Change is an emotional business. The failure to address the human impacts of change is at the root of most failed change initiatives. It is not enough just to "manage" change; people need to be led through change.
One of the major change leadership priorities is recognising and addressing the inner psychological and emotional adjustments that people move through in response to external organisational change events.
William Bridges draws the important distinction between organisational change and what he calls the "transition" that people need to move through in order to successfully adapt to the new circumstances arising from that change.
Here are 3 important guidelines that Bridges' highlights:
(1) "Transition readiness" is best indicated by an organisations legacy of change initiatives
Whenever Bridges' team undertake an assignment one of their first assessments is of what he calls "transition readiness". This is important he says as it "provides an important early indicator of what lies ahead, and one of the things we inquire into is the organisation's history of changes, both those that worked and those that didn't."
A deeper dimension to this enquiry into the change initiative legacy is to look at the scars left by successful as well as unsuccessful initiatives.
From a change leadership perspective, it is crucial to understand and address the scar tissue left by previous initiatives. The most effective way of doing this is by actions - by demonstrating that you as change leader do understand and care, and that you are taking steps to mitigate the pain.
(2) Executive detachment from everyday work impedes transition
So often it is just assumed by senior management that people can and will accept an organisational change.
But, the failure to recognise and attempt to address this dimension is a significant cause of organisational change failure. The larger the human impact of the organisational change the greater the need for some form of "transitional support".
Many directors and senior managers have the emotional detachment and objectivity to make clear, sound strategic decisions yet seem to lack the "counter-balancing" self-awareness and emotional intelligence to realise the impact of their decisions.
This omission frequently [and unnecessarily] delays or jeopardises the implementation of their strategic vision and the realisation of the organisational benefits.
Bridges: "These executives' detachment from the everyday work-work, which is so often defended as necessary to be 'strategic,' keeps these people from understanding what has to happen for changes to work as planned."
The higher you are in your organisation - the more quickly you are likely to move through your own personal transition. You know the intended destination, and have probably known for some while. Most of your people however, will not have this head start.
Your people won't "just get it"; they will take at least as long as you did to transition and quite probably a lot longer.
As a change leader, it is important to understand why your people will not necessarily embrace change.
In my view, the reality is that most organisational leaders come from technical, operational or financial backgrounds and, to put it bluntly, do not have the necessary people skills or experience to lead their people through a transition.
Bridges makes the point that it is significant that: "the great leaders, from Moses and Caesar to Lincoln and Lee, were people who deeply understood the people they were leading."
(3) Debrief thoroughly after each change initiative - find out what worked and what didn't
Bridges says that senior executives are usually in such a hurry to move on to the next change that they fail to learn from each concluding change initiative. He says that executives need to undertake a careful debrief to identify key lessons learnt.
He shares this anecdote: "I first realized that after helping a 50,000-person technology company close a fabricating plant. It went very well--they actually doubled productivity per person during the closedown process! But when they called to ask for help in shutting another facility, I discovered that they had 'forgotten' what they had done with the previous shutdown."
In Bridges' view, senior executives need to regard every change initiative as a thorough learning experience, to ascertain what worked and didn't and why.
Showing posts with label Models. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Models. Show all posts
ADKAR Change Model - An Evaluation of Its Strengths and Weaknesses
The ADKAR change model was first published by Prosci in 1998. Prosci is the recognised leader in business process design and change management research, and is the world's largest provider of change management and reengineering toolkits and benchmarking information.
Prosci's own research shows that problems with the people dimension of change is the most commonly cited reason for project failures.
And in terms of change management, study after study shows that 70% of all business initiatives where there is a significant change element [which is virtually all of them!] fail to realise the envisaged benefits.
Summary of the ADKAR model
It is based on 2 basic ideas:
(1) It is people who change, not organisations.
(2) Successful change occurs when individual change matches the stages of organisational change.
For successful change to occur at the individual level people need to move through each of these stages:
- Awareness of the need for change
- Desire to make the change happen
- Knowledge about how to change
- Ability to implement new skills and behaviours
- Reinforcement to retain the change once it has been made
For organisational change to be successful, these individual changes need to progress at or close to the same rate of progress through the business dimension of change.
Prosci define the business dimension of change as including these typical project elements:
- Business need or opportunity is identified
- Project is defined (scope and objectives)
- Business solution is designed (new processes, systems and organizational structure)
- New processes and systems are developed
- Solution is implemented into the organization
Evaluation of the AKBAR model
There are 2 quite different streams of thought that have shaped the practise of change management.
(1) The engineer's approach to business improvement with the focus on business process.
(2) The psychologist's approach to understanding human responses to change with the focus on people.
The single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives has been the over-emphasis on process rather than people - the failure to take full account of the impact of change on those people who are most impacted by it.
Closely allied to that reason is the lack of process to directly address the human aspects of change.
In my view their ADKAR model reflects the BPR background of Prosci and the engineers approach to business improvement, this is quite apparent in the language and tone of their description of the model and with their emphasis on management and process alone.
The clear strength of the model is that provides a useful management checklist of the phases of the transition.
The weaknesses, in my view, are as follows, the ADKAR model:
(1) Fails to distinguish between "incremental change" and "step change"
If the change involves any of these following factors then it will definitely need to be handled as a "step change" and treated as a specific initiative that sits outside of business as usual. The factors are: complexity, size, scope and priority.
The ADKAR model is, in my view, suited to incremental change and is an effective management checklist. But it misses out far too much to be fully effective in a step change initiative.
(2) Fails to distinguish between the roles and functions of leadership as well as management
Whilst the very definitions change management and project and programme management emphasise the management aspect [and of course this is important] much of the cause of the 70% failure rate in change initiatives is directly attributable to a lack of leadership... Leadership that sees the bigger picture - that ensures that people will follow - and the discipline of a programme management approach provides the tools and processes to facilitate that.
A step change initiative needs to be led - and it needs to be seen to be led.
(3) Ignores the need for leadership to address the emotional dimension
The transition between stage one of the ADKAR model - an awareness of the need for change and stage two - the desire to participate and support the change can be massive - especially in a step change.
One of the main points that William Bridges makes in his book "The Way of Transition " is that transition is not the same as change. Change is what happens to you. Transition is what you experience.
Many thought leaders in the world of change management and change leadership are now speaking vociferously about the importance of the emotional dimension of leadership and the need to address the human dimension of change.
So to summarise, in Bridges' own words: "A change can work only if the people affected by it can get through the transition it causes successfully."
(4) Fails to see the macro level of programme management
Steps three to five of the AKBAR model are about knowledge of how to change, ability to implement change and reinforcement - making change stick, and these all relate to one of the biggest issues re implementing change - which boils down to: translating vision and strategy into actionable steps.
The traditional project approach referred to by the AKBAR model - sees it as a set of tasks which if executed successfully get a result. In other words the typical process led approach which has failed so consistently and so spectacularly over the last 20 years.
There is an important distinction between the micro level and the macro level perspectives of change management - and which the AKBAR fails to recognise.
At the macro level the root cause of this is lack of clarity and lack of communication about the people aspects of how to manage change - and even more fundamentally - the lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change that will work for people. At this level, a major part of the solution to this lies in employing a programme management approach to change, and this is because it is holistic and takes far more account of the many dimensions overlooked by the narrow scope of a project management led approach.
At the micro level, delivering a strategy and changing a culture requires hands-on detailed management - micro management on occasions - in the specifics of how to do it - especially during the early stages. So at this operational level people need to be enabled and supported to develop the capabilities to deliver your strategy and become what you want them to become [or as close to that as is realistically possible].
Prosci's own research shows that problems with the people dimension of change is the most commonly cited reason for project failures.
And in terms of change management, study after study shows that 70% of all business initiatives where there is a significant change element [which is virtually all of them!] fail to realise the envisaged benefits.
Summary of the ADKAR model
It is based on 2 basic ideas:
(1) It is people who change, not organisations.
(2) Successful change occurs when individual change matches the stages of organisational change.
For successful change to occur at the individual level people need to move through each of these stages:
- Awareness of the need for change
- Desire to make the change happen
- Knowledge about how to change
- Ability to implement new skills and behaviours
- Reinforcement to retain the change once it has been made
For organisational change to be successful, these individual changes need to progress at or close to the same rate of progress through the business dimension of change.
Prosci define the business dimension of change as including these typical project elements:
- Business need or opportunity is identified
- Project is defined (scope and objectives)
- Business solution is designed (new processes, systems and organizational structure)
- New processes and systems are developed
- Solution is implemented into the organization
Evaluation of the AKBAR model
There are 2 quite different streams of thought that have shaped the practise of change management.
(1) The engineer's approach to business improvement with the focus on business process.
(2) The psychologist's approach to understanding human responses to change with the focus on people.
The single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives has been the over-emphasis on process rather than people - the failure to take full account of the impact of change on those people who are most impacted by it.
Closely allied to that reason is the lack of process to directly address the human aspects of change.
In my view their ADKAR model reflects the BPR background of Prosci and the engineers approach to business improvement, this is quite apparent in the language and tone of their description of the model and with their emphasis on management and process alone.
The clear strength of the model is that provides a useful management checklist of the phases of the transition.
The weaknesses, in my view, are as follows, the ADKAR model:
(1) Fails to distinguish between "incremental change" and "step change"
If the change involves any of these following factors then it will definitely need to be handled as a "step change" and treated as a specific initiative that sits outside of business as usual. The factors are: complexity, size, scope and priority.
The ADKAR model is, in my view, suited to incremental change and is an effective management checklist. But it misses out far too much to be fully effective in a step change initiative.
