INTRODUCTION
Epitaph:
"Here lies the body of 'Management,'
Who at one time moved mountains but was put to death by
government regulations, social mores, office politics,
and general apathy. R.I.P."
I have a good friend who was recently elevated to the job title of "Systems Manager"
at a large Fortune 500 company in the U.S. Midwest. As someone who has been in
the Information Systems field for over 30 years now, my interest was piqued and I asked
her how big of a staff she was going to manage and what kind of systems she was
going to be responsible for administrating. She told me she had no staff and her
responsibilities primarily included going to user sites and helping them setup their
laptop computers with office suites and pertinent Internet software.
This is certainly not how I have come to understand the concept of a "Systems"
person or, for that matter, a "Manager." What she described was more of a technical
or clerical role as opposed to one of management. But I guess the times are changing.
I always viewed "management" as a people oriented function, not a mechanical
function (which is why "man" is used as part of the word). I define it as, "getting
people to do what you want, when you want it, and how you want it." But perhaps
I am beginning to date myself as more and more "managers" are appearing with
fewer and fewer people involved. Even though the title is flourishing, I contend
true management is becoming a thing of the past.
WHY IS MANAGEMENT DISAPPEARING?
First, we have to understand that managers are in the business of conquering
objectives and solving problems in the workplace through people. If we lived in a perfect
world where everyone knew what they were suppose to do and when they were suppose
to do it by, there would not be a need for managers. Inevitably, this rarely occurs as
people are social animals and rarely agree on anything, particularly on how to perform
a given task. Hence, a manager is needed to establish direction and referee. As such,
managers are the field generals for their departments.
There are three basic attributes of a manager: Leadership, Environment, and Results.
Let's consider each separately and how they have evolved:
1. LEADERSHIP
To properly coordinate human resources, an effective manager should always be at least
one step ahead of his staff. This requires visionaries who inspire confidence in their troops
and can set them marching in the right direction. The problem though is that little, if any,
planning is being performed in corporate America. Instead, we are content to react to
calamities as opposed to looking into the future and trying to anticipate problems. As
a small example, we are now embroiled in a tempest over the Hurricane Katrina disaster
in New Orleans. Engineers have long known that the levees used to keep the sea out
of the city were inadequate for a category four or five hurricane (Katrina was a category
four). In fact, I saw a documentary on this very subject just weeks prior to the disaster. Now, we
have local, state and federal government agencies rushing to correct the problems (and
doing a lot of finger pointing in the process). As costly as it would have been to fix the
levees, it would have been a spit in the bucket when compared to the costs to clean up the
aftermath.
In the corporate world, Detroit is reeling from the types of automobiles now being
imported into this country. Asia has stolen Detroit's thunder who now finds itself
offering cash incentives to stem the tide. It is no secret America has developed an
ever-increasing dependency on foreign oil, and is now saddled with an aging oil
refinery infrastructure and a shaky economy. Why then was Detroit surprised to see their
market share take a nose-dive in favor of quality fuel-efficient automobiles from overseas?
The point is, our planning and leadership skills are at an all time low. Why? Because
it is easier to react to a problem than to do a little planning; easier, but costlier. Let's face
it, planning is hard work and, as the old adage goes, "You can pay me now or you can pay
me later, but you are going to pay me." Planning is a projection into the unknown and involves
a certain level of risk that most people are not willing to assume (and are afraid to do so).
Consequently, our society is more interested in safety nets than in taking risks. I guess this
is why I admire gamblers who mentally calculate their odds for success and are unafraid of
taking risks.
Nonetheless, American competitors (and our enemies) fully understand our weakness as
planners and are not afraid of taking the risks that we balk at. As a result, they will continue
to take advantage of us until such time as we get some serious leadership.
2. ENVIRONMENT
In order to set workers to task it is necessary for a manager to establish a
suitable work environment. This includes:
* Defining the location of the workplace, hours of operation, and corporate policies to be observed (e.g., payroll, benefits, performance reviews, etc.).
* Defining the methodologies, tools and techniques to be used by the workers in their assignments.
* Defining the corporate culture - Although this is normally defined by the company overall, the astute manager establishes the ethics, customs and social intercourse to be observed within his area of responsibility (a subculture). By doing so, the manager has defined the code of conduct in the department denoting what will be tolerated and what will not.
As part of the corporate culture, the manager defines his own personal style of
management, for example:
* The types and level of discipline, organization, and accountability expected from the workers.
* Will the manager try to micromanage everything (top-down) or empower his people, delegate responsibility and manage "bottom-up"?
* How employees are evaluated and rewarded; by accomplishments or by political maneuvering.
The manager's objective is to create a homogeneous working environment whereby
everyone is "rowing on the same oar" towards common objectives. Unfortunately, the
problem here is that our society is now more inclined to accept rugged individualism
as opposed to team effort. For example, employees are commonly rewarded based on
individual initiative as opposed to group effort. Between this spirit of individualism
and government regulations that embolden employees to resist the company, loyalty and
teamwork are at all-time lows and apathy and restlessness permeates corporate
America. Such spirit disrupts the harmony of the work environment, thus compounding
the problems of the manager.
3. RESULTS
Ultimately, the manager is charged with the responsibility of producing a product or
performing a service. As such, the manager must establish and prioritize
assignments, and assure they are accomplished in a timely and cost effective
manner. This requires managers who can articulate assignments and coordinate
resources towards this end. Sounds pretty simple, right? Then why are we failing
in this regard? Three reasons:
* Managers are more interested in gamesmanship than actually producing anything of merit. They have developed a "fast track" mentality whereby managers have little interest in their current job and want to advance to the next plateau in their career. "Long-term" planning is no longer measured in years, but rather in months or weeks (a "long-term" project is now considered three to six months in length). Consequently, managers are primarily interested in quick and dirty solutions which will see them through their tenure of office, but will create burdens later on for their successors. Managers now spend more time scheming and maneuvering than worrying about getting the job done. What's the sure sign of such a manager? He/she knows the latest buzzwords and is always "politically correct."
* Managers are no longer results oriented, Instead, they are more focused on the process or mechanics of getting a job done. Although it is desirable to be well organized and precise in our work effort, it is for naught if you cannot deliver what you are charged to produce. The manager needs to be focused on deliverables, not mechanics (with apologies to the ISO 9000 folks).
* Managers no longer hold people accountable for their actions. This is due, in part, to government regulations that are more concerned about the rights of the employees as opposed to the manager's. As a result, managers spend less time managing and more time supervising people. Understand this: there are substantial differences between management and supervision; the two are most definitely not synonymous. Supervision is much more "hands on" with employees being continually watched and directed in their work assignments. Managers should manage more and supervise less, and employees should do more self-supervision. Unfortunately, this philosophy is not in vogue these days. Workers no longer seek responsibility and prefer to be told what to do thereby they cannot be held accountable if something goes awry. This alone says a lot about our society and is worrisome to me.
Let us never forget, unless you can deliver what you are charged to perform, you
are a failure as a manager. Consider the numerous coaches and managers in
the world of sports who have been fired over the years, not necessarily because
they didn't run fine programs, but because they lost sight of the end result: winning.
CONCLUSION
What I have described thus far pertains primarily to large corporations. Management
is still alive and well in small businesses that are not encumbered with bureaucracy
and need to manage simply to survive. I have also been primarily describing corporate
America, but many of these bad habits are creeping into the management style of Asian
and European companies as well.
Now and then, I like to make an analogy between management and dieting. There
is nothing magical about losing weight; you simply watch what you eat and get some
exercise. However, millions of dollars are spent on the latest diet craze, usually to
no avail. The same is true with management; you simply need some leadership,
organization and follow-up and you will get the results you want. However, it
seems companies today do everything but manage.
Beyond this, our social fabric and government regulations discourages
effective management. Instead of discipline, organization and accountability, we
are more concerned with nurturing free-spirited individualism, gamesmanship, and
chasing panaceas. In many cases, managers are inhibited by the press who
scrutinizes decisions, particularly in the government sector. Fearing to make
a bad decision, managers suffer paralysis and nothing is accomplished.
Bottom-line, corporate America is no longer managing; instead, we are playing
games or as I like to call it, "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." In other
words, as the ship is going down, we tend to focus our attention on everything other
than saving the ship or passengers. In the past we have talked about Theories X, Y, Z
for describing different styles of management. Perhaps we should describe today's
management style as "Theory Zero."
What is needed is someone who isn't afraid of taking the reigns and is allowed
to run the department to produce the necessary results - that is the job of a
manager. Let me give you a small example. Recently, I attended a meeting for a
nonprofit organization who wanted to draft legislation for the association. The
meeting started out pleasantly enough but quickly slipped into an uncontrollable
series of arguments. I could tell by the confused look on the faces of the attendees
that the meeting was out of control and so I grabbed the gavel and brought the
meeting to order. I next divided the group into subcommittees to discuss the
different issues and gave them a deadline to produce a rough draft of the
legislation. Within each subcommittee I appointed a chairman, a secretary,
and someone to research the legislation. I then went outside to smoke my
cigar. When I came back to the room, bedlam had been replaced by quiet
organization. The legislation was drafted according to my instructions and the
members left the building saying it was one of the best meetings they had
attended. Why? Because a manager took the gavel.
http://business-square.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/210789
Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Role of Change Management in Successful Information Management Solutions
Introduction
Implementation of Information Management solutions necessarily brings change to any organization. Business practices, role and relationships all affect the way in which people work and interact on a day-to-day basis. Whether the driver for implementation is for productivity, compliance or risk reduction there is always the need to consider what impact there will be on user communities.
Document and records management practices in organizations are not often front-of-mind for most managers and employees and asking them to think about information in a different way or even at all, as a corporate asset requires a fundamental mindset change. This will take many employees out of their comfort zone, impact on their confidence and competence to perform the work and creates a situation where individuals can sense a loss of control in their work context.
It is natural that most people initially react with caution with concerns about their future, security and where they will fit in to a new order of things. In any group there will be 10% who are excited by the prospect of change and at the other end 10% who will resist change regardless. This means that there are 80% who can be influenced one way or the other.
