|
|
This is an interesting relationship. Symbiotic, hopefully. Adversarial, sometimes. Good show, always.
When they are the same person
Usually that means layering CM into the role of the project manager. There is a conflict here. A project manager will by nature work to narrow focus to reduce risk. When focus expands it is to satisfy “the list”. They know that the broader the spread the more the risk because that brings in more People. The more time spent influencing people the less spent managing the timeline of to-do’s.
At times, less than our first combo, the CM is tasked with both roles. There is, perhaps, less of a conflict here. A change practitioner will by nature work to broaden perspective because they know the risk inherent with a narrow focus, especially when it comes to People. The more time spent influencing people the less time spent revisiting the to-do timeline.
My suggestion for both- pay more attention to the effect on people than the list itself. The list is dictated by participation. It is very difficult (hence CM as a career) to dictate participation.
When they are two people at the same horizontal
This is not always managed well in organizations. Because of the view that change is something layered over a project CM is usually added too late. CM comes first; PM comes second. If the operating horizontal is the highest the initiative needs to reach they could start close to the same time as long as the planning is CM to PM. Then the symbiosis begins. Now the PM can focus on strict management of costs, risks and tasks (and they could take or help with the role of measurement along the way). The CM can anticipate and address roadblocks in the rollout of the change (and shepard through a lot of those PM to do’s).
When they are two people at different horizontals
This is the potential adversarial combination. If one has better leverage and connection to leaders and that is not transferred to the other it becomes a battle between “this has to happen now” and “I can tell you why it will not”. When this combo is CM higher and PM lower it has a real chance of working. It is the change practitioner that needs ultimate (whatever that means for the particular initiative) exposure in order to get ahead of people risk. With that exposure and a jump start on the PM work the CM can make project management much easier for everyone involved. This can also be an excellent mentoring arrangement to help mold a version of paragraph one.
If the PM is high and the CM is thrown into the middle of the organization it is… like 90% of the engagements with CM involved. This is the status quo arrangement that makes change management an exercise in futility. It takes a knowledgeable, understanding, flexible PM to work in this arrangement. It takes a senior experienced connected to people CM to orchestrate the partnership. If there is any hint of control of the CM on the part of the PM then there will be an adversarial combination.
In general the change management piece must be guided with a broad perspective which then connects to specific moves forward on the timeline (including specific tasks). The project management piece operates best when it can dispatch talent to task and know, within reason, how long it will take to check off the to-do. If you can get that in the same person (and they will still have time left to sleep) great. Just remember-
CM early and broad.
Not the best of situations, but common, especially for smaller technology implementations. Don’t despair, change management can always be weaved in to project work. Here are some general areas to address-
Awareness
Of two types- illustrating the connection of individual work, task and effort to the overall goals (best end state) of the project and showing an understanding of the difficulties of change. What is the true intent of this project? Starting with effect on you, what are the things that will happen that slow your regular work down, bother you or force you to look at things differently? As the “overlapped” CM, address those in your interaction and communication.
Skills and Competencies
Put extra effort into making sure that the work for the project is given to the person best suited for the role. Each time you get a precise fit acknowledge that expertise in the individual. You can do that personally and/or include kudos in your communications.
The effect of the organization
Your company will have guidelines, measurement and processes that will inevitably get in the way of change. Each of those will be owned, have been designed by (or both) a person. They will be a stumbling block for you unless the change can make sense to them in some way. Take the time to connect and find that sensibility.
The effect of the culture
As with organizational processes there will be certain ways to get things done. Those “ways” will not be written down. If you are an employee they will be engrained in your approach to work. If you are an employee they could be invisible to you or you might acknowledge them and think they are no big deal. They are.
When it comes to culture you have to walk a fine line between getting things done (if it is change it is new and it probably does not fit into the old mold) and honoring. You will have to show how to do things differently thus skirting cultural issues. Or you will have to call out those patterns and get consensus on trying things differently. Or you will simply have to honor them and double your time frames.
If you are puzzled by this change management thing, but placed in a position to either be responsible for it or feel the need to layer it in keep this in mind in your approach-
Change means something new; new means doing things differently; guide stakeholders through that. Use yourself as a model and you will make a difference in the transition for the people involved and your business.