(2) Fails to distinguish between the roles and functions of leadership as well as management
Whilst the very definitions change management and project and programme management emphasise the management aspect [and of course this is important] much of the cause of the 70% failure rate in change initiatives is directly attributable to a lack of leadership... Leadership that sees the bigger picture - that ensures that people will follow - and the discipline of a programme management approach provides the tools and processes to facilitate that.
A step change initiative needs to be led - and it needs to be seen to be led.
(3) Ignores the need for leadership to address the emotional dimension
The transition between stage one of the ADKAR model - an awareness of the need for change and stage two - the desire to participate and support the change can be massive - especially in a step change.
One of the main points that William Bridges makes in his book "The Way of Transition " is that transition is not the same as change. Change is what happens to you. Transition is what you experience.
Many thought leaders in the world of change management and change leadership are now speaking vociferously about the importance of the emotional dimension of leadership and the need to address the human dimension of change.
So to summarise, in Bridges' own words: "A change can work only if the people affected by it can get through the transition it causes successfully."
(4) Fails to see the macro level of programme management
Steps three to five of the AKBAR model are about knowledge of how to change, ability to implement change and reinforcement - making change stick, and these all relate to one of the biggest issues re implementing change - which boils down to: translating vision and strategy into actionable steps.
The traditional project approach referred to by the AKBAR model - sees it as a set of tasks which if executed successfully get a result. In other words the typical process led approach which has failed so consistently and so spectacularly over the last 20 years.
There is an important distinction between the micro level and the macro level perspectives of change management - and which the AKBAR fails to recognise.
At the macro level the root cause of this is lack of clarity and lack of communication about the people aspects of how to manage change - and even more fundamentally - the lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change that will work for people. At this level, a major part of the solution to this lies in employing a programme management approach to change, and this is because it is holistic and takes far more account of the many dimensions overlooked by the narrow scope of a project management led approach.
At the micro level, delivering a strategy and changing a culture requires hands-on detailed management - micro management on occasions - in the specifics of how to do it - especially during the early stages. So at this operational level people need to be enabled and supported to develop the capabilities to deliver your strategy and become what you want them to become [or as close to that as is realistically possible].
Change Management Models - Do They Help and If So How?
The people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue
Change management models have clearly evolved from the days of Kurt Lewin's freeze phases model which was very much a product and reflection of the industrial age - with the emphasis on command control imposed from the top down.
Similarly, even Michael Hammer ["Re-engineering the Corporation"] - the arch proponent of the process led approach to change and business improvement - revised his opinion: "I don't regret saying anything; it's more what I left out. In particular, the human side is much harder than the technology side and harder than the process side. It's the overwhelming issue."
Psychological impacts of change and managing the transitions
Since Kubler Ross, the concept of an emotional journey through a recognisable path of reactions and responses has been recognised and factored in to all modern models of change management. William Bridges has taken this a stage further with his model that focuses on transitions and the psychological impacts of organisational change and that speaks of developing a culture that embraces change.
Clearly people react at different paces and levels to change and whatever change model is adopted, this needs to be given serious attention.
Many of the more recent change management models place great emphasis on the need for determining the need for change, articulating the desired future and the use of some form of transitional model. In my opinion it is William Bridges - who recognises that it is people who have to carry out change and with his clear emphasis and understanding of what change does to employees [and what they do to the organisation] - who really was the first "management guru" to provide any real sense of the emotional impact of change and what can be done to keep it from disrupting the entire organization.
Any change management models theories or concepts that directly address the people issues, has particular resonance and practical relevance in the current climate and adds values to our understanding of strategies for managing change.
The programme management based model
In my view the programme management based model addresses all of these critical areas by focusing on a holistic approach that takes full account of the people issues.
So, the programme processes of establishing a blueprint of the changed organisation, with clearly defined benefits of change and thorough attention to the stakeholder mapping and analysis will facilitate the creation of detailed communication strategy that addresses key stakeholder concerns.
Change management models have clearly evolved from the days of Kurt Lewin's freeze phases model which was very much a product and reflection of the industrial age - with the emphasis on command control imposed from the top down.
Similarly, even Michael Hammer ["Re-engineering the Corporation"] - the arch proponent of the process led approach to change and business improvement - revised his opinion: "I don't regret saying anything; it's more what I left out. In particular, the human side is much harder than the technology side and harder than the process side. It's the overwhelming issue."
Psychological impacts of change and managing the transitions
Since Kubler Ross, the concept of an emotional journey through a recognisable path of reactions and responses has been recognised and factored in to all modern models of change management. William Bridges has taken this a stage further with his model that focuses on transitions and the psychological impacts of organisational change and that speaks of developing a culture that embraces change.
Clearly people react at different paces and levels to change and whatever change model is adopted, this needs to be given serious attention.
Many of the more recent change management models place great emphasis on the need for determining the need for change, articulating the desired future and the use of some form of transitional model. In my opinion it is William Bridges - who recognises that it is people who have to carry out change and with his clear emphasis and understanding of what change does to employees [and what they do to the organisation] - who really was the first "management guru" to provide any real sense of the emotional impact of change and what can be done to keep it from disrupting the entire organization.
Any change management models theories or concepts that directly address the people issues, has particular resonance and practical relevance in the current climate and adds values to our understanding of strategies for managing change.
The programme management based model
In my view the programme management based model addresses all of these critical areas by focusing on a holistic approach that takes full account of the people issues.
So, the programme processes of establishing a blueprint of the changed organisation, with clearly defined benefits of change and thorough attention to the stakeholder mapping and analysis will facilitate the creation of detailed communication strategy that addresses key stakeholder concerns.
William Bridges - 3 Simple Questions to Lead People Through a Change Transition
William Bridges focuses on the transitions and the psychological changes that lie behind significant organisational change. Bridges draws the important and frequently overlooked distinction between change and transition. Bridges sees change as situational and transition as psychological.
In my experience and in my view - it is the people related issues that lie behind the staggering and consistent 70% failure rate of all significant organisational change initiatives.
"A change can work only if the people affected by it can get through the transition it causes successfully."
So many times I have asked the question of directors considering some form of change initiative: "Why are you doing it and how will it benefit you and how will you know it's benefited you?" - and got a vague or general answer along the lines of "we'll be... bigger... better... closer to our customers... reduce our costs... etc"
In a recent article, Bridges said; "It still surprises me how often organizations undertake changes that no one can describe very clearly." He poses these 3 simple questions:
(1) What is changing?
So often senior executive convey a very unclear picture of the change and describe it in terms of generalities. Bridges believes that change leaders need to able to express the change in a clear simple statement that can be expressed in under one minute. This way people will obtain a core understanding of what is changing.
Bridges offers the following guidance - the statement must:
- Clearly express the change leader's understanding and intention
- Link the change to the drivers that make it necessary
- "Sell the problem before you try to sell the solution."
- Not use jargon
- Be under 60 seconds in duration
(2) What will actually be different because of the change?
Bridges says: "I go into organizations where a change initiative is well underway, and I ask what will be different when the change is done-and no one can answer the question."
He believes that in many cases, change initiatives are conceived at such a high level in the management structure that the planners are unaware and out of touch with the impacts the change will have - on departments, jobs and individuals: "A change may seem very important and very real to the leader, but to the people who have to make it work it seems quite abstract and vague until actual differences that it will make begin to become clear... the drive to get those differences clear should be an important priority on the planners' list of things to do."
In my view this is all about clear communication and good expectation management. This is what a programme based approach to change management addresses directly.
(3) Who's going to lose what?
Bridges maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change.
He suggests that the transition starts with a loss - a letting go of the old ways of how things were before the change: "...we often say... that you don't cross the line separating change management from transition management until you have asked 'Who will lose [or has lost] what?'"
Transition management is all about seeing the situation through the eyes of the other guy. It is a perspective based on empathy. It is management and communication process that recognises and affirms people's realities and works with them to bring them through the transition. Failure to do this, on the part of change leaders, and a denial of the losses and "lettings go" that people are faced with, sows the seeds of mistrust.
In my view, William Bridges' 3 simple questions are an excellent starting place for addressing the foundational causes of the catastrophic 70% failure rate in change management, and it resonates with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
In my experience and in my view - it is the people related issues that lie behind the staggering and consistent 70% failure rate of all significant organisational change initiatives.
"A change can work only if the people affected by it can get through the transition it causes successfully."
So many times I have asked the question of directors considering some form of change initiative: "Why are you doing it and how will it benefit you and how will you know it's benefited you?" - and got a vague or general answer along the lines of "we'll be... bigger... better... closer to our customers... reduce our costs... etc"
In a recent article, Bridges said; "It still surprises me how often organizations undertake changes that no one can describe very clearly." He poses these 3 simple questions:
(1) What is changing?
So often senior executive convey a very unclear picture of the change and describe it in terms of generalities. Bridges believes that change leaders need to able to express the change in a clear simple statement that can be expressed in under one minute. This way people will obtain a core understanding of what is changing.
Bridges offers the following guidance - the statement must:
- Clearly express the change leader's understanding and intention
- Link the change to the drivers that make it necessary
- "Sell the problem before you try to sell the solution."
- Not use jargon
- Be under 60 seconds in duration
(2) What will actually be different because of the change?
Bridges says: "I go into organizations where a change initiative is well underway, and I ask what will be different when the change is done-and no one can answer the question."
He believes that in many cases, change initiatives are conceived at such a high level in the management structure that the planners are unaware and out of touch with the impacts the change will have - on departments, jobs and individuals: "A change may seem very important and very real to the leader, but to the people who have to make it work it seems quite abstract and vague until actual differences that it will make begin to become clear... the drive to get those differences clear should be an important priority on the planners' list of things to do."
