Would anyone have believed in 1994 that a garage bookseller (Amazon) with $40,000 of investment capital would, over a period of 15 years, become the number 3 global retailer by brand value (BrandZ), despite having to change strategy midway through its growth cycle and move from direct sales alone to providing online platforms for other retailers? This success has impacted the industry as a whole and has forced other retailers to strive for better e-channel sales. Such pressure for change is one of the reasons that the retail sector is at the forefront of continuous renewal and improvement.

The most recent Times “State of Retail” survey, highlights how this industry sector is under constant pressure to change. While its prediction of a UK retail “wipe-out” has not occurred, the survey does accurately identify changes to the sector and its subsectors.

1. The report reveals that scale wins: the UK’s top 2 largest retailers by category are significantly ahead of the competition on EBIT margin.

2. Through the search for cost reduction, the trend of the last decade to exploit Far East sourcing is considered to have reached its zenith, especially in clothing, in which the growth of regional market demand and the power of suppliers have led to increased cost along the supply chain.

3. Retailers are also being challenged by changes in technology. Some think that retailing has undergone the most significant transformation of all industry sectors as a result of the internet (although many believe that maturity remains a long way off). One outcome has been the development of multichannel rather than conventional store-sales retailing. To remain competitive,  a multichannel business has to provide the same coherent level of customer service and brand promise across all channels. Technology also raises business architecture issues, as retailers need to decide what is the right investment in CRM, data management and technology integration. It all becomes even more complex if a business is considering acquisition.

4. Ultimately, the sector is driven by the consumer. With recent requirements for thrift versus luxury, increased personalisation, more self-care products and consideration of green issues, retailers are facing significant external pressure to change and transform.

Change management and restructuring are vital

Corporate survival demands effective responses to change, but if management is weary of change, there is a problem. If previously successful, intelligent and innovative people within organisations continually fail to achieve high rates of efficient change, that is significant. If these people contribute to or suffer from low morale, overall business performance deterioration is just around the corner. Such individuals may not be isolated anarchists within the system, however. In fact, there is a growing dialogue on the subject of change fatigue—weariness and failure in academic, journalistic and professional forums—and statistics suggest that businesses are poor at change management most of the time. What’s going wrong?

Strategy Alignment principle

We cannot accept high levels of failure, change fatigue and low morale in our organisations. Some people believe the answer is to stabilise or slow the pace of change. I suggest the opposite; I also think that most organisations look at the wrong issues when trying to deliver change. I believe that a major reason for change fatigue is organisations’ failure to integrate strategy management with strategy execution—the inability to align strategy and change. Around 15 years ago, many large corporations failed to implement customer-focussed processes and instead managed inefficiently in functional silos. In the same way, a large number of sizeable or geographically dispersed organisations today fail to see that their raison d’être should determine the things they actually do. As Steve Tobak recently intoned, “It’s the strategy, stupid”.

Change management is nothing less than strategy execution (see ”Designing the code for change, Leppitt, 2007). Too many organisations operate strategy management decoupled from change management. It is common to see a functional mindset in which the business decides its strategy and then passes change “over the wall” to Operations and IT. Likewise, the planning process in many organisations creates barriers to effective change. Annual operational planning is typically bottom-up and based on an annual or fiscal cycle. Conversely, business transformation is rarely something that can be constrained to specific calendar planning cycles. The results are a constant misalignment of planning and delivery, significant wasted effort on reconciliation and reporting mechanisms, and lost time.

The same is true of the global capital markets and the various professional investors who on their own and their client’s behalf, scan for alpha. There has been much criticism of this industry and in particular the lack of value added by intelligent analysts. Perhaps the most pointed being the research suggesting that chimpanzees can be as effective as fund managers because really, they are only taking a random sample of the markets. Statistically that means they will perform roughly the same as an unweighted index. There are of course exepctions that appear to break the rule. Namely Warren Buffett or closer to shore, Anthony Bolton (although even he has recently left to ply his trade in China). What is interesting about these chaps, is they only seem to invest in what they understand, rather than random samples. Secondly they both had real jobs before they decided to start messing around with large sums of their own and other people’s money. Perhaps work experience counts for something after all?

