I read an interesting paper looking at the question of whether or not
organizational culture can over-ride leadership in the change game.
Actually I thought the question was a straw man, as it seems all to
obvious that leaders have a tough time trying to get organizations
to change.

By-the-way, the article I’m referring to does a nice job of looking at
models for framing change (emergent or ad-hoc vs planned) and
Kurt Lewin’s model of managing change: 1. Unfreeze, 2. Moving, and
3. Re-freezing.

After reading all this, and just reflecting this past week on the different
environments I have worked in and how relatively responsive vs.
non-responsive to change, I realized cataloguing the origin of change
or the processes it supposedly goes through is all a bit overly conceptual
on a day-to-day basis for me.  I’m more interested in tools that I can
use, so here’s my model, and how I use it.

1. Change comes about from 3 origins and is defined by the relative
tension or differences in power between the three, with the winner
always being the one exercising the most power as reflected by
kicking individuals out of the game. 

    1. Individuals, 
    2. Cultures or Systems and 
    3. Environment or Market.

 2. The individuals facing a change process or challenge always fall into
one of four buckets:  
    1. Early adopters, ready, and usually well motivated, at least at the start,
      but with a track record of getting distracted
    2. Wait and see, tentatively motivated, accommodating, but not working too
     hard at either the change or resisting it.
    3.  The fully resistant, either actively or passively pushing back at the change
    4.  The adopters that see it through, usually made up of groups 1 and 2, who 
    find their way to a point of buy-in and have the emotional resources and
    discipline to see their way to the end.

3.  I use both models in roughly this format:
   1. Find out who/what is exerting the most power on the outcome.  Either
        adapt (change) or raise the level of power I or the group I’m working for
        so that it is the strongest driver in the 3 ringed circus.

   2. If driving change, be very careful about who is on the bus.  Monitor
        regularly as momentum and motivation are both subject to fade-outs
       and reversals.  Garner enough power for the people on the bus, so that
       they can sustain the effort long enough to be successful with the early 
       adopters and wait and see groups, and either over-ride or ignore the
       fully resistant.Expect and treat change, to be a multi-layer event, keep watching,
        Keep adapting and keep the recognition high for any compliance and
        the pressure on when it’s tempting to back off.

    3.  Recognize that power in the change game is always exemplified
        by the process or willingness to kick people out of the game who
        don’t comply.  When the market is the most powerful, it’s rewarding
        some and clearly kicking others out of the game.  When a culture or
        system is the most powerful, it tends to kick out individuals who
       don’t fit or support it, including leaders.  When leaders are the most
       powerful, they kick people off the bus that don’t comply.  In some
       profound ways it really is that simple.

Bottom Line:

My own model is that change is ultimately personal and experienced in terms
of the power of personalities.  It is reflected as a tension between the
personality of leadership, the personality of the culture and the people who
most shape that, and the personality and actions of the market, where power
is exercised as the effect of kicking people out of the game that don’t
comply.   Stability looks  like unchanging power relationships, change looks
like a shift in dominance positions between the three personalities.  Just
remember, the personality that is actively throwing individuals out of the
ring that don’t comply, is in power and driving the change process.

What if someone told you, either use our performance tools or leave.
That’s just what one of our customers did with his entire company
recently.  What would you do?  What if you needed to convey the
message?  Guess what, if you are managing people, you probably do
need to convey that message from time to time.

This is the second blog in a series on limits or lines and performance.
When it comes to managing business information as it relates to
getting work done, collaboration, coordination, etc; tools present
a significant challenge and impasse to performance for many people.
Sometimes the resistance you encounter when deploying 
performance tools would make you think you’re challenging
the bill of rights.  What’s that all about?  (See links below)

I just got a call from a contractor who built our office.  What do you
think he would say if some of his framers said they didn’t want to use
nail guns, they preferred to hammer each nail manually.  Or what if
the sheet rock help said instead of using power screw guns, they
wanted to put in each screw with an old style screwdriver and lots
of wrist action.  You guessed right.  He would show them the door,
it just costs too much to use old tools. 

If it costs too much to use old tools in the construction industry,
don’t you think it costs too much to use old tools in your business?
So this leads up to the second limit most people don’t get or know
about.

