Start Point

Executive Engagement was positive at the start of Enable (2008), with full attendance at the first Senior Management Working Group (SMWG). There was a recognition from the University (and the SMWG) that we needed a smarter way to manage innovation and change within the institution with a focus on bringing together joined up thinking across the Enterprise. However at the start of such a project it was difficult to clearly articulate as to how this could be achieved without real examples of success. We were also unsure as to how the Executive would feel about a bottom up approach to supporting change. 

Part of the approach used at the start of the project the project used the terms Hub and Spokes to communicate the work of Enable, as that work moved forward a diagram was used to communicate clearly the impact initiatives have on each other, and how they have linked themes. This model was updated throughout the project, and was used to highlight existing initiatives in the University at the start of the Enable project (black),  new initiatives started through Enable (blue) and those Enable have influenced to be stopped (red). Most of the black initiatives are either still running in their original form or have been 'reborn' due to changes in Executive.

Issues Faced

The Enable team researched managing change and information in the enterprise and the issues that university/faculty/ services initiatives encountered and, near the start of the project, suggested to the SMWG that they consider developing an 'Enterprise Programme Office' (EPO) (now known as a Change Management Office (CMO)) with the support of P3M3 & Enterprise Architecture/TOGAF (see more about this under our Enable: Managing Information page). Although there was general agreement with the need for a P3M3 approach it proved difficult to move this further - mainly due to the loss of key Executive staff and the need for cultural attitudes to change. We are hoping that, as we now have a new Executive sponsor, we can now make progress in this area, and based on our experiences with the previous Executive sponsor we are using a much softer approach with our new sponsor.

The project team recognises that 'Big Bang' is not something that universities as a whole embrace (or can achieve) and that new "language and concepts" (either technical or business related) need to be introduced gently - ideally via a number of small, and preferably successful, examples.  It only takes a minute to review terms/language and this issue is something that can't be underestimated as a requirement at the start of any new meeting.  For example,because terms from the P3M3 approach were used at one meeting (although they had be introduced it at a previous SMWG meeting)  the assumption by those who had missed the previous meeting was that it had been addressing things related to award "programmes" and portfolios rather than projects and change initiatives. This is why the project team has moved from EPO to CMO

Whilst it was clear, from meetings and general conversations, that the Executive agreed with the key theme of managing change and linking different projects together, it also became obvious that the aims of the Enable project had NOT been as clearly communicated - as the Executive tried to run parallel work, which would have been seen as duplication of effort for those involved in both.  It also gave the impression that, as a project, we weren't practising what we preached - communication and reducing duplication of effort.  Fortunately the parallel work was halted as we were able to discuss the direct overlap with the Executive.

As the project moved forward with highlighting issues within the institution we recognised the need to be much clearer about the role of the project and its aims - Enable was designed as a "Programme Office" or "hub", not a team that would create solutions to issues but one that would raise the issues with the right individuals in the university and "enable" them to make the right decisions based on the information obtained from Enables investigative efforts.  For example, Enable highlighted the issue of document management (it had become clear that there was a requirement for this and a number of faculties and services were looking at "local" solutions) and a new working group was formed under the aegis of one of the University's Information Strategy Group's sub-committees - it was not Enable's place to run the project or the working group.  Without the right messages going to the SMWG, a project like Enable could easily become hijacked to solve individual issues of importance to different members of the group. Enable created a document that summarised this Governance approach for senior management to use.

As the project moved forward with meetings with individual initiative teams, members of staff and other stakeholders, it was clear that the length of these initial stages was causing a loss of executive engagement. Senior management had become used to "quick win" projects and developing workarounds to issues rather than spending time digging around a problem and resolving it in the longer term. The initial stages of the project were, however, very important in collecting evidence of issues within the institution (both real and perceived) that needed to be addressed. It also helped the project team understand how the university managed the different levels of projects in the institution. One of the main issues discovered by the project team was there was too much reliance on formal governance structures at the expense of real stakeholder engagement. The Enable approach of using  'structured' one-to-one interviews and short (one page) questionnaires was a new one for the university, but has been shown to provide beneficial impact on a range work taking place (better "ownership" and acceptance of new strategy documents, software implementations etc., and even improved rates of cultural change). For more information on these aspects see our Enable: Strategy, Policy, Governance and Change page. Other issues raised in the initial interviews can be found on the project website.

Not only do expectations need to be clearly communicated for time-scales and project aims they need to be managed when the Executive become over-enthusiastic for one particular idea within the project, as this can also be damaging - causing early deadlines to be set to the detriment to other aspects of the project. Again this can often link to the "quick win" approach that institutions are used to.

Another acknowledged issue with managing projects is that, with the exception of major executive-led initiatives (where large scale effort is "thrown" in - often to the expense of other initiatives),  making the transition from a successful initiative to a mainstream activity is very difficult.  This can be for a number of different reasons, including workload/resourcing, conflicting priorities, and lack of engagement from the start of a project of those needed to mainstream its outcomes (causing a lack of understanding of the requirement for such an initiative by the service needed to mainstream it). It was noted that it is easy to blame a service for not helping transition but less easy to resolve the problem!  Enable is still working on this issue as it doesn't appear that there is any one single solution (and certainly not a simple one!), and, despite efforts to involve services earlier and embed them at an appropriate level in a project, the problem is still occurring.  Discussions are being held to see if governance might be changed/created to help address this.

