Managing Director & Partner
Boston
By Kristy Ellmer, Julia Dhar, Simon Weinstein, Cordelia Chansler, Paul Catchlove, and Connor Currier
Transformations are critical to building competitive advantage and delivering shareholder value, especially in fast-changing industries. But 70% of transformations fail to achieve their initial goals. Acting as a nerve center that coordinates many workstreams, timelines, and priorities, a transformation office can help companies flip the odds.
Transformations are inherently difficult, filled with compressed deadlines and limited resources. Executing them typically requires big changes in processes, product offerings, governance, structure, the operating model itself, and human behavior. They demand financial discipline, a stage-gate methodology, rigorous tracking, cultural change, and issue resolution. All these factors favor the creation of a transformation office (TO).
Organizations often just focus on the strategy they will pursue and the value they expect to deliver in a transformation. But while it’s important to concentrate on value delivery (the what), teams must also look at changing people’s behavior and mindset (the how). Our approach to “the how” of transformation seeks to change behavior and the way people work by concentrating on four elements. (See Exhibit 1.)
In this article, we focus on the element that organizations frequently neglect: executional certainty, which starts with establishing the TO and kicking off the transformation. Many leaders believe their companies are disciplined enough to transform without a formal office.
But that’s rarely the case. Our experience and the data suggest that a TO can improve value creation by up to 50%. It can help speed value delivery while improving transparency and accountability. By centrally managing the mechanics of a transformation, a TO frees up business leaders to execute and deliver the goals of the endeavor.
A TO offers many benefits:
A TO alone can’t guarantee executional certainty. But without one, organizations are unlikely to achieve it.
The initial period, when the TO is getting organized and starting to exert its influence, is crucial to any transformation program’s success—and it is very intense. The businesses and leaders involved in the transformation learn about the processes they will need to follow, and they offer input regarding how to fine-tune those processes. Most leaders have their own approaches to managing projects, which may include their own tracking systems, periodic team meetings, and occasional hallway discussions.
Unconventional project-management approaches are fine in normal times, but they don’t work during transformations, when individual initiatives and portfolios of initiatives require the cooperation of multiple departments and the careful use of scarce resources. Everybody needs to align on one way of doing things—using the same process, accessing the same tools, and following the same cadence for reporting and meetings.
Five dimensions are essential to a transformation office. (See Exhibit 2.)
Strategy and Scope. The sponsor of the transformation program needs to be clearly identified from the beginning. Ideally that person will be the CEO or CFO, although transformations can work with another senior leader heading the TO if that leader has a clear mandate. One of the sponsor’s first jobs is to assemble a steering committee to oversee the program’s progress and make decisions quickly. Another key early task is to decide how activist the TO should be in driving the organization toward agreed upon goals.
A critical activity during this stage is to align the transformation’s financial targets with the organization’s existing financial systems. The company must identify the baseline—last year’s results, this year’s budget, or some other measure—from which to establish clear financial goals. This is an essential aspect of anchoring the transformation and allowing accurate measurement of value capture. Establishing clear financial goals also reduces the possibility of value leakage. Companies that aren’t diligent about this often encounter problems.
Successful transformations start with a big ambition, which the company then translates into a set of priority initiatives. The company needs to define and agree on what that ambition will be.
Governance and Organization. Having committed to a suitable ambition, strategy, and scope, the company should start to define the TO’s governance and organization. If it has never had a TO, the firm should begin by clarifying the role of the chief transformation officer (CTO) by pinpointing different leaders’ decision rights. Decision rights about strategic direction and objectives, of course, belong to the CEO. The CFO owns the financial goals, while the CTO should have decision rights over the company’s scarce resources, coaching responsibility, and the power to hold others accountable.
Other executives’ decision rights tend to be narrower, limited to activities within their own operating units or functions, which we call “workstreams” during transformations because of the many things departments must juggle. There are several ways to structure and staff TOs. In a big company, it is common for a TO to have 10 or 12 full-time employees. (See Exhibit 3.)
After establishing the TO, the company needs to integrate the office into its existing processes and operating systems. The organization must decide whether to use existing staff or build up resources to run the TO. This typically involves decisions about the type of external support that may be required. In our experience, it may also be useful to reexamine how the company normally handles processes. Processes that are often problematic during transformations and may require streamlining include the approvals needed for hiring and for adjusting the prices of products or services.
