Three Approaches to Deriving a Single View of Change

Three Approaches to Deriving a Single View of Change

by | Portfolio management

Ask any senior change practitioner what they wish they had, and a single view of change sits near the top of the list. Not another dashboard, not another status report, but a genuine, consolidated picture of every change impacting a given group of people at any point in time. The ability to see cumulative change load, identify collision points, and make resourcing decisions based on evidence rather than instinct is, as many practitioners describe it, the “nirvana” of the profession. And yet, despite widespread agreement on its value, most organisations are nowhere near achieving it.

The gap between aspiration and reality is significant. Research from Prosci’s change management maturity model consistently shows that the majority of organisations operate at the lower end of the maturity spectrum, managing change reactively and in silos rather than as a coordinated, enterprise-wide capability. Individual project teams may run their own impact assessments, but those assessments rarely speak to each other. The result is a fragmented picture of change where no single person or team has a reliable view of what employees are actually absorbing.

What makes this problem particularly stubborn is that it is not primarily a technology problem. It is a practice problem. Organisations know they should consolidate their change data, but the question of how to do it, and at what level of rigour, is rarely answered clearly. This article defines three distinct approaches to building a single view of change, examines what each delivers and where each falls short, and makes the case for why the most sophisticated approach is not a luxury reserved for large enterprises with mature change functions. It is the standard every organisation should be working toward.

You can download a copy of the infographic summarising these three approaches at https://thechangecompass.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Approaches-in-single-view-of-change.png.

Three approaches to deriving a single view of change - infographic comparison

What a single view of change actually means

A single view of change is not a project list. It is not a programme register or a governance report showing which initiatives are on track. It is a structured representation of the change impacts landing on specific groups of people, at specific points in time, across all active programmes simultaneously. The emphasis is on people, not projects. The question it answers is not “what are we delivering?” but “what are our people being asked to absorb, and when?”

This distinction matters enormously in practice. A project-centric view tells you that three major technology implementations are running concurrently. A people-centric single view of change tells you that the customer service team in the eastern region is simultaneously absorbing a new CRM system, a restructure of their reporting lines, and a revised performance framework, all within the same eight-week window. Those are very different pieces of information, and only the second is useful for making decisions about change sequencing, communication timing, and adoption risk.

Building this kind of view requires agreement on a common data model: which change types you are tracking, how you classify impact severity, which employee groups or business units form the unit of analysis, and over what time horizon the view is maintained. Without that foundation, you end up with a patchwork of inconsistent assessments that cannot be meaningfully aggregated. The three approaches described below represent different levels of rigour in establishing and maintaining that foundation, and each reflects a different level of organisational commitment to change as a managed capability.

Approach 1 – Estimating the pulse: quick wins and limitations

The first approach is the most common starting point, and it is worth being clear that it is a starting point rather than a destination. In this approach, a change practitioner, portfolio office, or PMO collects high-level information about active and planned initiatives and produces a heatmap showing estimated change load across different employee groups over time. The word “estimated” is key. The impacts are not derived from rigorous assessment at the project level. They are approximated, often by a single analyst working from project plans and conversations with project managers.

The appeal of this approach is real. It is fast to stand up, requires no significant technology investment, and can be produced using a spreadsheet or a basic visualisation tool. For an organisation that has never had any consolidated view of change before, even an imperfect heatmap represents a step forward. It gives executive sponsors a rough sense of where the change load is heaviest, and it can prompt useful conversations about sequencing that would not otherwise happen.

The limitations, however, are substantial. Because the data is estimated rather than grounded in structured impact assessments, the view is only as reliable as the individual who produced it, and it degrades quickly as the change portfolio evolves. Projects accelerate, stall, or get descoped, and the heatmap becomes stale within weeks. There is also no systematic mechanism for keeping it current, which means it tends to be produced for a specific governance purpose, presented once, and then quietly retired until the next time someone asks for it. Decisions made on the basis of this view carry significant risk because the underlying data has not been verified at the project level and cannot be easily interrogated.

