Introduction
Why do projects, despite disciplined project management efforts, fall short? One predictable answer is scope-related. Many project management efforts are narrowly scoped, in that they are technically oriented and project-centric. The focus is on the traditional phases of project management: initiation (e.g., creating a charter), planning (e.g., assessing risk), design and development (e.g., writing software, etc.), executing (e.g., tracking progress), and closing out (e.g., lessons learned). These phases (and the examples) are, of course, essential. But they are often developed in isolation. Isolated technical planning does not incorporate the actual climate for implementation, its history, or the politics and emotion of change. Consequently, what receives far less attention is the human side of change—that is, resistance, cultural fit, leadership alignment, motivation, communication, and the impact of the overall organizational climate.
It is our contention that both the technical side and human side of implementation must be managed jointly and concurrently to achieve real project success (i.e., on time, on budget, meeting stated objectives). Only when these two variables are purposefully blended is the probability of success the highest (see Exhibit 1). We have only to look to the sub-optimized results of numerous projects and programs that have been managed from purely a business process and technical perspective to see the chaotic results of not addressing human adoption early on.
Exhibit 1 – Project Management and Implementation Management
Why Projects Fail—Technical Bias
A technically biased approach has a number of underlying assumptions.
- Projects can be managed in isolation—“We have no internal competition for finite organizational resources, sponsors’ time/attention, or the hearts/minds of our stakeholder.”
- Projects are implemented in a linear world—“There are never unintended consequences, everything always goes as planned in our company.”
- Logic rules—“Our employees always act rationally; once a directive is issued it cascades unimpeded through the chain of command.”
Your reaction to these statements is likely to be, “I don’t hold those assumptions.” However, if you are not purposefully incorporating strategies and tactics to (a) manage resistance at all levels of the organization, (b) to assure cultural fit, and (c) to align employee behavior with changes to new business/work processes—then you hold them by default.
In a world where resource scarcity is an ongoing reality, we cannot afford to create separate technical project plans and human-side project plans that we loosely bolt together as an afterthought or struggle to deploy in parallel (see Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2 – Integration Options
In fact, we contend that the technical and human project plans must be fully integrated so that the complete plan can be managed as one. The elements of the human side must be considered as hard deliverables, no different from the technical elements of the project plans. Only when the human elements are applied with the same level of business rigor and discipline as the technical and process elements are we likely to achieve return on investment.
Blended Project Plans
It is self-evident that blended project plans are both a market imperative and a real source of competitive advantage. Moreover, the blended approach provides the greatest probability that project ROI targets will be realized.
The structure of technical project management is widely accepted, fully understood, well documented, and widely practiced. What is not as mature is the understanding or the consistent application, by many project management professionals, of the key principles of how people and organizations actually change. This less understood change structure, the human side, is the culprit that takes our projects prisoner and hastens them toward sub-optimization.
Why Installation Isn’t Enough
It’s no secret that most new technology falls short of delivering all the anticipated benefits that were used to justify the investment. In fact, our field research at Implementation Management Associates (IMA) over the last 30 years indicates that 70% of major system installations fail to achieve the promised benefits. Plus, they miss the mark in coming in on time and on budget. Technology integrity is not the issue in over 85% of those failures.
The problem can be traced to the failure to integrate the human element with the technology so that users both accept and build commitment to the optimal use of the new system.
Too often, organizations measure success based on “installation”—meaning that the system functions and is up and running. Based on what we know about system use, the real definition of success should be return on investment— meaning that system optimization is achieved.
It’s ironic that organizations understand the need to invest in hardware, software, and even process definition, but fail to adequately invest in the “people side” of the initiative. Yet the failure is virtually always on the people side of the equation.
Exhibit 3 – Project and Human Development Cycle
Optimization comes from placing a strong emphasis on applying a structured methodology to improve implementation success across all industries. In our own continuous learning and application as we work in a variety of client systems, awareness of themes and patterns across industries becomes a rich source of learning and improvement.
One such pattern we have detected in the past couple of years relates to a specific barrier to implementation success.
Very simply, we have identified a basic confusion in many, if not most, of our client systems between installation and implementation. This confusion leads to a reduced or hampered ROI for many projects. We believe this is due to the confusion that exists in the definitions of installation versus implementation. When we analyze project successes and failures, we see that the two are very different. A fundamental shift in the orientation is required to avoid this pitfall.
As you can see from Exhibit 3, a typical system development cycle ends with “GO LIVE” or “CUTOVER”. We call this the installation phase of a given effort. While it is a critically important phase of any project, it alone will not provide the full ROI.
In spite of this conclusion, many organizations are assuming completion at the “cutover” point—installation. Notice that the change curve dynamics in Exhibit 3 are similar—the first curve in the installation phase usually affects only a small group of people, the project or program team. The second curve characterizes the impact to the larger organization, and if not managed carefully, will inhibit true, full return on project investment—implementation.
Familiar examples of installation without implementation include perfectly working technology with no one using it, or a restructuring effort where planners think implementation is concluded when they announce the new structure. We are not saying that installation is not important. It is critical. It just isn’t enough for full ROI. Take a Lean/Six Sigma initiative for example. Qualifying people as black belts is not the end. Only 10-20% of success (ROI) is in the “tools.” Success comes with how you also manage the significant human components.
The Solution
The solution to this dilemma lies in three basic actions:
- Framing or re-framing our definition of implementation and realizing it is not the same as installation. In so doing, we prepare ourselves and the organization for a different set and sequence of activities to get to the financial return quickly.
- We must avoid disassembling the project/program infrastructure prematurely.
