Multi-step models for managing change have been adopted by most companies today. Still, teams struggle to lead their initiatives in a way that falls into the “30% that succeed” and even when projects are “complete” and progress more effectively than in the company’s past efforts, the company fails to realize the intended benefits. One quick way to identify where things fell short is to examine where time and effort were allocated throughout the execution of the change process.
It doesn’t matter how you define value. That definition is actually worth a bucket of crap (I missed that one). But I digress and will come back to that question later. Let me address the other part of my title first by asking you a hypothetical question.
Since this is the beginning of a long holiday weekend, we thought we would delay our really serious blog post that we had planned (Feces!! Dookie!! Scheisse!! How Do You Define Value?) and send you something humorous.
As evidenced by recent articles in CIO Magazine, the conversations about IT have moved past merely worrying about alignment and have morphed into programs and discussions of how best to provide business value. This makes the discussion more concrete and useful but one could argue that it hasn’t moved us much closer to solving the underlying problems of properly identifying and driving towards true value to the business.
Tapping into a higher value dimension requires adopting a new mindset, utilizing new skills, and executing new habits. The Mpower Group’s value approach is to shift the supplier relationship to where there are enough rewards from success to thoroughly share the spoils.
While Covey’s seven habits are meritorious, not following them inhibits greatness. In that spirit we present Seven Habits of Highly Dangerous Suppliers.