BSG (UK) » change management

Successful change is about the who, rather than the what, why or how

Michael Railton — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:02:46 +0000

A change that meets 80% of requirements, but is 100% embedded in the business will deliver more benefit than a change that meets 100% of requirements, but is not embedded in the business. In order to embed the change, stakeholders need to feel a sense of engagement from its inception all the way through to delivery. While the message and the way it’s communicated are important, if stakeholders are neglected during the change implementation, they will feel disconnected, less engaged and potentially hostile. Proactively involving stakeholders throughout the change journey will enable the organisation to build a case for change throughout the project rather than foist it on the organisation as the final steps of implementing new business processes or software.

Successful change is about the who, rather than the what, why or how from BSG (UK)

The post Successful change is about the who, rather than the what, why or how appeared first on BSG (UK).

Implementing Change – Catherine Perks

Michael Railton — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:16:46 +0000

Evolution is key to the survival of any species. This isn’t a revolutionary concept; it has been around since man moved from eating raw meat to finding his first source of heat and energy. In business, the same is true. Those still using caveman techniques in a world evolving around them are likely to become extinct like the dodo.

There is clearly a need to constantly adapt, to realize that if one approach doesn’t work that it isn’t the end but rather the beginning. There is a need to recognize that you do not know all the answers, but collectively, those around you may. This ability to adapt, to change tack at will and collaborate with others is what distinguishes the business analyst profession.

I have sat in many meetings listening to stakeholders who are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that their approach is right, that what they have been doing for the last 10, 20 or 50 years is right. That no outsider could, or should, tell them otherwise or even propose that another way is feasible or better. I have also sat in meetings where the stakeholders love the new approach, some even raving about it, while their ash-faced colleagues look on, knowing full well the work required of them and the difficulty involved in implementing such a change. The change-experienced business analyst is willing to assist them through this process, and help both the stakeholders and the users adjust to (and even celebrate) the change.

Yes, business analysts are great at changing, at adapting. We can go into an industry, ranging from publishing to banking, airline industries to petroleum, adapting our approach to the content as necessary.

What we business analysts often forget is that our clients and stakeholders are not always ready for such change, especially in the timelines expected of them.

“Change management” is becoming more and more of a buzzword. The adoption of a word by industries somehow seems to devalue its meaning, perhaps as a result of its frequency of use, or use in the wrong contexts. Whatever the reason, phrases like “synergy,” “business model” and “thinking outside of the box” all end their days unappreciated, undervalued and disused in the cemetery of boardroom blabber. And if they haven’t yet, they should.

A project is only as successful as the change embedded by it. A solution that meets 80% of requirements but is 100% embedded is by far a better outcome than a solution that meets 100% of requirements but is only 20% embedded. Implementing change in small to medium organizations or multinational conglomerates should be pursued with the same amount of vigour, conviction and creativity.

Asking people to change the way they function is no easy task, nor should it be viewed as such. The scale may change, but ultimately people are reluctant to change, particularly when they do not see anything wrong with their approach. Often, they will simply ask why? Unfortunately, this is a question that remains unanswered in most failed change management attempts.

Based on my interactions with change management, there are 6 key concepts that should be kept in mind:

Answer the unspoken question first: “Why is this change being made?”
Ensure that everyone is reassured, e.g., “This change is not being made as a result of you, but rather to improve our overall approach.”
Remember that not everyone enjoys change. Make sure the approach taken is creative, innovative and engages all stakeholders. As a business analyst on the ground and interacting with a variety of different stakeholders from different sections of the business, your role may be more important than you realize.
Involve as many formal and informal influencers as possible. Observe team/group interactions: there will be indicators of who to engage with.
People will often only do what they are measured on, so to ensure a sustainable change is created, it is important to introduce reasonable measures reflecting target behaviours.
Be patient and communicate. The change cannot be implemented or accepted overnight. Implement regular reminders of why the change is being made, and why each individual involvement is crucial.

Change and the management thereof is a key part of evolution, and without it we will stagnate. Without sufficient change management, people will covertly continue to do as they have always done, or will accept the change with barely contained contempt. Remember, unless shown otherwise, people will prefer to do things as they’ve always done. After all, “why fix it if it’s not broken?”

This article originally appeared on The BA Times on 8 August 2011. Click here to view the original article.

The post Implementing Change – Catherine Perks appeared first on BSG (UK).