Stuck with CM too low and too late as a leader or practitioner?
If you are sitting in that spot you probably have little control or influence over corporate strategy, the strategy for the change rollout (if there really is one), the ownership of the initiative, the accountability of leadership tied to the initiative or overall timing. If you are interested in doing things “right” you are in for a long haul.
What you might want to try is to be influential, make a difference, in the speed and acceptance of the change. At its core that is what CM is about. So you are simply leveraging your core competency.
Some suggestions:
- Strip away extras (that suck up budget) like readiness assessments
- Focus on descriptions of a changed environment rather than end states
- Go with “because” as an answer to why (I know cringe factor there) and be helpful and available
- Communicate context to the timeline (rather than the strategic bigger picture)
- Accept that CM can be a project management add on and then practice CM (reach out to leaders, mentor, distribute supporting information to grow awareness, illustrate cross functional collaboration, etc)
Part of the reason CM is approached the way it is with most models and most organizations is because of the thrown in the middle pattern. Initially the idea of CM was to speed along projects. It had an “insertion” basis and so the gurus developed models to address that client need.
Things have changed; stakeholders get it and expect more.
Organizations made up of lots of people and lots of group think move slowly on the change scale.
I am beginning to think that to push that boat takes organic change management in the middle, with leaders, with new employees added to each and every change and operational tweak. If speed is the final measure then addressing that first and making a difference on a smaller scale may be the light for tackling the bigger, wider change as a web approach.
Smack dab in the middle of every initiative is the muddy part. That is where many small decisions have to be made. Where each of those decisions pits itself against another (typically across functions). The mud is made thicker, stickier and harder to negotiate with performance measures that are short term and not tied to the initiative. The traverse is complicated because everyone is trying to escape the muddy field first. What does that look like for CM?
Politics
Many companies have a “greater good” from a branding and loyalty perspective that loses its connection when it does not jive with individual potential and reward. “We do not do it that way” is a common refrain (and I feel the mud get thick). Except that I can almost always find someone who has or who is willing to do it another way- IF they stand to reap individual gain.
Technology
No matter how thorough the change process, no matter how deep the questions and the gathering of information, technology always seems to turn out to be more complicated than anyone thought. First it is the old stuff, then it is trying to figure out the new stuff, then it is the human element of “different keystrokes”. The mud gets next to impassible if the “When” date of adoption got set early and is hard and fast (hint the biggest reason for failure of technology initiatives- a hard set adoption day). You can make a sloppy path through the mud if there is a transition from old to new.
Capability
How many times have you found yourself having said, “I can do that” and then realizing you really can not? Big, fast, but never ending initiatives are filled with these altruistic (or self serving see category one) promises/assumptions. It helps for the CM team to not only look at apparent capability, but build in, develop and/or consider safety valves.
Ascension
Every one of those stakeholders have a career. Every one of those careers is looking for a path. We all know that career path is its own mud field. Odds are you have dirtied someone next to you in your climb. Initiatives are often a free for all through the gunk. Very often the organization supports and even encourages this kind of behavior. And very often CM does not get to address that structure before everyone runs into the bog.
Ttttiming
Is never easy. Our section of mud is filled with holes that drag the initiative deeper into problems. All those little decisions we mentioned earlier eventually add up to DELAYS. You could pad time early on, but if anyone knows about it you can bet they will take it. This is the area where it is a godsend to have a crack project manager on the team. CM practitioners have a good sense of human nature and how that effects forward progress; project managers can translate that into a time equation.
So the muddy messy part is a dance between what you built into your change process and what appeared on its own. It is typically a constant slog thanks to the “too late, too low” approach for most initiatives. The extreme muddiness is to be dropped into the middle of change when someone else started it- all too common. That is when you move around in the mud and keep track of the mess, the corrections, the results as experience for the next time around.
There is a time frame built in to the change management process that I have found carries from client to client, transformation to transformation. This may be due to human nature, the consistency of organizational interaction or something within the change process itself. In a nutshell here is what the timing looks like-
The three month period is the time it takes to have enough information for a genuine dialogue about strategy, vision and end states. It takes this long for us, Vision to Work, Inc. to gather the right amount of information to question, affirm and coalesce reality with illusion. This period is the absolute core for transformational initiatives. I would say it is a necessity for all others, but you could shorten the timeframe (but keep the relationship timing to the other phases) if the change is functionally contained.
