FCP_10112011_2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

FCP_10112011_2

on

  • 572 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
572
Views on SlideShare
572
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • The research team found found that, at it’s simplest, the components of effective change could be expressed by the following “formula”: Q x A = E E = Effectiveness of the change effort. Q = Quality of the plan for change . What is the quality of the logic of the planned change? Does the change make sense? Does it address the root causes of the problem to be fixed? Is it the best solution given the goal of the change effort? A = Acceptance of the plan for change . Will people agree to support the planned change so much so that they will change their actions and behaviors in order to make the change happen? To evaluate previous change efforts, we attached a “rating” of 1-10 to each component of effective change. 1=very low, 5=medium, 10=very high . We found the following pattern in the majority of change efforts we researched: Initial attempt at change: Q = 5; A = 1 5 x 1 = 5 (most projects had a pretty good technical solution, but no work was done on acceptance of the change. The overall effectiveness therefore was only medium) Subsequent change efforts: Q = 6, 7, or 8; A = 1 6 x 1 = 6 7 x 1 = 7 8 x 1 = 8 (When faced with an unsuccessful change effort, all companies we researched would have the tendency to go back and increase the “Q” on that change but do nothing to increase the “A”. The overall effectiveness would therefore only moderately improve.) If companies would focus on both Q and A they would find that they can improve the effectiveness of their change exponentially, e.g. Q = 5; A = 5 6 x 6 = 25 Q = 6; A = 7 6 x 7 = 42 We concluded that leaders needed help with the “A” component of change, not the “Q”. Therefore our model centers on those change principles that will increase acceptance of the change.  Timing: 5 minutes Slide Show: Title, Q x A = E click to “Effectiveness” click to “Quality” click to “Acceptance” click to each formula The ‘A’ Factor
  • CPL has prepaid. Logos and company names are different.

FCP_10112011_2 FCP_10112011_2 Presentation Transcript

  • Analysis
  • Parent Company - Overview Centrica is a top 30 FTSE100 company with growing energy businesses in the UK and North America. Business description: We are an integrated energy company operating predominately in the UK and North America. Upstream we source, generate, process, trade and store energy. Downstream we supply gas and electricity to millions of homes and businesses and offer a distinctive range of home energy solutions and low carbon products and services. Established: In 1997 following the demerger of Centrica from British Gas plc Management Chairman: Sir Roger Carr Chief Executive: Sam Laidlaw Group Finance Director: Nick Luff Supplies gas, electricity and related products and services to UK residential and business customer The UK’s leading drain cleaning service, also offering plumbing and lock fitting One of North America's largest energy and energy-related services providers Core retail brands
  • Direct Energy is one of North America’s largest competitive energy suppliers of electricity, natural gas and related services. By investing in energy efficiency and innovation and delivering choice in a variety of retail electricity and natural gas products to home- and business-owners, Direct Energy is supporting the development of tomorrow’s energy markets today. With approximately 6,000 employees , we are active in both upstream production (electricity and natural gas) and downstream delivery to ensure we’ll be a stable, long-term partner to the millions of customers we serve in both Canada and the United States. Direct Energy operates in 10 Canadian provinces and 46 US states plus the District of Columbia , with more than six million customer relationships. Company Overview
  • Direct Energy is changing. We're taking a different approach to energy and services. One that makes things easier for our customers . Makes them feel appreciated. And lets them know exactly where we stand. Brand Directions
  • Brand Directions At Direct Energy, we are simple, friendly and direct. These brand values aren't just words on a page. They represent what we believe as they become part of everything we do. Simple. Life is complicated enough. So we're going to cut through the confusion. That means keeping our pricing plans as simple as possible and our services easy to understand. We want every interaction to be clear, informative and leave you wishing that everything in life were as easy as dealing with us. Friendly. We appreciate our customers and we want you to know it. That means making an extra effort. Always being helpful. And letting our customers know that we value them as well as their business. It also means giving back to the communities we serve. Using our resources and our efforts to help them change for the better. Direct. We're honest. Straightforward. When you ask a question, you'll get a clear answer. We'll give you all the facts. We'll avoid generalities. If we make a mistake, we'll not only admit it, but correct it.
