Who should we insist wear Health Tech?

WEARABLE HEALTH TECH

Earlier this year ciChange hosted and promoted #inov8healthjsy and working with Jersey Business and Digital Jersey run a breakfast briefing, lunch networking and evening panel discussion on Health Tech and future opportunities.

I am really interested in this as someone who is a curator for TEDx (Technology Education and Design) I clearly have an interest in these matters. I am also a keen sports person so am interested in health and as an ex-programmer with a technology and change background I am fascinated by this new frontier, and the implications for corporates and individuals. See link 1 below.

MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH WEARABLE HEALTH TECH

I recently have upgraded my Garmin to track my performance when I swim, bike and run and have always found it useful to monitor and measure both effort and recovery. I also maintain a training log and am aware of the impact of over-training on my mood and physical wellbeing. This of course makes sense for any athlete in training, so I suppose I am used to the merits of wearables.

I have recently also bought a FitBit which offers monitoring of food, water, activity and sleep amongst many other things. It will even connect me with friends to promote healthy competition. I recognise this is a more user-friendly and publically beneficial tool than the Garmin. Currently I find the greatest value in the FitBit is in monitoring my sleep (often over-looked as a vital component of a healthy life-style)

The former does improve the way I train, but the latter has had a more subtle but potentially more significant impact on my lifestyle. The future will be interesting.

SOME BROADER IMPLICATIONS

I heard on Radio 4 (but sadly cannot remember the programme / podcast) someone suggesting that not only will insurance companies be interested in wearable tech but also businesses may be curious to know if people are fit for the tasks ahead.

There are some insurance companies that already fit gadgets to the car to assess your driving, and we already have breathalysers to assess whether we should be behind the wheel. It can only be a matter of time before these judgements on our abilities are applied to professions.

With doctors and nurses working long hours and under incredible stress perhaps a good place to start would be the medical profession.

JERSEY IOD ANNUAL DEBATE

The Jersey IoD Annual Debate, which ordinarily attracts an audience of over 500 people, takes place on Thursday 17 September 2015 at the RJA&HS from 4.45pm – 9.45pm and is open to all islanders. Places cost £80 per person, including a supper, whilst a table of 12 can also be booked via the IoD Jersey Branch Officer on 610799 or jedirector@localdial.com. Further information is available at www.iod.je, the IoD Group on LinkedIn and by following @iodjersey on Twitter. See link 2 below.

LINKS
http://projectspeoplechange.blogspot.com/2015/08/inov8healthjsy-tedx-and-iod-conclude.html
http://www.iod.je/News.aspx?id=iod-annual-debate-2015#sthash.CKrT5Fzd.dpbs


The Author

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

Managing committees and shepherding cats

I have a love of sport and over the years have been involved in swim, bike, run, triathlon, climbing, rowing , canoeing and climbing. I have also been involved in the Island Games and the Commonwealth Games. Over an extended period and in different roles I have quite a bit of experience working with clubs and I can tell you: It can be hard!

Unlike businesses where they may be some functional or hierarchical organisation which suggests some rules of protocol, clubs can be a free-for-all based on personality and charisma, either positively or negatively.

Businesses will generally choose the product and customer base, which they collectively feel will best fit the business and the employees are expected to fall into line or leave. It is important to talk with staff, and union representation can be a good thing, but let’s be clear businesses are not true democracies!

The problem with a club is that your “employees” and your “customers” are one and the same, couple that with a pretty flat structure, and management is a non-going and tiring negotiation. People are passionate. Probably a lot more passionate about their sport, club or society than they are about their job. Sport is also a great social leveller so the best at swim, bike, run, triathlon, climbing, rowing, canoeing and climbing isn’t likely to be the best doctor, lawyer, accountant or other professional. This is an organisation where everyone thinks they are the CEO, and at the next AGM could well be the next CEO!

How do you cope?

I have previously blogged about Change Management in Clubs and Community (See link 1 below)

In that blog I offered a number of good examples of successful Change Management in Clubs and Community. The themes were broadly around my ideas including the following.

1. Having a vision, goal, mission or other lofty ambition is a good thing around which to rally people. Their focus becomes the thing to achieve rather than the people, personalities, cliques or cult.

