Welcome to the October edition of our newsletter Value Delivery.  In this issue:

• In the News introduces the final report of our global survey on the ‘Factors Critical to Delivering Change Successfully’.
• We have two Spotlights: the first shows how we’re refining our Rapid Assessment in response to the survey findings; and the second moves on to how we can help you ‘Diagnose’ specific problems.
• We also offer two Viewpoints: the first takes a deeper look at a specific insight from our survey - ‘Are CSFs Unique?’; and the second, recognising the importance of Leadership to our survey respondents, looks at ‘Leading the Way’ to successful delivery.

(As usual, further information is available by following the links below.)

Leadership 3, Delivery Process 1?

In the News: Factors Critical to Delivering Change Successfully

Now that our global survey has finished, we can confirm that respondents continued to emphasise Leadership, Purpose and, to a lesser extent, Stakeholder engagement as being the factors most “important to the overall success of a change initiative.”

But the details in the results point the way to what we believe are some very significant insights for change initiatives across sectors - and a powerful way to help change leaders understand their overall chances of success.

Read more …

Find out where you need to focus

Spotlight: Refining the Rapid Assessment

Our survey showed a significant difference between CSFs, with the top 3 factors making, in our respondents’ experience, almost three times the contribution of the lowest 3.  This suggested that our Rapid Assessment could be enhanced to help clients focus where they can make most difference to their success.

The real power of the refined Rapid Assessment comes from its ability to identify those factors which would make the greatest contribution to your success - in your specific situation.

Read more …

Speed, clarity, collaboration - and action!

Spotlight: Diagnose - Get to the problem, fast

When you already know that there are specific problems with your initiative and need a solution quickly, what’s the most effective way to get on with fixing them?

We bring a fresh, focused and action-oriented perspective to help you lay out the essential facts, identify the underlying problems and develop practical approaches and plans for addressing them.

In short: this is a very powerful way to get to the root causes and start fixing them, fast.

Read more …

More similarities than differences

Viewpoint: Are CSFs Unique?

As we embarked on our global survey, we wondered about a fundamental question: assuming a clear ranking emerged, could it be applied to all large‐scale change initiatives? Or is each situation unique in ways which mean it can only be addressed through a ‘bespoke’ set of specifically‐tuned CSFs?

The evidence seems clear: in areas where strong differences might have been expected (between industries and between regions, for example) they didn’t really appear - at least not to a degree which undermines the essential message that the same CSFs contribute much more to success than others in most situations.

Read more …

Navigating successful change

Viewpoint: Leading the Way

Why is Leadership so important?  How does it help set up a change initiative for success?

We argue that Leadership’s primary role is to ‘navigate’ the initiative. 

Drawing on the classic Change Circle, Leadership focuses on the space in which the commitment and ownership of the entire organisation for the big picture is engaged, enabling it to ‘pull’ the change into day-to-day operation successfully.

Leadership must set the Purpose - the compelling need for change and the clear outcomes which will define success - and ‘walk the talk’ for the entire organisation to see, throughout the initiative.  Communication obviously plays a vital role - but communication needs the context and content provided by Leadership.

Read more …

To open a downloadable pdf version of this Newsletter and articles in a new window, click here.

We hope you’ve found ‘Value Delivery’ informative and enjoyable.  We would welcome your feedback on the newsletter - what worked, what didn’t and how could we improve - leave us a comment below or e-mail us at value.delivery@houghley.co.uk.

If you would like to discuss any of the items in this issue, or talk about how they could apply in your situation, please contact us at enquiries@houghley.co.uk, or call us on +44 (0) 845 604 2335.

If you’d like to receive future editions by e-mail, please let us know.

   .

From the start, though, we wondered about a fundamental question: assuming a clear ranking emerged from the survey, could it be applied to all large-scale change initiatives?  Or is each situation unique in ways which mean it can only be addressed through a ‘bespoke’ set of specifically-tuned CSFs?

We certainly found professionals who took the second view.  As one senior executive put it:

“I think the factors vary according the business in question - its history, the people, the nature of the change. The context for change is very important…. We’ve looked at this before and have found no common ground - and it gets even more confused when you take national cultures into account.”

So now we have the survey results, do they support a common set of CSFs applied to all initiatives?

Aspects which drive uniqueness

Several aspects of change initiatives have been put forward, in our survey responses and elsewhere, as reasons why each situation is unique.  The key ones seem to be:

• Industries are very different - approaches which work in one often won’t in another
• National cultures vary - an approach which fits one culture will clash with another
• Initiative size matters - approaches to small-medium initiatives aren’t flexible enough for large ones
• Professional perspectives differ - there is no single view across disciplines about what’s important
• Context and type of change are key - these must shape the way change is implemented.

We’ll first take a look at what the survey responses suggest about each in turn, then we’ll attempt an overall conclusion about whether the survey supports an approach which applies to all large-scale change.

Differences between industries

At one level, this is self-evident.  The technology, people and processes in a media organisation, for example, clearly aren’t the same as those in a car manufacturer, an oil company or a bank.  End of discussion?

Well, perhaps not.  We’re not comparing technology, people and processes; we’re looking at whether the same Critical Success Factors emerge as the most, and least, important in delivering successful change. 

The results are striking: overall, there is strong agreement between industries. 

This is perhaps not as surprising as it appears at first sight.  While the specific content of change will vary widely, the stages of change, many of the barriers to change and most of the activities required to deliver and enable change aren’t so different across industries.

So what?  This seems to be clear: the success factors are remarkably consistent across industries.  Commonality 1, Uniqueness 0.

National cultures

Although our survey didn’t record respondents’ individual countries, it did ask for their continents, and enables us to draw useful conclusions, particularly between Europeans and Americans, the largest groups.

