IT Retrospectives

Creating an Agile Culture to Drive Organizational Change

In my last article (Agile Transition "Initiatives" - Just say no!), I talked about how Agile Transition Initiatives can fail because prescriptive processes are pushed on an organization through a program delivered as part of some named initiative and led by a process improvement group, Agile coaching group or external consulting firm. The work force appears to acquiesce with the initiative but in fact passively resists it because they believe t

Image by Diaper dad via Flickr

hat their unique situation isn't a fit for a standard process and the change is being forced on them sometimes without consultation or consensus.

via www.borland.com

An interesting article, by David Anderson, about making the "Agile Transition". At my workplace we're in the early stages of making this same transition.  As an executive sponsor, it's something that I've generally approached in systematic way as a formal initiative. David's article suggests an alternative approach focused on the organizational culture.  It's worth a read.  For me, the verdict is still out on the best approach. I'm inclined to marry both the encouragement of cultural changes along with a a bit of a prescriptive approach.

Going from “No data” to “Knowledge & Understanding”

I recently did a presentation at a user conference covering the broad topic of Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (PPM).  Much of what I had to say would read like “Mom and apple pie” to anyone who has attempted to institutionalize a PPM process within their organization. However, there was one particular slide that I titled Going from “No data” to “Knowledge & Understanding” that seemed to turn on a few light bulbs for folks  so I thought I’d share that here.

One of the key success factors of deploying an enterprise PPM process revolves around collecting data, turning that data into knowledge and ultimately making decisions based on that knowledge. The challenge is that for many organizations this process has a tendency to illuminate some rather unpleasant facts about inefficiencies or other wasteful practices. If you’re a change agent in your organization, this will immediately translate to “strong resistance” in your mind.  It’s a natural reaction for most managers to initial question the legitimacy of the data when it doesn’t fit their perception of reality.  Fortunately the process of collecting and understanding the data tends to follow a predictable path. 

I’m going to loosely describe this path in the context of building up a project portfolio but it can really be applied to just about any organizational change that involves collecting and analyzing data for decision making purposes.

Phase 1 – Data collection

Your data will likely be incomplete.  There will be a lack of ownership – many executives will distance themselves from the data if it doesn’t support their perceptions.  The validity of the data will be challenged.

At this stage, you need to continue to collect data, constantly improving the accuracy, and continue to put it in front of the eyes of your executives.  If they point out that something looks inaccurate, go back and fix the source and show it to them again.  Eventually people will run out of ways to poke any significant holes in the data and then you’re ready to move to the next phase.

Phase 2 – Information

At this point, managers are starting to accept the validity of the data and it’s taking on some real meaning.  Getting to this point is likely to be one of the most challenging periods of time if you’re the change agent. It’s at this point where you begin to really shine a light on some of the dark recesses of your organization.  You’re going to find projects in your portfolio that don’t make any sense; expenditures of resources that aren’t aligned with the corporate strategy; expose differences between well ran departments and poorly ran departments; etc.  It will be shocking for some managers and a pleasant surprise for others.  The good news is that it invariable creates an immediate thirst for more information. 

Phase 3 – Knowledge & Understanding

If you’ve made it this far, you’re doing well and the rest of the ride is pretty much downhill.  At this point, most managers are accepting of the data and information being presented to them and are starting to ask “How and why?” It’s at this point where high-value decision start to be made.  You’ll see fact-based prioritization decisions made; better alignment of projects with corporate strategy; changes in resource allocation; and changes in the behaviors of the organization.

Phase 4 – Growth & Expansion

Ok, so really if you’ve gotten to phase 3 (see above) you can legitimately claim success.  Phase 4 is really a natural fallout of that success -- provided you are able to maintain what you’ve worked so hard to achieve.  It’s pretty common for organizations, at this point, to look for ways to take your success and attempt to apply it to other parts of the organization.  For example, if you implemented a PPM process within your Technology department you may find yourself asked to do the same thing for the rest of the company.  Great! More work for you!

