|
|
Sometimes change management is an operational, analytical, label-less effort.
Here is a short list of situations where change management now exists without project, program or initiative labels. Each can be a prerequisite for transformational change:
- Change Entity
- End User Support
- Introducing Change Management
- Non-program Focused Organizations
Change Entity
Situation:
Client brings in single external consultant to review organization, or function, for skill, competency, talent, understanding of change management and an evaluation of current project process. There is no label for this effort. The budget likely comes straight from the executives own flexible pool of money.
There are deliverables built in (the analysis and assessment), but it is mostly a “rover” search with lots of dialogue and interaction.
It is operational in that current process is reviewed. It is analytical with an external eye. It is label-less, except that the organization now has a high level consultant who is making connections horizontally, vertically and collaboratively that do not officially exist in the organization.
End User Support
Situation:
Users (this is a broad definition meaning anyone who is using something in the organizations structure- software, process, procedure, etc.) can’t find what they need. Maybe users do not know how to do things (which is very common now with the almost complete elimination of real training). One common version, in big older organizations, is that no one knows who does what and there really is no way to find out.
This one could be loaded with deliverables. I find in these scenarios it helps to create something to illustrate things I am explaining. For process it may be a description of a much needed role that does not exist. For software it may be a quick video to teach something not used that could be, or being used, but incorrectly (OneNote in Office is a good example). For procedure it might be a list of places where too many steps exist or where steps are not clear (or do not make sense).
This is at it core operational. It is analytical, but on the people side- finding the spots where small change could make user work life easier, preferably instantly, is the key to a successful effort. This version of label-less change is about how people do the tasks that feed (or will feed after the label-less behavior change) into labeled change.
Introducing Change Management
Situation:
Change management does not exist in the organization and the wise executive client brings in a single external consultant to build understanding and perspective. (shameless plug- of CM that has an end state focused positive approach).
This one may have no deliverables. Really the consultant is the deliverable. (Paying for knowledge and experience and the ability to build connections in the organization, how novel [I think that used to be called “consulting”]). OR, it could have a ton of deliverables. If a change entity is in the works for the future, the introduction can be a chance to get a jump start on templates (yes there will be SOME templates) and design elements.
CM introduction has operational components if the consultant is smart enough to know that ease of regular work equals willingness to participate. It is analytical behind the introduction. Every organization is different. Integrating change management the first time around requires finesse. It helps to bring in the analytical element to consider various measurement aspects within the organization. Fight me on this, but measurement is the enemy of CM. Don’t fight me too hard, I realize your enemy can often become your most trusted partner with a little respect thrown in.
A CM introduction works better when it is label-less. Don’t tell that to those “get-all-over-the-organization-with-our process (and templates)” consulting firms this. They know a big bright sign that says, “we (insert company name) are HERE” can bring in a whole lot of dependent revenue. (The dependency quickly has two players- client and previously inserted company).
Non-program Focused Organizations
Situation:
To me the strangest of the bunch. Many organizations- well established, more or less monopolies, with no incentive or need for real big change- operate in a non-program focused format. So the situation is that the client WANTS some labels. The client wants to be able to separate some things out, name them and illuminate the possibility for change small or big.
This is analytical. Numbers must come into the mix somehow. This type of organization relies on numbers for “proof” of everything. This is operational. You may be looking at suggesting something that is absolutely not done in the organization (hint: strategy first, the naming, followed by tactics the work rather than what exists- the other way around). This is a label-less change initiative to put some labels on things. Sounds like fun!
Thanks to more visibility for change management, in understanding and presence, a good chunk of work for senior external consultants is now label-less CM. From the creation of change entities to end user support and simple introduction of change management, especially for organizations that do not have a project focus, label-less change is becoming much more common.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change excercise, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Knowing what it takes for change to happen and be successful, this search to our blog, “corporate leadership resistance to change” is almost frightening. Change is next to impossible when there is leadership resistance. I must admit (even though I get it and have obviously seen this) this caught me off guard. I have never thought of leadership resistance as an official category for consideration for change management. It is now.