The thought that springs to mind when reflecting on the general ability of invesment professionals to perform well when the market goes up, and not so well when the market goes down, is that experience counts. If it counts for two of the best stock pickers in the world then perhaps, the VC and PE firms should take note. Perhaps the Corporate world should also take note. For many institutional investors, pension funds and private investors however, there is a suggestion of a wider malaise and a systemic problem in modern investment management models and criteria. I have been told that even Anthony Bolton is cited as saying he would not qualify for a role in Fund management if he were to apply today.

With this in mind, in the context of how business should execute strategy, I was discussing this value realisation dillema with two leading academics recently. The enlightened view they shared,was that over 2 decades ago, when business schools were seeking to answer the questions “what business should do” and “how business should do it”  two complementary philosphies emerged. The economic imprative and the cultural/behavioural imperative. Over the ensuing period the focus on economic value has eclipsed the softer field of interrogation. This Buy Cialis Online has resulted in a business school alumni exiting into the business world with a highly numerate, overtly economic and accountancy based view of strategy definiton and value added. Important that may be, but it is not the whole picture in business!

Is this a problem you may ask? Well, consider the current global economic crisis, the potential lack of future growth and the net zero returns in the last decade quoted by our VC chums. Clearly there is a problem. Firstly, a macro-economic view engenders an abstract view of  investment decisions. Consider a potential acquisition or business investment where the strategy is developed by a Ivy league consultant, the due diligence is carried out by an Ivy league accountant, the deal is managed by an Ivy league Investment Banker. In this scenario where is the voice of challenge regarding feasibility of actually delivering an exit on time-cost or scope. Where is the voice of experience? The reality is, often the transaction or deal value is the main focus. Too often, the future integration or transformation required in the technology, process, culture and people is a secondary matter. For sure, one does feel sorry for the executive team saddled with the challenge of delivering an unrealistic business plan. Is there a solution?

Quite simply, I believe there is. Over 20 years ago when I was an engineer, our profession stumbled on the simple yet profund realisation that “early involvement” of manufacturers in design would lead to better product design. Specifically, if one designs a product that can actually be made or made more easily, it is cheaper to produce and more reliable in the field. Design for Manufacture and Concurrent Engineering subsequently emerged as the solution. In short, involving people with experience early on in the change life-cycle leads to reduced costs and increased the value subsequently.

Perhaps early involvement of the change manager or business professional. The person who actually understands the reality of strategy execution may accelerate or realise tangible value. Perhaps Corporate, VCs and PE firms might acknowledge this fact. Mabye even more radical, fund managers might consider employing people who have actually worked in the industries they are analysing? Who knows? Conversely perhaps the recent ressurection of Gordon Gekko in a sequel movie will give rise to another generation of successful investors. Perhaps it is time to return to the real fundamental of value realisation. Perhaps it is time to Design for Strategy Execution rather than theoretical economic imperatives. Context is great if you have the capability to deliver. If you have the capability maybe its time to use it. If you don’t maybe its time to find it. See the Haldane 4C model to see how strategy alignment and execution help realise value faster.

“We have so many change projects that keep changing in themselves that we never seem to get to the end of anything; and that’s before we even try to do our day jobs.” Operations Manager in Financial Services

The desire that change in our business might somehow go away, or at least slow down, is familiar to many of us. Just recently an executive commented to me that the term “change” in her organisation had become like the term “strategy” over a decade ago: overused, potentially meaningless, and belonging to the domain of theory rather than real-life business. Even so, I suspect that she, along with many other anti-jargon protagonists, actually realises that change is a normal part of the human condition and therefore a corporate reality. It cannot be ignored, any more than HMR&C. Perhaps the “c” word has become a convenient tag on which to hang many of the wider frustrations encountered in the delivery of corporate objectives.

