Organisational change management

Almost every project benefit depends on somebody working differently once the thing is delivered. The system does not save the time. The people using it instead of the old spreadsheet save the time, and whether they do is a question the delivery plan never asks.

Two things called change

Integrated change control is the discipline of protecting baselines. A change to scope, cost, schedule or a product is raised, assessed for impact, decided by whoever holds the authority at that threshold, and then reflected in the plan. Its purpose is to stop the target moving quietly.

Organisational change management is about the people on the receiving end. Its purpose is to get adoption of the new way of working high enough and fast enough that the benefit turns up. One protects the plan and the other protects the value, and a project can be excellent at the first while ignoring the second entirely.

QuestionIntegrated change controlOrganisational change management
What it governsThe agreed baselines for scope, cost, schedule and quality, and the products themselvesHow people actually work once the output has been delivered to them
What triggers itA change request raised against a baseline that has already been agreedA decision to build something that will require people to work differently
Who decidesWhoever holds authority at that threshold, so the project manager, the sponsor or a portfolio boardThe sponsor, working through the line managers in the area receiving the change
What it runs onImpact assessments, a change log, and a baselined plan to compare a request againstReadiness assessments, active sponsorship, training close to the moment of use, and the objections people raise
What success looks likeThe plan matches what the project is really delivering, and every deviation was decided by somebody with the authority to decide itAdoption is high enough and fast enough that the benefit in the business case turns up
When it finishesAt project closure, when the baselines are handed over or retiredWell after project closure, when the new way of working has become the ordinary way
What it protectsThe planThe value

Keeping the two apart in your head is most of the battle, because they share a word and appear in the same conversations. The tell is the object of the verb. Integrated change control changes a document, and organisational change management changes what somebody does on a Tuesday morning.

Readiness, before anybody is ready

Readiness is assessed rather than assumed, and it is a small set of blunt questions asked of the people who will be affected. Do they know this is coming and roughly when. Do they know what it means for their own job rather than for the organisation. Do they have the capacity to absorb it, given everything else landing that quarter. Is the last change still being digested.

Change saturation is the answer that catches organisations out. A team on its fourth new system in a year has run out of attention rather than goodwill, and no amount of communication about this particular project buys any of it back. Readiness findings are useful because they are actionable while there is still time to act on them.

Resistance is information

The instinct is to treat objection as obstruction and to answer it with more messaging. That wastes the most reliable source of intelligence a project has. The person who says the new process will not work is often the only one who knows about the exception that runs through it twice a week, the customer who has always been handled by hand, or the regulatory record that the new screen has nowhere to store.

Treating objections as a defect queue changes the dynamic. Each one gets logged, answered by somebody with authority, and either fixed or explained. Resistance that is suppressed goes quiet and comes back after go live as a workaround, a shadow spreadsheet or a quietly maintained copy of the old process, all of which are much more expensive than the conversation would have been.

Sponsorship does more than everything else combined

The single strongest predictor of whether a change lands is an active and visible sponsor. The word doing the work there is active, which describes a job with named tasks in it rather than a title on a slide and an email on launch day.

What an active sponsor actually does is specific. They hold the other managers to the change, because a middle manager who quietly permits the old way is a more powerful signal than any announcement. They resolve the competing priorities that would otherwise leave people choosing between the new process and their existing targets. They keep appearing after the interesting part is over. A project with a nominal sponsor and a beautiful communications plan is weaker than one with an engaged sponsor and no plan at all.

Reinforcement after go live

Go live is the point at which most change effort stops, and it is the point at which people decide whether to persist. Reinforcement is what happens next. Support has to stay in place past the first fortnight, since questions peak in week three when the launch team has usually stood down. The old path has to be closed, because if the previous system still works some proportion of people will keep using it. Whatever people are measured and rewarded on has to move, or the measures will quietly instruct them to go back.

Why training alone almost never lands a change

Training builds capability. Behaviour needs capability, motivation and opportunity together, and training only supplies one of the three. Someone can understand the new system perfectly and still work around it, because their targets reward the old behaviour, because their manager works around it too, or because the new step takes them longer while the saving lands in a different department.

Training also decays. Delivered three months before go live it is forgotten, and delivered in one long session it is remembered as the afternoon somebody got confused. What survives is training close to the moment of use, in the person's own scenarios, with help available when the first awkward case arrives.

Common misconceptions

Change management is the process for approving changes to scope and schedule.

That is integrated change control, which protects the baselines. This is about people who have to work differently after go live. The two share a word and nothing else, and confusing them is the most common vocabulary error in the whole subject.

If people are resisting, they need more communication.

Sometimes, and often the opposite. Resistance frequently carries information the project does not have, such as a customer type the new process cannot serve or a step that now takes twice as long. More broadcast aimed at an objection nobody has listened to hardens it.

A communications plan and a training course make a change plan.

They are two components of one. Without an active sponsor, a readiness check, and reinforcement after go live, they produce a workforce that knows exactly what it is supposed to do differently and carries on as before.

Where this is examined
PMP
Business Environment, 26 per cent of the exam.
Related material
Book
Leading Change, On why a launched change stalls and what a guiding coalition does about it.
Book
Managing Transitions, On the psychological transition that runs behind the organisational one.
Book
Sooner Safer Happier, On the patterns and antipatterns of change at organisational scale.
Book
Influence Without Authority, On moving people who do not report to you.
Concepts