Let’s lay this out:
This scenario is usually because Organic Change rises to a leadership level. Organic change typically happens when leadership passes responsibility or does not take responsibility (sometimes using the excuse that they are “testing” the rising leaders). So “leadership resistance” is probably the “no” that the stakeholders trying to create change get when they present the idea, or more likely, the change already begun. Either way while typical in a lot of organizations this is not the way to translate strategy into action. This is the reverse- tactics trying to dictate strategy. There are a host of reasons why resistance will happen.
- Power
- Money and Budgeting
- Effectiveness of the Organic Presenters
- The nature of resistance
Power
Strategy is the realm of senior executives.
They will take suggestions and input; they may even trust the guidance of an external consultant, but they will not relinquish the control. Change that has to rise up the hierarchy must have been done behind backs, must have been discussed without the executive present and must in some way be a power lever pull. In fairness the request could be to loop the executive in to situations they themselves set up…
Money and Budgeting
The request will not just be for participation, sponsorship or connection- it will be for money. And it will be after some version of money has already been spent (probably just time, but that always equals money). Resistance to fingers in the wallet is pretty normal.
If this is a common scenario in an organization, the “bring it to me so I can make the big decisions” approach, then the money and budget dance is probably an enjoyable exchange for the leader. Get those PowerPoint slides out, give me a show, convince me.
Effectiveness of the Organic Presenters
Trust.
The executive may not feel trust toward those who are presenting the change. He/she may think they have more information, that they know better or that those delivering the request aren’t capable of coming up with changes or getting them to happen.
The nature of resistance
Yes sometimes people just automatically resist.
This is one of those times. The make sense explanation of change does not really work in reverse. If there was that explanation and it was good it would probably make that leader look pretty bad. Being made to look bad however innocent equals resistance.
Plus leaders love to resist those who report to them. It is character building, right? (for whom?)
OK what to do about this since that was the reason, I’m sure, for the search?
- Change the dynamic- stop encouraging organic change and start integrating change and operations in an overall strategy.
- Label change and give leaders ownership- have leaders run change within big change (or stand alone change). Just make sure they only have operational responsibility connected to the change. (Leadership resistance often follows too many requests).
- Improve your end state explanations- leaders are stakeholders, and people, they will resist for all the same reasons everyone else does.
- Is it possible strategy is weak and they have every reason to resist? No explanation needed. Turn around and look at this from a different direction.
Resistance to change by leaders falls in two categories- one is scaled up invitation from organic change and the other requests for participation down the hierarchy. Both point directly to the way the organization combines strategy execution with day-to-day operations.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management, change management strategy, Change Strategy, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, resistance to change, stakeholders
Strategic Change Management is a broad, high level approach to change that connects organizational strategy to initiatives, programs and projects. It focuses on long term, collaborative transformation.
Some characteristics of Strategic Change Management (SCM):
- Change is owned at the highest level in the organization
- Communication has many avenues
- External resources are trusted advisor(s)
- Has a flexible and adaptable approach
Change is owned at the highest level in the organization
SCM deals with change that effects everyone. It therefore must be owned at the highest level in the organization- CEO or SVP. Ownership is crucial since the success of big change relies heavily on trust between individual stakeholder and the highest level budget executive.
With SCM change is a component of overall strategy. Ideas may come from within the organization, but they are placed within strategy before any execution starts. Strategic change management relies on collaboration. It does not filter up organically like Tactical Change Management.
Communication has many avenues
Strategic Change has many ways to communicate and many avenues.
The flow can be from owner to individual, from owner to implementary leaders, from change team to any group and in a loop back from any combination. Since strategic change is about more than just operational changes or technology implementations there must be multiple forms of communication delivered in multiple ways.
External resources are trusted advisor(s)
This type of change requires a broad, long term, neutral perspective. It is very hard to have this when you are measured short term. So Strategic Change Management does not fair well when done completely internally or with contracted change resources (glorified employees with little strategic say- tactical yes, but that is different).
SCM works best with a single trusted advisor with both the business of the organization and its individuals as a focus.
Consulting for SCM is a long series of constant reminders to think in terms of end states and to look to operationalize and culturize big change.
Has a flexible and adaptable approach
This is not a turn key approach.
While the actual roll out into Tactical Change Management and the change timeline(s) may have many templates it is not templated. One strategic change management entity will not look like the next. One strategic change engagement will not look like the next. There are far too many variables (and people) involved with big change to force any kind of method or model.
