Facing congressional demands, cost overruns, and design failures, a new generation of fast response cutters (FRCs) for the Coast Guard was in trouble.

FRCs are intended to perform a wide range of future Coast Guard missions and are the centerpiece of the service’s Deepwater modernization program. The cost of the program that includes new ships, small boats, planes and helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles had ballooned from $17 billion when initiated in 2002 to over $24 billion. The Senate subcommittee overseeing the Coast Guard demanded a comprehensive fix for Deepwater’s problems before proceeding further.

Initial steps included reassigning project responsibility to the Coast Guard’s acquisition branch and identifying more competitive bidders, but more direct input was needed from the actual end-users. Project team leaders needed a way to rapidly assess views on existing capabilities and vulnerabilities from those who would be sailing and maintaining the FRC. Specific feedback was sought on weapons systems, logistics, aviation, intelligence capabilities, and other areas.

A 3-day conference of more than 75 end users was planned to assess beliefs about what was working well, what could be modified and where redesign was inevitable. A unique interactive methodology, Groupsystems, and a team of professional facilitators, was proposed to improve the effectiveness of gathering team feedback and prioritization.

A cross-functional team that included Commanders, Chiefs and front-line officers from across North America was invited. 6 subteams were assigned to evaluate perceptions and beliefs of operational capabilities in each functional area. A process facilitator and Operation Test Director/Test Team Member were assigned to each team. Each facilitator managed the process and technology and captured key discussion themes. Each OTD provided background information and coordinated external information requests. Many questions were clarified and resolved using this approach.

Each subteam was assigned a list of functional areas for review. Using networked PCs, participant examined a pre-loaded list of FRC capabilities, commented on them and rated their level of agreement they could be fulfilled. Where more than 3 reviewers expressed disagreement about a capability, reviewers were asked to expand on the “whys” of their position for further clarification. The process enabled all reviewers to comment simultaneously, so areas of consensus were quickly identified without anyone knowing where the comments originated. This encouraged a freer exchange of ideas. Team ranking of alternatives provided a clearer picture of strengths and weaknesses of the existing capabilities statements. All comments and ratings were captured automatically.

This process had several significant advantages:

• Anonymous input meant it was impossible to “play to the gallery” telling superior officers what team members might perceive they wanted to hear. Full and free exploration of issues resulted.
• There was no need to wait in line to make comments. Topics could be fully explored in a fraction of the normal time normally needed without any risk of missing an important angle.
• Team polling enabled rapid ranking of related items. The anonymity of this process fostered a less filtered evaluation of issue strengths and weaknesses. In certain cases, re-framing assumptions and clarification was necessary. With the software, re-polling was a trivial matter taking only a few extra minutes.
• Reports were generated from each session immediately upon session conclusion. Comparisons of group ratings were being made literally minutes after the subteams adjourned.

• “This is an outstanding way to solve problems and should be employed at the start of the project not when there is a ship in the water.”
• “I thought the mix of people in the aviation group was just about perfect. We had a great mix of backgrounds, skill sets and rank level to provide sufficient expertise in almost all the subjects discussed. Everyone contributed to the product and all views were valued. The software made the process of expressing our points very easy.”
• “We actually had the time to discuss areas as needed. We weren't pushed along merely to get the process accomplished.”
• “The overall process to bring about diverse SME's to provide a third party assessment of the NSC problem statement was extremely beneficial. This type of SME working group should be used for all major USCG acquisitions.”
• The software and administrator for the software were very valuable.
• I want to thank you for allowing me to participate in provide input to the future of the NSC. The use of the Groupsystems software was a first for me and I found it extremely beneficial towards capturing and directing the efforts of the SMEs. Additionally, the diverse backgrounds of the SME's proved invaluable in this venture. This marked one of the few times (with the exception of Cutter CO Conferences), where Cutterman took ownership and worked toward strengthening the Cutter Community.
• This conference has a great deal of potential to alleviate some very significant concerns from the aviation and cutterman communities.

• This process is easily replicable and should be considered for additional operational test and evaluation Deepwater assets where candid review of project capabilities, broad multi-level participation are necessary on tight timelines.
• The Coast Guard should evaluate the effectiveness of gathering and processing team feedback remotely via ThinkTank. Portions of this collaboration can easily be accomplished without the need for team travel.
• Great results depend on a lot more than showing up and plugging in a roomful of PCs. The Coast Guard has extensive capabilities and experience that can be complimented with advance consultation, coaching and appropriate outsourcing. Process sponsors should be encouraged to tap the wealth of external consulting and facilitation resources available to plan and deliver superior team results.
• Where the Coast Guard has a need to sponsor dialogue that includes suppliers, stakeholders and inter-governmental representatives this approach is unrivaled for maximizing team participation. The breakthrough potential of using this process for solving inter-jurisdictional challenges, conducting post-event evaluations and developing well-supported priorities should be explored.