Mission Crop

Mark Aikman • July 29, 2020

When business transformation becomes IT upgrade

We all start out with good intentions and an ambitious vision – to transform the organisation with IT at the heart of that transformation.

But such well-laid plans are very susceptible to mission creep. It’s all too easy for people to lose sight of the vision when faced with the scale of the transformation task and the non-negotiable deadlines. It’s easy to tip into the world of mission crop, where big ambitions are not realised and return on the investment is not truly achieved. So how do you stop mission minimisation? My suggestions are:


Inspire the business

Most people in most organisations don’t really want to change. Change requires hard work and risk. So culturally, most organisations will find every opportunity to stay exactly the same. If the business is not inspired by the possibilities that come with the proposed change, it will seek comfort-zone solutions – methods and mechanics that keep its world just about the same as it always was. No horizons will be widened.

So everyone in the business first needs to be inspired by the benefits and possibilities that the change will bring. That’s not just the role of the CEO or the Programme Leader. Everyone in IT can play a part in enthusing colleagues about the opportunities ahead. The CIO needs to inspire her team to be inspiring.

Without buy-in from the business, and people willing to run with the new technology to improve the business and innovate further, you will simply have refreshed the IT.


Be a disruptor

In IT, we’ve spent a long time in that windowless office on the eighth floor. We’re used to waiting to be asked to get involved, usually to facilitate or implement other people’s ideas for innovation. Maybe we’re still not really used to exploiting our potential for taking a leadership role in the business. This can sometimes make us a little too passive. And so when colleagues press for familiar-as-possible solutions, we don’t yet have the habit of challenging them.

Making that challenge will be uncomfortable - for everyone involved. Organisations can be perfectly fine with change itself being uncomfortable: indeed, “disruption” has changed from a negative to a positive concept in the last few years in most corporate lexicons. However, they can be less accepting of an IT team and its leader becoming disruptive. For four decades, IT have been compliant facilitators of the organisation’s wishes. IT bursting out of the cupboard under the stairs like Vin Diesel may come as something of a shock.

But if the transformation programme is to succeed in full, IT will have to speak up, be persuasive and put its collective foot down. That means being recognised for your leadership and not easily pushed back into that cupboard.

My best tip here is for CIOs to use some communications coaching before the programme begins. It’s extremely difficult to regain your voice after you’ve been drowned out, so coaching helps you speak out loudly and convincingly from the start.


Do what’s right: not what’s easy

During the build, everyone in IT is of course under enormous pressure. Deadlines are pressing and not negotiable and there is always far more to do than we anticipated at the start. It therefore becomes very tempting to use quick and easy solutions. Expedient shortcuts can result in all kinds of long-term disappointments, from reduced functionality and lost opportunities to lack of metrics and restrictions on further innovation.

I would recommend that the litmus test for solutions that save development time is just one question: “It’s easy: but is it right?” If the solution fulfils the aims of the Programme, then it’s perfect. But if it’s expedient but doesn’t deliver the programme’s potential – then it’s a false (time) economy and it’s never right. It’s just an upgrade. Your aim here is to stop your role in project leadership – i.e. delivering the vision – becoming project management, which is simply delivering a solution.


Do NOT plan to fix it later

Again, those looming deadlines are the enemy of fully achieving our vision. We all know how the argument goes: we know we meant to have that feature ready for go-live but it’s proved tricky. So we agree to launch without it and retrofit it later. The IT will be upgraded at launch, but only part-way to what could have been.

In my experience, in reality people rarely go back and fix it later. They are overtaken by events. Other snags arise and take up time – or even other opportunities arise and catch our magpie-eyes. Users quickly get used to the upgrade – after all, it’s better than what went before – and don’t demand the solution they might have had.

I think the only way of avoiding delayed functionality – and therefore a sub-optimal solution at launch – is to identify in the project plan which features are absolutely non-negotiable if we are to meet the business objectives of the programme. These are therefore always priority developments and must always be fully functional at launch.


Challenge collective self-deception

Finally, the greatest enemy of achieving the full ambition of the programme is a very interesting psychological one. It usually manifests when someone in the C-suite suggests that they are beginning to sense that this organisation is not quite ready for such a profound change as the one we’ve been proposing. When this happens, it is often met with a chorus of approval. Frankly, I think that’s because it lets everyone else off the hook – there’ll be no need for the discomfort of change or risk if the transformation can be labelled as not quite right for the business at the moment. The comforting arms of business-as-usual beckon.