There were certainly some variations in individual CSFs, but the overall ranking is not very different, and the importance of the ‘top three’ (Leadership, Purpose and Stakeholders) is similar. 

This is not to suggest that the techniques to address a CSF - for example, to exert Leadership - may not vary significantly between cultures.  Nor is it to deny that there may be differences between the regions which were less well represented, and indeed between individual countries (which are not recorded by the survey).

So what?  Despite some differences in the detail, the survey data suggests that an overall ‘global ranking’ is still applicable to the main regional cultures.  Commonality 2, Uniqueness 0.

Size of initiative

This has been covered in the survey results in detail, and is only reviewed briefly here. 

Respondents from larger initiatives ($10m+) gave more weight to factors which keep a large initiative on track, while those from smaller ones emphasised the factors which keep ‘on budget and on plan’.

However, the overall ranking is again not dramatically different between the two groups -a few factors differ by a place or two.

So what?  Again, the survey data suggests that an overall ‘global ranking’ is valid across all initiative sizes.  Commonality 3, Uniqueness 0.

Professional perspectives

Again this is covered in the survey, which shows differences in perspective - particularly between Programme/Project Managers and Change Management professionals.

So, an argument for uniqueness?

Well, that would imply that one or other perspective is ‘right’ and the other is ‘wrong’ in a particular situation.  We argue that generally each perspective is legitimate - i.e. both are ‘right’ - and that successful delivery is best achieved by reflecting both in the overall direction of the initiative.  On that basis, the combined ranking, reflecting both views, is justified - although one can debate the correct relative weights of the two perspectives, and also others which were less heavily represented in our survey.

So what?  If the argument is accepted that different professional perspectives are equally valid and should be represented in the overall ranking, then a common ranking is justified.  Commonality 4, Uniqueness 0.

Context and type of change

The survey data does not specifically address this, so we must rely on our experience and judgement - and other people’s may well be different. 

Our experience certainly suggests that the context of change is important.  To take a simple example, an organisation with a history of successful change is likely to be much more open to, and proficient at, change than one with a history of failure, which may be uncertain and resistant.  And an organisation changing from a position of success and strength will approach change differently from one which is struggling and trying to change in a last-ditch effort to survive - although it’s debatable which is more motivated to succeed.

However, does that mean we should necessarily conclude that the factors critical to success are different?

We offer an alternative hypothesis: that the relative importance of the factors is in fact typically similar; it is the degree and type of effort needed to put them in place which generally varies. 

To illustrate… an organisation which has failed before is likely to need stronger leadership, a clearer blueprint and a more detailed plan (to pick out just 3 CSFs) than one which has generally succeeded at change in the past and knows how to do it.  But that doesn’t mean Leadership is any more or less important than Blueprint or Plan in the two situations; merely that the standard required in each case is different.

Clearly the type of change also affects the situation.  A detailed process-refinement initiative designed to improve operational efficiency and reduce error is going to be different from a culture-change one designed to promote empowerment and (controlled) risk-taking. 

But this argument begins to sound a little like the one in the industries section above: the specific type of change will vary widely, but the stages, barriers and activities may not be so different.  In that case, are the critical success factors necessarily different? 

We’d argue that the answer is No.

So what?  Of all the aspects, this is the one where the case for uniqueness is probably strongest, and we can’t deny that an element of environment-specific ‘context and content’ may be applicable in many cases.  Commonality 4½, Uniqueness ½.

Conclusion

The overall score suggests a clear conclusion, and that seems to be justified by the evidence: 

• In areas where strong differences might be expected (between industries, and between regional cultures, for example) they didn’t really appear - and certainly not to a degree which undermines the essential message that some CSFs contribute much more to success than others
• Looked at holistically, rather than from one particular discipline, professional perspectives don’t make a compelling argument against a common ranking
• While different initiative sizes produce some differences of emphasis, they don’t generate sufficiently different results to undermine the principle of a common ranking
• Context and type of change certainly affect the approach, but it isn’t clear that they fundamentally alter the relative importance of the underlying success factors - in fact, the opposite can be argued.

If we were proposing a precise, mathematically rigorous calculation then the detail differences in these aspects would certainly raise questions.  But we’re not; we’re suggesting that the overall ranking provides executives with a way to focus first on those areas which have most impact on the chances of success. 

On that basis, we believe the survey supports a common ranking of CSFs by their impact on an initiative’s chances of success.

We recognise some people will disagree, and that there will be valid reasons in particular cases to adjust the standard ranking.  Our revised Rapid Assessment will provide that ability but before using it we will always challenge our clients to think through against the tests above: are we really so very different?

To open a downloadable pdf version of this Viewpoint in a new window, click here.

   .

We argue that Leadership’s primary role is to ‘navigate’ the initiative.  Drawing on the classic Change Circle, it focuses on the space in which the commitment and ownership of the entire organisation for the big picture is engaged, enabling it to ‘pull’ the change into day-to-day operation successfully.

Leadership must set the Purpose - the compelling need for change and the clear outcomes which will define success - and ‘walk the talk’ for the entire organisation to see, throughout the initiative.  Communication obviously plays a vital role - but communication needs the context and content provided by Leadership.

Before we go on to explore these ideas in more detail, it’s worth thinking about who and what we mean by ‘Leadership’.

Who is ‘Leadership’?

Leadership is the collection of people who are accountable both for the organisation’s ongoing success and for the success of any change initiative.  They comprise:

• The Executive Team: typically those ‘C’ level executives who are responsible for operating and improving the business on behalf of its stakeholders, such as shareholders and customers;
• The Sponsor of the initiative: the individual, often a member of the Executive Team, who is accountable to the Executive Team for achieving the change at hand;  and
• The Director of the initiative: the individual charged by the Sponsor with directing the initiative day-to-day towards successful delivery.

