One of the key principles of our change management model is that implementation takes place at the local level. So if your Change Management Methodology doesn't provide tools for identifying the right people for the role of Change Agents, you are going to miss a critical element of successful change.
When we talk to prospective clients about the AIM change management methodology, we always talk about the fact that it is a "system." Why is this important, and what are the advantages of having a system versus other change management models that are not?
What happens when change overload confronts transformational change? Too much going on, with resources diffused across too many projects-- if this sounds like your organization, you are not alone! The result is that in the rush to "get it done," the project team becomes focused primarily on meeting milestones and technical objectives, with pressure to not add resources that could affect given budget constraints.
Transformational change is by definition, highly disruptive. It involves significant changes to processes, structure, and technology-- and ultimately produces changes in how people do their jobs on a daily basis. Change Agents who are assigned to implement transformational change are usually charged with building readiness. Often, though, there is no comprehensive change strategy-- it's a shotgun approach mostly focused on training end users.
True story. Over the past 6 months we have been talking to a potential client who was considering using the Accelerating Implementation Methodology (AIM) as the change management methodology on a transformational ERP system. The client has just taken baby steps in developing a mature project management infrastructure. His concern is whether AIM is too much for the organization to bite off. In other words, is the organization ready for AIM?
One of the barriers to change is a lack of clarity around implementation roles and responsibilities. What are Change Agents accountable for? What about Sponsors? And by "Sponsors" we are talking about the entire management team ranks. When there is a lack of clarity around accountability, everyone thinks the next guy or gal is the person who is accountable. As Don Harrison, IMA President, says, "I used to think that this was a problem for Sponsors-- but now I realize that if no one is accountable, it is a very comfortable place to be!"
Just this week, two clients have shared a common and very challenging change management situation. They are about to re-launch ERP systems even though they have attempted to implement the system multiple times in the past without success. These organizations are beginning to see that there is a need for doing something different, although they may not be totally sure what that really means! When implementations fail, there are long-term and short-term costs, and direct and in-direct implications. All of this points to a business case for a change management methodology that will reduce risk.
If you are part of a project team assigned to enterprise-wide change you will need to have Change Agents to support the implementation. Yes, members of the project team will likely be Change Agents, but you will need to build a network as well.
You've recently been assigned as a Change Agent on an important transformational change project. This change has some significant implications for how people do their work. There will be new technology, some re-structuring, lots of new business processes. It's the whole ball of wax. While it's early, you know you need to build readiness for the transformation. Where do you start?
Most clients we deal with in our change management consulting have several common challenges. Certainly there is the Sponsorship challenge. Second to that, and very much related, is the challenge of implementing cross-functional changes. At the heart of these cross-functional changes is the expressed (or unexpressed) desire to have the organization operate more collaboratively.