Strategic Change Management is is a flexible adaptive approach that looks to connect one change to the next through senior ownership, change understanding, trusted external influence and a positive end state focus.
You can get quick wins for Change Management by starting correctly- before you address your first task.
Without starting correctly you may need some wins just to get back to even again.
- Have some kind of external influence
- Place change leads as high as they need to be
- Start “change management” well before you think you need to
- Be careful of tactical approaches to strategic change
- Think horizontal
- Understand end state descriptions are crucial
Have some kind of external influence
You will be changing what you are used to and what you and others “own”. To expect every stakeholder (especially those higher up with lots to lose) to embrace both an understanding of change and an awareness of their connection to the end state and the present is, well, a little crazy. Insert some kind of external influence to moderate that thought process and to help draw the picture of what things look like later. That dialogue will lay out a path of both quick wins and long term changes.
More and more I am convinced that organizations transforming need a single high level trusted change advisor to both insert that external influence and tie things together as the timeline rolls out. You could potentially get the right kind of influence with a big or small firm but, I think, you will need to rely on single individuals within those companies. Why not just bring in a single individual whose sole purpose is to get to end state solutions?
Place change leads as high as they need to be
There really is little point in having a change practitioner placed too low in the organization (in relation to the change). They will spend most of their time trying to use organic methods to get the ear of executives. The stakeholders will see that and you will have lost leverage. If the owner is a VP make sure that is the person that contracts externally (or that the internal reports to). Passing the responsibility and visibility down the line to a director or below turns change management into a fancy version of project management.
Start “change management” well before you think you need to
I can absolutely guarantee you have started change management late in every single one of your initiatives.
So start earlier the next time around.
Change management should start at the first stages of business modeling and analysis.
Even if you decide against that particular change the seeds for a change process have been planted for the next.
Be careful of tactical approaches to strategic change
There are tactics to use during the change timeline (and especially layered over the project timeline). Don’t confuse those tactics with change management as a whole. Do so and you focus on the minutia to the detriment of end state solutions. The bigger the change, the closer to a transformation, the more tactics need to be seen as parts of a whole. So project management’s version of strategy, strategic implementation, falls within the overall change process.
This actually benefits those responsible for tactics. It is important to have someone see the whole and it is equally important to have lots of people focus on the pieces.
Just understanding the difference is in an of itself a quick win.
Think horizontal
There are very few changes that line up perfectly vertical.
Everything that happens within siloed functions spills sideways into other areas.
Think horizontal.
Where and when (earlier than you think likely) do cross functional connections and collaboration need to happen?
Assume horizontal will happen and anticipate it. You will reel in the quick wins (and build momentum for the next change) if you do.
Understand end state descriptions are crucial
You can’t just start knocking off tasks, or quick wins if you want to call them that, without some sense of where you are going and why.
Quick-win-with-little-thought at your peril.
Remember stakeholders are aware. They see things you think are hidden. Keeping them busy right away will not change their need for explanations, understanding and reason.
Start change correctly with change practitioners contracted with the owner, earlier than you think, with a horizontal perspective, knowing it is important to have good empathetic end state descriptions. Do so and you will have a long list of quick wins before you ever really get started.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, Change, Change Design, change failure, change management consultant, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, vision to work
Two words this time around. Do they mean the same thing?
Here are my external definitions:
Corporate-
Anything that is owned, managed and delivered from the highest levels in the organization. Corporate crosses above functions. And you can have a corporate function itself that works for everyone (like HR).
Centralized-
Pulling resources together as a unit to save cost and overlap. Programs and initiatives that have cultural components are often centralized. Procurement is typically centralized (a big movement in the last couple of years- I wanted to write fad instead of movement…).
But what do these two words mean for employees and stakeholders? This always surprises me- as an external who owns nothing and so looks for the smartest solutions.
Corporate means dictated policy and rules.
Centralized means controlled by a corporate entity (in their minds often to the detriment of functions- what an external might call a silo).
This perspective continues to puzzle me as I work to update and dig deeper into my corporate change management entity suggestions.
