Change Implementation: The Story Of Pearl Harbor, Foresight and Business Change

In his book, The Drunkard's Walk : How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Leonard Mlodinow spends a little time talking about the attack on Pearl bay. One of the points that he makes referring to the attack is that there were indicators in the behavior of the japanese army which, in hindsight, might have served as predictors of the assault. Of course, hindsight is always far more acute than foresight, but it is acute foresight that project managers concerned in change implementation have to have at their disposal.

Afrequent problem that plagues change implementation projects is alack of risk oriented planning. The irony is that, in many cases, lists have been assembled and consultations have taken place re the potential risks and problems. What never materializes from these lists and dialogue are real contingency plans to deal with those risks and pitfalls. So, if one is leading a change implementation project or has responsibility for Pearl harbor during WWII, what can one do to enhance foresight?

One method of improving foresight is to put sensors in place to get the necessary information before a little problem becomes a killer problem. For the army chief of Pearl harbor who is anticipating an attack, this can mean assigning somebody to observe changes in radio communication or to observe a consulate for pointers that the consulate is about to close. For the change implementation executive, this suggests monitoring info that has a record of showing approaching risks, inspiring team members to bring even tiny issues to your attention, and predicting the worst scenarios that would happen so that a plan will be in place to deal with it.

While nobody has perfect foresight, it is possible to enhance the percentages of a successful change implementation by being open to the chance of disaster. As Louis Pasteur once expounded, Chance favors the prepared mind.

For more information, please see our website: Change Implementation