In my view this is all about clear communication and good expectation management. This is what a programme based approach to change management addresses directly.
(3) Who's going to lose what?
Bridges maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change.
He suggests that the transition starts with a loss - a letting go of the old ways of how things were before the change: "...we often say... that you don't cross the line separating change management from transition management until you have asked 'Who will lose [or has lost] what?'"
Transition management is all about seeing the situation through the eyes of the other guy. It is a perspective based on empathy. It is management and communication process that recognises and affirms people's realities and works with them to bring them through the transition. Failure to do this, on the part of change leaders, and a denial of the losses and "lettings go" that people are faced with, sows the seeds of mistrust.
In my view, William Bridges' 3 simple questions are an excellent starting place for addressing the foundational causes of the catastrophic 70% failure rate in change management, and it resonates with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
John Kotter - How to Manage Change - A Sense of (The Right Kind Of) Urgency
In his seminal 1995 book "Leading Change" John Kotter introduced his eight-step change process, the first of which is to create urgency. Kotter suggests, that for change to be successful, at least 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change.
So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change. And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
"A Sense of Urgency" (Harvard Business Press, 2008) is the title of Kotter's latest book on change management and change leadership in organisations. Here he develops the theme from the first step of "Leading Change" and highlights the 2 types of urgency:
(1) Inward looking - panic driven urgency
This is the urgency born of the "knee jerk" reaction and is fear based. A fear based on losing something. It is unproductive and drains people of energy. It is characterized by frantic and frenetic activity - sometimes known as the "headless chicken" syndrome. People are fearful of losing their jobs and keep on taking on more and more often working 12-14 hour days filled with endless meetings.
Kotter believes that one reason for the catastrophic 70% failure rate of all change initiatives is the leaders do not create a positive sense of urgency around what they are doing. They dive straight into a low level project based attempt at implementing a solution.
(2) Outward looking - risk / opportunity focused urgency
This "good" urgency is all about a constant focus on the external risks and opportunities. As Kotter says: "It involves relentless focus on doing only those things that move the business forward in the marketplace and on doing them right now, if not sooner."
Good leaders will, with the greatest sense of urgency, pay attention to the internal metrics of their business but they are much more focused and much more interested in what's happening on the outside: "They want to have as many metrics about their competitors as they do about themselves."
Kotter believes that all meetings should reference what is happening in the external world - or not take place!
He cites the example of a company installing a new software system and suggests that the leader should be saying: "...What other companies do we know that have done this? What problems did they solve, and how did they solve them? Wouldn't that be useful information? Let's get it."
Ultimately, Kotter believes that (a) outward focused "good" urgency energizes people and enables to generate positive emotions and (b) it is the responsibility of the leader to model this by example.
In my experience, the quality of leadership that you provide is one of the top 5 factors that will determine whether you really do succeed and realise the benefits with your change initiative - or you join the long list of 70% failures.
So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change. And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
"A Sense of Urgency" (Harvard Business Press, 2008) is the title of Kotter's latest book on change management and change leadership in organisations. Here he develops the theme from the first step of "Leading Change" and highlights the 2 types of urgency:
(1) Inward looking - panic driven urgency
This is the urgency born of the "knee jerk" reaction and is fear based. A fear based on losing something. It is unproductive and drains people of energy. It is characterized by frantic and frenetic activity - sometimes known as the "headless chicken" syndrome. People are fearful of losing their jobs and keep on taking on more and more often working 12-14 hour days filled with endless meetings.
Kotter believes that one reason for the catastrophic 70% failure rate of all change initiatives is the leaders do not create a positive sense of urgency around what they are doing. They dive straight into a low level project based attempt at implementing a solution.
(2) Outward looking - risk / opportunity focused urgency
This "good" urgency is all about a constant focus on the external risks and opportunities. As Kotter says: "It involves relentless focus on doing only those things that move the business forward in the marketplace and on doing them right now, if not sooner."
Good leaders will, with the greatest sense of urgency, pay attention to the internal metrics of their business but they are much more focused and much more interested in what's happening on the outside: "They want to have as many metrics about their competitors as they do about themselves."
Kotter believes that all meetings should reference what is happening in the external world - or not take place!
He cites the example of a company installing a new software system and suggests that the leader should be saying: "...What other companies do we know that have done this? What problems did they solve, and how did they solve them? Wouldn't that be useful information? Let's get it."
Ultimately, Kotter believes that (a) outward focused "good" urgency energizes people and enables to generate positive emotions and (b) it is the responsibility of the leader to model this by example.
In my experience, the quality of leadership that you provide is one of the top 5 factors that will determine whether you really do succeed and realise the benefits with your change initiative - or you join the long list of 70% failures.
Kurt Lewin - May the Force Field Analysis Be With You!
The American social psychologist Kurt Lewin, widely regarded one of the early 20th century founders of modern psychology, developed the change model known as "Lewin's Freeze Phases" and which still forms the underlying basis of many change management theories models and strategies for managing change.
Given that the people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue and in the light of the catastrophic fact that 70% of ALL change management initiatives fail, it is painfully clear that managing the change transition requires time and sensitive skillful leadership - exercised within people-focused change management processes.
This can only be consistently achieved by addressing all of the key factors that will make it possible. Clearly what is needed is a change management process that is people oriented and that takes full account of the human dimension of the change process. In my view the programme management based model addresses all of these critical areas by focusing on a holistic approach that takes full account of these people issues.
Lewin's work provides useful background and a practical tool for assessing the case for change - a necessary precursor for the creation and implementation of a programme based approach to managing change.
Underpinning his famous freeze phase model are 2 important and in my view foundational concepts.
Firstly the "Lewin's equation", introduced in "Principles of Topological Psychology" [1936], which is not actually a strict mathematical equation showing quantifiable relationships, but rather a heuristic - an experience based or rule of thumb technique - for predicting human behaviour.
The formula states that B = f(P,E) where B = Behaviour, F = Function, P = Person and E = Environment. Thus Lewin stated that behaviour is a function of the person and his/her environment. Thus the situational perspective of a person's momentary situation is the bigger key to understanding his/her behaviour instead of relying solely on past experiences and influences.
Lewin's second foundational concept was "Force field analysis" which provides a framework for looking at the factors or forces that influence a potential change situation. According to Lewin: "An issue is held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)".
In Lewin's view, organisations can be seen as systems in which the current situation is not a static pattern, but rather an "equilibrium" - or "dynamic balance" of forces working in opposite directions. Thus, any change that may occur is dependent on a shift in this balance or equilibrium where the driving forces need to exceed the restraining forces.
In a potential change situation a force field analysis can be an extremely useful tool for assessing the possibility and viability of a change initiative. Here are some suggested simple steps for making this assessment:
1. Where are we now?
2. Where do we want to be?
3. What will happen if we don't get there?
4. What are forces or drivers for this change?
5. What are the forces or drivers against this change?
6. What are the strongest forces for and against change?
7. Is change viable?
8. What will be the impact of changing and not changing?
The output of this analysis will establish the foundations for the business case for change and the input to programme based approach to managing the change.
Given that the people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue and in the light of the catastrophic fact that 70% of ALL change management initiatives fail, it is painfully clear that managing the change transition requires time and sensitive skillful leadership - exercised within people-focused change management processes.
This can only be consistently achieved by addressing all of the key factors that will make it possible. Clearly what is needed is a change management process that is people oriented and that takes full account of the human dimension of the change process. In my view the programme management based model addresses all of these critical areas by focusing on a holistic approach that takes full account of these people issues.
Lewin's work provides useful background and a practical tool for assessing the case for change - a necessary precursor for the creation and implementation of a programme based approach to managing change.
Underpinning his famous freeze phase model are 2 important and in my view foundational concepts.
Firstly the "Lewin's equation", introduced in "Principles of Topological Psychology" [1936], which is not actually a strict mathematical equation showing quantifiable relationships, but rather a heuristic - an experience based or rule of thumb technique - for predicting human behaviour.
The formula states that B = f(P,E) where B = Behaviour, F = Function, P = Person and E = Environment. Thus Lewin stated that behaviour is a function of the person and his/her environment. Thus the situational perspective of a person's momentary situation is the bigger key to understanding his/her behaviour instead of relying solely on past experiences and influences.
Lewin's second foundational concept was "Force field analysis" which provides a framework for looking at the factors or forces that influence a potential change situation. According to Lewin: "An issue is held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)".
In Lewin's view, organisations can be seen as systems in which the current situation is not a static pattern, but rather an "equilibrium" - or "dynamic balance" of forces working in opposite directions. Thus, any change that may occur is dependent on a shift in this balance or equilibrium where the driving forces need to exceed the restraining forces.
In a potential change situation a force field analysis can be an extremely useful tool for assessing the possibility and viability of a change initiative. Here are some suggested simple steps for making this assessment:
1. Where are we now?
2. Where do we want to be?
3. What will happen if we don't get there?
4. What are forces or drivers for this change?
5. What are the forces or drivers against this change?
6. What are the strongest forces for and against change?
7. Is change viable?
8. What will be the impact of changing and not changing?
The output of this analysis will establish the foundations for the business case for change and the input to programme based approach to managing the change.
Project Management Maturity Model - What is It? Does it Matter? Why Bother?
The origins of the concept of a project management maturity model, is lost in the mists of time. With the evidence of project management skills as far back as the time of the building of the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China and other great wonders of the world - it is quite logical to suppose that there could have been an early model to map the progress of developing project management skills. After all, for an ancient project manager the price of failure came high!