 

Organizational Change: Grass Root Initiatives

This is the third of five articles on organizational change that I'm planning -- well, maybe there will be a sixth article but I'm not sure anyone can stomach that much blathering on one topic. For reference here are links to the two prior articles

Organizational Change: Understanding the Beast!
Organizational Change: Covert Operations

“Grass Root Initiatives” are generally productive and if you’re an organization where these are prominent you’re probably in a pretty good place. To be successful, grass root initiatives must be sponsored by someone in the organizational with the resources and political clout to help the process improvement team reach their goals. Typically the sponsor will be a senior level manager or executive.

Grass root efforts generally enjoy the support of a fairly broad group of employee and are much more likely to be successfully adopted than purely top-down driven initiatives. It's something to be encouraged but does require a bit of oversight to ensure they don't run amuck -- or worse, get blown up by some moronic executive who doesn't understand what the team is attempting to achieve. There are also a few negatives that you will want to try and minimize:

• Similar to Covert Operations, grass roots type initiatives may not always be in clear alignment with the broader organizational goals. Want to get blown up? Being grossly out of alignment with the wishes of the senior executives, and it's just a matter of time until someone lobs a grenade.

• Progress is often slow and enterprise-wide adoption can be very challenging. Because there is very little stimulus for the entire organization to change, improvements are often isolated to specific departments or functional areas.

If you’re the executive sponsor of a grass root initiative, it is critical that you examine the organizational goals and ensure they are properly aligned with any changes the team is pursuing. Fail to do so and you’re likely to run into stiff resistance and some tough questions from senior level executives at some point – forcing you to go covert or abandoning your efforts. With a little storytelling and some good salesmanship, most types of organizational changes can be aligned with company goals. After all, most sane company encourages anything that will improve efficiency and profitability if properly explained.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Organizational Performance and Best Practice Analy (slideshare.net)

Organizational Change: Covert Operations

If you’ve been following this series of blog entries, you already know that I’m skimming the surface of what is a very broad topic. The initial blog can be found here - it’s a quick read and will give you a basic understanding of I’m about to discuss in more detail.

“Covert Operations” is merely one of the modes that Change Agents may find themselves operating under when it comes to organizational change. This is an environment in which there is no significa

Image via Wikipedia

nt pressure or stimulus being put on the organization and management generally has little interest in changing the status quo. In fact, in this state, you’ll probably find that some individuals are strongly resistant to changing anything. After all, why fix what doesn’t seem broken? It all sounds all well and good, except that it lulls organizations into a false sense of security and certainly doesn’t do anything to prepare folks for when things do get tough. In fact, it’s probably the best time to really take a close look at how things are running with minimal risk. Unfortunately, most organizations never seize this opportunity.

You will find individuals in such an organization that do see a need for change, often lower-level employees and junior managers. Without the direct support of more senior leadership, these individuals either become frustrated or secretly pursue their objectives regardless of senior management support. Often you’ll find a small team of like minded individuals working together who share the same goals.

In general, the risk of allowing the organization to wallow in this environment is low, though there are certainly some drawbacks and missed opportunities.

• Change that occurs “under the radar” of senior leadership may not be in alignment with the overall vision for the organization, reducing efficiency and potential wasting valuable resources.

• Change, even positive change, is extremely slow and any resulting value is likewise diminished.

• Employees pursuing these changes often become extremely frustrated at their inability to make any significant progress. Ironically, it’s often these very individuals who have the most to contribute to the organization in terms of innovation.

• The “under belly” of the organization can become soft and complacent – leaving the company further exposed to competitive threats.

So, what do you do?

The answer somewhat depends on your role in the organization. If you’re one of folks pushing change without much support, you primary objective is going to be to seek out a sponsor – preferable someone in the senior leadership ranks. You’re going to need to do some homework and really sell your idea. At the same time, you’re going to want to collect like minded individuals around you that share your goals. Ultimately, you want to start a Grass Roots effort with executive sponsorship. I won’t like to you – it’s a hard road and a lot of sloshing through the swamp but be persistent.

