CHAPTER 11

Planning large-scale change

As Change Agents we are quite often brought in to manage or deliver a change that has been decided upon by others. Sometimes we are given the freedom to find the solution to a specific business problem and manage the change at our own pace. However, rather too often the Change Agent is presented with a fait accompli, including expectations and desired time frames, which may not always be realistic. The first thing we need to do when presented with our Change Challenge is to establish the facts, not least because they will form the foundation of our Communication Plan, which is outlined in the next chapter. The following seven steps form an invaluable structure to fact-find before planning our change.

Establishing the facts is about understanding what is involved and what the project aims to achieve. We need to know what is in or out of scope, timelines and who is involved. It is essentially about gathering all the information that is currently available about the change and capturing it in one place, ideally in one document. By defining the answers to a simple set of questions, we begin to build the information that we will need to build the Communication Plan and manage the change. Our seven fact-finding questions are outlined below, and you can download a helpful summary of these to help you plan your own change from the online toolkit. Our goal is to be ready to answer these questions clearly and succinctly on a couple of pages of A4.

• What is the change?

• Why do we need the change?

• What does success look like?

• How does this fit with other ongoing programmes and projects?

• What and who is in scope?

• How will the change take place?

• When is it happening?

What is the change?

Can we simply summarize what the change is in one or two sentences? So, we may have been brought in to support with a ‘company restructure’ or a ‘systems refresh’, which are general terms that can be appropriate in many circumstances but tend to raise a lot of questions too. Consider how the change can be explained more specifically – in one sentence, if needed. For instance, ‘We are closing down our Newcastle site and relocating all staff to a new site in Middlesbrough’ or ‘We are moving from paper-based appraisal to an online performance and talent management system’.

We will use the second example to work through the rest of the fact-finding questions.

Why do we need the change?

What is the reason for the change? This is about understanding the evidence or business rationale for moving to an online performance tool and the consequences if change were not to take place. Consider the Change Equation that was discussed earlier in the book; we need to be able to create dissatisfaction with the status quo. Try to gather as many reasons for change as possible that will resonate with all levels of the organization and that are in keeping with the culture of the organization.

Example 1

We need to compete better in the marketplace; therefore, we must transform ourselves into a high-performing business with better alignment against objectives and better visibility of high and low performers.

Example 2

We need to increase retention of staff. Our staff survey told us that one reason people are leaving the business is because our current appraisal doesn’t result in development or career opportunities. A new system would help us to develop and retain talent.

Example 3

Our paper-based HR systems present a compliance risk in terms of data protection and capturing and reporting on key regulatory requirements. An electronic system will help us capture and retain data securely as well as automatically alerting us to certification expiry dates. This will help protect us as a business.

Different reasons for a change will resonate with different audiences. Although we are just fact-finding at this stage, it is important that we can make the link between the change requirements, overall strategy and the individual. We can do this by continuing to ask or think ‘why’; another way of doing this is by saying ‘… which means that’.

‘Why’ explains the rationale for choosing a certain point of action, creating urgency or a ‘burning platform’, e.g., ‘we need to be more competitive in the marketplace’. Why? Because we are losing business to competitors and will lose jobs or go out of business within six months if we don’t change now.

A more positive approach is using ‘which means that’, e.g., ‘we have a high attrition rate, which means that we are losing talent faster than the competition, which means that we are less able to innovate and compete, which means that we could go out of business within six months if we don’t change now’.

What does success look like?

Do we know what the vision of success is? This needs to be specific and tangible with goals and milestones that can be used as measures of success. While we may have big visions of beating the competition or reducing attrition, it can often feel quite vague or general for those directly impacted by the change. Where possible we should attach metrics to these to make sure that they are tangible and use SMART goals, as discussed earlier.

So, we may want to state that the overall goal is to: reduce unforced attrition from 16% to below 10% by XYZ date, or to achieve gold status in our external data protection assessment by ABC date. These overall goals support the vision; however, they are likely to be affected by a number of variables, not just the new system that we are introducing. So, we will also need some specific success measures for our actual project or change and they need to be shorter-term. In Chapter 13 we examine Kotter’s eight-step process for change. A key part of this process is the ability to celebrate the first ‘quick wins’ of the change to encourage people to keep pushing through. What do we think those quick wins could be? It is important to define tangible success measures along the way (again, like SMART objectives) that give us something to aim for, to show we are on track and to keep people focused and motivated.

