Each of the three topics were given approximately fifteen minutes during the panel discussion, the audience’s questions focused in on what mattered to them. In the case of identifying problems (or opportunities) the questioning led the panel to stress that this was a particularly critical activity and important to engage the right people.

However, time didn’t really allow for a detailed exploration of who would constitute the ‘right people’; by implication, some of these were user and operational level, but, at the same time, it is clearly important to address the business’s problems as the underpinning rationale for making investments. A potentially, valuable follow up discussion could be had on balancing the needs of these two communities.

The panel moved on to discussing the importance of communications in the problem discovery area. Frequency and openness of the communications became a major area of discussion. Thought could usefully be spent on what are the best communications frameworks for the problem exploration/discovery stage of a project. For example, would prototyping or questionnaires provide better levels of feedback and response? The discussion also dwelt on the need to embrace all communication channels. For example, it was felt the ‘rumour-mill’ could prove as valuable a source of information on the problems and the appetite for their resolution, as any other, more formalised, avenue.

A cautionary note was, however, sounded. In that, whilst it is clearly imperative that the right people are engaged in communicating the problems, and in the right way, they too will be solution oriented. This can lead to a tendency to focus, prematurely, on the preferred solution rather than gaining a grounded, agreed and deep understanding of precisely which problem/s are being addressed. Equally importantly, which problems are not being addressed is also a vital point of shared understanding.

Two practical tips that emerged from the discussion were:
1 – It is often helpful to shift the narrative, or discussion, onto the less ‘charged’ concept of outcomes which appear to be less threatening than the more direct word ‘benefits’, and

2 – Stick to the basics and use the value/benefits as articulated in the business case. These should be consistent and agreed across the organisation and, as such, should obviate the possibility of too much contention.

Another consideration, felt to be of value in this area, was to ensure that a specific focus on what would constitute success was achieved right up-front.  It was clearly felt across the whole panel that not doing so, frequently, turns out to be a cause of failure.  However, the questioning then took the panel into the discussion of ambiguity in success factor definition, yet time didn’t permit the development of any cogent recommendations for addressing this.

It was clear that it would be very helpful to have an early focus on structuring and metricating success.

The final topic, that of establishing who is responsible for achieving and securing the change, saw an initial, and widely held, belief that it must be the sponsor.  However, this was challenged on the basis that sponsors, frequently, have no operational control on the change-agents/users whose behaviour secures and maintains the changed behaviours that confer benefits. Equally, their role is temporary.  They cannot remain accountable indefinitely under that condition.

Some discussion followed on the distinction between accountability and responsibility. The concept of a ‘baton’ of responsibility (transitioning between different roles as a change initiative evolved) seemed to gain some traction. A helpful suggestion, put forward by a member of the audience, was that, in practical terms, the best approach within their organisation was to try and foster an “environment of responsibility” where discussion and consensus over who was doing what to try and secure the necessary outcomes, led to positive results.

Again, in common with the second topic, the discussion eventually seemed to conclude that the real world was ambiguous about precisely who was responsible for what, and when, often because it is frequently context dependent. Unanimity did exist in agreement that such ambiguity was not helpful in either case.

In light of that conclusion, it would clearly be helpful to lay down principles of practice that allow for appropriate identification and inclusion of the necessary ‘players’ at the appropriate points within a change lifecycle.