Managing the Human Aspects of IT Initiatives: Installation vs. Realization of a Sustainable Competitive Advantage

Since 1974, Conner Partners™ has been conducting research to better understand the impact the “human element” has on introducing new technology into organizational settings. This document provides an overview of some of our key findings. The results reported here are framed around two perspectives: 1) what we have learned about why change is so challenging, regardless of its nature, and 2) how these common implementation challenges are uniquely played out when introducing IT systems.

Common Implementation Challenges

Creating a Sustainable Competitive Advantage
Companies that achieve long-term success are those that are able to develop and maintain competitive advantage. The challenge, of course, is that today’s sustainable competitive advantage becomes tomorrow’s minimum level of acceptable performance. Unique products, decreased time to market, high quality, and excellent customer service – at various times, each of these has provided competitive advantage, yet competitors were able to quickly replicate each.
In recent years, a new arena for a sustainable competitive advantage has begun to emerge – one based on the ability of organizations to deliver on their promises. There is a wide and growing gap that exists between the rhetoric of today’s leaders and the results achieved from the many initiatives they announce. It’s hard to keep up with the number of innovative business solutions, new technologies and various other strategic endeavors that are postured as vital to organizational success. Yet few of these initiatives ever achieve anything close to what people were led to believe would happen. Let’s explore what’s behind this breach between “intent” and “results.”
Most organizations do a relatively good job of figuring out what must be done to solve their problems or exploit their opportunities. The difficulty is that the vast majority just doesn’t implement these solutions very well. They plan the proper courses of action for the circumstances they face, but the reality of actually fulfilling their ambitions is
a task that often proves beyond their reach.

The problem is this: most organizations unwittingly apply their resources toward installing new solutions rather than realizing the anticipated benefits. Installation occurs when a new solution (merger, reorganization, updated processes, etc.) is introduced to the organization. The sequence of events may include announcing the project, providing new equipment or software, training, or a host of other related activities. Realization, however, is achieved when the organization goes beyond just deploying the change and reaps the full business benefits that were anticipated when the resources were allocated to pursue the initiative.
Realization has become a major differentiator because one of the crucial issues facing businesses today isn’t what strategy or remedy to put in place, but rather how to implement these endeavors in such a way that they have their intended impact. In volatile markets, leaders can’t afford to risk their organization’s future on important strategies and projects that are simply “installed.” Today, success also depends on being able to ensure that the promised benefits are delivered.

Moments of Truth
All too often, executives feel like they have determined the right thing to do, but then something happens after the decision is made . . . the intended outcome just never seems to happen. Regardless of what the initiative involves (opening new markets, realignment of strategy and structure, altering corporate culture, etc.), there are inevitably “moments of truth” that dictate whether or not an organization actually receives the value the decision makers hoped to achieve. Companies come to these crucial crossroads each time they must decide whether to pay the true price of change or face whatever consequences exist for maintaining the status quo. As change initiatives move through these critical decision points, there are four possible outcomes – early termination, meltdown, installation, or realization.
• EARLY TERMINATION — Occasionally, approval is secured for a new initiative, but the project never really gets off the ground. Agreements are reached about what is to be done and budgets are set, but before any official announcements can take place, everything is discontinued. This is sometimes the result of an obvious financial or political crisis. Other times, the reasons behind these abrupt terminations are less clear. Regardless of the cause, when efforts to introduce change are blocked after being approved but before being officially launched, it clearly indicates that the organization was not ready to fulfill its aspirations.
• MELTDOWN — Sometimes a project is announced and engaged, but at some point during implementation, it is discontinued with a complete withdrawal of resources and activity. Meltdowns are visible failures for all to see, and the economic and political price they incur are so costly they are generally avoided if at all possible. Because of the high visibility and vulnerability associated with such defeats, it is easy for decision makers and internal change agents (or external consultants) to informally (sometimes unconsciously) conspire to camouflage a meltdown as a project that was completed even though it never achieved the desired results. This will later be described as “dysfunctional installation.”
• INSTALLATION — When change projects are first introduced into a work setting, they are deployed (i.e., announced, set up, or in some way inaugurated) but have not yet achieved their ultimate intent. Installation is about placement – managing the tangible aspects of inserting a new initiative into the work environment (logistics, plugging in hardware and software, training schedules, work sessions, etc.).
Installation is an essential part of the overall implementation process, but it is a two-edged sword. With it comes the potential for either furthering the primary purpose of the intended change or actually preventing it from ever truly taking form. For this reason, we make a distinction between two forms of installation: beneficial and dysfunctional.
- Beneficial Installation: Installation is a phase all change endeavors go through where attention is focused primarily on physically inserting projects into an organization. Installation is an asset when decision makers: 1) see it as a critically important step in the overall implementation process and 2) realize that much more work is involved to fulfill the true purpose of their investment.
- Dysfunctional Installation: Installation is dysfunctional when it becomes an end state, not a phase in the sequence of necessary action steps. When this happens, people within the organization engage in self-protective behavior that results in the appearance of change without the substance. Employees participate in the farce by saying all the right things, going through the motions of complying, disguising old habits with new rhetoric and/or fabricating the intended outcomes. While all of this is taking place, the real goals of the effort are being diluted or completely bypassed.
• REALIZATION — Realization takes place when the key purpose for an initiative (e.g., confirmed cost savings, measurable increases in customer loyalty, documented productivity gains) is actually achieved. Only when installation has taken place are the necessary elements there to ensure that the installed solution is fully used as intended.

Change Containers
Executives and managers who have attempted to execute major initiatives with substantial change implications commonly report that the result of their efforts and investments were usually far more expensive, time consuming, and less influential than they anticipated. Why is realization such a difficult challenge?
Change is a powerful force that has a major influence on our lives, but we can’t actually touch or directly see it. You can’t hold change in your hand; you can only confirm its presence however, by observing the trail of influence it leaves behind as it passes through people and/or organizations. Because of its elusive nature, change requires tangible “containers” that allow it to be transported into an organization and be recognized.