The successful implementation of an information management system extends far beyond the design and implementation. It extends beyond the support and operation. Effective information management requires a fundamental mind-shift by stakeholders and everyone in the organization that relies on information in their work activities. This shift needs to be carefully executed to create a requisite culture in which information is appropriately and thoroughly managed as a key organizational asset.
What is Change Management?
Change management is the art of influencing the majority to positively accept and commit emotionally to the change. Many of the issues arising as a response to change can be real or perceived and are closely related in a cause and effect network. Either way, they need to be addressed to avoid resistance or rejection of the change. This requires a combination of communication, understanding, mentoring, coaching and general support with the aim of building trust. It is from this position of trust that the task of building the work culture required for successful information management begins. The '4 Cs' of change management help us think about the change from an effected user point of view.
Comfort People are creatures of habit and develop patterns of working within a comfort zone of daily activities.
Control Changed practices may cause a loss of control over daily routines and activities. This may come through changed reporting lines or responsibilities which can evoke a level of discomfort.
Confidence The introduction of new practices may undermine employee confidence in their ability to perform. Some may see this as challenge, for others it can be stressful. Often the introduction of computer equipment is something that can be discomforting. Some people, particularly older workers may have no experience with computers and can cause self doubt over their abilities to learn the new skills required.
Competence To be able to operate in a changed work environment there is always an element of re-skilling required. This necessarily means that current skills, often developed over an extended period of time will need updating or may become redundant. This uncertainty can impact on an employee's competence and ability to perform.
The management of the complex web of responses, issues and perceptions requires focused attention. The skills of a change manager are built on an understanding of human behavior and the change manager's role is to assist people to understand the change and what it means in personal terms and has been proven to be a significant success factor in building Information Management capability.
Why is Change Management important?
As volumes of information inevitably grow and our regulatory obligations increase amid the ongoing business pursuit of productivity, we cannot afford to waste the opportunity to exploit the benefits of information management solutions.
Studies repeatedly show that a key risk in the success or failure of information management solutions is stakeholder resistance to change. Through an investment of time and effort in preparing the user community for the coming change the chances of resistance are lowered. In short without a disciplined approach to managing stakeholders through the change then realization of anticipated benefits is put at risk. This has impact on business productivity, staff moral and the bottom-line. So it would seem logical for us to deploy our information management solutions in the most effective manner.
Some common Change Management pitfalls of an IM solution implementation
We are seeing an ongoing consolidation of the information management vendor community and a subsequent convergence of the underlying technology. There is a growing recognition by organizations that an information management capability is needed. Further, audit activity frequently highlights any shortfalls in performance and organizations react accordingly.
The selection of an information management solution is an important corporate investment and common pitfalls addressed by change management include:
Focus on Technology
Ignoring the emotional needs of users in the rush to get the technology in place can create a real project risk. Many organizations with an information management solution already in place experience a negativity of opinion towards the system. Often the cause of this perception can be traced to an initial technical implementation focus that neglected the needs of those who consequently struggled to apply new functionality in their work activities. An effective change management approach including awareness building and communication can turn this perception around.
Recognition of the Business importance of Information
The low profile that information management has in most employees' minds can be an issue. We are all busy and in the scheme of things 'filing' is not front-of-mind for the majority of employee's striving to keep pace with everyday work pressures. Document management and filing, can fall down the priority list partly because of work pressures and partly because of limited awareness and can be seen one of the things that 'should' be done' rather than something that 'must' be done.
Organizations recognising the business value of information as an asset can then raise awareness of its importance and manage it accordingly. An increased awareness of this importance should also influence the planning of information management system deployments.
Business Case and Budget
The business case for information management is focused on risk, mitigation, and productivity. However; many benefits are intangible and have an indirect impact on the bottom line. Unfortunately associated costs are very tangible and visible.
Consequently, there are challenges in the development of the business case as it can fail to excite the financial fundamentalists who view the whole undertaking in terms of an unavoidable cost that must be minimized. For the uninformed, change management activities can be seen as non-essential and result in budgets being set to minimise cost adding to the risk of failure.
Although not unique to Information management implementations these above factors can create significant project risk. Change Management techniques are designed to address the human behavioral issues that can adversely impact on project success and as such, are a necessary inclusion in any deployment activity.
What are some Change Management best practices for an IM solution implementation?
When it is apparent users are not participating in Information Management practices an objective assessment can identify a way forward that is usually cost effective and will meet organizational needs within a much shorter timeframe. This assessment must take an independent and holistic view of the situation from multiple perspectives.
This assessment must identify the root causes of any associated issues and develop a clear strategy to build the information management capability required. There are a number of common elements that have emerged as issues with information management implementations that have nothing to do with the incumbent technological tool and the strategy developed must consider how these are to be addressed.
The capability assessment framework enables organizations to holistically assess information management practices and to identify improvement opportunities that will build capability. This is achieved by benchmarking current organizational practice against best practice in each of the dimensions of the framework. The best practice benchmark criteria in the framework have been identified through experience with multiple organizations across industry sectors and geographies, and are augmented through industry collaboration and global academic research outcomes.
The dimensions of information management identified in the framework are defined as follows.
Strategy
Best practice organization's should have a clear strategy relating to its management and use of information The strategy clearly defines the content and structure of the information, how it is to be governed and applied to support the primary business strategy.
