Choose the Right Change Management Tools

Research conducted over the last fifteen years tracks the use of change management tools and senior management satisfaction with the results. The research yields a few of the usual suspects, but some of those you might have thought passé are highly valued, and a few much-ballyhooed strategies are perceived as less satisfactory.

In the power tool zone, those that are used most often and have the highest satisfaction rating, you will find tools such as TQM, Mission and Value Statements, Core Competencies, Benchmarking, Process Reengineering and Strategic Planning. These are joined by Supply Chain Management and Strategic Alliances which have gained momentum in tandem with globalization. Less preferred tools include Lean Operations, Six Sigma, Offshoring, and even Collaborative Innovation. Customer Relationship Management has made the biggest improvement in its position since 2000 in both the use and satisfaction domains.

It may be instructive to note that staid old Strategic Planning takes home the prize as the most effective and frequently used change management tool. A key value that managers remark upon is that Strategic Planning forces you to take off the blinders and check your assumptions at the door. The “tyranny of the urgent” affects all of us and can rob us of energy, resources, and creativity. Setting aside time for purposeful strategy development allows us to refocus on the bigger picture.

It goes without saying of course (but I will) that no tool will work if it is not the right one for the job and if those who employ it have not been trained.

The Business Case for Green

I know, you’re thinking “not another article on Green! AAGGGHHH I can’t take anymore!” To which my response is, ‘yes you can.” But I’m not going to preach in this one, simply list a few data points that confirm the growing acceptance and demand for Green in the Real Estate industry. For example, did you know that…

• 70% of Business Roundtable members have adopted Climate Resolve
• U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) now requires Energy Star and LEED certification for all of its projects
• 600 U.S. mayors have committed to Kyoto-like reductions
• AIA2030 seeks to attain net zero emissions by 2030
• ASHRAE 189 puts Green requirements in code form

And if you’re still wondering about the business case, think of it as an equation:

Improved Operating Efficiency + Improved Energy Efficiency + Reduced Water Consumption + Increased Recycling + Reduced Toxic Chemicals

=

Lower Cost, Higher Demand, Higher Occupancy Rates, Higher Rents

=

Competitive Advantage

Buildings are the largest contributor to emissions, contributing more than the manufacturing and transportation sectors. If we can be the biggest contributor on one side of the equation, then there is no reason we can’t be the biggest contributor on the other side as well.

It’s good to see we’re gaining momentum.

Implementing Technology Projects

Over the last several years our group has implemented multiple technology projects which cover the full spectrum of our operations and services. Work Order Management, Maintenance Management (CMMS) , Building Management (BMS), Room Reservation and Support, Automated Visitor Center Reservation and Fulfillment (hoteling), Metrics Management and others. These projects have had profound effects on the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of our services.

“Fine,” you say. “But we’re a small organization and don’t have deep pockets.” And I would reply, “Neither do we.” In fact, the most rewarding thing about this series of projects is that we’ve done them ourselves with internal resources. In the course of doing them we have developed in-house expertise, a very close working relationship with our IT friends, and delivered extremely capable products that are aligned with our culture and requirements.

Good for us. Why do you care? Because after having been through this evolution I am convinced that most mid-size and many smaller companies have the resources and knowledge to be successful in a similar initiative. I think many are intimidated by the scope of these efforts and so default to procrastination or outsourcing. The former is a bad business decision, and while the latter is certainly a viable choice it is not the only or necessarily the best option.

A few things we learned along the way that may help put this in perspective for you:

Data is King. At the beginning we didn’t have much data and found that a lot of what we thought we had was anecdotal. Our first effort was to collect solid data on our most important processes and issues, even before we began requirements gathering. The data then informed the requirements process and was foundational to our success.

Tools Are Cool, But Processes Rule. Again, before we began designing systems we went through a process redesign of all core business processes. We mapped Is and envisioned, tested, and institutionalized New. Only when we were comfortable that our core processes were in excellent shape did we move on, deferring less critical processes to later in order to keep momentum on our side.

Keep It Simple. When we did begin building systems we worked hard to stay focused on core processes, simplicity of use, data and system integrity, and open architecture to enable integration. We resisted bells and whistles that were seductive but did not support the core requirements established at the beginning.

Technology Is Just An Enabler. It can be hard to remember why you’re doing all of this when you get into the project. Technology does not generally change your business, but should improve your business in ways that matter. Time, cost, quality, and overall customer satisfaction is the name of the game. This is really just a restatement of the end goal, and a caution not to get caught up in technology for its own sake.

Here’s the interesting thing. When we began this process several years ago I was vocal in my reluctance to take the “do it ourselves” approach. I was concerned about long term supportability of unique applications and worried that we might not have the resources and stamina to be successful, preferring instead to adopt off the shelf solutions that have wide market acceptance. I was wrong. Our group has done an excellent job. Some of our staff developed themselves into technologists, some are now expert data custodians, and we now have a much higher degree of visibility into our operations. We know our processes inside out and have very good working relationships with service partners, such as IT and others in our supply chain.

And I know this; there is nothing unique about us. If we did it then I am convinced many others can as well. I am not suggesting that commercial applications and the use of consultants is a bad thing. Not at all. But I am suggesting that home-grown applications that are customized for your specific circumstances are within your reach and capability. A major added benefit of course, is that you get to do it yourself, learning new knowledge and skills along the way, improving yourself and your organization.