Approach 2 – Periodic pulse checking: building rhythm and structure

The second approach introduces a degree of structure and rhythm that the first lacks. Rather than producing an ad hoc heatmap when required, organisations operating at this level maintain a regular cadence, typically monthly, of collecting and updating change impact data from projects across the portfolio. Project teams are asked to document their impacts using a consistent template, and the outputs are consolidated into a single view that is reported to governance forums on a scheduled basis.

This approach represents a meaningful improvement. The data is more grounded because it comes directly from project teams rather than being estimated centrally. The regular cadence means the view is updated more frequently and is therefore more reliable. Governance bodies begin to develop a habit of reviewing the single view as part of their standard portfolio reporting, which normalises the conversation about change load and creates accountability for managing it.

In many organisations, this level of practice already represents a significant cultural shift. McKinsey research on large-scale transformations has consistently highlighted that poor coordination between concurrent change initiatives is one of the primary contributors to failed adoption and employee fatigue. A periodic pulse-checking approach at least surfaces these coordination risks in a structured way, even if it does not fully resolve them.

The limitations of this approach centre on its episodic nature. Monthly data collection means that the view is always somewhat out of date. More critically, the single view produced in this approach tends to inform reporting rather than drive decisions. It tells governance what is happening but does not integrate deeply enough into project planning, resourcing, or change sequencing decisions to actually change outcomes. There is also a data quality problem: when project teams are asked to self-report their impacts using a template, the quality of those assessments varies considerably depending on the maturity of the project’s change capability. Without a mechanism to validate or interrogate the data, the consolidated view can reflect widely different standards of rigour across the portfolio.

Approach 3 – Hand on the pulse: the embedded operating system

The third approach is qualitatively different from the first two, and it is the approach that every organisation should be working toward. Rather than treating the single view of change as a reporting artefact that is produced periodically and presented to governance, this approach embeds change data as a live, continuously maintained input into business operations and decision-making. The single view is not a report. It is an operating system.

In practical terms, this means that change impact data is maintained in real time, or close to it, and is structured in a way that allows it to be sliced, queried, and acted upon at multiple levels of the organisation. Business leaders can view the change load on their teams at any point. Change practitioners can identify emerging collision points and intervene before they become adoption failures. Portfolio offices can use the data to make evidence-based decisions about sequencing, resourcing, and prioritisation. And because the data is maintained continuously rather than refreshed monthly, it reflects the actual state of the change portfolio, not a snapshot from three weeks ago.

The defining characteristic of this approach is that change data is integral to governance rather than supplementary to it. Decisions about which projects get approved, which get deferred, and how implementation timelines are structured are made with explicit reference to the impact those decisions will have on the people being asked to absorb the change. Gartner’s research on change management effectiveness has found that organisations which integrate change capacity data into portfolio governance are significantly better positioned to sustain adoption and realise intended benefits from transformation programmes.

This approach also requires, and builds, a fundamentally different relationship between change practitioners and the business. Change is not something that happens to the organisation from the outside and is then managed reactively. It is a dimension of business performance that is actively monitored, managed, and optimised, in the same way that financial or operational performance is managed. That shift in mindset is as important as the tools and processes that support it.

Why organisations need to move toward approach 3

The case for moving beyond the first two approaches is not primarily about best practice compliance. It is about business outcomes. The accumulation of uncoordinated change is one of the most underappreciated risks in large organisations today. When too much change lands on the same people in the same window, adoption rates fall, productivity drops, and the benefits that justified the investment in each individual programme are not realised. This is not a theoretical risk. Harvard Business Review research on change fatigue has documented that employees experiencing high cumulative change load are significantly more likely to resist new initiatives, disengage from their roles, and leave the organisation.

