Retro-fitting change when disaster strikes - Part 2

In Part 1 we covered the areas to investigate when you have been engaged to 'fix' a change that has gone awry! 

So now let's see what actions to take, and who should take them if you have areas to 'fix' and fast.

Revisiting Scope: When it comes to reviewing scope the question to ask is was what was left out of the scope that should have been addressed? Many times the scope missed out on one of these elements which impacts the change. This sits with the Project or Program Manager.

Be sure the program scope covers the following:

Policy or procedure changes necessary

Process changes

People changes if needed

Technology change, as well as addressing possible migrations and transitions from old to new.

If there is a change strategy you need to be clear as to the Change scope. Does it include change and communications interventions and any Capability uplift deliverables.

If this is a large change it is worth comparing both the program and change plans to make sure all scope items are complementary and nothing is left out to make a full transition.

If it doesn't cover all of these areas, then the Program manager should raise a Change request for the Program and make sure the scope includes it all. To leave out even one aspect may result in a re-run of poor delivery.

Change planning: if there isn't one, then you need to get onto a good change plan. The Change Manager is responsible for a robust change plan. A change plan builds a bridge between your current way of working and the new way of working. That bridge makes sure that everyone crosses, but all at their own pace. If there was a change plan in place, revisit the impact assessments to ensure it is strong enough. Challenge the sponsorship model and make sure that leaders are playing their role. Are there gaps in the change plan? Be sure to make sure your change plan captures impacts, the right groups and that the interventions are fit for purpose, and that they leverage the culture of the organisation. Be sure to understand the history of changes and any change that is similar 

The importance of Design. If the design wasn't done right the first time you need to revisit it from the viewpoint of the customer or the impacted groups if the are the 'end users' of the new process, policy or system. This can be led by either the Change Manager in partnership with the Program Manager, or be driven by the Project/Program manager.  Be sure to get multiple representatives from the impacted areas and revisit the 'problem you are trying to solve'.

Often times solutions are put into place too fast, from subject matter experts who think they know best. Well intentioned but not fully understanding the problems that exist well enough. The best way to solve problems is to make sure you understand the issues well in the first place. And one final note on design - the new design has to be considered within the context of the industry challenges and cultural context. For the change to be effective it has to take into consideration the ecosystem in which the new process, policy, product or structure fits. It has to make sure it aligns with the culture or else it will be unavoidably compromised during implementation

Governance. The Program Manager can revisit the Governance forums, or the Change Manager can also do this focusing on Change. Either person should include the Program Sponsor in the review. when reviewing what Steering Committee's or Reference groups are in place, consideration needs to be given to what forums will be effective for decision making. Regardless of whether it be the Change Manager or Program Manager you should look to improve the Governance forums as soon as possible if they weren't working before.

When reviewing the forums have a think about whether you have the right attendance? Be sure that politics has been put aside and involve those who may have been excluded as they were being 'difficult' if they need to be there. Ensure conversations are always respectful and that people are showing up for the forums. Lobby for support if need be.

Review what was being tabled at the various forums. Review the papers from the last couple of meetings to make sure the topics being covered are relevant and issues are being highlighted and decisions are being made. Review Risk and issue logs to see how long it is taking for issues to be resolved. Good Governance facilitates progress and risk management.

If this area is ineffective, re-set the agenda, make changes fast and move forward. Ask those attending the Governance committee's to recommit to the programs success. You may even want to involve them in a retro to identify further areas for improvement.

Change readiness checkpoints: In your plan have Go Live checkpoints and a Change Readiness checkpoint. They are normally put in by the Project Manager, with the Change Manager adding in the people and communications measures. In all plans at least 4 weeks from the official Go live there is normally a Change checkpoint whereby the 'readiness' of the business has to be assessed, to make sure that the stakeholders are engaged, training or other capability building activities are underway and that there is the level of leadership buy-in required. It is a form of risk management and assurance in itself. 

So if there weren't any such checks in place, time to map them out and be clear on the criteria. Have the Steering Committee or relevant Governance forum approve what the acceptance criteria is for a Go Live. That way it is easier for the assessment to take place when it is time to be completed.

We hope that with these tactical, practical tips your next change can be a success!