Roles Within the Transformation Office. The TO now needs to be resourced, which means making decisions about staff size and skill sets. Roles to fill include workstream liaisons, as well as staff to handle communications, finance, human resources, analytics, and digital and technology. The TO must also define its actual change delivery approach. A TO employee must work with the different initiative owners to figure out what operational elements, such as training and communication, those projects require. If the expertise needed for an ambitious change program doesn’t exist in house, and the right people for the roles aren’t on staff, third-party support may be necessary.
Activities and Processes. In every transformation, it’s crucial to implement common working rhythms, routines, and processes. This may seem obvious, but the devil is in the details, and devoting attention to this issue is tactically important.
A common language can help differentiate among essential elements of the transformation. We commonly use a nomenclature that includes the terms “workstream,” “initiative,” “project,” and “milestones.” These represent the main units of work in a transformation, ordered from largest to smallest, and they follow a clear hierarchy. (See Exhibit 4.)
People are assigned responsibility for the different units of work, and—through a set of processes that the TO runs—begin to make progress toward agreed upon transformation goals. Two key processes are stage-gate methodologies and an accelerated meeting cadence, which are both discussed below.
Tools and Data. The fifth dimension of a successful TO involves the use of software and online tools. These are, in essence, tracking tools that link initiatives to financial outcomes (plans and forecasts) and impact assessments. It’s standard today to carry out this work in a digital impact-assessment center, for faster access to data and more holistic decision making. The pandemic has shown that these tasks can be handled virtually.
Financial discipline is a core component of a successful transformation. It encourages accountability and alignment. TOs must be clear about the financial goals of the transformation and hold the organization accountable to them throughout the duration of the program.
We recommend four steps to achieve financial discipline during a transformation.
Build a close connection to the finance team. TOs should prioritize creating a strong rapport with the finance function, and it should be built at the start of the transformation. The TO should work to promote transparency with the finance team to ensure that information is shared freely. Best practices for building this connection include:
Determine a financial baseline for the transformation. Companies undergoing a transformation need to agree on a clear baseline. Three types of financial data can help:
In developing a baseline, the TO should seek to avoid three traps:
Once the baseline has been created, the TO and finance team need to agree on the figures to avoid miscommunication and confusion.
Agree on a tracking and validation approach. The TO needs to create a clear approach to collecting, tracking, and validating metrics and KPIs from relevant teams, including finance, throughout the life of the transformation. To standardize this approach across workstreams, TOs should take the following steps:
This alignment will ensure a consistent approach to tracking and comparing the progress and impact of initiatives.
Leverage tools and reports to control expenses. Tracking financial inputs across a large-scale transformation effort can be overwhelming. Interactive dashboard tools—BCG’s is called Key by BCG—can synthesize incoming data and flag areas of concern. These tools have many benefits:
Every transformation follows a path from idea to execution. But no initiative involves just one idea and one execution challenge. Instead, each contains a constantly expanding set of ideas. The only way to manage them is to systematize the effort through stage gates. Stage gates ensure that projects move forward quickly and with regularly scheduled checkpoints to confirm that the original outcomes remain realistic.
Companies often downplay the value of stage gates, viewing them as a bureaucratic imposition that slows things down. To the contrary, a good stage-gate process speeds things up and keeps them on course. (See Exhibit 5.)
Consider the example of a household goods company whose transformation aims to increase profit through digitization and customer centricity. One of the firm’s initiatives is to handle the sale of frequently reordered supplies exclusively through its online channel. To help deliver this, the company has launched a project to ramp up its online pricing capability and offer discounts on online supplies during a transition period when both online and offline sales channels are still in use.
The core project team for this initiative consists of a product manager, the director of marketing, a regional retail liaison, an analyst from finance, and a VP of web development. At the idea generation stage, the team creates an initiative charter—a short description of the goal and how the team plans to achieve it. Stage 1 focuses on validating the business case—the ROI of the initiative itself and the eventual increase in per-unit profitability. If the project’s charter and business case withstand scrutiny, the team develops the key milestones of the initiative plan (stage 2), including the location, length, and goals of any pilot. If the initiative passes muster, it enters stage 3—execution. In stage 4, the project is reviewed to determine if all of its goals have been achieved.
Each stage plays an important role in strengthening the project. By the time it gets to stage 3, a project that began as a loose idea should have turned into an airtight plan.
The gates also contribute to the improvement process. At each gate, a group with a clear stake in the outcome looks at the work of the initiative team and decides whether the project is ready to advance to the next stage. Individuals with clearance authority at the gates may include the workstream leader, who is usually the head of the relevant function (sales, in this example) and often another executive. The TO plays a key role in facilitating the movement of initiatives across stages and ensuring that the transformation machinery is working efficiently.