The first two approaches provide some visibility into this risk, but they do not provide the granularity or timeliness needed to actively manage it. A heatmap produced six weeks ago, based on estimated impacts, does not give a business leader the confidence to make a high-stakes decision about whether to accelerate a technology rollout or defer it by a quarter. A live, data-driven single view of change does.

There is also a structural argument for approach 3 that relates to agility. Organisations that aspire to manage change as an agile capability, responding quickly to market shifts and internal priorities while maintaining employee wellbeing and productivity, cannot do so if their view of change is episodic and imprecise. Agility in change management requires the same real-time data foundations that agility in operations or product development does. Without a continuously maintained single view of change, decisions about sequencing and resourcing default to seniority and politics rather than evidence, and the organisation’s change capacity is chronically misallocated.

The maturity journey from approach 1 to approach 3

It would be unrealistic to suggest that every organisation can or should immediately adopt the hand-on-the-pulse approach. The journey from approach 1 to approach 3 is a genuine maturity progression, and it requires investment in data practices, governance structures, technology, and change practitioner capability. For most organisations, the progression is sequential, and each step builds the foundations that the next one requires.

Moving from approach 1 to approach 2 typically requires establishing a consistent impact assessment methodology that project teams can apply, creating a regular cadence for data collection and consolidation, and securing a governance forum that is willing to receive and act on the single view as part of its standard agenda. These are cultural as much as procedural changes. They require the PMO or change function to build credibility with the business by demonstrating that the data is reliable and the insights are actionable.

Moving from approach 2 to approach 3 is a more significant step. It requires a technology platform that can maintain and present change data in real time, a data governance model that ensures consistent quality across project submissions, and a set of business processes that use the single view as a live input rather than a periodic report. It also requires a change in how the organisation thinks about the role of the change function, from a support service that produces documentation to a strategic capability that manages change as a business resource.

The organisations that have successfully made this transition share a common pattern: they invested in the methodology before the technology. They established what data they needed, how it would be defined and collected, and how it would be used in decisions, before they invested in the platform to make it scalable. Organisations that invest in technology first, without a clear data model and governance framework behind it, typically find that the platform becomes another source of inconsistent data rather than a reliable operating system.

How The Change Compass enables the hand-on-the-pulse approach

The Change Compass is a digital change management platform purpose-built to support organisations in achieving and sustaining the third approach. Rather than requiring change practitioners to manually consolidate impact data from spreadsheets and project templates, the platform provides a structured environment where change data is captured, maintained, and visualised in real time across the full portfolio. Business leaders can see the change load on their teams at any point in time. Change practitioners can identify emerging pressure points and model the impact of sequencing decisions before they are made. Governance bodies receive a live, evidence-based picture of change capacity rather than a retrospective report.

Critically, the platform is designed to support the methodology as much as the technology, providing the data structures, impact assessment frameworks, and reporting templates that organisations need to build a consistent, high-quality single view of change. For organisations earlier in their maturity journey, it can also support the transition from approach 1 or 2, helping teams establish the data disciplines that make approach 3 achievable over time.

Frequently asked questions

What is a single view of change and why does it matter?

A single view of change is a consolidated, real-time representation of all the changes impacting a given group of employees at any point in time, across every active programme and initiative in the organisation. It matters because without it, organisations cannot reliably assess cumulative change load, identify collision points between concurrent initiatives, or make evidence-based decisions about sequencing and resourcing. Change practitioners who lack this view are managing complexity without the data they need to do so effectively.

How is a change heatmap different from a single view of change?

A change heatmap is typically a visual representation of change activity across the organisation, showing which groups are most heavily impacted during a given period. A single view of change is broader and more dynamic: it encompasses not just the visual output but the underlying data model, collection processes, governance structures, and decision-making integration that make the view reliable and actionable. A heatmap is often the product of approach 1, and while it is a useful starting point, it is not the same as the fully embedded single view that approach 3 delivers.

How long does it typically take to move from approach 1 to approach 3?

