DCMOC

Managing the consequences

January 22, 2009 | Filed under: Uncategorized

Some watch words that have been presented with Capella’s strategic objective and focus areas for 2009 are “fast, flexible and bold.” These words refer to us being quick to respond to market changes and able to take bold steps in new directions when needed. While I see the competitive advantage, it’s a concept that makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I’ve always felt that if we allow enough time to analyze our options adequately and take into account contingencies that may arise, we can make a solid decision that has the greatest chance of success. Jeffrey Pfeffer presents a differing perspective in his article Understanding Power in Organizations (California Management Review, Winter 1992) that makes a lot of sense to me. He makes the points that no matter how well you analyze a decision there is no way of knowing that it will be a success until it is implemented and that we inevitably spend more time dealing with the consequences of our decisions than we do making them no matter how well they’re analyzed initially. Decisions made in a corporate environment (and in life) are rarely final and unchangeable. We will always be changing and adapting based on the results of previous decisions that were implemented. If you accept this as true, then it makes sense to put somewhat less emphasis on the actual decision and more emphasis on how to adapt once consequences are learned.

How does this apply to what we do in CMOC? We’re constantly working on developing new technologies and tools to improve the user experience with our web sites whether those users are learners, faculty or staff. Technology is a fast-moving, ever-changing arena and to be competitive we must keep up with the market. We need to give ourselves permission to move quickly – and possibly fail – without attaching blame. As Pfeffer notes, there will always be unintended consequences that occur. What is ultimately more important is our ability to respond to these consequences and turn failure into success.

Naturally, there still must be some thought around deciding what new technologies to go with. Maybe it’s a matter of identifying a handful of critical points that must be considered rather than trying to answer every possible question. I’m not sure exactly what those points are – and maybe they will be different for different projects – but I have a few that I’d like to see on that list. First, we should be able to clearly state the value that this tool adds for our target audience(s) clarifying why we should use this technology. We should also be able to identify and sequence the steps needed to implement the technology, bringing in other groups as needed. Third, we should create a communication/marketing plan for end users. Just because we can see the value of the tool doesn’t mean that it will be apparent to end users. Much of the success of the technologies we implement rests with adoption by end users. This is also our primary channel for getting data we can use to adapt, which brings me to my final point that we need to have defined a strategy to adequately support and grow the tool. Without this final step, the new tool is likely to die on the vine and then we will truly have failed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.