Thorough Planning Is Not Enough

By Roger Snyder, Department of Energy

One day, while reviewing a project heating, ventilation and air-conditioning design, I happened to think about the upcoming chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production phaseout. The design team had ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directive and specified CFC-based refrigeration equipment. For them, it was business as usual. This sparked my curiosity. What were the other projects doing about the phaseout? What was the Department's position?

Well, start asking too many questions and you usually find a problem. Then you are assigned the task of addressing the problem, without additional resources, while maintaining your current project workload-which is exactly what happened to me. Charged with addressing the CFC refrigerant phaseout for my office, I quickly set out to establish a baseline for the current situation, elicit industry input, draw up a plan of action, and request implementation and funding approval. I then carefully plotted a strategy for eliciting support for my implementation approach. My plan was to hold a meeting to bring all the players up to speed on the topic. Near the end of the meeting I was planning to lay out my implementation plan and elicit input and embellishments. All the while, I would be guiding the group in unfolding my plan, and reaping team ownership and common support.

That is when I learned my lesson-that managing a change in people's minds is much more difficult than managing a capital project. Despite the fact that I had planned each step, I never executed this well-defined plan. From the start, things started going awry. The politics and emotions of the CFC production phaseout obviated any hope of intelligently discussing any implementation steps or solutions. The simple logic of sidestepping a debate and focusing on how to address the legislated production phaseout schedule escaped those involved. In all my planning, I had failed to take into account the group's emotional opposition to the NEPA-driven phaseout.

Some months later, in a totally different situation, I was called upon to develop and present an action proposal to my management. The proposal required only minimal research in terms of the technical details, but called for changes to people's mind-set. This time I took the extra time to learn the possible resistance to the proposal and to build a powerful coalition to support the change. First, I consulted with senior and management staff informally to identify the players who would be involved in approving my proposal. An organization chart is quite clear, but, as we all know, it is not a true display of the chain of command.

Learning from the failure of my CFC effort, I engaged in an active strategy of soliciting comments and suggestions from those likely to have a voice in its approval. By consulting with each informally yet directly, I was able to convince them they would benefit from the change. Meeting with each also enabled me to convey a better understanding of the proposal than would otherwise have been possible and to identify any potential resistance. Most importantly, I aligned a group of supporters who, after meeting with me, felt some ownership of the proposal. When the day of reckoning came, I was ready. Not only did I have a good, thoughtful response to each issue that arose, I also had a virtual army of supporters reinforcing my answers and position. My proposal was approved and implemented in record time.

Roger Snyder supports the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative in the design and construction of simulation laboratories for the Energy Department.

Lessons

• Managing a change project and a technological project are similar in many respects. However, since a change focuses primarily on people rather than on things, it requires careful attention to the possible resistance of people.
• Successful change requires the creation of a group with enough power to lead the change.
• Successful change-makers identify those who stand to gain or lose from the change. Holding face-to-face meetings with the primary stakeholders enables better selling of the change and better understanding of the resistance.