Archive | Resources RSS feed for this section

New from Teibel: The Organizational Triage Workshop

Trying times, indeed. I’m hearing some of the most negative language regarding financial strength from my clients right now that I’ve heard in the last twenty years of work in the field. Organizations and institutions are nervous — and rightly so. The journey ahead is perilous, but not deadly!

In light of market conditions, I’ve compiled some of my best work, most creative tools, and key learnings in my Organizational Triage Workshop. You can find details on this new session here. I’ve even packaged a special edition of the session for higher education administrators faced with unique challenges, all built from my years of work specifically counseling top-tier universities.

So take a look at the new workshop, and start talking to your teams: learn to weather our economy and work together better than ever!

New Program for Department Administrators — Finance Matters!

Higher Education Training Program
Finance Matters for the Department Administrator

Course Description:
This one-day workshop will demystify higher education budgeting and financial practices for departmental administrators. Participants will be introduced to strategies to align resources to fulfill the organizational mission, key elements of financial reports and statements, tools to evaluate financial results and language that will enable constructive dialogue between department and central colleagues.

Finance Matters, Image One

Attendees will learn how to:

  • Relate budgets and finances to the university mission
  • Articulate department and institutional goals in the budget
  • Draw connections between departmental activity and financial statements
  • Use financial reports and ratio analysis to evaluate and communicate results
  • Work collaboratively with Central administrators to effectively manage institutional resources

About the Instructors: Howard Teibel and Tracy Filosa draw on complementary skills and in depth understanding of college and university administration to deliver an interactive and practical program.

Howard Teibel has twenty years of experience in organizational development and change management. He has led team-building programs, facilitated departmental restructurings, and created implementation and training plans for ERP initiatives. Tracy Filosa has twenty years of experience in higher education as a financial and investment analyst, management consultant, project manager, training developer, presenter and writer.

Download a PDF of this course description to share. For more information on schedule, and offering this course in your organization, contact Teibel Inc today.
Finance Matters, Thumbnail

Making Change Stick: Moving Beyond the Rah! Rah!

What does it take to make change stick? I’m talking about a month after the organizational retreat. The mission that was so clear over coffee and muffins now seems like a lifetime ago. What happened?

In this issue we will discuss what it takes to keep momentum building around organizational change, especially after your people have a glimpse at the light at the end of the tunnel.

Anyone who has ever successfully done anything that requires personal effort, like losing weight, quitting smoking, or going back to college at forty eight, knows the difference between insight and action.

Insight is hope minus action, a sense that something new is possible. It’s moving beyond skepticism, doubt and even resignation. Hope is that first step to initiate any meaningful organizational or individual change. The dilemma with hope, however, is it will not “carry the day”, or even a few days after that inspiring offsite.

That Intoxicating Feeling

Organizations do many things to bring insight to their staff — retreats and team buildings are two examples where renewed hope becomes the intoxicating elixir. “Maybe this can become a fun place to work again”, or “I really enjoy my job” and even a senior management perspective that “We can become an effective, high-performing team.” This feeling can lift the burdens and annoyances off the collective shoulders of an entire organization — until the next morning.

All it takes to kill hope is step back into your office. The “hope zapper” starts ticking. Check your 150 emails (delete 125, scan 15 quickly and read 10), check your voicemail and attend two meetings. You’re done. By the end of the day, you could swear how you felt yesterday must have been a dream. Does any of this sound familiar?

Good News and the Bad News

The good news is you weren’t dreaming. The bad news is the honeymoon is over before it started. “So what’s the point of inspiring me only to have it go nowhere?” you ask.

Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have—and underestimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up.

— James Belasco and Ralph Stayer
Flight of the Buffalo (1994)

I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself.

— Aldous Huxley

What do these two quotes point to? Simply, that change is personal, even organizational change is personal. Organizations don’t change. People change. And this requires two very basic yet difficult traits to bring to the table — patience and perseverance. Here’s a direct quote from one of my customers prior to a recent organizational retreat:

“What will be the follow up to this retreat? We’re spending a lot of time and money on this. My experience with previous workshops that were similar to this one is that there was no on-going follow up, so, generally, the participants (including me) went back to their old habits, ways of relating to others, etc.”

Confusing Insight with Action

The bottom line is too often we confuse awareness with action. We set the wrong collective expectations for people — that somehow the work ends once the problems been identified. One of the key messages I deliver over and over again in organizations offsites is “the work begins when we’re done.” Not a popular message but the truth.

As stated in the client quote above “there was no on-going follow-up.” In essence, the organization (both management and staff) went back to sleep. Why? Because it’s hard work to change behavior, have the honest conversations about commitment and accountability. It’s much easier to commiserate about too much work and not enough time.

Where do you start?