The timeline varies considerably depending on the size and complexity of the organisation, the maturity of the existing change function, and the level of executive sponsorship for the capability investment. In organisations that move deliberately and invest in methodology before technology, a transition from approach 1 to approach 2 might take six to twelve months, and from approach 2 to approach 3 a further twelve to twenty-four months. However, organisations that adopt a fit-for-purpose digital platform early in the journey can accelerate this considerably by building the right data disciplines from the outset.

Can smaller organisations achieve approach 3, or is it only realistic for large enterprises?

Approach 3 is achievable for organisations of all sizes, and in some respects it is easier for smaller organisations because the data volumes are more manageable and the governance structures simpler. The core requirements, a consistent impact assessment methodology, a live data environment, and governance integration, scale down as well as up. Smaller organisations that invest in the right platform and establish the right disciplines can often reach approach 3 faster than large enterprises, precisely because they do not carry the same legacy of siloed project governance and fragmented change data.

References

Prosci. Change Management Maturity Model. Prosci Research.

McKinsey & Company. The people power of transformations. McKinsey & Company.

Gartner. Organisational Change Management Insights. Gartner Human Resources Research.

Harvard Business Review. The Change Management Mistake Most Companies Make. Harvard Business Review, 2023.

Why change communications are often designed to fail

Why change communications are often designed to fail

by | Change Initiatives, Designing change

Effective communication is the lifeblood of any successful change endeavour within an organization. It serves as the conduit through which ideas are conveyed, strategies are articulated, and employees are engaged. However, the delicate balance between providing sufficient information and avoiding overload is often difficult to strike. Moreover, how communication is crafted can significantly impact its effectiveness in driving change.

Exploring the Elements of Failure

Delving into the nuances of change communication reveals several common pitfalls that can impede its effectiveness:

  1. Maintaining a Positive or Neutral Tone: In many corporate settings, there is a pervasive tendency to maintain a positive or neutral tone in communication. While this may seem prudent to foster optimism and prevent undue concern, it can inadvertently obscure the gravity of the situation necessitating change. Employees may fail to grasp the urgency or magnitude of the challenges at hand if they are shielded from the realities driving the need for change. Striking the right balance requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges both the imperative for change and the potential benefits it offers. By providing a candid assessment of the current state while articulating a compelling vision for the future, organizations can inspire action and commitment among their workforce.
  2. Impersonal Corporate Speak: The language employed in corporate communications often reflects a detached, impersonal demeanor. This formality, while intended to convey professionalism, can alienate employees and hinder their ability to connect with the message. Particularly in the context of change initiatives, where emotions and uncertainties abound, a more humanized approach is essential.Leaders must endeavor to communicate in a manner that resonates with their audience, conveying authenticity and empathy. By infusing their messages with personal anecdotes, genuine concerns, and relatable language, they can establish rapport and engender trust among employees.
  3. Focus on Reason Over Emotions: Traditional corporate communication tends to prioritize logic and reason over emotional appeal. While facts and figures are undoubtedly important, they often fail to evoke the deeper emotional responses necessary to galvanize action. Employees are more likely to embrace change when they are emotionally invested in its success.Leaders should not shy away from tapping into the emotional dimension of change, sharing personal stories, aspirations, and concerns. By fostering a sense of shared purpose and rallying around common values, organizations can cultivate a culture of resilience and adaptability.

I hear you nod.  So what is wrong with these practices if they have been the norm for decades and is adopted as common practice by most organisations?

OK let’s go through these one by one.

Illustrating the Importance of Emotional Engagement:

Drawing from personal experiences underscores the profound impact that emotional engagement can have on driving change: Recalling my tenure at Intel, a pivotal moment arose when rival AMD posed a significant threat to our market dominance. Leaders initiated candid discussions, rallying employees around the emotional stakes of the challenge. This emotional appeal galvanized teams across functions, leading to a remarkable turnaround in our fortunes.

