Overcoming Resistance to Change |
|
| Written by Bob Aiello | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There have been many times, in my career, where I have felt like I was sitting through the same movie that I had previously seen in an earlier assignment. I knew the ending already and yet it was challenging to sell my ideas to others around me. Trying to evangelize Configuration Management practices can be difficult at times and I must admit that I have not always been completely successful. However, I have certainly always tried to give my honest view on what needs to be accomplished in order to meet the goals of the organization. However, just plain honesty won’t always help you sell your ideas successfully. Sometimes, you also need to have an approach that makes CM compelling. This means that you must state your case effectively and win over the key stakeholders to your point of view. Many CM professionals don’t realize just how important being a good salesman is to the job of successfully implementing configuration management.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 3804 Trackback(0)Comments (7)
|
|
... Bob I have just "triumphed" in a classic RtC situation........ Attending a meeting/presentation on new Dimensions implementation (moving some documentation from a file based "process") with 12+ Designers including thier manager (with a reputation for beeing errrrrr lets say a little pedantic.... no lets be more honest Awkward!!) Q1 - Why do we have to do this, its a waste of time, there is nothing wrong with what we have always done........ A1 - Could I just show you what we are proposing..... Point click, check out............. edit......... point click, check in...... Approx 2 mins later..... Q2 - Why are we bothering with a pilot for a small sub-set of documents... we should just do this for all our documents........ A2 - Well we are attempting to implement as seamlessly as possible so we thought we would pilot it and iron out...... Q3 - Nah!! this is much better, lets not waste time... I will tell my team to start today...... A3 - Well I think we should.... ...... Mr Resistant-to-Change seen walking upto his team instructing them - "We are cutting over to Dimensions tomorrow. DONT waste time on the old system..... See Drewster if you have any problems....................." Me as aside to remaining audience - Well I guess that means the Business Case is signed off............... ![]() |
|
Drew Benson
said:
|
... "You need a little more than just "pure bloody mindedness", my friend" - Trust me you have no idea how bloody minded I can be!!! But I will come clean here - I do advocate standards and I do use all the amunition that you imply they can provide. I even encourage (or at least don't discourage) the "formal" adoption of those standards (Audits and all).... My point (tounge in cheek in relation to you) was that I encourage and advocate and push and sell (in my own blooody minded way) "Good Practise" (which will in fact comply to standards) rather than paying lip service to Standards (however good the standards are). As discussed in the past... The GM saying "We have implemented ITIL" is meaningless......... Implementing "Good Practise" without reference to ITIL is (very) worthwhile..... Implementing "Good Practise" with direct reference to ITIL might be better still.... Doing "it" (using/applying Standards) because they are good and worthwhile etc is GOOD Doing "it" (using/applying Standards) JUST because others are is BAD Doing "it" (implementing Good Practise) is good even if you have never even heard of the Standard... |
|
Bob Aiello
said:
|
... ha ha ha as you say, "persistance, determination and pure bloody mindedness" is indeed one approach - not unlike the "bull in the China shop approach." My response is, "been there - doesn't work." You need a little more than just "pure bloody mindedness", my friend. Seriously, using Standards (e.g. IEEE) and Frameworks (e.g. ITIL, Cobit) gives you a whole lot of very effective ammunition. I do successfully make the argument that everyone else is doing "XXX" and we should to. But let's be specific. Standards all tell you that Configuration Management requires configuration identification, change control, status accounting, and configuration audits. In my articles, I explain and operationalize these practices. I am also working with the standards working groups to make the terminology a little more clear. Anyone who works with me knows that I evangelize the ability to always be able to ascertain what you have in Production (and find the source for with without heroic efforts). BTW - this is what the standards call a configuration audit. Another practice that I have used is "allowing people to fail." Sounds painful, but often the only way. Then be there to help dig them out and move forward. |
|
Drew Benson
said:
|
... My main "tactic" is persistance, determination and pure bloody mindedness....... but seriously - honesty and consistency - tailored to the audience!!! You said: It helps to be able to say, "well everyone else is implementing XXX - why can't we? Bluntly (forgive me) "everyone else is doing it" and "we should follow" are AWFUL arguments that I would never use!!!! I am sure you meant that you would use examples of success (in implementing XXX) as points of reference. Remember "everyone" went with VHS - although Betamax & Phillips were "better" "everyone" went with Microsoft Office - although Lotus, WordPerfect etc were (OK only arguably) "better" "everyone" following blindly is not good - "everyone" or indeed anyone following because they can see (and expect to achieve) benefits is a much better path!!! That is probably my most loudly argued point of discussion (and most often)... Implementing or adopting "XXX" should always be because it is "right" (for us at this time) and not because it is flavour of the month or "eveyone is doing it" |
|
Bob Aiello
said:
|
... Thanks for your comment "Drewster". What other tactics do you use to overcome resistance to change? One area that I have found very effective is using industry standards (e.g. IEEE, ISO) and frameworks (e.g. ITIL, Cobit). It helps to be able to say, "well everyone else is implementing XXX - why can't we?" What do you think? |
|
Drew Benson
said:
|
... PS I must be honest and admit that the above practise is also a "Sales Tool" for me and my services...... If I get the thought "Drewster has done this before and knows what he is on about" planted in peoples heads it is not a bad thing for my ongoing assignments ![]() |
|
Drew Benson
said:
|
... You said: "There have been many times, in my career, where I have felt like I was sitting through the same movie that I had previously seen in an earlier assignment" I often try to exploit this "Groudhog Day" experience.... When preparing for the Presentation/Meeting to "sell" the (new)process/tool/practise etc I make a list of all the main points of resistance - you know: But we are different.... But we have always done it like this..... But it will slow us down.... But...... etc etc Then after the Powerpoint showing the (proposed) new tool/implementation/process etc I throw myself open to questions (and often field them during the meeting anyway)...... Here they come (like lemmings): But we..... It might work for others but we.... etc etc etc. After addressing the questions from the floor I then bring up my last PowerPoint Slide - "Same old excuses" (although I do title it somewhat less provocatively depending on audience) and one by one tick off the "Reasons we don't need (this) CM" thrown from the floor........ I have never yet not had more in my list than the audience comes up with - so I have always been able to say something along the lines of "So you are not really that different and these new tools/process etc can bring benefit......" |
|





