It’s typical for strategic initiatives to include some type of technology component. The question is, who owns the initiative? Does ownership shift at some point in the project life cycle? The reality is that IT can’t be solely accountable for implementation success, and accountability must be shared between IT and the business.

IT is Accountable for Installation

In the early stages of the project life cycle, IT is the driver of the technology selection, analysis, design, and testing processes. Clearly the business end-users must be part of the process. Together, the IT and business owners define the business requirements and design a system that meets the business needs. The business owners must start to build readiness for the change by communicating a compelling business case for action and getting sources of user resistance out in the open so it can be managed.

IT then takes the lead in making sure the system is “up and running” and meets the “go live” target date. This is what we term "installation," and it’s a critical step in implementation. However, when you stop at the point of installation, you are still short of achieving adoption and Return on Investment. And even though the IT project responsibilities are essentially completed at the point of installation, the project is not yet complete until you get users to adopt the new behaviors. This responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the business.

Business Partner Accountability

While it’s typical for the project team to be disbanded at this point, the project is in fact not yet complete. Business partners, or what we term the reinforcing sponsors, must consistently and actively express, model, and reinforce the new behaviors, and you can teach them what good sponsorship requires. IT is in no position to address the necessary modeling and reinforcement because they have no positional authority over the users (or what we call Targets).

Providing the appropriate reinforcements is the most important of all business partner (sponsor) responsibilities. Reinforcing sponsors should be applying three essential types of reinforcements at the right time and at the appropriate level of intensity. These can be categorized as positive reinforcement, negative consequences, and degree of work effort.

Most reinforcing sponsors understand that there is power in positive reinforcement. It’s much more difficult, though, to apply negative consequences for undesirable behaviors. For many organizations, corporate cultural norms are powerful influencers of sponsor actions, meaning that it’s culturally unacceptable for business partners to provide direct negative feedback to a Target. It’s simply not done.

Few reinforcing sponsors understand the role of controlling work effort in driving implementation. How difficult is it for Targets to use the system to perform work in the old ways? Is the old system still available? Are “work-arounds” acceptable”? While IT can be helpful in ensuring that these work effort issues are addressed, the accountability rests primarily with business partners.

By building a partnership based on shared accountability, project teams are far more likely to be positioned for full implementation success.

You can teach your project team and your business partners more about shared accountability, installation vs. implementation, and practical tactics and strategies for applying reinforcements. Contact Paula Alsher at paula.alsher@imaworldwide.com.