The next time you find yourself inspired to make changes, consider that the feeling will not get you there — not even close. It’s about having the patience and perseverance to keep revisiting the need for change in the face of nothing changing. Nothing is going to make that easy, but that’s at the heart of where change is possible.

Are you inspired? I didn’t think so. Now get back in there and do the hard work that will lead to the change you saw was possible.

Patience

“Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish.”

— John Quincy Adams

New Year’s Resolution: Stop waiting for the Work-Life Balance. It Ain’t Comin’!

“Mindfulness” as defined by Webster’s is the inclination to be aware.

Of any time I can think of in my personal and professional life where this is important, it’s now.

Mindfulness is synonymous with reflection. And it’s only in reflection that we can realize progress on something or lack thereof. Most of us know the value of stepping back and reflecting on something. In the spiritual realm (did he actually use that word in a business article?), it’s called meditation.

But in the “real world”, there’s no time for this airy-fairy stuff. We’ve got jobs to do and a limited amount of time to get that work done. The dilemma of this “time poverty”, a term used in a recent Boston Globe article, is the view that spending more time in the office is our only option to be successful at work.

As described by Juliet B. Schor, a professor of sociology at Boston College and author of “Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure”, she writes:

“At the end of World War II, the US had the shortest working hours among other industrialized countries. We now have the longest. We have surpassed Japan. The average American worker is putting in 200 more hours per year than he or she was in 1973.”

But at what cost?

Two Lives

I believe many of us feel we are living two lives — the one we wear to work and the other, the life we spend waiting; for vacations, days off and whatever “free time” we fantasize about for the weekend. It’s not the work-life balance that we’re living; it’s really the work-waiting balance.

It’s like that Dr. Seuss book: “Oh The Places You’ll Go”

“…and grind on for miles, headed, I fear, toward a most useless place. The Waiting Place… for people just waiting. Waiting for a train to go or a bus to come, or a plane to go or the mail to come, or the rain to go or the phone to ring… you get the point. Everyone is just waiting!!

It’s simply that you’ve either got a life to live or you’ve got work, but not both. The suggestion is that you don’t live your life at work and shouldn’t even consider it. How resigned is that? No wonder we’re unsatisfied with our jobs. We’re teaching ourselves to think that way.

Consider this question: Are we mindlessly setting up our work lives to be unsatisfying to motivate ourselves only to work less hours? Is that really the goal we should be working toward? Given how much time we spend at work, the answer is no!

Assuming an average of 17 hours a day of conscious wakefulness (after coffee), not working on weekends, and a conservative 40 hour work week, we spend a third of our adult lives “at work”. (I calculated this in an Excel spreadsheet) One third! For those of us who occasionally work over the weekend and evenings, it easily reaches half of our wakeful lives.

Here’s the rub. The work-life balance isn’t coming, doesn’t exist and will never happen. The best it will ever get is an ever constant imbalance of recognizing when priorities go astray, being able to step back and reprioritize how we’re spending our time. That’s the nature of balance — it’s constantly out of balance.

The Challenge of Being Mindful At Work

I imagine one of the reasons we’re running around like chickens with our heads cut off at work is if we were to stop and reflect on what we’re spending our time doing, it might reveal how disconnected we really are from half of our life. Not a comfortable thing to think about.

I walked into a new bakery the other day and began chatting with the owner. It ends up after years of being a software engineer, he decided to become a baker. Very inspiring and a great lesson of pursuing your dream. But for most of us, we’re not going to jump that far, at least not yet.

So in lieu of completely turning your work life around, maybe the key is to make the time to step back and find satisfaction in the things you care about at work. Maybe we forgot that everything isn’t equally important and it’s not about how much you get done, but getting done what really matters. What “really matters” is up to you.

As we approach December 31st and our yearly ritual of resolutions about weight, diet, exercise and other bad habits to overcome, let’s resolve to live it up at work. Not to spend more time there, but find ways to derive satisfaction from the people and things we care about in that 8,760 hours we spend at the office. This is close to half our life, and at the risk of overusing an overused cliché, “life’s too short”.

So I’ll take the first step. I resolve in 2007 to have a satisfying life balance, at work and at home. I resolve to not leave my life at home but bring what I care about to others and what I do for work.

If we all do this, I believe we can truly proclaim, “Oh the places you’ll go!”

Best wishes to you and your family (at home and at work).

On Waiting

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”

— Ezra Pound, expatriate, poet, musician, and critic

Is anybody really listening?

…does anybody really care? Does this sound a little too close to lyrics from a 70′s song? But I digress.

Last month we focused on the risk factors that contribute to project success or failure; Vision & Goals, Planning & Preparation, Capacity & Personnel and Buy-In (www.teibelinc.com/newsletters/Volume5Number9.pdf).