So how do these people ‘navigate’ an initiative towards success?  We’ve found the Change Circle to be a useful tool for thinking about this question.

The Change Circle

The Change Circle

The Change Circle has been around for some time, but we find relatively few leaders who have come across it, so it’s worth a recap.  It’s a simple model and like all models, its value is as an aid to thinking - generating ideas which help in specific situations.

The Change Circle is formed of 4 quadrants relating to the intersection of two dimensions: the ‘Part - Whole’ dimension and the ‘Push - Pull’ dimension.

The ‘Part - Whole’ dimension is about whether a particular activity relates to the big picture - the Whole - or whether it is about some specific detail - Part - within the big picture.  An analogy here is the distinction between the contributions Architects and Heating Engineers make to a building.  The Architect’s job is to envision the whole building and set the framework within which all other design and construction activity takes place.  On the other hand, the Heating Engineer’s role is to ensure that the building’s heating system is effective and safe and fits into the overall framework established by the Architect.  The Architect works on the ‘whole’; the Heating Engineer works on the ‘part’.  In the context of change, Programme Managers, Business Architects and Strategists work on the ‘whole’ whilst Process Designers, Programmers, Trainers and Users work on the ‘part’.

The ‘Push - Pull’ dimension is about whether a particular activity relates to building and integrating the solution - ‘Push’ - or whether it is about generating momentum within the business for the change - ‘Pull’.  In other words, it’s about supply versus demand.  On change initiatives, Project Managers and Solution Developers work on the ‘push’ whilst Change Management Specialists, Business Executives and Line Managers work on the ‘pull’.

The intersection of these two dimensions creates four quadrants of change.  In the bottom-left (Push, Part) components of change are ‘created’.  In the top-left (Push, Whole), new or enhanced solutions are ‘integrated’.  In the bottom-right (Pull, Part) the people in the business are ‘motivated’ to adopt elements of the change and make them work in the real world.  In the top-right (Pull, Whole) the holistic and demand perspectives come together to ‘navigate’ the change towards success.

Each of these quadrants plays an important part in delivering change successfully.  But, as our survey has shown, the most important factor in any successful change initiative is Leadership.  So, let’s focus on the top-right quadrant - through which Leadership navigates towards success.

How can leaders do this?  By looking after both factors in the top-right quadrant - by generating and sustaining ‘demand’ and momentum for the overall (’holistic’) change.

The ‘Whole’ Factor

How do leaders play a role in emphasising the holistic nature of the change?

It is interesting that Leadership is consistently the highest ranked Critical Success Factor in our survey - even more important than having a Purpose which responds to a compelling need for change and defines clear outcomes.  Why is this?  Because it is leaders who must identify and engender the compelling need for change and it is they that must also define the clear outcomes.

Such Leadership must come from the ‘business’ - the core functions and capabilities of the organisation.  For instance, the Purpose can only come from a deep understanding of the business and its position in the market - its role in the ‘value chain’[1], if you like.

The vision of what the business will look like in the future must also be holistic.  It’s no good envisioning a world-beating information system if future processes, roles & responsibilities and so on are not properly aligned to this new technology.  We were once asked to find out why a new insurance sales system was performing so badly that it couldn’t be used; it turned out that the system had been designed to support a new way of selling, but no one had followed through to re-define the sales processes or train sales professionals in their use.  It wasn’t a technical issue at all, but a failure of Leadership to follow-through to deliver the whole vision.

The holistic statement of what the change is all about must be established early in any initiative and be maintained, enhanced and refined throughout.  In fact, it must outlast the initiative itself.  After solution delivery teams have celebrated the success of getting the solution in on time, on budget, on scope and on quality, Leadership must continue to sustain the Purpose through day-to-day operations.

The ‘Pull’ Factor

How do leaders play a role in driving demand for the change?

It goes without saying that change must be “pulled” - it can’t be “pushed”.  We’ve seen many initiatives fail by focusing on the left-hand “push” activities at the expense of “pull” activities.

It also goes without saying that change succeeds or fails in the bottom-right quadrant.  It succeeds if people in the business are motivated literally to pull the change on board and make it work every day in the real world.  But that motivation depends on the context set by Leadership.

When we work with Change Leaders, we focus on characteristics such as ‘commitment’, ‘accountability’ and ‘visibility’.  It is the strength of these characteristics that distinguishes Leadership from other Stakeholders in the change.  To adapt an old fable: Stakeholders are involved, but Leaders are committed!  We look for evidence that leaders are ‘walking the talk’.

We also look for evidence of courage.  Any change that’s worth the effort, at least any substantial change, will involve taking the organisation outside its comfort zone.  It will require new and different behaviours.  It must be self-evident that leaders have embraced such change - and that takes courage.

In the BBC’s insightful sitcom ‘Yes, Minister’[2], if Sir Humphrey Appleby ever wanted to steer Jim Hacker away from a particular course of action, he knew how to get his way: “… if you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn’t accept it you must say the decision is courageous.”[3]  Politicians, and even Stakeholders, may be able to get away with delaying, evading and generally avoiding acts of bravery; change leaders cannot!  Everyone in the business must see that Leadership has the courage to embody the change.

A Word About Communication

As many respondents to our survey pointed out, communication is critical the success of any change initiative.  It’s no good having a compelling need for change, a vision, clear outcomes, and so on, if these are not clearly communicated to the whole organisation.  It’s no good ‘walking the talk’ if people can’t see you walking - or hear you talking for that matter.

