BCG Changing Change Management 2013

  • 1,377 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,377
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
6

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Changing Change Management PMI Symposium November 12, 2013
  • 2. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 1 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. The world is changing at an unprecedented pace A volatility/uncertainty epidemic Information Tech. Consumer Disc. Industrials Materials Financials Health Care Consumer Staples Telecom Energy Utilities 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Rolling five-year st. dev. of firm market cap growth by sector1 Sector Time 1. Average five-year rolling standard deviation of % firm market cap growth by sector, weighted by firm market cap 2. 95th percentile of standard deviation across sectors Note: Based on all public U.S. companies Source: BCG analysis 0.502+0.04Standard deviation1: Digitization Connectivity Liberalization of trade Key drivers
  • 3. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 2 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Although rapid change is needed, we know most efforts fail Realized value Plan value Time Program value Senior leadership fails to speak with one voice about the change Initiative goals insufficiently rigor tested Interdependencies not managed – poor handoffs between teams Confidence further erodes, morale declines Insufficient focus, tracking and communication of early wins to build confidence Work becomes increasingly challenging – and teams perceive leadership commitment waning Early warnings not escalated to leadership Extended leadership team effectively disengaged and confused Program initiatives not linked to leadership accountabilities Typical program Program kickoff
  • 4. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 3 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Focus is on the key components to deliver full impact, and with people feeling they "want to" versus "have to" change ...are addressed by our integrated approach: the change delta The top change management challenges... What was the single most important factor in determining the failure of initiatives? Source: BCG analysis of Economist Intelligence Unit Survey for "Leaders of Change", 2010 and "A Change for the Better", 2008. • Leaders are aligned, visibly own the change and enable those that they lead • Employees understand what the change means to them and are equipped and able to change behaviors • Leaders and initiative owners have a transparent view of progress at all times Engaged Organization Strong governance, sponsorship and activist PMO to ensure that:Governance & PMO 8 19 18 19 24 5 15 12 21 31 0 10 20 30 40 % Insufficient funding Poor communucation Employee resistance Lack of commitment by senior management Lack of clearly defined milestones and objectives to measure progress 2008 2011
  • 5. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 4 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Enabling the right actions and interventions can help flip the odds Plan value Time Realized value Program value Program initiatives prioritized and fully resourced Initiative confidence checks surface emerging risks Initiative goals rigorously embedded in milestones and impacts Senior leadership aligns on and advocates bold change Forward- looking status reports focus leadership on emerging gaps and risks Activist PMO supports resolution and escalation of issues Pulse checks allow active management of staff buy-in Extended leadership team enrolled and mobilized Light-touch reporting cadence initiated Sustained confidence and establishment of real delivery capability Typical program Best-in-class managed program Continuum of Learn, Do, Teach Program kickoff
  • 6. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 5 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. "The Change Delta": A comprehensive approach to delivering transformational change • C-suite leading from the top • Leaders deeply accountable for success • Leaders able to effectively sponsor and manage the change • Alignment of leaders is palpable, visible and maintained – "One Voice" • Employees at every level understand the change and are equipped to manage it • Critical stakeholders are deeply engaged • Essential behaviors are reinforced • Accountability is hard-wired in line management metrics, performance management and recognition systems • Portfolio approach to initiative management; know the value pareto • Transparency across milestones and outcomes • Rigorous methodologies and tools, testing of initiatives • Forward-looking view into emerging issues Executional Certainty Enabled Leaders Engaged Organization • Clear program structure, vision, burning platform, objectives, mandate, fact base and roll-out timing • Clear governance structure with explicit roles, processes and decision rights • Key teams led by ambitious, talented, capable leaders • Value-added PMO provides essential support structure to the organization Governance & PMO Engaged Organization Governance & PMO
