SHAHBANO KHAN

202147

Share point and the Hard Systems Model of Change

There are two quite interesting models of change which are important to think about when
implementing Share point within organizations. They are brought to us by Barbara Senior and
Joyce Fleming in their book Organizational Change from 2006. These two models are called the
Hard Systems Model of Change and the Soft Systems Model of Change. In this blog the Hard
Systems Model of Change is globally described. In a following up blog the Soft System Model
of Change will be described.
There are a number of models for handling change in situations of hard complexity and the Hard
Systems Model of Change is one of them. Change situations that are characterized by hard
complexity are usually easier to achieve. On the other hand; change situations of soft complexity,
where issues are contentious and there is a high level of emotional involvement among
stakeholders is usually less easy to achieve. We all know that during Share point
implementations these soft factors of change are often well presented. Therefore it is important
to have some knowledge of both models to increase the success of change of Share point
implementations.
In a simplistic form both models can be seen as on one side the hard infrastructure side and
software development part of the Share point implementation and on the other side we have the
human, business and politics oriented side with many more soft factors of change. The hard side
is better to plan and manage where the soft side is very difficult to plan and manage and made
visible. It is often this soft side of change that causes most problems.
The Hard Systems Model of Change is a method for designing and implementing change in
situations that have the characteristic of hard complexity. These are situations where the
problems are understood and agreed by most people. The quantitative criteria can be used to test
options for change. The more simple systems prevail. There is often a unitary ideology of
relationships that prevail. This approach provides a rigorous and systematic way of determining
objectives (goals) for change. The goal setting is followed by the generation of a range of options
for action which can be tested against a set of explicit criteria.
The process involved in the Hard Systems Model of Change can be thought of as falling into
three overlapping phases. The descriptive phase (describing and diagnosing the situation,
understanding what is involved, setting the objectives and performance measures for the change).
Then there is the options phase (thinking about what might be done: generating options for
change, evaluating options and there is the implementation phase (selecting the most appropriate
option, putting feasible plans into practice and monitoring the results).
The reason why this Hard Systems Model of Change is brought forward here in relation to Share
point implementations is the fact that the same things have to be done related to the hard factors
of the changes. When Share point is implemented, then there are things that need to be done in
the infrastructure and on the development side. These things are often well suited to approach in
a planned and systematic manner, whereas the soft side of the Share point implementation is not
well suited for only systematic plans, schematics and metrics. So, Share point implementations
have a hard and a soft side and these sides are possible candidates for the Hard Systems Method

SHAHBANO KHAN
202147

of Change and the Soft Systems Method of Change.

Within the
phases descriptive, options and implementation just
given, a number of stages can be identified. They are:
Before we dive more closely into these stages, here
are some numbers about time spent on different stages of the change process. This is also true for
Share point implementations and therefore this could be a warning if you recognize only the
numbers on the left side in your specific Share point project instead of the numbers on the right
side. I was often in a Share point project where I only saw the numbers on the left side. In a lot of
cases those Share point implementations end up in total disasters. Not only were the goals not
reached, but also a lot of money was thrown down the drain, lost money, lost energy and often
the client decided not to use Share point again. But it is not only about Share point when you
implement Share point. Share point comes with change and its all about Change Management
and the theories them comes with them.
Stage 1 Situation summary
Ask yourself - is this situation characterised by hard complexity (difficulty), closeness to
certainty, & unitary assumptions about stakeholder relationships. Or is it a mess (soft
complexity), a far from certainty situation. If its a mess, using the HSMC will probably not
work out. And here we see that
many organizations neglect the
signals of soft complexity and
approach the Share point project
the hard way. This often is a major
reason for project failure and that is why this stage is very important. Do the proper analysis of
the situation and put the soft factors on the soft side, dont work on them the hard way and put
the hard factors on the hard side and work on them with for example the Hard Systems Method
of Change.
Furthermore identify the components and boundary of the system that will be changed. Also
identify the decision makers overall purpose in the change situation. And finally identify the
factors that are having an impact on the system and how these causes inter-relate. How often
doesnt it happen that the system integrator or the general administrator is the Share point goeroe
while he or she doesnt know jack about the system? Let alone that they know something about
proper change theories and how they are related to Share point implementations. If you know
even a liitle about this interrelated areas, then you understand that implementations of Share
point which start from the bottom without proper backup from middle and upper management,
are doomed to fail and are doomed to eat a lot of money that could be used somewhere else. And
who gets the blame? Share point while of course the failurepoint lies somewhere else.
Stage 2 Identifying Change Objectives
A key part of stage 2 is to identify the overall objective or goal of the change and the subobjectives that contribute towards this. The objectives are normally, formed into an objectives
tree or objectives hierarchy.