Content
We can assume that most organizations have the information content that is required to manage their business. If this is not the case then it is difficult to envisage the organization operating successfully or at all. However, most organizations suffer from an ad-hoc approach to the management of this important asset. Best practices relating to managing this content start by having an inventory of the content, a consistent architecture governing naming conventions, taxonomy, where content is held, how content is held, i.e. hard copy soft copy formats and who can access what categories of information.
Process
Due process governing how information is created, stored, accessed and communicated is fundamental to the governance of enterprise information.
Governance is the combination of processes and structures implemented at management level to inform, direct, manage, and monitor the information management activities of the organization. This consists of clear policy, procedure and business rules guiding information management practices. These must be developed in context of the organization's business activity and be clearly communicated to stakeholders.
Information management governance also includes the development of business classification schemes, taxonomy, naming conventions and rules governing the creation, storage, protection, communication, sensitivities, use and appropriate destruction of information.
Culture
The manner in which information is treated and perceived in an organization is reflective of organizational culture. Best practice organizations have clear understandings and norms recognising the importance of information as an asset. This mindset needs to be pervasive across the organizational culture and is fundamental to induction and staff development initiatives.
Change management during information systems implementations is a clear best practice aimed at creating the cultural awareness and mindset required.
Relationships
Organizations operate within a network of relationships with stakeholders. These stakeholders include customers, suppliers, regulators and industry bodies. Best practice organizations have clear understanding and service level agreements with other stakeholders in order that corporate record keeping obligations are met and to ensure information is shared appropriately and to the level required to maximize efficiency.
Services
The application of Information as an asset is fundamental to the services or products offered to the market place. Best practice organizations embed value-adding knowledge and information into services to maximize attractiveness and utility. Corporate discipline ensuring the validity of information shared is necessary to mitigate risk of non-compliance and avoid potential litigation.
Technology
Information technology is fundamental to the management of the information asset. Clear and consistent architectures, data and information structures, security and operational tools indicate a mature approach to information management. Best practice organizations have clearly defined architectures.
Change Management Best Practice
The capability assessment framework facilitates benchmarking against specific best practice indicators. The absence of any of these indicators provides an opportunity for the organization to improve. Over and above these specific indicators the following themes have emerged as overarching best practice in change management as information management capability is developed.
Governance
As discussed above governance is the combination of processes and structures to inform, direct, manage, and monitor information management activities. This includes effective record keeping practices. It is important that organizations develop governance practices as early as possible in implementation projects. This often means putting governance in place prior to specification, selection and deployment of a technology solution. This has a double benefit. Firstly: stakeholder's become familiar with information management expectations and the requisite culture begins to develop; and secondly; the organization gains the opportunity to refine its governance structures prior to full deployment.
Information Management System
The selection of an enabling information management technology to meet performance and functional requirements should follow a diligent approach. It is best practice for selection criteria to consider wider information management architectural needs. The functional richness of available solutions can allow the retirement of duplicative products providing islands of functionality. Workflow or WebPages are common examples of these islands where products have been acquired for a single one-off purpose and are unable to integrate with core applications. Once configured and deployed the new infrastructure can provide the opportunity to create an integrated technology architecture thereby reducing support cost.
Pilots
There are many examples of high cost, high-profile failures in the information technology industry. Often this can be traced to over-ambition and a big-bang approach to deployment.
Implementation of Information Management capability within well defined scope delivered in incremental steps provides many benefits. Primarily incremental implementation through a series of pilot deployments allows adaptation of the solution based on real experience before attempting to conquer the world. Many organizations are benefiting from the adoption of this approach.
User Focus
The inclusion of change management activities focused on preparing stakeholders to take on the reformed work practices mitigate against risk of stakeholder resistance. This involves considering the emotional needs of all stakeholders to ensure that they feel in control, are comfortable and have the confidence and competence to execute new work practices. For many stakeholders the learning of new skills and changed role and responsibility provides enhanced career opportunity.
Architecture
Most of the solutions available in the marketplace offer rich functionality to manage documents and content in a web-based environment. Full use of the functionality on offer can simplify the technical architecture and realize savings in licence and administrative cost further justifying investment.
Change Management Roles and Responsibilities
The change manager works very closely with stakeholders and it is important that relationships based on trust are established. The personal attributes of a successful change manager are empathy and patience. The role and responsibility of the change manager is focused on understanding stakeholder needs, building an awareness of the need for change and supporting these stakeholders as they transition to new work practices.
Some key responsibilities for the change manager include communications, setting up reporting and communication channels, participating in business process reform, workshop facilitation, staff training, mentoring and awareness building. In short, any activity that interacts and prepares the user community to participate in reformed work practices.
Regardless of the scale of undertaking information management projects require a change management capability. In large scale projects there may be dedicated change management resources. For smaller scale projects this role may be a part-time or shared responsibility. The change management role can in many instances be a shared role across the development. Sometimes this can be provided through a corporate change management function. Regardless of how the role is resourced it is essential that it is included.
Many routinely conducted project activities such as workshops, interviews, training and presentations are in fact change management opportunities as these events they are interactions with stakeholders. They therefore present the ideal opportunity to develop the relationship of trust between the project team members and stakeholders.
