It Takes Two to Make a Thing Go Right - The Value of Teaming Champions.
Since beginning my business nearly a year ago, I’ve been mentally focused on what makes an exemplary implementation. During a recent interview, I realized that I hadn’t shared much about what I’ve been finding out. In part, it was because much of what I found out I think most people already know and understand at some level. After doing a handful of interviews though, I think there are some things that might be helpful to share. Especially when it comes to finding and understanding technology Champions in an organization. So, I am writing three articles that I think encompass the essentials of what I have noticed, and I hope will help you achieve better implementations. This first article, “It Takes Two to Make a Thing Go Right,” argues for two Champions vs the traditional single Champion. Article two will be about matching and trying on tech solutions, and article three will be about understanding processes vs rules and standards. I will, with luck, find bad 80’s music titles for them all.
Who is your Champion? In most discussions about tech implementation, finding a good a Champion comes up, early on. With that comes a laundry list of attributes that Champions should have. I’m not going to re-create one of these lists in this first article, and they do vary from company to company. However, as someone who needs to pick Champions, I’ve noticed one consistent similarity between all the lists, which is, it is hard to find an actual person that has all of those attributes.
That’s not to say that it never happens, but it’s very uncommon and it often happens that listed attributes actually oppose one another. What I realized is that it’s much easier to get the needed skills and attributes of the Champion checklist if you use two people. One I think of as the Dynamic Champion and one I refer to as the Strategic Champion. Originally, I had referred to them as static and dynamic because in military strategy, there are two types of observation needed for success; static, or fixed/ expected conditions, and dynamic, or conditions of the moment that accommodate the unexpected. These often are in direct conflict with one another, but both are critical for success. If you have read the book “Range,” there is a similar dichotomy between people who thrive in “Kind” vs “Wicked” environments and we look at that again in the next article when we talk about trying on solutions.
The Dynamic Champion is what I would call the typical choice for tech Champions within an organization. They are good at seeing the opportunities in various technologies and understand enough about technology to be fast at learning to use it. Seeing the opportunities in technology often means seeing alternatives to the current rules, standards, and processes. For the Dynamic Champion, company standards often represent a minimum standard to be improved upon, not a rule to comply with. They tell the Dynamic Champion where the company is currently at. A good Dynamic Champion is focused on how to adapt the capabilities of new technology to the current situation and goals. By necessity, a Dynamic Champion must be willing to go beyond or outside of company standards, because they are using tools that give them capabilities that were not part of planning when those standards were set. Unfortunately, this means they can also be dismissive of rules and standards that are warranted and helpful to a situation. These Champions are often more effective with small groups of self-motivated people. They rely on people to set their own goals and be comfortable with very fluid standards. This Champion often gets the title “technologist” or the coveted “Mad Scientist.”
The Strategic Champion is the one needed to rein in and systematize the work done by the Dynamic Champion and build the plan to scale it in the business. They understand the value of setting standards. When they encounter new technology, their first thought is how to fit it into the existing standards and processes of the business. They want to minimize disruption, and keep things running. They typically lead large groups of people very effectively because they clearly define attainable goals and standards. Most of our effective project managers would fill this position quite well. This Champion is also the most misused, under used, and misunderstood. They can even be seen as an anti-Champion, especially by those who err on the side of the Dynamic Champion model. Ultimately though it is the Strategic Champion that is most effective at getting the technology scaled and rolled out. Most people in an organization would never effectively use technology were it not for the efforts of this Champion. This Champion often gets the title “Manager” or the coveted title “Boss”.
Typically, companies will pick one of these two different types of champions. The one they choose depends a lot on company culture. Only on very rare occasions do I see a company that has picked both the Fixed and Dynamic Champion, but it is in those companies that I see the fastest and most effective growth.
If the company decides to pick a Strategic Champion only, they tend to see a very slow growth cycle. What is implemented does indeed stay implemented, however because the driving force in the implementation was to maintain standards and processes, the technology itself is dramatically underused in terms of capabilities. These are also the companies that have a tendency towards functional obsolescence. They tend to be very reliable companies, but they can quickly become overly regimented or bureaucratic. Technology disruption tends to dramatically hurt these companies. They also tend to be priced out of projects that are effectively using tech. I have noticed that good Strategic Champions tend to pick people to supplement the experimentation piece of implementation. Effectively they’re selecting their own Dynamic Champion. This is a step in the right direction and can be very effective. However, this puts the Dynamic Champion in the subordinate role, and makes it easy to only pick solutions that do not disrupt the current standards.
On the other side of the coin, the companies that choose the Dynamic Champion can appear to have an almost overnight growth cycle. Projects can go from limited technology use to effectively running the best and newest within weeks, provided they are small enough projects. The advantage in these companies is that they often see the possibilities within technologies, and tend, even though their implementations are less consistent throughout the company, to be the most progressive and agile. Disruptions tend to do less to these companies, but they struggle to both scale and repeat successes. They also tend to silo more and be more uneven in overall performance, because processes and standards remain overly fluid. Unlike the Strategic Champion, Dynamic Champions seldom choose a Strategic Champion. The role of the Strategic Champion is left to “management,” and that means more than one person. Indeed, almost everyone who is in compliance with the rules and standards can act as the static check on the Dynamic Champion. This means that while one person is pushing to expand capabilities and change the standards, many more people are pushing back the other way. The situation of pushing against an entire organization is something that I both understand and hear consistently from other technologists.
There are a few companies that consciously pick both a Strategic and a Dynamic Champion, although maybe without those titles. Over the last six months in particular, I have begun to consciously pick Strategic and Dynamic Champions anytime I look at an implementation. In successful companies, I also look for the people who already occupy those roles. As a consultant, it is not always practical for me to ask for more then one Champion, or that the Champions be made equal in authority, but I think that is the best situation. The idea has always been to find one person, but because some of the attributes work contrary to each other I just don’t know if that person really exists. So, my advice is to stop looking for just one Champion — find two, and be conscious of their roles as Strategic and Dynamic. Find two people and if possible, put them on equal footing, at least for the integration. This will allow both to play to their strengths and will go a long way to getting the best integrations. The goal is to have Dynamic and Strategic Champions working together to argue ideas and new standards one-on-one, so that the solutions they bring forward are a good balance between what is possible and what is practical and scalable.
