Evolution not revolution; more haste, less speed; Quality, Cost Time. The mantras around time are endless and reflect our obsession with what is essentially an entirely man-made concept.

In any transformation programme, time, far more than cost or quality (which is virtually impossible to get agreement on amongst stakeholders) becomes the driving force. It is the component that everyone has a comment on, based on personal experience, and it’s the main driver behind the linear delivery plans which occupy our lives. 

In looking at our experience and thinking about influencing factors, time returns again and again. In some cases, it’s the driver for change. When clients talk about regulatory change driven transformation programmes, the number one factor driving the activity is an externally determined deadline with little regard for scope or the complexity of the implementation challenge, ‘ambiguity with urgency’  

When Ky Nichol, CEO at Cutover, talks about the London Olympics and the desktop displays on each person’s desk at the IOC, showing the time ticking down to the actual event on 2012, he’s describing an external deadline with the weight of collective and individual reputations.

When Nick Keppel-Palmer Co-Founder of The Good Growth Company talks to us about a number of Private Equity based transactions, we discuss time and pace on the context of a range of challenges. Here’s how he describes one particular project to use an entirely, very powerful and environmentally friendly fuel source for commercial vehicles:

In this particular business we were doing things that had never been done before. we were trying to work out how to use a fuel stuff that had never been used in a business setting. You didn't know what you didn't know. But the pace of development was actually being dictated by investor impatience at that point. The timeline that you working to is nothing to do with the technology or the requirements. There is a systemic problem with the way that business responds to investment, which is so hardwired that we don’t even question it anymore. “Money comes in, run like hell”.

I am quite keen on that idea that you need different types of people at different times. When we had our crisis, we moved the visionary guy from CEO to Architect. That allowed him to do what he was best at, talking to his vision, his plans whilst leaving the operational aspects to others who were more suited. It’s hard to compromise from what is perfect in your mind to the messy implementation bit…founders fear of success is what I call it.

So is the issue with the investors or with the CEOs?

At a dinner this other the the other day where there were around 16 owners or investors sitting around the table, a lot of them senior and experienced people.  We were talking about where things go wrong.  Some saying CEOs are trying to do the right thing, but investors having ridiculous ambitions or ridiculous expectations. Investors were saying, no it’s the other way around, “…we really want these businesses to do the right thing or to go at the right pace. But for some reason the CEOs aren't getting it and they're running off and trying to build them up as fast as possible. And that's not what we've ever asked for. They're just hardwired to respond like that.”

Where does the challenge around pace materialise most often in the stories around successful transformation? Without question, the answer is the speed of decision making. A recurring theme is the ability for the leadership of an organisation to adjust and adapt its processes to the requirements of the programme such that decisions are made in the right timeframe.

Sincerely,