Reimagining Change Communications

In light of the evolving organizational landscape, characterized by rapid technological advancements and shifting cultural norms, there is a pressing need to reimagine change communications: John Kotter, in his book “Change: How Organizations Achieve Hard-to-Imagine Results in Uncertain and Volatile Times,” highlights the imperative for organizations to adapt their communication strategies to meet the demands of the modern era. This entails embracing a more dynamic, inclusive approach that values authenticity, transparency, and emotional resonance.

Change communication is not a static endeavor but rather an ongoing evolution that must adapt to the ever-changing needs and expectations of employees. By challenging conventional norms and embracing innovative approaches, organizations can foster a culture of open dialogue, trust, and collaboration that fuels meaningful change and sustainable growth.

Create a system of early and continuous change engagement with the business

Create a system of early and continuous change engagement with the business

by | Change maturity, Designing change

Change is akin to navigating through the skies; it requires careful planning, clear communication, and the ability to adapt to shifting conditions. In the same way that a well-orchestrated airport ensures the safe and efficient movement of passengers and cargo, organizations must design a robust system for change management to achieve success in today’s dynamic business environment. As we explore the intricacies of designing such a system, we’ll draw parallels to the meticulous planning and execution required in airport operations.

Data Currency: Reinforced by System Reminders

Imagine an airport where flight schedules are constantly updated to reflect changes in departure times, gate assignments, and weather conditions. Similarly, our change management system employs reminders to ensure that change initiatives are regularly updated by initiative representatives. This emphasis on data currency mirrors the real-time updates necessary for smooth operations in an airport, enhancing agility and equipping stakeholders with the latest insights to drive informed decision-making.

Source of Truth for Both Change Drivers & Receivers

Just as an air traffic control tower serves as the central hub for coordinating flight information, our change dashboard serves as a centralized source of truth for all stakeholders. This dashboard provides change drivers and receivers with comprehensive insights into ongoing initiatives, fostering transparency and alignment across the organization. Much like how clear communication among air traffic controllers, pilots, and ground staff is essential to avoid chaos in an airport, our centralized repository facilitates collaboration and empowers stakeholders to navigate the change journey with confidence.

Data-Enabled Early Detection on Impacts

Modern aircraft are equipped with advanced sensors to detect potential issues early and prevent disruptions during flights. Similarly, our change management system leverages data to anticipate and mitigate impacts before they escalate. By providing stakeholders with the tools to self-assess and identify potential disruptions, surprises are minimized, and proactive measures can be taken to ensure a seamless transition. This proactive approach mirrors the preventive measures taken in aviation to maintain safety and efficiency in flight operations.

Assigning Business Reps as “Change Custodians”

In an airport, ground staff play a crucial role in ensuring the smooth flow of operations and addressing potential issues as they arise. Similarly, designating business representatives as change custodians facilitates the exchange of critical information and ensures that potential impacts are identified and addressed in a timely manner. By acting as the frontline support for change initiatives, these representatives serve as the linchpin of change maturity, fostering a culture of accountability and ownership throughout the organization.

Continual Access to Change Success Metrics

Much like pilots rely on instruments to gauge their progress and make informed decisions during flights, stakeholders require access to real-time metrics to assess change readiness and adoption. Pulse checks and regular tracking throughout the change journey provide stakeholders with the insights needed to course-correct and adapt as necessary. Additionally, change governance routines, akin to strategic planning meetings in aviation, provide a forum for reviewing upcoming changes and fostering alignment with organizational goals.

Designing a system for change maturity requires careful planning, clear communication, and a commitment to continuous improvement, much like orchestrating the intricate operations of an airport. By embracing the airport analogy and drawing inspiration from its principles, organizations can navigate the complexities of change with confidence and achieve sustainable success in today’s ever-evolving business landscape.

Please click the below to download the infographic.

DOWNLOAD.

