Why do teams that least need audits and management reviews want them the most and the ones that need them the most want them the least? The C-17 program is a high performing organization that has won the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award twice. They viewed audits as opportunities to improve and management reviews as a chance to receive free consulting.
I was in India last week to review progress on two start-up projects at critical inflection points. Each asked for relief from the next management review in terms of timing, length and intensity. What causes this dichotomy? The difference seems to result from the cadence maturity of the organization. Some teams refer to this cadence as their operating rhythm or battle rhythm. Simply put, it is the normal report and review schedule conducted on a program. It seems the teams that look forward to the reviews do so because they are always ready (i.e., tour-ready, review-ready, etc.). They do not prepare to discuss about their performance metrics, progress, achievements and challenges.
Have you experience this same dichotomy? How have you helped teams mature to the review-ready state?