Implementation - the playground in practice

Dutch title: Implementeren: het speelveld in praktijk Authors: L. Pater, S. Roest, S. Dubbeldam & M. Verweijen Year: 2003 Publisher: Lemma BV, Utrecht

Change management traditionally refers to managing the roll-out of a changed strategy inside an organization and is a process which only starts after a senior management team have walked out of the boardroom with a clear-cut plan. At that point the new strategy is already determined and managers only have to figure out a way to roll it out and get people to join. Pater et al. (2003) speak of a 3x3 grid, that senior managers like to follow. First, they spend 3 weeks with the executive and leadership team, developing, building and shaping their strategy and plans. Then, they spend 3 days with middle management, discussing the new strategy and their ideas on how to align line management and push it out through the organization. Finally, they spend 3 hours with frontline staff, informing them on the new situation...

I found this video to illustrate what responses will follow this style of top-down strategy roll-out.


(Da Ali G Show, Channel 4)

Even though the presenter shows the audience how his invention works, lets them experience the benefits personally, and presents a revenue prediction, it is hard to imagine he will get any commitment at all. Now, however ridiculous the product and the marketing strategy might seem, the responses by his audience are typical for presentations like this.
Let me take you through the video again. The first person we see responding has a different notion of what is relevant (music instead of ice cream). Trying to understand the issue, he comes up with a solution he thinks is best. After the presenter tells him about his own idea, he says it “sounds like a good idea”, but walks off thinking the presenter has totally lost it. The woman we see a bit later responds to every phrase with “sure” and “alright”, but one can tell she is in fact not at all with him, and is not likely to buy in either. On top of this, the revenue calculation looks impressive, but is incomprehensible and does not convince any of the investors at the table.

Now, back to the book. Implementation, according to Pater et al. (2003), is the process of making a proposed change bring the intended result. It embodies the entire change process, starting from the first notion that something needs to change. This is where the book deviates from traditional discourse, since the desired change is not necessarily determined in advance. The essence of implementation is that changes are not only triggered, and not only represent the difference between the old and the new, but that the intended result is actually achieved. The proposed change in the organizational process has to really be used. It needs not only function, it needs to work. Implementing is about making it work.

The book offers four universal strategies for the implementation of organizational changes, and explains the approach and implications of the ‘seven aspects of implementation’: • Results (what do we want to achieve?)
• Planning and control (how will we get it done?)
• Design and order (how do we arrange it?)
• Communication (how do we involve everyone?)
• Training (how do we learn to deal with it?)
• Anchoring and improvement (how will we keep it working?)
• Wrap-up and evaluation (what has it brought?)

I will not go in-depth on these aspects, but will leave you with the knowledge that for each implementation strategy the balance and interaction between these aspects is slightly different, and matches a certain type of change. Below, I will present a brief explanation of the four strategies.

Executive strategy
Focus on: Doing.
When: The goals are clear and acceptable for everyone involved, and the change process is obvious.
Points of attention: Clear and tight planning, alignment between project group and departments, clear communication on successes as well as setbacks. Example: The introduction of a new product in an experienced organization.

Participation strategy
Focus on: Competences and attitude.
When: Goals are not challenging, but not supported by everyone.
Points of attention: Create commitment, don’t rush it, start a training programme, convince people of what’s in it for them, create quick wins.
Example: Introduction of a quality control system.

Design strategy
Focus on: Co-creating the content.
When: Goals are vague, everyone knows something has to be done, although nobody knows exactly what.
Points of attention: Working together, frequent measurements and redirection where needed, active participation of line management, a clear ending to the change process to prevent the discussion from going on forever.
Example: Expansion of a physical business to include online activities.

Growth strategy
Focus on: Gradual change and inspiring.
When: Complex changes, goals are not clear at the start, and the change is hard to realise due to the necessary technology or design.
Points of attention: Divide the process into small parts that are developed consecutively, see what it brings and if it works, before continuing to the next part. Lots of dialogue, careful communication and inspiring leadership are needed. All stakeholders should be involved in determining shared goals.
Example: Mergers.

Discussion
Pater et al. have developed a nice guide for change implementation in all sorts of organizations. They have made some progress in the development of change management theory, and the book can prove quite valuable for managers in more traditional organizations. However, imagineering is already far ahead of this. The first two strategies can still be considered top-down change management as discussed in my introduction, only with a bit more attention for the social side of business. The last two strategies are closer to Imagineering theory, but there are still some significant differences. The ‘design’ strategy is about designing a strategy and organizing the organization together with line management, and in the growth strategy even more stakeholders are involved. This is a little bit like Appreciative Inquiry theory, used in Imagineering. However, perhaps the most important stakeholder in Imagineering theory is the customer, who has no say at all in any of the strategies by Pater et al. All strategic innovation is based on the input of stakeholders inside the organization, while co-creation in Imagineering especially refers to the active participation of the customer. In the traditional understanding of implementation, the way strategy was designed was not relevant, since implementation started afterwards. By stressing the definition of implementation to include the design of strategy, however, Pater et al. commit themselves to include it in their book. By stating that “It is necessary to ensure that the project does not yield something that does not meet the expectations of the line organization”, Pater et al. show that their vision is still too much like the traditional meaning of implementation.
Another aspect in which Imagineering is ahead of the theory presented in this book, is the duration of the process. Imagineering is about making an organization more creative, transparent and communicative as a whole. Creative processes and dialogue should continue and organizational strategy itself should be innovative. Pater et al., however, state that the change process should have a distinct and absolute end, to prevent endless discussions. And exactly this continuing dialogue with staff and consumers is what is so important today.

Niels van der Haven