Page 289 - Managing Change in Organizations
P. 289

CarnCh14v3.qxd  3/30/07  4:32 PM  Page 272







                   Chapter 14  ■ Change architecture


                                              Structures                        Outputs

                                         ■  Governance structure
                                                                         ■ Connectivity
                                         ■  Definition of accountability,
                                                                         ■ Leverage
                                           communication cascades and    ■ Consistency
                                           processes                     ■ Scaleability
                                         ■  Strategy forums, project
                                                                         ■ Alignment
                                           arrangements, task forces,    ■ Critical mass
                                           focus groups, panels          ■ Management of expectations
                                         ■  Degree of interlocking
                                                                         ■ Credibility of ‘change team‘
                                           mechanisms and reporting
                                           lines
                                         ■  Transparency
                                                               Processes
                                                             ■ Engagement
                                                             ■ Commitment
                                                             ■ Dialogue
                                                             ■ Sharing
                                                             ■ Problem
                                                                orientation



                                  Figure 14.6  Change architecture



                                  the business today. Change is something we do in isolation from ‘business as
                                  usual’ – in isolation in terms of how change is monitored and measured, not of
                                  course in terms of pressures on people.
                                    In the change architecture model (Figure 14.6) I posit a need to focus on struc-
                                  ture processes and outputs of any change process. This is particularly relevant if
                                  a change is radical or wide-ranging. Or perhaps more sensibly we should say that
                                  structures=processes=outputs of change architecture is always relevant but big
                                  projects demand close attention to these design considerations. Doing so can sig-
                                  nificantly lift the degree of confidence in success.

                                    In particular, processes and outputs which include dialogue, problem orienta-
                                  tion, connectivity, leverage, alignment, consistency, scaleability and so on create
                                  positive pressures for change (see the force field technique in Chapter 7). This can
                                  build confidence in the outcomes which can, in turn, reinforce the problem ori-
                                  entation – a virtuous rather than a vicious circle.




                                  Change architecture: blocks

                                  So far so good! But what can get in the way? We have already seen two prob-
                                  lems or blocks. Our corporate culture can create blocks to a successful change
                                  architecture. Simplifying somewhat, the crucial issue is not which is the most
                                  appropriate corporate culture but, rather, is it a positive or negative culture –
                                  following Goffee and Jones (1998). What does this mean? If you look at the
                                  simple pro forma tests these authors propose, it seems clear that the key issue

                   272
   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294