Let us continue with our earlier example of moving from a paper-based appraisal to an online system. This is very often an annual process, or at best six-monthly, so what indicators would provide evidence that change is happening over the short term? Examples might be: the average number of objectives people have put in the system; the frequency of logging into the system over the first three months; or the average number of one-to-ones recorded per person in that time period. We need to set short-term metrics and goals that we can track because these will provide evidence as to whether the wider behaviours of the organization are changing. We know that telling people once or twice to do something new is highly unlikely to result in change, particularly when it involves behaviour or culture change and it isn’t perceived to be a life-or-death issue. Remember, we indicate what is important by what we measure consistently, so we must put some success measures in on the way to the vision. Clearly, there must also be consequences aligned to these success measures, so the department that has 100% staff with three objectives or more in the system within the first six weeks should be held up as a role model and recognized. On the other hand, the department or manager who clearly hasn’t engaged at all with the new system needs to be taken aside and challenged, ideally with support from senior sponsors.

The interesting thing here is that with this project, the overall vision is most likely to be achieved through culture change – managers carrying out better performance management activities on a regular basis, using the software system as a catalyst. However, we know that focusing purely on culture change doesn’t necessarily work. So, by breaking down the vision into tangible activities that can be reinforced we start to change the culture. Once the new activities are happening, we can then focus on the quality of these activities. As long as we recognize those ‘quick wins’, particularly from those who are also modelling the right culture and values, in time we will look back and recognize a cultural sea change has taken place.

How does this fit with other ongoing programmes and projects?

This is a practical question, which is often overlooked. For example, do you need lots of HR or IT resource to roll out your initiative or is there something else already scheduled that could distract or derail your programme? I have lost count of the number of times that I have seen excited Change Teams invest hundreds of hours researching, scoping and planning a project only for it to be pulled at the last minute because it might clash with another initiative that they were unaware of. It is particularly common in hierarchical cultures where the planning of the project is delegated but the senior stakeholder takes no notice until it comes to signing off the contract. It is only then that they think of the broader ramifications and may pull the plug at the last minute. This is such a waste of resources and demoralizing for those involved so it is worth asking this question as early as possible. Occasionally, it is unavoidable, for example, when the parent company announces a takeover or merger that no one knew about. However, all too often this could have been avoided by ensuring that the project was properly sponsored in the first place and that this sponsorship includes the final decision-maker.

What and who is in scope?

Back to our project, now we need to consider what exactly is involved and who it will affect. This is ‘scoping’ the project to decide on its size and it is important to avoid ‘scope creep’ where the project becomes too large and uncontrollable and outgrows the original timescale and budget.

There is a definite parallel between all these exercises and project management skills, which are well worth developing as Change Agents. Again, to avoid last-minute issues we should gather information from key sponsors to ensure that the scope of the exercise is agreed and well understood. Often, it’s only during the scoping exercise that we start to realize some of the challenges that haven’t been factored into the schedule. This allows us to set a more realistic target or timescale. Even with large-scale change it is wise to break the changes down into small chunks, allowing us to complete and consolidate each activity before starting again.

Continuing with our earlier example, this might mean that we decide to focus on rolling out the core performance management functionality in year one and will embed it within the whole business before moving on to incorporate talent management or 360 feedback. On the other hand, we might choose to roll full functionality out to a particular audience, perhaps as a pilot or a staggered roll-out. Either option has benefits and there are variations in between.

How will the change take place?

There are lots of ways to roll out change. Here are four options to consider.

The ‘Big Bang’ approach

If we are trying to achieve culture change, it can be easier to go for the first option, sometimes known as the ‘Big Bang’ approach. We might set the milestones lower but involve a wider audience. This enables us to support the roll-out with company-wide messages that support the change. In this situation we are more likely to get involvement from senior sponsors and the visibility of the project will be greater. It also means that we can recognize quick wins and enforce consequences at organizational level because we have been very clear about the overall behaviours and expectations.

However, if we are aiming to move a large organization forward in this way, it is important to be realistic about time frames and the complexity of the project. Generally, it is better to start simple and add functionality or complexity over time. Depending on the size of an organization it’s important to be realistic about how long any type of change is going to take. My recommendation would be to allow at least three years to achieve culture change, hence the importance of short-term success indicators along the way. This is also why you may need to refresh your Change Team after year one, for example.

Pilot

A pilot is a small-scale roll-out of a new system or process to assess the suitability before a wider roll-out. Very often a pilot is the preferred route for the risk-averse organization; however, the difficulty is that this type of organization is also likely to have a traditional culture that resists change. In some environments, simply using the term pilot may signal that it is an optional change that can be resisted or pushed back on, setting it up for failure.

