Discover the protocols

Introduction

Studies have shown that a large number of organizations are designed to introduce some form of change or a structured program of improvement every year (in some studies this can be as high as 60-70% of all organizations), but few of these programs will get the changes that are sustainable. Many change programs invested by organizations in a wide range of sectors actually cost more than what they offer in terms of improvements, although it may appear for a short period he made some improvement, or even provide a 'patch' temporary solution a key organizational issue.

Our own research (originally based on 120 manufacturing companies, but now tested on the field of the National Health Service and Service) shows that 87% of organizations fail to maintain the results of their program of change for more than 6 - 12 months after the improvements are implemented. This was further supported by research conducted by several organizations, including Henley Management College, which are quoted as saying that 'about 70% (or more) firms implementing change will fail to achieve sustainable outcomes', which estimate costs the UK economy alone some $ 45 billion a year.

What is the change sustainable?

Well, we could define a sustainable change as the change that has affected not only the process (which can easily and quickly slip back to the 'way things were done before'), but behavioral change - which is where the organization is move from one platform to the next level of performance by implementing a planned program of change that has signed and adopted by all stakeholders and that becomes irreversibly ingrained in the fabric of the organization.

Unfortunately, while a process may be modified by a single 'Ram Raid' (Event Lean, Kaizen Breakthrough, Rapid Improvement Event, etc.), attitudes take much longer to change, even if they never change, and often, after the excitement an 'end of the Mass Rapid Improvement Event' has subsided, the management focus moves to the next issue that leads to the gradual (or rapid) reversal of the benefits obtained.

We call this desirable behavior change '2 nd Order Change ', where the first Change Order is a change in the process of change and 2 ° order is a change in behavior. To put this in a family context, where the use of seat belts was introduced (this being a first Change Order in the process), a large number of people who continue to get into their vehicle and forget to follow the new process.

However, the government has continued to communicate the change in the process (the need to wear seat belts), the police in its execution, the press reported, people appeared in court because of it, the cars were designed to support it (my beep yours, if not compatible with my seat belt), the driver had taught their students - and now most people get into their cars and do not even think about it, how they adapt their belt safety. Actually, do not mount the seatbelt feels 'wrong', wearing the wrong pair of shoes - and this shows that we got 2 first order or a sustainable change.

Most of the work to make sustainable change occurs after the process was changed and after the euphoria of improvement has been achieved. Often this is also the time that senior management support and focus on moving (or leave the consultants) and managers and the team were left without support to enable them to debug the new process they have created. As the team encounters problems, or forget to do things (such as fitting a seat belt), and because there is a process list (for example, in the course of communication, support for the management or operation of improvement even beyond) the behavior of the team to return to what they see in the way things have been done before.

Understanding why it failed Change

Because we found persistently failed change programs, or programs that have failed to reach their full potential, we began searching for reasons for which the change becomes sustainable to see if I could find 'pattern'. This research was carried out through laboratory research, and evaluation activities through on-site and on-line, as well as the review of research data available from similar studies carried out by various management institutes, universities and independent research organizations, and this has created a model of why the change does not become sustainable.

We used the * PROTOCOLS mnemonic to describe the various categories of reasons why change fails and the various elements of this model are summarized below:

Plans P - fail to plan or manage effectively plan

Reactions R - inappropriate responses by staff at all levels

Or property - problems with people taking responsibility for the new system

T Training - insufficient training, inadequate or non-aligned

O (of change) - problems with changing the way it is delivered

C communication - failing to communicate effectively

Or on-boarding - by failing to induct new people into the system to effectively update

The Leadership - problems with the way forward, or vision, or inconsistent leadership

Systems S - misalignment in infrastructure support organization

Having developed and tested this model results in Manufacturing, recently we have repeated our research in the NHS and are on track to further test the service and broader public sector (including local authorities).

The following sections will briefly examine each of the protocols in more detail and offer suggestions for organizations to avoid the pitfalls that befall many.

Plans - fail to plan or manage effectively plan

This is a very broad category and includes organizations that are looking at in isolation the impact of exchange rate change will have on other parts of the organization, or commitments of time or budget you may need to do.

