For some organisations it is a serial norm. As a consultant arriving to complete the analysis of a perceived problem or to determine the problem behind some prevalent symptoms, one of our first requests is to have delivered to us previous reports into the problem.

It is normal to have delivered to us ten or more reports consisting of internal and external audit reports, previous consultant reports, incident reports, strategy documents and planning documents. The documents have two things in common.

The first common element is that problem areas are repeatedly identified and acknowledged in the documents which may cover over five years of elapsed time.

The second common element is that all of the documents are heavy on analysis and light on implementation. Classic consultant reports give two to five pages on why the consultancy was set up, three to five pages on method and any number like, fifty or one hundred pages, on analysis and recommendations.

Implementation, if considered at all, scores two or three pages on a high level implementation plan which does not take into account the operating environment, resource requirements and availability, likely support and opposition to the changes recommended and the timing interrelationship between the recommendations.

To avoid the apparent paralysis by analysis syndrome, an approach with six simple elements has, in my experience, met with more success than failure.

Plan the implementation

When, as a leader of an organisation, you receive a report which consists of ninety-five percent analysis of the problem and five percent implementation of the solution, reject it. Better still, when setting the scope of the investigation and the charter for the team, insist that the final report has as much to say about implementation as it does about the problem and its causes.

Insist further that the implementation plan take into consideration the resource requirements and availability, relationships with other projects and day-to-day business and whether a pilot programme is required to understand all the implementation issues.

Challenge the analysis

An aspect which is common to failed implementations is a lingering disbelief in the analysis by influential stakeholders. During the presentation of the analysis these stakeholders may say a few words in opposition and are often seen as a "negative" influence on change. Others say very little in the room and wait until they get to the corridor before they voice their concerns. Even a well planned implementation will fail if the basis on which it was planned is not believed.

Presentations of analysis should be set up so that it is mandatory to challenge the analysis. Don't be afraid of opposition to analysis, welcome it. It is the means by which organisations can do two things.

One is to get all of the intellectual and practical understanding of what makes an organisation tick out on the table. Counter-arguments to perceptions embedded in the analysis will ensure the analysis is robust.

The other is that those with opposing views will be able to rationally debate what the correct analysis is and if the session(s) is facilitated well, will come to a level of agreement that will not hinder the implementation of the recommendations.

Challenge the Recommendations

For each set of analyses about a problem's origin, there are not only multiple solutions, there must be found multiple solutions to make implementation stick. Implementation set on a path of a group of singular solutions has a high risk of failure. Life never quite turns out as we expect it. External and internal influences occur which cannot be predicted. Some occur which are predicted but were thought to be low probability.

An implementation plan needs flexibility in building solutions to problems. Challenge the recommendations to find them. Whilst settling on a preferred solution, having alternate solutions known particularly for low probability and high impact scenarios is simply just good risk management.

Challenge the Implementation