The second phase is the gathering of stakeholders… wagons in a circle? process. This is where the measurement and gauging of participation levels takes place. In some ways this is the (what I consider old fashioned) stakeholder analysis. It is important during this time to see the change as a big picture event that spreads over a certain area. Gauging what that area is, how fast the spread, who gets touched and to what extent, is the output at six months.
Once the end state can be defined with all its angles and it is clear what that means for the spread of effect then the lists, the timelines, the tasks can begin to be created and charted. This is the spot, assuming the first two stages were early and thorough, that the PMO can shine. The change management that needs to be integrated in their processes has been set up and can be supported. This box can be anywhere from 3 months to years in length. It is the one that can severely stretch- expectations, time, money, patience and the resources of the organization. You can forget the shorter time length if the first two stages are skipped-no matter the initiative.
And I can’t help but point out to any senior level executive who happens to read this… right HERE is typically where the CM practitioners are brought in. If you have done this in the past-OOPs.
The last box/phase is the transition to the change. It is when the, we hope, inevitability of the end state begins to become apparent, comfortable and, to those on board, is the present. For a technology implementation you could call this the Adoption phase (assuming a certain percent begin that process before it is official).
For our own thinking, and now yours, here is our model overlaid-
The output for each phase is the answer(s) to the respective “W” question. The time periods of each phase are consistent, but the importance and effect is represented by the size of the first box. It is when these time frames are crunched, or worse, when the relationships are tweaked that change runs into problems. I think I can safely extend that statement to projects and, at times, organizations as a whole.
To get a better understanding of change that runs horizontal think of a spider web.
At the core of the web is the Corporate Strategy. For this to work we must assume (and a big assumption it is) that the strategy makes sense and can be described, communicated and measured. Radiating out- each with a bigger spread, more influence and more scope, from the core, are projects, programs, initiatives and transformation. The gossamer threads of connection between the four are the functional units of the organization. Spun off from the edge of the web are the external entities (partners, suppliers, customers, the business community etc).
Everything is connected. The sensitive nature of the web means that all movement will be felt, both good and not so.
A change catalyst group made up of internal and external resources rests near the center, near the strategy, near the leaders who control spending, end state visioning and initial leadership. If you were to insist on laying this web over your org. chart the first circle off the hub of the web would be the first horizontal; the precise center, the CEO and the board.
Some observations-
An experienced and intuitive Change practitioner is used to spinning informal versions of this web- they will sense and know the effect of every movement.
Internal consultants rarely are empowered to do so, but are exceptional at managing the web after it is built.
I have not played with this much, but there is no reason this web cannot have a smaller version within functions (or geography or units…?).
While the CCG (or your own crafty acronym) sits near strategy it runs out along all of the threads and circles the web in each of the four change areas, radiating out to make external connections and working with leaders to build and repair connections (see the upper left corner of our diagram).
With dots throughout the web this could actually be THE org. chart.
I specialize in the design of change within organizations.
Some C level executives say, “we already do that”.
Some HR people I meet say ,“that’s what we do”.
Some PMO leaders say, “that’s our role”.
Some strategy/business development leaders say, “that is integrated into all of our processes”.
Some consultants say, “there’s no market for that”.
All stakeholders say, “if only we had that here…”
Despite expertise, energy and participation of all, most organizations are missing something. They have to be since I do this (there is a market) and each of those people above disagree with one or others. The “missing” is a glue of sorts that ties the organization together horizontally.
What’s needed is a way to facilitate change, either initiatives or operational, so that everyone feels in charge/control and goals are clear and shared (see above- we already do that- then why are consultants so busy?).
When gluing things together you often need an external influence (the clamp) before you can get a strong bind. That in our case is a consultant. The bind is the behavioral changes and structural pieces left in place after that consultant leaves. If the change entity is designed well it should be possible to add external influences at any time as the clamps to tie things together. The internal work is the assembly of the pieces and the creation of the idea for change.
I have to believe that the reason this does not happen is thanks to the first five bullets. Or maybe I just need to speak a little louder?