- We must more clearly define the human objectives of any project and rigorously plan the implementation deliverables into our project planning approach to ensure full implementation and ROI.
System Development and Human Development Cycles
Exhibit 4 demonstrates how a structured process encompasses both the System Development Cycle and the Human Development Cycle and drives specific activity from installation to implementation.
Organizations that focus on true “implementation” rather than being content with installation will greatly enhance the likelihood of achieving project ROI. By following a structured, comprehensive process, organizations will:
- Accelerate implementation speed
- Avoid the business disruption that often follows installation and is left unmanaged
- Achieve all business, technical, and human objectives set for the initiative
Imagine the potential gain for Time Warner and AOL had they focused on full implementation rather than just the transfer of assets.
Exhibit 4 – System and Human Development Cycles
Maximize ROI: Build Readiness
Maximum return on investment in technology is gained by understanding the process of creating readiness, and investing in building it well before the end of the design phase. You can’t begin to create readiness after you “go live” on the system. The typical sequence in most organizations is to attempt to deal with resistance after the go live launch (see Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 5 – How to Build Readiness
Structured Methodology
To proactively build readiness, we recommend that organizations apply a structured, comprehensive methodology that considers six critical factors that serve to determine readiness. These are Willingness, Ability, Information, Control, Confidence, and Adaptation.
Two Key Activities to Build Readiness
Although it is best to use a methodology that addresses the complete human development cycle for integrated implementation, there are two key activities that are critical to full implementation and are therefore necessary for organizations to address.
Manage Resistance
To create readiness, organizations must plan for and manage resistance as part of the implementation plan. User resistance to the new system is inevitable and unavoidable. It’s not a function of whether users like or even understand the technology. Rather, it’s a reaction to the disruption they confront in having to do things differently— the change of current methods, processes, and behaviors. What’s more, traditional organizational responses such as communication and training will only have a limited impact on the strength and durability of this resistance.
Unmanaged resistance increases cost, reduces speed, and delays or prevents return on investment. If you ignore the inevitable resistance, you will pay in the long term for system sub-optimization. We don’t have a choice about the presence of resistance. Our choice is whether the resistance is underground or out in the open. Pay now, or pay later. It’s your choice.
It’s ironic that organizations understand the need to invest in hardware, software, and even process definition, but fail to adequately invest in the “people side” of the initiative.
Exhibit 6 – Effective and Ineffective Behaviors in Managing Resistance
Sponsorship
Sponsorship is a very active condition that requires business leaders to express their commitment to the new system by demonstrating the importance of the project through their own behavior change, and by applying appropriate rewards and penalties for system optimization, not installation.
Organizations are best served by applying a disciplined, structured approach for creating readiness that goes well beyond what is traditionally called “change management.” Organizations can either invest resources to create readiness or be forced to expend them to manage resistance.
While the term “sponsor” is widely applied across organizations, it’s not often that the roles and responsibilities of sponsors are consistently understood. This can be an enormous barrier to organizational change, because effective sponsors are the single most influential factor in achieving the return on investment for an initiative. Sponsorship is not a passive activity; sponsors must be active, doing the right things to influence the behavior of targets.
There are three ways that sponsors can impact the behavior of others: through what they say (express), what they do (model), and what they reinforce. These are not all equal in importance. Our research shows that what sponsors model has twice the impact of what they say, and what they reinforce has three times the impact.
In many organizations, the project team focuses solely on a communication plan, yet this has much less influence on the ultimate outcome of the initiative than what sponsors are modeling and reinforcing on a daily basis. The most effective leaders of change have discovered that real change is accelerated when what they say, do, and reinforce are consistently aligned.
The first step, of course, is to identify who your sponsors are. This is not a simple exercise in most organizations, especially in matrix organizations. There are actually two types of sponsors. The Authorizing Sponsor possesses sufficient organization power and/or influence to initiate resource commitment. In other words, the Authorizing Sponsor pays the bills.
The Authorizing Sponsor must do more than sign the check. This individual must also model and reinforce the change. When the Authorizing Sponsor provides nothing more than lip service, and is unable or unwilling to demonstrate true commitment, the initiative is in danger of failing.
But even an effective Authorizing Sponsor is insufficient. The project team must also identify Reinforcing Sponsors, who are responsible for communicating and reinforcing the change by management level down the organization. For this reason, we recommend that project teams employ a systematic tool for identifying all sponsors through a process known as key role mapping.
Armed with the knowledge of how sponsors influence the outcomes of an initiative, it’s critical for us to identify all the Reinforcing Sponsors early on. Sponsors, whether Reinforcing or Authorizing, have six specific tasks that cannot be delegated. These include:
- Establishing and communicating the business case for action
- Participating in goal setting
- Concentrating their energies on their direct reports by starting or continuing cascading sponsorship
- Allocating resources
- Aligning and applying reward and recognition systems for their direct reports
- Monitoring progress constantly
Sponsors can’t delegate these tasks to change agents, simply because agents don’t have the organizational power to provide reinforcement.
Securing the right sponsors, and providing the tools and support they need to be successful, is the single most important activity of a project team.
Conclusion
Decreasing the risk of implementation failure is essential. Larry Bossidy, former Chairman and CEO of Honeywell International, observed “that organizations don’t execute unless the right people, individually and collectively, focus on the right details at the right time” (Bossidy & Charim, 2002, p. 33). He’s alluding to the undeniable fact that technical project management and human-side project management consistently intersect over the life of a project. The question is, are you prepared to manage the intersections? Bottom-line: if you control the points of contact you achieve synergy, but, if you don’t, you don’t maximize your return on investment.