Is Your Organisation Ready To Change? - A Diagnostic

The following framework provides a simple but effective way of looking at current or planned change in order to assess its viability. To achieve this, we use fifteen factors that influence the success of major change projects - these are drawn from a combination of research and our consulting experience. These factors are grouped into three broad categories: risk, rate of return and latent opportunity.

Look through each of the fifteen factors. Use a scale of 1 to 5 (1=Very Low, 2=Low, 3=Medium, 4=High, 5=Very High) to measure how each factor pertains to the situation in your organisation. Jot down a few facts to support your assessment. When you have finished, total the points, and use the notes that follow to help you draw conclusions and action items from your analysis.

Risk Factor 1 - Adequacy of Risk Management Process

Risk Management processes need to be well articulated and effectively deployed. Very low adequacy indicates that risks and issues are discussed infrequently and response to issues is very often delayed. Very high adequacy indicates that risks and issues are debated fully, issues are predicted well in advance and responses to mitigate their impact are swift.

Risk Factor 2 - Adequacy of Change Program Definition

An ill-defined change program will be fundamentally unstable - having a tight definition is not the same as being inflexible. Very low adequacy indicates that plans are not baselined and few people are clear about the scope of the changes required. Very high adequacy indicates that comprehensive and integrated plans are available and that dependencies are defined.

Risk Factor 3 - Effectiveness of Change Management Processes

The processes that are put in place for management review of progress rarely bite - this is a key opportunity missed. Very low effectiveness indicates that the focus is on paper, not people - there is little individual accountability to the change program. Very high effectiveness indicates that meetings are restricted to collective issues and that face-to-face accountability is required.

Risk Factor 4 - Adequacy of Sponsorship and Resources

The absence of adequate change program sponsorship and appropriate resources are major risk factors. Too often change programs are resourced by those who happen to be available. Very low adequacy indicates that the sponsorship is narrow. Cynicism and inertia are openly displayed and tolerated. Very high adequacy indicates that executives dedicate large amounts of sponsorship time and the best and brightest resources.

Risk Factor 5 - Adequacy of Communication and Involvement

These are often seen as soft issues. However, they are widely recognised as critical for engineering a receptive and lasting environment for change. Very low adequacy indicates that communication is random and driven from the top down; key groups re left outside the change process. Very high adequacy indicates that communication is open, direct and regular; stakeholders are identified and tracked.

Risk Factor 6 - Range of linked/consequential actions identified

Organisations tend to become preoccupied with one dimension of change. However a successful implementation will require a serious look at strategy, processes, organisation, culture and systems. Very low adequacy indicates that change plans are prepared with little reference to consequential changes that are required to make proposed changes stick. Very high adequacy indicates that consequential changes are well-defined and rooted in fact-based analysis - thus few unanticipated problems arise.

Risk Factor 7 - Coherence in the sequencing of linked actions

Inadequate attention to this issue significantly increases the risk of failure. Very low coherence indicates that changes appear disjointed with no apparent rationale for the sequencing of change actions. Very high coherence indicates that changes are built into a sequence that is logical and that the rationale is well understood and communicated.

Rate of Return Factor 1 - Extent and Timing of Benefits

Few major change programs are supported by a sound business case. This is as true for hard changes, like implementation of CMMS systems, as it is for soft changes like culture and organisational change. Very low extent and timing indicates that business benefits from the change are ill-defined and subject to change. Very high extent and timing indicates that benefits are crystallised from the outset and revisited at regular checkpoints.

Rate of Return Factor 2 - Economy in Change Program Budgets

Many executives are ill-equipped to challenge budgets proposed for change projects, often because they have limited experience in understanding what is required in a new, unique situation. Very low economy indicates that budgets are well padded with little challenge of the details. Work often expands to fill the available budget. High economy indicates incentives for project managers to deliver under budget; executives challenge the budget detail.

Rate of Return Factor 3 - Extent to which Project Time, Specifications and Costs are Managed

For a few, plans and budgets indicate a statement of intent. For many, they are merely a projection of what may be possible. Very low extent indicate that projects suffer persistent time overruns which are accepted as inevitable; scope is not firm. Very high extent indicates that time and cost objectives are very high priority and never compromised; scope is set.

Rate of Return Factor 4 - Degree of focus on business results

Looking beyond the front-end business case, many organisations do not look at business results until a change program is in the post-implementation review; too late in the process to make changes that will produce the desired results. Very low degree of focus indicates that the targets for improvement are difficult to measure and lack precision. Very high degree of focus indicates that the targets are well thought out and result in relevant measures.

Latent Opportunity Factor 1 - Program Scope

Some programs get stuck in ever finer iterations of design and planning. Others take a narrow view of the potential sources of business improvement. Very low scope indicates that the change program is based on a single primary thrust - other opportunities for improvement are ignored. Very high scope indicates that the change program is deep and wide; all major improvement opportunities have been identified.

Latent Opportunity Factor 2 - Linking Change Drivers through Actions to Performance Improvement

Looking both ways down the tunnel can be helpful in surfacing missed opportunities. Are we responding to the things that prompted change? Very low linking indicates little confidence that changes will have significant impact on results. Very high linking indicates that components of the program are linked to both change drivers and results.

Latent Opportunity Factor 3 - Appropriateness of Benchmark Targets

Few organisations look for benchmarks and Best Practices beyond their own industry and territory. Very low appropriateness indicates that the targets are mostly set on an introspective view; external benchmarks used are inappropriate. Very high appropriateness indicates that benchmarking is seen as a competitive and professional way of life.

Latent Opportunity Factor 4 - Quality of the Benchmarking Process

Doing benchmarking properly takes skill and effort. Very low quality indicates that benchmarking processes are informal and inexact; data is of little value in change planning. Very high quality indicates that benchmarking methodologies are available and are applied; data is used to guide planning.

Notes

15-34 points - Watch out!

35-55 points - Keep a close eye on things.

56-75 points - You/your organisation are very likely to successfully implement the change program.

This is, of course, only a rough guide. In developing actionable ideas, consider the following:

Look at the high risk areas. Consider whether they represent a real risk. Develop a short list of issues for action.

Consider whether some improvement actions can be developed to shift some medium risks into low risks.

Review your notes on issues and ideas from each segment. Can you use these? Does a consistent theme emerge?       Can you act alone, or do you need to build support? Can you use this analytical framework to help you? Does the evidence you have noted stand up?

Return to Article