It is important to avoid the situation where contributing stakeholders feel as though they have been sucked dry for information by technical people. This can be avoided through the development of awareness of the importance of the project team/stakeholder relationship thereby maximizing the value of this contact time.
Further, 'champions' can be identified from within the stakeholder community. This provides a critical change management input. As these champions are representatives drawn from the stakeholder community their roles can be a very influential and positive contributor to project success.
Summary
Research shows proves that higher levels of user acceptance and greater use of installed solutions are achieved when deliberate change management activities are included in the implementation work plan and life cycle. Best practice in change management is focused on the early involvement of stakeholders and on building a trusting relationship. Accordingly, leading organizations have recognized its importance and routinely allocate resources as projects are planned
For most organizations there is the opportunity improve information management performance. A place to start is through a benchmarking assessment of information management capability against best practice to identify how to realize available benefits by learning from the success of others.
This paper has emphasized change management and the resultant outcomes and opportunities as best practice. The selection of an information management solution is an important corporate investment. For those organizations considering implementation and for those that have current infrastructure in place, there is the real opportunity to maximize return on investment and to create a work culture that displays the requisite information management behaviours.
http://business-square.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3893374
Implementation of Information Management solutions necessarily brings change to any organization. Business practices, role and relationships all affect the way in which people work and interact on a day-to-day basis. Whether the driver for implementation is for productivity, compliance or risk reduction there is always the need to consider what impact there will be on user communities.
Document and records management practices in organizations are not often front-of-mind for most managers and employees and asking them to think about information in a different way or even at all, as a corporate asset requires a fundamental mindset change. This will take many employees out of their comfort zone, impact on their confidence and competence to perform the work and creates a situation where individuals can sense a loss of control in their work context.
It is natural that most people initially react with caution with concerns about their future, security and where they will fit in to a new order of things. In any group there will be 10% who are excited by the prospect of change and at the other end 10% who will resist change regardless. This means that there are 80% who can be influenced one way or the other.
The successful implementation of an information management system extends far beyond the design and implementation. It extends beyond the support and operation. Effective information management requires a fundamental mind-shift by stakeholders and everyone in the organization that relies on information in their work activities. This shift needs to be carefully executed to create a requisite culture in which information is appropriately and thoroughly managed as a key organizational asset.
What is Change Management?
Change management is the art of influencing the majority to positively accept and commit emotionally to the change. Many of the issues arising as a response to change can be real or perceived and are closely related in a cause and effect network. Either way, they need to be addressed to avoid resistance or rejection of the change. This requires a combination of communication, understanding, mentoring, coaching and general support with the aim of building trust. It is from this position of trust that the task of building the work culture required for successful information management begins. The '4 Cs' of change management help us think about the change from an effected user point of view.
Comfort People are creatures of habit and develop patterns of working within a comfort zone of daily activities.
Control Changed practices may cause a loss of control over daily routines and activities. This may come through changed reporting lines or responsibilities which can evoke a level of discomfort.
Confidence The introduction of new practices may undermine employee confidence in their ability to perform. Some may see this as challenge, for others it can be stressful. Often the introduction of computer equipment is something that can be discomforting. Some people, particularly older workers may have no experience with computers and can cause self doubt over their abilities to learn the new skills required.
Competence To be able to operate in a changed work environment there is always an element of re-skilling required. This necessarily means that current skills, often developed over an extended period of time will need updating or may become redundant. This uncertainty can impact on an employee's competence and ability to perform.
The management of the complex web of responses, issues and perceptions requires focused attention. The skills of a change manager are built on an understanding of human behavior and the change manager's role is to assist people to understand the change and what it means in personal terms and has been proven to be a significant success factor in building Information Management capability.
Why is Change Management important?
As volumes of information inevitably grow and our regulatory obligations increase amid the ongoing business pursuit of productivity, we cannot afford to waste the opportunity to exploit the benefits of information management solutions.
Studies repeatedly show that a key risk in the success or failure of information management solutions is stakeholder resistance to change. Through an investment of time and effort in preparing the user community for the coming change the chances of resistance are lowered. In short without a disciplined approach to managing stakeholders through the change then realization of anticipated benefits is put at risk. This has impact on business productivity, staff moral and the bottom-line. So it would seem logical for us to deploy our information management solutions in the most effective manner.
Some common Change Management pitfalls of an IM solution implementation
We are seeing an ongoing consolidation of the information management vendor community and a subsequent convergence of the underlying technology. There is a growing recognition by organizations that an information management capability is needed. Further, audit activity frequently highlights any shortfalls in performance and organizations react accordingly.
The selection of an information management solution is an important corporate investment and common pitfalls addressed by change management include:
Focus on Technology
Ignoring the emotional needs of users in the rush to get the technology in place can create a real project risk. Many organizations with an information management solution already in place experience a negativity of opinion towards the system. Often the cause of this perception can be traced to an initial technical implementation focus that neglected the needs of those who consequently struggled to apply new functionality in their work activities. An effective change management approach including awareness building and communication can turn this perception around.