#2 Use the right tool to get the job done expediently, the
right process to save everyone else time. 

Did you catch the twist?  Using the right tools will ultimately make
you go faster, but not necessarily at first, given there’s always some
learning curve. 

But the big performance boost is that if you use the right tool and
the right process, you save other people time… lots of time and
ultimately money.

Let’s go back to construction for a second.  Is it easier to grab a
hammer off of your tool belt and start pounding away, or go
get the nail gun, the extension cord, plug it in and come back
to start the job.  It’s a no-brainer.  Hit it with the hammer.  But
the person with a nail gun passes the hammer thrower by the
2nd 2×4.

That’s how most of us are when it comes to using information
management tools that have a performance boost built in. 
It’s easier to just manage information manually.  Writing it
down is very immediate, sort of like grabbing the hammer off
the tool belt.  But it actually slows the overall process down.

When it comes to anyone else having to touch the information,
including us, it really slows the production process down
when staff haven’t used the right tool and process. 

With the right tool, you’ve got the information at your finger
tips.  When people are using the wrong meeting, you can’t find
the information.  You need to make a call, send an email,
walk down the hall, have a meeting, dig through your email
inbox, sort through an old power point report.  You know the
drill. 

So what if you got serious about using the right tools, the
right process?  What if you got serious about it as a requirement
for anyone who worked on your team?  Don’t you think
it’s about time?

Bottom Line:

Using the right tool and the right process in managing information
and people is a hidden limit, which when enforced can  boost
performance as well as dramatically save time for anyone who
has to interact or use the information originally created.  What
tools, what processes should you draw the line at, in your team?
If you don’t draw this line, you are losing at the performance game.

Links:
Performance, Limits and Outcomes
Performance Management Software Adoption

Boundaries, lines, totals… they all represent a form of defining what
performance level is good enough.  In fact the term performance is a
void unless you have a measure for rating or comparison purposes. 
I want to cover a couple of “lines” that are hidden performance boosters.
I describe them as hidden, because I find people miss them over
and over again.

But before I jump into this topic, I want to be clear that I understand
that lines can be harsh, uncomfortable to enforce.  Here in the US
we both want good performance from ourselves and others, and at
the same time get wishey-washy about the reality of lines.  You may
find the same to be true where-ever you are working.

But back to lines, or you could use the word boundaries or limits.

Here’s the first one.  Actually let’s just do one in this blog.

#1 Outcome is key, not your time, and every approach to
reaching an outcome, every effort, has a time limit. 

There’s always a time limit… to everything you do.  There’s also
a time limit to every approach.  A time to be finished by, a time
to give up or switch by.   I’m starting to sound like Ecclesiastes 3.

Whether you are capping the BP well in the gulf, pursuing a sales lead,
framing a house or writing software code for a feature… there’s only
so much time you can spend on any one approach if you’re going to
reach your desired outcome.  If you aren’t getting the outcome,
the performance needed, its time to change, switch, move on, get help, etc. 

By-the-way, that’s a high performance frame of mind.    Here’s what
the conversation sounds like in your head if you’re not into
performance:

“I’ll just keep working until its done.”
“I’ll keep working until its time to leave.”
“I keep working at it as long as its interesting.”
“I’ll at least get started on it.”

Notice the difference? High performance tends to be outcome
driven.  Being Performance minded, means you’re
paying attention to the outcome and monitoring time remaining.
If your schedule is driven by closure, by commitment, by putting
in your time, by comfort, by … you fill in the blank, then what I
find is that you typically aren’t as nimble, you don’t make
adjustments in a timely manner.  You keep working processes,
issues, even goals, pass the point at which you should have made
a change.

Think about that, even if it’s the big limit of your time
on the planet. If you operate without regard to a time limit, or say
to yourself,  I’m just going to keep working until it’s done or keep
working until I’ve put in my hours for the day, it usually means:
- you are going to chronically over-run time estimates in the
process of ignoring the clock
- you aren’t going to be very attuned to the messages others,
your customers and the market in general sends you.

If you don’t get this right in your head, you believe you’re getting
paid for the hours you put in, instead of the outcomes you are able
to deliver.  If you don’t get this right in your head, you will earn
less and accomplish left in the time you have remaining on the planet.

