In his book, The Drunkard’s Walk : How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Leonard Mlodinow spends a little time discussing the attack on Pearl harbor. One of the points that he makes regarding the attack is that there were indicators in the behaviour of theJapanese military which, in hindsight, might have served as predictors of the attack. Of course, hindsight is always far more acute than foresight, but it is acute foresight that project chiefs concerned in change implementation have to have at their disposal.
Afrequent problem that plagues change implementation projects is alack of risk oriented planning. The irony is that, in numerous cases, lists have been compiled and consultations have taken place per the potential risks and pitfalls. What never materializes from these lists and discussions are discernible contingency plans to deal with those risks and pitfalls. So, if one is leading a change implementation project or has responsibility for Pearl bay during WWII, what can one do to improve foresight?
One way of improving foresight is to put sensors in place to get the required information before a small problem becomes a killer problem. For the military commander of Pearl bay who is expecting an attack, this may mean assigning somebody to watch changes in radio communication or to look at an embassy for pointers that the embassy is getting ready to close. For the change implementation manager, this implies monitoring information that has a history of showing upcoming risks, inspiring team members to bring even little Problems to your attention, and predicting the worst scenarios that might occur so that a plan will be in place to deal with it.
While no one has perfect foresight, it is possible to improve the chances of a successful change implementation by being open to the chance of disaster. As Louis Pasteur once asserted, Chance favors the prepared mind.
For more information, please see our website: Change Implementation