SPEG Conference - People and Culture

This is the final blog entry for this year’s SEPG Conference in Europe, albeit a few days later than intended. In my blog from 16th June, I suggested that there were two underlying themes to the conference, namely multi-model synergies and people and culture. So what about people and culture? Previous conferences have had their share of presentations on Change Management, People-CMM and other people and culture related issues. It seems to me that this year there was an new energy about these ideas even though they were not particularly highly represented. I wonder how many of the issues the global economy now finds itself in could have been avoided through better understanding and actual usage of these concepts. SEPG Europe 2009 itself was a victim of a failure of organisations to take on board people issues. The lack of attendees suggested cutbacks in training and staff development activities. Talking to past colleagues and associates in different parts of the world (and not just in the software industry) makes it evident that this is a reality not a hunch. Quality and process staff are being cut back in droves, contract positions have all but disappeared of the radar. The false economy of mass redundancies leaves us with decimated work forces and organisations that will struggle when the market finally begins to turn round. The investment in people cannot be realised once they have gone - that money is also gone, a double whammy when one considers the cost of redundancy to the bottom line. Dr Paul Nielsen, Director and CEO of the SEI said in his keynote that the SEI was going to run a People-CMM programme in addition to their other improvement programmes. This struck me as one of the most thought provoking comments of the week. If an organisation truly values its staff, surely this is an area where they should be investing, regardless of the type of industry, product or service being provided. How many organisations currently disembowelling their workforce have a value statement that “People are our greatest asset” or something similar? An enterprise that embraces staff improvement programmes such as People-CMM are living their value statements about people. They recognise that holding on to their staff will help them ride out the tsunami of global recession, and will probably make them stronger and healthier. Since People-CMM applies to all levels of the organisation from the CEO downwards, all staff should understand and appreciate the need to retain the best, and look for ways to raise the bar for their other people. It would be naive to think that there will be no casualties, but these should really be kept to a minimum, and not viewed as pure cost cutting exercises. And surely the way to improve other parts of the organisation is to start with a mature and motivated workforce, who understand the need for change and have the understanding, ability, temperament, constitution, and enthusiasm to embrace that change? Maybe then, running a CMMI programme, or any other improvement initiative, would be a bit easier and really begin to realise the return on investment that we all believe they are capable of.

Managing your Executives

It’s one thing for the executive to choose the right change leader as discussed in yesterday’s blog entry, but change leaders don’t have the same luxury - they have to deal with what they’ve got and try to make the best of it. 

If you have an enlightened management team, with an inspired leader there’s probably not much point in reading any further. I’ve been fortunate enough to be in this position, and, goodness, it makes a hard job so much easier and fulfilling.

But the trouble is there are many more executives out there who simply don’t get it. Sometimes it’s because they aren’t process oriented. It may be that they view process and quality activities as necessary evils but far less important than the real money making programmes within the enterprise. And sometimes it’s really because they genuinely don’t understand how change works and how to manage something so intangible.

The trouble is, that whatever the underlying cause of the issue with your executives, it’s down to you to fix the problem and it really must be one of your highest priorities. It’s going to take a lot of diplomacy, political manoeuvring, personality, patience and tenacity. Be prepared for tantrums, threats, personal abuse, circular arguments and discussions, and to repeat yourself persistently. But if you can hang in there, the eureka moment, when the message is finally understood, is one of the most satisfying achievements a change agent will encounter. 

Of course there’s still a lot of coaching and hand-holding required over the coming weeks and months, but the hardest job is over. So why is this so difficult? 

Firstly you are dealing with the boss, who will, most likely, naturally assume that they know everything, which is why they are where they are. They will not generally wish to display signs of weakness or ignorance; especially not to you, and definitely not in front of their management team. This requires you to take a tactful and humble approach, preferably in a one on one environment, where face can be saved in the case of any misunderstandings. Never accuse the executive of anything - especially of failing to understand their responsibilities or failing to demonstrate leadership. Don’t make the mistake of confusing the “leadership team” with the leader as the leader will usually see this as a personal attack.

Secondly, executives are used to dealing with information in their own domain, usually financial data, and they are used to asking questions for which they get answers they can understand. In an alien domain the executive may become uncomfortable because the questions they are used to asking may no longer be so relevant or useful, and the answers given may not help them understand. 

You need to work with the executives to help them understand the sorts of question to be asking and how to analyse the answers. This is a tricky dichotomy because you are the person who is generally going to be in the firing line. You need to step backwards and take yourself out of the picture but put yourself into the position of the executive. Encourage them to ask the questions you would ask if you were sitting where they are. Help them with the pointers they should be listening for. 

I believe that a number of change programmes fail because the change leader presents the executive team with what he or she wishes them to see, knowing full well that they don’t really understand what they need to be asking. This self-serving view of a project will only work for a short time, as executives become frustrated at seeing the same data each month without any real idea of where things are going.

To build a successful and mutually beneficial relationship with your executives you need to start educating them from day zero. Hard facts, humility, perseverance, coupled with your own knowledge of individual’s reactions to change should stand you in good stead.