Fostering a culture of innovation – Nik Gebhard

Michael Railton — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:38:11 +0000

Something rings true about the age old saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If a process is working, why change it, right? Wrong! As Bob Dylan rightly said: “The times they are a-changin’.” Our world is continually evolving and long-standing methodologies and techniques don’t necessarily provide the benefit that they once did. Similarly, the world of organisational strategy is shifting. This shift calls for innovation which will allow businesses to retain their competitive advantage.

Innovation requires support

In response to my last post, “The best methodology is freedom“, I have had a number of questions around how a culture of freedom and innovation can be established. There is little merit in compiling a rulebook for promoting such behaviour. I don’t want to get into the dos and don’ts for embedding it. That would be counter-productive. I’d be advocating freedom and innovation and then prescribing a one best way to achieve it.

I believe that a guideline for creating a culture of creativity and innovation is less important than the outcome. What’s important is how an analyst is supported in being innovative. In this way, a unique structure can be tailored to underpin a culture of innovation, rather than having the structure dictated.

An environment that lends itself to innovation is one where analysts not only feel comfortable putting forward creative suggestions, but are encouraged to do so. New ideas should never be frowned upon or laughed at; no matter how trivial or how extreme. In fact, they should be celebrated and rewarded.

It is also important that analysts receive appropriate feedback from colleagues. If an idea is not going to fly the analyst needs to understand why. Our organisation has recently introduced ‘innovation boards’ where new ideas can be noted and become visible to all. This opens the door for questions and feedback from colleagues.

The natural tension between prescription and innovation

My previous post talked about methodology and freedom and how innovation is key to an analyst’s job. I strongly believe that fewer constraints bring greater innovation. This may seem obvious, but how often is it considered when guidelines are being compiled? Do the guidelines at your workplace offer leeway? If my project’s office wasn’t flexible in its project governance, there would be no room for innovation. If it were mandatory to complete documents x, y and z for each project and the sections within these documents were inflexible, not only would I struggle to keep the content relevant, but there’d also be no encouragement to innovate.

I’m not advocating lawlessness, but I am saying that too much structure has the ability to cripple innovation. There is a happy medium where structure and innovation can live together peacefully – even support each other. I believe that a good, flexible structure helps guide the direction of innovative thinking. If I know that risk mitigation method A, which forms part of the project structure, has proven to reduce the likelihood of project failure, I may want to consider incorporating this, or a similar, method into my thinking.

With great innovation comes risk

Our company has recently agreed to trial an ‘incubator’ approach. This is an idea (I believe first introduced by Atlassian), where an analyst, or a group of analysts, set aside time to come up with innovative concepts. These ideas don’t necessarily need to relate to analysis, but could be geared towards improving the work environment or simplifying existing processes.

An incubator idea is proposed to management who approve the concept. At this point extensive detail is not required. The analyst takes this concept away and spends time working out the detail. Ultimately, the proposal is presented back to colleagues at a team meeting for peer review. If the findings show that the idea will add value, it is implemented. Our company understands that while this approach can bring great innovation, it also bears an element of risk. Not all concepts will provide a benefit, costing the company valuable analyst time.

If you want innovation, you need to accept that it goes hand in hand with a level of risk. To an extent, this risk can be reduced by allowing senior analysts to cast their eyes over the innovative ideas. Due to past learnings, senior analysts may be in a better position to spot potential risks by applying some ‘seen before‘ logic. I accept that this is not a fool proof technique. In fact, it has a potential to damage the process, but it does provide a simple gateway for eliminating ideas where likely failure is obvious from the onset.

Another method is to ensure that analysts are not afraid to verbalise their thinking to as many people as possible. Sharing ideas with numerous people before committing to a design can reduce the risk of investing copious amounts of time in an idea that is likely to fail. The more people that challenge a solution, the more robust it is likely to become. Peer-reviews, wireframes, user group testing or process walkthroughs are some suggestions as to how these ideas might be presented to potential audiences.

The best approach to innovation is an innovative one

Creating a culture of innovation is an innovation in itself. We’ve worked hard recently to improve our ability to innovate within my organisation – incubators, innovation boards and the like are relatively new and we’re beginning to reap the rewards. I am given the time, space and support to drive innovation at my workplace.

Are you?

This article originally appeared on Bridging the Gap on 21 July 2011. Click here to view the original article.

The post Fostering a culture of innovation – Nik Gebhard appeared first on BSG (UK).