  • 7. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 6 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Change in action: 2,000 proof points, with $4B in full value realization Actual ($) 10,000 Plan ($) 10,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000,000 Milestone met or exceeded plan value Milestone fell short of plan value 35% of milestones exceed plans; 45% meet plans 20% fall short of plans Milestone financial impact: actual vs. plan Note: Graph showing range from $0-50M in plan and actual value milestones; some data points not visible due to truncation Note: thresholds for exceed, meet, and fall short are >2.5%, within 2.5%, and more than 2.5% below plan Source: Based on BCG analysis of $4B of impact bearing milestones 10,000 10,000,000100,000 1,000,000 100,000,000
  • 8. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 7 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Comprehensive and battle proven tools to support all elements of the Change Delta DICE Exception-based reports and dashboards Interdependency Mapping Rigor Test Prioritization Methodology High Performance teaming / Difficult conversations PMO Playbook Rigorous Program Management (RPM) & Roadmapping Role Chartering Keep Stop Start Behaviors Ready, Willing, Able Cascaded Communications Pulse Checks Stakeholder Segmentation / Engagement Engage for Results Buy-In Index Extended Leadership Team Enrollment Engaged Organization Governance & PMO Change Management_WWOM PA Day_June 18 2013_V4.pptx 15 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Keep Stop Start Behaviors • Focusing on results • Engaging in respectful conversation • Voicing opinions Keep • Interrupting others • Focusing on negatives • Engaging in side discussions Stop • Being more positive • Applying a more collaborative and balanced tone • Sharing info across department Start Team dynamics Meeting preparation Meeting procedures • Scheduling regular and predictable meeting times • Pacing meetings (90-minute rule) • Sending agenda four days in advance • Changing times of meetings • Calling spontaneous meetings • Running over allotted time • Making meetings shorter • Distributing pre-read materials sooner • Soliciting team input prior to meetings on items to discuss • Using Team Lead Intro/Summary • Participating in roundtable updates • Bringing in others as needed for open discussions with owners • Spending excessive time on preparation, "dry runs" • Spending too much time going into detail • Excluding people who need to be part of discussion • Highlighting successes • Finalizing decisions in meetings • Summarizing and communicating decisions to "doers" Illustrative Change Management_WWOM PA Day_June 18 2013_V4.pptx 14 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Effective Teams Framework Team members Team charter Group dynamics Leader- ship An effective leader • Believes in value of team • Builds team cohesiveness • Style has positive impact • Manages lifecycle of team Constructive group dynamics • Openness and trust • A united front to organisation • Rigorous challenge and debate A clearly defined Team Charter • Value added role • Clear objectives and decision rights • Shared sense of purpose Team constituents right • Knowledge • Talent • Attitude
  • 9. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 8 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. DICE ®
  • 10. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 9 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. A "Roadmap" is a tool designed to provide high-level insights, in a timely fashion Key risks, people considerations and interdependencies captured • One person owns a roadmap and is responsible/accountable for its implementationSingle point accountability Appropriate level of detail for executive review • A Roadmap's milestones reflect major steps, issues, risks and interdependencies to be managed—typically aggregations of many smaller activities that may appear in a project plan • Level of detail and plain language that executives who are unfamiliar with initiative details can understand and engage on • Roadmaps contain milestones for tasks that mitigate critical risks • Milestones reflect critical interdependencies and interactions with other groups, stakeholders or external parties • Critical stakeholders explicitly called out; Roadmap includes tests for whether people "want to" versus "have to" change Forward-looking – enabling rapid course correction • The roadmap provides an early-warning system to enable rapid course corrections—achieved through both how rigorously the milestones and lead indicators are defined and use of DICE • Risks to achieving impacts should typically become visible in time to course-correct Regularly placed milestones • Milestones occur regularly, typically monthly or bi-monthly, to prevent projects from "going dark" • Raised up a level from more detailed project-level activities Financial/operational impacts and lead/lag indicators captured • Financial impacts must sum to overall targets for the initiative and for the area • Impacts typically associated with ~20-40% of milestones • Timing of financial impacts reflect actual economic benefit, and captured in milestone dates • Key operating indicators / metrics (OP KPIs) are used effectively to measure success and risk Roadmaps should pass DICE and Rigor Test before being approved
  • 11. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 10 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. The boundary conditions for DICE make sense, But what happens in between? Short timeline (D) Top notch team (I) 'Can Do' culture (C) Little incremental effort1 (E) Long timeline (D) Lousy team (I) Diabolical culture (C) Big incremental effort1 (E) What happens in between? • Is it predictable? • Is it quantifiable? Project set up to succeed Project set up to fail Project Characteristics Source: During implementation
