Introduction
In previous blogs and articles, we discussed how to build foundations for a strong transformation initiation phase, creating the conditions for successful delivery. However, once the plan is ready, what about delivery itself?
Turning around struggling transformation programmes teaches us many salient lessons about how, even when a programme is well initiated, things can still go wrong in later phases. We talked to a group of seasoned transformation experts, and asked them to explain some of the reasons why this occurs:
We ticked all the right boxes but missed the point
Many programmes suffer from a triumph of governance and reporting over building a true understanding of what is required to deliver a transformation roadmap. Some programmes will check off all the existing criteria required to complete ‘initiation’ under their methodology but fail to understand the essence of what it takes to move into implementation. Simply put, the exit criteria from one phase should reflect that it takes to leave that phase, but also what it takes to be ready to enter the next one.
People move on
Transformation programmes can take many years, so it is only natural that some of the people involved at the outset move on to new challenges. With them, the original ‘memory’ of the programme can fade, momentum and drive can dissipate or move in a different direction, perspectives can shift as can the motivations of a management team as it changes.
Accountability and responsibility can start to drift, so it is important that new leaders start by recommunicating their roles to the remaining team in case there is a change of direction, emphasis, or leadership style.
Fatigue
The programme initiation phase involves the creative processes of ideation, visioning, strategic thinking, and design. Most people thrive in that environment, as long as it doesn’t go on too long. Implementation, on the other hand, requires a certain kind of completer-finisher with the mentality to lead everyone else along, maintain momentum, and reenergise the team when reserves are low. Oftentimes it is hard graft with constant pressure on timescales, competing priorities creating chaos, and issues surfacing frequently.
Transformation leaders soon find that it tires people out in a way that business-as-usual activities don’t, especially for those who are not used to it or who have to juggle both programme and BAU responsibilities. Implementations which last several years need space in the timetable to allow people to take some downtime.
Change
Transformation programmes do not benefit from dogmatism, yet our expert group noted that those who implement change for others are amongst the most resistant to change when it affects their programmes. Whether it be the need to adapt scope, do more with less, change timescales, reset expectations or deal with the consequences of other business priorities, it is important that transformation leadership teams remain pragmatic in the face of changing circumstances. Should they be perceived as inflexible, it is likely to compromise their ability to justify why those populations affected by the transformation must themselves change.
Inadequate risk management
The only topic mentioned by every one of our transformation experts was the ability of organisations to manage implementation risk. Whilst the sense is that transformation teams are generally good at identifying risks, they are patchy when it comes to engineering those risks systematically out of the implementation, whether that be by mitigation or defined, planned items to resolve them. Amongst common themes were:
Allowing risks to drift for so long that they become issues
Not treating risks seriously enough, early enough such that they grow and create wider problems
Failing to assign clear ownership for risks to ensure they are resolved
Not treating programme assumptions and dependencies as a form of risk
Not monitoring third-party contractual risks until renegotiation is required, often leading to legal surprises, delays and overspends
Lack of third-party support
As programmes respond to challenges, they need to be sure that suppliers and other third parties are aligned with and supportive of goals, objectives, and timescales. Not only might they have to respond to change, or flex to respond to risks and issues, but they need to understand the impact of their activities on each other, as well as their client.
Constant communication is one aspect of keeping third parties aligned, contracts which reflect the need for flexibility are another. Suppliers suffer from their own, internal pressures so it is important to make sure you understand their priorities, constraints and issues, in order to help them help you deliver successfully.
Communication, communication, communication
Keeping people constantly on the same page throughout a complex transformation programme is a challenge. It’s hard enough to bring together people from diverse cultures and backgrounds, with different skills and experience, to create a team that all understand the weird ‘transformation’ world that those of us who do this for a living operate in, without them having to deal with changes, external factors, customers, suppliers and so on.
Effective, two-way communication across the programme is essential. During initiation, the team will “form, norm and storm”. During implementation it must perform, and communication should be viewed as the oil which keeps the delivery engine lubricated. Many programmes operate across geographical boundaries and time zones, rarely, if ever, meeting face to face. In this situation it is important that communication is frequent, unambiguous and is given the necessary time in order to allow effective working relationships to form.
Managing an Implementation Plan
Let’s imagine for a moment that we are all Jemima. Jemima wasn’t involved during the transformation initiation phase, but she has been brought in to lead the delivery of the programme and wants to understand what she is taking on.
