Start with the end in mind
Purposeful Change Initiatives: Embracing Outcome-Focused Strategies
Happy Tuesday, Transformation Friends. Another week, another opportunity to go Beyond the Status Quo.
The topic for this week is a simple yet profound statement: Start with the End in Mind.
It’s one of the seven principles of Managing Benefits (Jenner, 2014). It’s a way of thinking that ensures our change initiatives are purposeful and aligned with tangible, achievable outcomes.
But what does this mean in the context of transformation? It stresses the need for starting with a clear understanding of our end goals, the necessary changes to achieve them, and the value these changes bring—aka the benefits.
Before starting any change initiatives, having a solid grasp of these elements is paramount. This approach contrasts sharply with what I see more commonly: benefits are retroactively used to justify preconceived solutions. The former is a benefits-led approach, while the latter is activity-centred.
Today, we’ll look at pitfalls and explore a few approaches to enable us to be more benefits-led in our change initiatives.
Grab your morning coffee, and let’s get started.
As a short aside, I’ve found Managing Benefits to be one of my most valuable and practical certifications. The type of thinking it teaches is applicable universally, and it’s a topic that we’re particularly poor at in the Government of Canada. If you’re looking for training for you or your staff, it’s something that I’d highly recommend.
The pitfalls of putting the cart before the horse
A misstep I see often is the after-the-fact justification of initiatives. This is when we identify or overstate benefits post-initiative launch and align them to either expected incurred or expected costs. Bradley (2010) calls this a “cart before the horse” approach.
What ends up happening is that we expend time and effort managing benefits that are overstated and aligned with preconceived solutions rather than aligning these solutions to the actual benefits that need realization. This misalignment leads to inefficiencies and risks wasting resources and opportunities. It creates a scenario where the true benefits of an initiative are obscured by an initial rush to justify its existence, ultimately diminishing its potential impact.
There are a few factors at play.
Confusing the ends with the means
In my post on the cognitive bias called the illusion of control, we touched on this a bit.
The pitfall here is the assumption that improved performance will naturally follow from corporate planning-related activities. It’s the confusion of process from outcomes and what Brian Quinn referred to as the “rain dance:” it does not affect the weather, but those who engage in it think it does.
The pitfall here is the focus on activity-centred change initiatives over benefits-led change.
A great article in Harvard Business Review, Successful Change Programs Begin with Results, expands on this idea in our context. Schaffer and Thomson highlight this flaw in organizational thinking, noting that such activity-led initiatives may "sound good, look good, and allow managers to feel good" but often contribute little to actual performance improvement.
There’s a great table in the article comparing activity-centre initiatives to benefit-led initiatives. Here’s a summary:
Activity-centred initiatives are often adopted because they seem like the “right thing to do,” driven by a sense of orthodoxy rather than explicit, strategic goals. They typically involve long-term, non-specific objectives emphasizing processes rather than outcomes. For instance, training programs or surveys are measured for their completion rather than their impact on performance. This approach, while well-intentioned, often leads to a significant investment of resources with delayed or unclear benefits.
In contrast, benefits-led initiatives prioritize clear, measurable outcomes from the outset. These initiatives focus on specific, short-term performance improvement goals, even when the broader change is long-term. The approach is evidence-based, grounded in what works, and incorporates lessons learned for continuous improvement. Progress is measured not just in terms of activities completed but in terms of tangible benefits achieved, using both leading and lagging indicators. Unlike the activity-centred approach, which often relies on external experts or consultants, benefits-led initiatives are driven by business managers, ensuring alignment with organizational goals and a clearer path to realizing the intended benefits.
The disconnect between actions and an organization's strategic objectives
There’s a snowball effect: activity-centred initiatives lead to more activity-centred ones because of the growing disconnect between discrete, unaligned actions and an organization's strategic objectives. The result is a scattered, ineffective approach, where multiple initiatives are launched without coordinated efforts or a clear understanding of the benefits they are supposed to deliver or all claiming to create the same benefits.
Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change is another fantastic HBR article. Beer et al. describe this as “wave after wave of programmes rolled across the landscape with little positive impact.”
