A colleague asks in response to my post Group change controls:
… deploying a Learning + documentation system … all around the word [as a global deployment] … do we I initiate a GLOBAL CC or does each site created a local CC.
The answer is usually, in my experience, both.
Change management is about process, organization, technology and people. Any change control needs to capture the actions necessary to successful implement the change.
so at implementation I would do two sets of changes. A global to capture all the global level changes and to implement the new (hopefully) harmonized system And then a local change control at each site to capture all the site impact.
||Introduce the new global process
Update all global standards, procedures, etc
|How will local procedures change? How will local system interactions change – clean up all the local procedures to ensure the point to the new global procedures and are harmonized as necessary.
||Computer system validation
Global migration strategy
|Local interfaces (if any) and configurations
Are local technologies being replaced? Plan for decommissioning.
Local migration (tactical)
||What do people do on the global level?
How will people interact within the system in the future?
|What will be different for people at each individual site?
||Will there be new organizational structures in place? Is this system being run out of a global group? How will communication be run.
System governance and change management
|Site organization changes
How will different organizations and sub organizations adopt, adapt and work with the system
If you just have a global change control you are at real risk of missing a ton of local uniqueness and leaving in place a bunch of old ways of thinking and doing things.
If you just do local change controls you will be at risk of not seeing the big picture and getting the full benefits of harmonization. You also will probably have way too many change controls that regurgitate the same content, and then are at risk of divergence – a compliance nightmare.
This structure allows you better capture the diversity of perspectives at the sites. A global change control tends to be dominated by the folks at each site who own the system (all your documents and training folks in this example), while a site change will hopefully include other functions, such as engineering and operations. Trust me, they will have all sorts of impact.
This structure also allows you to have rolling implementations. The global implements when the technology is validated and the core processes are effective. each site then can implement based on their site deliverables. useful when deploying a document management system and you have a lot of migration.
As part of the deployment make sure to think through matters of governance, especially change management. Once deployed it is easy to imagine many changes just needing a central change control. But be sure to have thought through the criteria that will require site change controls – such as impact other interrelated systems, site validation or different implementation dates.
I’ve done a lot of changes and a lot of deployment of systems. This structure has always worked well. I’ve never done just a global and been happy with the final results, they always leave too much unchanged elements behind that come back to haunt you. In the last year I’ve done 2 major changes to great success with this model, and seen one where the decision not to use this model has left us with lots of little messes to clean up.
As a final comment, keep the questions coming and I would love to hear other folks perspectives on these matters. I’m perpetually learning and I know there are lots of permutations to explore.