Read our perspective on what makes a programme truly transformative.
As performance specialists, it's not uncommon to hear people talk about their dismay at their organisation's latest 'transformation programme', only to be told it's the adoption (or now the removal) of Agile working, an IT upgrade, or a change in reporting lines for particular functions.
Regrettably, the term 'transformation' has been bastardised to a point where it seems every change a company ponders needs to be embellished to get people's attention, rather than preserving the word for more significant undertakings designed to transform an organisation's capability or its ability to serve a particular market.
Projects that help people improve their work, or alterations to reporting lines, shouldn't in and of themselves be positioned as a transformation programme unless they:
Trying to decipher what a successful business transformation looks like is easier than many believe.
Programmes that fall short of the above are best referred to as either 'change initiatives' or 'projects' rather than 'transformation programmes', although that doesn't mean they aren't useful.
The point is, transformation programmes are both comprehensive and strategic in nature. As a result, they encompass the entire business or division they're focused on and produce significant and material benefits that increase the relevance and/or competitiveness of the organisation.
To achieve this, all three elements need to be considered:
Change programmes that focus on processes or technology in isolation are best described as either a 'process change' or 'technological upgrade'. Conversely, changes to staff numbers, configuration and/or reporting lines should be referred to as a 'restructure' – rather than a people, performance, or cultural transformation, unless the principal intent of the process is to transform people's capability and impact.