Projects create lasting change at an organization. Long after the final debrief, the stakeholders impacted by the project will have to live with the results. Their jobs may change. The arc of their careers may be altered. Who they report to or how decisions are made may be impacted. External to the organization, partners may have new roles and responsibilities or cease working with the organization altogether.
In this post we will put take a human resources perspective and look at how a project impacts people’s lives. We will consider early work that can integrate project outcomes into job performance, set new professional development paths, evaluate the organization structure, and realign vendor roles and responsibilities as needed.
As we have said many times, project responsibilities have a way of greatly exceeding the narrow mandate of the project itself or the role of a project manager. Our goal here is to illustrate some of the key points that you as a project manager may need to elevate through the project governance structure.
1. Job performance integration
Our focus on user adoption often centers on meeting staff where they are now and coaching them through the changes. We run open and engaging processes to gain their buy-in. We learn from staff through discovery and design sessions. We map existing business processes and describe how those processes will be transformed in the new system. The active project should effectively engage individual staff and build their investment in the future system.
There is a tangible impact on the day-to-day activities among staff that will endure long after the project is done. Early in the project, management should consider how this project could impact job descriptions. Management should also consider how the effects of the process will be integrated into job performance goals or measurements.
Major gift officers may see an addition to their job performance to include 100% of their prospects into the new pipeline management tool. A direct marketing manager may now be responsible for generating performance reports from the new fundraising CRM. Finance staff may be responsible for reconciling against the new CRM (either generally or as a sub-ledger). These additions are important as they will reinforce adoption by adding a layer of accountability to staff.
2. Chart new professional development paths
New systems or technology are likely to move people to new professional development tracks. This is felt most acutely within the project as pre-testing training, documentation and end-user training provide the staff with a lot of skill-building opportunities. The challenge is ensuring that this skill-building continues as the project recedes and your organization moves to an operational state.
We recommend that professional development paths be an early conversation in the project and potentially even be included as system selection criteria. Narrowly adopted or proprietary systems provide limited professional development opportunities. More widely adopted solutions, conversely, may be highly desirable to your staff… and may also lead to their finding work elsewhere. Regardless of the solutions, the key takeaway is that your organization should consider the long-term development of your staff and how the systems changes will affect their lives after the project has concluded.
3. Revisit organization structure
Often a major project will warrant re-evaluating the organization structure more broadly. Roles that were brought together within the legacy system may now be separated across multiple applications. The support model for the new system may shift towards the vendor (or, in a cloud-based application may disappear altogether). Significant shifts in strategy enabled through the new system may be cause for reconsidering ownership.
There is a much larger discussion to be had here. For the purposes of this post, a past project example might help:
An organization was on a legacy fundraising system hosted on local servers. The system had a heavy emphasis on accounting and financial management. The system was co-owned by Finance and Information Technology (IT), as they were the business owners most responsible for day-to-day operations. From the perspective of Development, the system was a back-office function but not directly useful in generating revenue.
This organization was moving to a cloud-based fundraising system. In the new system, the traditional IT oversight was no longer needed as network administration disappeared and other support functions were significantly streamlined. Many of the financial functions would shift to the General Ledger. The new system would primarily serve to put fundraising tools and metrics in the hands of fundraisers.
In this example, the organization did not necessarily have to replace staff. Many could be cross-trained. A modest re-organization could ensure Development operations needs were met in the future by transitioning IT resources into Development support, while overall ownership would transition to Development.
4. Realign partner roles and responsibilities
For many organizations, there is only a small distinction between partners and staff. We scale through partners. We depend on our partners’ specialized skills and expertise to help us hit revenue targets. Partners earn trust over an extended period of time. While they might be outside the organization, they can closely resemble staff, with similar human resources dynamics.
Partnerships are often deeply connected to the systems in place. A partner might deliver both tools and the services that apply the tools. Replacing the tool may mean replacing the services. In such a case, tool selection criteria should include the managed services components.
It is also very common that partner services have been built to fill gaps – to make possible your work despite a limited tool set. Once you have identified a more robust tool set, there is a clear need to reevaluate the partner relationship. Where possible, avoid renewal of services agreements in advance of a project. Sit down with your partner, describe project outcomes, and ask they provide a modified services agreement that will best leverage change. Most importantly, ask that they be open to change and – in the interest of continued partnership – that they embrace what life will look like after the transition.
Summary & Conclusion
There is nothing easy navigating the human resources impact of a project. While the emphasis might be on tools and technology, the outcomes and impacts are felt directly by real people. It is only through careful analysis and understanding that we can appreciate how the project affects our staff and partners. We should consider how this project affects their job descriptions and how it will affect their professional development in the years ahead. We should understand and appreciate how the organization structure can best support our staff in best using the new system. And, we should be prepared to realign our partners to the achieve the greatest effect.