There are many facets of driving agile changes. Agile changes are featured by such as developing minimum viable product and not investing too much initially, developing a series of iterations to gradually improve the product, engaging stakeholders early and frequently to ensure the outcomes meet business needs, developing working product/solutions from which feedback may be sought to feed iterative improvements prior to final release.
With so many facets of implementing agile changes, what is
the most important part of driving agile changes? What is the core concept that must be done right
without which the change would not be considered ‘agile’?
One of the most critical parts of agile change is the
concept of developing a hypothesis that can be tested. The outcome must be clear in terms of whether
the solution developed meets the business needs or not.
Why hypothesis?
In waterfall methods of delivering projects, the focus is on
spending significant focus understanding and detailing features and ‘requirements’
from the business. From these, the
solution is then designed and developed.
The problem with this approach is:
Significant resources and investment may be
required to sufficiently develop the solution depending on the complexity
involved
It may also take a long period of time to
involve various stakeholders and investigate solution design options before a final
product can be developed. A series of
design decisions also need to be made, each step taking time to undergo
The business may not know what they want and
they would need to provide ‘requirement’s that may or may not meet their
needs. For example, prior to the launch
of iphones, touch screen phones were not popular and were not seen as the
design of future phones
The risk can be significant if the solution developed
does not meet business needs. Millions
of dollars of project investment could have been wasted if this is the case.
On the other hand, what is the advantage of a hypothesis based approach?
Does not spend a lot of time creating a
sophisticated solution or product.
Instead, a simplified version is developed which captures the core of
business need. This is then tested, and then
the results can then feed into further improvements required. In this way, the process allows organisations
to fail early and cheaply in order to eventually come up with the winning
solution
Instead of focusing on detailed planning which
is based on a series of assumptions which may not have been tested to be valid,
the focus is on deriving a solution that CAN be tested and validated or
invalidated. This is especially important
when the solution is new and has not been implemented previously in the
organisation
The hypothesis approach is a scientific approach
where the focus is on proven results based on data. In the same way a laboratory technician would
conduct a series of experiments to test the properties of a chemical solution to
further understand it, in the same way the project team would conduct a series
of ‘experiments’ (or iterations) to gradually test and from testing results,
improve the solution
Tests are always based on ‘real’ data and real
scenarios therefore there is a much greater chance that the final solution will
meet business needs
The importance of a hypothesis-approach for organisational agility
The survival and growth of a company are dependent on its ability to go into different products, different territories or different customer groups to expand its offering. In order to do this, the company needs to ultimately launch various products or services that do not exist currently or that have not been launched in certain new areas/segments.
Therefore, the ability of the organisation to continuously develop, launch and learn from new products and services is critical for its success. Each product launch is a new hypothesis that is to be tested. And with each testing, a set of learning is achieved which will improve its next product launch. In this way, this is how companies become agile and develop the ability to flex and change based on its ability to generate hypotheses.
For digital businesses developing hypothesis is a core way of operating. A hypothesis can be as small as testing the wording of the website using A/B Testing to see which wording is more engaging for website visitors. A/B Testing is where a certain number of visitor traffic is channeled into one version of the website versus another version. And the results of visitor interactions can be used to validate which version is more engaging.
Change management hypothesis testing
To truly adopt a hypothesis-based approach to change management one needs to adopt change hypothesis testing. What is change hypothesis testing I hear you ask? It is basically developing a series of small change experiments to test assumptions. Change experiments are important because they help to inform what change tactics or approaches work or do not work.
Some examples of change experiments include:
Wording of campaign phrases or positioning
Email click-through rate based on details such
as who email is from, time of delivery, etc.
Effectiveness of training exercises
Employee awareness after town hall messages
Website effectiveness
Impact assessment approach effectiveness
Campaign medium effectiveness such as freebies,
posters, etc.
However, it is critical to ensure that hypothesis to be tested is not time nor resource intensive. The experiment must also be tested using feedback data. The hypothesis cannot be proven or disproved unless it is backed by hard data and not just opinions.
Change management is a broad and diverse discipline with many facets. Just like other essential business domains such as Finance, Marketing, Human Resources, or Management, it encompasses a variety of sub-components. In Finance, for instance, there are sub-disciplines like accounting, tax, budgeting, and investment. Similarly, Human Resources boasts sub-disciplines like employee relations, remuneration, organizational development, business partnering, and learning and development.