Stakeholders balk at anything that is corporate and centralized. For change that visibility and ability to cross fertilize is powerful glue for a longer time period than most functions operate under. Strengthening of operations and connections on one initiative builds a foundation for the next.
In many ways that is what operations should be doing. In many ways that is what HR was expected to do (but never given the leverage or visibility to get right). Since this rarely happens there is a trust deficit. Corporate and centralized are the labels for those deficits. In the minds of stakeholders if something carries those labels it cannot and will not work.
I can see why.
The first thing organizations seem to do when they think of setting up a change entity is labeling it a “Center of Excellence”. That would be fantastic if they meant this morphing group of external and internal people was helping to coalesce all the expertise of the organization. Not so. Center of Excellence ends up being just another function- one with a confusing purpose and reason.
If you are a leader being asked to think of this because of an organic movement within your organization, or better, because you yourself know there needs to be something in your organization that look deeper into your transformations (and even, potentially, small changes) think hard about our two words. It might be a good exercise for you to ask questions of your employees and potential stakeholders about corporate versus function and central versus disparate.
You might have a trust equation to build before you can do the “implementation” piece of your change.
Centralized and corporate (and worse corporate centralization) are words with hidden meanings for stakeholders. Consider those stakeholder perspective as you think about long term transformational change (and your organizations second round in the distant future).
Technorati Tags: CCM, CEO, change awareness, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance to change, vision to work
One of the things that you will not likely see on the “70% Change Failure List” is an underlying Us and Them perspective. I see this on almost all engagements, this grouping propensity seems to be one of those “Human Nature” things.
Us = Leadership or the project team or the change management consultants (in those rare cases where there is more than one) or a functional group.
Them = Everyone else or line stakeholders or the Resistors or that other function or a vague competitor (that one might be OK for building camaraderie against a common foe).
What’s wrong with Us and Them viewpoints?
- Command and control
- Exclusion
- Transparency
- Trust
- Responsibility
Command and control
The most common pairing is Leaders and Stakeholders (I almost put “vs.”). Leadership has either set up or gotten used to telling people what to do. Since that command is passed to the next level to implement “people” never has to be an actual person. Stakeholders see the disconnect.
Because of the disconnect everything must be controlled to a different degree than it would have to be if everyone was in this together. The more you control the more a “them” perspective becomes obvious. Soon it will be leaders VS. stakeholders.
Exclusion
This can come with all of our pairs, often not on purpose just in the interest of expediency. Functions exclude other functions. The change team can exclude many (they should know better!). Leaders exclude on purpose to reduce competition. Individuals exclude to retain power.
Exclusion in general is the bane of change.
Exclusion makes things confusing, unclear and can be a first step toward fear and gossip. Change does not go well with gossip and fear.
Transparency
Transparency can kill fear and stifle gossip. The opposite, which is what you get when us and them is woven into your approach, feeds fear. Complete openness is never possible in business. A higher level than exists in most organizations is. Reveal what you can at the right time. The way you reveal information, facts, data and directions can show that everyone is working together toward similar end states.
Because if you don’t you lose trust.
Without trust you will have a hard time getting the necessary work done. Signal a “them” perspective, watch now you will see this EVERYWHERE, and you have eliminated the chance for full trust. If they are them then you, already, do not trust. Why should they?
Responsibility
When there is an us and them perspective responsibility gets passed from one group to the next, or one person to the next. Often the us group is doing the thinking and the planning while the them group is supposed to just listen to orders and then work their you-know-what’s off.
This creates a “you-think-you-know-everything” view. If separation exists between stakeholder and some other group it will feel condescending to those tasked with the work.
If the shelves aren’t stocked or the cash registers aren’t manned, or the data is not entered or the code is not written or the customer is not cared for, there is no business and so there will be no change. Those most responsible, really, are the line stakeholders- they are most often the “them”.
