Every transformation has a unique set of challenges based on its particular context. We have noted the following top issues below, along with remediation activities. All issues noted below are based on our real experience on similar transformation engagements:
Leveraging a
One-Size-Fits-All Solution
Many leaders within our client organizations are challenged
by the fact that there is no commonality in the way that different teams and
programs deliver and maintain software application systems. They justifiably
see this lack of standardization as a symptom of an ad hoc organization that
lacks the maturity to perform similar work in a similar manner. This lack of
standardization increases risk, raises cost, slows down delivery, and makes it
impossible to get to a higher state of performance.
A natural reaction to this state of affairs is to create a
process framework that covers all possible circumstances, often using a
standardization approach based on a one size fits all process. Customization is
typically done at the project size/cost level, if done at all. Elaborate
processes are drawn up to cover the SDLC, along with detailed templates. Staff
is then trained on the new method. Feedback is gained on the new method, and
(eventually) that method is updated.

Our approach is to take a different perspective on
standardization. While it is critical is to define a common process
architecture required for an organization to be successful, it is equally
critical to ensure that those processes have unique policies based on the type
of work being processed for particular types of work. A fundamental difference
to our perspective is that we believe that standardization efforts should focus
on the work itself, and that processes can only be a standardized to the extent
that the problem domain and associated work can be standardized.

Following a Big Design
Upfront Approach




We recommend building the transformation vision and strategy
in such a way that known facts are separated from ( well-intentioned)
assumptions. A good transformation plan will contain explicit activities to
validate each assumption through incremental adoption of specific process
components using the piloting process. This approach forces working in smaller
batches, allowing completion of smaller units of change more frequently. After
each unit of change is completed, progress can be assessed, feedback can be
gathered, and the overall approach and plan can be adjusted based on the latest
information. We recommend running the transformation using a Just Good Enough Design approach. This
implies implementing the design in small units using a testable approach,
validating the results of specific tests, and then finally determining if any
adjustments to the design needs to be made.
Centralizing All
Design Decisions
Creating the perfect, standardized solution using a big
upfront design approach is typically accompanied by the desire to centralize
design decisions for the transformation program. In an understandable desire to
gain the highest possible quality, many transformations assemble a dedicated
group of very experienced experts, tasked with creating the perfect design. All
design decisions are passed through a centralized stakeholder committee, where
design elements are carefully reviewed, and the future target state is built.
Unfortunately, this approach does not scale to meet the
diverse requirements of different groups. Centralizing design decision-making
doesn't work for the same reason that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't
work, IT work is inherently variable, a unique mixture of technology,
consumers, internal experience, and delivery risk exist across different IT
departments, and even within different projects. Furthermore, IT work is not
manufacturing, something slightly new is always being built. The above has two
implications, for processes to be effective, they need to vary by context, and
they need to continually adapt to changes in those contexts.


Transformation Demand
Outstripping Organizational Capacity to process change
We have seen clients commit to transformation roadmaps
without adequately considering the level of engagement required to successfully
complete the plan. While a roadmap can look good on paper, it is important to
assess the order and sequence of all activities against the capacity of
internal staff to complete those activities and absorbed the change being asked
of them..

One solution is to operationalize the transformation
engagement using Lean & Kanban techniques. This approach ensures that the
organization will not start more work than they can finish, ensuring that the
transformation team stops starting, and starts finishing.
Not Providing Adequate
Support for Staff to Adapt to Big C Change Elements
Not all changes will be done in an incremental fashion. The
targets may call for some larger, big bang structural changes to the
organization and the way people work. This kind of change must take into
account impacts to affected staff. This includes the time required for staff to
acquire new skills, create new capabilities, bond with new departments, and
otherwise absorb the change. Major changes to organizational capability,
changes in job descriptions, and movements to new departments are tough on all
involved. Is important to properly assess the impact of any of these changes on
all staff and management before starting.
Focused, full-time expertise is required to provide communication and change management support to pull off these kinds of change. This includes appropriate communication, skills assessments, training, and organizational readiness. Dedicated professionals are required to take the time to ensure that the vision is communicated to all levels of the organization, areas of resistance are understood, enabling teams are identified, and that the change management approach follows a deliberate change management strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment