Best practices in strategy implementation #10: Business model changes, part 2

In an earlier article, we identified an important finding from our research on the challenges of making changes to a firm’s business model. We found that by a very substantial margin, the two reasons cited as responsible for situations in which the new business model failed to deliver the hoped-for results were “Implementation process was poorly managed” and “Internal resistance to the new business model”.

We previously discussed two of the concepts frequently cited as ways in which firms can successfully implement changes to their business models, namely, through “testing, risk identification, and adequate funding” and by developing a “detailed, fact-based strategy”.

In this post, we will examine the next three themes focused on avoiding a “poorly managed implementation process”.

Each of the concepts included in the theme “full time project team with the right skills” was cited frequently in the recommendations provided by the executives who contributed to this research project. Quite frequently, we heard examples of failures due to the fact that there was no time to manage the implementation project due to the commitments of “day jobs” or the “real jobs” held by project team members.

“If it’s important enough to do, it’s important enough to put people on the project full time” was one executive’s observation. The “right skills” was another important theme.

One executive observed that it was often the case that the new business model required skills not resident in the firm. But too many firms assume that these skills can be quickly learned, and fail to source individuals with the necessary expertise to be successful. This executive emphasized the need to think through the team’s composition and be realistic about whether the available talent pool is up to the task.

A third set of observations noted that a “project team” was different than a roster of people connected by email. He cited an example of a failed project where the team had never met other than by email and conference call. Others, without such an extreme example, emphasized the need for genuine team structures, clarity in leadership and assignments, and in rewards linked to the project.

“Monitoring, learning, and removing barriers” was cited as important from two main perspectives. The first is that no major project goes without surprises, and best practices dictate the need for processes to identify and overcome such surprises. The second is that monitoring processes typically ensure the involvement of key members of the management team, which is essential when barriers need to be removed.

The need for processes that allow barriers to be overcome was given primary importance by one executive, who felt that every project will inevitably face some barriers, requiring the need for trade-offs and decisions on priorities, which can only be made if there is involvement at high levels of the corporation. One piece of advice emphasized the need for learning and evolution: “Keep true to the vision, but be prepared to alter course…”.

Observations related to the importance of “best-in-class project management” mirrored ones we’ve frequently made. The skills and competencies associated with implementation are every bit as demanding and complex as those associated with strategy development.

Those firms that develop these skills will be well-equipped to manage complex changes to business models required from time to time. Specific recommendations involved almost every phase of project management, but the one given most weight was developing metrics through which progress can be measured and managed.

In the near future, we will provide additional insights relating to the ways firms can overcome internal resistance to the new business model. 

 

Please feel free to add a comment to this blog, or email George at gfb@bluecanyonpartners.com