If I can avoid it, I don’t want you working for me or with me,
especially if it involves innovation.  Why?  You may be very nice,
buy you’re going to spend more time trudging along than I have time
to accommodate. By-the-way, I’m not alone in finding value in people
who can focus on the outcome, the time remaining… and get it done.

Bottom Line:

If you want to increase your value and get more done, you
likely need to change the way you think.  Performance thinking is
a way of regularly balancing the need to reach an outcome, with the
time remaining, with the relative success of whatever approach
you have adopted.  Let me write that one more time.  To improve
performance, you want to start operating with a constant awareness
of the outcome you want to reach, and given it’s value, how much time
it should take  you to reach it.  Be prepared to challenge your approach
to any outcome as soon as it looks like you won’t reach the outcome in
the time allocated.  Have fun!

Links:
Working Strategically and the three legged Stool of Outcome, Time and Value

When you think of critical success factors do you think of something
that will get things done on time or within budget, or do you tend
to think of success factors as tied to money or promotion?

I saw an interesting process occurring this past week that is directly
tied to being successful and wanted to take a moment to run this by you.
We are working on a project for one of our larger customers, who is in
turn using a vendor who is missing their deadlines and isn’t using ManagePro…
but this isn’t about ManagePro.

Here’s what was interesting.   They are missing deadlines, and don’t have a clear work plan in place or even a simple risk and mitigation assessment.

When pushed for more visibility on their process, and even simple things like “so what is the completion date for the deliverable that is now behind?” … we got a push back.  Activity, but no significant change.  In response I hear them making the same comments I often hear struggling companies make about  using a project and task management system like ManagePro… but they were talking about their own software system.

We were hearing familiar complaints like: “I don’t have enough time.”  “Why do you need to see what I’m working on?” “That software plan isn’t accurate (it’s not current… and I’m not working at getting it current).”  And the same old tired and slow process of long meetings and fuzzy defined outcomes that rapidly eat away at any organization’s ability to get things done.

Not being successful, in this case in completing projects, seems to inspire
longer hours, more meetings, rationalizations… all sorts of things,
maybe anything but a change in process.  It started me wondering if the
the biggest common denominator for factors relevant to success is
the ability or propensity to switch to what works.

In some ways, like our own body set point, most people resist such a push,
including the push to make a change when they are missing deadlines or
promotions.  We seem to have  comfort level about our preferred work
style and resist the challenge, when it comes, to elevate our game and
work more effectively.

If you don’t know or aren’t prepared for that in others, it can catch you
off guard.  You might focus on the issues being presented for discussion
(an area that’s relatively more comfortable than getting on with the change),
e.g. not enough time, or the software, or something else, instead of
addressing the fact that it’s a success issue and you’re in the middle of a
change process… and change always encounters resistance at one or
more points along the way.

We’ve created a simple rating scale by which we can determine how
effective people in an organization typically work – or how likely they
are to be successful.  It’s not only an helpful rating scale on 9 behaviors
that consistently divide highly effective vs less effective people, it also
turns out to be a good predictive device to assess the relative resistance
to change.  e.g. the more scores at the bottom of the scale, the bigger hill you
have to climb.

Try it out and let us know what you think.  Click here to download it at no cost.
Use it to help your business and your people work more effectively
and focus on the right things.  As good as our software (ManagePro) is at
helping users be more successful, most of the critical stuff is between
people’s ears, after that the software is just a well formed tool.

Bottom Line:

Factors critical to your success, however you define success, are tightly
grouped across 9 behaviors or habits we have observed.  However the
most important factor may not be a behavior at all, but rather the personal
skill and capacity needed to pay attention to the results of your work style
and (continue to) make  the changes required to help you be even more
successful.  Doing what works, versus what’s comfortable, is a powerful
driver for success.

Have you ever wondered what happens on the second day?

The second day after you kicked off a new performance improvement
process. Maybe it’s the second day after you started using a
performance improvement software programlike ManagePro.

On the second day all of your aspirations seem to abandon you.
You get swamped. It seems everything conspires to pull you
back into the usual grind. The day wraps up and you realize
you haven’t used your “new” process.