Why measuring change is not an activity

Why measuring change is not an activity

by | Change Measurement

Measuring change is no longer a nice to have.  It’s a must-have for a lot of organisations.  A lot of stakeholders are now demanding to see and understand what is happening in the world of change.  With the enhanced volume of change and therefore the increased investment made by the organisations, it’s no wonder.  

Maturing-change-analytics-landscape-1

Why are stakeholders demanding to see change data?

When we look across the room amongst the various disciplines, data forms an integral part of any function.  Finance – tick.  HR – tick, yes pretty much all aspects of people are tracked and reported.  Operations – tick, as we have all types of performance KPIs and efficiency indicators.  Technology – tick, since every part of technology can easily be measured and reported.  Marketing – tick, as marketing outcomes are tied to revenue and customer sentiments.

With Covid it is even more the case that data is integral.  We can no longer ‘walk the factory’ to sense what is happening.  To see what is happening and what is going to happen stakeholders revert to data.  In our virtual working environment, stakeholders require a constant dashboard of data to track how things are progressing.

Why is measuring change not an activity?

In the past it used to be that measuring change is only something you do in a project when you want to see if stakeholders are ready for the change.  No more.  Most organisations have a multitude of changes running concurrently.  There is no choice to select 1 or 2 changes to roll out.  With significant business challenges, most organisations are finding that running with multiple changes is the norm.

With multiple changes, increased stakeholder demands and appetite, measuring change is no longer just an activity.  Measuring change takes a set of structured routines.  It requires effective governance design.  It takes experience and analytical expertise.  Most of all, it is not a once-off event, it is a continual building of organisational muscle and capability.  We are heading into the world of change analytics capability.

What is change analytics capability and how do I attain this?

Here are 7 core components of building and maturing change analytics capability:

1. Establishing change data management procedures and practices

This is about setting up the right steps in place so that change data can be identified, collected, and documented.  This includes identifying the types of change data you would like to collect and how to go about collecting them.  It will be easier to start with the core set of data required and then build from these as needed.  This will reduce the risk of overwhelming your stakeholders.

After the right metrics and collection channels have been identified then it’s about building the regular routines to collect and document the metrics.

2. Sponsorship and leadership of change analytics

To really reap the value of change analytics you will need to gain the blessing and sponsorship of your leaders.  Well, at least in time.  In the beginning, you may need some time to come up with compelling data that tell the story that you want them to before you show your leaders.  Eventually, without strong leadership buy-in, change data will not be effectively leveraged to make business decisions.

Getting your leaders’ blessing isn’t just a verbal exercise.  It means that they are signing-up to regularly review, discuss and utilise change data to realise business value.

3. Build talent and organisation to support change analytics

Think about the various stakeholders and what you need them to understand in terms of change data.  The way you educate stakeholders will be different to how you educate operations managers or the PMO.  Plot out how you plan to help them get familiar with change data.  Do you need particular roles to support data analysis?  Is it a Change Analyst who is focused on the regular upkeep and consolidation of change data?  What roles do you need other team members to play?  

Screen-Shot-2021-04-27-at-7.04.09-am

4. Insight generation

With a full set of change data infront of you, it’s now time to dive into them to generate insights.  What is the data telling you?  How do they support other data sources to form a clear picture of what is happening in the workforce?  Is the data accurate and updated?  Generating insights from the data takes skills and experience.  It takes the ability to integrate different sources of data outside of change data themselves.

5. Insight application

This is about setting up the right routines and processes so that any insights generated may be discussed and applied.  It could be through various governance forums, leadership or planning meetings that insights are shared and socialised.  An integral part of this step is applying the insight by making business decisions.  For example, do we delay the initiative roll out or invest more to support leaders?  Are there reasons for us to speed up roll out to support the workforce?

6. Change analytics capability development

Change analytics is a capability.

With good change data emerging, you also need to have the right people with the right skills to collect, process and interpret the data.  You may also want to think about which teams need what analytical skills.  Do you have people in the team who are sufficiently analytical and data-oriented?  Do they know how to interpret the data to form trends and predictions?  

