Change Management: 3 Key Reasons for the Catastrophic 70% Failure Rate

The reasons for failure in change management are many and varied. But one thing is painfully clear. Any organizational initiative that creates change, or has a significant change element, 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 bridge that gap.

2. The “hidden and built-in 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 those who are most affected by them, ie the absence of good strategies to manage change.

It can 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 “do it” bit.

But the biggest and most critical issue here is that even when projects, new capabilities, are completed on time and on budget, a failure at the program level can still occur, and from a statistical perspective it probably will!

a program level [more accurately a “no programme” level!] failure occurs when the anticipated benefits [the whole raison d’etre] of the initiative are not achieved.

The root cause of failure

The fundamental cause of this failure is the lack of clarity and the 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, there exists within this discipline a universal or generic set of “truths” that transcend the boundaries of formalized program management models and tools, apply to all organizations experiencing drastic changes and can be expressed more simply. idiom.

Also, I think that while there is an absolute necessity that there be experts and centers of technical excellence, the very processes by which they function separate them and knowledge from a much broader audience that could benefit more from that knowledge.

Time for some definitions:

management program

  • It is the holistic perspective: take the big picture.
  • It is the coordinated management of a Portfolio of Projects that transform organizations to achieve benefits that are of strategic importance.
  • It is the understanding and management of Benefits, Risks and Problems and the provision of an Organizational Structure and Process Definition.
  • It does not replace project management, it is a complementary framework

Differences between programs and projects

  • A program is about delivering the overall business benefits in line with the strategic vision and over a longer period of time than a project.
  • Considering that a Project has a defined start and end point, with the objective of delivering a result that can be a specific product, service or result.
  • Program management focuses on managing all relationships with key stakeholders and the delivery of defined business benefits and, in addition to managing the project portfolio, will also include managing any other activities that are necessary to ensure successful delivery. complete.
  • Whereas project management has narrower terms of reference with a clear, specific and (relative to the overall program) limited scope of its deliverables.

And yet, despite the fact that program management as a discipline has been around for over 10 years, the failures continue to mount.

Men always dislike companies where the drawbacks are obvious…” [Machiavelli “The Prince”]

My entire approach to change management and dealing with “problems” such as fear of change and resistance to change is based on this programmatic approach model.

My preference for this is that it forces senior management (and their advisers) to take a holistic and structured view of 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 have sat across the table in meetings with directors of UK companies with a turnover of over £1bn (household 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 Google AdWords searches for project management and program (or program) management.

For the month 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 hasn’t yet penetrated the business “mainstream” is that, in my opinion, it seems to be complex and address dimensions that don’t resonate or connect with the larger mid-size companies and SMBs. .

This is partly because companies are more complex, but also because the talented and experienced professionals who compile this stuff think that way.

However, it is my belief and 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.

Website design By BotEap.com

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *