Let's Not Call it Change Management, Call it Benefits Realization.

It is unclear to me how Organizational Change Management (OCM), a highly effective methodology, has struggled to assert itself and communicate its value to the performing organization. This may stem from an overemphasis on technical execution and processes rather than on people. In certain industries, the general disregard and misunderstanding of OCM can be attributed to company culture. My colleagues in change management would offer not only relevant opinions but also numerous accounts of their experiences.

There is substantial data supporting the case for using OCM in infrastructure. Benchmarking studies indicate that 88% of projects with excellent change management meet or exceed objectives, while those with good OCM have a 73% success rate. Projects employing poor OCM achieved their objectives only 15% of the time. Additionally, studies reveal that large utility infrastructure projects often face cost overruns and delays, with some experiencing cost overages of 35% and delays of up to two years. Given the rapid pace at which utilities must adopt new technologies to keep up with customer energy demands, cybersecurity challenges, and regulatory changes, such delays are untenable. Utilities must be cost-conscious to balance the interests of government agencies, investors, and customers.

Despite some application of OCM within the industry, it has largely failed to achieve significant penetration. Key players are beginning to discuss the "utility of the future," which involves transforming traditional utility services into more efficient, sustainable, and customer-centric models. The astute players recognize that achieving this "utility of the future" necessitates considering the people who will need to adopt the technology to serve utility customers.

To advocate for the methodology of OCM, it is essential to employ new language to reshape its perception. Reframing language is crucial because words shape perceptions, emotions, and decision-making. Certain terms become outdated, negative, carry unintended biases, or fail to resonate with specific audiences. Renaming is most effective when it aligns strategic goals, audience expectations and cultural shifts. For example, the Food Stamps program was first launched in 1939, and it is credited to the Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace. I was designed to help low-income individuals to purchase food. The Food Stamps program was renamed to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008 to modernize the program’s image, reduce stigma and emphasize the nutrition –focused assistance rather than the financial aid.

It is time to reshape the perceptions standing in the way of the realization of the proven benefits of OCM. I am particularly fond of the word "benefit," as it signifies the end result of

a process connecting technology, processes, and people. I also favor the term ”realization" as it denotes a necessary process to achieve the benefits. I foresee a near future where this Methodology of Benefits Realization facilitates faster, more cost-effective, and more successful projects. The "utilities of the future" will undoubtedly require it.