On the second day it seems you have to stay late to put into
practice what seems like such a good idea on the first day.

Actually on the second day you get the opportunity to start
excusing yourself… to accept it as permissible to not follow
through two days in a row with your new commitment. It’s
very tempting on day two, just one day after the launch, to
begin a pattern of sliding backwards.

Or you get the opportunity to prove to yourself that you’re
serious about that new change you kicked off less than 48
short hours ago. It’s funny how so much can change in just
48 hours, isn’t it?

I think the 2nd day is a better predictor of the future than
the first day. It’s certainly a better gut check on reality. It
gives you a chance to confirm if you’re going to put into
practice your new technology, your new processes, your
commitment to work smarter every day, or if that stuff is
just going to occur on the days when it’s convenient.

On the second day, you meet yourself, bogged down and
without all the adrenaline rush that can accompany
some of the newness of day one.

On the second day, if you’re like me, you realize you can’t
just muscle it, you’re going to need to start blocking out
time on the calendar to protect that commitment to change.
You’re going to have to be different, to make different time
choices to work or live different. The change isn’t going to
neatly fit into your schedule.

The second day and what it reveals is priceless. On the second
day you get a chance to make much more realistic decisions and
course corrections about what it will take to be successful with the
change you envision.

Bottom Line:
On the second day of any improvement process, with or without
software, we all face a test. A choice to starting putting off the
very process we just kicked off the day before… or reach even
a deeper level of commitment to the change process. The second
day is an important time to play big for yourself.

Links:
The Two Hurdles that Trip Us Up

Being Strategic About Time – Upping Your Game as a Manager

Several thoughts came to mind that might help you in the area of goal
and performance management, as I read through Shelley Metzenbaum’s (University of
Massachusetts) report and recommendation for the current administration on
Performance Management, entitled Performance Management
Recommendations for the New Administration.

Let’s go through two quotes from her work, and talk about what you can
use from it:

#1 – “Two simple tools – goals and measurement – are among the most
powerful leadership mechanisms available to a President for influencing the
vast scope of federal agencies.  Goals and measurement are useless, however,
unless used.”

While I strongly say “Amen” to the comment if you don’t use it, it’s useless,
I’m not sure goals and measurement of the goals are the most powerful lever
for the president or your business.  This may surprise you, especially since
we invest a lot in our software, ManagePro, as a goal-based software.
Here’s why I have reservations.

1. First of all our findings suggest that goals are only used by 4% of the
population at most, consequently they can be a poor organizing focus for
the vast majority of people.  Things like controlling risk, securing funds, etc,
are often much more compelling drivers for the majority, then setting goals.
If goals aren’t used actively by 96% of the population, guess what will happen?

Bottom line there are more powerful mechanisms to start with
when improving performance for government and your organization then
goals.  Keep reading.

2. Many people struggle with identifying goals that would help them
fundamentally move down the improvement sequence.  Even more people,
if not most, struggle with how to measure achievement of goals based upon data.

Perhaps it’s partly because tracking and measuring outcomes is not something
they have expertise at or financially resource the collection of outcome data.

Bottom line, our experience is that the competency at measuring what’s
relevant, precedes the ability of goal setting, in order for the goal-based
process improvement to have significant impact.

Goals and goal measurement only becomes  a powerful lever for Performance Management when you have in
place a process of data collection and data review for key operational and
growth processes.  Without good data, the validity of goal measurement
starts losing value rapidly.  Metrics is a more primary lever for ultimately
exerting change.

#2 – “Performance information should be used to improve performance
not just report performance for accountability purposes.”

She raises an excellent point.  Goals have no magic to suddenly drive
performance improvement.  In fact, as she points out, they can easily be
used to reduce risk and reinforce current practices, not improvement.

You can avoid this in your organization by adding a weight or
risk (of achieving) factor and a relative value-add to goal setting.  �
Without both additions, goal setting, again based upon the primacy of
managing risks and securing funds, can quickly move to support
the risk management features, not an improvement drive.