The Solution: Adopt Benefits-Led Initiatives
We must embody the Benefit Management principle of "Start with the End in Mind." In short, Jenner (2014) says,
the benefits required should determine the scope (and requirements) of the initiative rather than vise versa.
I think this also goes hand-in-hand with the principle from Managing Successful Progress of “Lead with Purpose.” We touched on this in the post I wrote on the seven principles of programme management, but here’s what I said:
Lead with Purpose is about maintaining a clear, unwavering focus on the desired outcomes. It goes beyond goal-setting. It guides the entire initiative with a robust vision that aligns every decision and action.
In a benefits-led benefits management model, each phase, from the initial planning to execution and ongoing evaluation, is steered by clearly defined, outcome-focused objectives.
Furthermore, adopting a benefits-led approach promotes a culture of accountability and precision. It ensures that every action taken, every resource allocated, and every decision made while managing a change initiative is purposefully directed towards achieving tangible, valuable outcomes.
Ok, but how do we do it?
Let’s look at two ways to encourage benefits-led change initiatives: (1) value “business case” thinking and (2) adopt “investment logic mapping” as a standard practice.
They go hand in hand. Here’s what I mean.
Business Case Thinking
Previously, we’ve discussed the importance of the Business Case.
I’m not necessarily talking about the need to create a formal capital B / capital C document (although I believe it’s an aspect of transformation management that we in the Government of Canada are particularly weak on). Instead, I’m stressing applying the logic model of a business case, what I’m calling “business case thinking,” throughout all phases of your work.
Let’s revisit the aspects of the business case we discussed earlier this year. I’m emphasizing that these elements should constantly be needling us; throughout the initiative, we should check in continuously:
Scope and Objectives: Are the initiative’s boundaries and aims clearly defined, and are they used for informed decisions about strategic alignment?
Value of Benefits: Do we have a strong understanding of the quantified benefits the initiative will deliver? What’s the level of uncertainty (it should never be zero)? Are we using the benefits to justify the investment continuously?
Costs: Do we understand the expected costs? What’s the level of uncertainty (it should never be zero)? Are we using this to assess and reassess financial feasibility?
Investment Timing and Changes: How are we balancing investment phasing with organizational capacity and risk?
Risk Analysis: Are we practicing informed risk management? What are the risks and mitigations?
Target Operating Model: What is the desired operational state post-initiative? Are we using this to assess and reassess feasibility and strategic alignment?
Resources: What resources are required? How are we managing potential constraints?
Investment Logic Mapping
Jenner (2014) suggests using a technique called “investment logic mapping.” I’ve also had much success using this technique, and I’d like to dedicate a whole post to it (the next one in this space). Until then, I’ve given you the term to Google if you want to learn more, but here’s a quick summary:
Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) is a strategic tool to align investments with an organization’s objectives and expected benefits. Key steps in ILM include identifying the core problem the investment addresses, defining strategic responses, specifying expected benefits, and mapping necessary business changes and enablers. This process involves active stakeholder engagement, creating a visual map communicating the investment’s rationale. Crucially, ILM is dynamic, allowing for ongoing reviews and adaptations to ensure that the investment remains strategically aligned with organizational goals and evolving circumstances. This approach enhances transparency, accountability, and strategic decision-making in managing investments.
As you can see, there’s a strong relationship between business case thinking and ILM. Aspects of business case thinking are required to start an ILM exercise, and the outputs of that exercise feed back into business case thinking and so on.
Next time, we’ll do a deep dive into ILM, and I’ll share the template that I use.
Wrap up
Embracing the “Start with the End in Mind” principle is imperative for effective transformation. We can significantly enhance the impact and efficiency of our change initiatives by understanding and addressing common pitfalls and distinguishing between activity-centred and benefits-led initiatives.
Let’s reflect on a few questions together:
In your context, which initiatives would you classify as activity-centred and which are genuinely benefits-led?
What steps and approaches do you and your organization currently use to encourage benefits-led change initiatives?
What more can you and your organization do to embrace the principle of “Start with the End in Mind?”
Until next time, stay curious, and I’ll see you Beyond the Status Quo.
References
Bradley, G. (2016). Benefit Realisation Management: A practical guide to achieving benefits through change. CRC Press.
Jenner, S. (2014). Managing benefits: Optimizing the return from Investments. The Stationery Office.