Most implementations of digital projects fail for AT LEAST 1 of these 3 reasons

What if I told you I rarely find a failed modern digital implementation that is not due to one of three straightforward reasons? And that none of those reasons were insufficient planning? Well, I'm not going to give you the three just yet (unless you cheat and scroll down), because I'd first like to go back to 'first principles'.

The huge complexity shift we've largely not acknowledged

Implementing digital projects can be incredibly hard, and we've all seen the stats and headlines on failure. However, whilst there are always lots of reasons why projects are cited as failing, the answer, and then the reasons for this happening are actually quite simple.

Most modern change projects, especially of a digital nature, are failing because we're failing to fundamentally understand complexity, and the fact that modern projects are hugely more complex than they used to be.

Back in the day, most projects, even IT projects would be about rules based systems, and the human change would be around adherence to those rules. Whilst they still went wrong because it's very hard to make people do things, the centre of gravity was more mechanical, and there were less elements where deviation would occur and where many factors would be inherently unknown or unpredictable. Things were more complicated.

However, if you look at most contemporary change projects, they will usually be more complex, for example seeking to try new approaches to working, or implementing digital technologies that are more flexible, open and adaptable.

Whilst in the past the mantra that failing to plan was planning to fail, we have now undergone, and are continuing to undergo, a seismic shift where success is less about planning, and more about safely and consciously exploring work in the domain of human actions, patterns, cultures, emotions and behaviours. All of which are challenging to predict and know in advance.

The reasons that planning isn't what it used to be are two-fold:

1. With humans ad human systems there are things that we don’t see, address or discuss (the unseen), that wouldn't be known, acknowledged or possible to capture in a discovery. For example, a culture of mistrust.
2. With humans when things change, unintended consequences can happen (the unintended), such as personal or collective feelings, circumstances and generally the fact that there are so many moving parts in the modern world, so lots of unpredictable things can happen.

Now it doesn't mean that we shouldn't still comprehensively plan for things that are complicated, but that we need to first explore and acknowledge, what is actually complicated and that we should plan for, and what is complex and needs to, as much as possible, explore, sense and respond to in real time.

Before I get into the three reasons why projects fail, or conversely why complex projects succeed, the biggest reason is that we treat everything, including emotional and complex humans as inherently predictable and gantt chart-able. They're not.

The three success / failure factors in human change

I find that armed with this knowledge, most people feel that human change is hard, or even impossible. I think what they're actually saying is that it's not convenient or controllable, which is hard for them and threatens their perceived expertise or role.

Human change isn't impossible. Humans are the most adaptable entities in the known universe, or maybe after pigeons and seagulls. But like pigeons and seagulls, if they don't want to do what you want them to do, they're also very difficult to drag into behaving (or working) differently.

In my experience, in my research and in my many discussions with others it comes down to three things: value / necessity; safety; participation. Conversely great implementations are great because they've nailed these three areas or circumstances have occurred to satisfy these three areas.

Value and / or necessity

Very few strategies or communications on change I see actually take the time to really explain WHY; even fewer are genuinely informed by properly testing and working with, and listening to those who the change will be done to. So if there isn't a genuinely compelling reason for people to take the time and experience the difficulties of changing the way they work, then why would they support it, or even do it?

In most public services, staff I've worked with have experiences decades of change, and of IT implementations that have not gone well. The first thing I ever have to do when engaging with people around digital is acknowledge and address this, and that the onus is on me (or us) to justify the change to the members of their service. Often I see nurses protectively holding their physical notepads, staff carefully confessing that they're still using the old tool and use the new tool to pay lip service, and sometimes a wall of silence. There are many reasons in organisations on why this is the case, but often they weren't sufficiently convinced of the value or need for change - and by need I DO NOT mean because someone in authority declared it a necessity.

So if we don't justify why things will (or could) be better in a project or strategy for those affected, then the work or implementation will likely meet conflict, inertia or being outright ignored. Whenever I support organisations with building a digital strategy (or rescuing one that didn't go down well). I start with why - and help those inside the organisation to test whether those why statements are well received with staff. Actually every project starts with different forms of why - otherwise it's not genuinely justifiable.

Safety

There are many layers of safety that I won't cover in huge detail, but if a service is pushed into a change and they don't know if the thing or new state will allow them to do their work safely, you're not going to get support. They may feel that the thing or new state hasn't been tested enough for their circumstances or that there is something different or unique about them that is different from other groups who are being asked to change. They may not fully understand what it is that's going to happen, what they're supposed to do, what the new reality will look and feel like.

Consider the emotional pressure for a team who have gaps in multiple areas I've described above. When working with health services I've seen and responded to how much of an upsetting experience shifting to something that feels unsafe can be personally for staff and on behalf of their users. Often, if unaddressed, this can lead to the group going on a mission to prove why it won't work for them and fighting the requirement for them to do it. This usually manifests in half completed implementations where some have felt safe enough and the others keep pushing back until they get to stay in the legacy state.

