| Conventional methods implement the costs of | | | | reducing costs, when it means reducing their own |
| change and prevent benefits. Benefit from change | | | | staff? Who developed the old solution or gains a |
| through R-pM. | | | | technical authority from the old solution? So, |
| | | | chances are the requirements boiled down to one |
| Many of us have participated in business change | | | | - - "no change". |
| projects. I am sure that we share many | | | | So then, the project went through the steps of |
| experiences with the difficulties in gaining | | | | the methodology. Acquire the solution, set up the |
| successful business change. We have read about | | | | solution, train on the solution, implement the |
| many cases of problems and disasters. Why after | | | | solution, accept solution, and operate the solution. |
| all this experience and the many stories of | | | | But, all these steps just incur costs. Where are |
| unsuccessful business change, do we continue to | | | | the steps for planning and achieving benefit? |
| have problems? For a start: | | | | During all this, what happened if there was an |
| 0 We continue to employ bad methods for | | | | exception, advanced need, or a problem that was |
| business change. No one has ever put forward a | | | | not addressed? These likely were put off to the |
| good method | | | | future or left "up to the users", since the |
| 0 We do what everyone else is doing, to | | | | objective is implementation. |
| implement the same problems as everyone else | | | | What happens when it comes to acceptance? |
| 0 We employ conventional wisdom, which | | | | Well, the main requirement of the administrative |
| automatically introduces bad decisions | | | | project manager was met. And, the manager |
| 0 Our enterprise is not structured to plan and | | | | would look bad if delays or controversies were |
| manage benefits, support new solutions in | | | | introduced. So implementation is signed off and |
| operation, or ensure good performance from the | | | | the project is complete. |
| solution | | | | But what remains: |
| Let's go through business change step by step. | | | | 0 Were advanced or future period features ever |
| What was the objective of business change? | | | | implemented? |
| Likely, there is a nominal objective like increasing | | | | 0 Was the old solution completely removed, or is |
| revenues, reducing costs, or improving customer | | | | it still operated to handle the exceptions? |
| service. What is the basis of this objective? | | | | 0 Is the new solution utilized to increase revenues, |
| Precisely how is the new solution to be used to | | | | reduce costs, or improve customer service? Does |
| produce benefits that add up to the nominal | | | | anyone understand how to use the new solution |
| objectives and provide the return? This rarely is | | | | to do more than what was done before? |
| defined. | | | | 0 Was a responsibility established to ensure that |
| If the nominal objective is just words, what is the | | | | the new solution is utilized to produce benefit? |
| implementation team trying to do. Often they will | | | | 0 Was a capability established to support and |
| say their objective is performance improvement. | | | | improve the solution? |
| Should that be the objective? Conventional | | | | 0 Was a method established to track and |
| wisdom says yes, but how do you feel when | | | | measure the return on the investment in the new |
| someone tells you, you need to improve your | | | | solution? |
| performance or that consultants are coming in to | | | | 0 How many old performance problems were |
| improve our performance? | | | | implemented as part of the new solution? What is |
| But, in the end, even performance improvement | | | | the cost of change now? |
| proves hard to define, so the objective comes | | | | 0 Are the users who face the customer, |
| down to something that every one involved can | | | | enthusiastic about the new solution? |
| understand - - "solution implementation". | | | | Many enterprises have had implementations |
| Is solution implementation the proper objective? | | | | where they implemented the cost of business |
| Conventional wisdom says it is, but I think most | | | | change and received, at the most, marginal |
| of us recognize that it is not. But, none of us is | | | | benefit. |
| sure of what the objective should be. | | | | Even if the enterprise follows an implementation |
| Certainly, when consultants get involved, the | | | | or conventional business change method the best |
| objective is solution implementation. They likely | | | | that it can, it will still be implementing the cost of |
| proposed a methodology that they can employ to | | | | business change. Conventional methods manage |
| convert the business over to the new solution. | | | | change and development through contrived |
| So, if consultants were involved, who ended up | | | | entities rather than business reality. No |
| managing the day to day implementation - - the | | | | conventional method can enable the methodical |
| enterprise project manager or the consultant | | | | development of the benefit of business change, |
| project manager? Likely it was up to the | | | | since enterprises are not structured to plan, |
| consultants because that is conventional wisdom | | | | manage, and track the benefits. Until they are |
| and the enterprise does not have the capability or | | | | structured properly to manage business reality, |
| experience with business change. So, who was | | | | enterprises will continue to implement the cost of |
| appointed enterprise project manager? Was it a | | | | business change. |
| manager involved in increasing revenues or | | | | This problem is eliminated by Result-performance |
| improving customer service? Or, was it the | | | | Management (R-pM), a new management |
| administrative manager supporting the solution? | | | | breakthrough now being launched. R-pM provides |
| Likely, the administrative manager was appointed | | | | the answer by structuring enterprise results and |
| project manager, since that is the conventional | | | | performance to enable result-performance |
| wisdom. What was the role of the enterprise | | | | development. The benefits of the investment |
| project manager? It likely boiled down to providing | | | | come from result development; the costs of |
| the solution requirements, which is what the | | | | investment come from performance |
| consultant wants. The nominal consultant objective | | | | development. The payback from investments |
| is to satisfy user requirements and to do what | | | | come from the increase in result value-added |
| the customer wants, which conventional wisdom | | | | (result value less performance costs) compared |
| says are proper objectives. | | | | to the result value-added with no investment, |
| So what are the requirements of the | | | | over the payback period. |
| administrative project manager? Does the | | | | So, stop implementing the cost of business |
| administrative manager know what is needed to | | | | change. Implement the benefit of business change |
| improve revenues or customer service? Is the | | | | by becoming a 21st century enterprise with R-pM. |
| administrative manager interested in really | | | | |