{"id":807,"date":"2017-11-16T04:57:09","date_gmt":"2017-11-16T04:57:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.timelabs.in\/blog\/?p=807"},"modified":"2024-03-30T06:21:27","modified_gmt":"2024-03-30T06:21:27","slug":"the-top-three-warning-signs-your-implementation-is-going-to-fail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.timelabs.in\/blog\/the-top-three-warning-signs-your-implementation-is-going-to-fail\/","title":{"rendered":"The Top Three Warning Signs Your Implementation is Going to Fail"},"content":{"rendered":"

On major implementation projects that end badly, I\u2019ve noticed three warning signs that present themselves with remarkable predictability. If you spot them early, you may have the opportunity to correct your course before it\u2019s too late.<\/strong><\/h4>\n

\"project<\/a><\/p>\n

1. Indecisive Decision-makers<\/h2>\n

Your project is approved and you\u2019re moving forward, but key decisions still haven\u2019t been made. You can\u2019t decide what to include and what to exclude. You can\u2019t decide on an implementation date. You\u2019re not sure what the budget is. Should you do it all at once or phase it in? This list goes on, but what causes it? Sometimes, it\u2019s because the decision-makers are so far removed from the day-to-day workings of the project that they don\u2019t understand it. Not unreasonably, they hesitate to make a decision regarding something of great consequence without comprehending it. But they don\u2019t want to give up their right to make the decision, just the same.<\/p>\n

A common scenario is when the project is set up with a steering committee of senior leaders from multiple functions. Although structuring a steering committee this way is well-intentioned and inclusive, you inevitably end up with a few decision-makers who have no idea what you\u2019re asking them.<\/p>\n

Solution:<\/strong>\u00a0The best decisions are made by those who are close enough to understand the situation and consequences. The further away you get, the poorer the decisions are. Structure your project with decision-makers close to the subject matter who report to senior leaders. If you can\u2019t swing this, see if you can convene a sub-committee of senior leaders close enough to understand the subject, who are responsible for making the decisions and reporting back to others.<\/p>\n

Another reason decision-makers become indecisive is because the rules of engagement around decision-making are not clear. Decision-makers wonder: What if I\u2019m wrong? And then change my mind? Can I change my mind? Is this by consensus or majority rule? Can I just keep thinking about this and get back to you later? Will I be held accountable? Is there a time limit?<\/p>\n

Solution:<\/strong> Define the rules of engagement early on. Whatever you do, do not make decisions by consensus. Just vote. Record the vote. Report on the vote, in writing, by voter. Videotape it if you can. (I\u2019ve never actually done this, but have always wanted to try it.) Make it clear they can\u2019t change their vote later \u2013 even if someone complains about it.<\/p>\n

Here are some symptoms of indecisive decision-makers:<\/p>\n

\u2022 As in \u201cCan we table this until our next meeting?\u201d or \u201cCan we take this offline?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2022 Asking for more data and then challenging the data.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Wanting someone else (in another department, another city, another time zone) to \u201cweigh in\u201d before they voice their opinion.<\/p>\n

2. Incommunicado communications<\/h2>\n

This is easiest to identify when there is no communication plan at all. Alternatively, there may be a plan, but the plan is inadequate for the project. The reasons for this are many. Maybe leaders don\u2019t see the need to communicate it (even though it\u2019s a major implementation). Because knowledge is power, some are reluctant to share information and therefore give away power.<\/p>\n

Communication that includes a potentially negative message is particularly problematic, even though not delivering bad news and hoping no one notices is never a good strategy. When there are negative elements, it is even more critical to manage the message. Occasionally, leaders believe that employees, vendors, customers or other stakeholders \u201cwon\u2019t understand\u201d and therefore should not have access to the information. At times, it\u2019s a simple matter of underestimating the impact of the project.<\/p>\n

\"project<\/a><\/p>\n

Solution:<\/strong> Make communications a key component of your project plan. Include someone from the communications department (the higher up, the better) very visibly on your project team. Give them time on the agenda to set forth a communication plan. Be persistent.<\/p>\n

Even when a communication plan is in place, it can still fail because it underestimates the need for information or overestimates the impact of minor communications. If you hear \u201cSure they know about it \u2013 we mentioned it once in that staff meeting four months ago\u201d, you know the communication plan is not stellar.<\/p>\n

Solution:<\/strong> Make sure your communication plan is robust and considers the impact on all stakeholders, especially operations, well in advance of the implementation date. Get enough out there early for them to react to \u2013 this will prompt your next set of communication messages. Include information that you know stakeholders will want to hear, not just what you want to say, even if it\u2019s uncomfortable.<\/p>\n

Be aware of these indications that you may have incommunicado communications:
\n\u2022 Hesitation to communicate anything that isn\u2019t \u201cnailed down\u201d, such as the implementation date.
\n\u2022 Changing meaningful language in draft communications to \u201ccorporate speak\u201d that conveys little.
\n\u2022 Missing deadlines for communication launches.
\n\u2022 Failure to address any negative impact of your project.<\/p>\n

3.Untimely timelines<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The most common cause for this is setting the implementation date before you create the project plan. Don\u2019t believe this occurs? It happens all the time. ALL. THE. TIME. Somebody somewhere thought you didn\u2019t need to waste time considering what has to get done before setting a go-live date.<\/p>\n

Solution:<\/strong> CREATE THE PROJECT PLAN FIRST. Get the Project Management Office involved early to get their help, and by all means consider every stakeholder who will be touched by this along the way. Ask them how long they need to get their part done. Leave adequate time for testing. By the way, you\u2019ll need time to create a good project plan, too, so leave room for this in the timeline while you\u2019re at it.<\/p>\n

Another less obvious cause for this is availability of resources. Particularly if it\u2019s a large-scale project and all your A players are busy on other top projects. The timeline may have made sense in the abstract, but in the reality of resource constraints, it might not. Sometimes, the right people to implement the project don\u2019t even work for you. You may need to recruit staff with some different or better talent.<\/p>\n

Solution:<\/strong> Consider other major implementation projects going on at the same time. Realistically assess your available talent. Hire better people if you need to. Engage consultants to fill in where there are gaps.<\/p>\n

Look for these clues to help you identify untimely timelines:<\/p>\n