Some years ago, a prominent computer chip maker declared that only those computers containing its chips inside were allowed on the premises. This policy was instituted one afternoon after a senior vice president strolled through his executive offices, noticed that virtually every desktop machine was a brand containing chips from “the other guy”, and so he threw an executive-style fit, which generated a drastic and costly “correction.”
Throughout the offices and factories of this globally successful company a generation of cherished desktop machines, renowned for their graphics and ease of use, were now forbidden. Budgets were trashed as new computers had to be purchased for hundreds of employees, all of whom had to attend training classes before they could use their new toys. And that was only the beginning:
Once the machines – designed for data-crunching –were installed, their graphical capabilities proved to be amateurish and limited. Those and other gripes entertained employees for months. Finally, though, most people appeared to adjust to the new realities. Or did they? A few departments seemed to be able to keep generating documents that looked suspiciously like the old great-looking ones. Turns out, somewhere in a locked cabinet in many offices was an old machine, squirreled away from corporate vigilantes and wheeled out when nobody was looking. It was said, though, that even some managers knew all about it and used the machines themselves for critical presentations…
So the corporation ended up with two sets of equipment instead of one, two ways of doing work, spent scads of money and generated untold frustration, resentment and skepticism about leadership. In our work with companies we’ve seen this phenomenon frequently, not just with computer systems but with changes or improvement efforts of any kind. We think it is often a matter of not recognizing that the as-is state is not automatically transformed when something new is attempted – often, it has to be deliberately “turned off.” But there are reasons why this tends not to happen, among them:
- It was just not part of the implementation plan.
- It didn’t seem as important as installing the new “whatever”. What is new gets the attention (and the funding).
- Undoing the as-is state can be expensive and hard to face. It sometimes means throwing out equipment, material, tools, even letting go people no longer needed.
- Undoing the as-is state can imply that somebody made a mistake in the past.
- The more complex the as-is state, the more interdependent pieces there might be to replace or overhaul. The sheer complexity sometimes tempts implementers to turn away.
- Nobody wants to be a hard-nosed tyrant and insist that the old system or method has to go.
- There is often little attention given to the emotional investment the organization’s members have made in the old methods, and that tends not to be calculated when implementers determine the cost-benefit ratio of a change.
How to manage undoing the as-is state
- First, understand what you are up against. Bring in the users, the experts, who can tell you why and how they use the current system or methods, how imbedded it actually is in daily procedures, and what the weaknesses are.
- Make a side-by-side comparison of the two approaches – not just the technical aspects but the human elements that make the old system a familiar friend even if it is antiquated. See what is good about the old system and whether its advantages can be duplicated in the new.
Publicize the cross-over point. Make sure everyone is exactly aware when the old method is to be discarded, and then reinforce the adoption rate with attention, rewards and tracking. - Try to find a way to make using the old approach impossible. Eat the costs, as they will be greater over time with two approaches running beside each other.