This month we’ll look at the glue that keeps projects from falling apart. In the spirit of non-consultant speak, I’ll simply call this “really good communication”.

Communication is a funny thing. Looking back on most projects, you’ve either communicated too much, too little, but rarely just the right amount.

When you communicate something, three elements are present:

  1. What you intended to communicate
  2. What people heard as a result of what’s said
  3. The unintended consequence of what’s heard

A perfect example of “When good communication goes bad” is the following attempt to set a context for an organizational initiative:

As a result of this financial implementation, checks will go out quicker, better reports will be available to staff and most importantly, we’ll be able to simplify people’s work and minimize the use of other systems to keep track of departmental budgets.

The communication appears to convey great benefit to the institution, and ties it to genuine value for those working there. But what do the people who are affected by this change hear?

As a result of this financial implementation, we’ll be working twice as hard, will no longer have control over the information we’ve taken years to understand and some of us will be looking for work.

Oops!

Managing your listeners

What’s communicated is often misunderstood because the speaker perceives that what’s said is more important than what’s heard. This is the heart of communication breakdown. What people say is rarely what’s heard, even when you have the best communicator delivering the message.

Think of it this way. Everyone has a unique filter that allows certain ideas in and keeps others out.

If I say “you need to better manage your people.“, some hear this through a filter of “thanks for the feedback,” while others hear “my job’s in danger,” while others might think “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” One message, unlimited listening responses.

Consider expanding these listeners’ interpretations to 10, 100 or 500 people. The challenge then becomes compounded with the message going from listener to listener, versus from the speaker directly. These watered down communications have direct impact on the collaborative nature of project work, leading to the next problem.

The Blame Game

Projects fail, or are “discouraging successes,” because an unproductive cycle begins with the deliverer of the message blaming the listeners for “not getting it,” while listeners blame the speaker for being a “poor communicator”. This ping-pong match creates a “virus of discontent” across the organization.

For example, if I were to ask you: “Have your piece of the project ready to go in two weeks.“, you can blame me for not being clear what “ready to go” means and I can blame you for not following through on a simple request.

Taking Responsibility

What’s needed is a paradigm shift away from “who’s to blame” to each side taking responsibility for how one is heard and how one listens.

Management need to take greater responsibility for the unintended consequences of what people hear them say. For example, they may use the phrase “efficiency” while everyone hears “job loss”.

At the staff level, taking responsibility means validating assumptions about what was heard. The underlying dilemma for staff however is an absence of trust between them and management; that it’s REALLY about cleaning house disguised as “productivity improvement”.

If trust is a problem across your groups, consider addressing these issues first. Opening this can of worms may benefit from professional facilitation, a service that Teibel Inc. can help you address. (See Retreat Services www.teibelinc.com/images/organizational_retreats.pdf.)

Listening and Speaking Strategies

Assuming a basic level of trust and a simple need for better communication skills, consider this point of view:

The majority of the time, what you heard was not what was said or what you spoke was not heard by others accurately. If you come from this point of view, you’ll be way ahead of others who are more interested in playing the blame game.

Strategy for someone making requests:

Ask your listener(s):

  1. “What did you hear me say? OR
  2. “What are you going to do?”

Most importantly, don’t assume listeners got the message.

Strategy for the listener:

Tell the speaker one of the following three things, even if unprompted:

  1. “What I’m going to do is…”
  2. “What I heard was…”
  3. “What I didn’t hear or what I am not going to do is…”

For the second strategy, the goal is to help close the feedback loop so the speaker can evaluate in real-time whether what they intended to communicate was heard accurately.

The Bottom Line

Good communicators are primarily great listeners. Great listening takes the extra step of validating what was heard by others, or makes sure that what was spoken by someone else was heard the way it was intended.

Communication is not the message being spoken; it’s the act of two or more parties actively listening to the other for a mutually agreed upon outcome.

On Listening

June Rokoff, Senior VP at Lotus credits her success in turning around the company’s position to building a team that listens: she made listening the culture of her team.

— Glen Rifkin, New York Times

Eliminating Risks That Kill Projects — A Roadmap

Conducting an organizational project is tricky, especially if it is expected to help realize some defined vision. How do you prioritize the people, process and technology goals associated with these efforts while minimizing the risk of losing sight of the larger purpose?

Assessing Project Risk

What does it mean to assess “project risk”? It’s a matter of identifying elements of the project that if poorly managed will cause it to be perceived as less than satisfactory or an outright failure.

As stated by Lloyd Rain in an article describing the challenges of IT Projects:

“The truth is that the great majority of IT projects do not fail — most simply do not go as well as originally hoped, take longer than planned and cost more than anticipated. These are really not failures at all; you might classify them as “discouraging successes”.