2. Making change visible, tangible and real, is important so that it isn’t just words spoken or a directive written but something that touches people. This can be branding, logos, social media, notice boards, videos. There are all sorts of ways that you can change the environment and social perceptions to make clear that something different is happening.

3. Start making life easier. Improve the admin, streamline the processes, make communication and feedback easier. One of the problems of “selling” is that people push harder and this simply encourages people to resist harder. Often success comes from making it easy to buy, making the task easy to do, making the conversation easier to have. If everything is easier people will perceive it is better and they are more likely to endorse the people, processes and technology which go with that.

4. Reach out and recruit allies. It is important to recognise that it is unlikely that you’ll get someone who if 100% negative about your change to be 100% positive about your proposals. But maybe the people who are 60:40 might tip to 40:60. The idea is to create a tipping point, not to convince 100% of all the people. Careful curatorship and stakeholder management can help, particularly where you can create alignment between individuals ambitions and goals of the organisation: for example a “youth team” a “masters trophy” or something similar.

5. Give people a role and a reputation to live up to. The devil makes plans for people with idle hands and keeping agitators busy doing stuff for the benefit of the club is likely to be a better employment of their energy and generate some kudos for them if they are the “organiser for the XYZ event”.

6. People who are great “people people” should be made captain of this, team leader for that, person-in-charge of the other. These will be the orators and communicators of your vision and values. Others may be better directed to tasks (well away from the potential of creating a mutiny) and they can work independently on “special projects”.

Satisfaction is the enemy of progress

The challenge of the above is that what do you do after you have steered the ship away from the rocks and there is no imperative, no urgent action required, nothing to galvanise and focus the troops?

I have seem a club virtually disintegrate through lack of momentum or passion. The club still exists like a shabby corner shop surviving in the shadows of supermarkets and on-line retail. They have faded trophies, nostalgic membership and know full well that once their tenure is over the doors will close for the last time.

In these circumstances you are likely to have a power struggle or identity crisis. The questions will be “Where do we go from here?” and the response is likely to be “Do we need to go anywhere?”. It’s like being at a crash scene in a desert, are you better staying put, or striding out?

As a leader in these situations do you split the group or stay together. If you split the group, are you the one who stays put, or ventures out?

I have to admit I have a bias for action. This is not necessarily a good thing!

When it comes to shepherding cats, I’m likely to start walking and see who follows. If they choose not to then that is their prerogative and not my responsibility. My duty has to be to the ones that do follow, because if they are following I am their leader.

LINKS
http://projectspeoplechange.blogspot.com/2013/05/change-management-in-clubs-and-community.html



THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

Public sector reform: Net saving £4.2m subject to States funding £3m

Public sector reform: Net saving £4.2m subject to States funding £3m


CONTEXT

The states of Jersey are seeking to address a funding “black hole” c £130m in part by a series of HR initiatives (£70m) including the following…
• Pay restraint
• Vacancy/attrition management
• VR (Voluntary Release)
• CR
• Service redesign – Lean /eGov /mergers
• Outsourcing
• Regulation
• Stop doing

The purpose of the Voluntary Release Programme initiated 1st June 2015 was to enable:
• employees to apply to leave employment on a voluntary basis
• organisational change and efficiency savings to be made

The Programme was open to all permanent employees of the SoJ across all Pay Groups with a minimum of 2 years service.

PROGESS SO FAR

A total of 329 expressions of interest were received, 129 applications were submitted to the VR panel and 104 have been approved.

The Council of Ministers has approved funding of £2 million in 2015 which has been made available to fund the release packages for 52 of the approved applications. The packages for the remaining 52 employees have been confirmed subject to States Assembly approval of funding later this year and in 2016.

52 – released in 2015 £ 2m
52 – subject to States funding £ 3m
10 – pending
Net annual recurring saving £ 4.2m

Until SoJ has redesigned its services it can’t rule out the possibility of further voluntary release programmes and compulsory redundancies, but it will continue the dual approach of careful vacancy management and using natural staff turnover rate of around 6% to minimise the need for redundancies.

REFLECTIONS

Whilst I commend the States for achieving the net annual recurring saving £ 4.2m I am perplexed why the approach has been to first shed staff and then later pursue service redesign.