But more importantly, it’s no good having a great communications plan if there aren’t strong messages to communicate, or if they won’t be believed because your people don’t see commitment from their Leadership - if you and your team haven’t clarified your Purpose and if you’re not walking the talk.

Conclusion

In any change initiative, there are lots of people pushing the solution towards implementation and there are many people involved in the details of the change process.  Leadership is the one place where the pull for the whole change comes together.  As a leader of change, you can use the top-right quadrant in the Change Circle to help you navigate your organisation towards successful change, by frequently asking:

• What should I be doing to get the big picture - the compelling need for change, the vision, the outcomes of changing successfully - across to the organisation?

• How can I demonstrate my commitment to the change and how can I help people understand why this change is important for them, personally, as the organisation moves forward?

Meanwhile, of course, management must span the entire Change Circle - all four quadrants.  It must ensure that both the supply of, and the demand for, the holistic change and all of its components are properly planned and executed to deliver change successfully.  And we can help you shape, mobilise and deliver an initiative for success.

But that’s our focus.  Yours is Leadership.

Only you can provide the Leadership.  We can help you by providing a context and a structure within which that Leadership can navigate change towards success.  We can help you achieve the right balance between “whole” and “part” and between “pull” and “push”.

To open a downloadable pdf version of this Viewpoint in a new window, click here.

For more information about Houghley Ltd: visit us at www.houghley.co.uk; contact us at enquiries@houghley.co.uk; or phone us on +44 (0) 845 604 2335.

[1] Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, 1985

[2] To find out more, try www.yes-minister.com

[3] Yes, Minister - The Right to Know, Antony Jay & Jonathan Lynn, BBC 1980

Our survey on the relative importance of the 10 CSFs showed a significant difference between CSFs, with the top 3 factors making, in our respondents’ experience, almost three times the contribution of the lowest 3. 

This suggested to us that the Rapid Assessment could be refined to leverage these results and help clients focus on the factors which will make most difference in their particular situation.  This document summarises the refinements we plan to make.

Where to focus first: Cumulative Deliverability

The survey provides a clear ranking of which CSFs make most - and least - difference to an initiative’s chances of success.

These can rapidly be translated into a picture of the cumulative impact of addressing each factor, prioritised by the relative importance of each factor - simply put, focussing on the most impactful factors first.

In the graph, addressing the factors to the left of the x-axis (Leadership, Purpose, Stakeholders) makes a large impact on the chances of success, increasing them by around one-third by the end of Shaping.  Conversely, addressing the least important factors (at the right of the x-axis) increased the chances of success by only about one-twentieth by the end of that phase.

This difference is, of course, only partly a function of the relative importance as highlighted by the survey; it also reflects the fact that Leadership, Purpose, Stakeholders are particularly significant in the early Shaping stage of an initiative.  Thus, the other factors play a relatively larger role in later phases, as shown by the Mobilised (M) areas of the graph.

What’s required in your specific situation: Priorities for Success

The real power of the Rapid Assessment, though, comes from its ability to identify those areas which would make the greatest contribution to success in your specific situation. 

We already compare your situation to typical ‘thresholds’ (i.e. expected minimum standards) for completing each phase.  Now, by factoring in the contribution of each factor to your overall chances of success, we can more accurately quantify the impact of addressing each factor in your situation, and thereby give you a prioritised ‘route map’ to success.

There is a lot of information to consider here, so at first glance the graph may appear a little daunting.  However, it is actually both powerful and relatively straightforward:

• The starting point for each factor is the current ‘Assessed’ value, indicated by the dotted line
• The first uplift required is to reach the ‘threshold’ for completing Shaping, indicated by the Red bars
• The second uplift, to reach the ‘threshold’ for completing Mobilisation, is shown by the orange bars
• And finally, the uplift required to reach the target for completing Mobilisation is shown by the yellow bars.

In this example, the first two factors are the ones where reaching the threshold for Shaping would have the greatest impact on the likelihood of success (indicated by the length of the bars), while factors 5-7 and 10 are already well ahead of the level required for entering Mobilisation. 

Thus, the first Priorities for Success here are Factors 1 and 2 above all, followed by 3, 4 and 9.  (It’s worth noting that although factor 8 isn’t below the threshold for completing Shaping, it is well below the standard required for Mobilisation, and will need to be a major focus in that phase).

Adjusting the Model for your specific situation: User Tuning

The results of the survey were remarkably consistent across different industries, national cultures, initiative size and other factors - see our Viewpoint for more detail.  Frankly, this surprised us a little - we had expected to find more differences.

It seems clear, then, that the survey’s results should therefore be applicable to a wide range of situations.

However, we recognise that some client environments will have genuinely unique features, and that these should be recognised in the Rapid Assessment. 

To accommodate this, we have built in a ‘User Tuning’ capability, where the client can adjust any factors which they believe are significantly more or less important in their environment than in a typical one as represented in our survey.

• For factors which are ’somewhat’ more or less important, that factor will be adjusted by 20% up or down from the normal model
• For those which are ‘much’ more or less important, that factor will be adjusted by 50% up or down from the standard value.

This should help make the model responsive to a wider range of environments, but we always urge clients to recognise the remarkable consistency of the survey results and only use these adjusting factors where there is a clear and strong reason.

The Rapid Assessment has already proved to be a valuable way of helping our clients clarify their challenges and identify what needs to be done.  With these refinements it should be even more effective in helping to focus on those factors which will make the greatest difference to your initiative’s chances of success.

To open a downloadable pdf version of this Spotlight in a new window, click here.

   .

Helping organisations change successfully is at the heart of our business. 

To explore the factors behind effective change, we surveyed a wide range of people with different experience of change initiatives, asking them to rank 10 Critical Success Factors (CSFs) “in order of their importance to the overall success of a change initiative”. 

