Are you - the change practitioner, seeing the same issues from project to project? I am. Regardless of the industry, type of project many of the same obstacles keep rearing their heads. Here's one for you:

One of persistent things I see but have a tough time solving for is having sponsorship at the appropriate level. Sometimes we are dealt a sponsor team that is too high in the organization and sometimes they are too low. Both have their problems. 

Sponsors too high in the organization tend to also be too busy to adequately provide leadership for your change. With that comes abdicating change/project responsibilities to those lower in the chain. Even if the surrogates are trusted leaders, I have found that they still have to go through proper decision making channels to get anything done. When you have to be nimble - this doesn't serve the project well. 

Sponsors too low in the organization are generally very good at operational stuff and that becomes their focus. The problem here is that they may not have the same sense of strategic direction/visibility that someone higher in the organization has and may have trouble helping you navigate through the complex organizational matrix. 

​If you happen to stumble on this post, I would love to hear your ideas!

In regard to Change Management, I'm seeing some recent posts on twitter and LinkedIn where arguments are being made that you should either:
A. Forget about changing people's behavior - focus on getting the organizational stuff right, or
B. Organizations don't/can't change so you have to focus on people's behavior to effectively make change happen.

So which is it? Probably not as simple as picking one or the other. Can we agree that people, process. tools and culture all play into "the change?"  If you remember the book "Switch" by the Heath brothers, they talk about the "rider, the elephant, and the path." It's a great metaphor. The rider and elephant are our thoughts, beliefs and feelings about the change which are played out in our behavior. And the path is the environment around the change - the processes, tools and the culture/rules of the organization. 

Trying to achieve individual behavior change in an enterprise-wide initiative is a huge challenge. But - shaping the path (the processes, the tools and the rules that people use) so that it is easier to "direct the elephant" is super effective. If you clear and shape the path to make it easier for people to do their jobs - you have a good chance of getting behavior change resulting in organizational resilience.

So my answer... focus on shaping the environment. It is way more within our control to work with and will ultimately impact behavior and organizational culture.  That's my opinion - what's yours? 

We don't get much argument on the importance of managing the "people side" of projects. But demonstrating the value that change management brings to the table through metrics is sometimes overlooked. One of the ways I have found to get some early traction on measuring change effectiveness is to ask sponsors - "what is your evidence of success?" It is important to ask this in the early stages of designing your approach as this will help shape your plan. For me, the OCM goals are always:

• ADOPTION - What level of buy-in are we seeing from stakeholders?
• PROFICIENCY - How well are stakeholders performing in the "new world?"
• UTILIZATION - Are stakeholders using the new tools, processes, methods vs. reverting to old ways?

When I share these goals with sponsors & leaders - we end up having a pretty robust dialog that ultimately drives us to relevant effectiveness measures for the project. Although, I must admit - having this discussion is kinda like dentistry sometimes :) 

Organizational culture is sited by Prosci as being the primary cause of resistance. Risk-averse cultures, past negative experiences with change, mistrust between departments, competing objectives all contribute. We can still help these organizations navigate through change, but it's an uphill challenge. You can put good performers in a bad system but the bad system usually wins. 

Another trend in Change Management - Enhanced integration with project management. I have always felt that even though these are two disciplines, there are great synergies that result in working together. PM's and Change Practitioners who work to integrate their plans show better results! 

What would you do differently on your next project? Prosci research says the #1 thing is planning and strategizing your approach to managing change and preparing your leaders for it! Guess what #2 is?Ensure leader involvement! Yep. 

I'm so very proud to have played a role on the change management team that helped to execute this large program! Following are excerpts from our last Upgrade Newsletter:

In October of 2012, the Enterprise Systems Upgrade Program kicked off one of the largest technology upgrades in University history. Eventually called The Upgrade, the program would update University technology; streamline human resources, student services, and financial systems procedures; implement a new portal; and enhance the University's reporting capabilities. 

After months of user input, business process analysis, user experience design, and comprehensive testing, the University successfully launched the upgraded systems this past April. Since then, the U has been able to utilize new software functionality, explore operational changes and efficiencies, and learn more about the improved user experience in the new MyU. While major milestones remain, we have witnessed a number of successes:

• Cutover from legacy systems without unplanned business interruptions
• 50,000 users logged into the new systems on the first day
• Successfully deployed the new MyU and Reporting Center; connected over 700 tertiary and linked systems into the new core system
• Processed first new payroll for faculty and staff
• Over 40,000 instances of users accessing training for the new systems

Less than a month later, call center volumes are low and teams continue to investigate any system issues. On Friday, President Kaler and Vice President Scott Studham presented an update to the Board of Regents. The Upgrade is now focused on transitioning central operations back to the business units in the coming weeks.