Getting the Right Change Leaders

It’s not easy leading and managing Change Programmes. In fact it’s bloody hard, because ultimately you need to aim to please all of the people all of the time. An executive who initiates and sponsors a change programme needs to look very carefully at the person they choose as their key change agent - selecting the wrong individual will doom the programme from its outset.

In software process improvement initiatives, especially in an organisation which is relatively new to the experience, an executive will often look to one of two places to find their change leader. The first is an experienced and successful technical project or programme manager. The second is the quality manager, because process improvement is considered to be a sort of quality thing. Whilst individuals in these types of role may succeed as change managers, the selection process should really be more thorough because neither of these roles naturally leads to a change management role.

Let’s look at the quality manager first of all. What I call “old school” quality managers have often moved through the ranks over a number of years until they have exhausted all potential opportunities and their experience and seniority makes them ideal candidates to run the quality team (or in some cases become the quality team). 

Quality in such organisations tends to be oriented towards compliance to standards and procedures, and highly focused on checklist based audits. Projects tolerate the quality activities, by and large, because they realise there is no escape, but they make no secret of the fact that the quality activities are a waste of their time and effort and add no value to the real work of the organisation. In this environment, adding change management to the quality manager’s responsibilities is a recipe for disaster because the key change agent is either unable or unwilling to change either themselves or their behaviour. 

The successful technical project manager is likely to perform best within their own project environment, where they have a large element of autonomy, power and control, and live in the world of the tangible. Good project managers who keep their eyes on all the balls they are juggling will often succeed, especially in a relatively stable and competent organisational environment, with good controls and balances, and senior staff who support their project managers. These project managers will often still succeed if small elements of the project or the environment destabilise, but may become vulnerable when the destabilisation is of greater magnitude. These managers are also unlikely to make the transition to become good change managers, where destabilisation is the project norm and where the intangible is the order of the day.

I believe that the best change managers are those individuals who are difficult to put into pigeon holes. They have a good understanding of project and quality management principles, they are great communicators and are personable and approachable, they have a passion and an indefatigable belief in what they are trying to achieve on behalf of the organisation. Critically, these people are able to look at their own behaviours and adapt them as necessary, they are prepared to accept when they are wrong or when they make mistakes and will learn from the experience. Above all, their enthusiasm is infectious, their attention to detail is meticulous, and they genuinely care about the impact of their work on their colleagues. With these types of change agent at the helm, the organisation will find it difficult to resist them.

Thoughts on Process Ownership

Received wisdom tells us that the role of the Process Owner is vital in any organisation, and that processes without senior management ownership will fail. Although I understand where this idea is coming from, I have some major concerns about the way that many organisations implement it.

In my experience many organisations tend to allocate process owners on an almost random basis, fail to inform them of their real roles and responsibilities, occasionally empower them with the potential to do significant damage to an organisation's process management and improvement activities, and fail to realistically monitor and measure process owners in the execution of their duties.

Before we go into details about the problems observed above, let's step backwards and think about what we mean when we talk about process owners. Traditionally the process owner is a senior manager who acts as a sponsor with respect to the process. He or she :-

• is expected to work with the process improvement group or SEPG to ensure that appropriate process management activities are undertaken to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the process
• should have a good understanding of the process in question to be able to advise, coach and mentor on its usage
• liaises with other process owners to ensure consistency across dependent processes

But the reality is often very different.

Some process owner take their roles very seriously, sometimes to the detriment of the organisation. Cases in mind are where no changes may be made to the process without the express permission of the process owner, who because of their seniority is never available to discuss changes or improvements. Similarly, these individuals take sole responsibility for education and training activities, again leading to considerable time delays in the the dispersal of the required information.

Other process owners are so far removed from the process that they are totally ineffective. Consider a senior executive owning the Software Configuration Management process but who has a background in HR. Or the Application Development Lifecycle process owner who has not been directly involved in development for 25 years.

Rather than insist on process ownership, I prefer the idea of Process Custodianship. In this environment, a group of practitioners is assigned custodianship of the process rather than direct ownership. This group should comprise of subject matter experts, process specialists, and practitioners. Time and budget is made available for these groups as part of the process management function. A senior manager is assigned to the group as a sponsor who has the responsibility for oversight of the group to ensure that they are doing their job, but who is a facilitator rather than a authority. The group itself elects a chair to act as a spokesman, liaison officer, and representative on necessary governance boards. This model provides continuity in the event of staff changes, allows staff with direct process knowledge and understanding to drive the process management activities, and ensures that multiple points of contact are in place to support the organisational requirements with respect to that process area.

As with any role, there should be a clearly defined, documented and communicated set of roles and responsibilities set out for the Process Custodian team and its members. These need to be consistent across all process groups perhaps though a charter. Measures should be put in place to monitor the activities of the team, and these measures reported at appropriate governance meetings and reviews, such as Steering Group meetings. Senior executives must be held accountable for groups they have responsibility for, and should report progress at executive operational level reviews.

Finally there needs to be a mechanism to ensure business continuity so that individuals are replaced as and when necessary, either because of attrition, or simply because staff are no longer in a position to effectively carry out their responsibilities.

This relatively simple change reduces much of the risk associated with single point of contact process ownership, allows practitioners to influence the processes they are expected to follow, and should better help to keep processes effective and under control.