You may want to think about organising capability sessions or training to strengthen data analysis skills.  Are there members in the different governance bodies that need support to be more confident in using change data?

7. Realising business value through change analytics

The last part of the equation is realising business value through change analytics.  This is about tracking and documenting the value realised through using change analytics.  It could include incidents where the business decision made has lead to significant risk reduction or operations protection.  It could be enhanced leadership confidence mitigating risks in negative customer experience.  Tracking value generated is critical to make clear to stakeholders the value of the overall investment.

If you found this article useful please share.

Do you have questions on measuring change for your organisation? Ping us on our chat.

To read up more about change analytics go to The Ultimate Guide to Measuring Change.

To download the diagram click here.

My stakeholders are asking for single view of change, but are really after something else

My stakeholders are asking for single view of change, but are really after something else

by | Change Measurement

The term “single view of change” is starting to gain more popularity and organisations are starting to understand why they need this and what it looks like.  The term refers to an artifact that shows the different change initiatives being mapped together.  This is usually presented in a calendar format that shows when the initiatives will impact the organisation over time.  In this article, we will look closely at what the single view of change is, what stakeholders are looking for in this artifact and how to use it.

Typical formats for single view of change

  • Red, amber and green cells for each project across time
  • Business unit based heatmap across time

Here are some examples from The Change Compass as reference.

Screen-Shot-2021-04-13-at-6.54.15-am-1
Different views may be selected for the Heatmap

Screen-Shot-2021-04-13-at-6.58.53-am
The data may be grouped/ordered by different fields (Go-Live is shown as a star)

To read up more about Heatmap formats and what to look out for read Why Heatmaps are not the bet way to make change decisions.

Recent trends

In the past year there has been increasing interest from organisations talking about single view of change (SVOC) and wanting to derive this view.  What we’ve observed at The Change Compass are the following trends:

  1. Senior managers or executives are often the ones who are requesting the SVOC.  
  2. This usually arises as the number of change initiatives starts to increase and there is feedback that there could be too much change for employees to handle or change fatigue.  This is not a surprise given the companies are already struggling to keep up with competitive, technology, and regulatory changes.  Covid has added to these changes and compounded the overall change load.
  3. Senior managers are after data to make decisions on.  And managing change is no exception.  Gone are the days when managers can make decisions based on opinions and hunches.  With Covid, there are employees working remotely and so performance needs to be managed based on data – there is simply no other way.  In a similar vein, change data is integral to making business decisions.

An example of stakeholders requesting SVOC

When I was the Head of Change at National Australia Bank there was a strong focus on deriving a single view of change.  This was not always the case.  There were constant complaints from employees that there was too much change.  On the other hand, senior managers often responded with “we’re still able to run the business and the business has not broken, so let’s keep going”.

One of the key reasons that senior managers were requesting SVOC was that initiatives are by design in silos.  Each initiative team designs the initiative independent of other initiatives.  From a technical perspective, there are various architects who are accountable for advising on what the technology stack should look like and what is in the best interest of the organisation across initiatives.  However, from a people change perspective there were no practices in which changes across the board are harmonised and sequenced.

Eventually, at National Australia Bank we built a clunky way of capturing change impact data that did meet stakeholder needs. My realisation was that stakeholders that request SVOC were not after the artifacts per se.  In fact what they were after most were:

  • Determining when there would be too much change saturation leading to change fatigue
  • Ability to determine what needs to be moved and how/when initiatives can be moved if there is contention
  • Understanding key risks that could arise in executing on a range of change initiatives that could disrupt the business or impact initiative benefit realisation
  • Understanding what change activities are organised and how they are impacting business-as-usual operations so that effective resourcing can be in place

What this means is that stakeholders are asking for SVOC, when they are really asking for a way to manage the change portfolio in a way that reduces risk for the organisation and maximise benefits targeted.  Managing change at a portfolio level is a new concept and discipline for most organisations.