In more recent times the concept of a project management maturity model has evolved considerably from the software industry. There is the need to understand and measure many variables, manage great complexity, obtain consistent results and achieve stringent delivery targets within budget.
With regard to which model is the "best" or most appropriate for any specific situation [I fully appreciate that project management professionals reading this may disagree with what I am about to say, but] I feel the far bigger challenge is actually in getting ANY model applied.
From that point on, and with director level sponsorship and support - all things are possible. There are many maturity models [I am aware of over 35] and the dominant model is the P3M3 Model created and sponsored by the OGC [UK Office of Government and Commerce] in association the APMG [UK Association of Project Management Group.
This is a composite and enhanced model that addresses the 3 related aspects of large-scale project management and that glories in the full title of "Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Mode".
Try this test ...
In relation to your [or your client's] organisation:
- Do you use project management?
- Do you use programme management?
- Do you know the difference?
- Do you know why knowing the difference matters?
Try this simple test - review the different levels listed below based on the P3M3 maturity model - firstly in relation to project management and then secondly with programme management - and see which best describes your organisation:
> Level 0 - No process - the organisation has no project and /or programme management skills or experience
> Level 1 - Awareness process - the organisation is able to recognize projects and/or programmes - but has little structured approach to dealing with them.
> Level 2 - Repeatable process - there may be areas that are beginning to use standard approaches to projects and/or programmes but there is no consistency of approach across the organisation.
> Level 3 - Defined process - there will be a consistent set of standards being used across the organisation with clear process ownership.
> Level 4 - Managed process - the organisation monitors and measures its process efficiency, with active interventions to improve the way it delivers based largely on evidence or performance based information.
> Level 5 - Optimised process - the organisation will be focussing on optimisation of its quantitatively managed processes to take into account changing business needs and external factors.
Where you and your organisation sit on the maturity model is one of the biggest key factors in leading change that will determine your chances of success [the others are (a) the quality of leadership, and (b) the cultures in your organisation].
Why bother?
In 2003 "The Project Management Institute" came up with the following definition: "Organisational Project Management Maturity describes an organisation's overall ability to select and manage projects in a way that supports its strategic goals".
Well that all sounds very noble - but the simple rationale for having and using a project management maturity model is quite simply that projects fail! [And the same is true for programme and change management.]
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Standish Group(US)showed that 66% of IT projects are either totally abandoned or fail against a measure of budget, scope, time or quality (i.e. 'challenged').
A similar study in the UK by Computer Weekly that 84% of projects either failed or were challenged. It has been estimated that the cost to US business of failing or abandoned IT projects runs into hundreds of billions of dollars.
Closer to home the UK government have wasted countless billions of pounds on failed projects. At the programme level - with the wider perspective beyond a project delivery of capability to the actual realisation of a defined organisational benefit - the failure rate is a consistent 70%.
And given that every programme encompasses a signifcant change element, the same failure rate applies to any significant change management initiative.
Progress driven by pain
In most organisations the evolution of project management, programme management and change management skills typically lags far behind the development of other capabilities within the company. So the state of maturity to a large degree reflects the prevailing dominant corporate culture.
Given that companies [or more accurately directors] don't know what they don't know - the level of maturity of the company remains invisible. In fact the very concept of a maturity model remains invisible. So nothing changes until things go wrong - and pain is felt and someone at director level is facing an exposure as a result of a significant project failure.
This is the point at which progress becomes possible as progress needs sponsorship. And as the focus shifts to improving performance, there are two principal targets.
(1) To improve how any specific project, programme and change is managed.
(2) To improve performance in overall organisational capability in project, programme and change management.
The purpose of this assessment is to show the extent to which the infrastructure within the organisation supports the project, programme and change management efforts.
Benefits of a structured assessment
The main benefits of the subsequent structured assessment of maturity within the organisation isn't in understanding the current level at which the company is performing, but rather in setting direction, prioritising actions and beginning cultural change.
So, taking project management as an example: an organisational project management maturity model provides guidance to an organisation regarding how to:
- Articulate project success
- Measure project performance
- Make the delivery of projects more predictable
- Help projects work together instead of against each other in a multi-project environment
In 2003 The Centre for Business Practices produced its 'Project Management - the State of the Industry' survey. This survey measured organisational improvement over time, as a result of project management improvement programmes.
The highlights of this survey show significant improvements in terms of financial performance, customer retention and satisfaction, project and process improvement, employees satisfaction and productivity, and a dramatic 70% increase in project alignment with strategic objectives.
In a change management context, after enough pain has been experienced, a mature project culture will evolve into the holistic and wider view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
But you can get there much more quickly and with far less pain IF [and only if] you know how to navigate the issues that directly cause the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL change initiatives.
In more recent times the concept of a project management maturity model has evolved considerably from the software industry. There is the need to understand and measure many variables, manage great complexity, obtain consistent results and achieve stringent delivery targets within budget.
With regard to which model is the "best" or most appropriate for any specific situation [I fully appreciate that project management professionals reading this may disagree with what I am about to say, but] I feel the far bigger challenge is actually in getting ANY model applied.
From that point on, and with director level sponsorship and support - all things are possible. There are many maturity models [I am aware of over 35] and the dominant model is the P3M3 Model created and sponsored by the OGC [UK Office of Government and Commerce] in association the APMG [UK Association of Project Management Group.
This is a composite and enhanced model that addresses the 3 related aspects of large-scale project management and that glories in the full title of "Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Mode".
Try this test ...
In relation to your [or your client's] organisation:
- Do you use project management?
- Do you use programme management?
- Do you know the difference?
- Do you know why knowing the difference matters?
Try this simple test - review the different levels listed below based on the P3M3 maturity model - firstly in relation to project management and then secondly with programme management - and see which best describes your organisation:
> Level 0 - No process - the organisation has no project and /or programme management skills or experience
> Level 1 - Awareness process - the organisation is able to recognize projects and/or programmes - but has little structured approach to dealing with them.
> Level 2 - Repeatable process - there may be areas that are beginning to use standard approaches to projects and/or programmes but there is no consistency of approach across the organisation.
> Level 3 - Defined process - there will be a consistent set of standards being used across the organisation with clear process ownership.
> Level 4 - Managed process - the organisation monitors and measures its process efficiency, with active interventions to improve the way it delivers based largely on evidence or performance based information.
> Level 5 - Optimised process - the organisation will be focussing on optimisation of its quantitatively managed processes to take into account changing business needs and external factors.
Where you and your organisation sit on the maturity model is one of the biggest key factors in leading change that will determine your chances of success [the others are (a) the quality of leadership, and (b) the cultures in your organisation].
Why bother?
In 2003 "The Project Management Institute" came up with the following definition: "Organisational Project Management Maturity describes an organisation's overall ability to select and manage projects in a way that supports its strategic goals".
Well that all sounds very noble - but the simple rationale for having and using a project management maturity model is quite simply that projects fail! [And the same is true for programme and change management.]
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Standish Group(US)showed that 66% of IT projects are either totally abandoned or fail against a measure of budget, scope, time or quality (i.e. 'challenged').
A similar study in the UK by Computer Weekly that 84% of projects either failed or were challenged. It has been estimated that the cost to US business of failing or abandoned IT projects runs into hundreds of billions of dollars.
Closer to home the UK government have wasted countless billions of pounds on failed projects. At the programme level - with the wider perspective beyond a project delivery of capability to the actual realisation of a defined organisational benefit - the failure rate is a consistent 70%.
And given that every programme encompasses a signifcant change element, the same failure rate applies to any significant change management initiative.
Progress driven by pain
In most organisations the evolution of project management, programme management and change management skills typically lags far behind the development of other capabilities within the company. So the state of maturity to a large degree reflects the prevailing dominant corporate culture.
Given that companies [or more accurately directors] don't know what they don't know - the level of maturity of the company remains invisible. In fact the very concept of a maturity model remains invisible. So nothing changes until things go wrong - and pain is felt and someone at director level is facing an exposure as a result of a significant project failure.
This is the point at which progress becomes possible as progress needs sponsorship. And as the focus shifts to improving performance, there are two principal targets.
(1) To improve how any specific project, programme and change is managed.
(2) To improve performance in overall organisational capability in project, programme and change management.
The purpose of this assessment is to show the extent to which the infrastructure within the organisation supports the project, programme and change management efforts.
Benefits of a structured assessment
The main benefits of the subsequent structured assessment of maturity within the organisation isn't in understanding the current level at which the company is performing, but rather in setting direction, prioritising actions and beginning cultural change.
So, taking project management as an example: an organisational project management maturity model provides guidance to an organisation regarding how to:
- Articulate project success
- Measure project performance
- Make the delivery of projects more predictable
- Help projects work together instead of against each other in a multi-project environment
In 2003 The Centre for Business Practices produced its 'Project Management - the State of the Industry' survey. This survey measured organisational improvement over time, as a result of project management improvement programmes.
The highlights of this survey show significant improvements in terms of financial performance, customer retention and satisfaction, project and process improvement, employees satisfaction and productivity, and a dramatic 70% increase in project alignment with strategic objectives.
In a change management context, after enough pain has been experienced, a mature project culture will evolve into the holistic and wider view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
But you can get there much more quickly and with far less pain IF [and only if] you know how to navigate the issues that directly cause the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL change initiatives.
William Bridges - A Bridge Over Troubled Water? - How to Manage Change Transitions
William Bridges focuses on transitions and the psychological changes that lie behind behind significant organisational change.
Situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change
In the best-selling "Managing Transitions" Bridges provides a clear understanding of what change does to employees and what employees in transition can do to an organisation.
He addresses the fact that it is people who have to carry out the change.
When the book was originally published a decade ago, Bridges was the first to provide any real sense of the emotional impact of change and what can be done to keep it from disrupting the entire organization.
Bridges maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change. This man is really talking my language as it is the people related issues that lie behind the staggering and consistent 70% failure rate of all significant organisational change initiatives.
His theory involves a three-phase process of:
(1) Ending, Losing, Letting Go - helping people deal with their tangible and intangible losses and mentally prepare to move on
(2) The Neutral Zone - critical psychological realignments and repatterning takes place. This is all about helping get people through it, and capitalising on all the confusion by encouraging them to be innovators
(3) The New Beginning - helping people develop the new identity, experience the new energy, and discover the new sense of purpose that make the change begin to work.
William Bridges - the first to recognise the basic psychology of change at the personal level
Unlike earlier models such as Kurt Lewins, which speak of institutionalising or "freezing" behaviors, Bridges' attention is focused on helping people discover, accept, and embrace their new identities in the new situation.
This is the first example of an increasing number of strategies for managing change that recognise the basic psychology of change at the personal level, and that is people centred.
He also theorises how these life stages can become a constant cycle of organisational renewal via the creation of a culture that embraces and nurtures change as a way of life. A wonderful dream - in my view - but let's get "one in a row" right first!
In my view, William Bridges' change model addresses many of the causes of the 70% failure rate in change management, and it resonates with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
Situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change
In the best-selling "Managing Transitions" Bridges provides a clear understanding of what change does to employees and what employees in transition can do to an organisation.
He addresses the fact that it is people who have to carry out the change.
When the book was originally published a decade ago, Bridges was the first to provide any real sense of the emotional impact of change and what can be done to keep it from disrupting the entire organization.
Bridges maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change. This man is really talking my language as it is the people related issues that lie behind the staggering and consistent 70% failure rate of all significant organisational change initiatives.
His theory involves a three-phase process of:
(1) Ending, Losing, Letting Go - helping people deal with their tangible and intangible losses and mentally prepare to move on
(2) The Neutral Zone - critical psychological realignments and repatterning takes place. This is all about helping get people through it, and capitalising on all the confusion by encouraging them to be innovators
(3) The New Beginning - helping people develop the new identity, experience the new energy, and discover the new sense of purpose that make the change begin to work.
William Bridges - the first to recognise the basic psychology of change at the personal level
Unlike earlier models such as Kurt Lewins, which speak of institutionalising or "freezing" behaviors, Bridges' attention is focused on helping people discover, accept, and embrace their new identities in the new situation.
This is the first example of an increasing number of strategies for managing change that recognise the basic psychology of change at the personal level, and that is people centred.
He also theorises how these life stages can become a constant cycle of organisational renewal via the creation of a culture that embraces and nurtures change as a way of life. A wonderful dream - in my view - but let's get "one in a row" right first!
In my view, William Bridges' change model addresses many of the causes of the 70% failure rate in change management, and it resonates with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
Strategies For Managing Change - The Excellent Case For Creating Your Own Culture Maturity Model
Maturity models are usually associated with projects and programmes. However, I want to make the case for developing your own culture maturity model as a preparation to the development of your own strategies for managing change.
I first became aware of the significance and importance of organisational culture in 1994 when I was involved in a business development exercise with a colleague and the significance of organisational culture - initially seen solely from a business development perspective - became firmly established on our radar.
We rapidly made 5 discoveries:
(1) That we can construct a simple matrix that can enable us to very rapidly identify the type of organisational culture we are dealing with.
The basic structure of the matrix can be used to define a template of an organisational culture, namely:
- Type of culture
- A summary definition of the culture
- Evidence of the culture - i.e. its characteristics
- Key issues faced and addressed by that culture as can be seen in actions and behaviours
- The areas of major focus - or key areas of impact - of the culture
(2) That these cultures are obvious and instantly recognisable and indisputable from the company's own perspective [i.e. they recognise themselves as such]
(3) That these cultures as seen from a business development perspective form a maturity model. In other words, organisations migrate along a clearly identifiable and predictable path as their own business development skills evolved
(4) That the structured template of this cultural matrix is universal and transcends our original business development perspective -i.e. you can use this template to define ANY organisational culture
(5) That any organisation has more than one culture and that we are able to define a subset of characteristics of the likely orientation of these sub cultures in relation to the primary or dominant organisational culture
This template has been used on many companies and in many, many different situations over the years - overtly [with client involvement] and covertly [i.e. I use it but don't involve my client as it may not be relevant or they may not be receptive.]
My definition of a generic maturity model
Following this I formulated my own definition of a generic maturity model:
"A maturity model [usually represented as a schematic] is a structured description that shows the stages of evolution of an organisation in transition through various developmental states. It is pre-supposed that this evolution represents progress to more developed or advanced states of learning, insight, understanding and practise."
Having established a cultural template of where your organisation is now, you can determine the template of how your organisation will look after your step change initiative and clearly see the gaps between these positions.
Navigating through the issues to where you want to be
This, in turn, enables you to determine a route that will navigate you through the issues that will arise - and especially to help you identify the full impacts of the changes on those people who will be most affected and to plan accordingly.
And in conclusion - the reason why using a cultural maturity map to understand your cultures is so important is that they are the single biggest determinant of how people in your organisation will behave - and especially in the context of a step change - and thus determine the success or failure of your initiative.
Properly applied in a change management context, this will provide you with an excellent pre-programme planning analysis process that will provide the input to the preparation and delivery of an executable [holistic and wide view perspective] programme based approach to change management.
I first became aware of the significance and importance of organisational culture in 1994 when I was involved in a business development exercise with a colleague and the significance of organisational culture - initially seen solely from a business development perspective - became firmly established on our radar.
We rapidly made 5 discoveries:
(1) That we can construct a simple matrix that can enable us to very rapidly identify the type of organisational culture we are dealing with.
The basic structure of the matrix can be used to define a template of an organisational culture, namely:
- Type of culture
- A summary definition of the culture
- Evidence of the culture - i.e. its characteristics
- Key issues faced and addressed by that culture as can be seen in actions and behaviours
- The areas of major focus - or key areas of impact - of the culture
(2) That these cultures are obvious and instantly recognisable and indisputable from the company's own perspective [i.e. they recognise themselves as such]
(3) That these cultures as seen from a business development perspective form a maturity model. In other words, organisations migrate along a clearly identifiable and predictable path as their own business development skills evolved
(4) That the structured template of this cultural matrix is universal and transcends our original business development perspective -i.e. you can use this template to define ANY organisational culture
(5) That any organisation has more than one culture and that we are able to define a subset of characteristics of the likely orientation of these sub cultures in relation to the primary or dominant organisational culture
This template has been used on many companies and in many, many different situations over the years - overtly [with client involvement] and covertly [i.e. I use it but don't involve my client as it may not be relevant or they may not be receptive.]
My definition of a generic maturity model
Following this I formulated my own definition of a generic maturity model:
"A maturity model [usually represented as a schematic] is a structured description that shows the stages of evolution of an organisation in transition through various developmental states. It is pre-supposed that this evolution represents progress to more developed or advanced states of learning, insight, understanding and practise."
Having established a cultural template of where your organisation is now, you can determine the template of how your organisation will look after your step change initiative and clearly see the gaps between these positions.
Navigating through the issues to where you want to be
This, in turn, enables you to determine a route that will navigate you through the issues that will arise - and especially to help you identify the full impacts of the changes on those people who will be most affected and to plan accordingly.
And in conclusion - the reason why using a cultural maturity map to understand your cultures is so important is that they are the single biggest determinant of how people in your organisation will behave - and especially in the context of a step change - and thus determine the success or failure of your initiative.
Properly applied in a change management context, this will provide you with an excellent pre-programme planning analysis process that will provide the input to the preparation and delivery of an executable [holistic and wide view perspective] programme based approach to change management.
Kurt Lewin - The Iceman Cometh! How to Manage Change - Freeze-Unfreeze-Freeze
In the early 20th century, the psychologist Kurt Lewin developed the model - known as "Lewin's Freeze Phases" - and which still forms the underlying basis of many change management theories models and strategies for managing change.
His model suggests that change involves a move from one static state via a state of activity to another static status quo -and all this via a three-stage process of managing change: unfreezing, changing and re-freezing.
Kurt Lewin's change model recognises that people like the safety, comfort and feeling of control within their environment. It also recognises that they derive a strong sense of identity to from their environment.
Thus change is threatening to that status quo and causes discomfort. Lewin regarded this as a 'frozen' state and suggested that significant effort may be required to 'unfreeze' them in order to get them to change. This usually requires some form of intervention to to get them moving - such as a restructuring, or the creation of a some form of real crisis - or the perception that it is real! Or, another common strategy is to present the "cold hard logic" of "irrefutable facts" that make change inevitable - basically, any form of intervention that is designed to destabilise people and render them susceptible to change.
A key part of Lewin's model is the idea that change, even at the psychological level, is a journey rather than a simple step. This journey may not be that simple and the person may need to go through several stages of misunderstanding before they get to the other side.
Many different approaches are used to achieve this and frequently fail. In fact 70% of ALL change management initiatives fail.
It is painfully clear that managing the transition requires time and sensitive skillful leadership - exercised within people-focused change management processes.
Then the final phase is the "refreezing" - which basically means institutionalising the change - and many differing approaches are used to attempt to achieve this. However, as already stated, most don't succeed!