  • Leadership - Chris Weston Chris Weston became President and CEO of Direct Energy effective July 1, 2009. Prior to this appointment, Chris held numerous leadership roles within Centrica plc, which owns Direct Energy and its operations in North America. Most recently, Chris was the Managing Director of British Gas Services, a position to which he was appointed in June 2005. Under his leadership, the business recorded impressive profit growth and improvements in customer satisfaction and employee engagement. Chris also served as Managing Director of British Gas Business between 2002 and 2005, and was Managing Director of Europe for Onetel from 2001 to 2002, which was acquired by Centrica. Before joining Centrica, Chris worked for Cable and Wireless in both Australia and the UK. He was part of the team in the UK that was responsible for merging three cable operators and Mercury Communications into a single company. He also served in the Royal Horse Artillery of the British Army for seven years, leaving to attain his PhD in Quantitative Finance from Imperial College, London. Chris is married to Lucy and they have four children. He enjoys the outdoors and is a keen fisherman and skier.
  • Leadership - Maura Clark As President, Direct Energy Business, Maura has full accountability for all aspects of the North American commercial and industrial energy business. During her first two years with Direct Energy as EVP Strategy and M&A, Maura was responsible for driving our strategic thinking as well as our mergers and acquisitions activity across North America. Maura is a member of the Direct Energy Executive Committee and the Direct Energy Financial Risk Management Committee. Before joining Direct Energy, Maura was an independent strategy and M&A Consultant providing advisory services to a variety of energy companies. Maura was also previously a Managing Director of Investment Banking Services at Goldman Sachs, where she built a portfolio of clients involved in merchant power, gas and electric utilities, and other natural resource and industrial companies. Prior to that role, Maura was EVP, Corporate Development and Chief Financial Officer for Premcor, Inc., an independent oil refiner and marketer of petroleum products. Maura is a Chartered Accountant and a graduate of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. She is a non-executive Director of Elizabeth Arden, Inc. and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Primary Care Development Corporation of New York.
  • Leadership - Eddy Collier Eddy Collier is President of Home and Business Services for Direct Energy, and is a member of Direct Energy’s Executive Committee. Eddy’s core responsibility is to support residential customers, as well as commercial, institutional and industrial customers, manage their comfort needs and energy costs by providing a broad suite of innovative products and services. His team delivers energy management consulting services, energy audits, smart meters, HVAC installs (heating, ventilation, air conditioning), home improvements, home protection plans, water heaters, electrical appliance services, residential new construction, plumbing, building automation and facility maintenance. Eddy works closely with Direct Energy’s energy sales divisions to ensure his team’s supporting products and services that help to lower energy consumption and achieve cost efficiencies. Eddy first joined our parent company Centrica in 2002, and he has been a leader in several of Centrica’s UK-based businesses including British Gas New Heating, British Gas Central Heating Installations, British Gas Residential Energy, and directed Centrica’s Finance and Strategy unit. Eddy has delivered strong profitability and growth, balanced profitability with social responsibility, developed world class customer service, and increased employee engagement scores to best-in-class levels.
  • Leadership - Anna Filipopoulos Anna Filipopoulos leads the people agenda for Direct Energy. She is a member of Direct Energy’s North American Management Team and our parent company Centrica’s global Senior Leadership Team. Anna joined Direct Energy in September 2010. She builds strategy, programs and teams committed to top talent recruiting, total rewards, career planning, leadership development, corporate responsibility, communications and security. Her goal is to ensure we have a highly engaged international team — able to make Direct Energy a great place to work and drive our business forward throughout Canada and the US. An accomplished Human Resources executive, Anna has over 20 years experience innovating and transforming companies in various sectors from manufacturing to pharmaceutical — domestically and internationally. Most recently, she led the people strategy for a multi-division food services operator with over 37,000 employees. Anna holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Western Ontario, and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Toronto. Anna, her husband and two children reside in Toronto.
  • Leadership - James Spence As Chief Financial Officer for Direct Energy, James has responsibility for all Corporate Finance functions and the Mergers and Acquisition team, as well as overall responsibility for financial control and reporting of business performance. James transferred to this North American role in May 2010 from Direct Energy's parent company, Centrica plc, a top 30 FTSE100 company. James has been with Centrica since 2002, in corporate M&A, finance roles in the UK Downstream business (British Gas) and from 2007 as Finance Director for Centrica Energy's Power Business Unit, where he was responsible for power generation in the UK including asset-based and trading activities. Prior to joining Centrica, James worked in M&A in professional firms and multinationals, with extensive spells living and working outside the UK. James holds a B.Sc. in Economics and Politics from Bristol University, and is a Chartered Accountant. James is a member of the Direct Energy’s Management Team and Centrica’s Senior Leadership Team. He is based in Toronto.