We deliberately asked for a ‘forced ranking’ of the CSFs to get a relative weighting, but we also gave respondents an opportunity to nominate an additional CSF to make sure we hadn’t missed anything vital.

Overall, our findings were that respondents placed significantly more relative importance on Leadership, Purpose and Stakeholders.  They placed relatively less on Governance, Delivery Process and Performance Management.  Blueprint & Roadmap, Business Case & Funding, Resources and Plan were ranked closer to the mean importance.

Change Management professionals placed even more importance than the average on Leadership, whereas Project/Programme Managers placed relatively more importance than the average on Purpose and Blueprint & Roadmap.

Those with experience of larger initiatives (over $10M) tended to place relatively more emphasis on Leadership, Stakeholders, Resources and Performance Management and relatively less emphasis on Purpose, Business Case & Funding and Plan than those with smaller project experience.

We surveyed a range of different roles, from Managers to Top Level Executives, but on the whole their relative rankings were very similar - although the more senior people had notably stronger opinions!

Some interesting cultural aspects are apparent: Americans seem to emphasise factors which drive structure, like Blueprint & Roadmap, whilst Europeans prefer factors which enable flexibility, such as Governance.

Despite one or two outliers, there is remarkable similarity in CSF ranking between different industries - which we believe is very significant for the application of these results to change initiatives across sectors - see ‘Viewpoint: Are CSFs Unique?’

Overall, these results point to a powerful way to help organisations understand the overall chances of success of a change initiative and, more importantly, focus their efforts on those factors which are most likely to increase their chances of delivering successfully.  

We’re building these ideas into our Rapid Assessment approach, giving clients a fast, effective way to turn insight into action.  See ‘Spotlight: Refining the Rapid Assessment’ to find out more about how this could help your organisation.

Full Report

To examine the report in detail, please use the following links:

• Introduction & Approach describe the background to the survey and how we went about it;
• Analysis of Respondents explores the demographics of those who took part in the survey;
• Findings describes the responses of each of the key demographic groups;
• Insights introduces two immediate implications which struck us;
• Further Questions sets up some further questions generated by our analysis of the survey data so far;
• Two attachments in PDF format go into more detailed Analysis of Alternative CSFs and provide Sample Respondent Comments.

 To open a downloadable pdf version of the Full Report in a new window, click here.

A big “thank you” to everyone who took part in the survey.  We appreciate your time and your insights.

Please leave a comment, or to contact us directly, either to discuss the survey or for more information about Houghley Ltd: contact us at enquiries@houghley.co.uk; or phone us on +44 (0) 845 604 2335.

   .

But equally, you need to make sure they really understand what problems they’re trying to fix - and that they’re solving the real problems, not just treating the symptoms.  You also need to be confident that you all agree on the problems and how to solve them, and that you’re pulling in the same direction.

The most effective way to work with you to get a clear view of your initiative’s overall strengths and areas for improvement may be the Rapid Assessment.  This works very well when you’re looking for an overall perspective, and need to ensure that the ‘big picture’ is solid.

However, in many cases you already know that there are specific problems and need a fast start on solving them.  When that’s the case, what’s the most effective way to get on with fixing them?

What’s really the problem?

Almost certainly, it’s clear that something isn’t working.  Deadlines are regularly missed; there is constant noise about poor quality; costs are over-running; revenues are falling short.

Those are serious, but they often aren’t the underlying problems - typically they are the visible results of other problems.  For example, it’s very hard to “fix” poor quality, e.g. by more testing; you need to know why it is poor in the first place, and deal with those root causes.

You probably don’t have the time to dig into it all yourself, and anyway it isn’t where you should be spending your time.  Your colleagues are also busy, and may be too close to the situation to see it clearly.  But you need to act, and fast.  

So what do you do? 

Our ‘Diagnose’ approach: get to the essentials fast, then act

We work collaboratively with you to develop, quickly, a thorough, clear and agreed understanding of the current situation and challenges, and a solid basis for moving forward.  Typically this takes around 2-4 weeks, but it may need as little as 1 week.

Of course, you will recognise a lot of the findings but an objective, fresh pair of eyes is often very valuable in developing a clear ’single set of facts’ and a way forward around which everyone can unite.

What do we typically do?

A focussed, action-oriented exercise, starting with known key issues

• Assess the situation, working closely with your key people
• Lay out and agree the essential facts
• Identify the key underlying problems - the ‘Action Areas’
• Develop a practical, clear approach to addressing each of these
• Bring back to you, quickly, a plan of action for approval.

An example: Surprises, clarity and a way forward, inside a week

Alongside a specialist consultancy, we were asked to look at a large IT programme which was seen as ‘failing’ - significantly over budget, behind schedule, constantly missing deliveries, and with a very unhappy end customer.  Surely, we were told, the programme simply wasn’t getting the job done.

Working closely with Programme and Business leadership, we quickly dug into the situation and it became clear that the underlying problems were much more specific:

• Constant scope changes from the customer meant that there was no ’single view of the truth’ on scope, plans or budget
• Customer-supplier governance was not working effectively, meaning that confusion and argument were obscuring good progress on day-to-day delivery
• Finally, too much time was being spent on managing customer relations, distracting from tight control of internal delivery. 

These were not the expected answers but, because they were developed collaboratively and backed up by solid analysis, they were quickly accepted by senior management.

We developed specific action plans to address the issues, and proposed a 6-week delivery plan (client-led, supported by us) to put the changes in place.  This was agreed and implemented, significantly improving delivery effectiveness and, perhaps more importantly, transforming the programme’s reputation from ‘failing’ to ‘achieving a huge amount’.

