#6: 'Re-vision' Assets to Make an Impact

Hi again! After a short hiatus, I’m back writing blogs to help readers successfully ‘lead from the middle’ and influence constructive change by proactively taking initiative.

During our careers we’re likely to be challenged to accomplish a major task without the resources needed to do the job. This raises the question, “How can we achieve our organization’s mission when we have insufficient resources?” The answer often involves taking a fresh look and ‘re-visioning’ the use of assets which we may find can be made available for non-traditional uses.

In the late 1980’s (yes, the last millennium - but hang in there for some valuable tips!) I was Chief of Ocean Engineering in the Ninth District in Cleveland which is responsible for Coast Guard operations in the Great Lakes. The small team I led was responsible for engineering support for Aids to Navigation (or AtoN) including about 160 lighthouses. We were fighting a losing battle against time…the Coast Guard automated its lighthouses starting in the 1960’s and transferred personnel who had lived on-site and maintained the lights, structures and property, to accomplish other missions. Without maintenance personnel on-site, the harsh winters and elements took their toll on the 100+ year old lighthouses which deteriorated and required more frequent painting and repairs. Our backlog of lighthouse engineering projects grew rapidly and would soon exceed our limited lighthouse restoration budget. My predecessor, to stem the deterioration, started a lighthouse restoration program which involved the District’s five buoy tenders each ‘adopting a lighthouse’ every summer to repair and repaint using engineering work order funds. While this reduced the costs of using contractors to perform the work, it wasn’t enough to keep up with the deterioration – we had to have more resources!

At our annual lighthouse restoration conference, someone suggested leveraging our small fleet of 140-foot ice-breaking tugs to restore lighthouses. The small ice-breakers were most heavily used at the beginning of winter and in late spring to keep shipping channels open as long as possible for commercial vessels on the Lakes. In the summer they did not have a well-defined mission and were used sporadically for search and rescue and maritime law enforcement. Aside from being primarily a seasonal resource, the ice-breakers could have a construction barge attached which made them an ideal platform to moor next to lighthouses and make repairs. We asked for volunteers and informed them we would pay for all materials and supplies. 

The ice-breakers that volunteered for lighthouse restoration did outstanding work! The Commanding Officers described how it was great for morale and the crew took great pride comparing before and after photos of ‘their’ restored lighthouse. Community officials and the local press often celebrated their efforts, making them the Coast Guard equivalent of ‘rock stars’ in their local communities! The next year more ice-breakers volunteered to do lighthouse restorations including the largest breaker on the Lakes, the cutter MACKINAW. These additional resources, previously viewed as primarily seasonal assets under-utilized during their ‘off-season’, helped make lighthouse deterioration in the Great Lakes a much more manageable challenge.

A year later the Coast Guard realigned its support services and our ocean engineering section was assigned an expanded 28-state area (including the Mississippi River system & mid-Atlantic states - NC, VA, MD, DE and NJ- in addition to the Great Lakes) which brought new challenges. 

Congress had funded a major waterway project to build ten new range towers in Chesapeake Bay to vastly improve maritime commerce from the mouth of Chesapeake Bay up to Baltimore and the Chesapeake –Delaware Bay canal. These range towers included extraordinarily bright day-time lights to safely guide mariners in newly dredged channels to their ports of destination, including one light that would become the brightest light in the world. When construction contracts were awarded for the towers, it was apparent there was insufficient budget to provide for the huge power demands of the lights and the Coast Guard was unable/unwilling to ask Congress for increased funding. Millions of dollars had been spent on construction, dredging contracts and upgrading port facilities to receive deep draft vessels that historically had been unable to transit up Chesapeake Bay and there was considerable pressure from Congress, states and port communities to meet the announced dates for opening the improved shipping channels. Cleveland’s Ocean Engineering Section was tasked with finding a solution.

Emboldened by the successful expanded lighthouse restoration program, Mike Clark of our team - a civilian electrician technician, had a crazy idea that might get the lights operational by the announced deadline, within the tight budget constraints. Mike was program manager for the Ninth District’s cableboat, one of only two Coast Guard boats that laid submarine cable from shore to offshore lighthouses to power equipment. The cableboat was old, not built for open sea transit, and had never left the Great Lakes. It was another seasonal asset, laying cable during summer and pulled out of the water in late fall as the Lakes froze during the winter.

Mike thought instead of hauling the cableboat out of the water once it completed work in the Great Lakes, they could send it to Chesapeake Bay to lay cable for the new range lights (versus expensive contracts). There were several challenges to Mike’s idea though – the cableboat crew would need to safely transit to Chesapeake Bay (avoiding open ocean) and be away from home for many weeks; the Fifth District (Mid-Atlantic States) would need to provide logistics-berthing the crew, fuel and supplies for the boat; and engineering systems would need to be checked to determine if brackish/saltwater would damage the boat’s freshwater cooling system. 

