Upgraded analytics tools, trained analytics users: same old questions? Change Management explains why

The analytics project went smoothly, yet…

One of life’s great joys is the oh-so satisfying feeling at the end of a project that went well:

• Thorough discovery focused on aligning requirements to the organizational goals for a project
• Reviewed solution design with sponsor and stakeholder rep who were thrilled
• Trouble-free implementation
• A few minor fixes in testing; validation came back clean
• Users are trained and excited to use the new tools

A few weeks later you connect with the users for a “now that you’ve had a chance to get used to it” Q&A.

Nothing is really wrong, but there are very few questions, and none of them are about the features they or the sponsor were excited about at launch. You ask if they are using them, only to learn that the users’ stakeholders are asking for the same reports and metrics they always have.

I have been trying to crack this nut for years, with some success. Then I took a Change Management course that provided very valuable new perspectives. I’ll describe what didn’t work, and some more effective approaches I will use going forward.

Communicating with Strategic Intent: The limits of organic adoption

When users would report back that they were getting the same old questions despite having fancy new tools, I responded based on what I would do. I’d encourage users to:

• Deliver the requested data, but when a stakeholder has an ask that could be improved upon based on new functionality, also offer related information and analysis now available.
• Offer that if the first suggestion isn’t helpful, they might be able to suggest more pertinent information if the stakeholder wants to share what questions they are trying to answer.
• Over time, users should work to be seen as SME advisors.

I maintain that this is entirely valid advice to people reporting data. But it doesn’t get the organization to use the solution to its fullest as quickly as possible. It is slow and sporadic, relying on countless repetitive (at least from the analyst point of view) conversations, with the right questions and data to provide the opportunity, all against a backdrop of a reasonably open-minded culture.

Change Management is about how to make that kind of change adoption happen at scale. To get stakeholders asking questions that take advantage of new tools quickly, we need to have an intentional strategy to communicate the change with them.

Ignoring Preferred Sender of Key Messages research

A crucial part of a change communication strategy is the concept that people tend to receive information about a change more readily if it comes from the right sources.

There are two preferred types of source, each being better for a certain kind of message:

• Messages about the big picture, like why we need to change and how the change supports our organizations’ goals, are best delivered by senior management or executives.
• Messages about what will change in people’s day to day work, like what the change will actually require work-wise and what the benefits to the individual and team will be, are best delivered by their own manager.

This raises another weakness with our original approach: not only are we relying on the sporadic instead of the systemic, we are sending these messages through the wrong people.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and already have Change Management

We’ve established the need for a strategy to help move stakeholders through analytics change, and that the communication in that strategy is best delivered by people in specific roles. But do we need to take this on ourselves?

Reinventing the wheel is a waste of time, and trying to do someone else’s job can start a turf war, so step one is to take advantage of the Change Management investments you already have access to.

If you are in-house, maybe there are Change Practitioners somewhere in or around HR just wishing that the project teams in the company would integrate with them more closely, and you are off and running. Or you might be with an org that has never heard of Change Management and doesn’t like the sound of it, in which case you might need to be more hands on.

On the agency side, this can be a bit trickier since you are working through a point of contact and sponsors that may or may not have the appetite and relationships to secure the Change Management resources you want to integrate with.

I’m handling it by making it clear that I’m enthusiastic to integrate with a prospective client’s Change Practitioners, and that my Change Practitioner certification means I’m not just winging it in that regard.

If a client answers that they don’t have a Change Office or Practitioner, I’ll offer to supply some elements they would usually provide.

Up Next: Crafting an analytics stakeholder communication strategy without the benefit of experienced Change Practitioners

So what do we do if our or the client’s organisation doesn’t have Change Management professionals to allocate to us? Ok, now we have to figure out at least some minimal plan if we want to see people get the full value our solution can deliver.

The next post will look at exactly that. If you want me to hurry up and post it, or you have any thoughts or questions, please let me know in the comments below.