Within the vast landscape of change management, various sub-disciplines unfold, each playing a crucial role in orchestrating successful transformations. These include change leadership, learning and development, change impact assessment, organizational design, communications, and change portfolio management. Furthermore, multiple functions across the organizational spectrum claim proficiency in change management, including Human Resources, Project Management, Strategy, and Operations Management.
Navigating this complexity requires a keen understanding of the interconnected nature of these sub-disciplines and the functions that contribute to change management. It’s akin to the intricate workings of Finance, Marketing, and Human Resources, where each component plays a vital role in the overall success of the discipline.
So, where do we begin in this expansive landscape? Let’s unveil the secrets to understanding the core of change management, starting with the often-overlooked, yet crucial, aspect of change impact. To delve deeper into this topic, access our infographic ‘Why lots of functions think they are all experts in managing change’.
Change impact
With so many components to grasp, where does one start in the expansive landscape of change management? And which component holds greater significance? While it’s tempting to label all components as important depending on the nature and context of the change, effective change management begins with a crystal-clear understanding of what is changing. To achieve this understanding, one must unravel the intricate web of change impact on various stakeholder groups, both internal and external to the organization. It is only after a deep understanding of the impact that planning for effective change management can take place.
In many instances, generic change approaches such as training and communications are employed without a detailed understanding of the nature of the change’s impact on stakeholders. The result? Change interventions that miss the mark, leading to resistance and a lack of support.
But how do we gauge this elusive concept of change ‘impact’? How do we understand change ‘impact’? There are many ways to do this.
1. Perception of the change
How does the impacted stakeholder group perceive the change’s impact on them? For example, if implementing a new system in an environment where users are comfortable with the existing one, the perception may be one of skepticism and negativity. Imagine introducing a new project management tool to a team accustomed to their existing system. If the current tool meets their needs seamlessly, the perception of the new system may be met with skepticism, especially if the ‘why’ behind the change isn’t effectively communicated.
The perception of the change is about the mindsets, attitudes, and expectations of people. These are not easily quantifiable and will require a deep understanding of that particular stakeholder group and the history of how they have transitioned through different changes.
The perception of the change can also be positive or negative. Positive perceptions of change could be the result of a perception or expectation of benefit, for example, the system may be easier to use, saves time, or accomplish significant tasks that are not possible with the existing system. Negative perception could result if the benefit case is not clear or, worse, perceived to be adding more time, more complexity, and providing less value.
Typical ways to understand the perception of stakeholders may involve surveys, interviews, and focus groups.
2. Severity of impact
Another dimension crucial in understanding change is the severity of its impact. Does the change demand significant investment and resources, akin to a major restructuring exercise? Or is the impact more modest, involving minor process tweaks and requiring only email notifications for those affected?
Measuring the severity of impact is often done using a Likert scale, with 1 denoting a small impact, 3 indicating a medium impact, and 5 signifying a very high impact.
It’s important to note that when employing a scale to assess change impact, a 5-point scale is recommended over a 10-point or 3-point scale. A 10-point scale might be too intricate for individuals to navigate, leading to challenges in distinguishing between, for instance, 6/10 and 7/10, where the material difference may be minimal. Conversely, a 3-point scale tends to oversimplify the analysis, as organizations typically contend with multiple changes, and categorizing all impacts into three broad categories may lack the necessary granularity to differentiate impact levels meaningfully.
3. Capacity of impact
Another crucial aspect of understanding change is assessing how it impacts the capacity of stakeholders to digest and transition through the change. Consider, for instance, the effort and activities required for managers of a business unit to be sufficiently briefed about a new system, enabling them to guide their teams through the process. What are the learning requirements, and what support is necessary?
For changes that are more complex, and demanding significant effort and involvement in the change process, it’s essential to identify these activities and evaluate their impact on the stakeholder group. Common change and transition activities influencing stakeholder capacity include:
Town halls or briefing sessions
Workshops and focus groups
Involvement of subject-matter-experts
Watching videos or reading emails about the initiative
Team meetings to discuss the change
Learning and development sessions
Practice and gradual familiarity required
Providing feedback about the change
Attending any celebration or other events related to the initiative
Additionally, assessing the capacity of impacted stakeholders involves considering what else is happening during the change implementation period. Are there other changes or notable work tasks occurring concurrently? For example, is the change happening during a peak customer period or a major annual work cycle, such as the end of the financial year or audit? Understanding these contextual factors is crucial, as they can significantly impact the capacity of stakeholders.
