Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) - Change by Design: How universities should design change initiatives for success

The report was written by Paul Woodgates, a former partner at PA Consulting, an independent strategic adviser to the education sector, a university governor and a non-executive director of Advance HE. He argues that in the pursuit of change, giving more consideration to the journey, as well as the destination, can increase the prospects of success. His points focus on the means by which the change from the status quo to the new arrangements will be accomplished, looking at the case for change, why change is so hard, designing a scheme for change, the delivery model and what success looks like.

At-a-glance:

• Drivers of change in universities include a new strategy or market positioning, government policy or regulation, the need for efficiencies, external events, managerial innovation and technological opportunities (p7)
• Change is hard because there are competing views and angles about the need for change and how it should be done. Lack of a clearly articulated case and vision, poor/unrealistic planning, lack of prioritisation, over optimism and poor governance can be some of the issues (p10)
• A Scheme for Change must broadly answer five questions: Why is the change necessary?  What will replace the status quo? How will the move from the status quo to the future state be achieved? What change delivery model will be employed? What would success look like?
• Reviews of projects that have not delivered as anticipated cite the lack of an agreed case for change as a cause. The case for change should be discussed and agreed among the sponsoring leaders, the team that will be responsible for delivery, and those impacted by the change. This means identifying the root causes of current problems (not just the symptoms) and being able to set out what the impacts of those problems are (p17)
• Communications experts should think about how best to take the case for change to the university (being aware that different elements of the case for change may resonate with different groups). Written documents, information cascades, roadshows, websites and videos can all be useful (p18)
• When considering what will replace the status quo, it is best to define the future state in terms of outcomes rather than detailed inputs, especially where the change will rely on an external procurement (p19)
• The means by which change will be delivered, and what change delivery model will be used, are often the elements of the process that are neglected most, are not subject to specific decision making or left to junior staff (p20)
• The paper proposes a “change logic” approach which sets out logical steps, which could include feedback loops, testing, user engagement, training and a list of potential threats to the validity of the change logic (assumptions made, uncertainties, dependencies on external factors etc) (p22)
• The need to establish how the change will be managed is critical eg the pace of the project, top-down or bottom-up, who needs to be involved, staffing and capability to deliver the change (p26)
• In project management terms, the idea of focusing on short-term achievable aims rather than nebulous distant goals has gained traction (p29)
• Good project governance requires deliberate decision making. The individuals who make up the steering group/project board must have the right skills for the role, have capacity and authority, receive the information they need and be open and transparent with governance forums. Over-governance can be as much of a problem as under-governance (p31)
• The scheme for change should include a definition of success. It should be a clear statement of how things will be different, and who will experience that difference. Defining this needs to involve senior leaders – in particular those who will, in due course, hold the project to account for its level of success  (p32)
• Successful change is about people and behaviour not just systems and processes. Benefits can be measured empirically, but perception is also key (p33)

Implications for governance:

Universities have a mixed track record of delivering effective change, according to the paper. The specific characteristics of higher education might make successful change harder: for instance governance built for consensus not speed, decentralised control and an overcautious attitude to risk that ends up maintaining the status quo.

But the report’s author argues that the impetus for institutions to change has never been greater, as the world around them changes.

Almost all universities have substantial portfolios of change initiatives, from small projects to schemes labelled ‘transformation’, demonstrating the scale of what is involved. Many have invested in significant capacity and capability to deliver change – creating strategic change teams/offices, devising change implementation methods, bringing in external advisors and appointing senior managers with job titles like “chief transformation officer” or “director of strategic change”.

However, in spite of such investments, there are too many examples of internal change initiatives that have gone wrong, cost too much or generally failed to deliver the promised benefits, the report says. Often, this is because of the steps taken, or not taken, in change delivery rather than the quality of the solution itself.

From a governance perspective, a failure to assure the processes to bring about effective change can have major consequences, not only in the specific domain of the project. Reputation, finances, workload and staff/student relations can all be impacted.

According to the paper, most delivery of change is subject to various shortcomings which impede success. Woodgates recommends what he calls a “scheme for change” to clearly answer five vital questions: Why is the change necessary (he counters talk of “change fatigue” with the notion of “status-quo fatigue” - the stultifying impact of sub-optimal systems)?  What will replace the status quo? How will the move from the status quo to the future state be achieved? What change delivery model will be employed? What would success look like?

The next step is what the author calls a “change logic” approach which focuses in detail on the elements and feedback loops that are needed – by means of helpful flow diagrams – to move through change delivery.

The paper cautions against trying to avoid or overcome all resistance to change. Even after careful consultation and consideration of all viewpoints, resistance is unlikely to be wholly eliminated. Often, a small number of people can be disproportionately vocal. The solution to dealing with resistance is not to seek to eliminate it entirely, but to reach a tipping point so that support for the change is sufficient to outweigh the resistance. Arguing the case and engaging with the debate, particularly among academics, is likely to be the best means of convincing doubters.

All this will be of interest to governors, who are involved in drawing up strategic plans which invariably involve change and who may sit on committees that sign-off projects. Does the university have a sound record on delivering change and if not, how can boards be assured that the approach, processes, and people are in place to make success more likely?

On the issue of governance, the paper warns against confusing “more governance with better governance”. Over-governance can foster the feeling that ‘feeding the governance machine’ takes up more time than delivering the change, it says.

Prioritisation in the face of constraints of time, money and management attention is critical.

The report says: “Good governance should enable this – balancing the demands of competing activities in order to target resources and sequence effort appropriately.”

While information and evidence are critical to assessing the process of change, delivery, and establishing whether the project has met its aims, empirical measurement of success can differ from perceptions.

“Any change endeavour can only succeed if those leading it keep in mind that change is fundamentally about people and behaviour,” cautions the report. “Strategy, processes, systems and rules will be important but will always be trumped by culture, relationships, motivations and perceptions.”