What would it take exceed expectations on IT and organizational projects that involve people, process and technology change? It starts with having a plan to address the following four elements:

The Four Elements of All Projects

Organizational project have hundreds of moving parts, tasks and milestones. These pieces can be collapsed into four broad categories. They are:

  1. Vision and Goals
  2. Buy-in
  3. Planning and Preparation
  4. Capacity and Personnel

Vision and Goals

A vision often serves two functions; it motivates decision-makers to commit time, money and resources to get projects off the ground and two, as a destination for what constitutes success.

Be careful though. The use of vision as a means to secure up-front commitment from senior management as well as defining the ideal end point for the project often produces this sense of discouraging success.

This is because once buy-in and resources have been allocated, vision takes on a lower priority. Lost among hundreds of tasks and milestones, the project becomes less about delivering on the vision and more about delivering something to justify the investment.

Questions to ask around vision and goals:

  1. Has the vision been clearly defined?
  2. If so, has it be articulated in a way that different stakeholders understand?

Buy-In

Buy-in is a critical success factor that for the most part needs to be reframed around commitment, not whether people feel good, bad, or indifferent. Enthusiasm is useful, but it’s the incorrect measure for buy-in around a project.

We need to also do a better job of including skepticism, doubt and concerns as necessary phases that people go through in a change project. Having doubts or concerns is an appropriate starting point for people who are used to doing things one way and then asked to change.
Questions to consider:

  1. What does buy-in current look like in your projects and how can it be reframed as a question of “commitment”?
  2. Are you excluding skeptics, doubters and challengers at the expense of the long-term success of the initiative? If so, how can you change that?

Planning and Preparation

Of the four risk categories, planning and preparation are probably the most practiced and well understood in organizational change initiatives.

The challenge around planning comes back to making sure there is a direct line from tasks to vision. Without continuous reflection of “where are we relative to our vision?”, milestones and tasks take on a life of their own. Getting things done becomes more important than evaluating if the work is moving toward or away from the overall goal.

The project may be successful in that people are working hard to get things done, but it’s also a “discouraging success” in that the work is moving away from its intended outcome.

Questions to consider:

  1. Are we closer or further away from our vision relative to what we’re spending our time doing?
  2. Have we given up the vision to get the work done? If so, what needs to happen to get our tasks aligned with the vision?

Capacity and Personnel

Whether labeled a technology, IT or organizational project, it’s capacity and personnel that drives work to completion. There are two primary groups — those helping to realize the vision and the intended beneficiaries of the change. Too often we move forward on projects with untested assumptions about people’s preparedness — both to lead the projects as well as inherit the change.

For a group to become a successful team, there needs to be much greater transparency in what each person can count on others for. Knowing each others strengths and weaknesses is central to building a well-oiled team.

Team question to answer:

Rate each person on the team based on the following criteria. Then discuss as a group where the gaps lie and how they can be filled:

  1. Management skills
  2. Communication/presentation skills
  3. Organizational/business knowledge
  4. Technical skills
  5. Accountability to results

Project risk can be minimized or eliminated by understanding gaps in vision, buy-in, planning and capacity. Avoiding or not addressing any one of these categories runs the risk of creating another “discouraging success” initiative. It’s time to raise the bar and focus on exceeding expectations of going from an initial vision, through tasks, and back to the vision itself.

Achieving Vision

If it wasn’t for the ‘last minute’, nothing would get done.

Wikiquotes

Successfully Merging Organizations – Uncovering the Knowledge Gaps

Mergers and acquisitions take place for various reasons. Corporate entities merge companies to increase their competitiveness in the market. Internal mergers, i.e., departments being consolidated into one organizational unit, are a different kind of consolidation. The cultural change may not be as great as bringing two companies together, but the need for uncovering knowledge gaps is just as important.

Internal audits often drive these efforts, uncovering inefficiencies and opportunities for cost savings. The real challenge, however, is not in identifying efficiency gaps, but getting disparate groups working together so real benefits are realized.

The big picture

A consolidation reveals the need for “big picture” understanding of roles and processes across groups. Departments that perform related tasks often know very little about what the other group is doing. For example, a purchasing department that oversees the rules around acquisition of goods and services has a strong connection to Accounts Payable, responsible for dispersing funds. Ask either group about the day- to-day operation of the other and you’ll probably get a few blank stares. This goes for many functional departments expected to work together; IT, Finance, HR, and other centralized groups.

The cause for this lack of understanding starts with the definition of doing a job effectively. Being successful in a role often does not demand knowing “why” work is performed, as long as the task being performed is done correctly. We call this “work by rote”, i.e., doing a series of steps by memory (often aided by yellow stickies plastered all over ones monitor).

Knowing why one performs a task starts to become important when the steps need to change. With business as usual, the objective is to get work off ones desk as quickly as possible and make it someone else’s problem.

