Machine Human collaboration path starts with defining guidelines

Humans are in the driving seat, so get to decide the rules of the collaboration setting. However, as the arrangement evolves, machines may also start taking autonomous execution and restricts flexibility.  

   

Overarching principles and design guidelines 

1. At all times, HR has to be aligned with business goals and organisational stated values.  Talent is a key strategic asset, and its acquisition, growth, deployment for business goals is the core non-negotiable accountability.
2. Building a positive work environment, with shred sense of equity and fairness to maximize productivity and satisfaction remains core.  
3. Accountability towards Legal, ethical, and policy compliance across geographies, especially in multi-sector environments, is non-negotiable.
4. All decisions recommended by Machines (AI) should be explainable and may require human review — especially in critical or ethical contexts. 
5. There should be Intelligence-Led Decisioning ie decisions to be informed by predictive insights, prescriptive analytics, and scenario modeling provided by machines.
6. Agent-Led Execution of the repetitive and logic-based tasks. There is openness to redefine the present processes, workflows and decision rights to make tasks amenable to agent led delivery.  
7. Continually strive towards hyper-personalisation, based on profile, experience, interest, intent, and opportunity capture
8. High standards of Digital Ethics and Transparency supported by Clearly define data boundaries, model transparency, and ethical standards for use of employee data and AI-led decisions
9. Modular & Platform-Based Architecture, allowing for easy integrations with other systems and introduce agents. 
10. Reimagination and experimentation approach supported by feedback loops to continue evolving and moving on the evolution trajectory
11. Pace and realm of transition to accommodate employee's adaption challenges, keeping intact trust while managing negative associations like privacy concerns, algorithimic bias or over de-humanisation. 
12. There is always human escalation path available for any automated processes.      

Translating these principles and guidelines into action would require setting up new institutional structures like joint ethics and governance committees and cross functional teams, enhanced role of CHRO, CDOs and other leaders.  

Besides, this would require reimagining of the role of HR workforce as they share their work with machines going forward.       

Demystifying Digital Transformation- A practitioner’s companion

Digital transformation is inevitable, for organisations who seek to remain relevant in the future. The objective of any digital transformation is to innovatively apply the technology stack to reinvent the organisation and the way in which it will engage with the customer to deliver value to them.

Given that each organisation has a unique DNA with distinctive aspirations, the digital journey need to be individually crafted with clear purpose, technology choices, and implementation specifics. Leaders will be called upon to take well-informed and deliberative decisions that have enormous implications and could very well define the future of the organisation.

I, along with Nishith Sharan, have suggested the necessary framework to assist leaders define their transformation agenda and execution specifics. We present an integrated approach, covering technological, strategic and organisational perspectives, while pointing out the decisions that need to be considered at various milestones during the digital transformation journey.

Demystifying Digital Transformation is an essential handbook for the industry leaders and transformation professionals as they embark on the digital transformation journey.

 The prime motivation to write this book is to bring certain rigor and sanity around this topic of digital transformation, so as to avoid lot of wasted efforts, resources and disappointment within organizations.


I wish this book serves the purpose in its usefulness to readers,

Happy to get the feedback, as always

Change Management for Digital Transformation vs ERP implementation: What’s the difference???

Recently, one of my colleagues, a Change Management (CM) professional with experience in driving several ERP transformation programs, has taken up an assignment to help client undertake digital transformation, primarily aimed at internal operations.  He is deliberating on a question, which I think several of change management professional will encounter soon:

 

How is the CM approach going to be different for digital transformation program, compared to that in an ERP implementation project?

Here are a few initial reflections to set the stage and invite views, comments and experience sharing from this group: 

The key characteristics of Digital transformation program vary from the ERP implementation program in certain ways, including the following: (not exhaustive)

1.       Digital transformation program is often conceived in the form of vision that is quite wide, aspirational and all encompassing (customer interface, internal operational processes and operating model) supported by broad road map. The desired states are more often described in terms of value adding scenarios and differentiating services that are made possible by providing additional capabilities (collaborative, analytical, mobile etc) and their creative adoption by the employees. Business cases associated with ERP programs are a lot more definitive and with clear steady state targets.

