With fewer resources, reduced budgets, and increased pressure to get things done quickly, there is more risk of falling into the trap of assuming a project is complete at the point of “go live” or cut-over. This is true whether the project is transformational, technology, or process re-design related. When we mistakenly equate installation with implementation, we fall short of the real goal—Return on Investment. There are, however, specific steps you can take to better guide your project team to achieving the true measures of success—on time, on budget, to full specification, with all business, technical, and human objectives met.

 

 

It’s been said that awareness is the first step to recovery, and that is certainly the case in the Installation v Implementation discussion. The question is, what is the best way to build awareness?

 

Since most organizations are data-driven, it makes sense to present this important concept to Sponsors very early-on, with specific data from your own organization. By conducting an Implementation History Assessment or an Implementation Risk Forecast, we are positioned to educate Leaders and Sponsors on the differences between Installation and Implementation in a language they relate well to. The Assessment results can be presented in the context of specific projects that may have failed to meet expectations.

 

This discussion can then set the stage for ensuring that realistic project budgets and timelines are established with the mutual understanding that the end-goal must be Return on Investment.

 

 

To further reinforce the Implementation mentality, the core project team must spend time at the beginning stages of a project establishing success metrics that reflect the Implementation dynamic. While it can be challenging to establish these metrics, and particularly the human objectives, early-on, this is key to avoiding the Installation trap. 

 

The human objectives define the change in observable, measurable ways. These are the behaviors that Sponsors will need to reinforce with targets as the project is implemented down through the levels of the organization. If we begin the project with an Implementation mindset, we are far more likely to achieve real project success.

 

Getting the core team to clearly and concisely define the change, along with the success metrics, is foundational to all future project activity, as it ensures the team is aligned around a common goal. In our experience, it is typically also the most sub-optimized step in implementation. This is why IMA consultants are often called in to help project teams get started right through our JumpStart process.

 

 

We need to consistently contract for what is required for Implementation as we move through the project lifecycle. Project teams and their network of change agents are far more likely to get what is needed from Sponsors if they clearly ask for it. While this may seem simple and obvious, it is often not the case.  To avoid the risks of stopping at Installation, we need to ask Sponsors to develop the reinforcements for their direct reports that will support the new behaviors. 

 

By taking these practical steps, project teams will be much better positioned to achieve implementation success.