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.
Two items came across my consciousness recently which are not difficult to link. The first is a set of lessons learned from projects in an organisation. An outstanding item of the lessons is the complaint that not enough people resources were available, or the people allocated already had a day job. The second item was an article about allocating resources across a business for strategic performance improvement. This article simply points that that the best resource allocation is based on getting the best return on investment.
What about the mythical 70% failure rate for change in organisations? This has been searched for quite dilligently in the literature by Mark Hughes; who concluded that although well reported by very respected reporters, there was very little substantial measurement data to support the reports. Hence it becomes an urban myth. The dilemma is: what is the cause of the myth? Is it a myth about performance in doing change (the reality is that the success rate is much higher); or is the cause in the way success (and hence failure) is defined?
Many people in organisations are reporting that they are doing “too much change”. Which usually means they feel they are not able to cope with the changes they are being asked to carry out. To understand what this means we need to look at three forces going on in an organisation:
The amount of change the senior managers are asking for (the demand side)
The capacity and capability of the organisation to do change (the supply side)
The motivation of people in the organisation to do change (the people side)
This note will look at the balance of these forces and see why and how they might be directed.
In a recent Prosci article the author provides useful questions to elicit the value of doing people change on top of a delivery project. I also find that many people in the project world just don’t get the ‘change’ bit. A large multinational company I have talked to wants to do programme management; but still call it ‘coordinating a number of projects’. They don’t see that the difference between a project and a programme is people change. Click here to learn about the difference