I think for most large (and small) organizations, of which the government
is one, you usually survive by being safe first, not innovative or assuming
risk stretch goals.  Our experience is that you need to take into account
the emotional drivers and the basis of security, before assuming
“improvement” goals will have much leverage.

Bottom Line: Here’s a couple of thoughts to chew on as they relate to the
business you work in and performance improvement.

1. Before you set and attempt to measure goals, confirm that you can get the
data to support the measurements.  Without good data and metics,
you’re in the fog.

2. Simplicity beats complex every time, including goal setting and
measurement.  Simplicity recognizes that everyone is already
overwhelmed with data and that goal setting threatens to add to
the data.  Simplicity, when incorporting brain chunk theory, says
we’re only going to be able to juggle 6 pieces of data at once.

With a simplicity model, goal packaging starts to look like the following:
a. Pick two metrics that best measure your operations efficiency, one internal,
the 2nd from your customer.  Set aside resources to gather that information
and track your results and what you’re doing about it, regularly.

b. Pick two improvement goals, one easy (low risk) to achieve, one hard to
achieve (high risk), define the value add for focusing on these two, vs. 99
other possible goals.  Eg. These need to be the biggest value add goals
at both ends of the risk scale.  Again, measure and track your results
and your plan.

c. Review your plan, your progress todates, your outstanding action items
in regular data focused meetings using technology that links the goals to
operational activities (and plans).  BTW, we found when using ManagePro
in organizations, that pulling the software and the performance review
right into the meeting is often the tipping point for successfully making the
cultural change to a goal and performance emphasis.  Leaving it to a
quarterly or year end report is the kiss of death.

Links:

Goal and Performance Management Technology

Follow-up, Metrics and Performance

In the last blog I talked about how important follow-up is to the employee feedback and review process.  In fact it’s possibly more important than much of the review.  And without a follow-up process, the value of the review seems to evaporate like a water on my windshield on a hot day.  Today, I just wanted to share a quick thought in parrallel as it applies to performance management.

If you think about it, follow-up is critical to employee reviews, but it’s just as important to strategic planning, and certainly to performance management.  Follow-up, buttressed by some type of assessment or measuring process is key to anything we expend significant resources on to produce a change .  That’s true whether the follow-up is a general assessment of “What worked” and “What didn’t”, or if it is tied to specific outcome metrics (ex. Improve % of customer retension, increase % of website activity, etc.)

Stephen Gill, in a blog this week – Describes an apt metaphor, characterizing our approach to measuring the impact of training and other “improvement” activities to playing golf in the dark – can’t accurately tell where the pin is, don’t know how close the ball you hit is to the pin, after while, you don’t care…  http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2653383/39418883

I do see that regularly in training efforts.  And on a broader scale, the analogy of investments in business and performance improvement look like playing golf without a clear assessment of the changes we make in swing or clubs.  As long as we are still on the fairway and the game is still ongoing… we keep playing, and hoping for the best. 

If there’s money in the bank, we keep playing.  Actually as the game rolls on, whether there’s more or less money in the bank, we in fact do develop theories about what “made the difference.”  The conclusions usually aren’t based on measurements, but on a perceptually based (not fact based, but much much less work to construct) opinions. 

This puts us at risk to look like story of the blind men describing the elephant by their immediate experience.  Notice how strongly we all react to others having conclusions that aren’t fact based… the conflict over the stimulus package today being one good example.  Assessment, and the facts that come out of it, can save you time and money, not to mention face.

Bottom Line:

Performance Management needs follow-up, which needs metrics in the worst way, otherwise it’s subject to false conclusions, inactivity or just expensive, poor return on investments in “performance enhancing” activities. 

Do yourself a favor, limit the performance investments to what you’re willing to invest in following-up and measuring in 2009.  I bet you’ll like the results.

Link:

Performance Management & Metrics Technology

Software adoption, change management, implementing innovation… it all has some striking similarities.  Time has slipped by and as the year wraps up I didn’t want to miss putting up a quick summary of the recent blogs on this whole process, and in particular software adoption.  Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, and I hope in this case it’s at least worth several hundred.  I created this picture to underscore and pull together a number of the themes that drive any change or innovation process, including software adoption.  Themes that I’ve been covering in the last half dozen blogs.

