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 propose that assurance is the next big topic in programme and project management. I am reading more about it, customers are asking about it (though not yet for it!), and we have just finshed a new qualification for people doing project and programme assurance with our partner Aspire. The catalyst for this article is an excellent white paper from our partner Bestoutcome on the importance of Gateway reviews for assurance.
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
In the April 2014 Harvard Business Review I found a paper about creating a very open culture to encourage personal learning by Robert Kegan, Lisa Lahey, Andy Fleming, and Matthew Miller called “Making Business Personal“. The starting premise of the paper is that ’employees do a second job that no one has hired them to do: preserving their reputations, putting their best selves forward, and hiding their inadequacies from others and themselves’. This putting forward the best side, hiding the other side and hiding information about problems is a major cause of change failure and has been discussed in this blog in terms of reporting and Government Blunders.
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?