2.       Digital transformation programs often add to and complement the existing technical capabilities and functionalities available to users to perform their regular work. For example, advent of Enterprise Social Network does not mean discontinuation of email system. Whereas ERP program often aims to automate manual / excel sheet work and to that extent replaces the old ways of working.  To that extent, an employee can live without participating in enterprise social network, but cannot bypass ERP based approvals to conduct daily business.

3.       The nature of risk linked to digital transformation program is largely linked to confidential information sharing which is perceived more severe than in typical ERP implementation program. 

4.       Leaders have no choice but to actively participate and lead by example, in case of digital transformation program. Hence their behavioural change/alignment is a pre-requisite. In case of ERP implementation program, public endorsement of its importance while delegating its actual usage to assistants is possible, but not in case of digital transformation program. After-all leader cannot delegate writing blogs, podcasts, video-casts to others without being exposed!

5.   ERP delivers value from ensuring that process level integration points, which flow across functional boundaries are well managed and aligned with the help of an IT-system. ERP users need to be sensitive of the process interdependencies to do justice to their role.  On the other hand, Digital transformation programs are essentially focused on driving value thorough employees voluntarily and creatively collaborating across boundaries, in an open transparent and relatively tolerant environment, supported by additional data analytical skills.  Understandably, cultural permission plays much greater influence in driving outcome of the digital transformation program.

6.   Employee generational split may also become a relevant segmentation strategy during digital transformation exercise, given different level of natural adoption to digital technologies among different generations.

7.  While significant effort is required in training the users in using ERP systems, the training effort associated with use of digital technologies may not be much and may be in the form of familiarisation modules; as the social technologies are quite intuitive, and users are significantly mature in the use of these tools in their personal life. The barrier to adoption of digital initiative, in that respect is seldom lack of skills on the part of employees.  There would off-course be need for specialised skill pool, say that of data scientists, digital strategists, digital technologists, which in any case would be part of overall capability building program.

What does these differences mean for CM approach and intervention design:

1.      Communicating the case for digital transformation has to be lot more leadership- driven, continuous, and conversational, leveraging all possible channels. Stories, describing creative usage of new capabilities to drive value-adds, emanating from different sources, play a pivotal role in driving adoption.

2.      Leadership Buy-in: Leaders need to convince believe within themselves that its worth it, and what is expected of them is do-able and non-conflicting to their self- image. Leaders have to hear first-hand stories and alternative experiences to appreciate the potential of digital transformation and their own role in supporting this change. Peer level conversation and experience sharing at leadership level is a must and has to be facilitated as part of CM intervention.  Leadership enablement is easier by associating some digital enthusiast to work along for some protracted period.

3.      Policies and practices: Digital enterprises thrive on a certain level of responsible information sharing, open communication, and collaborative learning that need support from enabling policies and practices.  As a change facilitator, it is important to identify and bring forth the policy or practices conflict with digital transformation objectives and help address them.  Often it is more to do with interpretation of the policies than policy itself that is in conflict.

4.      Training and capability building:  Digital transformation linked capability development effort will involve more of familiarising users with the features of digital technologies and varied ways it has been used to create value.  To that extent the learning will be more byte sized, social learning and experience sharing based continual learning, than structured class-room trainings and practice sessions predominantly used during ERP implementation program. Games as learning tool seem to be quite relevant.  Instead of user-manuals or reference sheets, guidelines, best practices and provocative use cases and stories may be more relevant.     

5.      Adoption tracking and support: There is clear method and science behind measuring the adoption levels of ERP system usage, and segments /pockets that reflects low adoption levels can be analysed and system, training or management intervention can be made to address the cause. Concerted efforts made thus, shall help achieved fairly stable usage of the system across the enterprise, which signals reduced need for CM intervention.  In case of digital transformation, the adoption is linked to employee voluntary engagement with the new capabilities and their extracting value out of it.  The usage pattern may vary (tank after peak!) and could be due to variety of reasons.  CM needs to do much more diligence to find real reasons behind these variations and also experiment ways to spur adoption again. Digital transformation in that respect is a journey and CM has to be co-traveller on this route for a much longer distance. 

Success of digital transformation program hinges on employee engagement, supporting culture and leadership participation, and not on management dictates (with  structured capability building interventions), and that is what makes CM work challenging and interesting!

Share your experience and view-points!