Wake up call

When a department consolidation is announced, people begin to wake up. With business processes and system changes looming, newly formed project teams make their way around both departments asking questions like “Why do you do this?” and “Can we do it this way instead?” Owners of the “to-be” changes quickly begin to recognize the need to understand more of the logic behind their work, something that is rarely explained or even necessary in the day-to-day performance of one’s job.

The cause for this lack of knowledge doesn’t just rest with the individual, but also the organization. Although employees need to take greater responsibility for what they don’t know, organizations need to be more systematic around helping people learn and develop new skills.

What are three key things an organization can do to better facilitate departmental consolidation?

Plug the leadership gap

Inherent in these efforts is a need to identify someone who will lead both groups to a better place. Sometimes this is the manager of one of the existing departments, while other times it should come from outside either group. The key is to not postpone any longer than necessary making this decision, primarily because the direction of the new organization will be driven by new leadership. Leaving this gap in place too long creates tension among both groups, with people spending more time vying for power than focusing on how to collaborate.

Conduct facilitated dialogue sessions

Once a new leader is identified, the next step is to alleviate confusion and set proper expectations. Not everything will be changed overnight. A matter a fact, much will evolve over the next year. People need to be reassured that some of the changes will be gradual, while others need to be in place on day one.

Bringing both parties together through facilitated dialogue sessions can help alleviate tension, frustration and anxiety about the change. Most importantly, you want to get both groups working together in as positive a framework as possible. These sessions should be both an opportunity for people to get to know each other, along with discussing new business practices and vision for the new organization.

Designing learning maps

One final technique to demystify upcoming changes in work processes is to develop learning maps of the organization, combining visual flows of roles, processes, and handoffs across groups. For example, the steps to pay a vendor cut across roles and departments. Having a visual understanding in one place of who does what and why they do it is an important step to build competence for the consolidated environment.

To see an example of learning map, go to http://www.teibelinc.com/pdf/sample_process_map.pdf.

A smooth transition

With strong leadership setting the right context and expectation for the change, facilitated sessions where people can come together and voice concerns as well as get to know each other, and finally, visual representations of the “as-is” and “to- be” processes, you will be well along your way in creating a smoother transition for the new organization.

Facilitation Tip

When facilitating a discussion, a key skill is how you handle questions. Keep in mind two things: Listen carefully to the question. Secondly, answer as if the group asked the question. This has three benefits.

  1. When questions get asked, you won’t get tunnel vision by focusing on individuals, ignoring the rest of the group.
  2. By answering for the group, you’ll more likely remember to repeat or paraphrase the question, an important technique to keep everyone engaged in the dialogue.
  3. You’ll minimize getting sucked into the void of “one-on-one” confrontations by directing your response to the group.

Productivity and Achieving Business Goals: They could be apples and oranges

I think most of us would all agree that if you’ve achieved your business mission or vision, you’ve probably produced a high-level of productivity. But is the opposite true? Does a high level of productivity automatically translate into business success? The simple answer is no.

What’s the difference and why is this a critical distinction for your organization’s success? This is the topic of this month’s newsletter.

Take this example from a Higher Education institution. Imagine a new and improved Grant Submission tool has been identified to help faculty secure research dollars. The current system is a conglomerate of Word, Excel, emails and faxes going back and forth between
administrative offices and departments.

The proposed technology appears to streamline the collection of data into one coherent set of screens and reports. The majority of faculty are loosely aware how the new system will work and have been given an overview of the benefits that this new system will bring. Ultimately the unspoken expectation by all is that it will support the institutions mission. The software gets installed and is ready to use.

The devil’s in the details

On paper, everything looks great. That is, until people actually start using it.

Unbeknownst to faculty, the data entry requirements are greater than expected and the majority of the work ends up falling on their research assistants. It doesn’t take long for a growing dissatisfaction to take hold.

What appeared to be a tool to help faculty meet the institutions mission of world-class research, has instead taken their key resources and turned them into data-entry clerks.

Sold a vision but delivered a tool

Software is all about productivity, i.e., simplifying, streamlining, or automating some series of tasks. Software can be a tremendous productivity solution, minus one small caveat — human involvement and the lack of understanding how it impacts people and processes.

Take email for example. The original promise of email was how we would be able to spend more time at home or on the beach, getting more done with less effort or time. (Can we all agree we’re not there?)

Software is a linear, problem-solving solution that leads to what we think we want, i.e. “productivity”. Unfortunately, productivity is not what we’re truly striving for. It’s achieving the mission or goals of the organization that is what we’re looking for. Achieving vision may involve software, but the real challenge is in understanding and asking broader, mission-driven questions.

