When we start a (change) process with our clients, there are a number of elements that are very important. Issues such as a clear distribution of roles, tight management, clear interests and a realistic timeline. Why? And how do we approach this at Summiteers? Dolf L'Ortye and Paul van Bekkum explain it.

‍

Clear division of roles

First of all, it is important that people know what is expected of them. This applies to our customer's employees, including the client, but also to our advisors. In our working groups - which usually consist of around four people - there is always one person responsible and the point of contact. Working from explicit roles is very pleasant because it offers guidance.

Paul: “We direct the things that come out of the group very tightly: who gets to think about what? Who has a mandate to agree on something, allocate a budget or determine capacity? It is also important that the division of roles and the process are seamlessly linked. If you don't do this properly, you'll lose a lot of time. We sometimes see that something has been delivered but has not been adequately coordinated. Progress then stagnates. In the worst case, you have to start again.”

‍

Tight direction

Summiteers are often the director of the entire process. Like a director of a movie or play, we put people in roles. In that world, too, of course, you have to take the time to understand and be able to play your role. The same applies to our processes. During the direction, we ensure that we speak to everyone in detail. By involving people, they know what plans and ideas are on the table and the decision-making process runs more smoothly.

Dolf: “That direction often comes down to small things. It almost always comes down to giving people the space to be heard from a role. Sometimes a decision is made just a little too quickly and not everyone was (sufficiently) involved. That is why we let people tell you everything they want to say in advance, so that it can be discussed before implementation. This does not mean that action is always taken. We discuss all the arguments together and in the end, almost always the client chooses.”

‍

Different interests

You always have to deal with different interests. For example, an IT manager has an interest in a stable platform and few changes, while an operational manager has an interest in happy customer contacts and may therefore often request adjustments to an application. What we do is to identify, understand and explain those interests very well. People are well aware that even in one organization, the interests are not always in line. Just speak it out to each other. By doing this, we know in advance where people will be talking in a meeting. not is going to agree.

Paul: “People are quite willing to compromise and take a step in the right direction. We facilitate this. We continuously look at the content and the process from the point of view: what do you need to do to bring the two together? It involves different opinions, perspectives, scenarios and interests. Here we also explain very explicitly what each opinion is worth. Sometimes one opinion is worth more than the other. That's not bad at all if you just make that clear beforehand.”

In short: what exactly is expected of you? We help our clients to clearly identify this. The third pillar of our 'behavior' proposition is extremely important here. After all, it's people in their professional context that we work with.

‍

Real timeline

A final element related to the above is an easy-to-implement plan of the “how”. Paul: “There is almost always an overestimation of what you can do in a certain period of time and an underestimation of how much work it is. I keep finding that fascinating. People often know this well, but the deadline still stands. Many people are used to just starting somewhere and seeing where the ship is stranded. But we know from experience what steps need to be taken and that just starting rarely leads to effectiveness.”

Dolf: “What also happens sometimes is that the deadline is holy. Sometimes deadlines are set without any substantiation. Someone - usually a little higher up the tree - calls a date without knowledge of what needs to be done. The employees know very well that it is not feasible, but that signal does not go up. This leads to unnecessary frustration and expectations from people. What's wrong with a real timeline, would you think?”

‍

Can we help you?

We create movement, make something complex understandable, something big manageable, a (vague) idea concrete and make something difficult succeed. Can you use help with this? Get in touch with us.

‍