The reasons for failures in change management are many and varied. But one thing is painfully clear. Any organizational initiative that creates change, or has a significant element of change, has a 70% chance of not achieving what was originally envisioned.
There are 3 main reasons for failure:
1. The gap between the strategic vision and successful program implementation and the lack of a practical change management model and tools to close that gap.
2. The “hidden and built resistance to change” of organizational cultures and the lack of change management processes and methodologies to address this.
3. Not fully taking into account the impact of changes on the people most affected by them, that is, the absence of good strategies to manage the change.
May occur at the project level [at the execution “getting it all together” level] so that the initiative does not take off or is not completed.
This is where most people focus – on the “getting things done” bit.
But the bigger and more critical issue here is that even when projects – new capabilities – are completed on time and on budget, a program-level failure can still occur, and from a statistical perspective it probably will!
A level program [more accurately a “no programme” level!] failure occurs when expected benefits [the whole raison d’etre] of the initiative are not achieved.
The root cause of failure
The root cause of this failure is a lack of clarity and a lack of communication, and even more fundamentally, the lack of a language and a contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary change processes.
This is what a Program Management approach to change is all about and why it is so important.
As with most specialized areas of knowledge, within this discipline there is a universal or generic set of “truths” that transcend the limits of formalized program management models and tools, it applies to all organizations that experience a radical change and can be expressed more simply. idiom.
Just as an aside, I think that while there absolutely must be experts and centers of technical excellence, the very processes by which they work separate them and the knowledge of a much broader audience that could benefit more from that knowledge.
Time for some definitions:
Management program
- It’s the holistic perspective: it covers the big picture.
- It is the coordinated management of a Portfolio of Projects that change organizations to achieve benefits of strategic importance.
- It is the understanding and management of Benefits, Risks and Problems and the provision of an Organizational Structure and Definition of Processes.
- It does not replace project management – it is a complementary framework
Differences between programs and projects
- A program is about delivering overall business benefits in line with the strategic vision and over a longer period of time than a project.
- While a Project has a defined starting and ending point, with the objective of delivering a result that can be a specific product, service or result.
- Program management focuses on managing all key stakeholder relationships and delivering defined business benefits and, in addition to managing the project portfolio, will also include managing any other activities that are necessary to ensure a complete delivery.
- Considering that project management has narrower terms of reference with a clear, specific and (in relation to the general program) limited scope of its deliverables.
And yet, despite the fact that program management as a discipline has been around for more than 10 years, failures continue to mount.
Men always dislike companies where the drawbacks are obvious … ” [Machiavelli “The Prince”]
My entire approach to managing change and dealing with “downsides” such as fear of change and resistance to change is based on this model of a programmatic approach.
My preference for this is that it forces top management (and their advisers) to take a holistic and structured look at the broader factors that need to be addressed, and which are often “mission critical.”
80% of companies [or rather 80% of directors] – I have no idea about program management
In my experience, the size of a company is not an indicator of whether or not it employs a program management approach. I’ve sat on the other side of the table in meetings with directors of UK-based companies with turnover of over £ 1 billion (familiar names in some cases) who had no idea about program management.
I would go further and say that the vast majority of companies know little or nothing about program management.
A useful indicator is the number of online searches in Google AdWords for project management and program (or program) management.
As of March 2009, there were 450,000 project management searches and 39,200 program (or program) management searches.
One of the reasons that program management has yet to penetrate the “mainstream” of business is because, in my opinion, it appears to be complex and to address dimensions that do not resonate with or connect with mid-range companies and SMEs. bigger.
This is partly because companies are more complex, but also because the talented and experienced professionals who compile these things think that way!
However, I believe and have experience that the general principles of program management can be stated in a simple model and using simple language that can be applied in any organization of any size.
