Uncertainty

You need to understand that the plan you set at the beginning of a project is unlikely to be the one delivered at the end. All too often we design plans on the basis that rationality prevails, order is desired and uncertainty is banished. However, how will such a style and structure fare in a world where change is discontinuous, random and complex and unexpected market shifts occur at global rather than national level? The notion of predictability and stability are false idols and many consultants need to become more adaptive within the engagement. This state of constant unpredictability is driven by the following factors:

• Non-linear: The traditional mechanistic model assumes that life is a linear process, one that is predicted, directed and controlled. A look in the newspapers or a glance at the stock market will immediately highlight that this is not always so. Life and organizations are built on a set of constructs that use chance, random disturbance, changing dynamics, turbulence and inter-connectedness as the base presuppositions. Non-linear systems are nothing new and consultants should recognize that life is not an orderly system. You must be able to recognize non-linear undercurrents and not be surprised when things do not go as planned.

• Interacting structure: Often, you might be invited to undertake a project in one particular part of the business. However, you need to recognize no system acts in isolation. Through this interconnection, changing a variable in one area will in some way affect other areas. Identifying this interconnection is easy where the impact is seen, the problem comes when the impact surfaces in other areas of the business or emerges months, or years, later. It is important to be sensitive to this interrelatedness and to be prepared to modify the plan if it turns out that the engagement is causing problems in other parts of the business.

• Self-organization: When you try to change a system, there must be an appreciation that change will occur on its own as a result of the interaction between different parts of the system. Beneath the polished veneer that all organizations present to the world, there exists the potential for spontaneous self-organization. Within the stable mechanistic business processes that organizations typically adopt, there is a living force that drives and supports the business but in ways that are not always obvious. To ensure that the assignment is controlled, it is important to appreciate the nature of complexity and self-organization and not necessarily regard unplanned activity as a failure. In many cases it is the spontaneous action that emerges from interaction between different parts of the system that enhances the change process.

Imagine you are part of a consultancy team replacing a customer service computer system within a telemarketing centre. The team has developed the overall schedule and is in the process of finalizing the project plan for the implementation cycle. Overall the project has gone well but there are a number of issues that could affect its success. First, the senior management team is in the process of being changed and the IT director is likely to be replaced by the deputy IT director. Second, the finance director is concerned about this year's budget and might need to reduce some of the system's frills. Lastly, the existing IT system has been in place for 15 years and has multiple connections with internal and external MIS systems. Hence the team is not convinced that they have a truly representative data flow map. On a positive note they are experienced in installing the new piece of kit and have a solid reputation with the client for delivering on time to the agreed standard.

In considering this scenario you might consider the following:

• What are the core activity streams in the change programmes?

• What external factors are likely to alter over the life of the change?

• To what extent should the streams be strictly planned and to what extent should the fine detail be left to emerge as the project rolls out?

These three factors can then be used in a matrix that will give a feel for the variability within each stream and over the whole engagement (Table 9.3). Each cell on the matrix should be assigned a value that represents the extent to which the external factor will change. So a figure of 1.0 means that the stream is planned on the assumption that no emergent factors will cause the team to modify its approach, whereas 0.1 means that there is a strong chance that emergent factors will affect the delivery of the change stream. Hence, the fact that the budget is cut part way through the programme might well cause the training programme to be slimmed down, thus giving it an emergent score of 0.7.

If an average of the various scores in the matrix is taken, the result is 0.86. As a consulting project, the vast majority of the transformation processes can be assumed as safe. However, there is a chance that some emergence will occur that will affect the plan. Your team would be wise to allow sufficient flexibility in the process to make changes as turbulence surfaces.

It is important to emphasise that we are not trying to apply rationality to an irrational process. The future cannot be predicted and this tool will not guarantee that the beast of uncertainty is tamed. It does, however, offer a vehicle by which the consultant and client can have a clearer understanding of the degree of uncertainty that exists within the project. Simply helping the client to consider the fact that the future cannot be determined will help to ease relationship problems if the project starts to run into bumpy waters.

You will only be able to predict with any certainty how a change will turn out if you have absolute control over all the variables. Since this is impossible, it is important to factor in the emergent variables in order to ensure that the engagement delivers a value-added output.