It is very easy to fall into an Us and Them perspective. Working teams do that with stakeholders, leaders do it with “followers” and change practitioners do it with those they are supposed to be working with. Watch yourself and look closely at your model. Do you have us and them embedded to the point where it may feel like us VS. them to some?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, engagement, Executive, resistance to change, stakeholders
Tactics definition: any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success. Dictionary.com
Following these tips will DEFINITLY give you an advantage. Your competitors are not paying attention to this:
- Decrease the distance between leaders and individual stakeholders
- Base steps toward the end state on expertise
- Use change to build competencies
- Adapt your PM system to reflect the end state
- Spend more time talking and less time writing things down
Leadership distance
Any procedure, system or approach that connects stakeholders more directly with leadership will give you an advantage. A regular update from executives in a newsletter or on the project website is the easiest, lowest level tactic. The same regularity in person, or at least with an interactive virtual session is second. Most effective is presence, in person, throughout the initiative in a variety of places for a variety of reasons (connecting the change to the end state and operations).
Expertise
Think expertise for all of the steps of your plan.
Each task in a plan requires a person with skill. Leverage, build and acknowledge both skill and the use of skill (competency) in any way you can.
Competencies
Same as expertise, but the extension- knowing and using capability and capacity. Competencies, and the individuals that carry them, need to be tactically spread onto the change management chessboard. Since business is ultimately a competition you may need tactical moves to protect lack of competency. Enter external consultants for helping you figure that out and contractors to temporarily add missing competencies.
Performance Management
Your performance management system is the record of how well you are doing with tactics. Each suggestions/goal/reward connects with an overall strategy. Those little tactical pieces, developed and accomplished by individuals, should be recorded, monitored and adjusted through the PM system.
Look in hindsight back when you finish change. Did your PM roadmaps build to the end state or just reinforce a subjective status quo?
Dialogue/Communication
Tactical Change Management relies heavily on templates and deliverables (and staying parked in a cubicle filling them out). Change tactics (whether with that form of CM or as part of a broader strategy) should focus on spending the right amount of time in person connecting, explaining end states to and guiding stakeholders. You are looking to address all of the learning styles and to have people hear, see, read, and, in a perfect world, feel and touch your end state, your plan and the steps to get there.
Gaining advantage with change and successfully getting to end states requires a long series of tactical moves, determined through a strong strategic plan with an early and throughout change process. Decreasing the distance between leaders and stakeholders; using expertise; building competencies; keeping track of and rewarding those skills and communicating in multiple ways as close to in person as possible will give you advantage and speed your change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
Viable:
1. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses
2. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
Viability:
the capacity to operate or be sustained: The viability of the company was guaranteed by the success of its new product.
Dictionary.com
Viable Change
Is change that can grab participation.
It is change that challenges, stimulates and helps individuals to grow.
Change that is viable stretches strategy, people, available tactics and leadership.
Viable change can be vivid, real or stimulating and it can be vivid, real AND stimulating. If it does so in connection with intellect and imagination then, just maybe, the end state itself will also be viable.
Change Viability
If so then that end state, that result of the change should be sustainable. The new environment should be able to operate for the benefit and profit of both individuals (all, not just leadership) and the organization of stakeholders, owners and shareholders.
An important component of Change Viability is operations. Viable Change to have Change Viability must entwine with operations. It must be so connected to imagination and a workable future that operations adapts and grows with it.
Viable change and change that is viable must be inextricably mixed with operations. Then it can be workable and practical (to the extent that grand change is practical in the moment) and stimulate at an individual level.
Technorati Tags: change management strategy, Change Strategy, vision to work
 If this is the year of the Change Agent then it is likely to also be the year for Change Management Snake Oil salesmen. Yes completely sexist, I do not think I have ever met a women selling snake oil.
To be fair those pushing dicey change approaches aren’t actually delivering the fix in a bottle, but the promises often sound that simple.
It often seems everyone wants to be a Change Agent. Those “selling the oil” seem to think it takes one of two things: pseudo certification or having been a stakeholder during change.
The first typically creates someone trained for methods that were derived from interviewing those very people who led change. Status quo approaches creating a training program to be spread to many others (more for revenue than effective change management).
The second is a little of the same with a loud voice behind it.
If I were a client and a consultant (especially a newly minted one) dangled the elixir in front of me I would want to know where they had been placed for previous engagements, how long they were there (long is not necessarily good) and when they arrived. I would also want to know what kind of education was presented to clients to be able to get those roles. And I would want to know about any small things that built on this foundation- training roles, management roles, internal roles, big consulting firm roles etc.
Changes are not poured out of a bottle.