Change portfolio management takes time and capability to evolve and grow into in each organisation.  To read up more about how to manage a change portfolio read The Ultimate Guide to Change Portfolio Management and How to Better Manage a Change Portfolio Infographic.

Screen-Shot-2021-04-13-at-7.18.47-am

Lessons learnt across different organisations

Over the years in working with organisations through The Change Compass, I’ve noticed the following trends across different organisations when it comes to creating and using SVOC.

  • Change saturation can mean different things to different stakeholders.  This reflects on the different parts of change management focus areas for organisations.  Some focus on the humanistic aspects of change for individuals.  This includes the personal experience and stress of change fatigue.  Others focus on the impacts of business performance and resourcing.
  • Some of the presented reasons for change saturation
    1. “Our employees tell us there is too much change”.  This needs to be carefully considered when providing feedback to senior managers.  Some could be skeptical of the feedback and respond with comments such as “there are always complaints about too much change”.  A balanced view including employee feedback as well as other business indicators would be advised.  For example, efficiency levels or absenteeism.
    2. Not adopting a change portfolio approach – Just seeing the risks and business problems with SVOC will not necessarily resolve the issues.  It is about making business decisions with the information that will create impact.
    3. Poor portfolio management – If this is the reason then most companies have poor portfolio management because change portfolio management is still in its infancy for most organisations.
    4. Responses of execs determine the outcomes – some still insist on persisting with change in the face of change saturation.  From what we have seen a lot of senior managers usually learn from the aftermath of change saturation before they will make decisions to avoid it in the first place.  Help your senior managers to understand the consequences and what it means to business data.  Of course, the more detailed data you can provide the more convincing your argument is going to be.
  • Because companies haven’t invested in people capability – Having better change capability can impact the way employees perceive and undergo the change journey.  More change mature teams tends to be able to absorb more and faster changes than those who are less mature.  However, change maturity takes time and investment to build and is not a lever that can be pulled overnight.
    • Not effectively setting expectations and agenda for what is coming.  Setting clear expectations is the first step. Without knowing what changes to expect the change outcome could be impacted.  However, this is only one part of the change equation.  Having achieved clarity of expectation is just the first step.  There are lots of other steps to take to create an effective change journey. 
    • External factors affecting the load of change may not be easily filtered by the organisation.  Lots of organisations are facing multiple impacts of change from different arenas, technology, regulations, competition, and other industry changes.  In many cases, the changes piled on top of each other creating a significant change load that cannot be easily moved out.  In this case, organisations need to be realistic about what can be achieved given this load of change.  Would investing in capability help to lift the ability to undergo a heightened change volume?  Can we package changes so that they are more streamlined and integrated, and thereby reducing cognitive load for impacted employees?

Screen-Shot-2021-04-13-at-7.21.09-am

The role of change practitioners

Through using a SVOC change practitioners can play different roles in adding value to the organisation.

  • Change portfolio management:  Managing a portfolio from a change impact perspective is a role that can add significant value.  The benefits of adopting a portfolio approach can result in initiatives being harmonised.  From the user perspective, changes are better linked and grouped versus being isolated from each other.
  • Architecting and designing delivery:  With better alignment and synchronisation, initiative rollout can be better designed as a whole, with a convincing set of strategies and themes that make sense for impacted employees.
  • Executive consultation and influencing:  Armed with data it is much easier to influence senior executives.  The trick is to select the few data visualisations that tell the story of key risks to the organisation, and the size of the problems involved.  This also needs to be paired with recommended solutions.
  • Business change capability building – With SVOC change capability building is not just about rolling out generic skills, but targeted content delivered at the right junctures to equip the business with the right skills to be better equipped for a targeted set of changes

Next steps

Are you working on a SVOC?  Do you have questions? If you would like to talk to us to understand how others have fared in their SVOC journeys click the following button to book time.  We’re happy to share with you some of the tips and tricks in deriving SVOC.

Talk to us about SVOC