Scaling the Change Manager Role
Part-time responsibility
A smaller organization may not be able to have a dedicated change manager. In this case, the responsibilities of this role must still be vested in a single person to ensure there is accountability for change management.
When there is no dedicated change manager, it is essential that whoever assumes the role has no other which may conflict with the change management function. It would be unwise for the same person to be responsible for incident or problem management, as there are obvious conflicts between these roles – the incident manager is seeking a stable infrastructure to avoid incidents, and changes will impact his or her responsibility. The problem manager may assign a higher priority to changes that resolve problems he or she is addressing. The change manager must be able to assess and prioritize changes with a clear head, without the complications these roles would create.
A person who is knowledgeable in asset or configuration management and responsible for that work could complement and benefit the change manager’s role, and could credibly assume those duties on a part-time basis.
A full-time person
When an organization is large enough, it is likely it will be able to appoint a single, dedicated change manager with responsibility for all IT changes in the business. This can be an effective method to manage change in a small to medium enterprise, however, it may create some risks.
The change manager can become overloaded, which may create a bottleneck where changes accumulate and there are insufficient resources to assess and prioritize them effectively. This can be overcome by delegating change assessments to subject matter experts in other parts of the IT organization.
There is also the risk in this situation the change manager becomes too protective of the infrastructure and is unwilling to take the risk of implementing too many changes. This can stifle innovation for the business.
Small Team
This is a more effective structure to conduct change management in a small to medium enterprise. A single change manager can work with a static change management board (CAB) that meets regularly to assess the change queue, accept or reject proposals and prioritize and schedule changes for release.
The downside of this structure is that the CAB can put pressure on its members who may have other busy roles. This structure can function more efficiently if the change manager restricts the changes submitted to the CAB to those of significant risk, or where there is a debatable benefit to the business. The change manager, as an individual, can then manage smaller, low-risk changes.
Coordinating a large, distributed change-management function
In a larger organization, this can be a very effective method to manage change. Distributing the responsibility for assessing, prioritizing and approving changes throughout the organization results in less stress for each person involved, and he or she is only assessing changes for which he or she has the knowledge needed to provide accurate recommendations.
In this model, the change manager will convene a different CAB each time, including members who have expertise in the areas pertinent to the changes to be discussed. This will make CAB meetings more efficient and will eliminate the need to ask the sample people to attend every meeting whose schedules are already are filled with normal work tasks.
Training change requestors and change approvers
When using the distributed change-management function, it is important the people who may be asked to assess and approve changes have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. It is wise to offer specific and continuous training in this area to anyone who will be involved in this task.
Consistent processes and tools
One of the change manager’s first jobs will be to establish consistent processes for change management. There will be a number of different change processes in any organizations:
-
Major changes will receive a comprehensive assessment and risk management before the CAB approves them.
-
Minor changes still require assessment and risk management, but it is likely the change proposer can accomplish these tasks before the change manager approves them.
-
Pre-approved changes are small risks and, often, repeatable changes may occur, regularly. These changes must be clearly documented, but will not require a separate approval process.
-
A different process is required for emergency changes. They still must be assessed for risk, and they will need approval from the change manager or delegated before they are released into the production environment.