Integration between change and project management disciplines
With thanks To Ron Leeman for pointing me towards this interesting piece of research. A couple of things strike me when reading this:
The difference in focus on output (for PMs) and outcomes (for CMs) is a little simplistic, however:
1) it’s true that there is a tendency in particular in the functional qualifications to focus a little too much on the industry of producing artefacts but generally PMs understand that the outcome of the project they’re managing is critical to getting the next one
2) In an effort to replicate the methodological nature of PM work these days, CM disciplines have also become a little hide bound around methodology which perhaps detracts from a more instinctive, culturally aware approach which is relevant to the company where the project is taking place
The really interesting thing for me however is the challenge around knowledge sharing. I suspect this has more to do with what type of knowledge is seen as valuable in the two disciplines, ie highly quantitative, data and fact based information which PMs tend to require for their reporting requirements, and a much more qualitative, story based information set for CMs.
Your thoughts?
- The role of a global function…adding value or merely cost?
- Telling the truth or giving a public opinion…a political minefield!
Categories: Change management, Complex transformation, Consulting, Project Management, psychology, Transformation
Tags: Behavioural change, change management, Collective behaviour, communications, Complexity, Qualitative evidence, Quantitative evidence, Story telling
Inarticulate ramblings of a management consultant 