2007 September | Candid CIO

(6 votes, average: 8.67 out of 10)

Loading ...

Why is managing change so difficult?

By Joaquim P. Menezes -

Also read about The Art of Change Management (includes video)

Kurt Lewin, the German-born psychologist, considered by some as the “founder of social psychology”, was one of the first to investigate the phenomenon of change.

Lewin’s three-stage model of change is very useful in understanding the change process in enterprises as well as individuals.

The first stage, he called “unfreezing.”

It involves overcoming initial resistance or inertia and shifting or dismantling the existing “mindset”. Defense mechanisms have to be bypassed, fears recognized and dealt with.

In the second stage the change occurs.

This transitional period is typically a period of upheaval, even confusion. Old ways are modified or discarded – but people involved in the change may not yet have a clear picture what replaces the previous practices.

The third and final stage Lewin called “refreezing”. The change is implemented; the new mindset is reinforced and crystallized, and people are comfortable with the new state of affairs.

It seems to me that if change is to be effective none of these stages should be unduly rushed.

Read the rest of this entry »

(2 votes, average: 7.5 out of 10)

Loading ...

Of studies, surveys and [self-serving] statistics…

By Joaquim P. Menezes -

“There are three kinds of lies,” asserted Benjamin Disraeli, “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Perhaps Disraeli was a bit harsh.

There are those statistics that aren’t exactly lies, but are cherry-picked to reinforce or support a particular position.

Vendor-sponsored surveys almost always belong to this cateogory.

They self serving – no question about it – and understandably so.

Read the rest of this entry »

(Rate This Article)

Loading ...

Web 2.0 - friend or foe?

Forrester Research has put out a paper examining the effect of Web 2.0 in the enterprise that points out that IT managers are realizing the benefits of collaboration technologies in fostering communication between employees and departments.

Yet the study, entitled “Web 2.0 Social Computing Dresses Up for Business”, also finds that managers are having a tough time telling what Web 2.0 traffic is work-oriented and what is purely personal.

For a summary of the document and info on purchasing it, click here.

(2 votes, average: 10 out of 10)

Loading ...

Great [IT] Expectations

By Joaquim P. Menezes

How has the role of corporate IT departments changed today from just a few years ago?

That’s a question I posed to Rod McNaughton, a professor from the Department of Management Sciences at the University of Waterloo, when I interviewed him recently.

Professor McNaughton’s regular interaction with a broad spectrum of businesses – IT firms in particular – uniquely positions him to assess and comment on shifting trends and expectations from IT staff.

In our discussion he zeroed in on one trend in particular.

Over the past few years, he said, “there’s been a move to see IT as something that services outside customers as much as it does employees within a firm.”

In other words, the mandate – the very raison d’être – of corporate IT departments has changed.

Read the rest of this entry »

(1 votes, average: 8 out of 10)

Loading ...

Dealing with history

One of the biggest hurdles in accomplishing effective change management, it seems, is not what’s coming at you down the road but what’s sitting in your rear-view mirror.

Instituting the elements of change is a tall enough task, from arriving at a common set of goals across all departments, laying out a plan for improvements, and then choosing and using the right technology tools to turn theory into practice.

That’s the here and now. What’s in the past, however, is sometimes a bigger headache to deal with. Specifically, the legacies and traditions that a company carries with it from previous eras has a huge bearing on how fast change can take place — or even if it can at all.

Right from its inception, a company begins developing a culture and philosophy unique unto itself. As the years go by, these elements become further ingrained and harder to alter. In many cases, it will take either a highly compelling financial argument or a wholesale change in management before true change is affected. Such is the unfortunate reality that many CIOs and other executives must face when trying to steer their company ship in a different direction.

(4 votes, average: 8.5 out of 10)

Loading ...

How may an enterprise act like a startup?

By Joaquim P. Menezes

Large enterprises and startups are often conceptually placed in opposing camps, and seen as possessing contradictory strengths and weaknesses.