A big factor in this can be cultural psychological safety, where individuals or groups do not feel they can safely question or challenge things, leaving concerns hidden and unaddressed, and everyone unhappy. If people do not feel safe but are unable to express this, inertia can kick in, good people can leave or change happens begrudgingly but with substandard or patchy results.

Finally we need to recognise that changing state isn't one phase but a series of phases, or as Rich Watkins outlines in his 'Change Loop' four phases where people can feel safely rooted in the difficult experience of change. I often refer to his model, eloquently explained in his video below, when teams are feeling worried or discombobulated before or during a change experience. Check it out below:

When I work with teams preparing for a change, two critical activities I try to achieve is addressing an authentic agreement so people feel that they have all the details to properly evaluate how safe the change is - detailed below:

The second thing I then try to achieve is building a safety net, and discussion about what occurrences or events are OK, normal and acceptable, and which ones would require support, intervention or a fall back.

I've found that along with ensuring people can safely speak, addressing these factors can help dramatically improve the feeling of safety. I have some other things I might add in a future article to build 'change assets' that improve the collective feeling of safety (if this article gets enough likes to warrant it 😉).

Participation

Now if you're doing the above two badly then you're likely doing this one badly too. Or glass half full, if you're doing it well then your approach is naturally going to be participatory.

People don't like things done to them. Period.

Humans have a great capacity and natural tendency to change. But people, very much including myself, do not like having to undergo a change that they have no ability to influence or participate in. There's a well versed phrase: 'do it through them, not to them' that we often forget because of deadlines and timescales, or when we give it to some programme team who do not understand the context. But the best form of innovation or change is when we combine our knowledge of something new - such as a digital system - with our knowledge of the context where it is being applied - such as a service. So many avoidable failures occur because nuances, complexities, details, requirements etc. are missed in planning, and the solution doesn't fit, partly fits or is an outright failure. This is where people wrongly conclude that the failure was down to insufficient planning.

However, when giving agency and empowerment to those who 'own the context (s)' happens, something very different happens: things go much better. Pivots may need to happen, and up front planning may be less Gantt charty, but those involved are more likely to see or help define and prove the value, feel safer in the partnership, and... dare I say be enthusiastic and raring to help make it successful. I've seen this kind of change, I've facilitated and supported this kind of change, and I can categorically say that the failure that occurs is the positive, informative version (with a small 'f') that helps people learn.

If we make people subject to change, it will manifest as a constant battle, but if we can help them own and be supported through the change as active participants, then surprisingly good things can happen.

Telling this story through the collective case study of change in 2020

We often talk of the great progress that happened in 2020, in response to the pandemic through the lens of personal and collective stories. But I would like to apply the above three factors to the change that we - maybe you yourself - experienced.

In March 2020, a lot of change had to happen very quickly, and of a complex and human nature - working or operational models had to change within days, behaviours had to change, people had to adopt new digital tools and embrace lots of change. So why did they do it, with little resistance, often much enthusiasm and energy, and whilst changes happened in time sensitive, imperfect times: a lot of changes were broadly successful.

Firstly, the immediate challenges created a strong necessity for change, movement was restricted, businesses needed to survive, public services needed to be delivered, and therefore value was defined by this necessity. Secondly, doing nothing immediately became unsafe, and the perception of safety in change was immediately different.

Finally, there wasn't time for central teams to plan and then deliver everything (those who tried this found themselves in a huge mess and experiencing internal unrest), and the amount of immediate human change was massive. Therefore, individual services and teams were given significant agency and empowerment to lead their own change. In other words participation was very high.

Whilst citing such an extreme set of circumstances could feel irrelevant to your day-to-day change, my many other observations and experiences have confirmed to me that these three areas are relevant to any forms of complex or human change. The above may not be rocket science, but it shocks me how quickly organisations quickly reverted to change approaches that does not take these three into consideration.

Given that, particularly in public services, we still find ourselves in challenging and dramatic times, if we do not start to rethink how we understand, and then approach, change, we're not going to be able to meet these ongoing challenges, when the cost of failure is so high.

If you're planning for or undergoing complex change in your organisation, and this article has resonated, I offer training and / or mentorship, with much greater detail on evolving and improving how you change. Drop me a DM or email liam@togetherdigital.co for a chat.

----------------------------

Liam Cahill is a trusted adviser to frontline providers and national bodies on all things digital, and has mentored and advised some of the best known names in healthtech. He regularly posts content, ideas and advice on LinkedIn. Check out his other numerous articles and videos here, and LinkedIn newsletter here.

Recent relevant reads: 

• Seven mistakes that healthtech companies make when looking to work with the NHS and what to do differently
• Why most healthtech websites & materials are woeful and some tips on getting it right