In large organizations, where multiple changes are often underway simultaneously, navigating these capacity and bandwidth challenges is a skill in itself. Anticipating these challenges ahead of time and planning strategically is key. Explore our suite of articles on change portfolio management to gain insights into effectively managing multiple changes.
4. Time Impact
Considering the impact of change on stakeholder capacity extends to the element of time. Every aspect of change, from shifts in mindset to learning a new system, digesting emails and information packs, attending sessions and meetings, to practicing how to operate the new system, contributes to the temporal dimension of change impact.
Quantifying the time impact of various change aspects on different stakeholder groups allows for estimating the time ranges of impact. This quantification is especially valuable for teams that are highly time-sensitive, such as call centre teams or Finance teams during month-end or year-end periods, when they are deeply engaged in consolidating finances. Similarly, teams like Customer Complaints and Resolutions may experience heightened activity during end-of-year periods with increased customer volumes.
How do we put these into use?
How do we translate these insights into action? Change impact assessment is the critical process of evaluating the nature of change impacts on various stakeholder groups. By utilizing the methods outlined above to assess the impact of change, the change impact assessment generates a detailed set of information from which we can formulate the change approach. It is only after understanding the ‘what’ of the change that we can design the ‘how’ to transition stakeholders through the change.
The completed change impact assessment should be socialized and verified with those impacted. Without this verification process, there’s a risk that those affected may not agree with the captured change impacts, or there could be other impacts missed in the assessment.
At The Change Compass, we offer a cloud-based tool where organizations can input and visualize change impact information. By visualizing the data, we can assess risks and opportunities, including:
Identifying groups that may need additional support due to the complexity or volume of the change
Comparing different stakeholder groups to determine the most critical to the initiative’s success and the extent of their capacity impact, especially in terms of time
Plotting change saturation points for different parts of the business, assessing the extent to which changes exceed these points. Based on this assessment, we determine risk mitigation strategies such as re-prioritization, providing additional resources, or adjusting the change implementation timeline
Evaluating the extent to which impacts (across initiatives) on different parts of the business align with strategic goals. Are the largest impacts on parts of the business as expected according to the strategy? Is the organization’s implementation more focused on operational efficiency or growth, and does this align with the strategic intent?
In conclusion, understanding the core of change management requires a nuanced exploration of change impact, encompassing perception, severity, capacity, and time. By delving into these facets, organizations can chart a path to successful change, avoiding generic approaches that lead to resistance. The Change Compass provides the tools to unlock the full potential of change, ensuring that initiatives align with strategic goals and receive the support they need.
The various types of change data available is like an iceberg. Most people only see the small part of the surface of data types such as training completion rate or change heatmap. There is a lot more beneath the surface. Download our Change Data Iceberg diagram to find out more …
Australia and New Zealand are like 2 brothers. One big brother, Australia,
and the smaller brother New Zealand. We are culturally similar and speak
with almost the same accent (almost but not quite the same). Both
countries have experienced recent tragedies and challenges. However,
there are 2 very different prime ministers. Let’s explore what we can learn from
these two leaders within significant change events.
New Zealand
On 15 March in Christchurch New Zealand, there was a mass shooting at 2
mosques resulting in 51 killed and 49 injured. This has cut through the
psyche of New Zealand quite deeply as it was the first time the country had
experienced mass shooting at this scale. Being a small country with a
relatively liberal and tolerant culture this came a shock for most.
Jacinda Arden, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, reacted swiftly. Within
a few hours of the event she addressed the terrorist directly
demonstrating strength and determination. She quickly flew into
Christchurch to visit survivors and their relatives. Dressed in black head
scarf, she visited mosques and asked how she could support the mosques
and the victims. Within a few days of the event she also called out
blatantly the responsibility of social media platforms in hosting hate
messages which was the case for this incident as the attacker posted
Facebook messages prior to the attack.
She then made sweeping changes to gun laws in New Zealand banning all
assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics. This happened within a
few days of the event and though some may argue that this is much easier
to achieve in New Zealand than the US but the point is that she acted
swiftly and had even convinced the conservative opposition party to enact
on this law.
4 key lessons we can learn from her example as a change leader include:
1. Displaying agile leadership. She proactively faced into a catastrophic
situation and worked with others to address the situation head-on.
