Transformation

Transformation and process improvement aren't interchangeable, and confusing the two can create unnecessary complexity or leave real structural change unaddressed.

Technology alone rarely delivers transformation; real change depends on redesigning the operating model that sits around it.

Transformation programmes can’t be planned with the same certainty as conventional projects as they typically operate under very different conditions.

Strong governance and methodology can coexist with transformation programmes that still struggle under pressure due to behavioural conditions surrounding delivery.

Applying standard governance models across all programs irrespective of scale and complexity tends to produce governance that is either too heavy to be useful or too light to be effective.

Governance in transformation environments is usually well-established, but how leadership engages determines if it becomes passive rather than reflect actual progress.

A recent analysis of two major transformations showed just how critical it is to have the right enablers in play for a successful outcome.

With the change and pressures facing the workforce, resilience has been a frequent topic amongst the leadership. But how much of an individual’s ability to be resilient can be attributed to the group in which they belong? Let’s explore.

Whenever we introduce change, we introduce risk. However, whilst most transformation risk registers document the activity risks, few consider the planned benefits risk that may arise from the change itself.