Lessons learned

Projects focused on major institutional changes must have sponsorship at a very senior (executive) level - this vital for a number of reasons:  perception of the project across the institution, awareness of the "political currents" in the organisation, and not least, for the project to have someone to "hold its coat" when decisions are being made which will impact on the project's goals.

It is equally important for this type of project to be directed (actively) by someone who is perceived as "senior" (eg a department head) by other senior staff in faculties and services - such a person is likely to be more "politically aware" than a more junior staff member, and will be able to "open doors" to people the project needs to engage with.   Such people also have direct input (usually) into the formation of relevant strategy, policy and governance.

The positioning of such projects within the organisation is also vital - if you are engaged with trying to change CDD processes and approaches to innovation, it is useful for the project to sit outside of the faculties and large "service" departments - such organisations tend to view each other as having "agendas", actively protect their "turf", and can be unwilling to engage (especially over change) with each other as openly as this type of project needs.  A relatively "independent" positioning tends to result in the project being perceived as less threatening and its team as more "trustworthy".   (For example, people will be more open when giving views on organisational shortcomings when they don't have to worry a) that the project will feel "slighted" and b) that the project will "fail to protect its sources" and "finger" people who have made critical comment.)

Perception is as important (if not more so) than fact - poor perceptions are REAL ISSUES and must be addressed. This has been noted by senior staff, who can be very defensive about perception versus reality. It is helpful when discussing perceptions that you understand that it may not be the reality but it is a feeling that has been captured. The Enable project will be doing more investigation into how perceptions affect innovation - in particular with a focus on governance and finance models.

Communication is vital - in any university, no one method will be enough - communications channels need to be chosen to meet the targets and every target will require multiple channels.   To achieve cultural change, a message needs to be repeated again and again as each opportunity arises but slanted to suit each new context and audience.  "The Message" will also certainly be very slow to gain currency - if the message is presented in real contexts - during discussion of real issues in committees, in planning meetings with faculty staff, during meetings of different change initiatives etc, provided the message has validity, it will gradually sink into the collective consciousness.

It is important to time the launch of a project or important associated initiative with senior management - their availability and engagement is key. It is important to consider whether you need to launch a change project with senior management at the start of the project, or whether it is best to wait until you have some real, useful, examples to show them. Real examples and evidence will provide the best results but remeber that they take time to collect (and - remember to collect them!!!) For example first discussions re TransAPEL started in Feb 2009, with the work started in July 2010, and is scheduled to pilot Mid 2011).

When communicating with senior staff, use regular business and educational language - not techno terms or buzz words.  To paraphrase another JISC project "look at what you plan to say and remove the tech speak - now look at it again and remove the tech speak..."

Even small Process Maps take time to get right. Modelling the roles, processes, sytems and data involved in supporting what could be considered a small area of QA - External Examiners took the Enable team 3 months to acurately model and put together an "ideal" model. More about how the Enable teams experiences on Managing Information and Modelling by looking at those pages here.

Need clear message what you need from Senior Management, this helps keep them engaged with the project.

Moving Forward

We are starting small with an informal approach to managing change. We are taking aspects of the MS Project Portfolio Server and creating a tool that will allow staff to input projects they are working on into a small database that can then be searched by others in the institution to find out what is happening. The project team will continue to push the idea of P3M3 with the new Executive Sponsor for the project, and will also continue to support new initiatives in the institution. Behind the scenes we will be continuing to model aspects of the business using Archimate. See Enable: Managing Information

 Blog Post jiscenable.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/final-story-change-management-approach.html

Useful Websites

• www.p3m3-officialsite.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=322&sID=90Very useful PDFon understanding the P3M3 Maturity Model - and where we are/ want to be
• Level 1 – awareness of process
• Level 2 – repeatable process
• Level 3 – defined process
• Level 4 – managed process
• Level 5 – optimized process
• www.manageprojectsonsharepoint.com/archive/2009/02/28/program-management-same-deal-stop-biting-off-too-much-on-first-bite.aspx
• community.bamboosolutions.com/blogs/using_sharepoint_for_project_management/archive/2008/07/22/project-management-using-sharepoint-at-bamboo-a-case-study.aspx
• Sharepoint extensions/ Tempates
• www.brightwork.com/pmpoint/program_management_templates.htm(OK for team but expensive for institution)
• www.sharepointsecurity.com/sharepoint/sharepoint-development/free-sharepoint-organizational-chart-webpart-simplechart-for-sharepoint/?0931f4c0
• www.ogc.gov.uk/introduction_to_programmes_managing_the_portfolio.asp
• www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=5817020
• www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/programme-management/starting-a-programme this is a useful site for help on setting up a P3M3 Approach, including guidance on
• Producing a Programme Brief, Business Case and Benefits Profile
• Brakedown on key roles
• Escalating issues (Managing By Exception)