Top Tips for effective Change Management: PLANNING

Since 2007, the general environment has been, and is likely to remain, highly volatile. Given organizational change does not take place in a vacuum, what changes to planning for organizational change have been implemented, specifically that reflect the dynamics of general and specific organizational operating environments.

As a scene-setting assertion, how about this?

Planning is an iterative process; a plan(s) is created at a point(s) within this process. In most organizations the efforts required in creating a plan are generally accepted as being demanding. These demands are contributing factors towards creating a plan rather than an iterative planning process.

A plan can be extremely useful as a baseline. A plan is also valuable when comparing plan-versus-actual during the planning cycle, as part of continuous organizational and process improvement. However, given the dynamics of operating environments, an iterative planning process should prove more useful for implementing effective organizational change.

For this top-tips feature, I shall use a framework that should be familiar from previous features and useful as a review for your organizational change planning. The framework is people, process, and technology (in this sequence).

Under this heading is an extremely complex, inter-related set of relationships. Here’s an example:

Whatever your organizational change planning process is, does it include an open, transparent discussion on the effects of organizational culture on the required outputs and outcomes expected from the planning cycle? Is the organizational culture an accelerator or brake on the required result?

Specifically, do the actual delivery mindsets and behaviours match the commitment statements during the meetings, in name at least, supporting the planning process.

Has a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed) analysis been carried out for this planning cycle, or is there an assumption the previous effort was good enough/will work this time/ not worth the bother?

Has a 3Cs (Capable, Competent, Capacity) assessment been carried out for those involved in the delivery of the planning requirements, or is the input to the plan/planning to be created when time is available from day-to-day operational activities?

Here are some important considerations:

1. Is there an agreed and understood planning process with the required executive support cascaded through the organization?
2. Is there an agreed time schedule for completion of standard inputs/documentation?
3. Is there a documented set of organizational change planning assumptions issued to all concerned, forming the basis of their planning submissions?
4. Is there a single point of contact for issue, receipt, answering questions associated with the planning cycle inputs and outputs?
5. Is there a briefing pack containing the overall planning rational and associated specifics for each affected function?
6. Is there a clear relationship between the organizational strategic/operational plans and the organizational change plan?
7. Is there a clear link between organizational strategic/operational plans, the specific organizational change plan and associated strategic workforce planning (e.g. skills gaps between current and future workforce profiles)?
8. Is there a specific People Development Plan associated with the current organizational change plan, closely linked with strategic/operational plans?
9. Is the above mapped with and to budget/spend planning?
10. Is there a planned review schedule with supporting process for all individual and collective planning input?

It shouldn’t be forgotten that everything must “add up”, exceptions understood and documented. There should also be a documented audit trail for and from each level of planning iteration to the next with associated assumptions and change rational.

I hope that, if you needed convincing of my earlier point regarding why organizations prefer a plan to planning, it should now be clear.

Before my techie friends and associates get all excited, this is a low-tech section!

Both Microsoft and Apple (and others) have provided a comprehensive suite of productivity tools. The ease-of-use of these tools should not be a substitute for organizational rigour throughout any organizational change planning process.

Earlier in this feature, I mentioned the importance of organizational culture to any planning process. It’s worth a brief mention here.

Because data is displayed on a spreadsheet, Word document or keynote slide deck, it should not automatically be taken that the information is accurate. It’s very likely everything “will look good and add up” (most times but not always).