Change is part of being human

The wish that change to would go away is King Canute -like in nature. Indeed, the number of changes that we encounBuy Viagra Online wp-image-190″ title=”King Canute” src=”http://www.haldane.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/King-Canute.jpg” alt=”King Canute” width=”147″ height=”136″ />ter in life—whether personal, social or corporate—has increased dramatically in recent decades. When I began my career as an engineer in IBM, in 1980, I was working on a 64K disk drive the size of a household fridge, with a mechanical actuator! It had taken 6 years to develop, but within 5 years the product-development lifecycle for similar disk storage devices had reduced to 6 months, and it had shrunk in size to that of an average mobile phone today. Keeping up with the developments required a dramatic amount of change in our business processes and performance.

Now, before you comment on my age, consider how your own life is continually impacted by progress and development. Change is inevitable, because humans like to achieve a better quality of life and this creates pressure for progress. Technology and innovation occur because humans like to solve problems; the solutions drive social and technological change. The global markets that humans have created generate ongoing demand for improved creature comforts and present opportunities for entrepreneurs to find and supply new products, solutions and services. Simply put, change is inevitable.

Stefan Stern recently observed in the FT (January 18:2010:), that what sets winning companies apart is not only better products and services and good leadership, essential as they are, but also how these firms cope with crises and big strategic change without being driven off course.

Stay with this blog in the coming weeks and we’ll share some further thoughts and experiences on how to overcome inertia and apathy. With ongoing and  significant regulatory pressure on its way, for example Solvency II in the Insurance sector, the tendency would be to minimise effort or treat these challenges as merely a must do. Perhaps the secret is to recognise such external requirements as opportunity to engender further flexibility in the organisation using such a “stick” as a tool for developing a better culture for successful change!

.

Control Management

Happy New Year to you all and best wishes for 2010. Lets hope the year brings some economic recovery and balance. To kick off the New Year here are some thoughts by way of conclusion to part 1 &2 of this theme, a new code for change. You’ll know I argued previously that executives need to manage their context and internal capabilities in order to be effective at change. They do also need to put in place effective control, but this must be designed and deployed appropriately to avoid many potentially costly pitfalls. How many executives sitting on investment appraisal boards today bemoan the lack of useful decision- making support they receive, whilst simultaneously being buried in delightfully presented Power- Point status reports and RAG ratings? Often, such reporting is justified as effective “control”, and yet the key decision-makers feel they have no control at all over the complex programs and size-able investments that they are sponsoring. Control is necessary to govern responses to feedback and ensure resources are managed to a plan, but all too often it tends to refer to activities that are “after the event”. Change management requires governance of emergent Buy Viagra requirements, resource deployment and goal-focused activity.

As Elbert Hubbard (1915) noted,

“Many people fail in life not for lack of brains or even courage but because they never organise their energies around a goal properly”.

Dysfunctional behavior is a common problem in change management endeavors, because delivery of change requires the co-operation of people across political, organisational and cultural boundaries. An effective administration process will not address the issues that arise from such complexity. Control of an activity is somewhat purposeless unless it is directive. That is why I would contend that control of any programme must be aligned with business strategy, sponsor requirements and stakeholder interests throughout the change process. Mobilisation of the appropriate skilled resources to meet these requirements is vital for effective strategy realisation. This effort is usually under-estimated or ignored, being seen as uneccessary cost.

Never is this more important than post-acquisition, in a merger, or during a major integration. M&A pre-transaction due diligence is all very well in agreeing the appropriate deal valuation, but value realisation is a dream, unless effective change management is considered well before the management team is in place and then deployed effectively across the post-transaction organisation. Otherwise, investors will find the management team frantically back-pedaling to trying to re-negotiate objectives, or abandoning ship altogether.

