Posted by James King on January 31, 2011
I just finished an article on assessing the likelihood that a team will successfully adopt a change, such as a new process. So this arrtice provides an example of how the approach I discussed might work in practice.
Lets say that my client, Jenny, wants to implement “Agile practices” in her organisation. So she buys offers me a cup of coffee in return for a 20 minute consultation.
Posted in Implementation, Leading change | Tagged: agile adoption, change management, resistance to change | Leave a Comment »
Posted by James King on January 31, 2011
I have just written a couple of articles about understanding a team’s existing world. But how does that relate to the likelihood of a new initiative being adopted?
How do we actually know if a particular group will accept, adopt and sustain a new way of working? And what can we do to increase the likelihood of successfully implementing the change?
Posted in Implementation, Leading change | Tagged: change management, implementing agile, stakeholder analysis | Leave a Comment »
Posted by James King on January 30, 2011
I recently explained the “Arenas of Change” approach that I often use to understand a team and its environment. So I thought it might be a good time to discuss another approach that I often use – the 7-S framework developed by McKinsey Consulting.
Posted in Consulting, Investigation, Leading change, Techniques | Tagged: 7S, change management, change readiness assessment, consulting | 1 Comment »
Posted by James King on January 29, 2011
To communicate effectively, you should align your message to your audience. And to drive effective change, you should align your change to the drivers and constraints faced by those you are planning to impact.
But, as I discuss in a long-winded recent article, that is easier said than done. And unfortunately my solution here is just as long-winded as the last article.
Posted in Idea management, Implementation, Investigation, Leading change | Tagged: change management, change readiness, stakeholder management | 1 Comment »
Posted by James King on January 28, 2011
When I first got involved in projects, I used to get frustrated that people so often did the opposite of what was needed. We would roll out a new tool, and they would go back to manual processing; we would roll out a new process, and they would go back to making errors and causing themselves problems.
Posted in Idea management, Implementation | Tagged: change management, innovators and laggards, stupid change, wiifm | 1 Comment »
Posted by James King on January 26, 2011
If you have been reading my blog, you have probably heard just about all you want to hear about logic for a while. But I suffer from the opposite problem – Logic-o-philia (not a real word).
But a comment on a recent article reminded me that I can be completely logical, and still not get my message across, if what I am saying is inconsistent with what people already think.
Posted in Arguing, Reflection | Tagged: change management, communication | Leave a Comment »
Posted by James King on January 25, 2011
I was talking about assessing documents (and statements) to see whether they are “logical”.
Critics of “logical communication” will quite rightly make the point that a document can be logical, but boring, irrelevant and completely un-compelling. This is true and I should get to talking about it soon.
But before I do I wanted to talk about “Bad logic”.
Posted in Arguing, Investigation | 3 Comments »
Posted by James King on January 24, 2011
In my last article (“Is that logical?”) I discussed a way to test the logic of a statement. But a document filled with logical statements can still be gobbledegook if the statements are not linked together logically.
So how can we assess the overall logic of a document?
Posted in Arguing, Investigation, Techniques | Leave a Comment »
Posted by James King on January 23, 2011
(Editors note – this is not the article I promised to write on “Arenas of Change” – I got distracted by the wondrous world of logic).
I promised a class that I would write something on “The Arenas of Change”, which is a theory about how teams interpret reality.
Posted in Arguing, Investigation | Leave a Comment »