  • Company Growth
  • Company Growth As Chief Financial Officer for Direct Energy, James has responsibility for all Corporate Finance
  • Current Ad Spend Overview
  • Current Advertising Outdoor - Billboards Outdoor-Transit
  • Current Advertising
  • Current Advertising Can't Count On A Thing Low, Locked in Rates Low, Locked in Rates/Switch Today Man Turns On Neon Light To Restaurant Prepaid Power Bills (Spanish Version)
  • Social Media Direct Energy Twitter Followers – 464 (August – 385) Facebook “Likes” – 7,162 (August – 6,959) YouTube – 10,007 channel views, 421,591 total upload views and 29 subscribers. Note: In July, Direct Energy removed its Texas-based Facebook and Twitter pages, and is promoting a singular national social media campaign. We will continue to follow Direct Energy’s national social media outlets.   Direct Energy is using its website to promote Facebook, Twitter and YouTube platforms.   On Direct Energy’s Twitter account, energy saving tips were offered and the company replied to its customers who were having difficulty with service. It also tweeted its weekly Buzz articles and shared the announcement of its acquisition of First Choice Power.
  • Social Media Direct Energy used its Facebook page to promote its Energy Star Contest, which is ongoing. Fans enter the sweepstakes through Facebook (starting Sept. 1) and have the chance to win an all-inclusive cruise for two. Two other prizes are offered . Like last month (August) and the months before, Direct Energy is still promoting its YouTube video, “Who is Direct Energy.”   Description of Video: “ Simple. Friendly. Direct. We are one of North America's largest providers of energy and energy services. We generate and deliver the energy that makes your house a home and we're harnessing our energy expertise to make a difference in our customer's lives.” .
  • Commercial Business
  • Commercial Business Positioning A Trusted Energy Partner Today, every business feels the impact of the increasingly dynamic energy market. With the right approach to energy management, your company can gain a competitive edge. We begin by getting to know your business goals and energy management challenges. We can introduce you to energy strategies that capitalize on the market's competitive pricing and support your business objectives. We apply our experience to developing innovative products and services that are designed to help you bring the cost control opportunities of the deregulated energy market directly to your bottom line. From your initial conversations with a Direct Energy Business representative, through your contract signing and monthly billing cycle, you can count on straightforward guidance, open dialogue and a dedication to simplifying your energy management. Latest Press Releases: http://debusiness.directenergy.com/EN/Media-Center/Pages/Direct-Energy-Business-Press-Releases.aspx Product Sheets
  • Community Involvement Investment means more than just financial assistance. Direct Energy in the community aims to engage communities throughout North America by supporting charitable organizations through corporate donations, strategic sponsorships, local fundraisers, in-kind contributions, and employee volunteering to fulfill the following objectives: To be strategic in our approach to community investment and be viewed as an enabler of social change and community engagement across North America. To be philanthropic in our approach to corporate giving, striving to ensure our charitable partners achieve their objectives. To recognize the commercial interests of our business, relating our community efforts to the skills we have as a company, to support our employees and their passion for community and to be a leader among our peers in community investment. Our approach is to empower our employees to get involved with organizations they are passionate about, providing them with innovative programs and resources to highlight their leadership, and provide corporate donations to organizations that concentrate on four key focus areas:
  • Community Involvement Finding Solutions to Homelessness Direct Energy believes in finding solutions to homelessness and supporting those less fortunate. By creating innovative partnerships with charitable organizations and engaging our employees and our lines of business, we understand that solving complex social issues such as homelessness requires a long-term and consolidated commitment. Vulnerable Customers Direct Energy is committed to supporting vulnerable and fuel-poor households in an effort to help families secure the basic energy they need to maintain safe and healthy living conditions. By providing opportunities that support energy efficiency, debt management and financial assistance, Direct Energy believes in a grassroots approach to helping those most in need. Environment – Climate Change Direct Energy believes that there will continue to be a demand for energy derived from fossil fuels, which cause disturbances to the climate and the natural environment. We look to enable our customers and our communities to participate in the transition towards a low-carbon future. Supporting Employee Charitable Endeavors Direct Energy is committed to supporting our employees through employee volunteer grants, matching contributions for charitable fundraising and by fostering an environment that encourages staff members to share their knowledge with the community in order to increase our mutual understanding of how to help one another :
  • Further Research -White Sheets and Articles Appointment of Andy Hunt to serve as Vice President and General Manager of Business Services For three years running, Direct Energy gives back to the community by getting into the fields in time for Thanksgiving Prepaid Article – Summer 2011 Leaders adapt to strategic shifts in the utility landscape, DE, TXU, ETC round table discussion Steve Weston – The Future of REP in North America Steve Weston - The Direct Approach CPL Retail Energy expands customer care operations to Rio Grande Valley Direct Energy Corporate Responsibility
