We know from decades of research on the topic, that there are several factors that have been shown to be particularly important in successful innovation. Each of these must be considered at this point and then again at the point when you are ready for more detailed implementation planning.
The first thing that we know is that the higher the organisational level at which managers define a problem or a need, the greater the probability of successful implementation. At the same time, however, we also know that the closer the definition and solution of problems are to end-users, the greater the probability of successful implementation. This "paradox" requires consideration and continual management.
For over ten years, research has highlighted three major elements that are consistently linked to successful implementation: (1) top management must support the effort, but not define the procedures to be used, (2) the technicians involved should provide expertise and computer resources, but not be in charge of the implementation, and (3) the "users" should manage the implementation, but must ensure coordination with both top management and technical personnel.
There are several related factors or actions, that you must consider:
Align
your change style to the scale of the changes
The style of change you choose should be consistent
with the scope of the changes you are planning. For
example, relatively minor, superficial changes take
less time and can be done participatively, relatively
quickly. More radical, profound change, on the other
hand, will be much more time consuming and difficult.
Transformational change will require a distinctly different
change strategy in order to be successful.
We know that successful organisation-level changes frequently have a good fit between the style of change and the depth of change. Dunphy & Stace (1990) and Stace & Dunphy (1994) found that organisations trying to make profound, transformative corporate-level organisational change (i.e., a very deep change) were more successful if they used a more directive style of change than if they used a more consultative or collaborative style. Although this may at first seem to fly in the face of what is frequently discussed in terms of empowerment, delegation and teams, it is not incompatible. If an organisation requires profound organisation change, it must be hugely out of alignment with its environment. This requires decisive action.
For example, since the telecommunications industry has been deregulated, the managers at Telstra(a large, at one time monopoly, government-owned telecommunications company that has gone 'public')must make profound corporate-level changes. If they attempt to go about these changes in a consultative/collaborative manner, they will be out of business long before they ever have the time to discuss the prospects with half of their employees. Therefore, they will have to make some tough and intelligent decisions and get them implemented quickly and efficiently. This will need to be done using a style of change that is distinctly more directive than collaborative or consultative.
Once these major changes have been carried out, however, research suggests that the more incremental changes, that must be carried out at divisional and local levels of the organisation, will be more successful if they are carried out in a more collaborative or consultative manner. Again, this makes sense as the 'emergency' requiring quick and decisive action has been addressed. The significant issue then shifts to gaining commitment and involvement with local changes. This is more effectively and efficiently carried out via collaboration and consultation. Using a more directive style for these types of moderate or shallow organisational changes could result in massive resistance, dissatisfaction, dysfunction and failure.
Scope of changes. Organisation-level changes may be deep or shallow. For example, making some minor changes to one department's structure, or shifting some money from one department's budget to another, are not profound changes. Implementing an intranet within a technically sophisticated organisation also may be considered as a shallow intervention.
On the other hand, if you implement complex new management information systems that fundamentally alter the way you do business and how you define success, this is a deep change. If you are re-engineering a significant proportion of the organisation and you re-conceptualise how you do business, or if you move from a centralised, mainframe environment, to decentralised LANs and PCs, these are also profound organisational changes.
The following figure illustrates this notion of the scope of organisational intervention.
The relevant implementation issue regarding the scope of organisational intervention is that deep interventions require fundamentally different implementation strategies than do shallow interventions. The deeper the change: (1) the more resources (e.g., time, money, effort) it will require, (2) the more resistance you will face, and (3) the more critical it becomes to have clear vision of the future.
Resources. First, with greater depth of change, comes the necessity for more resources in order to achieve the changes. Making minor adjustments takes less time, money, effort and energy. Conversely, significant strategic interventions sometimes require years, millions of dollars, and the continued energy and effort of a significant proportion of an organisation's people. [See related information on securing resources].