True transformation always enters our lives embedded within some type of recognizable package (i.e., a person, event, thing, or circumstance). But these packages actually only carry the seeds of change, not change itself. As an example, a well-crafted sales training program exposes participants to the elements needed to develop effective customer relationships, but the course may or may not foster the acquisition of the desired skills, attitudes, and behaviors that will actually lead to more productive relationships. New, enterprise-wide software may create the possibility of sharing information across departments, but it will not necessarily create the mental and emotional shifts needed to create the environment of trust, openness, and collaboration required to truly achieve the potential synergies.

New initiatives are vessels of change, packages that carry the unrealized potential for the organization to achieve what it wants. One of the main implementation problems is that many leaders confuse the containers that hold the potential for change with the actual change that is desired. The seeds of change within a project can be planted, but the true purpose of the endeavor must then unfold. And this can happen only if the surrounding “human landscape” has been made ready to absorb the inherent disruption.

Human Landscapes
What differentiates those organizations that simply install change containers from those that are able to fully realize the hoped-for benefits? The critical element is their ability to manage “human landscapes.”

At its most basic core, a work environment is composed of two types of building blocks – those that are “inert” (dealing with such things as structures, policies, technology, strategies, capital, and tools) and those that are “human” (dealing with such things as perceptions, assumptions, resistance, fears, aspirations, beliefs, and values). Each work environment has its own configuration of inert and human components that form a unique identity or landscape that distinguishes it from any other work setting.
The inert aspects are isolated, independent features of the landscape that have no inherent connection to one another (i.e., a change in software does not by itself trigger a shift in the way budgets are managed). It is the human component of a landscape that provides all the links, bonds, and affiliations that exist within work settings. Without the human component, meaningful integration of the various inert components wouldn’t exist. For example, a procedure could stand alone, unaffected by a report showing declining quality, which would be completely detached from employee performance ratings, which would be unrelated to the new IT system, which would be disconnected from the implications of the recent merger. People are the bridging agents between themselves and all inert features of a work environment; therefore, it is the human landscape that is most crucial to the success or failure of efforts to change the way an organization functions.

When new initiatives are introduced into a work environment, they cause shock waves of disruption to emanate from their initial points of impact. These points of impact are the physical and political locations where new entities (advances in technology, new organizational structures, leadership changes, etc.) are introduced and potentially affect the people they touch. Around each point of impact is a human landscape that reacts to and dictates the success of the change being introduced. The degree to which a new initiative spreads throughout a work environment or dies an early death is directly dependent on the human dynamics reflected in these landscapes (how much commitment or resistance exists, how many other changes are competing for people’s attention, etc.)

Why are the human dynamics around change so problematic? Human landscapes are the breeding grounds for resistance because all initiatives designed to bring about change, by definition, interrupt the status quo. The greater the promise of change, the more disruption required. Despite wishful thinking to the contrary, most people are reluctant to disturb the routines that have formed in their lives. We are a species addicted to our established habits, and we often cling to them even when doing so is unproductive or, worse, self-destructive.

This reluctance to depart from the familiar makes it difficult to bring about true organizational transformation. Who has not witnessed employees and mid-level managers hesitating to depart from familiar territory when something new was announced? Even executives who sanction what they say are important changes often hope to somehow accomplish their intentions without having to personally leave their comfort zones. Furthermore, even if leaders are attuned to the importance of human landscapes, they often lack the knowledge and tools to deal with these issues adequately. Whether done because of ignorance, avoidance, or ineptness, the human landscapes that surround important business solutions are all too often left unattended or poorly addressed. And when this happens, these landscapes become incredibly effective at undermining and preventing projects from achieving their full potential.

Because of the powerful influence people and their reactions have on the success of change initiatives, it is vitally important for decision makers to ensure that the human landscapes encircling key business solutions are managed properly. Many leaders, however, choose instead to deal rather peripherally with or ignore altogether the people dynamics associated with the major changes they attempt to implement. Why?

Much of the time, it’s because executives have not fully grasped that leadership today involves more than making the right decisions about “what” should be done. In addition to correctly determining the proper course of action, senior officers must also know “how” to orchestrate the human infrastructure to ensure that there is enough support from the key people involved to actually achieve the true purpose of the endeavor.

The Promise
When decision makers formally approve important change efforts, a promise is made to the shareholders that the value being pursued will emerge as intended. Of course, such promises extend to employees and customers as well. But for purposes of this discussion, our focus will be on the promise made to shareholders.
Regardless of the nature of the initiative, introducing change into an organization is always a resource-consuming activity (capital, time, energy, attention, etc.). These resources are corporate assets that ultimately fall under the ownership of shareholders. As such, a decision to engage change is a decision to, in effect, borrow owner equity and apply it toward funding the endeavor.

As is true with any investment of someone else’s assets, there is an implied, if not explicit, commitment made that the resources being allocated will result in an appropriate return for the shareholders. When initiatives are positioned at strategic levels, and shareholders are made aware of (or, through the Board of Directors, actually participate in) the decision to move forward, the return on investment (ROI) obligation is directly expressed. But even when the initiative is more tactical in nature (below the level where a Board would be involved or even informed), the same obligation still exists to do everything possible to create the expected return. The fact that the promise of change is entered into through a tacit understanding makes the accountability of decision makers to their shareholders no less valid.
The problem is that all too often the promises made about impending change fail to actually translate into the intended results. Usually this is due to decision makers being dangerously naive about what is required on the organization’s part for a major initiative to succeed. What’s usually missing is either: 1) an awareness that impeccable decisions about what to do can still fall flat when not supported by the people being affected or 2) access to the tools and techniques needed to successfully direct the human aspects of the project’s execution.

A third issue inhibiting decision makers from fulfilling their change-related promises is the assumption that the burden of accountability for achieving their goals can fall on staff or consultants. Although internal staff can play key supporting roles and external consultants can deliver sound recommendations, it is the decision makers who carry the greatest obligation for success. They are the ones who must ultimately ensure that the surrounding human landscape is ready to support whatever needs to happen.
Regardless of how leaders may contribute to the problem, dysfunctional installation takes place when correct business solutions are inserted into human landscapes that have not been properly prepared to provide the necessary support. When this happens, initiatives offer little more than temporary, superficial relief from whatever symptoms the organization was trying to resolve. Under such circumstances, the promised ROI cannot be fulfilled. Maximum return on the shareholder’s investment and full realization of expected value can only be accomplished by delivering on the promises made. Fulfilling these promises is unlikely unless the corresponding “human landscapes” have been properly addressed.