I’ve observed presentations where major corporations showcased their FM technology projects, costing millions of dollars and taking years to complete. Ours took the same amount of time, cost a small fraction of the outsourced solution, and meets our needs exactly. Am I proud of our team? You bet. But again, there is nothing unique about us except our willingness to attempt and our will to persevere.

Leading and Managing in the Age of Ambiguity

The Age of Aquarius of my youth is gone, seemingly replaced by The Age of Ambiguity. Everywhere I look I see multiple option sets without a clear “correct” choice. Life, it seems, has become much more complicated. More than ever navigating and succeeding in this environment seems to depend on identifying a range of options, not one single right option, then giving each a bit of nourishment until the winner or winners become clear. Doing so requires a different mindset and skill set, and can sometimes feel like playing a bluff hand at the high stakes table. There are some things you can do to help guide your organization through times of ambiguity when the way forward may not seem clear. Try these on for size.

Give people a voice. One of the things I really enjoy is bringing a group of people together to brainstorm or discuss a unique problem. Often times the discussion will wander off topic but I find even this can be beneficial. This type of open, possibly even chaotic dialogue can yield results – a new use of a proven tactic, an “off the wall hairbrained scheme” that has a nugget of wisdom to it, or a clearly spoken redefinition of the issue at hand. All are valuable and all are encouraged by bringing people, lots of people, together.

Define acceptable outcomes. Here my thought is centered on system behavior. It seems to me that organizations and systems that define acceptable outcomes or behavior but do not focus on policing methodology provide a more creative environment, allowing freedom to develop new tools, methods, and solutions. This type of open architecture is not right for all organizations or systems, of course, but would be a breath of fresh air to many.

Look for centers of energy. When the types of interaction anticipated above occurs it is natural that some ideas or concepts will begin to generate buzz. What that is telling you is that the idea is attractive. People are energized by it, attracted to it, and they will bring others with them. When you see this happening you know that people are engaged and committed, and can expect the idea to iterate itself naturally until the “marketplace” of the group agrees optimization has been attained.

Encourage different views. Diversity of ideas is always a good thing. Don’t limit what people are willing to bring to the table by moving too quickly or discarding suggestions without fair evaluation. Let people talk, let them explain. Challenge them with open questions, not ones with assumptions behind them. Think of it as a debate among equals and look for common patterns and thoughts to build upon.

Set the right environment and look for emerging consensus. Complex contexts often require new solutions. The leader’s job is not to create the solution and then mandate its implementation. The leader’s job is to establish an environment that will encourage the emergence of a good solution, one that solves the problem without violating boundaries and behaviors that have been established. When you see it emerging then your job is to nurture it and encourage its development.

My Dad used to pay less than twenty cents a gallon for gas. World politics was rather simple, you knew who the good guys and bad guys were. And, life roles were clearly defined in black and white. The world is different now in virtually every area and every way. “Complexity” and “ambiguity” define our world now. Living, working, managing, and leading in this environment isn’t as simple as is used to be. But you know what? I wouldn’t want to go back. I enjoy the energy and challenges we face today, the opportunities we have now that didn’t exist then, and the diversity of thought and contribution that surrounds us.

Ambiguity? Bring it on!

Affinity Matrix for Project Teams

If you have ever done programming for a large development project then you know about affinity matrixes that define degrees of interaction between parts of an organization, helping inform the design process and optimize spatial arrangement. Okay, that’s old hat to architect’s, interior designers, and FM’s. But what if we thought of the affinity matrix a bit differently? What if we used the same concept to help understand project team relationships or identify knowledge matches and misses? Let me give you an example of what I’m thinking about.

Let’s say you are the Program Manager for a large project. You have internal division VP’s as your customers, and architects, contractors, and PM’s on your team. At the beginning of your project you would want to make sure everyone understands the team’s interdependencies. You might, for example, want to make sure the architects and consulting engineers are all in synch on information sharing. One way to understand if they are or not would be to survey them independently and record and plot their responses on a matrix. You could use different symbols for matched interfaces, expected but not provided interfaces, and unexpected but provided interfaces (the former representing unmet information sharing needs and the latter representing unplanned but beneficial communications that are occurring organically).

This matrix would be very simple, listing all team elements on both axis. You then survey each team member and ask them who they expect to give information to and who they expect to get it from. Next you plot each element’s response, and finally overlay them together. Where the groups have properly understood the requirements you have expectation matches, one expecting to get information from one who expects to give it. Where they differ you will have either unmet or unplanned information transfers. These represent opportunities to catch and correct communication gaps before they do damage, and to take advantage of information that would have been available but unrecognized earlier.

Identifying the mismatches is important, but deciding how to cure them is even more important. Sometimes curing may require a different reporting relationship, new communication protocols, or finding a common technology. One suggestion would be to form small teams to investigate and advise on critical mismatches that are discovered and, of course, communicating the issues and solutions is key.

Large projects are fun but no two are alike. The challenges differ, the clients differ, the teams differ. Never assume everyone has the same goal or expectation. Exercises like this one can be beneficial in identifying opportunities for disappointment before they happen.