|
|
||
|
These are the core phases of a change management initiative (I know not what you are used to seeing). Idea Engagement Big Picture/Vision Engagement PMO approach Disbanding
Idea- Every change starts with an idea. The idea can develop into change. For that to happen a connection to both stakeholders and the business strategy of the organization will have to be made. The idea needs to become a clear picture of a spot to head to. Engagement- Successful change management communication informs stakeholders of the time and place for their work. Time- is the relationship of stakeholder work and participation to the total amount of time for the initiative, the time frame of the phase(s) they are included in and the period they will need to accomplish their tasks. Place- is the relationship of that work to participation and tasks that occur before and after their own (and possibly a connection of importance to the bigger picture). Well of course this is simple time and project management right? If we communicate what is happening then we are doing a good job. The ideal way to lay out a change management process is to come to a description of the end state and work back toward the present. This gives a view of what will have changed to get there. Knowing what will change can help determine the resources, the new behaviors and any new structure to the organization. That will then guide the division of phases leading to the project streams within those phases and finally the task associated with those streams.
But that is typically not what happens.
Historical approaches and a vertical perspectives are not working. The resulting trend is horizontal change management. Horizontal is the positions of equal "rank" within verticals- like VP sales to VP IT. So there are up eight horizontals depending on the size of the organization. The next trend is to place work in context with the whole. The whole being org. strategy, big picture, end state, direction of growth etc. Once a stakeholder knows how their work fits (which motivates them to participate) then they need to know when and with what effort that participation is needed.
The holidays bring people back to town from all over. Deep down project manager (and thanks to a previous life as sous chef, waiter, cook etc) that I am the gathering is typically at my home. Small gatherings they are not. Two leaves in the table and 14 friends from three decades back and the 2009 holidays are in full swing. My family is used to these spontaneous gatherings with a role for each. We sometimes switch but we each have our specific skills. Often guests show up early just to be involved with the excitement and energy of the event. They soon find their forte too, to the point that they may take a specific process as their responsibility- maybe the desert or the appetizer or getting the table pretty and fancy. What is more important for whole organization change, design/structure or method/approach?…tempting, but it will be more collaborative to let this have a life of its own. This was a question I asked on LinkedIn that elicited some interesting responseshttp://preview.tinyurl.com/yby9mu2 if you want the full thread If I were a stakeholder (have been many times) my answer would be something like- If I were an executive responsible for change- The realization of a corporate strategy through productive, efficient utilization of resources.
For Vision to Work it is- Both of the above plus a change in the organization itself for the better. Truly successful change management starting at the highest levels and flowing through the organization would:
Method/approach tends to win out for change management because it is tangible, marketable and can be a baton pass to action and activity. It is an easy way to avoid design/structure. It is based on status quo. Initially, it is less expensive. It can work well for projects that have minimal and visible impact. Design/structure is, initially at least, less tangible, tougher to measure and easy to own. It is often forced into situations where method has been decided on. It is always a risk and often bucks status quo. It takes the kind of time which can equal the perception of expensive. For whole organization change avoiding, giving short shrift to (http://preview.tinyurl.com/y89th9r) or sidestepping design/structure will make method/approach become very expensive. I took a break from change for half the day yesterday and chaperoned my daughter (8 years old-third grade) on a field trip. We went to a local farm-Forest Hill Farms in Danville, CA- to learn about agriculture in the Tri-Valley at the turn of the century. In one module the kids (and me) learned about canning and had the opportunity to draw their own label. And that is where I quickly returned to my change management environment. I was struck by the many approaches. And fascinated by the connection to similarities with adults “drawing” up change. This is another way of juxtaposing the broad horizontal view of Corporate Change Management with the focused deliverable and list based view present in a project stream. The problem that occurs with change initiatives is that the implementation of the change begins before there is any horizontal strategy. The train leaves before most of the passengers have even arrived. With IT initiatives little do they know the tracks are not even finished yet (since the technology typically develops during the implementation after change requests and legacy phase outs). |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 Vision to Work, Inc. - All Rights Reserved Bad Behavior has blocked 13 access attempts in the last 7 days. |
||