In my view, the Kurt Lewin change model is very mechanistic and comes from a Newtonian world view and a control oriented view of change that is imposed from the top down.
However, I feel there is value in Lewin's model in that recognises that (a) people are "stuck" or attached to "how things are" and thus potentially resistant to change, and (b) that there are stages to change process and the change experience.
Clearly what is needed is a change management process that is people oriented and that takes full account of the human dimension of the change process.
Strategies for managing change in the current economic and business climate are exercised to best effect when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
His model suggests that change involves a move from one static state via a state of activity to another static status quo -and all this via a three-stage process of managing change: unfreezing, changing and re-freezing.
Kurt Lewin's change model recognises that people like the safety, comfort and feeling of control within their environment. It also recognises that they derive a strong sense of identity to from their environment.
Thus change is threatening to that status quo and causes discomfort. Lewin regarded this as a 'frozen' state and suggested that significant effort may be required to 'unfreeze' them in order to get them to change. This usually requires some form of intervention to to get them moving - such as a restructuring, or the creation of a some form of real crisis - or the perception that it is real! Or, another common strategy is to present the "cold hard logic" of "irrefutable facts" that make change inevitable - basically, any form of intervention that is designed to destabilise people and render them susceptible to change.
A key part of Lewin's model is the idea that change, even at the psychological level, is a journey rather than a simple step. This journey may not be that simple and the person may need to go through several stages of misunderstanding before they get to the other side.
Many different approaches are used to achieve this and frequently fail. In fact 70% of ALL change management initiatives fail.
It is painfully clear that managing the transition requires time and sensitive skillful leadership - exercised within people-focused change management processes.
Then the final phase is the "refreezing" - which basically means institutionalising the change - and many differing approaches are used to attempt to achieve this. However, as already stated, most don't succeed!
In my view, the Kurt Lewin change model is very mechanistic and comes from a Newtonian world view and a control oriented view of change that is imposed from the top down.
However, I feel there is value in Lewin's model in that recognises that (a) people are "stuck" or attached to "how things are" and thus potentially resistant to change, and (b) that there are stages to change process and the change experience.
Clearly what is needed is a change management process that is people oriented and that takes full account of the human dimension of the change process.
Strategies for managing change in the current economic and business climate are exercised to best effect when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
Kubler-Ross - How to Deal With the Pain of Change - The Change Roller Coaster
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross was a Swiss physician/researcher who undertook seminal work on the grief process. Many regard her as the mother of the modern hospice movement.
The Kubler-Ross model, was first introduced in her 1969 book "On Death and Dying" in which she describes five stages of emotional and psychological response to grief, tragedy and catastrophic loss.
In case you are wondering what all this has to with change management and strategies for managing change, the connection is quite simply that although it was originally used to describe the cycle of emotional changes experienced by the terminally ill, her model [though evolved within a clinical environment] was found to have a far wider application to people experiencing any bad news.
So the wider business significance of her work has been the realisation that people go through similar responses when faced with lesser - but still significant changes in their working and personal lives.
The major significance of her model - which is also known as "The Change Roller Coaster" - is that it maps the emotional responses that your staff are likely to experience if or when you announce a major step-change and especially if [as in the current climate] this is likely to contain bad news.
In summary, the 5 stages of the model are:
(1) Denial - This is usually a temporary initial response along the lines of: "I feel fine... this can't be happening to me..."
(2) Anger - Once the realisation that that denial cannot continue then anger sets in: "Why me? It's not fair!"; Who is to blame?"
(3) Bargaining - This stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay the inevitable... "Just give me a bit longer... just let me finish.... "
(4) Depression - During this fourth stage, the person begins to understand the certainty of what is going to happen:" What's the point? I can't go on?"
(5) Acceptance - This final stage comes with a measure of peace and acceptance of the inevitable. "It's going to be okay... can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
The importance and significance of "The change roller coaster" model is that it highlights very clearly the emotional terrain that your staff are likely to experience, and the necessity for clear yet compassionate leadership - and especially through the initial phases of the change management process.
This is where the key processes in a programme based approach to change [e.g.Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis and the Communications Strategy] are so critical to addressing this important dimension.
And this is where the properly applied change model and leadership skills are exercised to best effect when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
The Kubler-Ross model, was first introduced in her 1969 book "On Death and Dying" in which she describes five stages of emotional and psychological response to grief, tragedy and catastrophic loss.
In case you are wondering what all this has to with change management and strategies for managing change, the connection is quite simply that although it was originally used to describe the cycle of emotional changes experienced by the terminally ill, her model [though evolved within a clinical environment] was found to have a far wider application to people experiencing any bad news.
So the wider business significance of her work has been the realisation that people go through similar responses when faced with lesser - but still significant changes in their working and personal lives.
The major significance of her model - which is also known as "The Change Roller Coaster" - is that it maps the emotional responses that your staff are likely to experience if or when you announce a major step-change and especially if [as in the current climate] this is likely to contain bad news.
In summary, the 5 stages of the model are:
(1) Denial - This is usually a temporary initial response along the lines of: "I feel fine... this can't be happening to me..."
(2) Anger - Once the realisation that that denial cannot continue then anger sets in: "Why me? It's not fair!"; Who is to blame?"
(3) Bargaining - This stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay the inevitable... "Just give me a bit longer... just let me finish.... "
(4) Depression - During this fourth stage, the person begins to understand the certainty of what is going to happen:" What's the point? I can't go on?"
(5) Acceptance - This final stage comes with a measure of peace and acceptance of the inevitable. "It's going to be okay... can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
The importance and significance of "The change roller coaster" model is that it highlights very clearly the emotional terrain that your staff are likely to experience, and the necessity for clear yet compassionate leadership - and especially through the initial phases of the change management process.
This is where the key processes in a programme based approach to change [e.g.Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis and the Communications Strategy] are so critical to addressing this important dimension.
And this is where the properly applied change model and leadership skills are exercised to best effect when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
How to Manage Change - The "Do's" and "Don'ts" of Turbulence - Leading at the Edge of Chaos
How to manage change - and at the speed of change? How to deal with the turbulence? This is challenging and of all the current strategies for managing change it's a perspective that is increasingly relevant in the current climate.
Business guru Daryl Conner offers a fresh view on change management and says that given that people will resist change - and that resistance will be articulated as "why?" - and he suggests [in his book "Managing at the Speed of Change"] that senior management prepare very thorough answers to the following questions:
- What's so very wrong with the way that we've been doing things up to now?
- Why were we doing them wrong before?
- What will happen to me?
- When will happen to me?
- What if anything can I do about it
- What then is expected of me?
- What does this mean for me in my day-to-day job?
- What will you the management or leadership do about it?
- If [or more likely when] I encounter problems, what do I do, to whom do I turn?
We need to stop assuming we are one project away from things settling down
The Daryl Conner model starts with the premise that "Uninformed Optimism" is always followed by "Informed Pessimism" and humans will choose the comfort of familiarity over the anxiety that comes with the unknown.
He suggests that as we now live in an era of perpetual change and disturbance, we need to expect more change: "we need to stop assuming we are one project away from things settling down."
He says that we focus an inordinate amount of time and energy into trying to make people feel comfortable during a major change - where as the reality is they won't - dramatic change is uncomfortable.
The leader's role in change is not to make people feel happy about the change: it's helping them succeed despite their discomfort. It is not necessary for people to like what has happened to them - it is necessary that they make the adjustments that will help them succeed in the new environment.
In his book "Leading at the Edge of Chaos" [Wiley, 1998] Conner suggests some practical dos and don'ts for leading through turbulence. Here are a few examples:
The "Do's" of ongoing turbulence
- Be honest - more not less turmoil lies ahead
- Be concerned with whether people can successfully assimilate additional changes when new initiatives are being considered
- Pay more attention to how you learn than to what you learn
- Remember that it is everyone's job is to succeed in unfamiliar environments
- Increase your tolerance for ambiguity during periods of uncertainty
- View some of today's disturbance as the potential for tomorrow's new possibilities
- Translate "either/or" choices into "both/and" thinking
- Take some of the mystery and mystique out of change by learning to understand its patterns and dynamics
- Experiment with all and everything that you can, but remember to maintain your core values so you have an internal reference point for making key decisions
The "Don'ts" of ongoing turbulence
- Don't wait for things to slow down
- Don't ever think your organisation is one step from tranquility
- Stop feeling sorry for yourself that life has become so challenging
- Stop feeling like a victim when you don't get what you want
- Don't think that your people are entitled to always feel comfortable during change, or that you or your organisation has failed if this doesn't happen
- Stop being drawn to the excitement of initiating change bit bored or distracted with what it takes to sustain it
- Don't think that any one person or single group can resolve the really important issues in isolation
- Stop relying on your own knowledge, assumptions, and perceptions as the only valid basis of determining what to do next
In my opinion, this is a deeply pragmatic view that is well attuned to the current climate and one that resonates deeply with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
Business guru Daryl Conner offers a fresh view on change management and says that given that people will resist change - and that resistance will be articulated as "why?" - and he suggests [in his book "Managing at the Speed of Change"] that senior management prepare very thorough answers to the following questions:
- What's so very wrong with the way that we've been doing things up to now?
- Why were we doing them wrong before?
- What will happen to me?
- When will happen to me?
- What if anything can I do about it
- What then is expected of me?
- What does this mean for me in my day-to-day job?
- What will you the management or leadership do about it?
- If [or more likely when] I encounter problems, what do I do, to whom do I turn?