Put together (to continue the last two posts) the change management process and communications lay out a path to turn idea into work then into result/change/solution. With an understanding of what happens to people, process and connection during that journey the leaders and practitioners can help to connect task to big picture and big picture to competency.
These are the core phases of a change management initiative (I know not what you are used to seeing).
Idea
Engagement
Big Picture/Vision
Engagement
PMO approach
Disbanding
Idea-
Every change starts with an idea. The idea can develop into change. For that to happen a connection to both stakeholders and the business strategy of the organization will have to be made. The idea needs to become a clear picture of a spot to head to.
Engagement-
To make this transition from thought to solution/result will require skills, competencies, organization and most importantly motivation. All of which require engagement. Effective change management has engagement very early in the overall process- I do mean overall, not the project process. End states (that clear picture) will be different for all stakeholders and all stakeholder groups. Without including them in the forming of the description there is no end state; only mandates from someone else.
This phase of engagement, since there are two, is about gathering perspective, knowledge and opinion to mold the idea into the solution. It is also about inclusion at a level that feeds the change process rather than stopping or delaying it (which is exactly what happens when the first three phases are skipped- all too common).
Big Picture/Vision-
This phase is different than idea because it is about tying the energy and drive of the executives and leaders to the change and the work of the stakeholders. Participants will do so because they understand how their effort and skill fit in and because they see the strategy and reasons and want to contribute. Understanding the big picture, communicating from the stakeholders perspective and tying that to the change is essential to the start of the actual task/project work. And P.S. ,it helps to actually have a strategy that makes sense so it can be communicated effectively (snicker if you will but there are large organizations that do not have this).
Engagement-
Knowing the Big Picture, having the end state descriptions, mixing in the knowledge gained from the first level of engagement and sprinkling with just a little patience and speed control leads to the second engagement phase. This is where people begin to be placed on the change timeline (not quite yet the project timeline). Engaging during this phase means working back from the end state to fill in needs matched to resources. As I always encourage, it also means the layering in of human capital development.
PMO approach-
NOW (I know of the impatience reached for some by this phase) is when the project process begins. The change process itself does not stop (and has mini phases that coincide with the work of the project teams and within those teams). This is simply a hand off of distinct responsibilities to teams with project management competencies (which was determined in the previous phase).
Disbanding-
This is a phase because it can feed upcoming initiatives, correct deficiencies found during the change process and provide an opportunity for celebration, acknowledgement and departure. Most importantly with good communication it can be the loop back to measure the connection between business strategy and leverage of human capital (executives being part of that generic term).
Historical approaches and a vertical perspectives are not working.
The resulting trend is horizontal change management. Horizontal is the positions of equal "rank" within verticals- like VP sales to VP IT. So there are up eight horizontals depending on the size of the organization.
The next trend is to place work in context with the whole. The whole being org. strategy, big picture, end state, direction of growth etc. Once a stakeholder knows how their work fits (which motivates them to participate) then they need to know when and with what effort that participation is needed.
The last, a true status quo breaker, is to place project work under the umbrella of a change process. This gives a longer view to strategic planning with a direct connection to work and results. Instead of a lot of time wasted infighting.
To practitioners this all may seem simplified.
For clients (mine are high level, but I am not sure that makes a difference) the endless pontificating, marketing of steps (8) and approaches and inability to connect people to business objectives is un-productive. They are looking for consultants that can translate the noise of change management into the parts – leadership, stakeholder connection, empowerment etc.
One trend that appeared in the last year or so- a result of the economy and the above paragraph, the need to be collaborative and break verticals/silos is the addition of an internal responsible for change. "Blank" of Change Management (or OE or OD or whatever they are choosing to call it). The problem is most of these are at the Director level, which exacerbates the vertical problem and skips the horizontal (VP’ and SVP’s) who are ultimately responsible for all change. It is also solely internal which leaves out, what I think is (biased yes) a crucial piece, the external influence.
Admittedly, I have seen VP titles so a few organizations understand what we are bantering back and forth.
Any trend that places work in context, communicates time/place and level of effort, encourages collaborative leadership and participation and weaves project management into the process will stand out and quickly go from a trend to accepted practice.
|
|
