Author: Adrian Reed

I’ve recently been going through physiotherapy treatment on my shoulder after a minor (but painful) injury. I’ve never had physiotherapy before, and so I had certain (entirely wrong) assumptions about what would happen. I assumed that a quick but potentially painful treatment would be ‘done to me’.   I had visions of the physio grabbing my shoulder, cracking it back into place, me briefly wincing and then me happily going on with my life…

As anyone who has gone through physio will tell you, this isn’t generally how things work. In fact, recovery has involved months of varied exercises and stretches to build up particular muscles and regain movement. I mentioned my misconception to my physio; “Yes” she said “That’s a common misconception. Physio is not something we can do to you, a lot of the improvement is down to the efforts of the patient”.

Business Change Needs Wide-Ranging Engagement & Effort

It strikes me that there is a broad similarity here with business change.  There might sometimes be a perception that change can be “done to” or “imposed upon” a particular team or business area. There might be the (highly flawed) view that a new IT system can be rolled out with little interaction or engagement with those that are actually using it, and once the system is rolled out the ‘job is done’.  Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. If the right people aren’t involved or represented, it’s very likely that key requirements will have been missed. Even if the system is functionally fantastic, without buy-in it might still be rejected.  We’ve probably all got systems and processes that we just hate because we weren’t consulted when they were created. Employee expense submission processes are rarely popular, for example…

Advertisement

This highlights a dangerous myth: the “one and done” view of change. The “deploy and forget” approach. Few people would deliberately do this of course… but when times are hard and deadlines slip, it’s tempting to reduce the engagement (as engagement inevitably leads to varying perspectives and opinions being uncovered).  Far easier to steamroll ahead with the assumed solution.

Yet much as physiotherapy relies on the efforts of the patient, successful business change is often predicated on the buy-in, engagement and efforts of a whole range of key stakeholders. It might sometimes be seen as inconvenient when different stakeholders have different (sometimes conflicting) views, but surface them early and this can be addressed. If the views aren’t surfaced, then the conflict will bubble away… and one (or both) groups will slowly simmer until something explodes, usually at the least convenient of times!

Incremental Delivery Helps (When Appropriate)

Just as physiotherapy relies on repetition and building of muscles/range, there’s a similarity with business change. In some situations it’ll be far more desirable to deliver change incrementally, in small manageable chunks. Not only does this de-risk the delivery, it also gives people the chance to get used to things more gradually. Using the metaphor of physiotherapy, it’s a gradual change over a period of time.  It also allows feedback to be sought along the way, so that the course can be changed if things aren’t on track. Much as a physio would change the exercise regime if things aren’t working.

It’s also important to keep the outcomes firmly in mind. Much as I now have phrases like “external rotation”, “shoulder abduction” and others firmly imprinted on my brain (along with how to benchmark them), projects need to consider their outcomes too.

This is much more than just a tickbox ‘business case’ exercise. For change to be successful, it’s likely there will be outcomes at a strategic and tactical level. Yes, a key aim might be to  ‘increase revenue’. However if it actually makes the lives of a whole bunch of internal users worse it’s likely to flop. Hence, ‘reducing frustration with the current process’ might be a key enabler for ‘increasing revenue’.  Knowing this, and seeing how things progress as the changes are incrementally implemented will help.

Finally, it turns out that my estimate of how long my shoulder would take to recover was wildly inaccurate. However, as work started I could see the finish line more clearly. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there about estimation: with ‘rolling wave’ estimation being preferable over a single estimate that is given long before anything tangible is known!

About fifteen years ago, I was working closely with a group of subject matter experts in an insurance company. There was regular friendly banter between members of the marketing team and the representatives from the legal & compliance department. The compliance folk were tasked with ensuring legislative alignment, reducing risk and assuring that everything was done properly. The marketing folk cared about that too, of course, but also wanted to maximize the volume of business that came through the door.

Both perspectives are completely valid, and as you can imagine there was the occasional difference of opinion. I remember one of the marketing team playfully giving their compliance counterpart a custom printed mouse mat which read “Compliance: The Business Prevention Department”.  I should stress that this was all done in good humor, with both parties finding it hilarious. In reality, these stakeholders had a good empathy and understanding of each others’ perspectives. They were a joy to work with!

However, that phrase “business prevention department” has stuck with me ever since. I have found myself in situations as a BA where stakeholders just don’t want to engage, or engage only reluctantly. This often happens when they feel that analysis is going to slow things down, or ‘clog up the gears of change’.  Of course, you and I know that good and proportionate business analysis absolutely doesn’t do that—it actually clears the way so that change can accelerate—but there is sometimes the perception that we slow things down.

I was recently re-reading the fantastic article “When BAs go Bad” by Christina Lovelock, and this got me thinking that some of our BA strengths can actually end up being crucial weaknesses if they are overplayed.  This line particularly jumped out at me from Christina’s article:

“We can be seen as very negative. Some BAs want to say no to everything, and as it is our JOB to analyze things, we can usually come up with five good reasons something won’t work before the other person has even finished explaining the idea.”

Constructive Challenge Not Business Prevention

There is a fine line to be drawn here. As BAs we absolutely need to challenge the norm, ask whether constraints still hold true and delve deeply into root causes. This often involves asking questions with genuine curiosity, and pushing well beyond the first answer or first solution that is proposed.

Yet it is important that we do so with rapport, and that we do so in a constructive and tactful way. If we were to interrupt, monopolize the conversation or jump in too soon, the perception of negativity might seep in. All of a sudden people don’t want to work with BAs, because BAs are seen as part of the “business prevention department”… or perhaps the “change prevention department”!

Advertisement

This highlights the importance of ensuring that we continually hone our interpersonal skills, that we ‘read the room’ and listen deeply to our stakeholders. Sometimes we might have an inkling that someone isn’t giving us the full answer… but jumping in right away might not be the best thing to do. Hearing them out, letting the conversation flow naturally, and following up at an appropriate point in the conversation might be better.

Think From Their Perspective: What CAN Be Done

So much of this centers on really understanding our stakeholders and their perspectives. It is usual, at some point in a change initiative, to have to say “no” to someone. It might be that a feature cannot be delivered in a particular release, that a date can’t be met, or something else. If there’s mutual respect and rapport with the person this doesn’t have to be a particularly difficult conversation—particularly if expectations have been managed along the way.

It’s so important to get to know our stakeholders, and their perspectives on the particular change initiative. What outcomes are they seeking from it? Of course, there will be overarching project or program outcomes, but there might be particular goals that particular stakeholders gravitate towards. Knowing this makes it easier to preempt what a particular stakeholder will really care about, and when they’ll need to be engaged. It can help with communication and engagement planning, and help to identify which parts of the project they really care about.  Even if we have to say “no” to one thing, perhaps we can say “yes” to something they value even more, or perhaps we can say “yes” to achieving their goal in a better, quicker and slicker way than they envisaged.

In summary: one of the key things we need to do as BAs is to help co-create the space for successful change to happen. This involves challenging and asking tricky questions, but we should be careful not to delve into the realms of negativity. We should think business enablement not business prevention!