We need to stop assuming we are one project away from things settling down
The Daryl Conner model starts with the premise that "Uninformed Optimism" is always followed by "Informed Pessimism" and humans will choose the comfort of familiarity over the anxiety that comes with the unknown.
He suggests that as we now live in an era of perpetual change and disturbance, we need to expect more change: "we need to stop assuming we are one project away from things settling down."
He says that we focus an inordinate amount of time and energy into trying to make people feel comfortable during a major change - where as the reality is they won't - dramatic change is uncomfortable.
The leader's role in change is not to make people feel happy about the change: it's helping them succeed despite their discomfort. It is not necessary for people to like what has happened to them - it is necessary that they make the adjustments that will help them succeed in the new environment.
In his book "Leading at the Edge of Chaos" [Wiley, 1998] Conner suggests some practical dos and don'ts for leading through turbulence. Here are a few examples:
The "Do's" of ongoing turbulence
- Be honest - more not less turmoil lies ahead
- Be concerned with whether people can successfully assimilate additional changes when new initiatives are being considered
- Pay more attention to how you learn than to what you learn
- Remember that it is everyone's job is to succeed in unfamiliar environments
- Increase your tolerance for ambiguity during periods of uncertainty
- View some of today's disturbance as the potential for tomorrow's new possibilities
- Translate "either/or" choices into "both/and" thinking
- Take some of the mystery and mystique out of change by learning to understand its patterns and dynamics
- Experiment with all and everything that you can, but remember to maintain your core values so you have an internal reference point for making key decisions
The "Don'ts" of ongoing turbulence
- Don't wait for things to slow down
- Don't ever think your organisation is one step from tranquility
- Stop feeling sorry for yourself that life has become so challenging
- Stop feeling like a victim when you don't get what you want
- Don't think that your people are entitled to always feel comfortable during change, or that you or your organisation has failed if this doesn't happen
- Stop being drawn to the excitement of initiating change bit bored or distracted with what it takes to sustain it
- Don't think that any one person or single group can resolve the really important issues in isolation
- Stop relying on your own knowledge, assumptions, and perceptions as the only valid basis of determining what to do next
In my opinion, this is a deeply pragmatic view that is well attuned to the current climate and one that resonates deeply with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
How to Manage Change - 8 Guiding Principles From John Kotter
There are many theories about how to manage change. Many come from change management guru, John Kotter, a professor at Harvard Business School. Kotter introduced his eight-step change process in his 1995 book,"Leading Change."
Step One: Create Urgency
Kotter suggests that for change to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change. So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change.
And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition
To successfully persuade people that change is necessary takes strong leadership and the very visible support from key people within your organisation.
This isn't just about managing change - this has to be led and you have to be seen to lead it.
To lead change, you need to bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance.
You can find effective change leaders at all levels within your organisation - they don't necessarily follow the traditional company hierarchy. It is important to get an emotional commitment from these key people as you build a team to support your change initiative.
Step Three: Create a Vision for Change
You need to create a clear coherent vision that people can grasp easily and remember and that can help everyone understand why you're asking them to do something.
When people have clarity about what you're trying to achieve, and why then you stand a greater chance of communicating with them
Step Four: Communicate the Vision
How effectively and consistently you share and communicate your vision will have a big influence on the success of your change initiative.
There will be resistance and competing messages from many other sources and influences within your organization so you need to communicate it frequently and powerfully, and embed it within everything that you do.
It's also extremely important to "walk the talk." What you do is far more credible than what you say. You have to demonstrate the kind of behaviour and attitudes that you want from your people.
Step Five: Remove Obstacles
There will be resistance to change. You need to identify it early and take steps to deal with it finding and resolving the root causes.
Put in place the structure for change, and continually check for barriers to it - especially with your organisational structure, job descriptions, and performance and compensation systems - it is vital that these are in line with your vision.
Step Six: Create Short-term Wins
Success breeds success - so early wins are very motivational and very important for morale and for overcoming resistance.
You can help achieve this by setting achievable and believable short-term targets.
This is very much in line with Ken Blanchard's ideas in "The One Minute Manager" of "catching them doing something right" [and praising them for it].
Step Seven: Build on the Change
Kotter argues that many change projects fail because victory is declared too early - he teaches that real and lasting change runs deep.
This is really all about building momentum and making continuous improvement an embedded part of your culture. In practice this means keeping things fresh with new ideas and regular review of what went right with each win identifying areas for improvement.
Step Eight: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture
Finally, to make any change stick, it should become part of the culture of your organisation as this is the biggest determinant of how people will behave.
It's also important that your company's leaders continue to support the change. This includes existing staff and new leaders who are brought in. If you lose the support of these people, you might end up back where you started.
Step One: Create Urgency
Kotter suggests that for change to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change. So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change.
And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition
To successfully persuade people that change is necessary takes strong leadership and the very visible support from key people within your organisation.
This isn't just about managing change - this has to be led and you have to be seen to lead it.
To lead change, you need to bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance.
You can find effective change leaders at all levels within your organisation - they don't necessarily follow the traditional company hierarchy. It is important to get an emotional commitment from these key people as you build a team to support your change initiative.
Step Three: Create a Vision for Change
You need to create a clear coherent vision that people can grasp easily and remember and that can help everyone understand why you're asking them to do something.
When people have clarity about what you're trying to achieve, and why then you stand a greater chance of communicating with them
Step Four: Communicate the Vision
How effectively and consistently you share and communicate your vision will have a big influence on the success of your change initiative.
There will be resistance and competing messages from many other sources and influences within your organization so you need to communicate it frequently and powerfully, and embed it within everything that you do.
It's also extremely important to "walk the talk." What you do is far more credible than what you say. You have to demonstrate the kind of behaviour and attitudes that you want from your people.
Step Five: Remove Obstacles
There will be resistance to change. You need to identify it early and take steps to deal with it finding and resolving the root causes.
Put in place the structure for change, and continually check for barriers to it - especially with your organisational structure, job descriptions, and performance and compensation systems - it is vital that these are in line with your vision.
Step Six: Create Short-term Wins
Success breeds success - so early wins are very motivational and very important for morale and for overcoming resistance.
You can help achieve this by setting achievable and believable short-term targets.
This is very much in line with Ken Blanchard's ideas in "The One Minute Manager" of "catching them doing something right" [and praising them for it].
Step Seven: Build on the Change
Kotter argues that many change projects fail because victory is declared too early - he teaches that real and lasting change runs deep.
This is really all about building momentum and making continuous improvement an embedded part of your culture. In practice this means keeping things fresh with new ideas and regular review of what went right with each win identifying areas for improvement.
Step Eight: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture
Finally, to make any change stick, it should become part of the culture of your organisation as this is the biggest determinant of how people will behave.
It's also important that your company's leaders continue to support the change. This includes existing staff and new leaders who are brought in. If you lose the support of these people, you might end up back where you started.
Project Management Maturity Model - And the case for using a Culture Maturity Model
The origins of the concept of a project management maturity model, is lost in the mists of time.
With the evidence of project management skills as far back as the time of the building of the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China and other great wonders of the world - it is quite logical that there could have been an early model to map the progress of developing project management skills. After all, for an ancient project manager the price of failure came high!
In more recent times the concept of a project management maturity model has evolved considerably from the software industry with the need to understand and measure many variables, manage great complexity, obtain consistent results and achieve stringent delivery targets within budget.
With regard to which model is the "best" or most appropriate for any specific situation [I fully appreciate that project management professionals reading this may disagree with what I am about to say, but] I feel the far bigger challenge is actually in getting ANY model applied.
From that point on, and with director level sponsorship and support - all things are possible.
There are many maturity models [I am aware of over 35] and the dominant model is the P3M3 Model created and sponsored by the OGC [UK Office of Government and Commerce] in association the APMG [UK Association of Project Management Group.
This is a composite and enhanced model that addresses the 3 related aspects of large-scale project management and that glories in the full title of "Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Mode".
In relation to your [or your client's] organisation:
Try this simple test - review the different levels listed below based on the P3M3 maturity model - firstly in relation to project management and then secondly with programme management - and see which best describes your organisation:
Where you and your organisation sit on the maturity model is one of the biggest key factors in leading change that will determine your chances of success [the others are (a) the quality of leadership, and (b) the cultures in your organisation].
In 2003 "The Project Management Institute" came up with the following definition: "Organisational Project Management Maturity describes an organisation's overall ability to select and manage projects in a way that supports its strategic goals".
Well that all sounds very noble - but the simple rationale for having and using a project management maturity model is quite simply that projects fail! [And the same is true for programme and change management.]
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Standish Group(US)showed that 66% of IT projects are either totally abandoned or fail against a measure of budget, scope, time or quality (i.e. 'challenged'). A similar study in the UK by Computer Weekly that 84% of projects either failed or were challenged.
It has been estimated that the cost to US business of failing or abandoned IT projects runs into hundreds of billions of dollars.
Closer to home the UK government have wasted countless billions of pounds on failed projects.
At the programme level - with the wider perspective beyond a project delivery of capability to the actual realisation of a defined organisational benefit - the failure rate is a consistent 70%.
And given that every programme encompasses a signifcant change element, the same failure rate applies to any significant change management initiative.
In most organisations the evolution of project management, programme management and change management skills typically lags far behind the development of other capabilities within the company. So the state of maturity to a large degree reflects the prevailing dominant corporate culture.
Given that companies [or more accurately directors] don't know what they dont know - the level of maturity of the company remains invisible.
In fact the very concept of a maturity model remains invisible.
So nothing changes until things go wrong - and pain is felt and someone at director level is facing an exposure as a result of a significant project failure.