If you happen to be a senior level manager, then you’ll have a lot more control over the outcome. First of all, you want to seek out and encourage employees to bring forth their ideas. Proactively look for good ideas and put your weight behind them. Openly praise individuals and teams who make positive change -- to both their peers and your superiors. You’ll learn that successful change management involves a lot of marketing and salesmanship. In the final installment of this series on change management, I’ll also talk a bit about how to change the stimulus being applied to the organization – probably one of the most effective ways to move things along.

Organizational Change: Understanding the Beast!

There are plenty of professionals out there making a healthy living assisting companies through difficult organizational changes. The toughest changes typically involve transforming the culture of a company but even smaller changes can be a daunting task. While I’m certainly not advocating that companies avoid seeking outside expertise, having a basic understanding of what drives an organization to change can go a long ways when it comes to helping yourself.

Organizations, especially large ones, behave much in the same way as living organisms. They respond to both internal and external stimulus. There are many different types of stimulus but pain is probably the easiest to understand for the purpose of this analogy. Stimulus can be localized or broadly felt and the resulting behavior will vary accordingly. If you put your hand on something hot, you quickly yank your hand back. If a bus is about to run you over as you try crossing the street your entire body jumps back (or you suffer some terrible consequences). Similarly, areas of an organization will react to localized competitive threats or challenges that threaten their existence. If the entire company is seriously threatened (e.g., due to an economic down turn), you can expect to see sweeping changes ripple through the entire organization. The key point here is that organizations change primarily as a response to stimulus. Management and leaders within the organization can set policy or issue orders, but unless it’s backed up by some form of stimulus, don’t expect change to come quickly.

So, how do we predict how an organization is going to react when it is poked and prodded? And can we use that knowledge to help encourage positive change? Below you’ll see a diagram of a simple framework that I’ve successfully used for many years to help gauge how an organization will typically react based on the strength of the stimulus and the level of engagement by management.

In subsequent blogs, I talk in more detail about each of the quadrants above, including how you can leverage that knowledge to move your organization towards an optimal state. Here’s a brief description of each area:

Covert Operations – This is an environment in which there is no significant pressure or stimulus being put on the organization and management generally has little interest in changing the status quo. You’ll often find individuals or teams of folks quietly working “under the radar” attempting to pursue change.

Natural Section – This is a dangerous place to be for any organization. There is significant pressure being put on the organization’s survival but management has a poor understanding of the challenges. The changes that are made are often a knee jerk reaction by senior leadership. Poor performers who are able to successfully redirect their failures are often retained while strong employees can be terminated for failures outside of their control.

Grass Roots Initiatives – This is generally a positive state for most organizations, where the stimulus for change may be small but management has an interest in supporting improvements that will give them the edge when things do get tough. Often these improvements are driven by the lower-ranking employees with sponsorship by a specific executive manager. Change is often slow but the outcomes are generally positive.

Forced Evolution – This is state of rapid but controlled change, generally driven directly by top-level senior executives. The organization is often under a very significant external threat but leadership has a strong vision for how to move forward. There is no guarantee of success, but the organization is extremely focused and quickly moves as a whole towards a set of common goals.

Stay tuned for a more in-depth discussion in the weeks to come!

Related articles by Zemanta

• 10 DOs and DONTs of organizational change (rossdawsonblog.com)
• Marina Gorbis on organizational change (boingboing.net)

What do you do?

Note: This is another project management article written years ago when I was managing a large software development project. The project team was plagued by individuals who viewed "process" as a destructive force impeding their creativity.

"If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing." – W. Edwards Deming

I have always been a process-oriented person. Give me a flow chart or a checklist and I am happy as a lark. I do not mean to imply that I cannot or will not “think outside of the box” it is just that when I deviate I prefer to have a firm base of reference. I suspect a great many Project Managers share the same sentiments or can at least strongly relate.

