Perfectly this article could be called "The 3D", but it would be a bit difficult to guess the acronyms; or "D-Day", but it could be confused with the historic Normandy Landing, although I think it has something to do with the latter… in a metaphorical sense, obviously.
Is that this time we will refer to what happens in companies, after the "landing" of cultural changes, systems and / or processes, etc. Before implementation or go live, communication campaigns can become very powerful; however, the day after, crickets often sound, which can be a serious inconvenience.
But if everyone already knows the project!
Indeed, if the communications work has been consistent and effective, chances are that the project is well positioned in the minds of the company's workers (or at least those who are directly impacted) and is even well understood in its main aspects. So what's the problem?
The problem is that this important achievement achieved can go overboard, if we are not still communicationally consistent after the live departure, since this is the day that the particular plan begins to work, which does not necessarily mean that its operation thereafter be successful. That is why support is still required, according to the new scenarios.
In this sense, in most cases the intensity of the informative treatment of the topic decreases and the focus clearly varies, solving questions such as: did the implementation work? Who can we turn to if we have any doubts about the new structure, procedures and / or systems? Is there a period of white march? Did the team that was in charge of the project return to their original jobs or continue to be linked to this challenge? What are the advances that are being obtained by stage? What opportunities for improvement have been identified? How do I contribute to facilitate this? What corporate challenges have been identified and what are the priorities?
On the opposite sidewalk, that is, if none of these issues are addressed after the go live, uncertainty begins to arise, the positioning of the project is affected (in terms of its level of remembrance as a brand and the main benefit that is search), understanding it (by not knowing whether progress has been made, new priorities, etc.) and, consequently, its credibility.
The only detail is that in this case, the loss of credibility can affect not only the particular initiative, but also extend to the teams linked to it and even to the managers who provided their support.
Ultimately, how do we prevent work from going overboard?
For this, there are some key activities, which can be very useful to ensure that quality and coherence with the work that has been carried out are maintained. Among them are:
-Include in the communications plan associated with the project a support period after the live departure. How long? This will depend on the complexity of the initiative itself, the resources available and the corporate priorities.
-In the event that this work is being carried out by an external consulting team, plan beforehand the transfer to the company's communications area, to ensure that effective work continues.
-If possible, continue to have a support group of key people, who ideally represent the different levels of the organization and who reach out to the workers, so that they can answer their questions and continue to act as levers for the initiative.
-Have a formal support network (help desk for example) that solves people's most technical problems and queries.
All these activities and tools will decrease in intensity as time passes, however, it is important to ensure that a minimum period of updating and support is maintained, especially when the project has been “sold” as one of the most important strategic initiatives of the company.
To read this and other articles, visit our blog