Two Aspects of the Same Journey
For important initiatives to reach their “realization” potential, it is usually necessary to call into play two disciplines: project management and change management. Project management deals with the logistics of implementation (functional milestones, scheduling, training, cost control, etc.) Change management uses behavioral science research and techniques to deal with the dynamics that unfold within the surrounding human landscapes (developing commitment, minimizing resistance, fostering resilience, etc.).

It is best when these two disciplines are integrated into a single implementation methodology. This allows the logistic and human components to be seen, as they truly are – two equally important and interdependent requisites to successful change investments. The vast majority of rollout strategies, however, fail to incorporate both aspects, as they should. Many efforts to transform organizations are actually “spray and pray” operations that lack the discipline offered by project management. Of those strategies that do apply project management tools and techniques, most ignore or treat superficially the concerns change management seeks to address.
When deployment strategies do attempt to include change management issues, many end up reflecting more rhetoric and good intent than the level of structure and discipline needed for sound results. Whether change management is ignored or simply applied in a shallow manner, the results are the same: project management that fails to adequately address the human dynamics of change usually has little chance of going beyond installation-type outcomes.

What Leaders Need to Know
Leaders don’t need a deep expertise in the psychology of change to deal with human landscape issues, but a solid, working understanding of the dynamics involved is essential. The problem is that many executives are not predisposed to focus on the “people” aspects of their work environments at all, and those who are interested often lack the knowledge of how human landscapes operate or how to influence them. For change promises to be realized rather than installed, leaders need to know enough about how key transitions unfold to provide the proper guidance to their organization. For example, they need to know how to assess their organization’s readiness to adapt and what actions to take if sufficient readiness is lacking.
Human Landscape Readiness — There are five critical elements to determining if the people around a change project are predisposed for realization success:
• Sponsors — The management structure responsible for seeing to it that initiatives are applied appropriately.
• Targets — The people whom the initiatives are intended to influence.
• Culture — The formal and informal ground rules for how things are really done on a day-to-day basis.
• Capacity — The availability of the resources people need to adapt to the desired change.
• Architecture — The plan for identifying and addressing the human issues that could jeopardize a realization outcome.
Creating the proper readiness around important initiatives requires that the following five questions be asked and the necessary actions taken to ensure the key people are adequately prepared to absorb the changes being introduced. The critical questions are:
• Sponsor Commitment — Will there be sufficient resolve demonstrated by management (through public rhetoric, private pressure, allocation of resources, consequence management, time and attention, etc.) to drive the desired behaviors and attitudes required by the initiative and to ensure that this leads to achieving the overall desired change?
• Target Resistance — Have the views of those being affected been taken into account to: 1) identify reasons why they might be reluctant to support the intended outcome and 2) develop action plans that either relieve the constraints identified or address how to deal with those that can’t be resolved?
• Corporate Culture — Is the culture (i.e., patterns of beliefs, behaviors, and unconscious assumptions) that surrounds the change aligned with what must happen for desired change to become reality?
• Remaining Adaptation Capacity — Are there sufficient resources (physical, emotional, and intellectual energy) available among the people being affected to adjust to the new requirements?
• Implementation Architecture — To what extent are sponsors and agents of change prepared to use a structured, disciplined approach as opposed to relying on intuition and good intentions when managing the human aspects of implementation?
Summary of Common Implementation Challenges

A key challenge facing leaders today is delivering on the commitments they make when announcing critical changes. “Installation” of change is seldom in jeopardy; it is the “realization” of the promise to shareholders that is typically at risk. Fulfillment of these promises is possible only if leaders are careful to limit their initiatives to those they are serious about implementing. For each of these business imperatives, they must require proper preparation of the human landscape as a non-negotiable part of the rollout strategies being formulated.

Implementation Issues Unique to IT Projects
Most executives and project managers with experience in introducing new information technology into an organization agree that the full value promised from their investment seldom materialized. The capital budgets for IT-related expenditures have never been greater; the operations of our businesses never more dependent on IT to achieve strategic goals; and expectations never higher for the productivity and profits we hope will be created from IT ventures. It is ironic; therefore, that at a time when expenditures, dependency, and expectations are at all-time highs, the value being created from these investments is, at best, a source of concern. In many cases, the problem is much more severe – shareholder value from IT investments is actually alarmingly low.
What all of this means is that there is a major struggle taking place between organizations investing in new or significantly updated technology and the forces in play which inhibit IT’s potential from being fully realized. The question is, are we losing the war? Much of the evidence suggests that the answer is yes. But, in this battle, it’s not the body count that matters; it’s ROI.

Even when considered from a purely financial perspective, there is a growing concern among executives that the return on IT investments has become, to say the least, questionable (i.e., cost overruns and unsolved problems). Disturbing as it is, 30 percent of projects are canceled before completion, and the remaining 70 percent are typically 6 to 12 months late and significantly over budget. In addition, when you figure into the equation the softer numbers (i.e., employee disruption, compromised market position, missed opportunities, customer dissatisfaction, and Wall Street disenchantment), the general consensus seems to be that IT investments frequently incur outright losses.

As is true for any major change, the critical issue in reaping the full benefits of technology solutions is the distinction between “installation” and “realization.” A company has installed technology when it has executed the appropriate steps to procure hardware and software, ensured that the new system is on the desks of users, and exposed users to the appropriate training. A company has realized the value of technology when it has achieved the outcomes that were promised the shareholders at the time the money was allocated to build or buy the new solution.

Most companies’ plan and budget for installation, then hope realization will naturally follow. Seldom is this the case, though, and the primary inhibitor to achieving the desired ROI lies not in the technical realm, but in the human landscape that surrounds the technology. In fact, hardware and software account for only 15 percent of the problem; in most cases, peopleware is the culprit.