And finally…. the initial review, from starting to agreed implementation plan, took less than a week.

How do we approach it?

• We use straightforward methods, usually based on discussions with your key people backed up by reviewing key documentation and drawing on our extensive experience
• We only go into enough detail to move forward - the key is to start addressing the issues quickly
• We aim to be very clear about the underlying problems - it’s essential to treat the problem, not the symptoms
• We work collaboratively and build on what you already know - we work together, not as ‘external audit’
• This is action-minded, and about looking to the future, not how the problems arose in the past
• Finally, we never assume that we’ll be part of any next steps - although we often are, it depends on what the next steps are and whether you want us to be involved.

How much effort does it typically involve?

• c.1-2 people over 2-4 weeks, but can be as little as 1 week.

We don’t claim for a moment that we’re the only people offering something like our Diagnose approach.  We do believe, though, that our way of doing it is a powerful combination of speed, clarity, collaboration and a focus on action.

In short: when you know you have problems, this is a very powerful way to get to the root causes and start fixing them, fast.

To open a downloadable pdf version of this Spotlight in a new window, click here.

   .

In our experience, initiatives often fall short of the promised results - or fail to deliver at all - because busy people struggle to identify and focus on those critical factors which will contribute most to their success.

We’ve distilled many years of change expertise into a simple, flexible way to help you identify and put in place the critical success factors which are most relevant to your situation.

With our extensive, practical experience and straightforward approach we work with you to:

• Assess your initiative against the 10 most critical success factors
• Focus on the specific factors which will contribute most to your success
• Determine where you need to be against those factors
• Develop - and potentially help you execute - a plan to get there.

In a week, you’ll have a clear view of where you are; in another two, you’ll have a plan to move forward; and we can help you shape, mobilise and deliver, for as long as you want us to.

Delivering Successful Change

Successfully delivering large-scale change is, obviously, a complex and challenging undertaking for any organisation.  That’s especially true in the current climate, when uncertainty is everywhere, funds are tight, and you have to do more with less. 

Our approach is pragmatic, collaborative and tailored specifically to your needs.  We focus, with you, on some essential questions and help you act on the answers:

• Are you clear about your current situation and challenges? If not, we can help you diagnose the situation.
• Are you clear about where you need to be? If not, we can help you shape the change that needs to happen.
• Do you know how you will get there? If not, we can help you mobilise the initiative to deliver the change.
• Are you still on course? We can guide you through the tough times, helping you check progress and if necessary adjust your direction.

In summary, our approach bridges the gap between strategy & conventional programme management.

Critical Success Factors

In order to respond to your specific situation and requirements, we focus on 10 Critical Success Factors which we believe are the key foundations for successful change initiatives.

These are at the heart of what we do: helping you understand how strong your current foundations are then working with you to strengthen them, focusing on the most important first.

They are distilled from many hundreds of years of change expertise, based on our own experience over many engagements and constantly validated and refined with our clients and other professionals.

Of course, most initiatives already consider most of these areas.  What we’ve found, though, is that good intentions are often not fully translated into effective action, and are not sustained through the long, tough days of delivery.

We can help you quickly get a true picture of how strong the foundations really are, on the ground as well as in the C-suite, and give you a solid basis for fixing any weak areas.

Rapid Assessment

Understanding where you are against the Critical Success Factors is a crucial first step.  You will have, within a week, a clear view of how your initiative is doing against the 10 Critical Success Factors, and our recommended areas to address.

To get a balanced view, we normally meet a number of your people from different aspects of your initiative for around an hour each and take them through a series of structured questions.  This is the main driver of the assessment report.  

The report gives you an overall view of your initiative, an indication of its health and a clear view of areas where it is not set up for success - which in turn can drive the actions to put it on stronger foundations.

Of course, this isn’t the only thing you need to do - and it isn’t the only thing we do.  If you want us to, we can help you define and deliver the actions to strengthen the foundations.

How We Work

We’re pragmatic, straightforward and flexible.  We operate through small, highly experienced teams, working closely alongside your people to help you deliver your goals - we have no other agenda.

We know that change is complex, and that often there are no perfect answers. 

Finding the ‘Sweet Spot’ between short-term survival and long-term prosperity is vital.  So is the balance between having too little clarity to make decisions and losing precious time in too much analysis and debate. 

Defining a clear target is an essential basis for the right response.  A value-driven approach - preserving cashflow, minimising investment, maximising and pulling-forward returns - is more critical than ever. 

And finally, we concentrate on getting all parts of the organisation, and in particular IS, joined-up and aligned to the business strategy.

About Us

We’re a team of highly experienced professionals, each with over 20 years of track record in shaping, mobilising and delivering large-scale change. 

We created Houghley Ltd, and developed our approach, to bridge the gap between strategy & programme management.  Our sole objective is to help our clients deliver change successfully, focusing specifically on today’s economic challenges and their particular needs.

If you’d like to talk about how we can help you improve your chances of success, so would we - call us! 

For a downloadable version of this summary, please click here.  (This opens a pdf file in a new window)

ˆ CHAOS Survey 2009 - Standish International Inc.

So how do you create the capacity to implement change successfully?

Identifying the real priorities

Of course, no organisation deliberately has people working on tasks which aren’t important to someone.  Often most, if not all, of the organisation’s capacity is already committed to a wide range of ‘priority’ tasks.

In many clients, we’ve found that prioritisation is actually driven not by strategic importance, but by urgency - or perceived urgency.  What typically seems to happen is:

Step 1: The Urgent and Critical go in first - “we simply must get this done”

Step 2: The Urgent, but less Critical, often get in next, because they have an advocate somewhere in the organisation - “I simply must get this done”

Step 3: Any remaining capacity goes to less urgent items, and usually only small items make the cut - “we can just fit this in, it’s only small“. 