SHAHBANO KHAN
202147

Objectives are about ends - ultimate goals and the sub-goals

needed to achieve them. Characteristics of a good objective - It
should address the problem to be solved - It must be
relevant - It should provide a guide to action on what needs
to be done to move from the present state of affairs to the
desired solution - It must be something the system is
capable of doing
It is allmost needless to say that the above paragraph is often totally ignored when implemting
Share point. Objectives? Sub-Objectives? Objectives related to goals, or even sub-goals? A
proper chart of all these factors and how they are related to each-other and are related to a proper
business case? Nhaaa, we don't need that? Do we? Yes, of course we need this as a start and
doing your Share point thing without this, or something a like, is calling failure on the phone. Be
honest: how often does this happen? Well, I saw it a lot and again in many cases it was a lost
change war. Soldiers were dead or gone and the project was blood on the battlefield.
The objectives tree should read logically downwards, from the top objective to the lower level
ones (and upwards from the lowest level objectives to the top one) in the sense that each lower
level set of sub-objectives should contribute to the achievement of the next higher level objective
they are attached to and so on. They must be mutually compatible. This is, perhaps, the most
difficult stage of the entire model. Don't be afraid for failures or incomplete objectives. It is
better then nothing and it focus your mind on the right things. Don't try to do it perfect fromt he
start. See it as work in progress. A very important thing to mention though, is communication
and review. Communicate, communicate and review, review and review.
Strict application of the model requires each objective to be measurable in terms of its
achievement or not. Objectives should be what the system must achieve to improve it is the
options for meeting the objectives that specify how the objectives might be achieved. Doing a
Share point implementation without having something like this, is a lost case.
Stage 3 Performance Measures
Quantify each objective in the tree. Where this is difficult, use a rating scale.
Examples:

Costs in cash.

Savings in cash.

Waiting time in days, hours.

Sales volume in dollar value.

% Meeting quality standard, etc

Often this stage shows objectives that can be thrown away. Objectives with too few ratingpoints
are not needed. When people try to do this and want to be perfectionists, they find themselved
burried with objectives without a cause. Throw them away, combine objectives and only stick to
the ones with proper value. This is an important stage and it is fun. Do it in a team with yellow
papers on the wall. Throw some workshops against it and the results will be satisfying, solid,
sound and save. It will save you also a lot of money down the road, guaranteed.
Stage 4 Options generation
Often the lowest level objectives of an objectives tree become the options for change. That is,

SHAHBANO KHAN
202147

the means (or the how) of bringing change about rather than the ends (or the what) of the change.
There will, however, almost certainly be more options for how to make the change than the ones
that appear on the objectives tree. Generating options for change (having decided what the goal
is) is a creative process and creative thinking techniques can be used to help with this.
Like being said in Stage 3, throw some workshops against it. Be positive and flexible. But, don't
forget to be pragmatic and stay pragmatic. It's almost as bad as having no objectives to being a
meeting and workshop tiger just for having the meetings and workshops without focus on the
results. Avoid that. Keep it all kiss bss, keep it simple and stupid but smart and short.
Stage 5 Options editing & Detailing
To make evaluation possible, some of the selected options may need to be elaborated or even
modelled clarifying what is involved, who is involved and how it will work. This can
involve: - Charts, diagrams, flow diagrams. - Cost-benefit analyses. - Computer simulations,
scale models. - Experiments and trial runs. At first it seems that this all only takes time. That is
not the case. It saves time. ignoring this phase or not giving it the proper attention and time will
certainly costs you a lot of money and time down the road. It is like not setting up your testcases
when developing. It will bite you and hunt you down. You will not win. Do the modeling, do the
detailing and editting and talking. Make the testcases and redesign them when needed. The
testcases in this case are the models, simulations and
what not. Keep in mind that every meeting, every
modeling sessions can save you a lot of money. Minutes
can be translated to thousands of dollars. No kidding.
Share point is a complex change animal, allways keep
that in mind.
Stage 6 Options evaluating
Options that seem feasible are then evaluated against the
criteria for making judgements which were set up earlier
at stage 3 in the change process. Each option can be
rated on an evaluation matrix (see overleaf). Options that are not mutually exclusive may be
combined, if there are added anticipated benefits. If needed, go back to step 3. it is a recursive
process. Recursiveness that makes money, not costs money. Failure in having subjects and
options when they are needed, will be lost money and added time.
Stage 7 Implementing the Change
In problems of a defined hard nature, implementation will usually not be a problem. However,
unless some consultation has been carried out with those who must make the change, there is
likely to be some resistance and something could go wrong. Implementation is frequently a test
of how much people involved in the change have participated in the design.
We are talking about one model here, the Hard Systems Model of Change, but this stage shout
for more. One stage model must be mentioned here and that is the stage model of Kotter's
Leading Change from 1996. it's a book which will be analyzed in a later blog. But what can be
said here is that the book goes about eight steps of change and every step tells you something of
the phase of the change process and what had to be done. Well, step two of Kotters model tells
us to form a guiding coalition. That's something llke a group of fans for your change. Important

