Poor design can result in a change disaster

Here at MVCM, when developing our change framework, and considering all of the contributing factors that make a major program change successful, we knew that it was more than what had been talked about in the models that had been designed before. From our many years of experience and as the change discipline has matured, there was a theme that was emerging being expressed and reflected upon by many senior Change practitioners. It was more than the recurring frustration of sub standard change leadership, and it was emerging as Change practitioners were being put on projects at the development stage. It seemed to centre around the design of the product/service/process/policy itself. This is why we created the Change Diamond model.

The correlation between 'friction' and design

It seems odd, but effective design can be implemented quietly and seamlessly as it achieves its outcomes. Innovative design is often commented on and commended, (good innovation that is), which can enhance the user experience.  Poor design however can be an insurmountable problem, maximum friction and generate 'noise' to the level of needing to revert back to prior designs. Consider the times where you may have experienced or led a change where you have heard - 'It doesn't make sense', 'It doesn't work', 'This is hard to use and not intuitive?'. These are some of the comments that can be made made when a poor design is implemented.

A change manager or even a good change leader can't make up for bad design and will struggle to 'sell' the change (and know that this indeed will be a sales job when it comes to implementing a bad design). Most of all, trust will be eroded between those who are having to embrace the change and those leading the change. 

I remember sitting in a meeting where there was discussion about a 'Go Live' and launch of technology changes where the IT system was going to enforce policy changes. Seems simple right?  A perfect question at the steering committee was asked, when readiness was being assessed. 'Why did we decide to go and implement this change in the Technology? Has there been enough exploration and identification of core issues leading to the policy not being adhered to? Is there confidence that this was in fact the right solution? The response was glossed over, not enough time nor challenge was pursued at that meeting. The resulting implementation was a disaster! The new workflow caused ridiculous bottlenecks, as the current system interactions were not mapped or even considered when designing the future state. Not enough engagement, not enough time and not enough transition planning. Does this story sound familiar?

So how do you avoid bad design?

Design thinking is an approach which can be taken to explore the problem through the eyes of the user/customer and design the solution. If you are looking into design thinking principles there are resources out there. 

Be clear on the user/customer experience via immersion. How many leaders or people in your organisation have literally stood in the shoes of your customer or end user? If you consider the amount of investment into technology solutions where the design and coding is done behind a desk it isn't hard to see how design can go so easily wrong. Even with outlined requirements from a group of subject matter experts (SME's), if no observation is undertaken as to how the customer/end user interacts with the product, service or policy then the solution will only ever be half baked.

Take an 'Ask' not tell approach 

The reason this is called out is because at the formation of any solution or change to be introduced, there is a level of justification, and rationale that should proceed this change. This is normally defined as a problem statement or what are we trying to solve? If the right questions are asked, and enough questions asked, then you can yield some fantastic outcomes. And the questions need to be asked consistently throughout the entire program to ensure the solution will be fit for purpose.

Not giving enough time for design

There is always a sense of 'this has to happen yesterday'. This then puts pressure on the design phase which drives participants to focus on solutions and not the problems enough. As a result the business representation may be thin, the discussion condensed and research to initiate the piece of work underbaked. It is a balancing act. I understand the urgency to deliver, after all, most programs are initiated in response to a problem, and you can't sit on those indefinitely. Also if you give people too much extra time they will take it, and sometimes waste it. So what role does the project sponsor have in balancing time and delivery?

Well at the design stage there are some questions the Sponsor should ask.

Why are we taking this approach?

What customer/end user engagement has occurred that has informed this solution?

What outcomes would we expect from this change?

These are the bare minimum.

There have been some great design evolutions here in Australia.

Banking in the 90's really looked at the design of their branch networks and made some innovative changes in Australia. At that time I had the great opportunity to work in the Customer Experience area, and I will always remember when I sat in a branch which had been redesigned to simply observe how the customers interacted with the new ticketing machines, the concierge and then the branch teller. Where did they get confused (or not), and then feedback was collected for further improvements. I went to a number of branches to just observe was so beneficial. 

Later in NSW (the state in which we live), the NSW Government changed the look and feel of their motor vehicle registry centres (where licenses are renewed, car registrations undertaken etc). One of the key frustrations of customers was wait times. At that time there wasn't the digital channels there are today. They were overhauled, and took on many of the same features that Banks had introduced. It was no surprise that the head of those areas in the NSW Govt at the time had a Banking background. The new layout,  new ticketing machine which helped manage frustrations, triaging the enquiry types and also capturing the satisfaction were major changes as well as the physical look and feel. All people who lived through those changes would know how these design elements changed the entire experience in a positive way. It also changed the perception of the services that Government could provide.

This also showed how design from other industries can be beneficial if, and when, applied appropriately.

So the next time you are venturing into a new Program think about your approach to design. Good design practices are the next frontier for organisations to explore. If you are maturing in the change skillsets in your organisation (side note if you want to see where your organisation is up to in this you can take our Enterprise Change Maturity survey), then you will uncovering the important of the design in the process if your organisation doesn't have good principles and practices in this area. Explore design thinking and how you might approach it a little differently for a much better result!