How can you balance speed and risk in change management?

I usually go for carefully designed pilots, monitor results, identify gaps, fix bugs and so on. Once we're reasonably sure that the new process or service adds value and improves customer experience, we roll out the full scale imementation. The method has worked very well so far.

I like to do a quick and informal risk assessment with my clients, assessing aspects of the proposed change itself, as well as attributes of the target organization. This not only helps me scope the work, but tells me roughly what level of OCM is likely needed to achieve the desired new reality and adoption outcomes. I assess the change in terms of impact, e.g., # of people affected, amount of change (incremental vs. radical), and targeted timeframe; and I assess the organization on elements such as its history with prior changes, leadership’s competency and experience sponsoring change effectively, and overall change capacity (how many changes are going on at the same time, prioritization relative to other initiatives).

In my opinion the first step to balancing risk, is understanding risk. Any time we don’t understand a risk, we have to work on the assumption that the risk is significant. We also need to consider that there are different types of risk that we face. We often get a little bit too hung up on purely technical risks. Finally, remember " the best response to risk is knowledge". A significant proportion of the work that people do as Change Managers is not original, but rather the curation of what we know about changes. When we have the right information in front of us, these decisions are usually nowhere near as challenging as the range of considerations I’ve outlined might make them seem!

In change management, context matters. In a crisis, swift action and clear communication are vital - think of crisis management. For significant changes, like process overhauls, technological shift or adapting to new legislation, take a holistic approach. Assess benefits, costs, and risks before, during, and after the change. And when urgency meets importance, preparedness is the best ally

What's this? If you have a clear plan, budget, and schedule, you can't be flexible, and experimental and ask for feedback? The scenarios outlined in the question are not mutually exclusive. With a more Agile approach you still need a plan budget and schedule and with a Waterfall delivery you still need to be flexible and adapt following feedback.

Loaded question ("It depends.") so I'll stay broad... Identifying clear requirements for the delivery timeline and the acceptable risk with the Sponsor are key. Both usually require ongoing check-ins to ensure nothing has changed during the engagement. Those two variables dictate the give/take between those factors.

This is a great point, a one size fits all approach to change adds risk. I think going into the change being very clear on impact and outcomes, both desired and not, and what KPIs we will measure that by can help bring us to the conclusion this can/should be phased and allow for agility vs a more traditional implementation.

This implies that a 'project management' approach works well for simple, low-risk changes but, for larger, more complex change, an agile approach is needed. This is the type of overly simplistic statement that explains why some companies get in such a mess with this stuff - it's rubbish. An 'agile approach' is great in the right circumstances, as is a 'waterfall approach'. What's really needed is someone who can apply a range of differing tools, techniques and methodologies to the situation in question.

Choosing the right change approach depends on the nature of the business and the urgency of the changes. When dealing with complex, unpredictable changes, opt for an adaptive toolbox that emphasizes flexibility and continuous learning. For straightforward changes, stick to a simple PDCA methodology or 5W2H, providing clear guidance and structure to ensure efficient implementation.

This needs to flow beyond the change team - involving the stakeholders on the 'why' for the speed of change is extremely important. Sometimes 'how' and 'what' is changing is over-communicated leaving out the why, which can lead to low adoption.

Balancing speed and risk in change management requires a strategic approach: 1. Assess the Nature of Change 2. Risk Assessment 3. Speed vs. Risk Trade-off 4. Clear Communication 5. Pilot Programs 6. Change Champions 7. Agile Approach 8. Change Monitoring 9. Training and Skill Development 10. Contingency Planning Ultimately, the balance between speed and risk in change management will vary based on the specific context and goals of each change initiative. Regularly reassess and adjust your approach as needed to achieve the desired outcomes while minimizing negative impacts.

One consideration when balancing speed and risk: if you can easily undo a change, move quickly. If you can't easily undo a change, go slow.

This success of this important step will depend not merely on soliciting their input and ideas, but more so on your ability to ensure a safe environment for team members to voice their criticism, doubts, and disagreement. Without this, efforts to communicating the vision will be countered by a long list of perceived risks that can only be mitigated by acknowledging and responding to all view points. Especially those - seemingly - counter-productive ones. Once you lend an inviting ear to these voices - and I can tell you they will be there - you can together address initial resistance. You might very well end up identifying your strongest change advocates!

Getting the teams engaged is so important. One thing most comes to mind, the tried and true WIFM, what's in it for me? For the person or team responsible for the change, what will make this task easier for you if the stakeholders are all engaged? Have that in your change ticket & discussion. Call out people that put in great change tickets and demonstrate how much easier it makes the process when all the relevant details are up front. Listen to the top resistors, are they parts of the change process that are difficult or redundant? Maybe you can show them a win and adjust.

I have found that it is critical to make the connection of how you are addressing survey feedback. It can often be detrimental to change management if stakeholders feels surveys ask the same questions but fail to yield a result.

One key element to monitor and adjust is to ensure your communication plan includes opportunities for two-way communication both before implementation and after. This ensures that those impacted by the change have the ability to voice concerns and support. It also allows leaders to hear directly from those impacted by the change and consider adjustments based on their input.

