Welcome to the Astoria WebLog

Content management projects are most successful when they include time and resources to address change-related issues. New skills, new tools and new ways of thinking are welcomed by many, especially if the changes are designed to make work easier. But, even when the benefits of change are communicated clearly, issues arise. I asked change management maven Emma Hamer to help us think through the impact change can have on teams engaged in content management projects and to explore ways of overcoming change-related challenges.

Chip: Emma, thanks for agreeing to chat with us today. Can you share a little background information about yourself and your role as a performance strategist and change management consultant?

Emma: Looking back with 20/20 hindsight on my career, I've landed in jobs where there was either complete chaos, or nothing yet started, which involved either restoring effective order, or creating it. So, it turns out I've had a change and performance focus all along. I like to think that going independent and starting my own company some 5 years ago hasn't really changed what I do, it just removed some distractions.

Chip: As a change management consultant, why did you decide to focus in on helping organizations move to content management, instead of some other niche discipline? What makes content management so important as a performance tool?

Emma: Timely information is key to good customer relationships. Good customer relationships are key to a business staying competitive and profitable. Content management is about distributing information. Ergo: content management is key to business success. In a greatly compressed form, that's the thought-path that got me where I am now. Implementing CM however, goes far beyond simply installing some software. I believe that it also requires a fundamental re-think of the way you've done business so far. And with a fundamental re-think comes fundamental change; revolutionary, radical change, as opposed to gradual, incremental change. It's in helping companies anticipate, prepare for, and ultimately overcome the human performance challenges of such change that I see my most valuable contributions.

Chip: You’ve written previously about the importance of recognizing that cultural and organizational factors can impede change. When moving to content management, are such changes inevitable? In other words, can a CM be implemented without an impact on the corporate culture? If not, why not?

Emma: The short answer: No. There's no avoiding impacting the corporate culture. Let me give you an example: How can you expect people to develop new ways to collaborate when you keep them 'locked away' in separate, cubicle-heavy silos? Only letting them out for an occasional 'project team meeting'? Cubicle culture has to go - and not a moment too soon. If we want and need people to collaborate, we're going to have to physically house them in a shared open, accessible, work area. If you have geographically dispersed teams, give them virtual collaborative tools and spaces. It is also apparent to me, that you can't foster cross-functional collaboration, if you try to maintain a subtle, but rigid unofficial caste system, where the opinion of an engineer is valued more highly than that of a writer.

Chip: Why do some organizations seem to underestimate the impact of putting in a CM system? Where do you think the confusion comes from? And, what advice can you provide to those who are preparing to adopt a content management system?

Emma: First of all, let me say that there are many organizations that - deep down - sense the need for these developments, and are open to them. Increasingly, responsible vendors, integrators and vendor-neutral CM consultants are broaching the topic of change and the need to manage both the change process, and the organization's expectations of what a CM project can - and cannot - accomplish. Ultimately, a CM project succeeds or fails based on the acceptance and adoption by the users. It follows that focusing resources and efforts on helping the users adjust will bring a huge return on investment - especially compared to the expense of the hardware and software. I also believe that CM is what is commonly called 'a game-changing concept'. Some organizations don't necessarily see at the outset just how revolutionary the change will be. It's not uncommon, typically if IT is heavily involved in the initiative, that companies view it as "just another piece of software; so, provide application training, and move on". And most underestimate the impact on their staff, because they underestimate the impact on the way they've always done business. Either way, the introduction of CM will jolt organizations into action. They can choose to prepare for the changes, or not. But change they must, or the CM project will fail. Guaranteed.

Chip: Many organizations recognize that they need to provide information and training to those who will be expected to use a content management system. What else should they do, in your opinion? What are some common mistakes organizations make that may seem practical at first, but may negatively impact the success of their projects?

Emma: To elaborate on what I just mentioned: "Provide application training, and move on" is clearly insufficient. A top-down approach, where the users are barely involved until the implementation phase is imminent, may seem efficient, but my contention is that is it not effective. CM, with its aspects of XML and structured authoring, reuse and repurposing of content objects, creates a perceived loss of control for some users, and this requires a guided bottom-up approach. A migration to content management invariably triggers changes in workflow, procedures, governance and accountability. These changes require users to change their behavior - and require the organization to facilitate that behavioral change. Learning to look at the work from different perspectives, learning to think in novel ways, adjusting the informal power structures to the new reality - these are difficult because people have invested so much in making the old ways work, and it's hard to give up that mastery, unless you can get some help understanding how things will be better in the future.

Chip: How are companies generally handling the change management component of a CM project?

Emma: The best ones are at the very least aware of the impact change can have on human performance, and deploy internal and external resources to help management and staff deal with the impact. The worst ones seem to believe that telling people what is going to happen, and when, will somehow miraculously result in a successful, painless implementation. The latter are in for a bit of a shock, I'm afraid.

Chip: Explain to us your ideas about increased collaboration between disciplines, and why you link it to corporate culture change?

Emma: As content converges, and content components are reused and repurposed over an increasingly wide array of platforms, 'owning' a document is no longer possible. Point of fact: our definition of 'document' no longer really suffices. To get the cross-fertilization required for true innovation, walls between disciplines need to become more permeable, and content silos will become more and more integrated. When the wall comes down, the culture changes; we need only look at the Berlin Wall for proof of that.