Organizations know how to build or buy the right technical solutions to address their problems and/or opportunities. Where they tend to fail is in that space where technology and corporate culture intersect. When a new system requires people to think, behave, or believe in a significantly different manner from what they are accustomed to, technology’s ROI is often at risk.

An Army of Resisters
Whenever there is a struggle between technology and an organization’s culture, culture usually wins. And the victories can be as subtle as they are decisive. Although infrequent, there is the occasional full “meltdown,” where an expensive new system never sees the light of day. More common, however, is the rollout, where a deeply rooted culture allows only superficial “dysfunctional installation” – creating the appearance of success without the true actualization of the intended results. When this happens, users learn how to circumvent new requirements, input data to falsely portray use, and appear compliant while still relying on old habits. All of this is meant to remind us that providing users with access to new technology can never be confused with full realization of the anticipated use.
The end-users of new technology are by no means the only resistant population. In many cases, the very people responsible for ensuring the success of a new system are equally reluctant to change. For example, when the human resource (HR) function is automated for online employee self- administration (change of home address, tax deductions, 40l(k) status, etc.), it can be the HR department itself that is the most threatened and hesitant to move forward. Further evidence of change agents resisting change comes from IT’s own history. When PCs first became popular, the most reluctant constituency to finally embrace the proliferation of desktop workstations was often the old guard, IT warlords who were primarily invested in protecting their mainframe fiefdoms. It has become a reliable axiom that agents promoting change in others are often the most reluctant to embrace change themselves.

But the army of resisters who surface when there is a struggle between technology and culture is much broader than user populations and change agents. When technology threatens an entrenched culture, it does so by introducing a wide range of issues that serve as potential battlegrounds. New demands and responsibilities are necessary, security issues arise, different skills are required, power and influence re-distribution takes place, and shifts in people’s self-images occur. The reluctant troops that emerge in these kinds of battles often come from the mid-ranks of the management structure itself.
If they choose to do so, managers in the middle of a hierarchy are well placed to kill new initiatives without a trace. Their tactics are sometimes subtle: “I think the new system is wonderful, but let’s not move too fast. To do it justice, we need to work out all the bugs before we proceed.” Other times the resistance is more direct and overt: “Those wire heads never did understand the world we live in, and this latest techno-panacea proves it. But, don’t worry about it. They will be down here in a few months with another of their innovations to make our life wonderful, and they’ll be telling us that it is the one that is crucial to our success. Just keep your head down as they fly over with their ‘techno-spray’ du jour. Trust me, it will all pass.”
Regardless of how shrewd or blatant the action, it is the mid-level manager who is often the most effective at eliminating the enthusiasm, if not the desired behavior itself, associated with the goals of a new system.

Describing the “cultural militia” called into action when technology threatens the status quo would be insufficient without mention of leadership’s role in such rebellions. When an organization’s culture defeats or severely diminishes the real purpose of introducing new technology, the most surprising, perhaps, of the reluctant participants are the senior officers who approved the system’s expenditures in the first place. The very executives who originally sanctioned the capital investment and who once spoke so eloquently of technology’s importance to the organization’s future often are the ones who later have second thoughts.
Like Wall Street analysts listening to every word the chairman of the Federal Reserve utters, people at all levels of an organization become astute observers of the extent to which top executives’ rhetoric and actions support specific endeavors. The communication leverage is so powerful at this level that many IT projects have been derailed not by any overt act, but simply by what leaders did not say or do. For this reason, realization of the ultimate goals (from technology investments) is not possible without strong sponsorship from leaders. Absent proper sponsorship, money can be spent and new systems deployed, but substantive change will not be sustained.
To recap the struggle, when an organization’s culture wages war against new systems, there are plenty of recruits to engage the fight. They include not only users, but also agents of change, middle managers, and even senior executives.

Installation Doesn’t Equal Realization
Installing new systems does not require exceptional talent; build or buy it, announce it, put it on their desks, train them to use it, give out the t-shirts and you’re done. If, however, installation becomes the terminal objective, the technology’s promised ROI is unlikely to materialize. A bit of advice, overheard from an experienced leader to her protégé, is telling in this respect:
“Oh, one more thing about implementing a new system around here – be careful not to look too closely at the real rate of utilization in terms of how it was actually intended to function. Much of what you will be looking for won’t be there. But not to worry, victory can still be declared. All that is required is for everyone to informally agree a good effort was put forth, and the modest level of application that is achieved was all that was practical given the realistic constraints of the situation.”
The operative terms here are “practical” and “realistic.” The collusion often taking place among users, agents of change, mid-managers, and executives centers on one thing: everyone (but shareholders) unofficially agreeing that the ROI promised to justify the investment in technology was neither feasible nor pragmatic within the context of the challenges posed and the skills available. And the way this works is by widespread adherence to the philosophy “There is no problem if you don’t see one and you won’t see this one if you don’t look too hard.” In these situations, the “installation” formula for success is as follows: Placement of system + training of people + a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy toward intended utilization = the appearance of success.

Technology that is only installed can never achieve its promised return on investment unless the intent is limited to tactical improvement. A strong ROI requires fundamental changes in the way people think about and conduct their portion of an enterprise’s business. Installation alone creates only new bottles for old wine. People spend most of their time figuring out how to think and do as they always have; the only difference is they do so in a manner that placates the new system.
If technology’s objective is to create only incremental improvements, “beneficial installation” can be an acceptable implementation outcome. There is nothing inherently dysfunctional about this as an objective as long as the ROI expectations are modest. Significant leaps in ROI metrics, though, can only be supported by fundamental changes in the way people view their tasks and the way they function in their work. This can’t occur unless users, agents, mid-level managers and senior executives involved with a new system see to it that it is used as it was intended.

Realization of the full intent of technology is the only way dramatic ROI improvements can materialize. The IT challenge today is to move past the installation of the expensive systems we acquire and move toward the “realization threshold” — the point at which we actually achieve what was promised the shareholders when their money was borrowed to build or buy the new solution. Only those organizations that can cross this realization threshold will secure sustainable competitive advantages from their IT investments.