Designing a New Code for Change

A recent Study of over 1000 CEOs resulted in the conclusion that successful organisations view change as a normal state in which values and goals provide alignment and leadership inspire and challenge rather than stabilize and control. The skill in managing change is also ensuring that the approach is based upon the specific organisations’ maturity, complexity and environment. Business cannot be adequately served by a “one size fits all” project management methodology: rather an eclectic framework ensuring that each organisation develops its own unique approach carries a higher probability of success. Indeed, today, the issue is not so much about cracking the code of change (as espoused by Beer and Noriah, 2000), than about writing a new code to help us manage change through these unprecedented economic times and into a better business future.

My colleagues and I have worked with many clients and also investigated at length 18 major models for change management espoused by experts from around the globe. Our conclusions have led to the identification of nine critical factors for success in change management, all of which we feel must be addressed by organisations requiring effective strategy realisation, combined with efficient management of resources (see Part 2 figure 2). My recommendation to businesses seeking to manage change is that they establish a framework that deals dynamically with context, capability and control. Change management is both a “soft” and a “hard” human endeavour, requiring a blend of techniques and a contingent approach. In such a challenging economic environment, effective change management is not found in increased administration and MS Powerpoint deployment, but in a pragmatic, flexible and adaptable framework which builds on the foundation of sound experience and knowledge of best practice. Drivers with a few Dakar Rally’s under their belt are more likely to be better drivers than graduates fresh out of driving school, even though the latter be able to follow the Highway Code rigidly.

Capability Management

Well seasons greetings and a Merry Christmas to you all. Maybe an appropriate time to post the next installment of our series on Change Management. If you read Part 1 of this article, you’ll know I am critical of organisations who only use the lever of  “Control” to manage change. An organisation must understand and manage its Context and have the Capability to manage change as well. While I was upgrading my domestic boiler recently I was reminded of the phrase…

Passing your driving test doesn’t make you a good driver

The boiler issue led to visits from two Corgi-registered plumbers who were happy to charge visitation fees and, upon encountering an unexpected problem, were equally happy to depart, leaving said problem unresolved. Corgi registration obviously doesn’t address such challenges as worn mains isolation valves. Eventually I found another plumber who was able, through experience and some lateral thinking, to solve the problem and, three weeks after my call to the first plumber, the real project got underway.

Good results – strategy realisation – occur when the people involved are prepared to collaborate, flex their methodology and adopt a principles-based approach rather than rely on rules. Reliance upon methodology over experience, or upon structure over substance, leads to bureaucracy, the monitoring of procedure rather than outcomes, and mountains of unusable project artifacts. This doesn’t achieve better results or benefits for business. In this, the 15th year of the Standish “Chaos” report (2009), it is sobering to reflect that on average businesses deliver only 32% of the projects they start. In 1994, it was 16%. Some may hail this as a success for methodology adoption: a 16% increase in project success over the last 15 years! But firstly it is impossible to attribute this increase in success to adoption of better standards and secondly its is a mediocre improvement. While project management methodologies such as Prince2,PMBoK and MSP may be fast becoming the pre-requisite for recruiters of project management talent, and are certainly demanded by training supplier candidates, some- what “pump-primed” by the public purse, they rarely generate the improved delivery expected. In his various papers on this subject, Chris Dale (2007) has pointed out the problems of relying on methodologies like Prince2 to bring about project success:

“Whilst we do not contend that all project problems can be laid at the door of these kinds of methodologies, we do contend that it is time to question the faith placed in them, and to acknowledge that there are serious underlying structural problems to Prince2 and related methodologies”.

My experience is similar, but I would suggest that, although methodology, accreditation and standards do not ensure success in project delivery, can create a mountain of administration, and even cause unintended risks within businesses and their ability to manage change, they do at least provide a common language and a useful standard to compare with. But organisations Buy Cialis Online Without Prescription should not assume that universal adoption of a meth odology or recruitment of accredited persons will ensure project delivery. Its another key element but not the only one!

