I fully agree with all the points you mention in your post- specifically those about the involvement/communication and about the needed training about the change process.

Due to the turbulence environment and increasing customer demands/ competition, it is also important to work with your team mentally (and choose the appropriate people) to handle the changes, because no doubt they will. Tight schedule /budget and changing customer demands (not because he does not do his job well. This is the changing environment that demand it) require project team to be flexible.

http://giladlsh.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/changing-the-status-quo-thoughts-about-alexander-laufer-articles/

Gilad

This of course depends on the size of the group. We’re rolling out a major change to how programs are managed using DoD Earned Value because of changes to the FAR and Award Fee. The leadership group is small (10 or so) the affected parties are large - 1000’s.

Another program we work is a “to be” financial process for a very large Canadian food distributors. Change Management Team is around 20, the affected parties on the many 1000’s.

WITH and AT are two separate participants. Both are needed for anything non-trivial.

Interesting topic, and one which could spawn endless debate!

I am sure one could infer the following from the points you make, but I’ll “call them out” more explicitly.

The project team, being the developer/deliverer of capability, rather than (generally) responsible for the deployment / operationalisation, often has limited success as it is usually not seen to have a long-term stake in the OUTCOMES (as distinct from the outputs, or deliverables). Consequently, it is critical that the SPONSORSHIP if the change is senior enough to break down barriers, and active and visible enough to ensure the change is driven through. This is where I like the OGC’s “Managing Success Programmes” (MSP) approach, with the Business Change Manager (BCM) being a critical, accountable role.

My second point is, the need to “personalise” the proposed change - this has to be pretty granular, maybe not at the individual level but at (for example) the team level, so each distinct group of impacted individuals understand the nature of the change in their terms and as is relevant to them.

Ron

How about; You don’t manage change AT people, you do it with them. Everyone involved is part of the broader team.