Recognition of the Business importance of Information
The low profile that information management has in most employees' minds can be an issue. We are all busy and in the scheme of things 'filing' is not front-of-mind for the majority of employee's striving to keep pace with everyday work pressures. Document management and filing, can fall down the priority list partly because of work pressures and partly because of limited awareness and can be seen one of the things that 'should' be done' rather than something that 'must' be done.
Organizations recognising the business value of information as an asset can then raise awareness of its importance and manage it accordingly. An increased awareness of this importance should also influence the planning of information management system deployments.
Business Case and Budget
The business case for information management is focused on risk, mitigation, and productivity. However; many benefits are intangible and have an indirect impact on the bottom line. Unfortunately associated costs are very tangible and visible.
Consequently, there are challenges in the development of the business case as it can fail to excite the financial fundamentalists who view the whole undertaking in terms of an unavoidable cost that must be minimized. For the uninformed, change management activities can be seen as non-essential and result in budgets being set to minimise cost adding to the risk of failure.
Although not unique to Information management implementations these above factors can create significant project risk. Change Management techniques are designed to address the human behavioral issues that can adversely impact on project success and as such, are a necessary inclusion in any deployment activity.
What are some Change Management best practices for an IM solution implementation?
When it is apparent users are not participating in Information Management practices an objective assessment can identify a way forward that is usually cost effective and will meet organizational needs within a much shorter timeframe. This assessment must take an independent and holistic view of the situation from multiple perspectives.
This assessment must identify the root causes of any associated issues and develop a clear strategy to build the information management capability required. There are a number of common elements that have emerged as issues with information management implementations that have nothing to do with the incumbent technological tool and the strategy developed must consider how these are to be addressed.
The capability assessment framework enables organizations to holistically assess information management practices and to identify improvement opportunities that will build capability. This is achieved by benchmarking current organizational practice against best practice in each of the dimensions of the framework. The best practice benchmark criteria in the framework have been identified through experience with multiple organizations across industry sectors and geographies, and are augmented through industry collaboration and global academic research outcomes.
The dimensions of information management identified in the framework are defined as follows.
Strategy
Best practice organization's should have a clear strategy relating to its management and use of information The strategy clearly defines the content and structure of the information, how it is to be governed and applied to support the primary business strategy.
Content
We can assume that most organizations have the information content that is required to manage their business. If this is not the case then it is difficult to envisage the organization operating successfully or at all. However, most organizations suffer from an ad-hoc approach to the management of this important asset. Best practices relating to managing this content start by having an inventory of the content, a consistent architecture governing naming conventions, taxonomy, where content is held, how content is held, i.e. hard copy soft copy formats and who can access what categories of information.
Process
Due process governing how information is created, stored, accessed and communicated is fundamental to the governance of enterprise information.
Governance is the combination of processes and structures implemented at management level to inform, direct, manage, and monitor the information management activities of the organization. This consists of clear policy, procedure and business rules guiding information management practices. These must be developed in context of the organization's business activity and be clearly communicated to stakeholders.
Information management governance also includes the development of business classification schemes, taxonomy, naming conventions and rules governing the creation, storage, protection, communication, sensitivities, use and appropriate destruction of information.
Culture
The manner in which information is treated and perceived in an organization is reflective of organizational culture. Best practice organizations have clear understandings and norms recognising the importance of information as an asset. This mindset needs to be pervasive across the organizational culture and is fundamental to induction and staff development initiatives.
Change management during information systems implementations is a clear best practice aimed at creating the cultural awareness and mindset required.
Relationships
Organizations operate within a network of relationships with stakeholders. These stakeholders include customers, suppliers, regulators and industry bodies. Best practice organizations have clear understanding and service level agreements with other stakeholders in order that corporate record keeping obligations are met and to ensure information is shared appropriately and to the level required to maximize efficiency.
Services
The application of Information as an asset is fundamental to the services or products offered to the market place. Best practice organizations embed value-adding knowledge and information into services to maximize attractiveness and utility. Corporate discipline ensuring the validity of information shared is necessary to mitigate risk of non-compliance and avoid potential litigation.
Technology
Information technology is fundamental to the management of the information asset. Clear and consistent architectures, data and information structures, security and operational tools indicate a mature approach to information management. Best practice organizations have clearly defined architectures.
Change Management Best Practice
The capability assessment framework facilitates benchmarking against specific best practice indicators. The absence of any of these indicators provides an opportunity for the organization to improve. Over and above these specific indicators the following themes have emerged as overarching best practice in change management as information management capability is developed.
Governance
As discussed above governance is the combination of processes and structures to inform, direct, manage, and monitor information management activities. This includes effective record keeping practices. It is important that organizations develop governance practices as early as possible in implementation projects. This often means putting governance in place prior to specification, selection and deployment of a technology solution. This has a double benefit. Firstly: stakeholder's become familiar with information management expectations and the requisite culture begins to develop; and secondly; the organization gains the opportunity to refine its governance structures prior to full deployment.
Information Management System
The selection of an enabling information management technology to meet performance and functional requirements should follow a diligent approach. It is best practice for selection criteria to consider wider information management architectural needs. The functional richness of available solutions can allow the retirement of duplicative products providing islands of functionality. Workflow or WebPages are common examples of these islands where products have been acquired for a single one-off purpose and are unable to integrate with core applications. Once configured and deployed the new infrastructure can provide the opportunity to create an integrated technology architecture thereby reducing support cost.