FIG. 2. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Critical Success Factors in Change Managament

Conclusion in Part 3…

“I’m a little tired of big consultants making big bucks off the backs of shareholders and employees on the flawed principal that it’s all about the change process and they’ve got a better one than the other guy”

Well he may have a point about one change methodology versus another. Chris Dale in his article on Why PRINCEII fails,  goes specifically a little further and states  “that whilst we do not contend that all project problems Generic Viagra Online can be laid at the door of these kind of methodologies, we do contend that it is time to question the faith placed in them…to acknowledge that there are serious underlying, fatal structural problems to Prince II and related methodologies. Our analysis shows that they (eg. Prince II) will generally increase project costs and lead to lengthy phases (each of many months) during which only costs accrue. Lengthy project phases also means that it is difficult to incorporate changes to requirements. The probability of requirements changing is of course, increased when project phases are each of many months or years.”

Well whilst Chris has the facts, I certainly have a growing number of anecdotes and case studies showing a growing consensus that methodology increases bureaucracy and delays, rather than driving change effectively. Now, it is hard shift the focus from methodology alone, when everyone is so delighted with the “new clothes” there are wearing. The reality is though, a reliance on one golf club in the bag, is not going to deliver results. With an increasing shift in economic power to China and India, well established global companies need to be aware of the lessons of history and the many previous corporate failures resulting from a failure of management to react or change fast enough. There does not have to be a “burning platform” before you change the way you manage your business or change its model. It is easy to be complacent if your particular industry is supported by a legacy business book that may yield good revenue and margin for a few more years. It may not lead to embarrassment now or even in the 2010 reporting. But the business will look very naked in 2-3 years time when other competitors are taking a more aggressive and pragmatic approach to strategy execution. Theywill be encroaching on your market perhaps without you even really knowing, rapidly competing for the same business, clients and customers. What will it look like in two years time to face competitors with a leaner management team, simpler order management process, efficient paperless office and low cost multi-source infrastructure.

Change is complex but execution can be a lot simpler when you get on the front foot, lead the competition, leverage experience and adopt a few key change management principles.

Thanks and permission for use of original artwork to Ashley A Smith at www.ashleyasmith.com

After a tough recession, whether your business faces growth or cost challenges the luxury of spending time on elongated strategic reviews and large scale technology led programmes is diminishing. Getting results and delivering strategy is the focus. Haldane helps your business execute strategy by providing you with expertise on demand and bringing teams of practitioners together. Businesses today require a new form of support, whether it is to grow, re-structure, improve performance or transform.

The Evidence for a new breed of consultancy is compelling. There has not been a significant step change in Business Transformation capability over the last decade. Whilst most consultancy firms will say they can help deliver results and execute, the reality is that large scale consultancies have over promised and under delivered. They offer quantity, scale and reach but not necessarily better results often relying on staff inherited from a previous TUPE scenario.

Strategy houses are great at design but their recruitment process does not equip them to provide delivery expertise. Advisory firms are also building capability too but, in an environment of increased regulatory focus can your business entertain further potential conflicts of interest? The Standish report 2009 and the IBM C Level report 2009 highlight that such firms have contributed to:-

•    Only 32% of projects delivered successfully

•    68% of a 1000 CEO sample, identifying a lack of change capability as their key problem

Working on the right things. When we’ve carried out client transformation health checks, we regularly find that over 50% of the projects underway in a business are not delivering the agreed strategic priorities. A focus on strategy alignment and continually doing the right things shoudl be at the heart of effective change.

Executing better. The Standish report is not an academic review, it highlights real-world short-comings. Many projects fail to deliver on time-cost- scope. Even many “successful” projects delivering on time, have actually failed to meet original budget and requirements only to launch with reduced scope. There is no short-cut for expertise that can “cut through” programme and project bureaucracy and get to the root of a problem in your M&A, integration or transformation programme.