 Here’s  a couple of take-aways that hopefully do well by you in the coming year:

1. There is no single reason why people adopt change – in fact different sub-groups within any organization adopt change for very different reasons.  If you’re in charge of driving it, pay attention to your audience and depending on where you are in the lifecycle, adjust your message and appeal to the emotional drivers that are in play.

2. Be careful of over-depending on the interest and time investment of executive sponsors, as this often declines as an important driver before the adoption process has become imbedded across enough of the organization to continue on its own.  E.g. you need more than a good sponsor, you need to use a process that works.

3. Emotions are important drivers of the change process, see my earlier blogs for a description of how to address the emotional drivers for each group.

Have a great 2009 and lots of success with all of the changes and software adoption opportunities you pursue.

 Links:
Politics, Emotion and Buy-in

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Fear

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Attraction

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Discomfort

This is the second in a two series blog on thoughts about what routinely trips up executive sponsors in a software launch. 

The first blog addressed the obstacle represented by the tendency to under-estimate the resources needed to launch a software package that invokes changes in work style, including the tendency for the sponsor to under-estimate their internal resources to stay involved and see the launch successfully through to completion.

The focus of this blog is the second obstacle of resistance from others that trips up sponsors.   If under-estimating is an internal problem, most people think of this one as an external problem caused by staff other than the sponsor.  It is actually both an external and an internal issue, but more about that latter.  Bottom line, RESISTANCE prompts the executive sponsor to make avoidable mistakes.

If you’re that executive sponsor you might describe the obstacle as running into a “buzz saw” of direct resistance from one of your direct reports or peers.  They directly or indirectly don’t comply with using the new software.  Now what?  In fact at this point, it usually gets worse.  You end up feeling like your authority is being challenged on some level, and at the same time you get in touch with the anxiety that you can’t do without that person or group’s work contribution - welcome to the uncomfortable feeling of ”being held over a barrel.” 

Wonderful, and all you wanted to do was have everyone use this cool, new software!

By-the-way, the buzz saw didn’t just emerge over the launch of the software - but it usually does break through the “I’d rather not address that or think about it” box.  What do I mean by that? 

More specifically, the introduction of new software and the accompanying request to work (plan, follow-up, document, coordinate) in some new way stirs up latent “you’re not going to tell me or my department how to work” reactions.  The launch doesn’t create the tension, it just surfaces the unresolved tension between executives, between manager and direct report, or employer and employee, etc. who both need each other, but haven’t clarified and/or typically worked through this one critical point – that any job includes more than responsibility for completing a task, it also includes the responsibility for adopting certain processes, tools and values while completing the task (e.g. following the rules of priorities often set by someone else).

The most common mistake I see sponsors make at this point looks like some combination of the following: a) you pull back the mandate to adopt the software,  or b) you quit following up and tracking adoption and just use the software yourself,  and/or c) you stop requiring software adoption for this person, or their group… and there goes the launch.

Executives and Managers who sponsor software adoption launches are apt to run into two predictable obstacles that threaten the success of the launch.  The second prominent obstacle that trips up executive sponsors is RESISTANCE often unaccompanied by denial and discomfort about it’s existence.  The resistance to using the new software, is championed by a “powerful” individual or group, who you can’t really afford to say, “Use the new tool or walk,” and so you feel “held over the barrel” and are tempted to start granting concessions – don’t!

Suggestions: If you run into this obstacle inquire, address and resolve, don’t avoid, the resistance.   Don’t end up looking like a case example for Edwin Friedman’s book, A Failure of Nerve(Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix).  The resistance represents at best something that needs clarification and attention, at worst it represents an unhealthy part of the culture and work relationships which is not only uncomfortable, but loses money.  

Dibachi’s book “Just Add Management” list 7 simple basics that will serve you well as a set of guide lines or topics to work through if you’re running into this obstacle.   They include: 1. Your job exists to make this company a success.  2. Yes, I am the boss, so my priorities over-rule your preferences.  3. The customer pays all of our salaries.  4. Do what matters.  5. Do it right. 6. Track your progress.  7. Work smart.