  • 12. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 11 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. The timeline (Duration) either till completion of the project or the next learning milestone • The ‘learning milestone’ is a predetermined stage in implementation at which project strengths, weaknesses and progress against key performance measures are formally assessed • Ideally, learning milestones should be less than two months apart whilst still enabling the review of meaningful blocks of progress The 'performance Integrity' of the project team • Attributes include: capable leadership, clear objectives, fast track individuals, challenging minds, people skills, team playing, self motivation, appropriate resources, pushing to conclusion, hardworking and organizational skills • Most important though is the appointment of a capable team leader The Commitment to the change: senior management and local staff • This includes the attitudes of the local area undergoing the change and the visible as well as real commitment of relevant senior management • Note senior management typically over-rate their effectiveness in communicating their support of major change The additional amount of local Effort (to normal working requirements) required during implementation • Ideally less than 10% additional effort throughout the course of implementation D The four components of DICE I C E
  • 13. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 12 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Step functions define each component of DICE Duration of change either to completion or 'learning milestone' 1 <2 months 2 2-4 months 3 4-8 months 4 >8 months 1 <10% additional 2 10-20% additional 3 20-40% additional 4 >40% additional Local effort during implementation Performance integrity of project team 1 Very good 2 Good 3 Average 4 Poor 5 Highly successful 4 Reasonably successful 3 Mediocre 2 Unsuccessful 1 Highly unsuccessful Final outcome of project 1 Eager 2 Willing 3 Reluctant 4 Strongly reluctant Local commitment to the change Senior management commitment to the change Score Score Score Score Score Duration Integrity Commitment1 Commitment2 Effort D I C1 C2 E 1 Clearly communicate need 2 Seem to want success 3 Neutral 4 Reluctant
  • 14. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 13 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. DICE = D + 2I + 2C1 + C2 + E A DICE value can be calculated for any project this value can range from 7 - 28 The result: A simple formula to predict1 and allow manipulation of outcomes 1. R2=0.7, linear fit to an S-curve
  • 15. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 14 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 5 7 4 7 6 5 6 1 13 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1214 613 1 1 1 1 5 3 151 1 2 9 1 2 6 2 2 1 1 115812915941 1 111 9 2 1 31 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 25 1 2 1 1 4 1 Outcome ranges for DICE scores Highly Successful Highly unsuccessful Actualoutcome Mediocre DICE scores Original Database Note: Superscripted numbers refer to the number of projects scoring that particular outcome for that specific value of DICE from our original database of 225 projects Source: Analysis of DICE database
  • 16. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 15 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Highly successful Mediocre Highly unsuccessful DICE scores Likely outcomes Win Worry Woe DICE helps predict execution success DICE: Likely Outcomes
  • 17. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 16 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Example: Major redesign of a retail bank back office For the implementation of major process and structural changes in a retail bank's back offices • Scheduled to take in excess of 8 months to implement • With a project team of solid but not spectacular performance integrity • With only moderate communication of senior management support and a general culture strongly resistant to this change • Estimated to require approximately 10-20% additional effort on the part of the organization during implementation D = 4 I = 2 C1 = 2.5 C2 = 4 E = 2 DICE = D + 2I + 2C1 + C2 + E = 4 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 2 = 19 Project was predicted to be within the Woe Zone (17 < DICE < 28) • Serious concerns were held over the likelihood of success • However with attention to DICE the project was pushed into the Win Zone (see over)