The first thing Jemima does is to check that the criteria for a successful implementation are in place. To satisfy herself, she examines the criteria used to measure the completeness of the initiation phase and finds a completed checklist, all the items on it being recorded as ‘green’. This rating was arrived at via a formal stage gate meeting which reviewed the outcomes of the initiation phase. She then goes in search of the entry criteria for the next, implementation, phase but draws a blank – programme governance has measured stage completeness but failed to gauge its readiness to continue.
Immediately, Jemima uncovers several problems:
1. Not all the resources required to execute the implementation plan are in place and dates for their provision have not yet been agreed with third parties
The programme leadership team is basking in the success of the initiation phase, having ticked all the boxes, but have failed to prepare adequately for delivery, thereby missing the point. Jemima faces a situation of impending delays while resources are identified and mobilised.
2. As an experienced transformer, Jemima knows that her very presence could be destabilising
She anticipates the question, why do we need a new person to lead the team? Jemima holds a series of stakeholder, programme and project meetings, culminating in a delivery phase kick-off event to introduce herself, engage and listen to the team, and to explain her vision for the implementation phase. By engaging widely, she gathers both a sense of the historical tone of programme leadership and valuable input from the team which helps her explain the need for her role and how it will take pressure off the rest of the team throughout the transformation.
3. The team are daunted by the multi-year duration of the road map
Many team members have never worked on a transformation programme before; several have been seconded from business functions for the duration and are expected to represent those functions within the programme. A plan that seems to go on for years with no breaks tells them they are in for a hard time.
Jemima knows that this can quickly turn into programme fatigue, so she advocates a few simple principles:
Basics like genuinely thanking people for good work should be compulsory
Staff incentives are directly connected to successful transformation outcomes
Everyone in the programme team will be required to take their full holiday complement each year
Deployment activities in different countries will be staggered, and run by two teams, in parallel, with a minimum 2-week break after the completion of each country, allowing teams recovery time.
4. The programme risk register is colourful but isn’t linked to the programme plan
Jemima quickly undertakes a risk workshop with the core programme team, during which they derive actions which will actively manage and mitigate each risk. Every risk is given a clear, individual owner who is responsible for its successful resolution. Each resulting action is baked into the relevant detailed project plans and assessed by the Project Managers for any impact on resources, timescales and costs. Finally, when each Project Manager understands the impact on their project, the team comes together to agree any impacts at the programme level and puts management plans in place.
5. Third-party contracts and commitments are not aligned to implementation needs
Some third-party contracts contain deliverables aligned to the plan however, they have not yet mobilised the resources in place to complete those deliverables. Jemima needs them to mobilise quickly so they can hit the ground running to ensure that the programme stays on track.
More worryingly, Jemima discovers that a key services contract was written before the completion of the initiation process, and no longer reflects the current plan. Normally, she would have expected the finalisation of the transformation plan to dovetail with the completion of contracts, to be sure that they mirror each other. As a result of this not being done, the Initiation Phase exit criteria show the completion of contracts, but the assessment of readiness to enter the Implementation Phase did not take place – therefore the gap between the plan and the contract was not highlighted.
6. Communications strategy doesn’t align to change management needs
As part of a review of the transformation programme’s change management strategy, Jemima asks the team to explain the principles uses to underpin cross-team communications through the implementation phase.
One key principle is stated as “it is everyone’s responsibility to communicate effectively, to make sure messages are clear and concise, and that all stakeholders are effectively engaged.” When Jemima asks how this principle is to be implemented the team say that they are all responsible for effective communications and must work together. Whilst this enthusiasm is positive, the nature of communications at key points must be handled sensitively, with significant preparation. It is clear to her that the team has not understood the level of effort required to execute the communications plan, treating it merely as an afterthought.
Jemima appoints a dedicated owner for the communications plan to ensure that specific stakeholder communications are adequately prepared for, aligned to key activities in the programme plan, appropriated signed off and take place on time.
Conclusion
Even well-initiated transformation programmes experience challenges throughout their lifetime. Whilst many have the seeds of their own destruction sown near the start, others start well but fail to adequately prepare for implementation. A key check is to examine the stage gate at the end of programme initiation from two viewpoints:
a) Have we completed initiation in the way we intended?
b) Are we ready to enter the implementation phase with a high degree of confidence?
Amongst the most common characteristics of successful transformations is that, at every stage gate, they will interrogate the results from both standpoints. Only when they have assessed both, will they allow the gate to pass, the current phase to formally close, and the subsequent phase to commence. This does not mean to say that perfection is the only condition under which you can continue, rather that you continue but with a clear action plan to address any gaps identified and realise any opportunities for further improvement.
Comments