I have often joked that Project Managers “inflict process" on team members for the sole purpose of torture or as a depraved source of entertainment. However, the truth is much more benign. As managers or project sponsors, we have a need for projects to be predictable, provide progress visibility, and satisfy schedule, budget, and other resource requirements. A well understood “process” is key to predicting and evaluating the health of a project.

Image via Wikipedia

Does this mean you have to sacrifice creativity under the oppression of a rigid process? Certainly not! The criticism that "process" limits creativity is based on the mistaken idea that there is some inherent contradiction between creativity and satisfying management objectives. While it is certainly possible to implement a process that stifles creativity (many companies can attest to that painful lesson) you can just as easily develop a process that encourages creativity and still satisfy the needs of managing the project.

"Process" really comes into play when you begin to describe how individuals interact with each other throughout the life of a project. Project management methodologies consist of tools, processes, and best practices that project teams use to enable high-impact multidisciplinary work. Methodologies help improve predictability and provide greater visibility of activities throughout the project’s life. Most methodologies are intended to be adaptable to the needs of each project and are generally viewed as guidelines versus a rigid set of rules. However, deviating from a prescribed process for the wrong reason is often worse than simply sticking it out. For example: skipping a design step or inadequately performing software testing often leads to costly rework much later in the project. If you stray from the path make sure, you do so in a well thought out and informed fashion. All this adds up to fewer late nights at the office and more time enjoying friends & family!

Fasten your seat belt!

Note: This is an old opinion piece I wrote many years ago. To some extent, my hard line view on process improvement has evolved into something a bit softer. I'm a big believer in "Agile" software development methodologies that balance delivering "working code" with a repeatable and predictable process.

When I hear people say we should not become overly focused on “process”, they often remind me of my grandmother. She refused to wear a seat belt because of the one-in-a-million chance it would jam and trap her in a burning car Never mind the 99% chance of suffering major head trauma as you are ejected through the front windshield. Similarly, I can always point back to the few instances a good process or approach failed me. I can also point back to the hundreds of times it was an essential element in successfully delivering a project.

More often than not, when a process or approach fails, it is not the result of becoming overly focused on a process; it is the result of using a poor process. But what is a process? Processes are sometimes disguised as approaches or methodologies, but whatever they may be called; a process simply describes a consistent way of doing business. Poor processes are often incomplete, lack en

Image via Wikipedia

ough detail, or simply do not match the reality of performing the work. Good processes provide direction and a proven approach that generally will lead to success. Perhaps more importantly, a good process points you in the right direction when no other path is evident.

Some of you are saying, “Hey, Mark, I’ve survived this long without all this hoopla about process!” Sure you have! I’ve seen many examples of superhuman feats of willpower over the years. Project teams and individuals manage to deliver just before bursting into flames. The truth is that smaller projects can survive purely on the sheer audacity of the team to overcome hurdles. In fact, I love working at companies where I’m surrounded by such passionate people. Unfortunately, as projects grow larger so do the size and number of hurdles. There is only so much our Herculean determination can accomplish. Inconsistencies in our ability to deliver begin to crop-up, quality starts to slip, turnover rate rises, and our competitive edge dulls.

Am I advocating we develop a set of rigid and inflexible processes? No, but I am a staunch believer in developing good processes – and following them! Does that mean we never stray outside the boundaries or look for new creative solutions? Certainly not, just do it in a controlled fashion with full knowledge of the risks involved. When you find a better way, make it part of the process (a.k.a. Process Improvement). Am I suggesting we focus on process versus delivery? No, I’m saying we should focus on delivery through better processes.

I’ve heard people say they have very few documented processes or detailed methodologies because they are too inflexible. Really? I am all for being flexible, but how far am I bending? How do I know when too far is too much? Who will it impact on my team? Before you can answer those questions, you need a point of reference. You need a firm understanding of your process.

You may or may not buy into all this process mumbo-jumbo, but I’ll tell you this: The road ahead is windy and full of potholes. I’d fasten your seat belt if I were you!