The stage-gate approach requires significant work up front but provides four primary benefits that ultimately enable the overall transformation to run smoothly and deliver full value:
The stage-gate methodology works nicely for companies that are undertaking agile processes and leveraging tools such as objectives and key results (OKRs). While OKRs define what to do, the stage-gate process ensures that those things get done. The nature of the execution phase demands an agile mindset of quick problem solving and real-time adjustments. For all kinds of companies, agile methodologies—including concepts such as kanban and Scrum—can be helpful additions to the stage-gate approach.
Several best practices can make the stage-gate methodology more effective. First, successful initiatives or projects have well-thought-out milestones that incorporate some sort of financial impact. Such projects do better than those without financial impact milestones.
This finding emerged from a BCG study of 20,000 data points related to transformation initiatives. The study, which relied on machine learning, showed that companies that make disciplined use of milestones have more success. Specifically, a lower and more manageable number of milestones correlates with project success rates that are 15% to 40% higher than those of projects that survey respondents thought had too many milestones.
Organizations struggle when they apply completely different impact metrics—for instance, profitability, sales growth, and customer satisfaction—to the same initiative. Too many measures for an initiative often confuses teams and gets them weighed down in determining which actions to take on all measures versus focusing on which actions are the most important. Our research shows that when initiatives have multiple measures, they are 40% less likely to succeed.
Avoiding the mistakes we identified in our study does not guarantee success, but the data highlights problems that organizations should avoid if they can.
A second best practice, done in the midst of the stage-gate process, is to undertake something we call a rigor test, which is basically a discussion conducted just before the execution stage that includes all of a project’s key stakeholders. Those performing the rigor test take a fresh look at the project—at whether its goals and milestones are reasonable and at how well its risks and interdependencies are understood. Rigor test discussions generally last no more than an hour, but they often expose some critical flaw: a milestone that has not been assigned or a dependency that no one has considered. After participants have addressed any flaws uncovered during this process, initiatives can move into the execution stage with a much higher likelihood of success.
A third best practice is not to allow initiatives to proceed without the finance department’s explicit approval of the business case (stage 1). Finance’s job is to assess the initiative’s likely profit or loss, one-time cost, and cash impact and to ensure that the project aligns with the organization’s broader financial requirements.
During the stage-gate work, successful transformation leaders assess the key success factors of their projects. This leads to a fourth practice, which we call DICE, that allows them to zero in on four factors: the duration between crucial milestones (similar to the rigor test); the integrity of the project team (including the extent to which the team has the necessary mix of skills); the commitment of senior management and the broader team; and the effort—over and above team members’ current commitments—that the undertaking requires. Projects’ DICE scores fall along a continuum ranging from “set up for success” to “in danger of failing.” (See Exhibit 6.) The CTO, a workstream leader, or the steering committee can use DICE at any point where it might be beneficial.
Companies need not dread the stage-gate process as a rigid methodology. Rather, they should embrace the process as a discipline that will help them do three things:
One thing that makes transformations so hard is that they require changing the behaviors of people in the organization. Regardless of how they operated previously, initiative owners in a transformation must be inclusive and transparent. They may have to adopt a fail-fast philosophy and align resources with other initiative owners. Eventually they are sure to encounter some new requirement that they won’t be comfortable with. The TO is responsible for ensuring that the changes happen anyway.
People further down in the organization must exhibit new behaviors, too. For instance, in a transformation that involves moving to multichannel distribution, a manufacturer’s retail store liaisons may have to enter their pricing changes into a central system and accept the need to collaborate with web colleagues.
The human element makes such changes hard. The very idea of change can create three specific internal conflicts that behavioral scientists have identified:
One or more of these behavioral norms exist in all of us. They explain one of the most common complaints that can arise during a transformation: that a key leader isn’t committed or isn’t taking the process seriously. Everybody is counting on that person to deliver something, and it’s not getting done.
In addition to problems of individual adjustment and acceptance, a host of top-down problems are common in transformations, most of them caused by two fundamental issues:
People tend to act rationally within their business context. So if a behavior that should be happening in an organization isn’t, it’s generally not the fault of the employees.
In the past, we have written about how organizations can eliminate problems in their business by reducing complexity. But even after a company has improved its context, inertia can discourage people from operating differently. A framework we call ATAC can help activate desired behaviors. ATAC has four main components:
The tools that a TO uses to adjust the business context during a transformation aren’t revolutionary but rather the basic tools of organizations: meetings, decision rights, tracking protocols, and other enablers of transparency. But when a good TO uses these tools with sound judgment and discipline, it can create a powerful impetus for new behaviors and can set a transformation up for full success.
