As I think about planned change in organizations, I think of it as a conscientious decision which is made by some entity in the organization with the authority to bring about change. The change may be reactive and triggered by a current problem, situation, or business opportunity—for example, implementing a new MIS system because the old one is not robust enough to meet the current needs of the organization or the change may be proactive and based upon a vision or future desired state—for example, expanding internationally and opening ten company-owned distribution centers in Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia.
In most cases, the “mechanical” elements of the change are easily identified and the reason for the change is clear to an organization’s sponsors—the money may be allocated for its funding; a flow chart or critical PAT chart describing what the activities are may be in place as well as a timetable for the implementation of the change; and there may be a list of preferred vendors to provide the technology, expertise, and training to successfully achieve the expected outcomes from the well-thought-out implementation. All these planning strategies should guarantee “smooth sailing,” but in many cases, smooth sailing becomes “tough sailing in stormy waters” and this is due to the lack of a planned “commitment process.” The planners of the change often fail to develop and implement such a planning strategy. Read More