In addition, failing to allocate sufficient resources to effectively manage the plan is also a reason for failure is a failure to manage the plan effectively and to pursue it (although that last point overlaps with the element of Leadership).

Some of the comments made by people who describe the problems they had with their program of change falling into an element of "plans" includes PROTOCOLS:

"There were conflicting plans, none of which were integrated"

"There was no clear plan"

"There was a real lack of understanding about the impact this would have anywhere else"

"We spent so much time preparing the plan for change that the organization has lost the heart"

"There was no fire in the plane"

Reactions - Inappropriate responses by the personnel exposed all levels

People who feel that change is optional, will try to return to the old way of doing things as it is comfortable and familiar. This sense of change as 'optional' happens more often than it should, sometimes involuntarily because managers are not sure what will happen during the change and create an 'out' to allow them to return to a system known although it is inefficient .

Employees at all levels need to feel involved in the process of change and the inability to act inclusively results in employees feeling dissatisfied with the change and looking for reasons to make the change to fail. Again, this can be compounded by a failure within the organization to communicate the urgency for change or improvement.

Finally, from this, a failure to establish a clear path in the minds of individuals can cause prematurely thinking he had reached the goal, or become distressed by the journey that should take.

Phrases that people use to describe the adverse reactions as the cause of failure in their organization are:

"There's been a real reluctance to move from certain individuals and managers"

"We have not enough to establish short-term victories to overcome the doubters and 'no' sayers"

"People are comfortable and really do not want to change"

"We could not take people with us"

Property - problems with people taking responsibility for the new system

Employees who were not part of the process of change not only have adverse reactions to change, but can not take ownership of it. A lack of understanding of the link between organizational needs and individual often leads people to detach from the process of change and only handle the new way of doing things against her will.

The property can also occur higher up an organization with directors not directly involved in the change deliberately distanced from the process of change - whether through fear of the unknown through a desire to avoid extra work or even push for a better position on the card.

Sentences which point out that the organization is struggling to gain ownership of their staff at all levels and include:

"Our team is stuck in a 'hamster wheel' claim to be too busy to drive the new system"

"There is a general lack of ownership throughout the organization for change"

"The staff does not seem to have energy and enthusiasm for the process of change"

"The parties (and directors) do not seem to show any interest in what we have achieved"

"Nobody seems to care that this change is necessary for us to realize the strategy"

Training - Training inadequate, inappropriate or misaligned

The training is a controversial issue. Training too much before changes occur and the organization stagnates, too little and the company runs the risk that individuals have only a superficial knowledge about the journey we are about to do or instruments must take when they encounter unusual situations.

Another flaw can be classified under the element of education is a failure to identify and develop 'change agents' who will bring change and act as first-line defenders of the change process. These act as change agents for the sale of the first team line for the process of change - something that has an impact on both the reactions of staff and the owner of the new processes.

The instructions indicate that organizations should focus on their training are:

"We moved straight into the action and no one had one idea on how to improve"

"We have done extensive training spread over six months, but then I have not done anything with it"

"What kind of training? Nobody had a clue"

"We asked people for ideas on how to make an improvement of 25% and the best idea I had was to ensure the toilets are cleaned more frequently and the coffee was reduced to 20p each"

Operation (shift) - problems with the transmission mode of delivery

This element covers a range of problems that can go wrong with the way that change is delivered within the organization. This may include things such as choosing the wrong tools, applying the wrong way, without looking at the impact of improving a process or processes related implementing measures that drive the wrong behavior.

The problem with the transaction is derived from external consultancy or internal managers who have a 'product' that apply to all situations, except that it is the best tool or process, or a lack of skills that does not recognize when a incorrect path is chosen.

The sentences that would be heard if an organization was struggling to support change because of the way they did the overall process change include:

"The process is too complex for our organization"

"I'm not sure that the process will deliver what we need"

"The victory was declared too soon, and it was only then we realized the real impact"

"The pace of change is too fast (or - we are not improving fast enough)"

"The things that are changing are the things that we thought would be different when we first started"

Communications - can not communicate effectively

Not all learn the same way. Some prefer to listen to someone talking to them, a little 'to read what they wrote and others prefer to be involved in discussion groups. Many organizations approach to communication through a single medium (often a briefing cascade) that does not take into account different learning styles.

