A Sea Story: Implementing the Navy's Personnel Assignment System

During its operational test and evaluation, despite top management support and significant technical achievements, a personnel assignment model implemented for the United States Navy to support assignment decisions experienced overwhelming resistance from the users, the 200 or so enlisted detailers, located at the Bureau of Naval Personnel in Washington, D.C. Our MS/OR research team had neglected to assess the negative impact of the personnel assignment model on an important detailing function: assignment negotiations or bargaining between the detailers and their customers, the service members. By involving the detailers in revising the model and making the failings of the old model the strengths of the new model, we turned certain failure into a successful program. By managing the behavioral aspects of the implementation with special emphasis on problem identification and requirements structuring, we overcame the difficulties of introducing change to a largely manual and highly decentralized decision process and we compare lessons learned with the experiences of other implementers.

[1]  Howard Thomas,et al.  Problem Formulation and the Consultant-Client Relationship , 1983 .

[2]  Eliezer Geisler,et al.  The Successful Implementation of Application Software in New Production Systems , 1987 .

[3]  Jack R. Meredith,et al.  The Importance of Impediments to Implementation , 1981 .

[4]  Victor Barnouw,et al.  Culture and personality , 1964 .

[5]  D. Klingman,et al.  The Challenges and Success Factors in Implementing an Integrated Products Planning System for Citgo , 1986 .

[6]  Gamini Gunawardane,et al.  Implementing a Management Information System in an Extremely Dynamic and Somewhat Hostile Environment---a Case Study , 1985 .

[7]  R. Kanter The Change Masters , 1983 .

[8]  R. Fisher,et al.  Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in , 1981 .

[9]  M. Shakun Management Science and Management: Implementing Management Science Via Situational Normativism , 1972 .

[10]  William L. Ury,et al.  Getting to Yes , 2019, Boy on the Bridge.

[11]  Thomas J. Peters,et al.  Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution , 1988 .

[12]  Albert H. Rubenstein,et al.  Implementation in Operations Research and R&D in Government and Business Organization , 1970, Oper. Res..

[13]  Robert E. D. Woolsey,et al.  The Fifth Column: Sales Psychology of MS/MIS Systems: Why Some Work, Why Some Win , 1989 .

[14]  Leonard Adelman Involving Users in the Development of Decision-Analytic Aids: The Principal Factor in Successful Implementation , 1982 .

[15]  T. Liang,et al.  A LARGE‐SCALE PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT MODEL FOR THE NAVY* , 1987 .

[16]  W. Bridges Managing organizational transitions , 1986 .

[17]  Steen Hildebrandt,et al.  The changing role of analysts in effective implementation of operations research and management science , 1980 .

[18]  R. Ackoff The Future of Operational Research is Past , 1979 .

[19]  Colin Eden Problem construction and the influence of OR , 1995 .

[20]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  What do users really want? , 1989, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  Abe Feinberg,et al.  Enhancing the chances of successful OR/MS implementation: the role of the advocate , 1982 .

[22]  K. Weick Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. , 1984 .

[23]  Jan H. B. M. Huysmans,et al.  The implementation of operations research , 1970 .

[24]  Thomas J. Holloran,et al.  United Airlines Station Manpower Planning System , 1986 .