids.org/citymanager/documents/CityReorganizationPlan.pdf
The following plan content
baseline was used to evaluate and score the Cedar Rapids City Manager’s
“Reorganization Plan”. Evaluation
scores and comments are shown in blue.
Each plan element was scored as: EXCELLENT-4,
ADEQUATE-2 OR DEFICIENT-0
for a total possible score of 26 X 4 = 104.
The total score for the Reorganization Plan is: 4 This is the lowest of any plan evaluated
and scored to date.
1.
A discussion of how the plan supports the city MISSION STATEMENT.
0 The City’s Mission statement states, "The
mission of the City Government is
to foster community cooperation, innovation, and opportunity by providing
quality services to Cedar Rapids citizens and businesses in an efficient,
effective, and economical manner." The
Plan made no mention of the Mission Statement and while it referred to the
“delivery of services”—made no mention of improving any services.
2.
A discussion of how the plan supports the city STRATEGY STATEMENT.
0 The Plan made no mention of—and
did not use the word, ‘strategy’.
3.
A discussion of how the plan is influenced and based upon the
expectations for improved performance, rather than a continuation of existing
performance levels. 0
The Purpose of the Plan included but these four vague statements:
• Control change so it will not control us
• Need to effectively compete
• Inadequate General Fund
revenues
• Need to demonstrate value and
accountability to public
4.
A clear, concise presentation of the measurable purpose(s), outcomes and
scope of the plan. Stating the
expected outcomes in measurable form (nouns rather than verbs) facilitates
development of performance measures (numbers) that are addressed below.
0 None of the above were mentioned.
Further shortcomings of the Plan were discussed in element 3. Above.
5.
A diagram, such as an organizational chart, that shows specifically how
the plan supports the mission statement and fits within the planning hierarchy. A discussion of how the plan will be integrated with other
plans--including those of neighboring tax supported organizations. 2
The Plan had Adequate organization charts.
6.
A discussion of how the plan addresses feed back from citizens.
0 The following is the only mention of
citizen feedback—and it merely results in a “culture” rather than any
actual continuous improvement. Beyond
that, a citizen had to start a lawsuit against the City Manager to obtain a
readable copy of the reorganization Plan! “Establish
plan to achieve a more efficient delivery of services that is responsive to
employee and customer feedback and results in a culture of continuous
improvement”
7.
A diagram or table that lists all of the processes involved (especially
vital processes) and a detailed discussion of how those processes will be
improved. 2
Reorganization process steps were defined as follows. However, Iowalive will request copies of a few of the plans
claimed to have been prepared, and for documents showing how performance
accountability was achieved—as verification.
REORGANIZATION
PROCESS STEPS
1.Team Leader/Department Head
prepare plan
with input from employees
2.Draft
plans reviewed by Manager and
Management Team
3.Plans
receiving preliminary approval
presented
to Teams/Departments for final
comments
4.Draft
plans presented to all-employee
meetings
8.
Charts and discussion that clearly describe the expected results,
including improved services and operating efficiency. The discussion to include
how much improvement is expected and why. Note:
Improved operating efficiency means that better services are provided for less
cost and lower taxes 0
Only the reductions in costs resulting from layoffs were provided.
There was no mention of any improvement or reduction in performance,
efficiency or services expected. The
following claims were made, but there was no mention of ‘how’, ‘how
much’, or ‘when’, as a Plan should do.
Once again, the City Manager has donned his ‘trust me’
T-shirt—which Iowalive’s past experience with him proved to be unwise, as a
lawsuit was needed to get him to respond.
“Why new structure will be an improvement
• New structure will deliver effectiveness,
efficiency, and responsiveness (internally and
externally)
• Better communication between frontline and
supervisors
• Sharing of resources and talents across the
organization (team work will be emphasized)
• Accountability of City staff for work being
performed (outcomes of work will be measured
and staff held accountable for outcomes)”
9.
A chart, discussion and/or
table that shows the performance measures (numbers) that will be used to verify
successful achievement of expected outcomes.
The significance of using performance numbers is clearly stated by W. T.
(Lord) Kelvin (1891) Popular Lectures and Addresses “....WHEN YOU CAN MEASURE
WHAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT AND CAN EXPRESS IT IN NUMBERS, YOU KNOW SOMETHING
ABOUT IT, BUT WHEN YOU CANNOT EXPRESS IT IN NUMBERS YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS OF A
MEAGRE AND UNSATISFACTORY KIND.” 0
There was only one reference made to measures:
“Establish improved CRMFR measures. “
10.
The name of the person or specific group leader accountable for preparing
the plan. 0
None mentioned.
11.
The name of the person or specific group leader accountable for executing
the plan. 0
None mentioned.
12.
Identification of the significant benefactors or customers of the plan
and a convincing discussion of how they will benefit when the plan is
implemented. 0
None mentioned.
13.
A complete list of the sources of all required resources and the quantity
of resources required to successfully implement the plan. 0
None mentioned.
14.
A comprehensive discussion of the processes that are either involved, to
be developed or to be improved. The importance of
processes cannot be overemphasized. They
are fundamental to achievement of the Mission Statement and should be treated as
such in the plan. Processes should
do most of the work--not people. 0
None mentioned.
15.
A clear presentation of the alternatives to the planned approach,
including a convincing discussion of the superiority of the planned approach to
the alternatives. 0
None
mentioned.
16.
A cost benefit analysis--that shows the plan’s total, net cost savings.
This includes any action taken for economic or other development. 0
None mentioned.
17.
A discussion of the risks involved and how those risks will be managed so
they won’t compromise successful implementation of the plan.
0 None
mentioned.
18.
A discussion and recommendation concerning the use of a pilot
implementation prior to full scale implementation of the plan.
0
None mentioned.
19.
A discussion and recommendation concerning the need for preparation and
use of a recovery plan to remedy any loss
or damage, to services or citizens, for example, that may be incurred if the
plan fails to achieve its stated objectives.
0
None mentioned.
20.
A discussion of compliance with all laws, regulations and ordinances if
any, that must be met. 0
None mentioned.
21.
A discussion of the planned pursuit of relief from any laws, regulations
or ordinances that present obstacles to achieving improved performance or other
planned outcomes. 0
None mentioned.
22.
A comprehensive schedule that includes all significant milestones,
decision points and the end event. 0
The Plan contained no milestones, decision points or end events.
It is as if the City Manager is planning a trip with no purpose, no
departure time, no itinerary, and no destination or arrival time in mind—but
he has an organization chart showing who is going with him.
The City Manager is ‘traveling’ rather than managing.
Since no ‘destination’ is mentioned, any path will get him there.
23.
Written concurrence from benefactor and user representatives.
0
None mentioned.
24.
Written concurrence from representatives of those providing resources and
funding. 0
None mentioned.
25.
Approval signature(s) for the plan.
0
None mentioned.
26.
The release or start date for executing the plan.
0
None mentioned.
COMMENT:
The City Manager’s “Plan” is the
poorest plan Iowalive has evaluated to date.
It is an embarrassment to those in the planning business.