Defining Agile Change Management


UPDATE – Please be sure to check out the Change Management Manifesto as well.

How much process is too much process? How can you implement enough process so that you get the benefits (e.g. efficiency, repeatability, scale, etc.) but not too much so as to slow down your agility? The Change Management discipline / industry would be wise to reflect on the concept of “agile” from the software development industry to address these questions.

If you are a change leader, I encourage you to learn more about “agile” concepts in software development. You can easily search on the term “agile” and get a plethora of sites with information. In summary, the agile approach embraces

  • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
  • Working software over comprehensive documentation
  • Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
  • Responding to change over following a plan

Don’t take my word for it. These bullets originated in “The Agile Manifesto” at http://agilemanifesto.org/

Personally, I find agile principles serve as a helpful guideline when trying to balance the need for process. However, many people incorrectly define agile as “without process”. This is not true, and in some ways, agile techniques require more personal discipline than a classic SDLC approach (e.g. waterfall). Agile processes exist, but they live within the context of the four bullets listed above.

Processes are definitely needed, in particular for companies that have reached a certain scale. I have come to experience that “with complexity comes a need for increased discipline.” Processes are proven and worthy tools to deal with complexity in scale, speed to delivery, geographic distance, business risk (e.g. SOX), language barriers, technical barriers, human resource management (e.g. hiring & firing), financial planning (e.g. establishing and managing budgets), software development, etc.

So, in our current environment of a shrinking economy, is complexity going up or down? I say, up. Companies are forced to deal with challenges that they previously may have avoided due to success. Said another way, “success covers up many ills”. To deal with these new complexities, companies may look to leverage processes for increased productivity, efficiency, and most importantly transparency into their business. It is my assertion that, with process comes the law of diminishing returns. There comes a point where process gets in the way, and inhibits a business if process is not actively managed. How do most large entities (companies, governments, institutions) deal with the complexities listed above? They implement processes to manage risk and maintain a level of homogeneous execution across a diverse operations model. This will work, and many companies are proving their success with large scale process deployments today (e.g. look to the Business Process Outsourcing models of any big consulting firm and the existence of ERP software).

The challenge I want to address here is the need to balance process with innovation, delivery, and growth as a change leader. I am not sure there is an answer to “how much process is enough process?” but I am certain that the agile manifesto and the principles it aspires to are helpful to begin addressing the question.

Advertisements

How important is alignment in executing your business strategy?


“Execution represents a disciplined process or a logical set of connected activities that enables an organization to take a strategy and make it work.” – Lawrence Hrebniak

It is hard to argue that alignment is not critical or is irrelevant with executing a business strategy. Without alignment all you have is “ivory tower” thinking that may be documented and even communicated but not embraced or adopted in execution / operations. This leaves an organization rudderless, with a vision of the destination and no means to get there. How to achieve alignment and how aligned a strategy is aligned with operations can be difficult to measure. Achieving a high degree of alignment is part science and part art.

The science part involved commonly well understood patterns of alignment including topics like a well-defined business strategy, IT governance, CobIT, ValIT, business cases, ROI, NPV, etc. Delivering on these types of capabilities is more of an execution challenge. The models exist and are shared and commonly available amongst a wide range of organizations in your industry. The competitive differentiator for the science of business alignment is in the execution. It’s all about metrics, KPIs, and measurements.

The art portion of alignment addresses multiple items including but not limited to:

  1. Tailoring specific frameworks like CobIT to the particular organization,
  2. Determining which metrics/KPIs are most appropriate to measure the degree of implementation of the business strategy,
  3. Determining which organizational capabilities are most important to implement in phase 1, 2, etc.,
  4. Recognizing which elements of the strategy are most critical to competitive differentiation,
  5. Sequencing the strategy into a series of phases that incrementally build customer value, and
  6. Addressing the human-centric impacts of a business strategy to ensure that cultural barriers are minimized.

Depending on the degree of change represented in the business strategy, there may be more or less emphasis on the art vs the science. The more significant the change, the more critical the art of alignment. Minor “course corrections” in business strategy can be facilitated via the science of alignment, presuming the execution elements are already in place.