This is the point at which progress becomes possible as progress needs sponsorship.
And as the focus shifts to improving performance, there are two principal targets.
(1) To improve how any specific project, programme and change is managed.
(2) To improve performance in overall organisational capability in project, programme and change management.
The purpose of this assessment is to show the extent to which the infrastructure within the organisation supports the project, programme and change management efforts.
The main benefits of the subsequent structured assessment of maturity within the organisation isn't in understanding the current level at which the company is performing, but rather in setting direction, prioritising actions and beginning cultural change.
So, taking project management as an example: an organisational project management maturity model provides guidance to an organisation regarding how to: -
In 2003 The Centre for Business Practices produced its 'Project Management - the State of the Industry' survey. This survey measured organisational improvement over time, as a result of project management improvement programmes.
The highlights of which show significant improvements in terms of financial performance, customer retention and satisfaction, project and process improvement, employees satisfaction and productivity, and a dramatic 70% increase in project alignment with strategic objectives.
I first became aware of the significance and importance of organisational culture in 1994 when I was involved in a business development exercise with a colleague and the significance of organisational culture - initially seen solely from a business development perspective - became firmly established on our radar.
We rapidly made 5 discoveries:
(1) That we can construct a simple matrix that can enable us to very rapidly identify the type of organisational culture we are dealing with.
(2) That these cultures are obvious and instantly recognisable and indisputable from the company's own perspective [i.e. they recognise themselves as such]
(3) That these cultures as seen from a business development perspective form a maturity model. In other words, organisations migrate along a clearly identifiable and predictable path as their own business development skills evolved
(4) That the structured template of this cultural matrix is universal and transcends our original business development perspective -i.e. you can use this template to define ANY organisational culture
(5) That any organisation has more than one culture and that we are able to define a subset of characteristics of the likely orientation of these sub cultures in relation to the primary or dominant organisational culture
This template has been used on many companies and in many, many different situations over the years - overtly [with client involvement] and covertly [i.e. I use it but don't involve my client as it may not be relevant or they may not be receptive.]
Following this I formulated my own defintion of a generic maturity model:
"A maturity model [usually represented as a schematic] is a structured description that shows the stages of evolution of an organisation in transition through various developmental states. It is pre-supposed that this evolution represents progress to more developed or advanced states of learning, insight, understanding and practise."
Having established a cultural template of where your organisation is now, you can determine the template of how your organisation will look after your step change initiative and clearly see the gaps between these positions.
This, in turn, enables you to determine a route that will navigate you through the issues that will arise - and especially to help you identify the full impacts of the changes on those people who will be most affected and to plan accordingly.
And in conclusion - the reason why using a cultural maturity map to understand your cultures is so important is that they are the single biggest determinant of how people in your organisation will behave - and especially in the context of a step change - and thus determine the success or failure of your initiative.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
With the evidence of project management skills as far back as the time of the building of the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China and other great wonders of the world - it is quite logical that there could have been an early model to map the progress of developing project management skills. After all, for an ancient project manager the price of failure came high!
In more recent times the concept of a project management maturity model has evolved considerably from the software industry with the need to understand and measure many variables, manage great complexity, obtain consistent results and achieve stringent delivery targets within budget.
With regard to which model is the "best" or most appropriate for any specific situation [I fully appreciate that project management professionals reading this may disagree with what I am about to say, but] I feel the far bigger challenge is actually in getting ANY model applied.
From that point on, and with director level sponsorship and support - all things are possible.
There are many maturity models [I am aware of over 35] and the dominant model is the P3M3 Model created and sponsored by the OGC [UK Office of Government and Commerce] in association the APMG [UK Association of Project Management Group.
This is a composite and enhanced model that addresses the 3 related aspects of large-scale project management and that glories in the full title of "Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Mode".
Try this test ...
In relation to your [or your client's] organisation:
- Do you use project management?
- Do you use programme management?
- Do you know the difference?
- Do you know why knowing the difference matters?
Try this simple test - review the different levels listed below based on the P3M3 maturity model - firstly in relation to project management and then secondly with programme management - and see which best describes your organisation:
- Level 0 - No process - the organisation has no project and /or programme management skills or experience
- Level 1 - Awareness process - the organisation is able to recognize projects and/or programmes - but has little structured approach to dealing with them.
- Level 2 - Repeatable process - there may be areas that are beginning to use standard approaches to projects and/or programmes but there is no consistency of approach across the organisation.
- Level 3 - Defined process - there will be a consistent set of standards being used across the organisation with clear process ownership.
- Level 4 - Managed process - the organisation monitors and measures its process efficiency, with active interventions to improve the way it delivers based largely on evidence or performance based information.
- Level 5 - Optimised process - the organisation will be focussing on optimisation of its quantitatively managed processes to take into account changing business needs and external factors.
Where you and your organisation sit on the maturity model is one of the biggest key factors in leading change that will determine your chances of success [the others are (a) the quality of leadership, and (b) the cultures in your organisation].
Why bother?
In 2003 "The Project Management Institute" came up with the following definition: "Organisational Project Management Maturity describes an organisation's overall ability to select and manage projects in a way that supports its strategic goals".
Well that all sounds very noble - but the simple rationale for having and using a project management maturity model is quite simply that projects fail! [And the same is true for programme and change management.]
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Standish Group(US)showed that 66% of IT projects are either totally abandoned or fail against a measure of budget, scope, time or quality (i.e. 'challenged'). A similar study in the UK by Computer Weekly that 84% of projects either failed or were challenged.
It has been estimated that the cost to US business of failing or abandoned IT projects runs into hundreds of billions of dollars.
Closer to home the UK government have wasted countless billions of pounds on failed projects.
At the programme level - with the wider perspective beyond a project delivery of capability to the actual realisation of a defined organisational benefit - the failure rate is a consistent 70%.
And given that every programme encompasses a signifcant change element, the same failure rate applies to any significant change management initiative.
Progress driven by pain
In most organisations the evolution of project management, programme management and change management skills typically lags far behind the development of other capabilities within the company. So the state of maturity to a large degree reflects the prevailing dominant corporate culture.
Given that companies [or more accurately directors] don't know what they dont know - the level of maturity of the company remains invisible.
In fact the very concept of a maturity model remains invisible.
So nothing changes until things go wrong - and pain is felt and someone at director level is facing an exposure as a result of a significant project failure.
This is the point at which progress becomes possible as progress needs sponsorship.
And as the focus shifts to improving performance, there are two principal targets.
(1) To improve how any specific project, programme and change is managed.
(2) To improve performance in overall organisational capability in project, programme and change management.
The purpose of this assessment is to show the extent to which the infrastructure within the organisation supports the project, programme and change management efforts.
Benefits of a structured assessment
The main benefits of the subsequent structured assessment of maturity within the organisation isn't in understanding the current level at which the company is performing, but rather in setting direction, prioritising actions and beginning cultural change.
So, taking project management as an example: an organisational project management maturity model provides guidance to an organisation regarding how to: -
- * Articulate project success
* Measure project performance
* Make the delivery of projects more predictable
* Help projects work together instead of against each other in a multi-project environment
In 2003 The Centre for Business Practices produced its 'Project Management - the State of the Industry' survey. This survey measured organisational improvement over time, as a result of project management improvement programmes.
The highlights of which show significant improvements in terms of financial performance, customer retention and satisfaction, project and process improvement, employees satisfaction and productivity, and a dramatic 70% increase in project alignment with strategic objectives.
The case for using a Culture Maturity Model
I first became aware of the significance and importance of organisational culture in 1994 when I was involved in a business development exercise with a colleague and the significance of organisational culture - initially seen solely from a business development perspective - became firmly established on our radar.
We rapidly made 5 discoveries:
(1) That we can construct a simple matrix that can enable us to very rapidly identify the type of organisational culture we are dealing with.
- The basic structure of the matrix can be used to define a template of an organisational culture, namely:
- o Type of culture
o A summary definition of the culture
o Evidence of the culture - i.e. its characteristics
o Key issues faced and addressed by that culture as can be seen in actions and behaviours
o The areas of major focus - or key areas of impact - of the culture
(2) That these cultures are obvious and instantly recognisable and indisputable from the company's own perspective [i.e. they recognise themselves as such]
(3) That these cultures as seen from a business development perspective form a maturity model. In other words, organisations migrate along a clearly identifiable and predictable path as their own business development skills evolved
(4) That the structured template of this cultural matrix is universal and transcends our original business development perspective -i.e. you can use this template to define ANY organisational culture
(5) That any organisation has more than one culture and that we are able to define a subset of characteristics of the likely orientation of these sub cultures in relation to the primary or dominant organisational culture
This template has been used on many companies and in many, many different situations over the years - overtly [with client involvement] and covertly [i.e. I use it but don't involve my client as it may not be relevant or they may not be receptive.]
Following this I formulated my own defintion of a generic maturity model:
"A maturity model [usually represented as a schematic] is a structured description that shows the stages of evolution of an organisation in transition through various developmental states. It is pre-supposed that this evolution represents progress to more developed or advanced states of learning, insight, understanding and practise."
Having established a cultural template of where your organisation is now, you can determine the template of how your organisation will look after your step change initiative and clearly see the gaps between these positions.
Navigating through the issues to where you want to be
This, in turn, enables you to determine a route that will navigate you through the issues that will arise - and especially to help you identify the full impacts of the changes on those people who will be most affected and to plan accordingly.
And in conclusion - the reason why using a cultural maturity map to understand your cultures is so important is that they are the single biggest determinant of how people in your organisation will behave - and especially in the context of a step change - and thus determine the success or failure of your initiative.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)