Chip: How does a CM project impact the social contract between employee and employer, for instance?

Emma: CM systems deal with information - creating it, reviewing it, collecting it, distributing it. The conjunction of information-hungry customers and information-rich organizations increases the demand for better, more timely, more personalized, more relevant information. The old 'manufacturing' model - already under considerable pressure - is being replaced by the 'information' model. As a consequence, the way companies think about employees has to change; the concept of the interchangeable - and easily replaceable - 'assembly line worker' is gradually morphing into the highly knowledgeable and difficult to replace 'information worker' - even in classical manufacturing environments. As the understanding grows that people make decisions rather than things, the value of the embedded knowledge within workers inevitably will change the employer-employee relationship. Already demographics and outdated HR practices are causing tremendous retention and staffing challenges. The "two Toms' - Davenport and Peters - have contributed greatly to the clarity around this imminent corporate culture shift.

Chip: How can companies accelerate the implementation process; does every CM project need to take up to 12 months?

Emma: I don't believe every project needs to take that long; in part the methodical, carefully-planned and phased approach is a consequence of the still dominant corporate culture of risk-avoidance. Not too long ago, the dominant belief was that software development required strict adherence to a carefully laid out, structured and phased plan. For many types of software development, that is still valid, but witness the emergence of Agile Software Development practices, we can imagine situations where a more agile and iterative approach to implementing CM is appropriate. Another indication of the push towards accelerated implementation is the Software as a Service (or hosted) CM solution; vendors offering these solutions claim they can have a customer up and running and getting value from their investment in far less time than traditional CM implementations.

Chip: What if people can’t adjust or make the necessary changes?

Emma: It's 'Darwinism' at work. That sounds harsh, but in my belief it is unrealistic to suppose that everyone can - or even should - make the transition to a new way of thinking and working. For the employee who is 10 months away from retirement, it doesn't make sense to invest a lot of money, time and energy in what may be a very painful and difficult adjustment process. Be creative - use their strengths in other ways, perhaps as a mentor, perhaps as contributors to process redesign. For the employee who has neither the talent nor the ability to work in a decidedly more complex and demanding environment, it is cruel to retain her in a job where her only option is failure.

Chip: What then is your advice if some staff need to be let go? Why?

Emma: If some staff cannot complete a journey they never asked to go on in the first place, then companies should take it as an opportunity to be both generous and responsible. Help these individuals, who've contributed their best to the organization so far, transition into a job that will allow them to be successful. If such jobs are not available within the organization, then help them transition out. Allocate funds in the budget to 'restructuring costs', offer a generous severance, and pay for career transition support. In the long run, the cost is worth the 'peace of mind' in the remaining employees. The respect and appreciation garnered - and the consequent commitment and engagement of the staff - contribute to the long-term success of your organization.

Chip: What role does line management and senior management play in the successful implementation?

Emma: Both have significant - but very different - roles to play. All too often, once the purchase of the software has been approved, the project devolves to line management, with the mandate to "make it happen". Senior or executive management however, has an ongoing role to play: three critical roles, actually.

1. Champion Change
2. Enforce Compliance (with new rules)
3. Transition Lost Employees

As for line management, unless the organization is sufficiently large to support dedicated change and performance management specialists, bring in outside help to support the line manager in the change effort. Most line managers have neither the bandwidth, nor - realistically - the coaching skills to do this important task justice. And as I've indicated before, to ignore the human impact of change is to jeopardize the success of the CM project.

Chip: What are some of the other cultural changes triggered by a CM project?

Emma: There's no stock answer to this question; it's going to vary from one company to the next, depending on each specific situation. I also want to stress, that some companies are so ready for the changes a CM project may trigger, that they'll breeze through the implementation. Change is both desirable and inescapable, but success is neither guaranteed nor compulsory. Success takes hard work, and commitment, a willingness to try new and unproven things, and clear-eyed preparation. For cultural change to be truly successful, there can be no sacred cows left standing in the pasture.

Chip: What is the top priority from a program management standpoint for a CM implementation to meet its goals and objectives?

Emma: Communication, communication, communication. Communication is by definition a two-way street, and both the technical and human performance change management plans need to incorporate multiple avenues of communication, in multiple directions. Fear is resolved through information, and there is no such thing as too much information during a period of rapid change.

Chip: How can companies become more aware of, and prepare for, cultural change?

Emma: The organization's readiness for the impact of cultural and procedural changes should be assessed, preferably by an external consultant, since most companies suffer from 'familiarity blind spots' when it comes to identifying potential pain points. Some assessment methods are better suited to uncovering the reality below the surface than others, and need not cost a fortune or take long. The effort put into identifying the areas of concern pays off handsomely when the project gets underway - and it prevents nasty surprises.

Chip: Emma, thanks for helping us better understand the change management and human performance challenges associated with content management projects. I know our readers appreciate your expertise.

Emma: Thank you, Chip. I hope your readers find our discussion useful. As always, I'm happy to answer follow-up questions on this blog or via email.