C4CM™ is the only nationally recognised qualifications centre in Change Management.
Our qualifications are work based qualifications within the Qualifications Credit Framework. In particular they deliver the change components of the National Occupational Standards for Management and Leadership.
Designed for professionals in the business of organisational change, C4CM™ accredits a series of short modules in Managing Change. These can be taken as classroom based courses or as online guided learning.
I think the heading answers the question! A recent survey reported by McKinsey entitled ‘Why Implementation Matters‘ reports on the effect that strategy implementation has on a company. Strategy implementation is quite clearly stated as the ability to implement major change programmes. As you would expect with McKinsey they looked for the ability to deliver sustainable financial benefits from change aligned with strategy.
Middle managers in most organisations have a huge influence over the success of organisational change. Most middle managers are passive about change; a few step up to delivering change; all of them need to be behind the change. Some recent blogs point to how to get middle managers on the side of success in change.
A number of recent news items and blog posts in the technical sphere are signposting the UK Government’s Universal Credit programme as the next Government blunder. See our recent blog posts on human bias and systemic problems lessons learned based on a recently published book by Prof. Anthony King and Sir Ivor Crewe called The Blunders of our Governments. Put the two together and the future looks bleak because another part of the government appears to be incapable of learning lessons. Why is change so hard? Because people won’t learn from the past!
Some recent research into bias in reporting about project status has implications for change governance. Two recent examples of poor reporting have surfaced recently: the fiasco on the launch of the IT to support the US Government Health Care programme (Obamacare) and the under-performance of the Universal Credit IT system in the UK. In both cases the senior civil servants and politicians claimed there were no problems only to find major problems when the systems went live (in the US case) or were scrutinised (in the UK). Why do the sponsors not find out (or not tell us) about problems in change projects until Its too late? What can a sponsor do about it?
A recent email from Prosci about their 2013 survey (results published this year) lists the top seven contributors to change success. This is probably the most important result from the survey and the most widely reported. Top of the list, again, and by a large margin is ‘active and visible executive sponsorship‘. There are some changes in the other contributors. All have been re-written to make them more compelling. I notice that dedicated change management resources and funding has moved up the list.