As a leader do not fall prey to the traveling salesman with the flashy cure.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, certification, change management consultant, Executive, External Consultant, training
One of the topics in discussion groups this year was, “Change Management, science or art?”. As you can imagine the conversation gets heated quickly with strong positions for each side. People can be measured, but they can quickly change their perspective and mess up results. The science of change needs artists and the artistic side of change often needs numbers for support.
I will use this blog as a mini example.
If I look at the stats for horizontalchange.com can I figure out my stakeholders? If I was considering change (a redesign, a focus on certain topics, starting series to stay consistent with a topic, etc.) could I pick the correct changes from stats?
Horizontalchange.com stats to the end of 2011
Most visited posts:
- Change Management End State Focus
- Change Management Quick Wins
- Explaining Change Management
- For Change Management 2011 already looks a little different
- 5 Factual Stages of Happiness- Kubler-Ross life giving replacements
- The “Hard” side of change management- Reflections on how change has changed
- We do not need Change Management
- Change Management Career Paths- Secrets revealed
- Rates, Fees, Time and Value- the Consultant Client Contract
- Change Management Deliverables
I could ask some of the same questions for this example that apply to a change management initiative:
- Who are the stakeholders?
- What is important to them?
- What are they looking for?
- What information are they missing?
- Do they understand the current environment, the change, possible end states?
Who are the stakeholders?
This list, like a lot of information gathered from form type stakeholder assessments, says a lot, but only if you make assumptions (more art than science even with the stats). White is the focus of the post, green possible stakeholders:
- A different approach, perspective and attitude toward change. Leaders, the curious, practitioners, competitors, academics
- Execution. Mid level leaders, internal practitioners
- What is this Change Management thing and how do I tell others about it? Could be any stakeholder
- What is the current environment? Practitioners
- Historical comparison, tie and a familiar name/concept. Academics, seasoned practitioners, stakeholders outside the change arena (like psychologists)
- The evolution of change management. New practitioners, the original writers of the article, academics
- The argument against CM. Naysayers, internal stakeholders of change, anyone trying to sell or discredit CM
- How to break into the field. College students, new practitioners, those considering a career switch, recruiters
- What does this cost? Potential clients, competitors, external practitioners
- What exactly will change management produce in terms of tangibles? Clients, mid level leaders, staffing firms
From this information we really have no idea who the stakeholders are. Like most initiative the range of stakeholder types is probably broad. This list of ten could be a reading list for any one of the groups if they were looking for a broad base of introductory information.
What is important to them?
It is a little easier to garner importance. This list covers what CM is, where it came from, how to explain it, what to expect in terms of output, how to get into the profession and cost. Like most change it is the list of why, who, where, what, when and how.
What are they looking for?
Readers are looking for understanding, tips, explanation of new approaches, the nitty-gritty of delivery/execution and the basis for the use of change management (or not).
What information are they missing?
Obviously the information the posts represent, but dig deeper. This blog is about positive, end state change. That flies in the face of most change methods and approaches (theory has not really been studied scientifically- no Prosci does not qualify). The top post addresses the first the others have more to do with information that feeds the second.
Stakeholders do not always know what they are missing. You often have to feed them the information they are comfortable with while at the same time leading them to an understanding of the things they do not know- and are not aware they need to understand.
Do they understand the current environment, the change, possible end states?
This question tags onto, or maybe precedes the last. Practitioners and leaders need to be open to listen to stakeholders in order to understand where they are coming from, which spot they are starting with, so end states will make sense.
Do these stats reveal anything? Can I use some science to plan for change? Yes and not really.
If this was a change initiative and I was to rely on the stats I would need to make a lot of assumptions. If I am an internal leader or practitioner making those assumptions our change not only switched from science to art it turned into a paint by numbers process. I will steer things my way, consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously.
Now imagine if I could reach out in some way to these readers/stakeholders to cater the change to them. I know the end state I would like, but there is a lot of room for flexibility of content, process and structure (and timing)- just like big organizational change.
Stats can help change. They can paint pictures, they can help frame arguments, they can be support for cost. Nothing matches the art of interaction with stakeholders though.
Technorati Tags: Examples, stakeholders, statistics, stats
|
|