  • 18. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 17 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Action Envisaged Result 1. Project timeline was broken so that structured learning milestones occurred every three months 2. Configuration of the project team was altered from what was originally planned. Team carefully selected and resourced • Key regional and head office GMs actively involved in configuration of teams • Team included several high performing staff experienced in change management and 'on board' key back office managers with local knowledge and power I decreased from 2 to 1 3. Consistency and effort on the part of senior management's positioning of the need for change was significantly enhanced • Coordination of communications was marshalled through one post (Chief Manager - Organizational Effectiveness) • Appointment of one of most senior and respected GMs to clearly own the project, both to signify importance and increase the likelihood of success • Travelling road show (eg, MD and 2GMs) explained the project and signalled the need for success C1 decreased from 2.5 to 1 D decreased from 4 to 2 4. Specific initiatives to improve the local culture towards the change • Local workshops and communication sessions • Making the envisaged change process and the reasons for it as transparent and as realistically possible C2 decreased from 4 to 3 Based on DICE, actions were taken to improve the likelihood of successful implementation Retail bank example
  • 19. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 18 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Project (in reconfigured form) was predicted to be within the Win Zone Initial Revised 4 2 2 1 2.5 4 1 3 2 2 19 11 Duration of change Or time between learning milestones Team performance integrity Senior management change commitment Local change commitment Additional effort required during implementation DICE = D + 2I + 2C1 + C2 + E = E (C1) (C2) C I D DICE predicted a much higher likelihood of success if agreed actions were taken DICE
  • 20. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 19 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Highly successful Mediocre Highly unsuccessful Likely outcomes Win Worry Woe The predicted shift was dramatic, and subsequently confirmed by successful implementation Revised configuration Initial configuration DICE score DICE: Likely Outcomes * *
  • 21. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 20 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DICE score Exercise: Calculate your own DICE (I) (C1) (C2) (E) Outcome of project DICE = D + 2I + 2C1 + C2 + E Highly successful Mediocre Highly unsuccessful Calculate Plot DICE - Likely outcomes (D) Likelyoutcome Project name: Win Worry Woe Pick a change related project you are familiar with Referencing the scoresheet allocate scores for D, I, C, E and outcome (if you know it) then calculate the DICE score and plot it
  • 22. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 21 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. RIGOR TEST®
  • 23. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 22 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Roadmaps are qualified against the Rigor Test, to set them up for successful delivery Avg. Yield1 % Roadmap rigor test score2 (measure of quality of plan) 130 113 100 Marginal Good Excellent +13 +30 The Rigor Test checks that roadmaps are set up for success Is the Roadmap clearly defined, logically structured and readily implementable? • Ownership and accountability clearly established and logical • Milestones tangible, logical and sufficient to track progress • Timing and sequencing of milestones is logical • Communication, training and stakeholder engagement built in • Those executing feel that they "want to" versus "have to" Are impacts, their sources, timing and leading indicators clearly identified? • Overall financial / operational impacts quantified and phased • Operational KPIs sufficient to act as lead indicators of impact • All one-off and recurring financial implications measurable • Timing of impact logical given milestones • Projected revenue uplifts are thought-through Are interdependencies and other risks/ issues clearly addressed? • Key issues/ risks and interdependencies exposed in Roadmap • Concerns/ needs of stakeholders adequately built in • Risks and interdependencies explicit in milestone descriptions • DICE assessment predicts a favorable outcome Investing time to create roadmaps with a high rigor test score pays off 1. Yield defined as average % actual vs planned recurring economic impact 2. 149 roadmaps in "Excellent" sample; 60 in "Good"; 78 in "Marginal" Source: BCG analysis, sampling of client programs
  • 24. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 23 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Source: BCG industry experience. Note: DICE, BCG's assessment of a change program's likelihood of success, tracks the duration of the project, the capability of each initiative team, the overall leadership and local commitment to change, and the additional effort required of staff. Is the roadmap clearly defined, logically structured, and readily implementable? Is ownership and accountability clearly established for the roadmap? Is the ownership structure tied logically to the content of the roadmap? Is the roadmap logically disaggregated into regular milestones that are sufficient for reviewing the main actions and progress against plan? Are the milestones tangible enough to describe how the roadmap will really be achieved? Are the timing and sequencing of milestones logical? Do the milestones incorporate an executable change plan, including communication, training, and stakeholder engagement? Are impacts, their sources, timing, and leading indicators clearly identified? Are the overall impacts disaggregated into financial and operational impacts and quantified along the timeline (for example, recurring cost reductions and downtime reductions)? Are the operational KPIs sufficient to act as lead indicators of subsequent financial-impact