Back to our story

Frustrated with the new grant submission tool, a senior faculty member complains directly to the president. What used to be a kluge yet workable set of tasks now has research assistants spending the majority of their time manipulating data-entry screens. To make matters worse, faculty are expected to learn the system themselves to get reports about their grants. This is not what they signed on for and a minor revolt ensues by a few influential teaching fellows.

The unintended consequence of this “improvement project” is that it unfolded as a linear, software solution, versus a means to genuinely support the mission of the institution. In their haste to streamline and simplify work (remember email), the sponsors of the project lost sight of the larger goal; to support faculty in publishing well respected research and attracting the best graduate students. Although well-intentioned, the tools actually caused a greater sense of lost productivity and increased frustration.

Don’t get me wrong

It’s not that these software tools are bad or don’t have a place in helping achieve organizational goals. It’s that we don’t evaluate them through the lens of meeting these larger questions.

More often than not, productivity projects lose their true value somewhere in the hundreds of pages of technical specs that drive these efforts.

What’s the alternative?

The alternative is to not underestimate how easy it is to lose sight of the vision while getting caught up in believing the software alone will solve the problem.

Starting from original conception, through vendor sales, design and finally execution, broader questions about people and processes will help uncover where the real opportunity and pitfalls lie.

Remember, as a pure technology project, the questions are primarily limited to:

  • Can the software perform the following function?
  • How much does it cost?

Focused on mission, the question is:

  • What does business success look like and how will technology help us to realize these goals?

Asking the latter question may yield a completely different set of choices. Your team may even discover that the full suite of “productivity” solutions (i.e. — the software you paid for but didn’t install yet) may inadvertently cause a greater sense of confusion and ineffectiveness.

Don’t assume technology will keep you moving in the right direction. You may just find yourself and your people working harder but further away from the real value you were looking for.

Achieving Vision

“Vision without action is a dream. Action without vision is simply passing the time. Action with vision is making a positive difference.”

— Joel Barker
Independent Scholar and Futurist

Why Projects Fail and What You Can Do About It!

Much has been written on implementing large-scale change projects. TQM, Six-Sigma and other approaches to managing organizational change have morphed into methodologies used in Higher-Ed projects. Drawing from corporate best practices, colleges and universities have successfully integrated process tools and approaches to manage the design phase of enterprise technology projects.

What they haven’t practiced effectively is a structured approach to the decision-making process around what to implement in the first place.

Sound familiar?

Here’s a typical scenario: A senior manager in Information Technology is asked to evaluate the cost and scope for a new ERP System. The reasons for this effort include: outdated systems that are no longer supported, decentralized tools that don’t talk to each other, and non-existent centralized reporting.

A budget for the new technology is drafted (hardware and software) along with an estimate of the consulting help needed to build the system. The case is presented to senior management, who invariably asks for a reduction in overall costs. Vendors and consultants, eager to get in the door, adjust their fees. A project team is formed, a kick-off event is convened and the project begins.

Senior management buy-in is an important first step to get the ball rolling. What’s missing in this early selling phase, however, is a rigorous examination of the following three things:— genuine business readiness, criticality or relevance and customer involvement.

Genuine Business Readiness

Enterprise initiatives are not about technology, although they can quickly become systems projects. The work performed on the project and end result desired is all about rethinking how organizations conduct business. Ignoring organizational readiness around process changes, business structures and use of new tools is at the heart of more missed deadlines and perceived project failures.

Take this statistic: The Standish Group International Research report in 2004 concluded that of the 9,000 enterprise projects evaluated, 71% either failed or were seriously challenged, while only 29% were considered successful (delivered on time, on budget, with required features and functions)

Would anyone in their right mind not re-evaluate the scope of their projects knowing these statistics? Unfortunately, common sense and prudence disappear once the train departs the station.

We’ve Got To Talk

Business readiness means that inheritors of the change have an early voice in the change process. Think of it this way. Would you wake up one day and tell your kids you’re moving, without at least giving them a sense that their opinion matters? (that is if they are older than 3) No, you would sit them down and describe your reasoning, allowing them to express concerns, maybe even have a voice in the decision.

Much of the time resistance to organizational change is misidentified with the emotion of anger or confusion about not being communicated with. Contrary to popular belief, people accept change. What they don’t accept is change being imposed on them. Although conventional wisdom is to limit stakeholder feedback to those who have positive things to say or are the biggest potential troublemakers, you don’t improve your chance of success by avoiding difficult conversations or constructive disagreement.

Two Kinds Of Stakeholders

Stakeholders (both advocates and detractors) are key to making the case for change and should be included in evaluating the scope of large-scale project. Advocates demonstrate what it means to have an open mind around change, often helping to test the viability of what’s being put in place. Detractors are equally important, uncovering where the real challenges lie, sometimes voicing concerns that should be addressed before the implementation begins. Detractors also reveal who in the organization will dig their feet in no matter what the benefit, which is good information in itself.