Author Name	n/a
Author Company	Conner Partners
Body of Topic	Managing the Human Aspects of IT Initiatives: Installation vs. Realization of a Sustainable Competitive Advantage Since 1974, Conner Partners™ has been conducting research to better understand the impact the “human element” has on introducing new technology into organizational settings. This document provides an overview of some of our key findings. The results reported here are framed around two perspectives: 1) what we have learned about why change is so challenging, regardless of its nature, and 2) how these common implementation challenges are uniquely played out when introducing IT systems. Common Implementation Challenges Creating a Sustainable Competitive Advantage Companies that achieve long-term success are those that are able to develop and maintain competitive advantage. The challenge, of course, is that today’s sustainable competitive advantage becomes tomorrow’s minimum level of acceptable performance. Unique products, decreased time to market, high quality, and excellent customer service – at various times, each of these has provided competitive advantage, yet competitors were able to quickly replicate each. In recent years, a new arena for a sustainable competitive advantage has begun to emerge – one based on the ability of organizations to deliver on their promises. There is a wide and growing gap that exists between the rhetoric of today’s leaders and the results achieved from the many initiatives they announce. It’s hard to keep up with the number of innovative business solutions, new technologies and various other strategic endeavors that are postured as vital to organizational success. Yet few of these initiatives ever achieve anything close to what people were led to believe would happen. Let’s explore what’s behind this breach between “intent” and “results.” Most organizations do a relatively good job of figuring out what must be done to solve their problems or exploit their opportunities. The difficulty is that the vast majority just doesn’t implement these solutions very well. They plan the proper courses of action for the circumstances they face, but the reality of actually fulfilling their ambitions is a task that often proves beyond their reach. The problem is this: most organizations unwittingly apply their resources toward installing new solutions rather than realizing the anticipated benefits. Installation occurs when a new solution (merger, reorganization, updated processes, etc.) is introduced to the organization. The sequence of events may include announcing the project, providing new equipment or software, training, or a host of other related activities. Realization, however, is achieved when the organization goes beyond just deploying the change and reaps the full business benefits that were anticipated when the resources were allocated to pursue the initiative. Realization has become a major differentiator because one of the crucial issues facing businesses today isn’t what strategy or remedy to put in place, but rather how to implement these endeavors in such a way that they have their intended impact. In volatile markets, leaders can’t afford to risk their organization’s future on important strategies and projects that are simply “installed.” Today, success also depends on being able to ensure that the promised benefits are delivered. Moments of Truth All too often, executives feel like they have determined the right thing to do, but then something happens after the decision is made . . . the intended outcome just never seems to happen. Regardless of what the initiative involves (opening new markets, realignment of strategy and structure, altering corporate culture, etc.), there are inevitably “moments of truth” that dictate whether or not an organization actually receives the value the decision makers hoped to achieve. Companies come to these crucial crossroads each time they must decide whether to pay the true price of change or face whatever consequences exist for maintaining the status quo. As change initiatives move through these critical decision points, there are four possible outcomes – early termination, meltdown, installation, or realization. • EARLY TERMINATION — Occasionally, approval is secured for a new initiative, but the project never really gets off the ground. Agreements are reached about what is to be done and budgets are set, but before any official announcements can take place, everything is discontinued. This is sometimes the result of an obvious financial or political crisis. Other times, the reasons behind these abrupt terminations are less clear. Regardless of the cause, when efforts to introduce change are blocked after being approved but before being officially launched, it clearly indicates that the organization was not ready to fulfill its aspirations. • MELTDOWN — Sometimes a project is announced and engaged, but at some point during implementation, it is discontinued with a complete withdrawal of resources and activity. Meltdowns are visible failures for all to see, and the economic and political price they incur are so costly they are generally avoided if at all possible. Because of the high visibility and vulnerability associated with such defeats, it is easy for decision makers and internal change agents (or external consultants) to informally (sometimes unconsciously) conspire to camouflage a meltdown as a project that was completed even though it never achieved the desired results. This will later be described as “dysfunctional installation.” • INSTALLATION — When change projects are first introduced into a work setting, they are deployed (i.e., announced, set up, or in some way inaugurated) but have not yet achieved their ultimate intent. Installation is about placement – managing the tangible aspects of inserting a new initiative into the work environment (logistics, plugging in hardware and software, training schedules, work sessions, etc.). Installation is an essential part of the overall implementation process, but it is a two-edged sword. With it comes the potential for either furthering the primary purpose of the intended change or actually preventing it from ever truly taking form. For this reason, we make a distinction between two forms of installation: beneficial and dysfunctional. - Beneficial Installation: Installation is a phase all change endeavors go through where attention is focused primarily on physically inserting projects into an organization. Installation is an asset when decision makers: 1) see it as a critically important step in the overall implementation process and 2) realize that much more work is involved to fulfill the true purpose of their investment. - Dysfunctional Installation: Installation is dysfunctional when it becomes an end state, not a phase in the sequence of necessary action steps. When this happens, people within the organization engage in self-protective behavior that results in the appearance of change without the substance. Employees participate in the farce by saying all the right things, going through the motions of complying, disguising old habits with new rhetoric and/or fabricating the intended outcomes. While all of this is taking place, the real goals of the effort are being diluted or completely bypassed. • REALIZATION — Realization takes place when the key purpose for an initiative (e.g., confirmed cost savings, measurable increases in customer loyalty, documented productivity gains) is actually achieved. Only when installation has taken place are the necessary elements there to ensure that the installed solution is fully used as intended. Change Containers Executives and managers who have attempted to execute major initiatives with substantial change implications commonly report that the result of their efforts and investments were usually far more expensive, time consuming, and less influential than they anticipated. Why is realization such a difficult challenge? Change is a powerful force that has a major influence on our lives, but we can’t actually touch or directly see it. You can’t hold change in your hand; you can only confirm its presence however, by observing the trail of influence it leaves behind as it passes through people and/or organizations. Because of its elusive nature, change requires tangible “containers” that allow it to be transported into an organization and be recognized. True transformation always enters our lives embedded within some type of recognizable package (i.e., a person, event, thing, or circumstance). But these packages actually only carry the