In my experience the number one shortfall when it comes to monitoring and adjusting is that companies/ teams didn’t start on the journey with clear metrics and outcomes in mind that enable them to track progress. The evaluate and monitor stage is only as powerful as the initial goal/ outcome set. For example. A sales organisation may ‘want to shorten deal life cycles’ but this doesn’t come to life without the specific goal end state (100 days to 60days), a deadline (12months), a series of timelines/ milestones and the ability to track/ monitor ‘the how’ I.E. what rep behaviours/ outputs do we need to monitor to ensure we are heading towards the goal? (Speed to demo, time at each pipeline stage).

While surveys, observations, and interviews have proven useful methods, it is also important to have a retrospective post project completion to really reflect and think about the lessons learnt from prior experiences that the team has gone through. This is also crucial to helping any form of analyses that deals with data points too. What this really does is to monitor and manage the change but to also improve the entire change management process to improve its efficiency and efficacy.

Sometimes change is a one time event. When I move a workforce to a new building, I don't think about the risk of them turning up at their office unless I pulse check their happiness.

Ce qui est important pour ancrer les apprentissages, c'est de revoir régulièrement le plan d'accompagnement, savoir le réajuster en fonction des retours, de la fa?on dont le projet est per?u par ceux qui sont impactés. Ajuster le niveau de communication, cela implique qu'il faut régulièrement sonder les participants. L'équipe Change doit pouvoir capitaliser sur ses pratiques, en réalisant des "rex" des retours d'expériences" à l'issue de chaque étape et continuer d'apprendre !

Change adaptability is a muscle that needs to be built. When you document your goals going into the change, document what you did, and measure the impact (in quantitative and qualitative ways), then report that back to the broader team you help them build the muscle. If you are frequently in the position to lead change within your organization, this communication will make it easier on each subsequent initiative. The flip side of that is to always communicate what went wrong — where things didn’t turn out the way you expected and what you plan to do differently. That engenders the trust and transparency needed to effectively enact change.

Like most CABs we review all post changes for what went well, and what didn't in addition to larger project AARs. These discussions are only successful if you have laid the ground work for a non-punitive culture. If you have really made it an experience about learning from the experience and others it is so productive. Teams also need to embrace that the impact to the customer is not a 'perception' but a reality on how successful we were. Even if the technical change was a masterpiece, if we didn't communicate well it could be deemed an unsuccessful change.

Everyone in change management knows how important the "WHY" is around messaging, so my question then, why are Change Management practitioners (and companies) focused so much on the "WHAT" when it comes to reflection and lessons learned? "What failed, what happened, etc.?" From the article: "reflect on what worked well, what did not work well". Personally, I want to know WHY something worked, not just why it didn't. There are many lessons in the WHY, it's a powerful tool beyond the traditional WHY that leads change, it extends far beyond the individual. I urge you to give it a try - WHY not figure out WHY things worked? Mindset shift - focus on both sides of the story, you just might be amazed.

“I’m as proud of many of the things we haven’t done as the things we have done. Innovation is saying no to a thousand things.”-Steve Jobs I believe that innovation is only possible if you are sharing skills and best practices , great teams do that as do leaders : improve learn +change +share = success , less resistance , happier change

A few years ago I worked on, at the time, the fastest customer service system implementation to date. It was as expected, chaotic, and disruptive for impacted groups. What I learned from this experience is that often times the speed of change is driven by uncontrollable circumstances. In these cases it is imperative to be honest about the current state of affairs. Painting a happy picture to stakeholders who are experiencing negative impacts creates a culture resistant and bitter to change. Change, whether rapid or slow, is better received when leaders are transparent and honest with the state of change. It also helps if feedback mechanisms are created and respected; this can help stakeholders thrive in any change environment.

What is missing from this article is the single most important point - communication! Communicate to all stakeholders what is going to change and, crucially, why, well in advance. Without doing that you will never achieve the buy-in necessary to make the change successful. Achieving that buy-in reduces the risk that change will be unsuccessful. There is always a temptation to involve fewer people in order to move forward quickly, but that must be balanced by the additional time that will be required if the change is not successful or meets resistance from. By investing extra time up front in effective communication, the risk of needing additional time later on is greatly reduced, as is the overall project time.

The temptation is high to say,"You can't" in this article. Trying to balance speed and risk in Change Management might be doable for short tenure but since most Change Management positive impacts should be achieveable in more sustainable ways, then you have to pick your battle. After trying to balance it, go to prioritization and heat map. 1. Locate which risks from the Change Impact Analysis would be in the red zone. Then decide how many resources you need to mitigate this. 2. Locate risks that would be in the yellow and green zone. These might be the risks faster to mitigate, hence the speed achieved. 3. Know when to "pull the plug". Escalate to necessary committees of stakeholders if the speed vs risks are in a status quo situation.

Everything related to speed has a mechanism to regulate it. So, why not in change management? If you regulate the speed, the chances of running risks are reduced. Devise a strategy that has adequate buffers, raise flags at the right moment, and don't try to run a red light in the project. Collaboration is also of utmost importance here, especially when it comes to sharing and trading information between teams. Share everything. No matter how big or small it is.

This article starts by saying that "Change management is the process of planning, implementing, and evaluating changes in an organization to achieve desired outcomes". I totally agree with this. HOWEVER, whenever you move from the status quo, it's a change. And the scale of change and the complexity involved in making it will determine the best mechanism to manage that change e.g. small change may be made as part of an ongoing continuous improvement initiative, larger change may be made by establishing a project, larger strategic change via a programme of work... and if the change significantly impacts the business model and/or operating model to bring about different and better outcomes - a transformation programme. It's all change!!