The reasons for refusing change management are many and varied. But one thing is very painfully clear. Any organizational initiative that creates change or has a significant element of change to it has a 70% chance of not achieving what was originally intended.
There are three main reasons for failure:
1. The gap between the strategic vision and the successful implementation of the program and the lack of a practical model of change management and tools to bridge this gap.
2. “Hidden and embedded resistance to change” of organizational cultures, as well as the lack of processes and change management methodologies to solve this problem.
3. The inability to fully take into account the impact of changes on those people who are most affected by them, i.e. lack of good change management strategies.
This can happen at the project level. [at the execution "getting it all together" level] so the initiative does not go out of the ground - or is not completed.
This is where most people focus on the “do it” battle.
But a more serious and important problem is that even when projects - new opportunities - are completed on time and in the budget, failure can still occur at the program level - and from a statistical point of view it will probably be!
Program level [more accurately a "no program" level!] Malfunction occurs when foreseen benefits [the whole raison d'etre] initiatives not achieved.
Root cause of failure
The root cause of this failure is the lack of clarity and lack of communication - and even more fundamentally - the lack of language and contextual structure for formulating and managing the necessary change processes.
This is what the program management approach is based on and why it is so important.
As in most specialized areas of knowledge, within this discipline, a universal or common set of "truths" that goes beyond formalized models and software management tools applies to all organizations experiencing a change of step, and can be expressed in simpler language.
As an aside, I feel that although it is absolutely necessary that there are experts and centers of technical excellence - the very processes by which they function separate them and knowledge from a much wider audience that could benefit most from this knowledge.
Time for some definitions:
Program management
- It is a historical perspective - it takes a big picture.
- Is the coordinated management of a portfolio of projects that change organizations to achieve strategic advantages.
- Is understanding and managing benefits, risks and problems and ensuring the definition of the structure of the organization and process.
- Does not replace project management - this is an additional structure.
Differences between programs and projects
- The program is designed to provide overall business benefits in accordance with the strategic vision and for a longer period of time than the project.
- While the project has a specific start and end point, in order to deliver a product, which can be a product, a service, or a specific output.
- Program management focuses on managing all key stakeholder relationships and providing specific business benefits, and in addition to managing a portfolio of projects, will also include managing any other activities that are necessary to ensure full delivery.
- At the same time, project management limits the terms of reference to clear, specific and (compared to the general program) limited scope of its results.
And yet, despite the fact that program management as a discipline has existed for more than 10 years - there are still failures.
Men always dislike enterprises where snags are obvious ... ”[Machiavelli" The Prince "]
My whole approach to change management and the fight against “snags”, such as the fear of change and resistance to change, are based on this model of a programmatic approach.
My preference for this is that it forces the top management (and their advisors) a holistic and structured view of the broader factors that need to be addressed, and that this is often "critically important."
80% of companies [or rather 80% of directors] - do not have a clue about program management
In my experience, the size of the company is not an indicator of whether it uses an approach to managing the program. I sat at a table at meetings with directors of British companies with a turnover of 1 billion pounds +, in some cases household names that had no idea about program management.
I would go further and say that the vast majority of companies know little about program management.
A useful indicator is the number of online requests in Google AdWords for project management and the program (or program management)
In March 2009, there were 450,000 searches for project management and 39,200 searches for a program (or program management).
One of the reasons why program management has not yet penetrated the business mainstream is that, in my opinion, it is complex and applies to measurements that do not resonate or are not related to medium-sized companies and large SMEs.
This is partly because corporations are more complicated, but also because the talented and experienced professionals who compile these things think so!
However, I am convinced and convinced that the broad principles of program management can be outlined in a simple model and using simple language that can be applied in any organization of any size.
