When an organization embarks on Enterprise architecture, there is no doubt that senior management is looking for a change. Change is a natural by-product of Enterprise Archiecture. Effective Change management is required for the success of EA. This is where people skills of an Enterprise Architect are put to test. More often, EAs get bogged down in details, processes of EA implementation and tend to pay less attention to change management.
I admire Mike Walker a lot and agree with his assessment of how EA can bring about change in an organization. Quoting from his blog ( a must read for any EA)
http://blogs.msdn.com/mikewalker/archive/2007/07/03/can-enterprise-architecture-be-a-catalyst-for-change-management.aspx
“Enterprise Architecture (EA) can definitely be a catalyst for organizational change management. EA methodologies include processes and tools for managing both the people and the technology sides of an organizational. EA helps in raising and recording of architecture changes, assessing the impact on the enterprise, cost / benefit analysis, risk management, supportability concerns, alignment with business objectives and facilitates justification and obtaining approval from both IT and the business. “
Broadly speaking there are four change management strategies that can be employed. More often in real world, you would employ a combination of the four strategies, depending on organizational realities.
| Strategy | Description |
| Empirical-Rational | People are rational and will follow their self-interest — once it is revealed to them. Change is based on the communication of information and the proffering of incentives. |
| Normative-Reeducative | People are social beings and will adhere to cultural norms and values. Change is based on redefining and reinterpreting existing norms and values, and developing commitments to new ones. |
| Power-Coercive | People are basically compliant and will generally do what they are told or can be made to do. Change is based on the exercise of authority and the imposition of sanctions. |
| Environmental-Adaptive | People oppose loss and disruption but they adapt readily to new circumstances. Change is based on building a new organization and gradually transferring people from the old one to the new one. |
Factors in Selecting A Change Strategy
Generally speaking, there is no single change strategy. You can adopt a general or what is called a “grand strategy” but, for any given initiative, you are best served by some mix of strategies.
Which of the preceding strategies to use in your mix of strategies is a decision affected by a number of factors. Some of the more important ones follow.
· Degree of Resistance. Strong resistance argues for a coupling of power-coercive and environmental-adaptive strategies. Weak resistance or concurrence argues for a combination of Empircal-Rational and normative-reeducative strategies.
· Target Population. Large populations argue for a mix of all four strategies, something for everyone so to speak.
· The Stakes. High stakes argue for a mix of all four strategies. When the stakes are high, nothing can be left to chance.
· The Time Frame. Short time frames argue for a power-coercive strategy. Longer time frames argue for a mix of empirical-rational, normative-reeducative, and environmental-adaptive strategies.
· Expertise. Having available adequate expertise at making change argues for some mix of the strategies outlined above. Not having it available argues for reliance on the power-coercive strategy.
· Dependency. This is a classic double-edged sword. If the organization is dependent on its people, management’s ability to command or demand is limited. Conversely, if people are dependent upon the organization, their ability to oppose or resist is limited. (Mutual dependency almost always signals a requirement for some level of negotiation.)