seeds of change, not change itself. As an example, a well-crafted sales training program exposes participants to the elements needed to develop effective customer relationships, but the course may or may not foster the acquisition of the desired skills, attitudes, and behaviors that will actually lead to more productive relationships. New, enterprise-wide software may create the possibility of sharing information across departments, but it will not necessarily create the mental and emotional shifts needed to create the environment of trust, openness, and collaboration required to truly achieve the potential synergies. New initiatives are vessels of change, packages that carry the unrealized potential for the organization to achieve what it wants. One of the main implementation problems is that many leaders confuse the containers that hold the potential for change with the actual change that is desired. The seeds of change within a project can be planted, but the true purpose of the endeavor must then unfold. And this can happen only if the surrounding “human landscape” has been made ready to absorb the inherent disruption. Human Landscapes What differentiates those organizations that simply install change containers from those that are able to fully realize the hoped-for benefits? The critical element is their ability to manage “human landscapes.” At its most basic core, a work environment is composed of two types of building blocks – those that are “inert” (dealing with such things as structures, policies, technology, strategies, capital, and tools) and those that are “human” (dealing with such things as perceptions, assumptions, resistance, fears, aspirations, beliefs, and values). Each work environment has its own configuration of inert and human components that form a unique identity or landscape that distinguishes it from any other work setting. The inert aspects are isolated, independent features of the landscape that have no inherent connection to one another (i.e., a change in software does not by itself trigger a shift in the way budgets are managed). It is the human component of a landscape that provides all the links, bonds, and affiliations that exist within work settings. Without the human component, meaningful integration of the various inert components wouldn’t exist. For example, a procedure could stand alone, unaffected by a report showing declining quality, which would be completely detached from employee performance ratings, which would be unrelated to the new IT system, which would be disconnected from the implications of the recent merger. People are the bridging agents between themselves and all inert features of a work environment; therefore, it is the human landscape that is most crucial to the success or failure of efforts to change the way an organization functions. When new initiatives are introduced into a work environment, they cause shock waves of disruption to emanate from their initial points of impact. These points of impact are the physical and political locations where new entities (advances in technology, new organizational structures, leadership changes, etc.) are introduced and potentially affect the people they touch. Around each point of impact is a human landscape that reacts to and dictates the success of the change being introduced. The degree to which a new initiative spreads throughout a work environment or dies an early death is directly dependent on the human dynamics reflected in these landscapes (how much commitment or resistance exists, how many other changes are competing for people’s attention, etc.) Why are the human dynamics around change so problematic? Human landscapes are the breeding grounds for resistance because all initiatives designed to bring about change, by definition, interrupt the status quo. The greater the promise of change, the more disruption required. Despite wishful thinking to the contrary, most people are reluctant to disturb the routines that have formed in their lives. We are a species addicted to our established habits, and we often cling to them even when doing so is unproductive or, worse, self-destructive. This reluctance to depart from the familiar makes it difficult to bring about true organizational transformation. Who has not witnessed employees and mid-level managers hesitating to depart from familiar territory when something new was announced? Even executives who sanction what they say are important changes often hope to somehow accomplish their intentions without having to personally leave their comfort zones. Furthermore, even if leaders are attuned to the importance of human landscapes, they often lack the knowledge and tools to deal with these issues adequately. Whether done because of ignorance, avoidance, or ineptness, the human landscapes that surround important business solutions are all too often left unattended or poorly addressed. And when this happens, these landscapes become incredibly effective at undermining and preventing projects from achieving their full potential. Because of the powerful influence people and their reactions have on the success of change initiatives, it is vitally important for decision makers to ensure that the human landscapes encircling key business solutions are managed properly. Many leaders, however, choose instead to deal rather peripherally with or ignore altogether the people dynamics associated with the major changes they attempt to implement. Why? Much of the time, it’s because executives have not fully grasped that leadership today involves more than making the right decisions about “what” should be done. In addition to correctly determining the proper course of action, senior officers must also know “how” to orchestrate the human infrastructure to ensure that there is enough support from the key people involved to actually achieve the true purpose of the endeavor. The Promise When decision makers formally approve important change efforts, a promise is made to the shareholders that the value being pursued will emerge as intended. Of course, such promises extend to employees and customers as well. But for purposes of this discussion, our focus will be on the promise made to shareholders. Regardless of the nature of the initiative, introducing change into an organization is always a resource-consuming activity (capital, time, energy, attention, etc.). These resources are corporate assets that ultimately fall under the ownership of shareholders. As such, a decision to engage change is a decision to, in effect, borrow owner equity and apply it toward funding the endeavor. As is true with any investment of someone else’s assets, there is an implied, if not explicit, commitment made that the resources being allocated will result in an appropriate return for the shareholders. When initiatives are positioned at strategic levels, and shareholders are made aware of (or, through the Board of Directors, actually participate in) the decision to move forward, the return on investment (ROI) obligation is directly expressed. But even when the initiative is more tactical in nature (below the level where a Board would be involved or even informed), the same obligation still exists to do everything possible to create the expected return. The fact that the promise of change is entered into through a tacit understanding makes the accountability of decision makers to their shareholders no less valid. The problem is that all too often the promises made about impending change fail to actually translate into the intended results. Usually this is due to decision makers being dangerously naive about what is required on the organization’s part for a major initiative to succeed. What’s usually missing is either: 1) an awareness that impeccable decisions about what to do can still fall flat when not supported by the people being affected or 2) access to the tools and techniques needed to successfully direct the human aspects of the project’s execution. A third issue inhibiting decision makers from fulfilling their change-related promises is the assumption that the burden of accountability for achieving their goals can fall on staff or consultants. Although internal staff can play key supporting roles and external consultants can deliver sound recommendations, it is the decision makers who carry the greatest obligation for success. They are the ones who must ultimately ensure that the surrounding human landscape is ready to support whatever needs to happen. Regardless of how leaders may contribute to the problem, dysfunctional installation takes place when correct