23/2/2008   arrow contact us printer print

Valid XHTML 1.0!

Abstract (Phase IV)

Phase IV of a SPRINT project is concerned with embedding, lasting, process change.


The aim of Phase IV is to deliver successfully all the innovative ideas and redesigned systems into the day to day operations of the organisation, moving beyond the written word to actual implementation. However, delivering successful, permanent change is no science. There are a variety of pitfalls that can lead to project failure.

To increase your chances of successful implementation Phase IV provides a change management capability matrix consisting of nine change management components. Neglecting some components risks making the change project slower, harder, less timely, more costly, less sustainable, and much more stressful for all stakeholder groups.


The change capability matrix could be considered as a process, whereby the change management team goes through a series of tasks that, in total, usually requires time and investment of resource. Skipping tasks creates only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result (1).


Put simply: the central deliverable is the successfully implemented system.

By successful we might propose the following factors:

  1. A smooth change effort
  2. On time and to budget
  3. Fulfilling the quantitative and qualitative benefits set out in the business case
  4. Legacy system completely disbanded
  5. Engaged users who are motivated to offer further suggestions for improvement

Role and responsibilities

It is important that implementation is undertaken by the specialists who have the necessary skills to the do the job. For instance, this might be different for a web based project than a call centre project. By including change management within the methodology we were highlighting the need for the BPR team to still be involved in a project reviewer role, making sure that the delivered system remains in line with business goals. In this latest version of SPRINT, we separate out the implementation, to enable a clear handover to the appropriate specialists.

The advantages of this are that:

  1. The BPR team is able to move on to further BPR work
  2. The implementation can be undertaken by the appropriate specialists therefore avoiding potential ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities
  3. It helps fix a timetable for system delivery
  4. It creates an agreement regarding what work has already been done and what needs to be done.

A formal handover document (which may already exist within your organisation) should be agreed by the Project Steering Group, the lead user and the appropriate specialists.

The handover should also appoint a project manager who is responsible for the overall implementation of the recommendations. Ideally this will be the project sponsor or senior user - who will then work in co-ordination with specialist staff (e.g. an IT project manager for that side of it.)

It is highly unlikely that all of the detailed analysis that will be needed for implementation will have been done as part of the BPR work. The idea is to leave the technical experts to implement the recommendations in the most appropriate way.

However, even after a formal handover the Project Steering Group and the BPR Project Team can be expected to take on a 'review' role to make sure that:

  1. The implementation remains in line with the recommendations
  2. The implementation takes into account ongoing changes (continuous improvement)
  3. The implementation team are able to draw on the knowledge and advice accumulated during the BPR work.
  4. Information and good practice are shared between projects.

(1) Kotter J P (1995) Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995.

back to top


Next >
< Back