Change Management versus Leadership

In respect to Change Orders, Change has to be managed - NOT!  CHANGE HAS TO BE LED!  even to the point that each project reaches a point of no return or in other words a "point of no more changes" or everybody agrees to a delay.

In respect to Change Management versus Leadership, there are thousands of books written, that probably leaders are not reading, that talk about change needing to be led instead of changed. And there are tons of books that talk about change management. I even myself, through my certification, called myself a change manager. I came to the realization, after multiple change projects failed, that I just can't deal with middle managers as the change drivers any longer. The role of driving change cannot be delegated. It costs companies hundreds of billions of US dollars yearly when projects fail.

What does is mean when a project fails? A project failure is when the outcome is not as expected in respect to the time it took to complete, the money it cost, and standards not achieved; And of course, customers being unhappy. And certainly, a change project is in most cases not a project with a beginning and an end. Change is continuous and a never-ending process. It happens all the time over and over and it exponentially evolves. A change project attracts change within its tasks.

So, the change and its methodologies for leading it, discussed here in this website, is really VERY superficial. I am not intending to write a book about it, quite yet.

Change Orders:

I have never finished a project without at least one or two task changes. In the marketing material industry, these were either design changes, product labeling last minute changes, or legal terms and condition changes.  Errors can delay the project completion probably by weeks or months.

Change orders are costly and consequentially delay projects. I have found that it is better if every stakeholder understands the consequences of change. In the kick-off meeting, when performing the process mapping, change and its consequences is discussed. As a result, stakeholders are more aware of the drama involving change and then will support the project manager in trying to prevent avoidable change.

Sometimes change is caused by poor planning, not necessarily by any one of the project task team, but by regulatory changes in a local market. This of course could kill the project. With every project progress, I am in constant contact with all stakeholders and with the legal department (externally and internally) to make sure we understand the risks and possible project kill factor.

As a project manager, my foremost highest objective is to help my employer save costs on marketing materials, reduce local market liabilities with functional claim compliance on product labeling and marketing materials, and getting the project done on time and below budget.


This is what experts say about change management versus leadership:


RE: IS/IT manages change projects:

Bob Marshall
February 4, 2009
Thomas F. Fox - www.tffox.com 

Hi Thomas,
Happy to be able to contribute. By the way, have you read "Value Forward Selling" by Paul DiModica? Lots fo useful practical advise on how to win business and attention from C level executives. I (and he) agree that dealing with middle management is a waste of time.

HTH

Best regards
Bob


On 02/03/09 10:03 PM, Thomas F. Fox - www.tffox.com wrote:
--------------------
Dear Bob, thank you for your reply. I looked at your impressive profile. I agree with you that change needs to be led rather than managed. And there is my solution: I need to get higher up, all the way to the top leadership of organizations when hired for a change project. I can't deal with middle management...

I have much to learn and to practice. I appreciate your assistance.

Best Wishes

Thomas

On 02/02/09 1:33 AM, Bob Marshall wrote:
--------------------
I applaud the direction of your initiative, although I don't believe that change is a management issue so much as a leadership issue. That's to say, I don't believe that organisations can be managed through change - they have to be led.

Lean principles such as Set Based Concurrent Engineering (SBCE) address the root cause of many of the change orders to which you allude: making decisions too early with insufficient hard information.

There's lots of potential conflict in introducing Lean to IT/IS! Of course, these folks are not best placed to lean the Lean charge in any case.

But I did have an issue with your final paragraph: surely Project Managers' "foremost highest objective" should be delivery of maximal value to all stakeholders, with minimal waste?

- Bob

On 2/1/09 10:55 PM, Thomas F. Fox - www.tffox.com asked:
--------------------
IS/IT manages change projects: I want to contribute to change of this habit. Do you think it might help to provoking change through conflict? What topic do you think I should discuss on www.tffox.com ?

Please see website http://www.tffox.com/ChangeOrders.html and help me fine a discussion topic about provoking change through conflict. I would like to contribute to change ... create a demand for change managers, take change management away from IT/IS. Can it be done?

Thanks

Thomas
www.tffox.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________


Thomas,
Always happy to share thoughts. Without true leadership support you outlook to success is very limited. If you like the answer appreciate if you could rank it asa no more replies come in,

Thanks
Jorgen

On 02/03/09 9:23 PM, Thomas F. Fox - www.tffox.com wrote:
--------------------
Thanks,
you are correct, a the highest ranking leader cannot delegate his support of the change-initiative to other middle managers. Yes, they must be directed to support it, but the highest ranking leader must stand behind the change manager. otherwise... we all know what happens.

This means, I need to turn the project down, unless I get the highest ranking leader's total buy-in and support.

thanks,

Thomas

On 02/03/09 5:50 AM, Jorgen H Brondum wrote:
--------------------
When you decide to buy a car - do you leave it to your mechanic to decide how your need is fulfilled?

Guess the point is that any IT system is implemented to support the business and on the more detailed level steps in the business process.
Therfore the need for IT support - and in my book IT is a support function - should spring form the need for change/improvements in the up-stream or down-stream of the value chain.

IT in it self does not add any value to the end product - unless of course you are in the IT business. In all other cases IT supports the process of adding value to the customers. Further, the IT strategy is derived from and should support the overall business strategy and am assuming (eventhough sometimes dangerous) that the overall strategy is not owned by the IT function???

Bottom line - major changes must be driven by the highest ranking leader affected by the change. Doing a stakeholder and impact analysis will most likely help you identify the obvious change leader. If done so the foundation for a successful change, (anchored and sutsained) is in place.

Leaving it to IT means you are headed for a disaster...