But strategically vital large-scale change will never be a small item… so it never makes it in.

We would argue that key question isn’t ‘is this task important?’ but ‘is this task vital to the organisation?‘

Even with this discipline, though, it is very difficult for traditional ‘Portfolio Management’ techniques to create a significant amount of capacity for change.  A more radical approach is needed…

Reshaping the Agenda: Rocks, Stones and Sand

This can be really effective.  It’s very simple - almost absurdly so - but it works.

Your ‘capacity’ is represented by the bucket.  There are three types of object to fit into the bucket:

• ‘Rocks’, the strategically critical, typically large, change initiatives which are often the most important (not merely urgent) items on your organisation’s agenda.
• ‘Stones’, usually smaller but still significant pieces of work which are necessary but not game-changing like the rocks.
• ‘Sand’, the other initiatives which are on you organisation’s agenda but are neither genuinely mandatory nor strategically vital.

Round 1: What’s in the bucket today?

All the initiatives your organisation is implementing go into one of the three categories: Rocks, Stones, or Sand.

All the activities currently being executed go into the bucket, leaving out the ones which are identified but not yet actually happening.

Typically, the piles of stones and sand will fill, and often overflow, the bucket.  Often, the rocks - the large-scale, strategically vital initiatives - will not get in at all, or at best only a few ‘early wins’ will make it.  The game-changing will have to wait!

We argue for a different way of thinking, based rigorously on importance….

Round 2: What should be in the bucket?

Taking an empty the bucket, the essential rocks go in first - they are the most strategically important.  Then, the most important stones fit in around the rocks.  They probably won’t all go in, and there will be some difficult decisions about which do.  Finally, sand fills the remaining gaps. 

This is likely to give you a very different result from Round 1 - this time, based rigorously on strategic importance.

What is ‘capacity’?

Typically, the bucket is defined by ‘visible’ capacity, i.e. enough budget and enough people on the programme, but in fact they may not be the constraining factors - or at least, may not be the only ones.

Our 10 Critical Success Factors for change give a framework for thinking through what ‘capacity’ really means for your organisation.  For example:

• Leadership: the time, authority and personal commitment to make change successful
• Stakeholder: the information, motivation, time and conviction to engage effectively with change
• Business Case and Funding: the financial resources, and priority, to obtain the enablers of change
• Delivery Process: the processes and support to deliver - and equally vitally, to absorb - the change
• Resources: the people, with the time, skills and support, both to deliver and to take on the change
• Blueprint & Roadmap: a goal, and steps towards it, which reflect the organisation’s capacity for change
• Plan: the tasks - with enough effort - to build the target environment, put it in place and enable the organisation to operate it successfully

Very often at least one, and possibly most, of these aspects of capacity fall short of what’s needed.  Yet shaping and planning your initiative to address all these aspects is key to a successful outcome.

One other point: this perspective can also help you think about how to engage an integrator, i.e. to ‘buy in’ extra capacity.  While an integrator may be a good way to address many resource gaps, for example, they are much less able to provide business leadership, or give your front-line staff the capacity to absorb change.

Concluding Thoughts

Of course the Rocks-Stones-Sand approach is a simplification, and we’re not suggesting that you just stop everything and start again.  But we argue that this approach, starting from where you need to be rather than where you are, enables you to create and maintain the different aspects of capacity for large-scale change.

The success of this approach depends on keeping the initial exercise at a high level, and driving it from the overall priorities of the organisation.  An external facilitator, able to keep the level right and drive the process, can be very helpful.  We have helped many organisations through this - can we help yours?

This initial phase is only the start of the hard work.  Reshaping the on-the-ground change agenda to reflect the new priorities is a tough challenge - but the prize is huge.

Used well, though, this approach can step people back from day-to-day detail, helping them think about the different aspects of the challenge and come at the problem from a new angle.  It can be a powerful way of making space for large-scale change in your organisation.

For a fuller version of this paper, please click here.  (This opens a pdf file in a new window)

The simple answer is to keep value to the fore when planning your initiatives.  It’s essential to understand how each new or improved capabilityˆ you are delivering contributes value - and to deliver value-adding capabilities regularly.  To make this happen:

• Ensure that you develop and maintain a ‘value map’ which links value through capability to component and cost and which clearly identifies how components depend on one another and how they integrate to create capabilities (see diagram).
• Then insist that your Roadmap and Plan are ‘value-driven’ - by using the value map to combine delivery of new and improved capabilities into ‘releases’ which ensure value is delivered at the earliest practicable opportunity.
• Make sure releases are no more than 6 to 9 months apart and that every single release contributes new value to the organisation - don’t be drawn into releases which ‘lay foundations’ without adding value.

The basic principle of the value map is that value is associated with capabilities and costs are associated with acquiring and integrating the components which deliver these capabilities.  In the first instance, it’s important to get just enough data to get a realistic idea of the relative costs and benefits of each capability.  This is not the time to get bogged down in highly detailed cost and benefit models - precision can come later when the detailed business case is put together.

Each release in the Roadmap and Plan is a stepping-stone towards the target embodied in your Blueprint - and each step must represent a complete and coherent new definition of your business.  If processes need to change, then roles & responsibilities and probably training will also need to change to remain aligned.  Similarly, if information systems are changing, it’s likely that processes & procedures will need to change too.

Fundamentally, how capabilities are allocated to releases depends on two things: the value that each capability delivers and the pre-requisites which must be in place before it can be implemented.  It goes without saying that the capabilities with the highest payback should be delivered as early as possible.  However, it is often these very capabilities that have the largest and longest lead-time prerequisites.