Would it not have been better to start with service review and decide what services must, should, could be provided by the States and which might be better outsourced, left to private entities or simply discontinued.

Once there is clarity on service provision and priorities then service redesign can commence (looking at people, process and technology) and once that is complete you can look at the resources required (or no longer required).

The danger of having lost staff without having rationalised the work-load is that there are now less people to do the same amount of work without any clarity on whether that work is necessary. Furthermore this approach has lost some of the spare capacity, experience and expertise that might have been useful in the service review and service redesign phases.

I am not being critical of the staff reduction, but I do believe the same outcome could have been achieved with far greater savings had the approach been different. For staff to be leaving a more efficient and effective department surely has to be better than leaving one potentially in crisis.

Moreover the opportunities to push work into the private sector may have had the double-benefit of streamlining the public sector and creating growth and opportunity in the private sector.

That is not to say that this cannot now be achieved, but I think it will be harder without a “big picture” view of service provision and priorities and the resources to effect the change. It seems to me to be better to disband the team after the work is done, not before.

NEXT STEPS AND EXPECTATIONS

Losing 104 staff from an organisation of circa 7000 is only a start. It is nonetheless and important start, albeit that apparently the actual cost of doing this hadn’t been anticipated and has faltered “subject to States funding £ 3m”

I believe the real challenges and opportunities will come from the following.

• Service redesign – Lean /eGov /mergers
• Outsourcing
• Stop doing

I look forward with anticipation the financial targets and Five Year Plan for these initiatives which will deliver a more efficient, effective, streamline public sector.

THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

When neither teaching nor preaching works, how do you get people to change?

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Confucius


REVERSING THE ROLES

I used to teach on the Chartered Management Institute Programme for NVQ4 and NVQ5. I would often spend time explaining how to write an assignment, how to do Harvard referencing, and how to ensure that they met the marking criteria and achieved their qualifications. I had varying degrees of success.

One day I decided to give the students an assignment for them to mark. It was a dummy one, but they didn’t know that. What I also gave them was the marking criteria and a stop-watch and explained that a tutor, examiner or assessor might have limited time to mark 50 assignments. I put them in my shoes and asked then to mark and return the assignment.

This proved interesting. First may people said they found it really difficult to match the marking criteria to what was written in the assignment. Others said that the assignment was poorly structured and that made it difficult to discern the key points (and marks). Remarkably there was not much variance in standards: what was a “fail” was recognised as such by everyone.

In the debrief they were quick to criticise the style, structure, content, punctuation, referencing and all the other criteria which cumulatively effect the mood and scoring of a tutor, examiner or assessor.

They go it! After they experienced what it was like to be on the receiving end they had an epiphany, and from that point forward my job became easier and their marks got better!

DO NOT TEACH OR PREACH

It is really difficult not to intervene when you see a situation you know you could “rescue”.

I am reminded of a story about Dave Brailsford….

“I am comfortable in a room getting a group of people together to thrash things around so we know where we’re going. The greatest danger for me is that I am a bit of an orchestra conductor. If I think the violinist isn’t quite in tune, the worst thing I can do is grab the violin and say ‘this is how you do it’, play a little tune which probably isn’t any better and hand it back. I’m not going to make things better and that person is going to feel totally undermined. When I see something not working, I find it very hard not to dive in. So when I was at the races, I found I got caught in the 24 hours that you are in and it just keeps rolling along. You want to get out of it and start looking at the medium term but unless you stop and come up for air you’re almost trapped.”

I have found that it is better to create interest, curiosity and a willingness to learn than it is to teach. This means my approach is more inquisitive, challenging, questioning than directive and my thoughts are laid bare for people to offer feedback or criticism.

This is often made easier as a consultant or interim because my legacy (and future work) is dependent upon the knowledge and experience I give freely, not the ideas that I selfishly keep to myself.

BEING A MENTOR OR FACILITATOR

If you are not a teacher, but you are enthusiastic about learning and development (yours as well as other peoples) you are probably a mentor or facilitator.