Pilots
There are many examples of high cost, high-profile failures in the information technology industry. Often this can be traced to over-ambition and a big-bang approach to deployment.
Implementation of Information Management capability within well defined scope delivered in incremental steps provides many benefits. Primarily incremental implementation through a series of pilot deployments allows adaptation of the solution based on real experience before attempting to conquer the world. Many organizations are benefiting from the adoption of this approach.
User Focus
The inclusion of change management activities focused on preparing stakeholders to take on the reformed work practices mitigate against risk of stakeholder resistance. This involves considering the emotional needs of all stakeholders to ensure that they feel in control, are comfortable and have the confidence and competence to execute new work practices. For many stakeholders the learning of new skills and changed role and responsibility provides enhanced career opportunity.
Architecture
Most of the solutions available in the marketplace offer rich functionality to manage documents and content in a web-based environment. Full use of the functionality on offer can simplify the technical architecture and realize savings in licence and administrative cost further justifying investment.
Change Management Roles and Responsibilities
The change manager works very closely with stakeholders and it is important that relationships based on trust are established. The personal attributes of a successful change manager are empathy and patience. The role and responsibility of the change manager is focused on understanding stakeholder needs, building an awareness of the need for change and supporting these stakeholders as they transition to new work practices.
Some key responsibilities for the change manager include communications, setting up reporting and communication channels, participating in business process reform, workshop facilitation, staff training, mentoring and awareness building. In short, any activity that interacts and prepares the user community to participate in reformed work practices.
Regardless of the scale of undertaking information management projects require a change management capability. In large scale projects there may be dedicated change management resources. For smaller scale projects this role may be a part-time or shared responsibility. The change management role can in many instances be a shared role across the development. Sometimes this can be provided through a corporate change management function. Regardless of how the role is resourced it is essential that it is included.
Many routinely conducted project activities such as workshops, interviews, training and presentations are in fact change management opportunities as these events they are interactions with stakeholders. They therefore present the ideal opportunity to develop the relationship of trust between the project team members and stakeholders.
It is important to avoid the situation where contributing stakeholders feel as though they have been sucked dry for information by technical people. This can be avoided through the development of awareness of the importance of the project team/stakeholder relationship thereby maximizing the value of this contact time.
Further, 'champions' can be identified from within the stakeholder community. This provides a critical change management input. As these champions are representatives drawn from the stakeholder community their roles can be a very influential and positive contributor to project success.
Summary
Research shows proves that higher levels of user acceptance and greater use of installed solutions are achieved when deliberate change management activities are included in the implementation work plan and life cycle. Best practice in change management is focused on the early involvement of stakeholders and on building a trusting relationship. Accordingly, leading organizations have recognized its importance and routinely allocate resources as projects are planned
For most organizations there is the opportunity improve information management performance. A place to start is through a benchmarking assessment of information management capability against best practice to identify how to realize available benefits by learning from the success of others.
This paper has emphasized change management and the resultant outcomes and opportunities as best practice. The selection of an information management solution is an important corporate investment. For those organizations considering implementation and for those that have current infrastructure in place, there is the real opportunity to maximize return on investment and to create a work culture that displays the requisite information management behaviours.
http://business-square.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3893374
Management Vs. Leadership - An Assessment of Interdependence
Leadership and management have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Over time leadership and management have been seen as separate entities, but those times have past. It is this paper's intent to prove that good management is incumbent upon the success and quality of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor management that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success.
From the great minds in management theory: Fayol, Taylor, and Weber; homage being paid to Barnard and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker and Porter; to the great minds in leadership development: Jung, McClelland and Burnham, this paper intends to examine them all and bring them together as is required in this economy and these times.
Much time, effort, and money has been placed into the study of both management and leadership successes. Mintzberg and Drucker have done some of the best and most informative work at bringing management and leadership together; now, with the rising costs of overhead and decreasing profit margins, now is the time to connect the dots, once and for all.
Leadership and management have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Reference biblical scripture that questions the leadership decisions of King David and the managerial prowess of Moses and his exodus to the "Promised Lands" (Cohen, 2007); Plato helped us to manage the Republic while Machiavelli helped us to formulate our idea of what a Prince should represent (Klosko, 1995); Shakespeare questioned Hamlet's decision making (Augustine & Adelman, 1999) and trumpeted Henry IV's managerial effectiveness (Corrigan, 1999). John Stuart Mill gave us the "shining city upon a hill", while Hegel taught us the "elements of the philosophy of right" and Marx taught us how to manage a people in his overly popularized (and oft misunderstood) manifestos (Klosko, 1995). Thomas Payne rewrote leadership to the basic levels of Common Sense, while Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that in the management of a people, you must remember that "all men are created equal" and that they maintain certain degree of"unalienable Rights". Countless others have come to the surface over the span of time, all promoting a new or improved way to both manage and lead their people. (And hopefully yours, too, if you're willing to pay for it.) However, through it all, one thing has remained constant; people are not autonomous entities that will respond the same to every situation. People are evolving, thinking, emotionally and socially aware of all that is around them; they are motivated through different methods and they are driven by differing levels of success (McClelland & Burnham, 1995). Over time, leadership and management have been seen as separate entities, but no more: it is, therefore, this paper's intent to prove that good management is incumbent upon the success and quality of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor management that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success. In today's fast paced environments, management requires leadership; you cannot have one without the other and still attain the success that you desire.