  •  
  • DirectEnergy.com: Table of Contents
    • Executive Summary
    • General Insights
    • Products and Services
    • Hispanic
    • Community
    • Social
    • Educational content
    • Other functionality
    • SWOT analysis
    • WTU/CPL implementations
    • Comparisons/Scorecard
    • Appendix
  • DirectEnergy.com: Executive Summary
    • Direct Energy online brand essence is disjointed and overwhelming
      • Font, color, illustrations not cohesive within site
      • Different content topics dispersed and hidden throughout the site
      • Many different domains for one site
        • www.smallbusinessenergy.com
        • http://davescorner.ca/home/
    • Hispanic representation is low
      • Spanish translation for Residential content only
      • Low amount of Hispanic imagery
    • Large focus on Prepaid product from home page
    • Social activities exist, just not displayed well on site
      • Use of Twitter as customer service communication
    • WTU and CPL has baseline web elements, simple look and feel
    • First Choice Power has an opportunity to apply and aid strong brand knowledge and presence to DirectEnergy.com
  • DirectEnergy.com: General Insights
    • Language:
    • Rotating banners display different fonts, colors, and illustrations
  • DirectEnergy.com: General Insights
    • Language:
    • Toggle allows users to switch from English to Spanish
    • Spanish not as deep
      • Only residential is translated
    • Segments:
    • Site supports both Residential and Business
    • Also at same level of prominence is Gas, called “Upstream”
  • DirectEnergy.com: General Insights
    • New vs. Existing:
    • Site represents a balance between New and Existing customer content
    • New customer push to enroll online vs. phone
      • Main contact us link directs user to an input form
      • Phone numbers messaged towards existing customers
  • DirectEnergy.com: Products & Services
    • Residential:
    • Pricing options organized by service area
    • Products:
    • Fixed price for 12 or 24 months
    • Focus on Direct Energy Power-To-Go(SM)
    • Variable price plan
    • Renewable and 99% pollution free plan
    • *Energy rates are based on an average monthly use of 2,000 kWh/month
  • DirectEnergy.com: Products & Services
    • Prepaid Plan:
    • DE.com has very prominent real estate dedicated to Prepaid (3 locations on home page)
    • Merchandised as “Power-to-Go”
  • DirectEnergy.com: Products & Services
    • Prepaid Plan Enrollment process:
    • User can call or sign up via web
    • Web enroll: 5 steps of form input
      • Prepaid plan eligibility check completed after plan selection
  • DirectEnergy.com: Products & Services
    • Business:
    • Content organized by Business Size
    • Product list ranges across all business sizes
      • Power Portfolio®
      • Fixed Priced Products
      • Index Priced Products (market price)
      • Make Me Green™
    • Business site under different domain
  • DirectEnergy.com: Hispanic
    • Residential:
    • Only residential section is translated
    • One banner is the only difference, and links to Click2Houston. Video is in English
    • All other residential content is translated
  • DirectEnergy.com: Community
    • Community Involvement:
    • Focus on Direct Energy donations to charitable organizations
    • Awards community volunteers
    • Content is only found under “About Us”
  • DirectEnergy.com: Social
    • Facebook
    • Features a contest as landing page
    • Fairly active wall
      • 1-3 posts/day
      • A few comments and ‘likes’ per post
    • Photos of events
  • DirectEnergy.com: Social
    • Twitter
    • Effective and equal spread of advice, event updates, and complaint management
    • Use ‘Trish’ as customer representative to direct complaints to direct messages
    • Twitter site listed in “Contact Us” page as a form of customer service
  • DirectEnergy.com: Social
    • YouTube
    • 13 videos
    • Mostly how-to videos
    • only 3 comments in total
  • DirectEnergy.com: Social
    • Blog
    • Since June 2010
    • 1-5 posts per month
    • Topics range from advice, interviews , and reminders
    • Part of “Dave’s Corner,” which includes promo offers, “Ask Dave” FAQs, and videos
      • Videos are not on the same channel as the Direct Energy channel
  • DirectEnergy.com: Educational Content
    • Residential Home:
    • Main learning content labeled as ‘Energy Efficiency’, although additional learning topics found throughout site
    • Business Home:
    • Main learning content on ‘How to Be Green’
    • Overall Content:
    • Overall:
      • Home Services
      • Power Outages and Emergencies
      • Energy Savings
      • Tips and Safety
      • Hurricane info
      • Carbon Footprint calculator
  • DirectEnergy.com: Other Functionality
    • Rate This Page
    • ED.com allows users to rate content on each page via persistent link in right hand corder
    • Users can rank based on:
      • Information
      • Ease of Use
      • Design/Layout
    • Users can also provide additional comments
  • DirectEnergy.com: SWOT analysis
    • Strengths:
    • Direct Energy Power To Go use of talking person video w/ screenshots (a few levels in though) http://www2.directenergy.com/powertogo/video/default.aspx
    • Dave’s Corner: blog, videos, “Ask Dave” type microsite
    • Weaknesses:
    • Different personas all for using Online Account Manager, not for which plan to choose
    • Lots of different information on every page
      • Plan page has links to home services, energy tips, pricing information, account manager, etc.