Strategy alignment and execution is the Haldane USP. (see Fig. 1 above) What businesses  require in the future is the ability to focus on the right priorities (strategy alignment) and to execute well (strategy delivery). Haldane provide experienced practitioners, not whoever is on the bench. We are collaborative but challenging, independent from product and work with our clients to provide them the knowledge to succeed. If you are unhappy with your transformation results so far, call us today to discuss a different approach, carry out a programme health-check or help turnaround struggling initiatives.

I am a pretty average golfer. My excuse is that I don’t play enough. My family may not agree. However, I do know that you cannot achieve a good score by playing with only a putter. As a minimum, you need a driver, wedge and putter to achieve a good round, and then you selectively use more specialist weapons as required. It never ceases to amaze me, Generic Cialis Online then, that so many businesses believe they can achieve good results while using only “one club from the bag”. This is especially the case in change management: many organisations expect to handle this dynamic process by relying on just one technique – administration – even though nearly every thesis on the subject identifies a number of complex issues to address.

For business today, there is no place to hide. The pressure to adapt will not diminish. In the next decade, as we emerge from recession, growth will be achieved by those who best calculate and manage the risk–reward frontier. Held et al. (1997) have stated that “Globalisation is developing in an emergent non-linear way involving overlapping political, economic and technological development”. In other words the pressure upon businesses to achieve a reasonable return on capital will increase. For this reason it is paramount that strategy management and execution is a dynamic rather than an annual process. Strategy, a well-worn term, is in this context is the way in which a business organises itself to navigate external uncertainty and best utilises its resources in the pursuit of targets. Realising strategy, in this sense, is what we call change management (see figure 1).

Haldane's 4C Change Model

Context Management

Part of the difficulty faced by some organisations in realising strategy is managing the context in which the business operates. Often their inability to create planning processes that reconcile fiscal cycles with long-term projects is a key symptom. Corporate structures rarely manage capital allocation in a way that gives the divisions within them the required autonomy to adapt and grow over a sufficient period. Short term cost management imperatives then typically undermine change strategy. Then there are the organisations’ reporting processes and the belief that these are synonymous with the ability to deliver. Anyone who has worked in a project management environment knows that passive RAG (Red, Amber or Green) ratings rarely report actual status. Furthermore, in a culture in which raising negative issues is discouraged, reporting is not linked to successful delivery, and there is very little incentive to reveal the true status of projects. Transparency, an essential requirement for effective change management, is then elusive.

Essential to realising strategy is better management of the non-linear change process identified by Held et al. We must move away from the reliance on linear, often sequential, event-based management that is so evident in modern organisations, because it cannot address the complexity of change management requirements in today’s global economies. A more flexible framework is urgently required.

Well it’s here, Successful Change has finally been launched and we are looking forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas in the area of Strategy Execution and Change management. Interesting timing perhaps given that one of the big boys, Accenture (Read Article) , was recently giving an account of itself in the Times and suggesting that it is time for “execution” not larger technology-led programmes. Well I couldn’t agree more, but remind me, who is it that has been responsible for encouraging and establishing many such large amorphous programmes in the first place?!

For those of you familiar with our articles you’ll know we are not fans of an over reliance on external partners to “do things to” an organisations rather than “work with” and we strongly favour external support that really transfers knowledge. High impact consulting! Of course many people are still Buy Generic Cialis Online sceptical of consulting today, and critical of the large “report” or “army” of anonymous people who turn up at their offices, often without anyone really knowing what they are up to. In Change Management however, perhaps the criticism is fair given the recent results:-

The Standish report 2009 and the IBM C Level report 2009 highlight that long standing incumbent firms and consultancy have contributed to,

• Only 32% of projects delivered successfully
• 68% of a 1000 CEO sample, identifying a lack of change capability as their key problem

In that sense we agree with you, the client, the buyer, that the evidence for a new breed of consultancy is compelling! There has not been a significant step change in Business Transformation capability over the last decade. Whilst most consultancy firms will say they can help deliver results and execute, the reality is that large scale consultancies have over promised and under delivered. They offer quantity, scale and reach but not necessarily better results often relying on staff inherited from a previous TUPE scenario. Strategy houses are great at design but their recruitment process does not equip them to provide delivery expertise. Advisory firms are also building capability too but, in an environment of increased regulatory focus can your business entertain further potential conflicts of interest? Criticism of consultancies may be justified.