delivery? Do they appropriately test for any critical business-case assumptions (for example, cost, yield, or market assumptions)? Are all potential recurring and one-time cost implications identified and confirmed by finance as measurable? Is the timing of impacts (benefits and costs) consistent with the timing of the milestones they are associated with? Is revenue uplift thought through in a practical and measurable way? Are interdependencies, risks, and issues clearly addressed? Would someone from another part of the organization be able to read the roadmap and clearly understand what to do and what is at risk? Are key issues, risks, and interdependencies adequately exposed and addressed in the qualitative roadmap description? Who are the key stakeholders for the initiative? Have their concerns and needs been effectively factored in? Have key issues, risks, and interdependencies been made explicit in the milestone descriptions? Have specific milestones been developed to trigger conversations for assessing confidence in delivering against key issues, risks, and interdependencies? Does a DICE assessment predict a favorable outcome for the roadmap? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 9 14 15 Rigor Testing helps ensure high-quality Roadmaps—by asking questions like this of Roadmap owners
  • 25. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 24 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. DICE and Rigor Testing create alignment, highlight potential obstacles, and allow for course-corrections DICERigor Testing "Hard" side of change—milestones and impacts Binary go/no-go decision on an initiatives' high-level plan Tests viability of plan pre-launch only "Soft" side of change—capabilities and commitment Predictive measure of initiatives' success by scoring across criteria Tests viability of plan pre-launch and post-launch Create vertical alignment in client hierarchy Detect obstacles in advance Course-correct where needed
  • 26. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 25 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. DICE and Rigor Testing helps to provide senior leadership with true operational insight Level of authority Level of detailed operational knowledge High Low Low High Typical continuum New trajectory with RPM Initiative owners Exhibit 7 Operational insight and authority to make effective course corrections Well informed but insufficient authority to make the difference Typical senior leadership frustrated over insufficient or late information Rigorous Program Management (RPM) provides the bridge between initiative owners and senior leadership
  • 27. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 26 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Appendix
  • 28. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 27 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Assessing DICE: Duration of change The 'D' in DICE is the time it will take to complete a project, or the interval between its major 'learning milestones' • A 'learning milestone' is a formal assessment of the project strengths, weaknesses and progress against key performance measures. • Particular attention is paid to: team performance/dynamics, organizational perceptions, the provision of appropriate project supports, and cultural/ communications issues. • The output of the review should be clear action steps to address any deficiencies, which will then be assessed at the next learning milestone. The longer a change initiative takes, or the greater the time between formal progress checks, the more it is likely to go off-track • Impetus gets lost, windows close, objectives get forgotten, key supporters/performers leave or lose enthusiasm, problems accumulate and amplify, uncontrollable 'king hits' become more probable etc Use the timeframe in the step functions slide. Then ask the most pertinent of two questions • Either how long will it take to fully complete the project? • Or, if the project has a lengthy timeline (say greater than 6 months): How long is there between the major project reviews? Remember, these should be significant, formal assessments of progress with real scope to address any road-blocks or weaknesses that may be identified. If necessary, the review must have the potential to alter processes, increase resources, revise direction, etc. At the level of a specific roadmap, you should also ask: • Do milestones occur regularly? • Do they permit a meaningful review of tangible progress? • Do they show sufficient consideration to engaging key stakeholders at appropriate times over the course of planning and delivery of the Roadmap? What is it? Why is it important? How do I assess/improve 'Duration'? D