This collective self-deception is based on the worrying assumption that this transformation is about THIS organisation. But it almost never is. It’s bigger than just us. Transformation is almost always necessary because of this organisation’s place in its market . So if anyone else in your market or area of operation is already implementing the content of your transformation, your organisation needs to do it too. And quickly.

You will always need to challenge the introspection of “are we really ready for this?” with “folks: we have no choice”.

May 9, 2025
Many companies initially believe they can handle complex ERP implementations internally. After all, who knows their business better? Grant du Preez of Ignition Transformation looks at what to consider before deciding to go it alone: and he’s a guy who’s seen all the elephant-traps. He advises:  Don’t underestimate how complicated it will be Enterprise Resource Planning implementations are challenging under normal circumstances. When layered onto major business transformations like carve-outs or mergers, they become exponentially more complex. These scenarios introduce unique challenges, such as: · Multiple legacy systems that must be harmonised · Interdependent business processes needing careful redesign · Data migration requiring deep technical expertise · Compressed timelines driven by business imperatives · Organisational resistance amid broader change And all that is needed simultaneously… At best you might see missed business opportunities if you can’t make the speed: at worst, you’ll spend too much or possibly even see a failed implementation. Remember Transition Service Agreements (TSAs) are real rules TSAs present some of the most significant challenges during carve-outs and acquisitions. These agreements typically impose strict and legally-binding deadlines for transitioning from parent company systems. There are substantial financial penalties for delays. Hard cash. To work within TSAs, you will need: · Proven strategies for meeting TSA deadlines · Templates for identifying and prioritising critical path items · Tactics for negotiating more favourable terms when necessary · Experience balancing short-term TSA requirements with long-term system needs It’s a Matterhorn-steep learning curve if you haven’t done it before. Make sure you have just one source of truth During business transformations, competing narratives inevitably emerge. Typically, there are strands on requirements, data structures, and implementation approaches. It soon becomes 3D chess. You will need to establish what we call a "single source of truth" – authoritative references for decisions that prevent revisiting settled issues. This includes: · Documented design decisions with clear ownership · Master data governance frameworks · Process models validated by business owners · Requirements traceability matrices Without this discipline, projects often circle Heathrow, cycling through the same decisions repeatedly, wasting valuable time and resources. You need to know what’s going on You will need complete transparency across all aspects of an ERP programme. Every day, you have to be in a position to give your stakeholders an unvarnished view of: · Project status against critical milestones · Resource allocation and utilisation · Emerging risks and mitigation strategies · Budget consumption and projections This transparency creates accountability and enables early intervention when issues arise. But it can’t be a hefty administrative burden that slows progress. Get the top corridor on board You will need to secure the right level of commitment from organisational leadership and key stakeholders. You will have to be clear about the specific involvement needed at different stages. Most importantly, you will need to be listened-to when you communicate these needs to busy executives. Executive steering committees, dedicated business process owners and carefully structured sign-off procedures will help ensure decisions are made by the right people at the right time. Without this orchestration, ERP implementations often stall waiting for critical decisions or proceed with insufficient business input. Remember DIY may only LOOK like the cheaper option Whilst engaging experienced consultants requires investment, the return is substantial. Looking at dozens of implementations we've led or observed, those with experienced consultants consistently: · Complete on time or with minimal delays · Stay closer to budgeted costs · Deliver more of the promised business benefits · Create less disruption to ongoing operations Organisations embarking on ERP transformations during carve-outs, mergers, or other significant business changes face a choice: invest in experienced guidance upfront or pay far more in delays, overruns, and missed opportunities later. DIY-er, beware!
May 7, 2025
Five questions to ask providers of business transformation programmes
By Mark Aikman November 7, 2022
How to write reports that busy people will read
By Mark Aikman March 7, 2022
Thanks to our good friends at Future Processing for inviting us to make a guest appearance! On their blog, I've shared some ideas about what to consider in order to get best-fit suppliers: https://www.future-processing.com/blog/selecting-a-supplier-natural-selection/
By Mark Aikman October 19, 2021
IT's supplier relationship need to stop using the master-servant model. Partnership gets more done - and to a much higher standard.
By Sharon Gregory September 7, 2021
Ideas for analysing and dealing with resistance to change in transformation programmes
By Mark Aikman August 10, 2021
Considerations when transitioning from development to BAU
By Mark Aikman July 20, 2021
Support for surviving and thriving after the pandemic from Ignition Transformation
By Mark Aikman July 8, 2021
Three different leadership styles to steer you through a crisis
By Mark Aikman July 1, 2021
How to have better and/or fewer meetings
Show More