Take a large tech company. On the credit side, it would likely have:
- Significant financial and other resources;
- An established brand, market penetration, and,
- An infrastructure and systems built up over years

But these very “strengths” could also – in certain circumstances – prove to be that firm’s biggest liabilities.

Because when shifting market conditions or competition require it to be flexible, adopt new procedures, restructure operations and systems, the company may not be able to accomplish that quickly enough (ever witnessed a tractor-trailer trying to negotiate a sharp turn!)

The very activities that an enterprise finds difficult and challenging would be almost intuitive to many a startup.

A startup’s strengths would, typically, be energy, agility, new ideas, and the ability and willingness, when required, to change direction on a dime.

But on the debit side, it may face a resource crunch and may simply not have the money to follow through on its ideas and see them to completion.

Is there a model of entrepreneurship that blends the seemingly paradoxical strengths of an enterprise and a startup, while minimizing the weaknesses?

“There absolutely is,” according to Moren Lévesque a professor in the Department of Management Sciences at the University of Waterloo.

Lévesque, who is Canada Research Chair in Innovation & Technical Entrepreneurship, calls this model: “intrapreneurship” or “corporate entrepreneurship.”

She unpacked this concept beautifully, during the course of an interview yesterday at the University of Waterloo.

A large company can foster a spirit of interpreneurship, Lévesque says, by launching and nurturing smaller “centres of innovation.”

These function within the firm’s overall mandate, but are given significant freedom — as well as funding to experiment and research.

She cited “Xerox Technology Ventures” as an example of intrapreneurship in action.

Through this project, she said, Xerox allocates funds to employees with fabulous ideas for products or services that may be a bit outside of the company’s field of operations.

Nevertheless, employees are allowed to develop their ideas without worrying about where their funds will come from.

Why is this important?

“Because we usually we associate entrepreneurship with risk,” said Levesque. “But that’s not a problem the intrepreneur faces. The intrapreneur doesn’t even need to go and ask for money. The money comes from inside.”

Such security, she said, can be encouraging for people, who are very innovative, but may not be in a position to take on the financial risks posed by entrepreneurship.

Of course, Xerox also gains, because it would have an equity stake in whatever new business develops from this “intrapreneurial” project.

Why is “intrapreneurship” so important today? Lévesque answered that question as well.

With globalization opening up markets, she said, “the competition” is no longer just within the same country, it extends to overseas markets.

In this environment, firms need strategies that could given them a competitive edge.

And intreneurship – nuturing innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit within a company’s four walls – is certainly one such very powerful strategy, according to Lévesque.

(4 votes, average: 7.25 out of 10)

Loading ...

Two trends, one irony

Was talking with Teresa Rose yesterday, a prof at Waterloo, about the topic of change management. One theme that emerged quite clearly was that any change of process within an organization has to be undertaken with a great deal of care: questions have to be asked about what benefits the change will result in, and whether it will be worth the time and money involved.

Take collaboration, for example - there’s a bit of a bandwagon effect going on right now. Some firms are getting on it and not doing any kind of cost-benefit analysis before implementing nifty new technologies that aim to foster communication.

The irony is that the two processes seem opposed to each other. A company will ideally implement a change as quickly as possible to get its ship pointed in the direction it has decided it wants to head, but should only do so after taking the requisite amount of time to make sure it’s the right move.

Unfortunately for CIOs, there is no simple solution to the situation. The time has to be taken, yet the change has to happen soon enough for it to be utilized as a business differentiator.

It seems that the only path to success in change management is characterized by lots of hard work, long hours, and a great store of patience.

Candid CIO

Categories

Archives

Highest Rated Posts

Recently Updated Blogs

Login

Why is managing change so difficult?

Of studies, surveys and [self-serving] statistics…

Web 2.0 - friend or foe?

Great [IT] Expectations

Dealing with history

How may an enterprise act like a startup?

Two trends, one irony