Moreover, the communication must be relevant, optimistic and in fact, and must be arranged so that people understand. Complex relations of different sizes which mean little to the front-line staff have a minimal impact (of course), and recognizing the successes also has the effect of reducing the moral and disconnect people from the process of change.

Of course, the mitigation message through the organization also has a major impact. While the council can be excited for change, how the message is propagated through the organization by managers who are less enthusiastic, the message will change too - if not in content then in the way it is received - will become less important, less credible, less exciting and more options.

Phrases that indicate a change process fails because of problems in their communication processes include:

"I do not feel that I was being said made no sense to me"

"Do not believe what was being said (or - I do not understand)"

"I'm not sure what the impact will be on me"

"We have not had the opportunity to get feedback or follow-up what has been said"

On-boarding - by failing to induct new people into the system to effectively update

Over time new people will be brought into the system is changed, or external or internal transfers. Problems with residual cultural resistance (part of 'reactions' above), along with the messages received poor during the induction process, means that people can be introduced in the old way of doing or thinking - which means that the improvement degrades over time.

This is an often forgotten element of the improvement process - something that these people are our research laboratories failed to point out and initially we thought we had got this wrong element, until we explained what it meant to people and they all said that they saw this happening, but had not really understood the impact of induction poor long-term success, because the impact was seen for a long period.

Phrases that indicate poor on-boarding can include:

"No one seemed to get in had different ideas for people who have already had"
"The new people quickly adopted the old ways of doing things - as if it was natural for them"
"We have the best people, but soon became demoralized"

Leadership - problems with the way forward, or vision, or inconsistent leadership

The most prominent element in the mix of things that leads to sustainable change are problems with leadership and this usually elicited the most responses.

Leadership issues often begin before the process of change begins in the failure to create a vision for people to aspire too, or a lack of real commitment from the senior team for change - perhaps only one or two members to actively support change and put in words. Inconsistencies in the way leaders communicate with different groups create vortices of dissent by those who are looking for the process to fail.

During the process of change, leaders are often called to deal with roadblocks and snipers, or the failure to do so quickly to reduce the impact of the change process, or they can also set goals too low.

After the change process, leaders can quickly lose interest and move on new problems or even inadvertently convert the organization back to the old way of doing things - for example, after introducing a new planning system which reduces the lead- time significantly, continues to push individual orders that hit on the new system.

The phrases that indicate that the key driver of change is a problem include:

"When everything kicked off, they (the leaders) have not seen"

"I can not believe that they do it the old fashioned way - we might as well have not bothered"

"I'm not sure what the long-term plan is or what the impact will be on me"

"They refused to deal with (x), which was clearly a sniper in the process"

"I can not see what we're trying to accomplish"

"If you can not be bothered, why should I?"

Systems - misalignment in infrastructure support organization

When change occurs, not only the change of organizational processes, but the support systems must change. This can influence the policies of human resources, performance bonuses, the business measures, roles and tasks.

However, less than half of organizations that address significant changes in the look-support systems, creating a 'pull' to return to the old way and it is almost undeniable - and a strict organization that is incapable of change.

Sentences which point out that there are problems with the organizational systems are:

"We need someone to look at this as a primary function, rather than ad-hoc"

"I'm not going to change as it affects my bonus"

"If we do not mean that this new process will have to work longer hours - and that is not happening"

"I'm too busy to get involved - I have other things to do"

"Our culture is not receptive to changes that must take place"

So what does all this mean?

Well, as more and more organizations recognize that they are investing or have invested in the change that has failed to become embedded in the organization are looking for different approaches that will make their investment in return for the most beneficial for their organization. PROTOCOLS is a useful model to help organizations plan for change, or to recover from a change process stalled.

Perhaps the best way to achieve success is to 'Discover the Protocols?

This article was published by the IOM and has co-written by Mark Eaton and Tim Franklin .......