There’s no such thing as a glitch-free transformation. Even in a well-run program, 20% of initiatives won’t achieve their desired impact, and even more (30%) will typically be at risk. If all of the initiatives in your tracking system are proceeding perfectly, you’re not aiming high enough.
Tracking minimizes problems. In weekly or biweekly meetings, the TO brings together the owners of each workstream to discuss the status of their initiatives, projects, and milestones. In a best-in-class transformation, the TO doesn’t wait until the end of the process to see whether initiatives will meet their goals. Instead, it continually engages the workstream owners. This creates opportunities for agile problem solving and for pivoting to maintain momentum and reach key targets.
An effective CTO will assemble the heads of different departments—operations, finance, production, marketing, and human resources—to break down silos and push members to work together. In addition, he or she will schedule weekly steering committee meetings to make the decisions that no one else can. (See Exhibit 7.) To underscore the transformation’s importance, the program sponsor (CEO, CFO, or other top leader) should attend these weekly meetings.
The meeting cadence is intense—by design. A transformation isn’t business as usual, and it shouldn’t feel that way. At least initially, the program should make the people involved feel a little uncomfortable. A TO may even want to lean into the intensity, issuing “half the time” challenges to initiative or project teams to shock them into thinking in radically new ways. In many organizations, increased pressure works. Initiatives with shorter periods between milestone deadlines and faster impact updates see a boost of between 5% and 15% in their success rates.
Project and milestone owners need to know that the TO is counting on them to make progress every day, and they should also know at the end of each week’s meeting what they need to achieve for the next week. At the same time, meetings give participants a chance to identify and remove roadblocks. This often requires decisions and follow-up actions by higher-level executives. Indeed, transformations often “flip the pyramid,” forcing executives to solve problems for people one, two, or three levels below them.
“Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide—and no one to blame but yourself,” is the way one executive put it to us, at a point when he was just starting to understand what his company’s transformation would demand of him.
It’s a little bit like what happens when you sign on with a personal trainer. Initially, the workouts are beyond your ability and it’s frustrating. But with progress comes confidence and greater trust in the process.
Well-run TO meetings follow four best practices:
Collectively, these routines help TOs reinforce the rigor of timeliness, the need for speed, and the importance of achieving objectives. Ultimately, they build trust as people in the organization see the value being created, understand required behaviors, and take more ownership and responsibility for their work. When leaders and contributors throughout the organization see projects paying off, they become advocates of the new way of working.
Transformations are unlikely to succeed without a focus on culture and change management. People are often resistant to change. Culture and change management can overcome that resistance and help build new behaviors and processes into the organization. This step brings the “how” of transformation to life through concrete activities that encourage and reinforce behavioral change.
The TO should track this work to ensure that it has the same transparency, accountability, and focus as the other workstreams or initiatives. Culture and change management work can range from a training program for a sales team on managing pricing discounts to a company-wide communications program on the benefits of the transformation.
Culture and change management should be deployed at three levels of the transformation:
The Program Level. Executional certainty requires changes in behavior that can only be brought about through cultural change. The TO needs to have staff that is dedicated to this by creating KPIs on staff engagement and other metrics. The office should then ensure the approach reaches workstreams and initiatives. There are three key elements to program-wide culture and change management:
The Workstream Level. The TO should work to ensure that culture and change initiatives are present in each workstream, provide support to the leaders of those initiatives, and hold those at the top accountable.
These initiatives should support the transformation efforts that are happening within the workstream. The following questions can help:
The Initiative Level. All initiatives need to meet culture and change milestones to solidify behavioral change, and the TO should not allow them to proceed until that has been achieved. These milestones can take many different forms:
Imagine an ambitious transformation three or four months after it has begun. Senior leadership and the board of directors have approved the program’s targets and shared them with investors. The TO is in place and has met with the workstream and initiative leads to help translate a large, complex undertaking into an expansive portfolio of projects, each with its own charter, owner, business case, and milestones. The projects have been loaded into a transformation management software program. The TO has created a schedule of reports and touch points to keep things on track and enable teams to meet targets. Now it’s time for execution and delivery.
Although countless activities are going on, senior leaders, including the CTO, will focus primarily on a small subset of these. (Even a giant multinational company must narrow its main focus to 20 or so make-or-break initiatives.)