I recollect once being asked to “answer any questions and be a sounding board, but don’t do anything”

I found the role of being a facilitator challenging and rewarding. It was challenging because I was keen to offer my ideas, my experience, my solutions but realised that I must not do this. I found it rewarding because being a guide for their ideas, their experience and their solutions both broadened my understanding and upon reflection, told me why my ideas would not have worked.

With an increasingly knowledgeable, professional and educated workforce it is important to commitment, co-operation, collaboration and communication co-create the future. Pre-packed plans may be accepted or rejected depending on elements of trust and resistance to change, but it is my experience that people are always more willing when they are the architects of their future.

Suggestions, feedback and alternative views are very welcome.

LINKS

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615#4mJZ7cOyRzORcACo.99


THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

From Anarchy to Order – how IT decision-making could change

Below is text from a blog by Neil Wells, February 2013 (At that time he was Director of Information Services). I have re-posted (unedited) because I think it is excellent.

How do large and diverse organisations ensure that their information technology (IT) supports their performance goals? How can they ensure that the decisions they take regarding IT give the best value possible, and help the organisation to both grow and remain flexible? In many organisations, while senior executives try to address these questions, other parts of the business are simultaneously making decisions that profoundly influence the value of IT on the firm.

IT governance

IT governance is a process of aligning IT actions with performance goals, and assigning accountability for those actions and their outcomes. To be effective, IT governance must be actively designed, not the result of isolated tactical actions implemented to address that moment’s challenge. But how can this be achieved, particularly within the States of Jersey?

The MIT Model

We can perhaps learn from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Model. It categorises both IT decisions, and the groups, which take them.

The MIT Model identifies five categories of IT decision:

1.IT Principles: high-level statements about how IT is used in the business
2.IT Architecture: decisions about the organisation of data, applications and infrastructure to provide standardisation and integration
3.IT Infrastructure: decisions about the elements that provide the foundation for an organisation’s IT capability
4.Business Application Needs: decisions about the business need for purchased / internally-developed systems and applications
5.IT Investment and Prioritisation: decisions about which initiatives to fund, and how much to invest in IT


The MIT Model also identifies six types of decision-making structure. They are progressively decreasing in their degree of centralised IT governance:

1.Business Monarchy: the top business executives make the decision
2.IT Monarchy: the IT specialists make the decision
3.Federal: the decision is made by a combination of corporate centre and business units, with or without IT involvement
4.IT Duopoly: the IT specialists and one other group (eg business unit leaders) make the decision
5.Feudal: business units make independent decisions
6.Anarchy: decisions are made by isolated individuals or small groups, independent of their department or the organisation

Applying the MIT Model

After detailed research, the MIT study came to the conclusion that only three configurations of these decisions and decision-makers actually worked effectively for corporate IT governance.

Configuration 1 – A division of expertise respecting both technology and business specialisms

1.IT Principles: IT Duopoly - IT executives with individual business unit leaders make high-level policy
2.IT Architecture: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on standardisation / integration
3.IT Infrastructure: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on the infrastructure
4.Business Application Needs – Federal - business unit leaders decide together
5.IT Investments and Prioritisation: IT Duopoly – IT executives and business leaders decide on funding allocation

This model lets IT professionals get on with running the infrastructure (and be held to account for performance, naturally), while decisions on principles, business applications and investments are localised to departments / subsidiaries, advised by the IT senior executives. The result is that the corporate centre, and not IT, determines both the business needs and the diversity of business systems.

Configuration 2 – Respect specialisms, but control the overall costs

This is very similar to Configuration 1, except for Business Application Needs and IT Investments & Prioritisation:

1.IT Principles: IT Duopoly - IT executives with individual business unit leaders make high-level policy
2.IT Architecture: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on standardisation / integration
3.IT Infrastructure: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on the infrastructure
4.Business Application Needs: IT Duopoly – IT executives and business unit leaders decide
5.IT Investments and Prioritisation: Business Monarchy – corporate executives or business committees allocate funds

In this model, the overall IT investment portfolio is set by the business centre who will test the business case and value for money before approving any IT spend. However each business unit or department has more flexibility in its choice of applications.

