Creating change is not enough. You must also worry about how to keep the change in place - how to ensure its survival beyond the initial enthusiasm or after the seed money disappears. In other words, you are now faced with the institutionalisation of change:

We have all seen myriad reforms and innovations that arrive on the scene with much tumultuous fanfare but just as quickly evaporate into the mists of history. The world of reform, in fact, is like the legendary village of Brigadoon - a wondrous place that rises from the mist once every hundred years and disappears at the end of the day, not to be seen for another century. Many changes come and go. Some last, some don't. Change worth doing is worth institutionalising.

1. FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE. You cannot institutionalise a change after you have implemented it. You must do so before you implement. The probability that a change will survive depends on analysing and planning for change in advance, not on strategising after the fact. If you do not set the stage for institutionalisation while you are planning and implementing, the chances are low that it will occur later.

2. PLANNING AND PREPARATION. Careful planning and preparation involves the following elements:

(a) Listening: Willingness to seek out others and actively hear what they have to say.

(b) Involving: Participation of many people in defining the what and how of change.

(c) Directing: Organisation of the different work of individuals; ability to blend and give focus to a task team.

(d) Analysing: Capacity to receive, sort, and aggregate information and ideas to make sense.

(e) Crafting: Artisanship in shaping information and values into a product that satisfies identified needs and interests.

These five elements may be performed at different times in various settings.

3. TIMING. Every great soccer player, every great musician, knows that timing is everything. The same is true of great change agents. All the skills in the world cannot overcome being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Funding and approval processes often contribute to poor timing.

In any organisation the changes that last are those that occur at the right moment in the history of the organisation. However skilled you advance planning, if the beneficial moment has passed, you may need to hold off or even abandon the change effort. When the timing is right, then you can proceed.

4. CONGRUENCE WITH MISSION: Changes that last are those that are congruent with the central mission of the institution. Note the word central. No institution can ever be altogether static in its purpose, function, or mission because it must respond to new demands and interests dictated by today's turbulent environment. However, if all needs and functions shift, then the institution is simply irresolute, driven by current fads. To maintain equilibrium in a turbulent environment, an organisation must know that which stays consistent in its mission. the more the change is related or linked to that central, unchanging core of the mission, the more likely its survival in the face of shifting, but less central, priorities. Changes that last, funded or not, are those that address genuine need.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY: This is the flip side of congruence with mission. Changes that last are largely those that are responsive to external demands and needs. As we live in a volatile, demanding world, our organisational changes must reflect the changing world around us. Nevertheless, although organisations must be environmentally sensitive, they cannot be environmentally dependent. If everything they do is a function of external demands, then they will succumb to every fad and fancy in the turbulent outside world. the changes that last are those that take the middle road - they are sensitive to, but not dependent on, the environment.

6. CLARITY AND SIMPLICITY: The more ambiguous or obscure the description of change, the more likely that everyone will express agreement, for each one can read the message as he or she prefers. Language that obscures intent, rather than clarifying, may promote early acceptance of the change, but eventually conflicting interpretations will emerge - and the happy coalition will simply fall apart.

For lasting change to occur, needs and intentions and payoffs must be stated clearly and simply. They must be readily understood by everyone. This clarity may surface in disagreements, but even that is an advantage. Open disagreement enables you to identify the resisters and analyse the sources of their resistance. If you want lasting change, it is important to articulate that change in clear, simple language - to fight the fight of consensus early, before the implementation stage

7. UNPRETENTIOUS REALISM: "This reform will change the face of education"....... or health care or business or whatever. We have all become weary and sceptical of overblown, pretentious change efforts. Change agents who feel they must sell their change effort as incredibly historic or earth shattering forget that most of us know that any single change has only a limited impact. Therefore, the more realistically we speak of change, the more believable we are.

A further caution: Even if we succeed at inspiring faith in an overblown, pretentious change effort, eventually we will disappoint our supporters. We may deliver modifications, even important modifications - but seldom can we generate transformations. In the long run, realism works. In proposing a change effort, acknowledge its imperfections and limitations. this is not to suggest that your objective is unimportant or unworthy - only that it is not perfect.

8. SUFFICIENT, NOT INDULGENT RESOURCES: Most of us recognise that many change efforts are undercapitalised. Some, however, are overcapitalised - an equally problematic situation. Achievement, responsibility, productivity, satisfaction, and the like are highest when organisations are moderately undermanned! In essence, the more we are needed, the better we produce. The worst condition is the overmanned one. no one takes responsibility because everyone is sure that someone else would take it. Modest resources force invention, investment, and organisational commitment. Vast resources may well create long term problems. Therefore, change agents need to generate sufficient, but not indulgent, resources. Realistic, modest allocations of money, time, and energy lead to lasting change.

9. STRONG, CENTRAL LEADERSHIP: The ideal project leader is not a marginal member on the make, or a person whose ego is more important than the outcome. Rather, effective change agents are individuals who are already trusted and respected in the organisation, persons who are linked to the central mission and goals of the organisation. Such leaders must serve as lightning rods for ideas and activities and articulate the reasons for the change throughout the life span of the project. Change efforts with such leaders do achieve long term survival. Without such leadership, programme survival will be compromised.

10. REDUCED INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETARY INTEREST: This final element of institutionalisation is inversely related to the previous one. Although an effective advocate is necessary for change, that person's proprietary interest must be kept at the lowest level consistent with his or her personal commitment and satisfaction. Shares in the project must be "sold"; ownership must move from the few to the many. Then, when an individual moves, shifts attention, grows tired, loses face, or gets fired or promoted or whatever, the programme does not die. The links established throughout the organisation form a web of support.

A change agent needs a strong ego. If you expect unremitting tributes, then you probably will fail to spread responsibility and ownership for the change and thus will fall short of achieving long term change. You need to reduce your individual property interest and extend ownership to the many.

References: 1. Harvey, Thomas, R., Checklist for Change, Allyn and Bacon, 1990.