If you read once in a while this chaotic website of mine, you know that I wrote here and there about change management.
Well, “here and there” is an understatement- as I was able to study and observe different cultures and change long before most boys start to grow a beard.
I would like to share here some experience from my activities, and why I believe that adopting a common framework might be sub-optimal, but a smart allocation of resources.
As you probably know, I recently started studying the MSP, for a simple reason, linked to a 1980s/1990s concept, “downsizing”.
I was discussing recently with a startup that I am supporting pro bono via skype/e-mail, but it is something that I saw critical enough to justify writing about it when I first published my BusinessFitnessMagazine.Com
The concept is quite simple: downsizing has been turned into a chicken-and-egg problem.
In order to “optimize” your activities, you have to remove what is not needed, or what can be easily procured on the market if and when needed.
Once you identify the required changes, you of course have not only to prepare outplacement and so on, but also to redesign projects.
But, in order to obtain the “downsizing” chicken, your need your people with expertise and a vested interest in the existing organization and used to the current processes to help you identify where to cut, modify, displace, remove- any euphemism you can think about.
And this is the missing egg.
Some hairy brained change management consultants think that people are willing to help them remove their jobs, or shrink the pyramid reporting to them.
Unfortunately, also the most loyal “organization person” did not sign up for one of those sects that requires you to commit suicide to show commitment.
And, in organizational terms, unless you clearly refocus your organization, removing activities/processes, or shrinking the size of the organization reporting to you is the business equivalent of those sects.
The side-effect? Way too often the external change agents, as they did not have a clear, visible mandate to provide a reliable path and position in the future organization, had to cope with skepticism, or downright obstruction.
And the most dangerous of it all: active misleading, by providing either too much irrelevant information (the “deluge” approach), or bits-and-pieces only on specific questions (the “need to know” approach).
It is a “cunctator” tactic, that is quite efficient, as I saw often frantic consultants seeing the next “milestone” in their activity coming, while being overwhelmed by paper, or the scheduling of an endless list of meetings.
The result? Quite a few downsizing initiatives ended up removing the most experienced as soon as their activity was somehow documented, and therefore replicable.
To cut the payroll.
A draconian approach, that forget something: if you remove the “organizational” memory, you can cope with today’s needs, but you will probably end up re-inventing the wheel.
Another Italian, Giovambattista Vico, wrote about “Corsi e ricorsi”.
In my more limited and less ambitious view and experience, I saw often the leftover from the previous downsizing struggling to cope with new changes.
Why? Because they knew what they were required to do – operations – but they did not have the organizational memory to understand “why” something was structured in a certain why.
The first time that I had a real cultural change to manage I had few advantages- I was quite young (25), but I was coming from some hands-on activities in both training and change, in different environments.
Including, for a couple of years, an hectic rush across any industry in my country (Italy), at the controller/CFO/marketing director level, to help model reality and identify trends.
In numbers, yes, but still- I had to understand their way of doing, before I could build a model.
It was a trial-and-error process: but it was an accelerated learning process, that I complemented by studying the industry of each customer I was going to work with (by buying books and by accessing Andersen’s project library when needed).
One clear element was: identify the motivation of all the parties involved, and assess if they really have the organizational memory available.
Then, identify with the customer who, in their organization, can take the relay of what is coming out of the change activities, and, as soon as the higher level agrees on the guidelines, involve them.
You have to make them grow confident in taking over when you leave.
To become the organizational memory on “why” certain changes were enacted in that way, and alternatives had been discarded.
And this is the most critical element: most change activities are managed as a “steady state” set of activities.
I mean: you move from one steady state to another steady state.
Probably that’s fine in pipeline engineering, due to physical constraints (but there too you have to cope with metal stress, weather, and so on, don’t you?).
But I prefer to say that you have to deliver two capabilities: a new steady state, and the expertise required to manage or at least identify the evolution when it comes.
It is the difference between operations and motivation: you meet once a week, month, etc to monitor operations.
And you meet when needed to motivate, toward the overall purpose of all the operations.
I think that the one of the most interesting descriptions of this difference in time-frame was once written by, if I am not wrong, the current Pope, when he was the guardian of orthodoxy.
Rephrasing the old dichotomy between the “time of the man” and “time of the Church”, the statement said that the Church should not be judged by the temporary failings in human history, as the Church is “metahistorical”- beyond history.
You might disagree, but the concept is something that should be remembered when introducing change.
Too many changes are generated by people who see themselves as the initiator and savior of the change- sometimes with a “scorched earth” approach.
If you see any change as an activity whose impacts derive from previous changes, and will outlast the change activity itself, it is easier to keep in constant focus the two timelines.
And plan your resources accordingly.
It is common wisdom when observing laws: look at any constitution anywhere on Earth- every time a new constitutional chart is issued, is seems to the the last word on the subject.
Until it is changed.
As I discussed in a previous post (Preemptive lawmaking & expert systems), if law were constantly build using this two-timelines approach, it would be probably easier to reduce the number of laws.
And democratize access to the law- allowing any citizen with basic reading skills to read and understand the spirit of the law, leaving the details and regulations to those concerned.
But allowing anybody to monitor the application of the spirit of the law.
In any organization, what the MSP identifies as governance, stakeholder management, etc is usually blurred into other activities.
And also when it is done properly, almost never it is considered a parallel timeline, that needs to be constantly re-assessed, but as a one-off activity.
Why did I chose MSP vs others? Because it originates in UK, from the OGC, an organization that delivers reference standards applied at least across the public sector.
And because MSP shares the “lingo” and cultural framework with PRINCE2 (the project management part) and ITIL (the service/infrastructure management side).
And, finally, because, for all the criticism (deserved, in some cases) of the expensive UK “quangos”, creating intellectual frameworks is still an activity where these quangos are able to act as a bridge between private and public interest.
Why should you re-invent the wheel, when there is one available? Yes, it might not be exactly what you wanted.
But it is available to anybody, and you can still use your brains.
Simply: before using any framework, do a cross-check with your own organizational needs, and build a “magna charta” on how it should be used within your organization.
Then, have any project or external supplier know what you mean.
They could quite well be certified, but you are paying them- so they can keep within the framework, but as defined in your organizational culture, not on some books.
But build simple, easy to read maps vs the standards- not a full rewriting and rephrasing of the standard!
Yes, I saw companies using the standard.
And then creating an office whose purpose was eventually to coin a new wording for each concept.
If you adopt a framework remember: if you adapt it to your environment, you get the benefits and save time, vs. reinventing the wheel.
But if you want to keep the benefits also with future evolutions, keep track of the variation that you introduce, and monitor the evolution of the standard framework.
If you are not in UK or familiar with the concept “quango”: it is an organisation as close to being part of the government as it can, but without being part of it, despite receiving often substantial funding courtesy of the taxpayers.
The criticism is that by being inside but outside, these organizations are too often beyond scrutiny, with unelected officials de-facto dictating how the public and private sectors should operate, and absorbing increasing amounts- mainly, a lack of accountability and transparency.
To summarize:
- change is a constant (”panta rei”)
- change is made of “here and now” activities, and their antecedents and consequences
- if you can, do not re-invent the wheel- use an existing one…
- …and see how to make it fit in your environment
- and drop that “not invented here” attitude: you are wasting resources
- last but not least: ask yourself- who will keep the memory of the choices made
Good luck!
Tags: change, downsizing, environment, itil, law, management, msp, outsourcing, prince2, quango, stakeholder, wheel