Bottom Line: Remember, the resistance to the software launch represents issues that you need to address, not avoid.  It may be a simple mis-understanding, it may be an outgrowth of not feeling included or recognized, or it may be a symptom of deeper seated conflicts (ex. “even though you’re the boss, and sign my pay check, I’m going to work the way I want to”).  Irregardless, it pays to address and work through this obstacle, from both a software launch and overall organizational culture and performance perspective – it gets worse over time if you don’t.

Links:

Software Adoption: The Two Hurdles that Trip up Executive Sponsors (1 of 2)

Consulting Sevices to Help Launch ManagePro Software

After writing the past couple of weeks on some of the emotional processing we all go through when deciding to adopt new software, I wanted to take a moment and comment on two hurdles that routinely trip up executives and business managers, that a are sponsoring a software launch.  This is the first of two part blog. 

While on the road last week I was thinking that if you were ever in the position to launch software across your group of direct reports, or a team or a business group or division – you would probably want to know what are the two obstacles that most frequently trip up executives in this position.  Doing face plants are frustrating, expensive, embarrassing and no fun.

I see the same two obstacles emere over and over again, and I’ve run into them when doing launches for large organizations like the United Nations in Rome, international firms in Asia, as well as in small, owner operated businesses in the US. Funny how it is the same regardless of where I go in the world.

So let’s get into this topic.  Executive sponsored software launches get stalled or have a marginal success rate for one of two reasons. What would you guess?

- It’s not trying to find just the right software, that stalls the process before you ever get to a launch.

- It’s not software features, and it’s not training, interestingly enough.

The first obstacle is INTERNAL or resides within the executive sponsor – and it prompts a very avoidable mistake.  If you’re that executive you:

a) Underestimate how much effort it will take to launch the software. You’ve usually embedded some pretty significant culture change requirements in the use of the “new” software package and you’re in a fair state of denial about how much work it will take to get people to change their work style so that they can effectively use the new software.

We see this all the time with ManagePro. Essentially ManagePro requires that people document progress updates and to-dos in order to work in a more coordinated, collaborative manner. If your business group is used to doing very little documentation and handle most things by phone calls or meetings… adoption of a software product like ManagePro represents a significant change in the work culture. 

I don’t mean to represent that software adoption is something that most teams can’t accomplish – they can, you can. And it can generate very high returns, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars in quick order, but you need to evaluate what degree of forward step it represents for your group. Instead of minimizing or under-estimating the required resources, you may need to “buckle up” before launching the program when it involves the stressors associated with CHANGE an innovation.

b) The under-estimating often seems related to how much interest you the executive have in the change process. If you don’t like that sort of thing, you’ll find that it can quickly get more time consuming than you enjoy or are prepared to give.   What typically happens next is that you get busy on “next” early in the software adoption process, lose interest as it “drags” on, and don’t keep actively sponsoring the adoption process and removing obstacles that emerge. Actually you may be rather bored with the whole change process which surfaces when you introduce new software.

We consistently find that if this is you, you, as a sponsor, run out of interest or attending before the launch of new software is securely established. You may assign the responsibility to someone else, typically someone who isn’t as invested as yourself in the outcome, and who may not have the resources to complete the task.

One final side note.  Many of the people in the launch recognize this on some level (recognize that the sponsoring executive or manager will run out of interest pretty early in the game), and mirror the executive in pulling back from the effort as well. There goes the launch!

Bottom Line:

Executives and Managers who sponsor software adoption launches are apt to run into two predictable obstacles that threaten the success of the launch. Here’s a summary of the first obstacle and briefly what to do about it.

1. The most prominent obstacle that lies within the sponsor is UNDER-ESTIMATION.   Under-estimating the amount of effort required to launch new software because of the change factor involved, and under-estimating of the strength of their own continued interest and active sponsorship. The resulting fall-out is a software launch that is under-resourced, and for which existing +resources are front-end loaded.

Suggestions: Plan and resource software adoption as the expensive and valuable process improvement project it is. Make sure you are not the only sponsor and that you have multiple, highly involved, powerful sponsors that will help you drive the process… unless you like to climb steep mountains all by yourself.  Make sure you have the resouces to go the distance.

Talk with you in the next blog – send me your reactions.

Links:

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotions and Software Buy-in