  • 29. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 28 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Assessing DICE: Team performance Integrity The 'I' in DICE is the performance integrity of the project team. This encompasses both the overall skills and traits of the team, and how it is has been configured Change projects are usually complex, requiring management a broad nexus of activities, resources, pressures, external stimuli, unforeseen obstacles etc. The ability of the team, both individually and as a collective, to perform each component task and to ensure that the sum of the parts equals a successful whole is obviously integral to the outcome. If the team is not set up for success, it is likely the project will not be Key questions to ask: • Most critically, is the team leader capable? Does s/he: Organize well? Inspire confidence and positive morale/culture? Clearly understand and manage the overall process as well as the detail? Have strong people skills? Quickly see a way to overcome setbacks and integrate them into team learning? Etc • Are the team's objectives realistic and clear to all members? Are the objectives sufficiently ambitious? • Are the team's communication channels open and effective, with opportunity for constructive criticism? • Are all team members: Technically expert? Experienced? Motivated and hardworking? Good 'team players'? • Is each team members' role well defined? • Are there any gaps in the team? ie, key positions not filled, missing skill sets? • Is there a positive team culture? Is there any notable conflict? What is it? Why is it important? How do I assess/improve 'Integrity'? I
  • 30. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 29 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. And assessing DICE: Commitment to change The 'C' in DICE is the commitment to change shown by the senior management (C1) and the people actually undergoing the change (C2). In the former instance, it is mainly to do with the visibility of the commitment; in the latter, it is about the willingness of those affected by change to embrace it and make it work If the leadership is not seen to have confidence in and actively support an initiative, then the lower tiers of an organization are much less likely to believe in its value or its likelihood of success. In other words, commitment at the top is vital (although not always sufficient) to engender commitment from those 'at the coalface'; the one inspires the other. In turn, the local area's commitment is essential to implementation; it is clearly more difficult to make change happen if those who must work with it are opposed to it There are two separate components To assess the commitment of senior management (C1), ask: • Do they regularly and effectively communicate the reason for the change and the importance of its success? • At what level of the organization is the change actively promoted (higher = better)? • Is the message convincing? • Is the message consistent, both across the leadership team and over time? • Have they senior management devoted appropriate resources to the change program, and put in place necessary support structures? To assess the commitment of people in the local area (C2), ask: • Do they understand the reason for the change and believe it is worthwhile? • Are they predominantly enthusiastic and supportive? Or disconcerted and negative/obstructive? • Do they have opportunities to provide feedback and suggested improvements? What is it? Why is it important? How do I assess/improve 'Commitment'? C1 C2 C1 C2
  • 31. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 30 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. Assessing DICE: Additional local Effort required The 'E' in DICE is the additional local effort above normal working requirements that is required during implementation. It relates to the effort of those undergoing the change (same as C2), as opposed to the project team leading the change program (the I of DICE) The greater the additional effort required, the more likely it is that the change initiative will experience difficulties • Resources can become unacceptably stretched, compromising the implementation of the change program and/or normal operations • Morale and local culture can be damaged • Conflict with local management can arise A simple metric is used, based on the percentage increase in effort required by staff working to effect the change program. But some peripheral factors may also be relevant. It is worth asking: • Does the incremental effort come on top of an already-high workload? • Has there been strong resistance to the increased demands? Do staff see the additional tasks as unnecessary or of little value? If the answers to these questions are clearly 'yes', and the percentage increase in effort required is near the threshold of two categories, then the higher score should be given What is it? Why is it important? How do I assess/improve 'Effort'? E
  • 32. PMI Symposium Change Mgmt presentation FINAL.pptx 31 Copyright©2013byTheBostonConsultingGroup,Inc.Allrightsreserved. The detailed Rigor Test scoring template While the ideal score is all 5s, a mix of 4s and 5s is satisfactory. Roadmaps with one-three 3s and the balance in 4s and 5s need to be considered on an individual basis. No roadmap scoring a significant number of 3s can pass without some rework, those with any 2s or 1s invariably need to be restructured. Fully Developed 52 43 Degree to which the roadmap is rigorously developed Requires More Development 1 • Either no owner or owner is not likely to be able to deliver Roadmap • Roadmap not sufficiently broken down to milestone level • Milestones poorly or not at all fleshed out • No evidence of change plan or for regular stakeholder engagement • Minimal consideration of principal financial drivers • No clear linkage of OP KPIs to subsequent financial impacts • Recurring and one-time benefits or costs not evident • Likely capital expenditure and asset requirements not addressed • No explicit relationship between timing of overall impacts and timing of milestones • No linkage between revenue uplift and milestones • Roadmap either very poorly written or too technical or project focused • No explicit consideration of key issues/risks/interdependencies • No clear consideration of stakeholder engagement • No explicit milestones for review of progress against key issues/risks/interdependencies • DICE® score for the Roadmap >=18 Is the project Roadmap clearly defined, logically structured and readily implementable • Is ownership and accountability clearly established for the Roadmap? Does the ownership structure tie logically to the content of the Roadmap? • Is the Roadmap logically disaggregated into approximately 10-20 milestones usually not more than 4-6 weeks apart that are sufficient for review of main actions and progress against plan? • Are the milestones tangible enough to describe how the Roadmap will really be achieved? • Is the timing and sequencing of milestones logical? • Do milestones incorporate an executable Change plan, including communication, training and stakeholder engagement Are the Roadmap's impacts, their sources, their timing and leading indicators clearly identified? • Are the overall impacts disaggregated into financial and Operational KPIs (OP KPIs) (e.g., recurring cost reductions, downtime reduction %)? • Do the OP KPIs sufficiently act as lead indicators of subsequent financial impact delivery (e.g., OP KPIs leading the key financial impacts 3+ months out)? • Are all potential recurring and one-time benefits or cost implications identified (e.g., outsourcing costs, compensation payments, facility closure costs)? • Are all potential capital expenditures and asset implications identified (e.g., equipment or building additions, increases or decreases in stock)? • Is the timing of impacts consistent with the timing of the milestones they are associated with? • Is revenue uplift (assuming it is intended) thought through in a practical and measurable way? Are interdependencies and other risks/issues clearly addressed? • Would someone from another part of the organization be able to read the Roadmap and understand what to do and what is at risk? • Are key issues/risks/interdependencies adequately exposed and addressed in the qualitative Roadmap description? • Who are the key stakeholders for the Roadmap? Have their concerns/needs been effectively factored in? • Have key issues/risks/interdependencies been factored into milestone descriptions? Have specific milestones been developed to trigger conversations to assess confidence of delivery against key issues/risks/interdependencies? • Does a DICE® assessment predict a good outcome for the Roadmap • Owner established but not logically best owner for the Roadmap • Milestones fleshed out at high level but fail to describe how the Roadmap will actually be completed • Timing reasonably detailed but insufficient consideration of sequencing • Cursory change plan some, but likely insufficient, stakeholder engagement • Rough calculation of relevant impacts and distribution over time; Some consideration of OP KPIs • Partial linkage but little lead indication of • OP KPIs to financial impacts • Recurring and one-time benefits or costs documented but not sufficiently explainable or tied to original business case • Possible capital expenditure and asset implications documented but not quantified • Timing of some but not all impacts logically tied to implementation of associated milestones • Linkage to milestones but no clear process to confirm revenue uplift realized • Fairly clear but basically a project plan with key issues/risks not clear at the milestone level • Some consideration but seemingly insufficient fro the magnitude/complexity of the Roadmap • Some consideration but likely insufficient for the magnitude of the behavioral change required • Review milestones identified for the Roadmap but either irregularly set or too vague to enable effective program or senior management overview of key issues/risks/interdependencies • DICE® score for the Roadmap 15–16 • Owner is person most likely to be able to deliver the Roadmap and is committed and available • Milestones fleshed out to a physical and manageable level and describe how the Roadmap will actually be completed • Milestones and sequencing well considered and documented • Thorough change plan and stakeholders clearly engaged in planning and delivery of Roadmap • Clear consideration given to timing and quantification of impacts; OP KPIs explicit and well thought through • OP KPIs lead and readily tie to key subsequent financial impacts • Recurring and one-time benefits or costs explicitly identified and quantified, and tie to original business case • Capital expenditure and asset requirements explicitly identified and quantified • Timing of overall impacts entirely consistent with timing of associated milestones • Clear linkage to milestones and clear process to confirm revenue uplift realized • Clearly understandable and when updated will if necessary highlight any intervention needs • Clear consideration given to exposing key issues/risks/interdependencies • Stakeholders clearly and sufficiently engaged in planning and delivery of Roadmap • Explicit and regular review milestones for the Roadmap; sufficient to enable effective program and senior management overview of key issues/risks/interdependencies • DICE® score for the Roadmap <=12
  • 33. Thank you bcg.com | bcgperspectives.com