Reference any management text or publication and you will inevitably come across the obligatory references to the great minds in management theory: Fayol - the first to recognize management as a "discipline" to be studied (Brunsson, 2008), Taylor's scientific management of industrial work and workers (Safferstone, 2006), and Weber's bureaucracy; homage must also be paid to Barnard, Kotter, Bennis, and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker, and Porter (Lamond, 2005). These great minds have helped to forge the way for the management field and helped to better management teams across the world. The world of "leadership study" carries quite the similar pedigree; ironically, it also carries many of the same names. It is, however, this author's opinion that many of the additions to the pool of knowledge on leadership were not made known until the study of psychology was made more fashionable by the likes of Freud and Jung. Management, it appears, is a tool to better the bottom line and productivity, whereas leadership is one of those studies that is to be improved through the person's ability to be in touch with their personality, traits, motives and effects on the human elements of productivity.
There appears be some coincidence in the timing of the juxtaposition of the terms "management" and "leadership" and the correlation to the fact that most literature post 1950 seems to cross pollinate the two phrases. It is quite possible that this, the historical time for post war boom, is where production was at record highs and management of production was not as key as the management of people Possibly drawn from a social recognition that people were not to be managed, but rather, they were to be valued members of the team, and therefore, to be led - it is speculative, but it appears evident that entering the 1960's, most literature intertwines the "leaders" and the "managers" into the same professional classification.
http://business-square.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1961419
From the great minds in management theory: Fayol, Taylor, and Weber; homage being paid to Barnard and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker and Porter; to the great minds in leadership development: Jung, McClelland and Burnham, this paper intends to examine them all and bring them together as is required in this economy and these times.
Much time, effort, and money has been placed into the study of both management and leadership successes. Mintzberg and Drucker have done some of the best and most informative work at bringing management and leadership together; now, with the rising costs of overhead and decreasing profit margins, now is the time to connect the dots, once and for all.
Leadership and management have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Reference biblical scripture that questions the leadership decisions of King David and the managerial prowess of Moses and his exodus to the "Promised Lands" (Cohen, 2007); Plato helped us to manage the Republic while Machiavelli helped us to formulate our idea of what a Prince should represent (Klosko, 1995); Shakespeare questioned Hamlet's decision making (Augustine & Adelman, 1999) and trumpeted Henry IV's managerial effectiveness (Corrigan, 1999). John Stuart Mill gave us the "shining city upon a hill", while Hegel taught us the "elements of the philosophy of right" and Marx taught us how to manage a people in his overly popularized (and oft misunderstood) manifestos (Klosko, 1995). Thomas Payne rewrote leadership to the basic levels of Common Sense, while Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that in the management of a people, you must remember that "all men are created equal" and that they maintain certain degree of"unalienable Rights". Countless others have come to the surface over the span of time, all promoting a new or improved way to both manage and lead their people. (And hopefully yours, too, if you're willing to pay for it.) However, through it all, one thing has remained constant; people are not autonomous entities that will respond the same to every situation. People are evolving, thinking, emotionally and socially aware of all that is around them; they are motivated through different methods and they are driven by differing levels of success (McClelland & Burnham, 1995). Over time, leadership and management have been seen as separate entities, but no more: it is, therefore, this paper's intent to prove that good management is incumbent upon the success and quality of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor management that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success. In today's fast paced environments, management requires leadership; you cannot have one without the other and still attain the success that you desire.
Reference any management text or publication and you will inevitably come across the obligatory references to the great minds in management theory: Fayol - the first to recognize management as a "discipline" to be studied (Brunsson, 2008), Taylor's scientific management of industrial work and workers (Safferstone, 2006), and Weber's bureaucracy; homage must also be paid to Barnard, Kotter, Bennis, and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker, and Porter (Lamond, 2005). These great minds have helped to forge the way for the management field and helped to better management teams across the world. The world of "leadership study" carries quite the similar pedigree; ironically, it also carries many of the same names. It is, however, this author's opinion that many of the additions to the pool of knowledge on leadership were not made known until the study of psychology was made more fashionable by the likes of Freud and Jung. Management, it appears, is a tool to better the bottom line and productivity, whereas leadership is one of those studies that is to be improved through the person's ability to be in touch with their personality, traits, motives and effects on the human elements of productivity.
There appears be some coincidence in the timing of the juxtaposition of the terms "management" and "leadership" and the correlation to the fact that most literature post 1950 seems to cross pollinate the two phrases. It is quite possible that this, the historical time for post war boom, is where production was at record highs and management of production was not as key as the management of people Possibly drawn from a social recognition that people were not to be managed, but rather, they were to be valued members of the team, and therefore, to be led - it is speculative, but it appears evident that entering the 1960's, most literature intertwines the "leaders" and the "managers" into the same professional classification.
http://business-square.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1961419
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)