Research was undertaken with the buyers to establish what it was about the system that they saw as unacceptable, and sought for ways to restructure the implementation so that it delivered the benefits claimed.

It became clear that the implementation was regarded by the buyers as debasing their self-worth, as they saw themselves as relationship managers, experts in the ways of the suppliers they dealt with, and as negotiators, people who made deals; not – as they described it – as data entry clerks.

Working closely with HR and the business unit managers, the training and the remuneration packages were redesigned. The value of good MI was emphasised and motivated by performance-related pay being associated with good record keeping (a recognised weakness in the earlier systems) and a re-emphasis on the gaining and utilisation of business intelligence on the suppliers.

Focus on corporate behaviour was strengthened with the buyers becoming a vocal force in the use and deployment of business intelligence to further the ambitions of the retailer.

Properly structured change initiatives, involving programmes and projects, are designed to avoid this but, too often, insufficient thought and planning is put into how the impacted business units will adopt multiple ‘waves’ of change. Effective portfolio and change management disciplines are good at addressing planned change, driven by the strategy, but not always adequate at coping with additional significant ‘must do’ changes.

Things to consider

1. Has your organisation an overarching corporate portfolio view of change?
2. Have you discussed and agreed with affected business units:
   • The type, rate and volume of change being introduced into their areas?
   • How much change they are trying to introduce themselves and how much is coming from external initiatives?
   • How any concerns and issues can be overcome?
   • Where ‘hot-spots’ will arise and what strategies and tactics will be used to address these?
   • What must be sacrificed to ensure that the operational business units will not be overwhelmed?

Emergencies, opportunities and externally imposed mandates will, despite strategic intent, all play a role in altering corporate priorities for change and can destabilise the portfolio.  Even worse, this creates the impression of a lack of clarity of purpose and inconsistency in senior management behaviour to the staff who are involved in the changes.  There is little worse for morale and motivation than the perception that an organisation’s leadership is prone to erratic, short-term behaviours – especially when this is not really the case!

The real question, therefore, is how do we deliver strategic change objectives and structure a consistent portfolio, while maintaining the capability to respond to short-term tactical priorities?

Things to consider

Have you discussed and agreed:

1. the relative priority of work within the portfolio and the level of resource commitment that the work requires?
2. the organisation and mechanisms that accept unplanned work into the portfolio and how this will be communicated?
3. the value system that is being used to drive the portfolio?

And are you considering:

1. a ‘practical’ level of planned resource utilisation for the current and foreseeable circumstances?
2. making explicit the rationale for accepting any unplanned work, particularly in terms of the impact on the overall portfolio?

An organisational-wide change arises from the sum of all the individuals’ change behaviours – and there lies a challenge. There is generally not a single, completely shared change journey, but multiple transformations, and so there is no single motivation or change process that will work.

It has been said that running a programme is like herding cats; shepherding individuals and groups and pushing them forward is difficult.  Of course, if you want the cats to behave ‘rationally’, the best way is to put ‘treats’ where you want them to go, and wait.  What then count as ‘treats’ for those who need to change?

Things to consider

1. Have you identified what counts as ‘achievement‘ in the vision of the new world and any ‘natural’ rewards in the outcomes?
2. Has the change initiative developed sign-post Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for use during the transition period?
3. Have you modelled rewards in terms of pay, promotion and praise (non-financial reward? (Each ‘p’ has a major contribution to play in developing and embedding behaviours)
4. Are the value systems of the groups that are to change identified and understood?

And are you considering

1. linking jobs and roles to recognisably valuable outcomes
2. replacing the KPIs for the change with operational ones after the transition – defining a profile over time that recognises the occurrence of learning?
3. involving the adopters in the design of any new processes.