She made fast and clear decisions to resolve and contain the
situation.
2. Authenticity. She spent time with those affected by the tragedy and
showed empathy and care. This wasn’t about the photo
opportunity as it was more about spending time to listen and show
care for those impacted by change. She didn’t try to be someone
she is not. Instead of the antagonistic and hostile speeches that one
might expect from leaders like Trump, her words were empathic,
strong and unwavering.
3. Displaying emotional connection . She also placed herself in the
shoes of those affected by the tragedy with her cultural sensitivity
and emotional connection to those impacted. The grieving was not
only felt by those involved in the tragedy, the whole nation was
grieving. Her visibility was critical to speak for the nation but also to
acknowledge everyone’s emotional state and concerns. The critical
word here is ‘visibility’. Felt emotional connection wont garner
groups of people if they are not displayed.
4. Collaborating with others to drive change. A series of changes
ensued not just gun law changes, but also driving security, and
social media regulation changes. In an interview she used the words
“duty of care as a leader” to safeguard her people and address their
concerns. She is not just speaking for herself, but also for other
leaders, including business leaders, to step up and take action. She
also influenced various world leaders on the same agenda to rally
support.
Australia
Right now in Australia, at the time of writing, we are still in the middle of a
catastrophic set of fires raging across most states of Australia. More than
1300 homes have been burnt down and 18 people have died so far. In
Sydney, we have had more than 2 months of smoke haze in our air
resulting from bushfires, and sometimes the air quality can be 11 times
more than ‘hazardous’ level. This is absolutely the worst I have ever
experienced in Australia. This morning, I received the message that at the
southern highlands where I spend Christmas, the area is surrounded by
bushfires and residents have all been evacuated.
Let’s have a look at how our Prime Minister has lead the country during
this period of environmental change. Unlike the leadership we’ve seen
from Jacinda Ardern, Scott Morrison our Prime Minister flew out with his
family to Hawaii to spend holidays by the water. Whilst the country is
burning and people are suffering, even under intense criticism, our prime
minister was absent and away. When prompted to address serious
climate change issues, he responded by saying that it was not the time to
talk about climate change.
Eventually after continued public pressures, after Scott Morrison came
back from holidays he proceeded to visit some of the towns completely
destroyed by bushfires. Many of the victims refused to shake his hand. In
the business world we have also seen this type of reaction from those
who felt they have been deserted and have not received any leadership
support. There have even been incidents where the victims have asked
Scott questions and he had ignored them and moved away, then later on
quoting how he had promised help for them.
Whilst fires continue to burn through our states, the Prime Minister’s
party released a party propaganda social media tweet proclaiming the
party’s prowess in helping Australians through supporting firefighters,
listing the financial assistance offered as a part of the package. An
Australian TV panellist said this was like “being ‘sold to’ at a funeral”. It
was completely inappropriate and badly timed.
In terms of the same change leadership lessons we had captured from
Jacinda Ardern, what can we also learn from Scott Morrison’s change
leadership example?
1. Displaying agile leadership. Lack of action and decision at the
commencement of the change is almost unforgivable. It is very hard
to salvage from the lack of leadership support when at this pivotal
moment when there is no leadership action or response.
2. Authenticity. Unfortunately, authenticity by definition cannot be
faked nor acted. People see through the actions and inactions of a
leader. There is no amount of corporate communications packaging
nor word-smithing that can change how others experience through
change leadership, or the lack of. Being open and transparent
remains the best approach for any change leader.
3. Displaying emotional connection. It is difficult to fake emotional
reaction. Through overall body language as well as tonal cues
people can easily pick up on a leader’s ability to connect
emotionally. When people are in distress and in suffering, the best
approach is to simply listen and show that you have heard them.
Ideally, you are also able to address at least some of their core
concerns. But the critical must-have remains how a leaders
displayed active listening and showing that he or she cares.
4. Collaborating with others to drive change. What Australia needs is
global leadership to drive climate change and to work with various
agencies and leaders, the same way that Jacinda Ardern has been
doing with New Zealand‘s agenda. Several countries have proactive
offered support in fighting bushfires even without Scott Morrison
reaching out to tap on others.
Change is all around us, not just in the organizations that we work in.
In the same way, change leaders are also all around us.
Leading change is an absolutely critical skill to master and will well into the future.