SHAHBANO KHAN
202147

key stakeholders that will back you up when needed and that support the change. Another step of
Kotters model is having a clear vision and constantly communicate that vision. Well, if you do
both these steps, among others; having a guiding coalition and a clear communicated vision, then
this stage 7 of the Hard Systems Model of Change will go more smooth. But, more on this will
follow in other blogs.
Three alternative strategies for implementation:
Pilot studies leading to eventual change: help sort out any problems before more extensive
change is instituted. Parallel running: The new system (e.g. new computer system) is run
alongside the old until confidence is gained that the new system is reliable and effective. Big
bang: Maximises the speed of change, but can generate the greatest resistance to change. Carries
a high risk of failure unless planned very carefully. This has a lot to do about the speed and way
of implementing the change. Are we going for the smooth incremental change, the bumpy
change or the radical almost revolutionairy change? especially this paragraph will be handled in
other blogs bacause other interesting writers wrote some great books about this matter and they
will be analysed in future blog.
Stage 8 Consolidating & Carry through
It is important that in all change situations that there should be continuing vigilance and there
should be continuing support for those making the change. Two writers have to be mentioned
here and they are Hayes (2010) and Kotter (1996), who both wrote about stage models of change
and who both end their stage models with interesting final steps. Hayes says that you have to
sustain the change after implementation. Kotter call it anchoring the change. What also is
important is that it must be done thouroughly. Don't call victory too soon or the change will not
be settled. The change has the biggest part of possible success when it is something of "the way
we do things around here", if it is part of normal work and integrated in the culture of the
organization. And let me tell you one thing: Share point is soo freaking cool and immense and
big and complex and usable and what not, that having Share point in your organization on the
level of "it is how we do things around here" is not a ttrivial task.
Issues when using the Hard System Models of Change
There are some issues when using the Hard Systems Model of Change in general and these
issues are also existent when used with Share point implementations. People who are likely to be
affected by the change should be consulted as early as possible. They should be kept informed
throughout the design and implementation period. Support from senior management is essential
for any but the most localised, operational types of change

SHAHBANO KHAN
202147

All the information that decisions makers ideally would like to have is not always easily and
quickly available. Testing out options can be a time-consuming process, particularly if models
have to be built and tested. It is possible, however, to go through the stages of the HSMC quite
quickly to address key factors associated with the change situation and identify at least some
tentative solutions.
Using what Paton and McCalman (2000) call a Q & D (quick and dirty) analysis can be a useful
starting point for the change agents tackling a more complex problem. Even if if the problem
situation is a messy one, where it is not possible to set quantitative criteria for evaluating options
(as the pure method requires), it is nonetheless useful to construct an objectives tree as the first
stage of a change process.
Conclusion
Almost every Share point implementation has something to do with hard factors, hard elements
like the infrastructure that has to be set up and the software components that has to be developed.
Besides these two there are probably more hard elements concerned. What can be said about
these elements is that they lent themselves probably for the Hard Systems Model of Change and
this can be helpful when searching for a systematic approach to handle those hard elements of
the Share point implementation project.