Mike worked with the cableboat Petty Officer-in-Charge and the crew was up for a unique challenge and opportunity to help out. They plotted a voyage that avoided open seaways by going from the Great Lakes to the Erie Canal, down the Hudson River to New York, then transiting to Chesapeake Bay via the intra-coastal waterway, through Delaware Bay and the Chesapeake-Delaware Bay Canal. The Fifth District agreed to make all the logistics arrangements and engineers determined the systems could be safely maintained. Mike ordered submarine cable, electrical transformers and other equipment needed.…then they executed the plan. The cableboat’s work saved well over a half million dollars less than estimated contract costs and the expanded waterways and port facilities opened as scheduled. 

The next year we dealt with another challenge resulting from realignment - rebuilding about 40 damaged Illinois River aids to navigation that had not been repaired in decades. Marine Contractor costs would greatly exceed our budget….there had to be another, better way. 

In the 1980’s the standard for underway time for buoy tenders and AtoN construction tenders was about 180 days per year. Construction tenders in the Gulf of Mexico only averaged 90-120 days a year underway. Construction tenders built wood and steel pile structures in shallow waters adjacent to the Gulf and would be ideal for building the Illinois River structures, but they had not been used on extended transits out of the Gulf.

Inspired by Mike’s cableboat initiative, I reached out to the Eighth District Commander’s staff (responsible for operations in the Gulf of Mexico), to see if they would be willing to have one of their construction cutters transit up the Mississippi to the Illinois River to build new structures if we paid for materials and the Second District (responsible for inland waterways) arranged for all logistics support for the boat and crew. A construction tender out of Mobile, Alabama was eager for the challenge and epic journey up the Mississippi to perform the badly needed work. John Kiernan and Paul Pallo of our team coordinated the trip and everyone worked to make this a win-win situation including Base St. Louis which threw a party for the crew including a keg of beer and plenty of food! The work was completed in less time than it would take to award a construction contract, with top quality workmanship and saved over $500,000 below estimated contract costs. We ensured thank you letters from two admirals went to the construction tender crew for their incredible efforts which were well beyond normal expectations.

Reflecting on these three initiatives (ice-breakers restoring lighthouses, Great Lakes cableboat for critical work in Chesapeake Bay and leveraging a Gulf of Mexico construction tender to do work in Illinois), some recurring themes led to successful use of these ‘non-traditional’ assets.

1)    Importance of the mission and/or the cost of delaying action is unacceptable

2)    Resource/funding constraints exist – while some resources exist, there are not enough

3)    Problem-solving mentality and creative solutions proposed by someone who does not ‘control’ all the resources needed. Thorough understanding of what needs to be done – often by someone close to the process/challenge (rarely the senior leader)

4)    Identification of specialized assets/resources/partnerships needed for the work:

a.    Traditional ‘seasonal’ assets

b.    Under-tasked assets with additional capability

c.     Assets currently assigned to lower priority work

5)    Building mutually beneficial partnerships to create win-win situations

a.    Find capable partners who are ‘up for a challenge’ and are willing to contribute

b.    Consider what specialized assets/resources are needed to accomplish the task – then provide them (engineering funds, supplies, per diem, tools, etc.)

6)    Detailed execution

How can you make an impact by ‘re-visioning’ assets? Ask yourself:

1)    Can you establish a ‘sense of urgency? Does the task need to be accomplished in the near future to avoid mission failure or significant future cost increases?

2)    Do sufficient resources already exist to accomplish the mission?

3)    Do mission-capable assets/resources (staff, funds, vehicles, boats, aircraft,….) exist that are under-utilized (seasonal assets, under-utilized, or assigned to lower priorities)?

4)    If yes, identify the lowest person responsible for these assets and speak with them. Explain the situation and ask if they are willing to help. If there is interest, determine their needs, what costs or logistical support is needed, etc. 

5)    If you gain their buy-in and can meet their needs, outline an executable plan and float the idea to higher levels in the chain of command for approval.

6)    Once approval is gained, implement the plan! Upon completion, show meaningful gratitude (whether it be a letter from the CEO, or throwing a ‘bash’!) – spread praise to all who contributed to success!

So what professional, volunteer or personal challenges do you face? Can ‘re-visioning’ assets help you and your team make an impact? What assets, resources, equipment or data might be available to help you accomplish your goals? Where can you find willing partners? ........Good luck!

Holiday Gift Ideas: Just an aside, some additions to my Christmas list are shown below in case you are still looking for some original gifts - most can be ordered through Amazon:

"The Hero Factory: The Untold Story of Helicopter Rescue Swimmer School" by Stephen Ryan Gonzalez

"So Others May Live: Coast Guard's Rescue Swimmers Saving Lives, Defying Death" by Martha Laguardia-Kotite

"A Miracle at Attu: The Rescue of CG-1600" by Captain Bill Peterson (USCG Retired)

Geoff Abbott: I’m a retired 30-year U.S. Coast Guard officer currently teaching leadership. I hope you enjoyed this blog. Please feel free to join me on LinkedIn and to share my blogs with others. Comments and true stories welcome!

Recent Articles: See additional ‘leading from the middle’ blogs at:

https://www.dhirubhai.net/in/dr-geoff-abbott-60688a1/recent-activity/posts/

?