The reality in Execution and Change, is that external help is sometimes the best or only way to transcend internal political boundaries, unlock long stating partisan behavior and drive action rather than more talk. Given that an external party has no vested interest in any future role or being part of the hierarchy, operating wisely and sensitively, they can make rapid progress and get the best results out of your team. We think it is time for execution and delivery too but, we always have! We suggest to you, that rather than look in the same place as before, consider a practitioner led, principles based partner like Haldane first! Introduction To Successful Change

You may not know that in 1998 Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria, held a conference in order to explore the nature of corporate change. The conclusions were compiled into a text entitled, Breaking the Code of Change (Beer and Nohria, 2000) with the intent of addressing their thesis that the two primary approaches to change management should be more integrated if corporations wanted to improve their chance of success in delivering business transformation. In their theory any change approach with a primary focus on economic value was termed Theory “E”, while Theory “O” described those approaches harnessing organisational capability. In short, some firms are very top down while others are very bottom up in their approach.

The relevance of their enquiry still carries significant value today. In a recent IBM study of over 1000 CEOs, the conclusion was that successful organisations view change as

“a normal state in which values and goals provide alignment and leadership inspire and challenge, rather than stabilise and control”.

This study highlighted the importance of leadership and stakeholder engagement in managing complex business transformation. It also highlighted that the majority of CEOs felt change management would be the biggest issue they face in the next few years and yet, they lacked adequate capability to manage this.

This shortfall in capability is an issue for many organisations. Indeed, in this, the 15th year of the Standish “Chaos” report (2009), it is sobering to reflect that on average businesses deliver only 32% of the projects they start. This shortfall represents a great opportunity for organisations to approach change in different way. To learn from the experience of those who have gone through similar challenges, innovate and adapt their approach according to their specific context, capabilities and controls. For example, the challenges that arise in a distressed company may include managing financial, operations and organisational shortfall. In a scenario where low performance has existed for some time, there may be entrenched cultural barriers and high stress levels. Partisan or dysfunctional behavior is not unusual in these situations but, left unchecked it can take deep roots in the organisation. It is not just distressed businesses that require turnaround capability. Sometimes the acquisition of a new business within a portfolio requires similar Buy Generic Viagra Online skills and competencies.

Designing a New Code for Change. Business transformation consultancy has not yet reached the era of alien led invasion yet and but it is also clear that a business cannot be adequately served by a “one size fits all” approach to change or programme management. Today, the issue is not so much about cracking the code of change (as espoused by Beer and Norah, 2000), than writing a new “code” to help manage change through unprecedented economic times. Picking up this challenge over the last few years and based on our experience working with clients, we (Haldane LLP) have developed a framework for navigating change, whether it is focused on value realisation after a merger or, turning around companies struggling to improve performance. This framework (the 4C model Link to  Designing a new code for Change, Haldane LLP, White Paper 2009, (Haldane whitepapers) suggests that the key consideration in managing change is ensuring the approach taken is based upon the maturity, complexity and environment a specific business faces. The framework considers an approach to change in 3 key areas:-

Context Management:  Aligning strategy, managing stakeholders and prioritising between competing interests are all crucial in beginning the journey towards better business performance.

Capability Management:. Strategy is delivered effectively when the right people are involved and they are prepared to collaborate and flex their approach. Reliance upon methodology over experience, or upon structure over substance, leads to monitoring of procedures rather than outcomes, and this is not a good outcome for any organisation.

Control Management: Control is necessary to govern responses to feedback and ensure resources are managed to a plan. Change management requires governance of emergent requirements, resource deployment and goal-focused activity.

How is your change initiative going? What lessons have you learnt? Is methodology the B all and End all or not? Look our for our 3 part series on Designing and new code for change.