Either way, advocates or detractors help the organization make the case for change, and should be fully communicated with in the early stages of a project.

Criticality

Before management commits the resource investment, setting in motion a chain of expectations up and down the organization, a few straightforward questions need to be asked and answered: What can we count on ourselves to follow through on? What’s critical versus nice to have?

Finally, why is it necessary now?

Criticality needs to be examined in a way that balances project best practices with organizational business readiness. Criticality is more than researching other institution implementation practices or following consultant recommendations for what has to be implemented. It’s a bit of a Catch-22 situation though: Senior management waiting for a compelling reason to make the investment while technologists looking for resource commitment to research compelling reasons for change.

It’s the sponsors of these projects that are in a unique position to demand a higher standard for what’s being promised, what’s nice to have, and what’s out of the question. Criticality needs to be examined carefully, taken apart, and then communicated clearly to those investing in the change. If the goal is to achieve strategic benefits (savings), expectation setting needs to be established up front – Which leads us to our third contributing factor for project success.

The Customer!

Who is your customer? It’s commonly understood that front-line staff and their managers inherit the work associated with process and system change. In the long run, these groups are the champions who will make or break its success. Too often, we forget that human beings are at the heart of these change efforts. Ignore their concerns, and they’ll only do enough to make sure failure won’t be pinned on them.

Keep in mind that just because your customers have serious concerns does not mean a project should be put on hold. At the same time, focusing only on your most outspoken or obvious constituents won’t serve the project in the long run.

The Glass Is Not Half Empty

If anything, too much time is spent preparing for “resistance to change”, and not enough time explaining what’s coming, inquiring about what people think about the change and validating their concerns. With a direct approach to dealing with conflict, resistance will begin to dissipate on its own.

In the Standish Report of 2004, ten factors were determined to have the most impact on project success. The top three were:

  1. Executive Support
  2. User Involvement
  3. Experienced Project Manager

The study validates that with an emphasis on executive support and user involvement, the condition for project success can be laid. Executive support means more than “show me the money” – It demands that business readiness is uncovered, criticality is carefully examined, and customers know what’s coming.

Only then will “getting off the ground” have a direct impact on the quality and success of the project over the long run.

For the complete Standish report, go to http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/PDFpages/q3-spotlight.pdf.

Facilitation Tip

There is no more powerful communication tool than the one that appears to require the least work: listening

Listening is a lifetime art, one that can never be perfected. More can be learned from genuine listening than any constructive feedback or insightful comment you may give.

Taken from Edgar Shein’s book Process Consultation Revisited, “I cannot determine what is the current reality if I do not get in touch with what I do not know about the situation and do not have the wisdom to ask about it.” Stop talking, listen and you’ll discover what you don’t know. Then listen some more.

Excellent Reading!

Here are two articles and one book that focus on how to improve success of your projects by more effective selling up and down your organization:

  1. Enterprise Technology: Selling the Vision — Campus Technology Magazine
    Overview: The difference between an enterprise technology implementation that soars and one that dies a painful death is planning, people, and—most of all—vision.
  2. Marketing and Selling Technology-A White Paper — ThinkOne
    Overview: A Revenue death spiral: sales are down so marketing is slashed, which leads to reduced sales so marketing is cut more, and so on.
  3. Managing Information Technology Projects: Applying Project Management Strategies to Software, Hardware, and Integration Initiatives — James Taylor
    Overview: Studies consistently show that 80-90 percent of all software and 30-45 percent of all systems projects fail. Yet management tools and techniques, as well as software development techniques, are constantly improving. What are the causes of these seemingly uncontrollable failures?

Breaking Down Silos; It’s Not Rocket Science

Colleges and universities, corporations, local government — pick any organization with two or more departments and you’ve got a silo problem.

What would have to change to tear down these artificially constructed walls that create misunderstandings, gaps in communication, all leading to rampant inefficiencies?

In this article we’ll look at these issues and I’ll suggest how managers and staff can address this problem today.

On farms, silos serve a useful function. They appropriately separate wheat from grain, a necessary step in the farm distribution process.

In organizations, silos are a metaphor for the unintended consequence of storing something in one place.

As defined by Wikipedia:

The expression is typically applied to management systems where the focus is inward and information communication is vertical. Critics of silos contend that managers serve as information gatekeepers, making timely coordination and communication among departments difficult to achieve, and seamless interoperability with external parties impractical.

Or as described by Patrick Lencioni in his book, Silos, Politics and Turn Wars:

“Silos devastate organizations, kill productivity, push good people out the door, and jeopardize the achievement of corporate goals.”

How widespread is this problem? A few weeks back I attended a lecture given by Senator Arlen Specter and Lee Hamilton at the Chautauqua Institution (www.ciweb.org). During the question/answer period, Senator Specter spoke on the breakdowns anticipating the 9/11 attacks.