    • No real tone of voice
    • Website doesn’t convey “Simple. Friendly. Direct.”
    • Threats:
    • May be relegated to same site look/feel as CPL and WTU
    • Opportunities:
    • May be able to leverage videos and “Dave’s Corner” brand
  • DirectEnergy.com: CPL and WTU
    • Same look and feel, same content base with a few changes
    • Product information links back to Direct Energy
  • DirectEnergy.com: Comparisons First Choice Power Direct Energy CPL/WTU Notes English English English Spanish Spanish Spanish My Home Residential Electricity for Your Home My Business Business Electricity for Your Business Pre-paid Direct Energy Power-to-Go(SM) CPL Prepaid WTU doesn’t have a Prepaid program TOAF Power-to-Go(SM) referral program None DE’s program is hidden in site Friends get $30 credit for 30 day enrollment. Referrer gets $20 credit Refer up to 25 friends for up to $500 credit Community Hidden under ‘About Us’, simple blurb on supporting Community Volunteers, no events information None Social/Share icons Social/Share icons ; Use Twitter as a form of ‘Contact Us’ Social/Share icons No content, just icons
  • DirectEnergy.com: Comparisons, cont First Choice Power Direct Energy CPL/WTU Notes Learning center Energy Efficiency Energy Saving Center
    • FCP lumps all education content under “Learning Center”
    • DE’s main educational focus is Energy Efficiency content, but other learning content subjects in different areas of the site include:
    • - Home Services
    • Power Outages and Emergencies
    • Energy Savings Too
    • Tips and Safety
    • Hurricane info
    • Carbon Footprint calculator
    Shopping and Enrollment Sorted by service area 4 price options First Choice Power Shopping and Enrollment by far the most robust My Account Current Customer Center Online Account Manager Direct Energy has Personas for Online Account Manager explaining different usage scenarios
  • Direct Energy Scorecard : Residential
  • Direct Energy Scorecard : Commercial
  • Direct Energy Scorecard : Hispanic
  • Appendix
    • Search split into
      • Energy Products
      • Home Services
      • Customer Care
    • Site focus broken up into:
      • Level 1
        • Rotating banner:
          • Customer Care Center (Online Account Manager) for Automatic Payment Program
          • (2) Price promo for switching
          • Direct Energy Power –to- Go(SM) Prepaid Program
          • Moving
      • Level 2
        • Account Manager
        • Customer care
        • Direct Energy Power –to- Go(SM) Prepaid Program
        • New Customers
          • Plans
          • FAQ
          • Energy Savings Tool
        • Home Services
          • AC sales, repair, Indoor air quality
      • Level 3
        • Direct Energy Power –to- Go(SM) Prepaid Program
        • Energy Efficiency tips
        • Moving
    DirectEnergy.com: Residential Home Page Map
  • DirectEnergy.com: Commercial Home Page Map
    • Search Split into
      • Energy Products
      • Service areas
      • Customer Care
      • Channel Resources
    • Level 1- Main tabs:
      • National Accounts
      • Large Commercials and Industrials
      • Mid-size Commercials and Industrials
      • Small Business
      • Service areas
    • Level 2
      • Customer Service Center
      • Channel Partner Program (does not stand out)
      • Green
      • Company Overview
      • Products/Services/Resources
  • DirectEnergy.com: About Us Page Map
    • Main links
      • Company Information
      • Upstream
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Community Investment
        • Not as robust as FCP community involvement
      • Media Center
      • Careers
      • Corporate Contact Us
      • Press releases
    • Rotating banner
      • Carbon Footprint Calculator
      • Direct Energy and Clockwork merge
      • Dave’s Corner
        • : “ask Jeeves” , blog since June 2010, videos, social marketing tie-ins (link to FB, Twitter