That's not a pie chart you tit.
A reader isn't impressed with El Reg making fun of the job that requires applicants to be "responsible for shaping and managing the execution of the change ambition". It surfaced in this story, about how the BBC's Digital Media Initiative cost £38.2m, instead of making savings, and how it managed to be 21 months behind schedule …
That's not a pie chart you tit.
it's a Venn Diagram ... from the Joy of Sets
Superb - best one liner for a long time
I'm totally confused now
Come on guys, surely El Reg has had some better vitriol than this during the week?
Be more contraversial.
I found the best way to work within a managed IT environment was to submit all change requests retrospectively.
That way I got to do what I wanted to do without the inevitable delays caused by the change management "system".
Change management is the notion that you can move a generator with a toboggan if you put down a thick enough layer of bullsh*t first.
1) Change management: an administrative function trying to sound like an executive one.
What kind of meaningful interpretation can we assign to this phrase? Doesn't everyone know that "change management" has a much to with boardroom antics as "bug management"?
2) This is what was behind much of the Web 2.0 blather, too.
I thought it was joss sticks, and lots of free money sloshing around due to incredibly retarded credit policy by the Clinton / Greenspan horsemen of the econocalypse.
3) Large companies (such as newspapers, for example) deferred to their technicians to produce the innovation and strategy - only to find they had over-promoted a cadre of bureaucrats.
Doesn't make sense from any angle. Does this mean that "innovation and strategy" is coming from the executive level? That technicians are actually bureaucrats which may get over-promoted because they are innovative? Questions, questions....
4) It's just a theory.
Your attitude needs correction. The headmaster shall see you now.
It is written "bureaucracy" ..and not, as some of the exotic variations beginning with "beau" ( penned no doubt by those with MBA or similar Mickey Mouse "qualifications" ) seen above ..would lead the illiterate to believe .
@BingBong ..I'm in total agreement with Old Man - Grey Fleece ;-) kudos à toi
"I know what plain old "management" is, and it has involved dealing with "change" ever since the earliest family businesses were formed thousands of years ago. So I neither know what "change management" is, nor do I care."
It would sem that the root of AO's confusion is believing that conventional Management deals with change - when in the majority of cases the exact opposite is true, Management will generally do all it can precisely to AVOID change of any sort.
"We've always done it this way..."
Management is focused on the Steady Course, not wishing to rock the boat (or try something outside of their limited experience).
Change Management is, as others have pointed out, specifically focussing on Change and (and here's the important part) how to make it happen in the least disruptive / most beneficial way, ensuring everyone understands what is being changed, why it is being changed, how it will directly benefit them, and what they need to do to help.
Significantly different from conventional Management as a whole.
What you're talking about, though, is /bad/ management. We've seen a lot of that, to the point that various branches of management started to call themselves something else, like "business administration". But it's all management.
That there are loads of managers not actually managing but busily building little empires, fighting "rival" empires in or outside the same organisation, "resisting change" against all reason, and so on and so forth, really is quite immaterial. You can't make the /bad/ management go away by taking your focus on a tiny little area of management and getting really really good at it, while at the same time leaving the rest unfixed. It's like, oh, mopping the floor without fixing the leaks. By any other name.
Were you were trying to make a point about this? Well you failed. So much for management. Says a whole lot about journalism though.
Change management is something invented by auditors, - who are bastards made of piss - to annoy the people who do the actual work. Basically it means you can't fix something which is b0rked until it's been documented, approved, subjected to an extensive QA process, buried in soft peat for six months and recycled as firelighters. Even if it's just adding someone's name to a distribution list. Much of this is the fault of Messrs. Sarbanes and Oxley who, in a world with real justice, would bludgeoned to DETH by an army of angry shovel-wielding BOFHs.
PS: To Homeland Security, that's a JOKE, m'kay.
And with this statement you illustrate why your opinion does not matter : 'So I neither know what "change management" is, nor do I care.'
If you are supposed to be an IT journo, then (a) you should know, and (b) you should care. You have done yourself and El Reg a great disservice with this single statement....
That it was a bunch of incomprehensible twaddle does not mean that Change Management, properly practiced, is also a bunch of incomprehensible twaddle. Understood an properly implemented CM practices go a long way toward helping organizations change without disrupting operations.
@Mr. Larrington: I rather suspect that you are the sort of twit who has necessitated Change Management practices in organizations of all sizes. I recall the person who bitched the most about our CM process at the last job being the one who was always breaking shit because he neither talked to others about what he was planning to do, nor told them after he had. CM doesn't require an extensive process to add a name to a mailing list. It only requires authorization from the owner of the mailing list before adding a new recipient to the ml. Of course, if there have been administrative twits who've bungled the simple process, it is likely to get more complicated. Not because making it more complicated solves the problem, but because managers are prevented from taking the proper course of corrective action: firing the twits who are causing the problem.
There is ITSM/ITIL Change Management - which is NOT being advertised at the BBC
Then there is organisational Change Management which IS being advertised at the BBC.
These are very different things and everyone here is really showing themselves up to be quite ignorant.
Every iso-9wotsit manual ought have, as the very first chapter right after the introduction explaining what this here stack of document is for, a chapter documenting how the document is to be changed. Like the rest of the thing, the how isn't really important, but the fact that it exists as the book on how to do it, is.
This is the essence of what makes CM useful as a delineatable subject within management: You know where you are, you know where you're going, and you can now work out the steps, then execute them. A good manager will train whoever report to him, whether that be more managers or sysadmins or whatever, to use CM as a tool. But then, this isn't limited to CM. The top guy, if he's done his job, will let the group go ahead and do their thing like a bunch of winners, and he'll just sit there and nobody'll notice they're doing everything themselves. It's a humble job, really.
This clarity proper application of the CM tool brings is what makes its formalism valuable, and if you can get the clarity without the formalism, that's fine. If you get the formalism without the clarity, you're still milling about but you've muddied up the issue some more. So if your procedures are too involved, then either get rid of them --you're still milling about but are honest about it-- or you fix them to be appropriate for what they're supposed to do.
You, dear reader, now should be able to work out what made the bbc advert so deserving of a good slagging. Oh wait, I spelled that out earlier already. Well, no peeking!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018