He cited two examples, one where an FBI agent had early information on the lead terrorist that never got to the right department and more profoundly, an investigation about warnings on September 10 about a terrorist attack that showed up on September 12.

He used these two examples to demonstrate how challenging it is for government organizations to get things done and as he called them, “stove-pipe” departments that don’t work well together.

A Subtle Resignation

Although the silos we experience for the most part are not life threatening, there is a growing awareness how widespread this problem is.

We even know why this is happening: Too much information with not enough time to process, the increasing reliance on technology tools that don’t get administered well, cross- departmental bureaucracy, politics, just to name a few.

Look beyond these well assessed explanations and something else is present — An unspoken resignation that very little makes a difference toward real productivity and going through the motions is better than doing nothing.

For example, resignation shows up in how we experience meetings, the hourly ritual of going from one gathering to another, bringing together well intentioned people in the hopes that face-to-face contact will somehow pierce our collective ambivalence.

By the end of the day, we haven’t taken a breath from our back to back meetings, only to go home and log onto intranets and email to get a jumpstart on the next day. We’re working harder than ever, but feel further away from a sense of true accomplishment.

The unintended consequence of working hard and not smart only reinforces our resignation. So where can we be looking for help?

Change Starts At Home

It’s not a popular notion – the idea that we have to change ourselves before we can change others. But we’ve got to stop waiting for the problem to be fixed by some magical Bewitched twitching of the nose or Mary Poppins cleaning the room with a snap.

There is no cure for organizational silos, no solution that will make them go away. Silos are dilemmas that need to be managed and negotiated between people. Yes, structural changes will help — but let’s focus on what we have control over.

Understanding vs. Execution

Here’s a scenario where interpersonal silos cause work to stall.

Imagine management expressing the need to decrease travel expenses and assembling a task force to look at the issue. Their goal is to have a new travel policy in place that is good for the organization as well as encourages travel restraint.

The process might look something like this:

1. Form task force
2. Assess implications of the change (upside and downside)
3. Draft a new policy
4. Implement the change

So there’s your free consultant’s approach to tackling the problem. But let’s be honest. You don’t need a consultant to come up with this plan. That’s the easy part.

The steps give the appearance of a coherent plan and satisfies managements desire to see the issue being addressed. So why do these efforts so easily get stalled or only get implemented upon your retirement?

Simple. We’ve become great planners but continue to be lousy executors. All it takes is one breakdown with one person for the entire project to stall.

“Nothing To Report”

The assumption is that when projects get delayed, (like the one above), it must be as a result of some complex issue that needs to be resolved. Nope. Bob was supposed to interview two managers about their travel needs, one was on vacation and Bob figured he’d wait two weeks until that person returned. Noting it on his calendar, he moves onto other matters.

Other task force members, hitting their own walls lead the coordinator to postpone the monthly meeting because there’s “nothing to report”. NOTHING TO REPORT??? This is precisely when a meeting should occur to kick some collective beehind into action. Instead, the collective reasonableness of the group causes momentum for the project to stall, leaving everyone with another example “why things don’t get done around here.”

Wake up call

If you ask managers why things don’t get done, they’ll say their people are not proactive enough. If you ask staff what the problem is, they say management isn’t clear about what they want.

Lesson #1: Stop waiting for someone to tell you what to do.

There is too much concern about appearances versus doing what it takes to get a job done. This doesn’t excuse poor management, but people need to raise their personal standards around getting problems unstuck, versus waiting for a manager to point it out. (Management: “Why didn’t Bob just pick another department to interview”; Bob: “I was told to interview these two departments, not make sure two departments were interviewed”)

Lesson #2: Assume confusion up and down your organization, disguised as passive, acceptance

Regardless how well you think you communicate, people still don’t get it. Human nature is to hide confusion, no matter how well something is communicated. If you’re making a request, ask people to articulate what they’re going to do, not if they understand the request.

Lesson #3: Meet others needs first

People look out for themselves, which has the opposite effect around productivity. Your best people, your “outstanding employees” know something that others don’t. They look first for how they can help others, then and only then, ask for help in return. This has tremendous power in getting things done. It may seem risky to put your needs second, and even counterintuitive, but it works.

The Bottom Line

We’ve got to put more emphasis on holding each other accountable to getting things done. It’s time to move beyond planning, beyond our project management software that we meticulously keep up to date. It’s time to develop mastery around something called “interpersonal execution”. That is where you can impact silos in your organization today.

Interpersonal Silos

“Most teams aren’t teams at all but merely collections of individual relationships with the boss. Each individual vying with the others for power, prestige and position.”

— Douglas McGregor,
Business theorist and management professor 1906–1964