As always, it’s never quite this easy in practice - especially as it requires multiple disciplines (e.g. planners, business and technology architects, business case modellers) to work together effectively and there are relatively few people with the knowledge and experience to bring all the elements together.

It’s well worth the effort, though.  The rewards can be substantial, which is particularly important in difficult economic circumstances.  Costs can be deferred, benefits brought forward, maximum outlay reduced and overall net benefit increased - all positive contributions to cashflow, affordability and value. 

At the same time, delivery risk is reduced by focusing scope only on those components which clearly contribute value and by having regular and tangible evidence that delivery is on track.

To see a more comprehensive description of Value-Driven Planning please click here.  (This opens a pdf file in a new window) 

ˆ  Capabilities: things your organisation can do - the services you offer and the facilities and competences you possess

It’s been known for some years that focusing on a few critical factors - such as clear purpose, visible leadership, engaged stakeholders and effective governance - can significantly enhance a change initiative’s chances of success.  And yet consistently fewer than 50% of initiatives successfully deliver their expected improvements. 

Why is this?  Could it be that people find it hard to deal effectively with all the factors that might contribute to their success?  If so, what can be done to break through the inherent complexity of change and create initiatives which are more likely to succeed?

This question is at the heart of our business.  We have already developed a Rapid Assessment to help clients understand how they’re performing against what we see as the top ten Critical Success Factors.  This has been very effective in identifying areas for improvement (see ‘Spotlight‘).  But we wondered if we could do more to help busy executives, seeking to change their business whilst keeping the operation going in difficult times, focus on those factors which would do most to improve their chances of success.

So we set about surveying professionals from around the world who have experience of shaping and delivering change.  The survey asks them to rank our top ten Critical Success Factors “in order of their importance to the overall success of a change initiative”.  It’s still in progress, but the findings to date provide some useful insights.

Overall Results

As one of our respondents said, it’s “hard to rank the critical success factors - none of them are ‘nice to haves’”.  But the data so far clearly suggest that some factors are more critical than othersˆ.  Leadership, Purpose and Stakeholder engagement were consistently ranked as the most important factors.  On the other hand, Performance Management, Delivery Process and Governance were typically ranked as least important, with the remaining four factors somewhere in between.

So what?  Our preliminary findings suggest that getting Leadership, Purpose and Stakeholder engagement right is likely to contribute more to an initiative’s overall chances of success than Performance Management, Delivery Process or Governance.  That is not to say that any of the factors can be ignored - Leadership needs Performance Management to understand where to focus its attention, for example - but it does offer busy executives a way to prioritise:

Assess your initiative’s performance against the Critical Success Factors - using our Rapid Assessment, for instance.  Then, fix the issues in the areas which will make the biggest contribution to your initiative’s chances of success first.

Drilling down into the data offers some further preliminary insights - particularly regarding the differences between small and large initiatives and between the perspectives taken by different professional disciplines.

Small vs Large Initiatives

Around 40% of our respondents had experience on initiatives of $10M or more and this group gave even more weight to Leadership and Purpose.  They also gave more weight to the Business Case & Funding, Governance and Performance Management - all of which are essential to get a large initiative on track and keep it there over several months or years. 

Why?  We suspect because the broader the impact of the change on your organisation and the longer it takes, the more volatility you will face.  These factors are the ones that will help you manage that volatility.

So what?  Leadership and clarity of Purpose are essential to keeping large initiatives on track over the long term, but don’t forget that you will also need to build flexibility into your Business Case and Governance arrangements, in particular, to allow you to adapt when necessary.

Different professional perspectives

Change Management professionals typically place more emphasis on Leadership, Business Case, Resources, Governance and Delivery Process, whereas Project & Programme Managers place more emphasis on Purpose, Stakeholders, Blueprint & Roadmap, Plan and Performance Management. 

Much of this can be ascribed to their different perspectives.  Project & Programme Managers are very often tasked with delivering an initiative “on scope, on time, on budget” in which clarity of objectives, targets, plans and status are critical.  On the other hand, as many of the Change Management respondents highlighted, their focus is much more on engaging the whole organisation and helping to lead them on a journey towards owning the change once delivered.

So what?  Maybe the important point here is not that either Change Management or Programme Management professionals are right or wrong, but that each brings a different but valuable perspective to the process - i.e. both are right.  A well-balanced blend of these perspectives is most likely to lead to success.

What next?

We’d like to thank everyone who’s contributed so far - and if you haven’t yet completed the survey, please go to http://houghley.csf-pt2.sgizmo.com.

Along with the rankings, a lot of respondents suggested alternatives to our top ten factors.  Many of these emphasise particular aspects of our existing factors - such as different ways in which Leadership is vital to, and can be engaged in, the success of an initiative.  Others took different perspectives, such as the application of psychology to building ownership of change and the importance of testing.  We’ll include a fuller analysis of these suggestions with our final results.

Ultimately, we’re planning to use the final results to enhance our existing Rapid Assessment.  Our idea is to combine the weightings with the assessment scores to help busy executives focus quickly on those factors which are likely to have the biggest impact on their chances of success in their current situation.  From the results so far (see right), addressing the top three ranked Critical Success Factors of Leadership, Purpose and Stakeholder engagement could contribute almost half the available improvement in an initiative’s chances of being delivered successfully.

We’ll publish our final results, together with our updated Rapid Assessment model, in October.  Everyone who asked for a copy when they completed the survey will be sent one automatically, and the results will also be published on our website.

In the meantime, we’d like to get your feedback on these preliminary findings - please let us have your thoughts by leaving us a comment below or e-mailing us at enquiries@houghley.co.uk. 

ˆ  With apologies to George Orwell