I’m working on several projects for a corporation to improve different processes centered on their web development efforts: better proposals, better cost estimating, better cost reporting, and standardization of workflows.

Each of these assignments is independent on one level, but also interrelated on another. Herein lies the rub. Every time I make progress, a meeting is required to communicate my findings – emails don’t get replied to; phone calls are out of the question; if it isn’t in Outlook it doesn’t exist. At every meeting a new caveat is introduced eradicating any realized progress.

Should Sue be involved? You need to double check that with Bill. That’s not how we do it. That won’t work. Isn’t that related to John’s initiative?

Maybe Sue should be involved but she is way too busy already. Bill didn’t reply to my emails and after three weeks I guess he doesn’t care. I know that’s not how you do it. Your way isn’t good. That’s why I’m suggesting a different approach. Let’s try it to see if it “won’t work”. Yes it is related to John’s initiative, but what’s the chance of accomplishing anything by getting more people involved?

All I hear is “We want change, but only if we don’t have to change or do anything”

Typical corporate grid lock. A small smart company tries things out, changes constantly, accepts failure, adjusts and moves on. There is a lesson here. By tackling issues one at a time, whether related or not, incremental change can happen and results realized much faster and painlessly than forming a committee, having umpteen meetings and waiting on everyone and their brother to weigh in. Assume the risk and go for it.