Change Management: toolkits for change or Viral Change

The standard model for change management seems to be (1) decide on the change, engaging a few people if you have to, (2) create the project/programme plan, (3) set out the vision and communicate it, (4) tell people what you want them to do differently and (5) run the project ... reinforcing the message in the hope that people will change.  There are numerous change toolkits available on the web to support this methodology.  But, with continuing reports of 70% failure rate of change initiatives, isn't it time for a change in managing change?

Viral Change: the alternative to slow, painful and unsuccessful change

I've recently been reading Viral Change (by Leandro Herrero). This puts the case for easing change into an organisation by:

• Framing the change in an appropriate language
• Identifying (and rewarding) a non-negotiable set of new behaviours
• A Change Champion network, who are given the principles of the change and the new behaviours, and then set free to influence ... supported by management rather than reporting to management, and supporting each other through a simple communications channel
• When changes in behaviour are apparent in some areas, broadcast (and reward) this change

This approach focuses on changing people's regular behaviours rather than some nebulous "culture". Rather than a huge top-down programme of change, the initiative becomes one of modelling the change (through managers and change agents), focussing on the positive behavioural changes that start to happen and allowing the organisation to adapt the programme to local circumstances. This feels like a radical new platform for addressing the challenges of organisational change.

2012 update We recently persuaded Leandro Herrero to come and present to the Henley Management group Leadership of Organisational Change. Focussing more on his new book Homo Imitans, he highlighted the problems of traditional change programmes (formal leadership, communication channels and push ... leading to limited success) and compared with his proposed "world II"  change which focusses on behaviours, social copying, informal networks stories and leaders staying backstage.  A challenge to the normal organisational hierarchy, but with the continuing massive failure rate of change programmes, something different is needed ...

Is there a way to lead large IT projects to success?

Catching up on some of my favourite blogs, I noticed on The Philosophy and Life blog that Mark is (or was) a closet IT journalist with some interesting views about the nature of current IT projects. Echoing a view from the dark side of IT, there are questions about belief (more familiar territory for Mark) - do the sellers and clients really believe in the potential success of huge IT projects?

While these stories are not limited to one sector, there does seem to be an inevitable process that runs with IT projects: the vendors send in the sales people who over-promise on capabilities, the client counters with the procurement department who drive down the price and choose the cheapest solution, and then both parties appoint specialists to manage the project, none of whom will ever (or have ever) run the operation. Strangely, although these parties are fighting a cost battle to achieve their own aims, they all have a shared goal of initiating the project.

Once the project is started, with over-optimistic estimates of delivery and under-estimated costs, the problems spiral, requiring more time and money to complete the work. And once a huge investment has been made, it is a brave manager who pulls he plug and admits the project cannot deliver. So more money is thrown at the problem. Is there a better way?

Stephen Jenner has suggested some means to control projects in his book (Realising Benefits from Government ICT Investment: a Fools Errand?), and the time for control is at the start. Projects need to be set out with a realistic view of the benefits that will be delivered and a strong view of the means for controlling the project. This requires partnership between the business owners and project owners. Instead of a battle at checkpoint meetings where the project attempts to justify its costs, a negotiation between project team seeking costs and business taking responsibility for operational delivery of value. It's not easy, but it can be achieved.