Configuration 3 – Business decides together

1.IT Principles: Business Monarchy
2.IT Architecture: Business Monarchy
3.IT Infrastructure: Business Monarchy
4.Business Application Needs: Federal
5.IT Investments and Prioritisation: Business Monarchy

Under this system, IT delivers the IT, but corporate executives make all the decisions. This configuration relies on a high degree of understanding of IT in the business leaders in order to work.

What about the States of Jersey?

MIT found only these three models to be effective, so we should adopt one of them. The question is which one?

The States is a relatively small, geographically compact, but hugely diverse organisation with technically complex IT needs. This would quickly rule out Configuration 3 - the States does not work that way.

The most effective States of Jersey Configuration would resemble Configuration 2. IT Architecture and IT Infrastructure strategies would be decided by the States’ IS executives, who are accountable for performance, resilience and value for money. IS policies, business application needs, and IT investments would be decided and tailored by / for departmental leaders with IS executives.
Currently we mainly have departmentally-based IT decisions being taken and deployed. These fix tactical / critical imperatives at the expense of strategic synergies.

Moving towards Configuration 2 would involve a reform programme encouraging IT governance, but with two short-term caveats:

1.Business Application Needs decisions should be taken by a combination of corporate centre and business units in conjunction with IT executives and departmental leaders (a combination of the Federal and IT Duopoly approaches)
2.IT Investments decisions should be taken by corporate executives and department committees alongside IS executives and departmental leaders (the same combination, but with a greater emphasis on IT Duopoly)

The MIT research provides hard evidence for the importance of governance in all IT-related decisions. It is essential, therefore, that the appropriate configuration is adopted so that all the appropriate groups are properly consulted before important IT decisions are made.

THE AUTHOR

Neil Wells (Director of Information Services)
February 2013

Original Source

http://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/ChiefMinisters/ChiefMinistersSections/InformationServices/Pages/FutureInformationServices.aspx#anchor-0

Big change or small change? The more things change the more they stay the same?

Another saying also rings true: Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. Whether in government, business or personal matters, we all know of examples of people who, if they had only stopped to reflect for more than a moment, would have avoided making a mistake. If only…


Catching up with old friends

I recently caught up with some friends whom I have not seen for a while. Both work for the same organisation but one suggested that everything had changed since they last saw me and the other that nothing much had changed.

It struck me that there constants and change around us all the time and our perceptions are based on what we choose to focus upon. As someone passionate about outdoor pursuits I appreciate that the sun, moon, and tide are constant whereas the currents, wind and weather are always changing. This is clearly a factor of whether you focus on the big picture or the small detail.

When embarking on a change programme what you choose to focus upon determines people’s perceptions. If they are worried about change perhaps focus then on the constants that they can rely upon like a lighthouse guiding you in turbulent seas. If they are impatient about change then maybe confidence can be built from incremental steps.

The challenge of leadership is choosing the right narrative which will appeal, galvanise and through a sense of community and shared purpose direct effort.

Big change or small change

I am reminded that Dave Brailsford [Performance Director for Team Sky (Great Britain’s professional cycling team),] believed in a concept that he referred to as the “aggregation of marginal gains.” He explained it as “the 1 percent margin for improvement in everything you do.” His belief was that if you improved every area related to cycling by just 1 percent, then those small gains would add up to remarkable improvement. (See link below)

There is no doubt that we are creatures of nature and nurture and that changes in the environment have a cumulative effect on our perceptions, our behaviours and potentially our values and sense of self.

Roberts Dilts's Neuro-Logical Levels (See link below) suggests that the environment affects us, just as much as we effect the environment. If we are in a nice place (environment) with kind people (behaviour) and feel able (capability) and valued (beliefs) we feel good about ourselves (identity) and potentially feel fulfilled (spiritual).

Approaching from the opposite direction also holds true, if they feel confident, competent, able and valued people will be able to change the environment around them; either by charisma or practically by making physical changes. This is what people seek to achieve when we talk about “empowerment” but this often fails if the components are not aligned.

The above suggests then that the impact of small changes should not be underestimated. However is it better to do 100 things at 1% or 1 thing at 100% or maybe find a sweet spot somewhere in the middle? Conventional thinking says success comes from focussing on what is important, what makes the biggest impact.

This suggest that the grand gesture, the iconic project, the land-mark or milestone should be the focus of attention.

What is the best approach?