business solutions are inserted into human landscapes that have not been properly prepared to provide the necessary support. When this happens, initiatives offer little more than temporary, superficial relief from whatever symptoms the organization was trying to resolve. Under such circumstances, the promised ROI cannot be fulfilled. Maximum return on the shareholder’s investment and full realization of expected value can only be accomplished by delivering on the promises made. Fulfilling these promises is unlikely unless the corresponding “human landscapes” have been properly addressed. Two Aspects of the Same Journey For important initiatives to reach their “realization” potential, it is usually necessary to call into play two disciplines: project management and change management. Project management deals with the logistics of implementation (functional milestones, scheduling, training, cost control, etc.) Change management uses behavioral science research and techniques to deal with the dynamics that unfold within the surrounding human landscapes (developing commitment, minimizing resistance, fostering resilience, etc.). It is best when these two disciplines are integrated into a single implementation methodology. This allows the logistic and human components to be seen, as they truly are – two equally important and interdependent requisites to successful change investments. The vast majority of rollout strategies, however, fail to incorporate both aspects, as they should. Many efforts to transform organizations are actually “spray and pray” operations that lack the discipline offered by project management. Of those strategies that do apply project management tools and techniques, most ignore or treat superficially the concerns change management seeks to address. When deployment strategies do attempt to include change management issues, many end up reflecting more rhetoric and good intent than the level of structure and discipline needed for sound results. Whether change management is ignored or simply applied in a shallow manner, the results are the same: project management that fails to adequately address the human dynamics of change usually has little chance of going beyond installation-type outcomes. What Leaders Need to Know Leaders don’t need a deep expertise in the psychology of change to deal with human landscape issues, but a solid, working understanding of the dynamics involved is essential. The problem is that many executives are not predisposed to focus on the “people” aspects of their work environments at all, and those who are interested often lack the knowledge of how human landscapes operate or how to influence them. For change promises to be realized rather than installed, leaders need to know enough about how key transitions unfold to provide the proper guidance to their organization. For example, they need to know how to assess their organization’s readiness to adapt and what actions to take if sufficient readiness is lacking. Human Landscape Readiness — There are five critical elements to determining if the people around a change project are predisposed for realization success: • Sponsors — The management structure responsible for seeing to it that initiatives are applied appropriately. • Targets — The people whom the initiatives are intended to influence. • Culture — The formal and informal ground rules for how things are really done on a day-to-day basis. • Capacity — The availability of the resources people need to adapt to the desired change. • Architecture — The plan for identifying and addressing the human issues that could jeopardize a realization outcome. Creating the proper readiness around important initiatives requires that the following five questions be asked and the necessary actions taken to ensure the key people are adequately prepared to absorb the changes being introduced. The critical questions are: • Sponsor Commitment — Will there be sufficient resolve demonstrated by management (through public rhetoric, private pressure, allocation of resources, consequence management, time and attention, etc.) to drive the desired behaviors and attitudes required by the initiative and to ensure that this leads to achieving the overall desired change? • Target Resistance — Have the views of those being affected been taken into account to: 1) identify reasons why they might be reluctant to support the intended outcome and 2) develop action plans that either relieve the constraints identified or address how to deal with those that can’t be resolved? • Corporate Culture — Is the culture (i.e., patterns of beliefs, behaviors, and unconscious assumptions) that surrounds the change aligned with what must happen for desired change to become reality? • Remaining Adaptation Capacity — Are there sufficient resources (physical, emotional, and intellectual energy) available among the people being affected to adjust to the new requirements? • Implementation Architecture — To what extent are sponsors and agents of change prepared to use a structured, disciplined approach as opposed to relying on intuition and good intentions when managing the human aspects of implementation? Summary of Common Implementation Challenges A key challenge facing leaders today is delivering on the commitments they make when announcing critical changes. “Installation” of change is seldom in jeopardy; it is the “realization” of the promise to shareholders that is typically at risk. Fulfillment of these promises is possible only if leaders are careful to limit their initiatives to those they are serious about implementing. For each of these business imperatives, they must require proper preparation of the human landscape as a non-negotiable part of the rollout strategies being formulated. Implementation Issues Unique to IT Projects Most executives and project managers with experience in introducing new information technology into an organization agree that the full value promised from their investment seldom materialized. The capital budgets for IT-related expenditures have never been greater; the operations of our businesses never more dependent on IT to achieve strategic goals; and expectations never higher for the productivity and profits we hope will be created from IT ventures. It is ironic; therefore, that at a time when expenditures, dependency, and expectations are at all-time highs, the value being created from these investments is, at best, a source of concern. In many cases, the problem is much more severe – shareholder value from IT investments is actually alarmingly low. What all of this means is that there is a major struggle taking place between organizations investing in new or significantly updated technology and the forces in play which inhibit IT’s potential from being fully realized. The question is, are we losing the war? Much of the evidence suggests that the answer is yes. But, in this battle, it’s not the body count that matters; it’s ROI. Even when considered from a purely financial perspective, there is a growing concern among executives that the return on IT investments has become, to say the least, questionable (i.e., cost overruns and unsolved problems). Disturbing as it is, 30 percent of projects are canceled before completion, and the remaining 70 percent are typically 6 to 12 months late and significantly over budget. In addition, when you figure into the equation the softer numbers (i.e., employee disruption, compromised market position, missed opportunities, customer dissatisfaction, and Wall Street disenchantment), the general consensus seems to be that IT investments frequently incur outright losses. As is true for any major change, the critical issue in reaping the full benefits of technology solutions is the distinction between “installation” and “realization.” A company has installed technology when it has executed the appropriate steps to procure hardware and software, ensured that the new system is on the desks of users, and exposed users to the appropriate training. A company has realized the value of technology when it has achieved the outcomes that were promised the shareholders at the time the money was allocated to build or buy the new solution. Most companies’ plan and budget for installation, then hope realization will naturally follow. Seldom is this the case, though, and the primary inhibitor to achieving the desired ROI lies not in the technical realm, but in the human landscape that surrounds the technology. In fact, hardware and software account for only 15 percent of the problem; in most cases, peopleware is the culprit. Organizations