Resistance. Another thing that happens as we try to make deeper-level organisational change, is that we encounter greater resistance. Organisational restructuring may be resisted by some people, but it is a relatively shallow intervention. The level of resistance to a restructuring is minor compared with what is encountered when the fundamental paradigm of an industry is changed or during the implementation of significant new technology. It is important to remember that resistance to organisational change is normal. If you are making a significant organisational change and you do not think you are encountering resistance, you should consider yourself in trouble for at least two reasons. First, if you do not have resistance, you have not made change. It is a physical law of our universe, that things at rest tend to stay at rest and things in motion, tend to stay in motion. If you are actually making change, you will know it because there are always forces resisting change. Even in the case where a group in crisis, recognises the need for change and initially embraces it, resistance will surface inevitably. It is part of human nature. The second reason that you should consider yourself in trouble, is that you actually may have made significant change, and the resistance has gone 'underground' . This is dysfunctional. Passive resistance is very difficult to deal with [See related information on resistance to change].
Vision. The last issue regarding depth of organisational intervention and implementation, is that the deeper we go, the more critical our vision of the future becomes. If deep organisational change is going to take us longer, be more costly, and engender greater resistance, it follows that we will have to be extremely clear regarding where we want to be in the future, in order to sustain the effort and direction necessary to eventually get there [See related information on mission, vision and values in the Background Information on commitment].
Senior
management sponsorship and a project champion
It is necessary to have senior management
sponsorship, commitment and involvement. It is also
essential that there be, in a relatively senior position,
a project champion. The champion does at least two
things: (1) influences the design of the system to
ensure the innovation or technical change meets user
and business needs, and (2) provides the impetus for
implementation of the project (e.g., direction, resources
and motivation). The lack of a champion is frequently
associated with project failure [See related information
regarding roles
as a facilitating structure].
Late
formalisation of the project
At this point in the process, we are conducting only our initial implementation planning.
Later in the process, we will turn to more detailed implementation planning. At this early
stage, it is not beneficial to try to firm-up too many decisions regarding implementation.
Research suggests that you need to have things happen more fluidly, more creatively and spontaneously, during these early stages of the project's development. You want to be able to change approaches early on based on input and new information from those involved and affected. During the later stages of the process (detailed implementation planning) it does become important to formalise your approach and to make some firm decisions.
A
team bridging between the "technical" function
and the users
It is important that there is a dedicated
development team whose job it is to bridge the gap
between the "technical" function and the
users. All too frequently, the users do not understand
the innovation/technology, and the technical professionals,
do not understand the detailed business issues and
needs. There must be a good understanding of customer/end-user
needs by those involved in development and early project
planning. If this understanding is not present, the
champion must ensure that the customer/end-user perspective
is represented.
Prototyping
and/or pilot projects
Wherever possible, prototyping/pilot projects should be used. In the early stages of a
project, the use of a small system with restricted scope and/or functionality is
frequently associated with success. Pilot projects that are limited in time, scope and
resources, can be used as training grounds, and as a test bed in which to experiment. When
dealing with complex implementation projects, it is not reasonable to expect that people
can get it done perfectly the first time. This can help to reduce risks, and, once
successful, can be used as a show case [See related information on pilot projects and
prototyping in discussions of detailed
implementation planning].
Effective
technical development
Effective technical development of the system is also necessary. Innovation Implementer
takes for granted that you have made the correct technical decisions. It is assumed you
have the necessary technical competence. It is also assumed, that although this is
necessary for success, it is not sufficient.
A
summary, check-list of questions
The following is a series of questions to ask yourself at this initial implementation
planning stage in the process:
Project
Plan
A
Project Plan will provide you with a visible plan that
helps you balance the tasks that are required to implement
your solution.
It is important to develop a basic project plan early in the cycle of the solution development. That way, you can identify all those costs, risks, milestones, resources and whatever else may need to consider prior to a decision.
In addition, a closer attention to detail early, could save you and your organisation funds and lost opportunities later.
The Project Plan template offers a basic framework to follow. You can seek other specialist project management packages or professional advice if you require.
[Click here to access the Business Plan Template tool]
References
Dunphy, D. & Stace, D. (1990). Under new management. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Stace, D. & Dunphy, D. (1994). Beyond the boundaries. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Roman, D. D. (1986). Managing projects. New York: Elsevier.
Bikson, T. K. & Gutek, B. A. (1983). Advanced office information technology. Santa Monica, CA., the RAND Corporation.
Figure on 'Organisational Change' is adapted from Roger Collins (1996). Strategic Human Resource Management course notes, Australian Graduate School of Management.