DDBA 8581 Week 6 Experience-Based Development Route Example

From the Smaller Plant's Controls Engineer to the Larger Plant's in Three Years: A Development Route Built From Six Sequenced Experiences Aimed at the Role as It Will Be After the Control System Upgrade, Not as It Is Today

Student Name

Walden University

DDBA 8581: Succession Planning: A Survival Tool of the Fittest

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

From the Smaller Plant's Controls Engineer to the Larger Plant's in Three Years: A Development Route Built From Six Sequenced Experiences Aimed at the Role as It Will Be After the Control System Upgrade, Not as It Is Today

Current and Target Profiles

The candidate is the controls engineer at the composite chemicals manufacturer's smaller plant, eight years in the company, identified in the Week 5 bench review as having observed partial coverage of alarm rationalization and interlock work, but on a different control system. The target is the controls engineer role at the larger plant, held by an engineer expected to retire within three years.

The target role will change. The company has announced that the larger plant's distributed control system will be upgraded to a new platform in 2028, with a phased cutover by process unit. The successor will therefore need not only the current system's logic but the ability to lead a migration: writing and testing converted logic, managing vendor acceptance tests and supervising cutover without unplanned shutdowns.

[after]

Table 1

Gaps Between Demonstrated and Target Capability

The Route

First, months 1 to 6: two days a week at the larger plant shadowing the incumbent on logic changes and alarm reviews, closing the relationship gap and beginning the logic gap. Second, months 4 to 12: own the alarm rationalization for one reactor unit, with the incumbent reviewing every change, closing the alarm gap on the current system. Third, month 10: cover the incumbent's planned three-week leave, with the retired former engineer on call, the first test of independent responsibility. Fourth, months 12 to 24: co-own logic changes, with the candidate drafting and signing off and the incumbent reviewing, closing most of the logic gap. Fifth, months 18 to 20: lead the company's side of the vendor's factory acceptance test for the new system, closing the acceptance testing gap. Sixth, months 26 to 30: lead cutover of the first process unit, with the incumbent as adviser, closing the cutover gap.

A single vendor training course on the new platform supports the fifth step but is not counted as development in itself.

Why Experience Rather Than Courses

McCall et al. (1988) studied successful executives' accounts of what developed them and found that challenging assignments, hardships and relationships with other people figured far more prominently than formal programs. DeRue and Wellman (2009) found that developmental challenge in on-the-job experiences helped managers build leadership skill, though gains leveled off as challenge grew very high, and that available feedback softened the leveling off. The route therefore raises difficulty in steps, keeps the incumbent reviewing work through the first two years and saves the hardest experience, a live cutover, for last. Dragoni et al. (2009) found that the developmental quality of assignments managers held predicted their later competencies, supporting the choice of assignments over instruction as the route's core.

Risks

If the incumbent retires early, steps four through six must be compressed, and the retiree's contract hours increased. If the candidate leaves, the route's investment goes with them; the sourcing comparison in Week 9 considers that risk.

What the Candidate Gives Up and Gets

The route asks a lot of the candidate: two days a week away from the smaller plant for six months, then increasingly visible responsibility for a plant that is not yet theirs. The company should state plainly what the candidate can expect if the route succeeds, the larger plant role and its pay grade, and what happens if the upgrade timeline slips. Development routes that ask for sacrifice without stating the reward invite the candidate to accept a competitor's offer partway through, taking the investment with them. A written understanding, reviewed at each step, reduces that risk without promising the role before it is earned.

Measuring Progress

Each step has an observable end: logic changes signed off without correction, an uneventful leave coverage, a passed acceptance test and a cutover without unplanned shutdown.

Coverage at the Smaller Plant

The smaller plant's instrument technician will cover routine work on the candidate's away days, which also develops a second person.

Limits

The route assumes the upgrade timeline holds and that the smaller plant can spare its engineer two days a week, which will require coverage there.

References

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859-875. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015317

Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, I.-S. (2009). Understanding managerial development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 731-743. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43669936

McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington Books.