Also, I have a confession - I'm not a project manager. I am actually looking for ways to understand the mind of a project manager so I can choose the best methods for communication.
The team I work for are focused purely on reducing human error and increasing human performance in safety critical systems. We have recently put our heads together to develop industry best practice methods for addressing important safety issues which do not currently fit into our project management process. So, I have been given the rather difficult task of finding the best way to communicate our recommended changes to the project management process to accomodate these ideas.
So, how should I communicate some fairly complex process changes where the activities and deliverables vary for different levels of risk. When the audience (PMs) are over worked, tired and most likely resistent to some of these ideas ?
I would love to get some suggestions or examples of the type of thing you think may work given the context I have described. Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Damian,
Resitance to change is a constant. The best way I have found to reduce this resistance is to provide stakeholders, in this case PMs, a way to attach to the change process. This means you need to see the world or at least the culture and processes through their eyes. Before your ideas can have merit you must demonstrate you understand their concerns and needs. I suggest that you become the facilitator of change and not the creator of change. Start by framing some organizational objectives that become givens to the faciliation process. Conduct work sessions with the PMs to draw out of them ideas on what would have to change in order to achieve the objectives. Some of these changes might be process related, some policy and some political. Quantify the changes as to the current situation and the implications to effeciency, quality and safety. By having them elaborate on why the current environment is "bad" related to achieving the objectives and also talking through why the changes would be "good" you begin to build leverage into their ability to pursue change. The focus remains on the process and culture and not on the individuals.
Conditioning people for change is imparrative to achieving positive and long lasting results.
Good Luck Saving Changes...
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Dear Damian, your post is excellent and brings to the table a very significant topic, issue, and opportunity. While I understand and agree with some of Mr. Wood's suggestions, I would recommend a different approach. First of all, resistance to change is not a constant. I disagree with that notion entirely. Having lived and worked in Asia for 7 years, I can tell you that resistance to change is not a constant, rather it is a mindset. In Japan, for example, the manufacturing firms and especially those involved with the kind of work that you and your team do have a culture of continuous improvement. That is, every member of the team from the lowest station to upper management has a commitment to continuous improvement. They call it "Kaizen" - incremental, step, by step, continuous improvement. Many US firms have begun to adopt Kaizen and focus on establishing continuous improvement oriented workplaces recognizing that the "quantum change" mentality, though it sells books, rarely works. Now, you mentioned that you and the team put your heads together to develop best practice methods for safety issues. That is excellent. I would ask you if your best practices have practice steps for continuous improvement that include 1) documentation of lessons learned, 2) documentation of continuous improvement recommendations based upon lessons learned feedback, 3) communication of continuous improvement recommendations, and 4) disposition of continuous improvement recommendations. My sense is that your best practice does not address continuous improvement, otherwise you would not have this problem. Hence, my recommendations are twofold. First, seek to establish a culture of continous improvement by convening a meeting with your team to fix your best practice. Do not waiver in this, rather recognize that a best practice without continuous improvement is NOT a best practice. Address this solely in the context of your best practice definition, not in the context any existing improvement proposals you have in mind or want to implement. Second, be a leader. Be a leader with vision and passion. Leadership does not come from management or appointment, rather it comes from within. Leaders embrace change, followers follow. Recognize that many PMs are not leaders, they are followers. They will tell you that they are over worked, under paid, tired of change, and in many cases professionally frustrated. I agree with Mr. Wood's advice that the focus should be on the process and culture, not on the individuals; and that conditioning people for change is imperative to achieving positive and long lasting results. However, I would avoid beating around the bush. There is no need to try to frame things or manipulate events to get what you want. That approach, while useful and needed with headstrong hi-performing go getters, rarely works with change resistent, complacent project managers. They will always have an excuse or reason to stay put. Rather than herd these cows, you need to transform them into stallions. Fix the process and you fix the problem. Resistance to change is not a constant, it is a process defect. If you lead in this, they will follow. By the way, earlier this year we had a client in a similar situation. A gentleman in your position worked to improve the existing process, mostly adding continuous improvement to the existing process as outlined above and by leading by example. Within a month, the entire team had transformed into improvement zealots. After six months, the team was recognized and awarded a team award for quality. And recently, this gentleman was promoted to management. Hope this helps and inspires. Good luck..! -- Mark Perry, VP Customer Care, BOT International Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Mark, thanks for sharing some good and solid concepts. I would like to clarify the notion that resistance to change is a constant. The theory of Homeostasis is one that comes from the world of research in both physics and human behavior. By way of instinct we all resist change and therefore must gain leverage rationally and emotionally to accept a change to our normal routines. Certainly an organization can evolve to be more adaptive to change and thus make change cycles shorter. However the resistance is there. For example, if you are right handed try writing or brushing your teeth with your left hand. Now imagine having to write with your left hand while under pressure to perform. Your inclination will be to want to do the writing with your left hand, especially if you are going to be evaluated or judged on the results you produce. Behaviorally speaking a person needs to be unfrozen from their current state in order to consider change. Something bad or wrong has to be perceived within the current state and something good or better has to be perceived in the future state. Unless we are masochists we don’t pursue change that results in delivering us to a state that is worse than the state we left. The more drastic the gap between these two states the more emotional and intellectual leverage we have to change. This leverage unfreezes us and allows our psyche to entertain change. Once the change is achieved it must be institutionalized to the point that it becomes our new current state. If the institutionalization does not happen we are apt to flow back to the old way of doing; the old state and become even more entrenched and resistant to change.
Organizations are comprised of people each in a homeostatic state as is the organization itself. It is a constant in that context. Hope this clarifies my comments. Happy Holidays.
Saving Changes...
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Hi Mike, your opinion was quite clear the first time, I just have a different opinion in the matter. That's all. I agree with you with respect to the context of people and organizations having Homeostatic characteristics. However, an introduction of the concept of Homeostasis with respect to the original subject of this post, "Communicating change to project managers", should also include the paradox of Homeostasis when applied to a social or organization system. That is, while Homeostatic tendencies are characteristic of an organization system, to endure is not enough. The organization system must and does adapt and evolve. In addition to Homeostatic characteristics, people and organizations also demonstrate Morphogenetic, Cybernetic, and adaptive characteristics resulting in natural learning, personal/organizational development, and communication feedback mechanisms. It is in this regard and in the context of the subject post that I would contend that resistance to change should not be viewed as a constant, rather it should be viewed (and managed) as a mindset. That would be what my Kaizen friends, and perhaps Deming, would tell me. Cheers..! – Mark Perry, VP Customer Care, BOT International Saving Changes...