Some of these projects will exceed expectations and internal forecasts. Others will experience delays or fall short of expectations. If too many high-value initiatives fall short, the whole transformation will underperform. A good TO minimizes the number of missed targets during a transformation by doing the following:
Without a TO, companies’ attempts to resolve issues can suffer from a failure of many cross-functional initiatives, with no one available with the authority to break a tie. A simple idea that we call “boomeranging” can help. Boomeranging ensures that non-executive staff can circle back to those with decision-making authority whenever they need to—thus increasing the odds that operating decisions will be made quickly and based on facts. Steering committee members are often part of the boomerang in successful transformation programs, whether it’s explained to them using that metaphor or not.
Let’s look at three of the most common issues that threaten transformations and see how they can be avoided or addressed.
Issue: Critical initiatives or projects are shown as being on-target (green) in transformation reports and meetings, but in reality they aren’t.
Potential cause: Off-track initiatives may be seen as failures rather than as opportunities to refocus and adjust. This leads to grade inflation—lots of green lights and very few yellow or red lights.
Potential solutions: The organization must clarify that it is aiming high. It should remind transformation participants that having high ambitions means that some projects and initiatives won’t be where they are supposed to be at any given time. Indeed, for a transformation to have a chance of full success, a certain number of projects should have a 50% or 60% likelihood of success (versus 95%). A good TO will communicate this explicitly, with the CTO emphasizing that the organization’s objective isn’t to have a portfolio consisting solely of projects that show up as green in the tracking system.
Demonstrating support amid temporary underperformance and missed goals isn’t the only way to encourage risk taking among initiative owners and project leaders. Organizations can also adjust certain contextual elements, such as how they handle performance management and how they think about financial rewards (de-emphasizing flawlessness and putting a higher premium on engagement, for example). And they can adjust their funding mechanisms to reinforce the point that a project’s current color in the traffic light schema is only one of the factors that will determine the level of investment it should receive.
Issue: The overall forecast for the transformation program is falling short of the target.
Potential causes: Important projects are underperforming, and there aren’t enough high-performing projects to compensate. Or the first wave of projects that entered the execution phase (stage 3) is concluding, but there aren’t enough second-wave projects waiting in the wings.
Potential solutions: Value slippage is extremely common in transformations. To manage it, the TO should ensure that finance team members constantly work with workstream leaders and initiative owners to assess their value forecasts. The most important number to look at in each case is the workstream leader’s overall target, not the performance of specific initiatives.
Take the example of a cost reduction effort that a global head of operations is running. Five big initiatives may be associated with this effort: automation, outsourcing, renegotiation of supplier contracts, management de-layering, and a reduced manufacturing footprint for the organization. The numbers could show that all of these initiatives are on track to produce their expected dollar savings. But cutting costs in one part of an organization can increase costs or create new ones elsewhere. So it is critical—with the finance department’s help—to forecast what the company’s run-rate costs will be after the changes are in place.
This highlights another key role of the TO: transformation portfolio management. Although transformations often take place over 18 to 36 months, most individual projects can be executed in two to four months. As projects reach completion, the company needs to replace them with new priority projects. The TO helps workstream owners ensure that they have the right balance of projects in development (stages 0, 1, and 2), in execution (stage 3), and in impact validation (stage 4).
Issue: Something unexpected happens that requires a sudden course correction in the transformation program.
Potential causes: A major disruption may result from some external factor, such as a new CEO, a financial downturn, or a regional health or environmental crisis. Indeed, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, some companies in the midst of transformations experienced such dramatic drops in demand that they had to decide which parts of their transformation programs to maintain.
Potential solutions: When a disruption occurs, a TO can leverage the change process and program that is already in place. One inspired example of this involved a client facing a liquidity scare during the pandemic. The company had to switch quickly to initiatives with more favorable cash flow and away from many original initiatives that were designed to maximize EBITDA. They managed to move quickly because the work they had already done for each project covered cash impact. With the finance team’s help, the TO identified cash-consuming projects that needed to be put on pause and holding-pen projects that offered immediate cash flow benefits. Had the TO not developed properly vetted business cases at the outset, its response to the disruption would have taken much longer.
The larger point—relevant to any kind of disruption—is that the CTO and the TO need to have the tools to organize an agile response to many problems and disruptions that can occur during a transformation.
