Challenge:

Our organisation has centralised our analytical teams to create a resource of 250+ analysts. This is  significant for a number of reasons including:

1. It is the biggest pool of analytical resource the company has ever had in one place, with a

wide range of skills & experience available in this pool.

2. Colleagues and leaders have come from varied working practices & cultures including many

new employees

3. Demand for these services has never been higher, from more stakeholders than before and

there is a requirement on us to be transparent on how we deploy these resources on the  most impactful projects.

4. With the creation of the new ‘centre of excellence’ we are also implementing a new

organisational structure with material changes to the way people work.

My role is to lead the creation of a centralised process to collect, consolidate, review and prioritise  project demand across all our teams. This information is then matched to colleagues based on their  skills, knowledge & preferences.  So my challenge isn’t just process – it impacts our colleagues (at a  time of personal change), our clients (at a time of extreme stress, increased by COVID) and internally  we are under pressure to demonstrate that the centralised model adds more value to the  organisation.

Selection:

I have used mind mapping to collect & organise views, concerns, fears, opportunities from a wide  range of individuals in relation to the process of processing demand and finding the optimum  resource. Collecting fresh feedback and engaging in this way was important for a number of reasons.

1. I had experience of running a similar process – with limited success – in a previous role and

as a result had a view (or bias) of what worked/what didn’t work. The issue was that this  view was taken from a different time, using a different operating model and with a much  smaller team.

2. For a number of reasons my focus had been on process rather than colleagues. It is obvious

now, but one cannot work without the other.

3. Having direct and recent feedback would give me credibility with others that I needed to

‘win over’.

Application:

I have held separate sessions with different teams and forums to get a cross-function view of what  people see as the key issues. This has included various levels of corporate grade and experience. The  sessions would collect any thoughts around what was important for colleagues on the topic of  projects. This was not limited to any topic so that we could collect a range of ideas, concerns,  misunderstanding, likes/dislikes etc.

After all the sessions we took the documented outputs from sessions and with colleagues sorted  through these to pick out the “good stuff” and add extra points based on our own experience. On  these new insights we could start to re-group ideas and show dependences/connections.

What became clear – through above - was that my early thoughts on design criteria (based around  ease and transparency of process) was too narrow.

Insight:

The overarching theme was that while process and transparency were important, client and  colleague perspectives needed much greater attention. The key insights that emerged (or were  developed) were as follows.

1. Ease of Process (existing design criteria, expanded). Colleagues – of course – wanted as

simple a process as possible including easy to use applications, intuitive processes and  definitions. However, there is much more willingness to expand the process in certain areas  if it helped managers manage their own teams, articulate difficult decisions, manage  stakeholders etc. If this was consistently employed across our new function it would be very  powerful.

2. Transparency (existing design criteria, expanded). What became clear was that very, very

few people understood that any process existed at all. Even if data was sparse it would be  better to share – rather than embargo – what was being discussed so that colleagues could  engage, agree/disagree with process.

3. Supporting Colleague (new design criteria). What was obvious that this was not just about

process. It should be supporting colleague experience and development at all times. If well  executed it would build trust, empathy, confidence in what we are collectively trying to  achieve. That we don’t always get it right is OK, as long as we learn and are considering  impact on those the decisions impact most i.e. the analyst community.

4. Client focus (new design criteria). There was a lot of comments re making sure that

colleagues understood the client landscape better. This included the senior leadership team,  those managing day to day demand, those running the demand/resourcing process and  wider analyst population. This wasn’t just about knowing what was going in your own silo,  but having an awareness of what was going on in other parts of the team. Colleagues were  interested and that could drive innovation, mobility, engagement. The other point was that  the ‘process’ colleagues need to have focus on ‘softer’ skills, partnering with those in front  line.

Approach:

I believe the tool selection remains correct as it has driven fresh insights and when we are bringing  lots of new people, cultures, processes together it seems to work well. In terms of what I would do  differently there are a few areas I will be considering.

1. Timing. The collection of ideas has been quite spread out over time, which has led to a

longer period to come to the above conclusions. So the techniques were used but they could  have been much more structure and earlier in the programme of work is. The focus/pressure  was ‘to get something in place’ and I think that has led to some wasted opportunities, some  misunderstandings.

2. Audiences. Engaging with all colleagues earlier would have also been helpful. Focus at the

beginning was mostly with senior leadership as pace was fast and there didn’t seem like time  to discuss/reflect/review when the opposite should have been true. This was a personal  decision but one that should have been tackled (by me).

3. Design Team. Related to Audiences (above), it would have been better to create a small

design team to test ideas more especially if we had followed a more structured approach  with wider engagement as described above. This has happened as we have developed the

programme but this could have been put in place at very outset so have wider diversity of  thought.