If we still feel that a pilot is the best starting point, we just need to recognize that it can also be full of challenges and should be approached with caution. Start by understanding why you want to run the pilot; what is the purpose? How long would it be for and what are the success measures? What is the audience? Can you see that to run a successful pilot you need to ask all the questions that you ask of a full-scale change?

We could say that the pilot is simply there to demonstrate that a system works, is user-friendly and can be configured to meet our needs. The issue with all of these requirements is that there is a significant investment in resources and time to evidence any of the outcomes. Effectively you and the provider will need to invest the same amount of time in setting up the system or project for a small short-term pilot as you would for a full-scale roll-out.

The other thorny issue is deciding who to include in the pilot. In principle, we want it to be a success and a platform from which to launch a full roll-out. So, do we start with the naturally more resistant audience on the premise that if we get them on board, we can get anyone on board? The risk is that they could undermine the whole initiative if they don’t get behind it. Alternatively, we could start with a friendly audience who will be more supportive but perhaps less credible in the eyes of the rest of the organization when we move to a full roll-out. Perhaps a mixture of both? These are all questions that we need to consider.

As mentioned earlier, we are often requested to run a pilot in order to minimize risk. If that is the case, then one of the two following alternatives could be better options.

Proof of concept

This works well with software or professional services like training. If we are involving external parties, then we may have selected a preferred supplier, or we could be working with an internal team. The point is that there is an intent to work in partnership; however, we need certainty that the solution will work well within our environment. There may be a nominal financial investment to indicate commitment if we are working with an external third party, but contractual commitment to a large-scale roll-out has not been made yet. Once we have a proof of concept in the form of a system set-up or training outline, we can then involve a small group of people representative of the overall organization who can engage constructively with the system or service and provide feedback. The purpose is not to say yes or no to the system or solution, it is to provide tweaks and refinements that will improve the fit and support the roll-out. Those involved in the proof-of-concept evaluation may be ideal champions for the future roll-out. It also gives us a great indication of what the external company is like to work with.

Phased roll-out

You could call this a pilot in disguise – just don’t use the word pilot because it can give permission for resistance. By calling it a phased roll-out, we are signalling that this change is here to stay. It is just a matter of timing as to when it will affect everyone. For phase one we should select a representative group of people who are likely to be keen and constructive. I have heard these termed ‘early adopters’ in one organization, which was positively received. There should be kudos attached to being part of this group as they have responsibility and influence by providing feedback on how future phases can be even better. Just this difference in terminology prevents obstacles being thrown up from those who just want to avoid change. Instead, it sets a scene of constructive problem-solving. We want to plan for our change to succeed and pre-empt obstacles, rather than creating room for doubt by using the term pilot.

So, we have decided what’s in scope, who is in scope and whether it is to be a ‘Big Bang’ or staggered roll-out. We then need to set the specific goals and outcomes and consider our timelines.

When is it happening?

Having scoped the project, audience and roll-out plan we can start to consider realistic time frames. Unfortunately, all too often we are brought in to roll out a project where the only thing that has been defined is the vision and the time frame. In an ideal world we would be brought in early enough to scope the project and base the time frames on that information, yet frequently this happens back to front. More time spent planning will almost certainly shorten the implementation timelines as concerns and issues can be spotted in advance, messaging adjusted and diaries managed.

Ideally, we wouldn’t rush the planning stage; however, it can be good to have a sense of urgency around a well scoped and planned project, as people lose momentum when a change is too drawn out. I would suggest that many changes are best being managed in 6 to 12-week blocks. Think of this as going from ‘unfreeze’ through to ‘refreeze’ in that time frame (see Chapter 13) or to at least have achieved several milestones or quick wins before moving onto the second phase of a project. Very often the execution of a project can be naturally broken into phases of this length.

Conclusion

In conclusion, if you know you are likely to be involved in managing a change project, try to get in early enough to ensure that you don’t get landed with unreasonable time frames that drive the project and affect your ability to deliver quality.

Quick recap on planning large-scale change • Consider how to message the change in a way that appeals to different audiences. • Involve sponsors early to ensure visibility of potentially conflicting projects. • Define milestones and deliverables that can measure the project progress and recognize ‘quick wins’. • Be cautious about the term ‘pilot’; can the same outcome be achieved through a different route? • Try to get involved as early in a change as possible to ensure realistic time frames.

Online toolkit The following free change resources can be downloaded via: www.changesuperhero.com • ‘7 Steps to Plan Change’ template