know how to build or buy the right technical solutions to address their problems and/or opportunities. Where they tend to fail is in that space where technology and corporate culture intersect. When a new system requires people to think, behave, or believe in a significantly different manner from what they are accustomed to, technology’s ROI is often at risk. An Army of Resisters Whenever there is a struggle between technology and an organization’s culture, culture usually wins. And the victories can be as subtle as they are decisive. Although infrequent, there is the occasional full “meltdown,” where an expensive new system never sees the light of day. More common, however, is the rollout, where a deeply rooted culture allows only superficial “dysfunctional installation” – creating the appearance of success without the true actualization of the intended results. When this happens, users learn how to circumvent new requirements, input data to falsely portray use, and appear compliant while still relying on old habits. All of this is meant to remind us that providing users with access to new technology can never be confused with full realization of the anticipated use. The end-users of new technology are by no means the only resistant population. In many cases, the very people responsible for ensuring the success of a new system are equally reluctant to change. For example, when the human resource (HR) function is automated for online employee self- administration (change of home address, tax deductions, 40l(k) status, etc.), it can be the HR department itself that is the most threatened and hesitant to move forward. Further evidence of change agents resisting change comes from IT’s own history. When PCs first became popular, the most reluctant constituency to finally embrace the proliferation of desktop workstations was often the old guard, IT warlords who were primarily invested in protecting their mainframe fiefdoms. It has become a reliable axiom that agents promoting change in others are often the most reluctant to embrace change themselves. But the army of resisters who surface when there is a struggle between technology and culture is much broader than user populations and change agents. When technology threatens an entrenched culture, it does so by introducing a wide range of issues that serve as potential battlegrounds. New demands and responsibilities are necessary, security issues arise, different skills are required, power and influence re-distribution takes place, and shifts in people’s self-images occur. The reluctant troops that emerge in these kinds of battles often come from the mid-ranks of the management structure itself. If they choose to do so, managers in the middle of a hierarchy are well placed to kill new initiatives without a trace. Their tactics are sometimes subtle: “I think the new system is wonderful, but let’s not move too fast. To do it justice, we need to work out all the bugs before we proceed.” Other times the resistance is more direct and overt: “Those wire heads never did understand the world we live in, and this latest techno-panacea proves it. But, don’t worry about it. They will be down here in a few months with another of their innovations to make our life wonderful, and they’ll be telling us that it is the one that is crucial to our success. Just keep your head down as they fly over with their ‘techno-spray’ du jour. Trust me, it will all pass.” Regardless of how shrewd or blatant the action, it is the mid-level manager who is often the most effective at eliminating the enthusiasm, if not the desired behavior itself, associated with the goals of a new system. Describing the “cultural militia” called into action when technology threatens the status quo would be insufficient without mention of leadership’s role in such rebellions. When an organization’s culture defeats or severely diminishes the real purpose of introducing new technology, the most surprising, perhaps, of the reluctant participants are the senior officers who approved the system’s expenditures in the first place. The very executives who originally sanctioned the capital investment and who once spoke so eloquently of technology’s importance to the organization’s future often are the ones who later have second thoughts. Like Wall Street analysts listening to every word the chairman of the Federal Reserve utters, people at all levels of an organization become astute observers of the extent to which top executives’ rhetoric and actions support specific endeavors. The communication leverage is so powerful at this level that many IT projects have been derailed not by any overt act, but simply by what leaders did not say or do. For this reason, realization of the ultimate goals (from technology investments) is not possible without strong sponsorship from leaders. Absent proper sponsorship, money can be spent and new systems deployed, but substantive change will not be sustained. To recap the struggle, when an organization’s culture wages war against new systems, there are plenty of recruits to engage the fight. They include not only users, but also agents of change, middle managers, and even senior executives. Installation Doesn’t Equal Realization Installing new systems does not require exceptional talent; build or buy it, announce it, put it on their desks, train them to use it, give out the t-shirts and you’re done. If, however, installation becomes the terminal objective, the technology’s promised ROI is unlikely to materialize. A bit of advice, overheard from an experienced leader to her protégé, is telling in this respect: “Oh, one more thing about implementing a new system around here – be careful not to look too closely at the real rate of utilization in terms of how it was actually intended to function. Much of what you will be looking for won’t be there. But not to worry, victory can still be declared. All that is required is for everyone to informally agree a good effort was put forth, and the modest level of application that is achieved was all that was practical given the realistic constraints of the situation.” The operative terms here are “practical” and “realistic.” The collusion often taking place among users, agents of change, mid-managers, and executives centers on one thing: everyone (but shareholders) unofficially agreeing that the ROI promised to justify the investment in technology was neither feasible nor pragmatic within the context of the challenges posed and the skills available. And the way this works is by widespread adherence to the philosophy “There is no problem if you don’t see one and you won’t see this one if you don’t look too hard.” In these situations, the “installation” formula for success is as follows: Placement of system + training of people + a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy toward intended utilization = the appearance of success. Technology that is only installed can never achieve its promised return on investment unless the intent is limited to tactical improvement. A strong ROI requires fundamental changes in the way people think about and conduct their portion of an enterprise’s business. Installation alone creates only new bottles for old wine. People spend most of their time figuring out how to think and do as they always have; the only difference is they do so in a manner that placates the new system. If technology’s objective is to create only incremental improvements, “beneficial installation” can be an acceptable implementation outcome. There is nothing inherently dysfunctional about this as an objective as long as the ROI expectations are modest. Significant leaps in ROI metrics, though, can only be supported by fundamental changes in the way people view their tasks and the way they function in their work. This can’t occur unless users, agents, mid-level managers and senior executives involved with a new system see to it that it is used as it was intended. Realization of the full intent of technology is the only way dramatic ROI improvements can materialize. The IT challenge today is to move past the installation of the expensive systems we acquire and move toward the “realization threshold” — the point at which we actually achieve what was promised the shareholders when their money was borrowed to build or buy the new solution. Only those organizations that can cross this realization threshold will secure sustainable competitive advantages from their IT investments.

New Members

Member Status

Facebook Fans

Press Releases

Whitepaper Categories

Top Societies

TAG Photos

Twitter Updates