Whilst the business problems maybe critical, the  change and 

transformation is often defined to be very wide. It becomes an

all-encompassing large solution to a large problem. It literally grows in front of our eyes. There is a lack of prioritisation and focus breaking the solution down into manageabe pieces.

The benefits of large transformations are a guess, yet we treat them like a

financial fact. We do lots of analysis discounting future made-up cash flows to repay the investment in a timely manner. We adjust the figure to make the case work. We spent lots of time at the board meeting understanding the figures and the payback. We sign off the numbers as fact and give no credence that they are really a guess and finally we don’t track them very well at all.

Most transformations start with a few people. They write a case and they resource the team to deliver it. Very few cases are clear on the resourcing assumptions other than to calculate costs. Often key leadership roles have not been scoped out. No time is given for new people to challenge the plans.  It is a foundational issue not to get allowances for people built into the planning.

Often the forgotten child in the transformation game. Many people give it airtime but don’t plan it well. Early deliverables should give immediate benefit to those enduring the change in order to to build credibility. Often these deliverables are low-hanging fruit and are relatively easy to deliver. If they don’t stick, a cloud starts to build over the programme. People will start to disassociate and therefore exacerbate the problem.

Once the transformation has the CEO’s support, the board’s sign-off, and the new name launched then we have achieved TIF status: Too Important to Fail. Not only has the programme leader promised a fast-track transformation with major benefits but so has the CEO. The CFO has run the numbers, and they make sense as calculations. It’s what the CEO wants, therefore, it must succeed. Large swathes of the signed-off investment will be spent chasing the dream. The bumps in the road will be ridden over at speed. The risk profile will increase. At some point, the veneer will crack .

The big solution costs a lot of money. The PowerPoint and sales pitch are compelling driving the need for a big solution for a big problem. Consultants support the cause.  Boards don’t understand the delivery nuances, so they trust the only credible option presented partly because they have no experience to form a challenge.

Multi year plans are also guesses. It’s not new insight, it’s simply true and has been proven to be so through many different aspects of life. We can be directional with planning. We can state the things we are going to achieve and the order we will address them. Predicting outcomes over multiple years in a large multifaceted change programme with many moving parts and a collection of interdependencies is a precarious position.

To formulate a big transformation of any sort you need to be a certain type

of person. You will be brave and confident. How else would you be able to look at an organisation and say it needs to transform. If this boils over into egotistical behaviour, then the change becomes a pet project, and the brave confident one will make

sure it gets driven through despite any considered resistance.

First steps should be baby steps. Many large transformations give themselves a name which is treated like a brand. This is then given a big launch with lots of promises communicated to all who can see. Pictures painted of a bright future some years away with large benefits. In short, these programmes are simply being set up to fail. Small quiet steps proving solutions and benefits on the journey are a more likely route to success.

Then the CEO and CFO start to see the cracks. They delve deeper into the risk profile. They invite a consultant in to review the programme. This is generally, the start of a oneway

journey—the big write down. Focus starts to turn to survival. Is there a

way to rescue this? Generally, not. Rotten foundations lead to an unstable structure. The transformation lead exits and the truth boils up from underneath. Middle managers show consultants risk profiles and quality reports questioning both solution design and benefits realisation. If the number is big enough, the CEO exits