So should changes be evolutionary, from within through coaching, support, training, guidance and using incremental initiatives to effect change? Or should changes be revolutionary and fundamentally challenge assumptions and re-direct attentions?

Key factors

1. The circumstances of the organisation will make a big difference. If you’re heading for a crash something radical and rapid may be called for. If all that is required is a small change in course then better to maintain momentum and commitment with small adjustments.
2. The perceptions, experience and expectations of the people will be a key factor: if the people aren’t right and you have little time then a revolution and recruitment may yield faster and better results than a development programme. If your raw material is good the development will reward you with continuity, loyalty and commitment.
3. The impact on key stakeholders including customers, suppliers, investors etc., may be a critical factor. Their perceptions of the products, services, people and leadership will provide the context and potentially the imperative for change.
4. The style and ambition of the leader will have a huge effect. Whether they are there as a fixer for the investors seeking to build a leadership legacy or delivery commercial impact.

Perhaps surprisingly I have put the leader last, albeit that leadership has the biggest impact. This is because I believe that circumstances dictate the choice of leader. History tells us that when circumstances change then new leadership generally follows.

Suggestions, feedback and alternative views are very welcome.

Links

http://jamesclear.com/marginal-gains
http://www.communicatingexcellence.com/wp-content/uploads/neurologicallevels.pdf

The Author

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

#inov8healthjsy, TEDx and IoD conclude the biggest issues are: health and education.

Earlier this year ciChange, with Digital Jersey and Jersey Business ran an event #inov8healthjsy which included speakers from Samsung, and the former CEO of Barts Hospital London and BT Health Tech. The day which comprised a breakfast briefing, invitation lunch and evening debate was hugely popular and a great success.

This not only opened the debate about Health Tech and Innovation, but also re-sparked interest in e-Government and the opportunities for Jersey. Samsung’s promotion of its Partnership Programme heightened also local interest of Jersey being a centre for Health Tech.

Very shortly after #inov8healthjsy I attended TEDxStPeterPort, ahead of running TEDxStHelier at little later in the year. Included in the speakers at TEDxStPeterPort was James Maskell of Primary Healthcare, and here too there was great excitement about the future.

The videos from TEDxStPeterPort are be available here.
http://tedxstpeterport.com/tedx-talks-2015/

Finally, following TEDxStHelier I discussed with Andrew Green and Justin Donovan some of the ideas discussed and how they may be applied to Jersey. This included using the idea of BlockBuilders and virtual reality to get community involvement in the design of the new hospital. It included discussion on the future of education, based on the excellent talks of Sir Ken Robinson , Rory Steel, Paul Dunn and others.

We also had the privilege of having Joe Dickinson Social Innovator of the Year as one of our speakers and a man whose idea is sought after by many of the leading businesses including IBM and Samsung.

The videos from TEDxStHelier will be available from September

The confluence of these things have shaped the thinking for TEDx in 2016 and I have outlined our plans on the TEDxStHelier website. We are thinking about combining the health and education as the theme “tomorrow’s world”. We already have some ideas for sponsorship and speakers and aim to turn what started as #inov8healthjsy into something quite spectacular for 2016.

http://www.tedxsthelier.com/tedx-2016/

So with all this coming together nicely I am delighted to see that the IoD’s annual Jersey Debate will be on the future of our health and education. The debate includes many of those involvest in#inov8healthjsy, including Paul White, senior consultant and former CEO of BT Health London, Barts and the London NHS Trust

The Jersey IoD Annual Debate, which ordinarily attracts an audience of over 500 people, takes place on Thursday 17 September 2015 at the RJA&HS from 4.45pm – 9.45pm and is open to all islanders, including IoD members, non-members and politicians. Places cost £80 per person, including a supper, whilst a table of 12 can also be booked via the IoD Jersey Branch Officer on 610799 or jedirector@localdial.com. Further information is available at www.iod.je, the IoD Group on LinkedIn and by following @iodjersey on Twitter.

I look forward to attending.

For those inspired by the IoD Annual Debate, or interested in TED Talks and TEDx with particular emphasis on health and education as the theme “tomorrow’s world” please get in contact and be part of the shaping and planning for 2016.

THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org