Throughout the process of a transformation, a good CTO and TO should actively identify problems, work with owners and leaders to solve them, and keep the whole program operating on schedule. On a day-to-day level, the CTO functions a bit like the coach of elite Olympic athletes. Such athletes benefit from being pushed and challenged—and so do many talented organizational leaders. Just how far can they stretch? The CTO earns the right to find out by demonstrating skill at problem solving and by obtaining needed resources. Although the CTO isn’t the one who stands on the podium and collects the gold medal, he or she is at least partly responsible for what the people in the organization achieve.
The changes at the start of a transformation are rapid fire and stress inducing, but those first few months are also when a transformation’s benefits are most apparent. This is partly because leadership teams initially focus on easy-to-execute projects to create buy-in and excitement and to accumulate success stories for use later when the going gets harder. We refer to the early phase of a transformation, which generally lasts six to nine months, as “funding the journey.” The company is both providing money and also expecting to generate cash from early projects that can be invested into later ones.
The big opportunities in transformations usually take longer to execute—18, 24, or 36 months. For instance, a company looking to reduce finance department costs could de-layer the organization to free up cash. Alternatively, the company could opt to automate or outsource part of the finance function to a low-cost country. Those projects would have higher payback but a longer gestation period.
Upgrading capabilities—for example, shifting an engineering organization from waterfall development to an agile approach—also takes time. Such an effort can be a gigantic value creator and a source of competitive advantage but is unlikely to bear fruit in the first months or even the first year of a transformation.
The next phase of the transformation is what we call the “medium term.” The transition to this part of a transformation is risky (See Exhibit 8.) It’s a time when the CTO must do three things:
Personnel changes can complicate performance in a transformation’s medium-term phase, which is often when a TO’s operations are transferred from an outside consulting firm to the organization. This is a big transition. With good knowledge transfer and training (including job shadowing, in many cases), a transformation can keep its momentum. Otherwise, it can come apart.
Even a transformation that hasn’t included consultants and doesn’t have a moment of external-to-internal transition must weather significant shifts in personnel, since TOs tend to be temporary assignments. Having detailed documentation about how the transformation has proceeded is crucial. So is a well tend to have ample reserves of confidence and resilience—along with an aptitude for financial analysis and an obsession with details. They are also able to develop soft skills.
Transformations are like a multistage rocket launch: the liftoff gets most of the initial attention and causes the most nail biting, but the people in the command center never really rest. They know that the spacecraft will have to re-accelerate, adjust course periodically, and fire its rockets at the right time.
In a space mission, you’d never see a mindset of “Everything is going great—we can coast a bit.” There’s always another thing to do, a new way to ensure or improve an outcome. The same is true in an organization: when things are stable and running well, a transformation is poised for reinvigoration.
A company that has established a TO and is happy with the results may eventually ask, “Why would we dissolve this function?” Most such firms are in fast-changing industries and have everything riding on three or four major new initiatives in any given year. The role of the TO at these organizations is to ensure that the company executes future initiatives with the same rigor and process discipline displayed in earlier transformation-related projects. It’s about executional certainty and speed—and about turning agility into a competitive advantage. (See Exhibit 9.)
In a company engaged in always-on transformation, the TO becomes part of the organization’s management operating system, joining disciplines such as finance, performance management, and strategy. The TO has a highly targeted role at these companies: to focus on the company’s step-change initiatives and on its “big rocks.” This differs from continuous improvement, although that is important, too. (See Exhibit 10.)
Not surprisingly, some companies make strategy and transformation part of a single executive’s brief. Strategy informs what’s in the pipeline, and the TO ensures its execution, so one person oversees both things.
Transformations are here to stay—and they will always be difficult. But our decades of collective experience and the survey work we’ve done to understand transformations have given us a clear picture of what they require.
Success comes down to a few key things. Manage your processes rigorously, and institute strong governance. Use a stage-gate methodology to maximize the value of your initiatives, and use software and data to keep those initiatives on track. Put a TO at the center. Perhaps most important, set the bar high—and then look for the right times, places, and ways to raise the bar. If your organization is struggling, this mindset of “never good enough” will help you strengthen it. If your organization is already good, the right transformation just might make it great.
The authors of the 2021 version of this article were Reinhard Messenböck, Perry Keenan, David Kirchhoff, Kristy Ellmer, Julia Dhar, Mike Lewis, Ronny Fehling, Gregor Gossy, Simon Stolba, and Connor Currier. We want to acknowledge their foundational work and to thank our many clients and colleagues who have also contributed to our collective understanding of transformation.
The authors would also like to thank the following contributors: Jim Hemerling, Christian Gruss, Tuukka Seppä, Allison Bailey, Robert Werner, Brittany Heflin, Andra London, and Isaac Gaynor.