Change Management

Procurement teams forget more than they remember. And that's because the organisation forgets faster than individuals can hold the memory. Every 18–24 months, someone re-learns a lesson the company already paid for. ✔️A supplier that failed a project in 2019 gets back in the door by 2022. ✔️A contract clause that caused a dispute is re-used, unchanged. ✔️A workaround created for “just this one case” quietly becomes default practice. ✔️Stakeholders bypass procurement again using the same rationale they used the last time it failed. If you ask around, people remember these things but their memory isn’t institutional. It lives in inboxes, handovers, Teams chats, and resignation letters. This is the quiet cost of poor knowledge retention in procurement which is often mistaken for a talent problem. Procurement memory is the collective, institutional ability to retain: - What went wrong (and why) - What worked (and how) - What we’ve already tried (and who with) - What we learned from suppliers, markets, and projects - Which workarounds quietly became norms Most of this is undocumented. Or trapped in post-project reports that no one reads. And so when a new team member joins, or someone shifts categories, or a project comes up that’s just like something we’ve done before… We start from zero. When procurement forgets, the business remembers procurement as slow, reactive, and unstrategic, even when the team did exactly what was needed. What’s missing? We have data. We have dashboards. We have supplier portals and ERP records. But we rarely have context or the data narrative We don’t keep the story of what happened, why it mattered, and what we learned. We don’t have a culture of procurement storytelling, just reporting. That’s why mistakes repeat. That’s why we can’t defend decisions from three years ago. That’s why every new CPO spends the first year “re-evaluating the landscape.” So how do you build memory? You build memory with habits. ☑️ Capture lessons in a way people can read and reuse ☑️ Log supplier outcomes beyond the scorecard ☑️ Keep short, human write-ups of key projects ☑️ Store reasoning, not just results When people leave, do memory handovers not just task ones ☑️Make “what did we learn?” a standing agenda item ☑️Revisit closed projects before starting similar ones ☑️Assign memory as a role, not an afterthought And above all, treat memory like a capability. Not a bonus, not a nice-to-have but an actual risk if missing. Procurement's memory is one of its most strategic assets. Without it, the work gets done but the value disappears the minute people do. ----- Did you enjoy this post? Then you may also like my biweekly free newsletter, The Procurement Blueprint! Subscribe here: https://lnkd.in/eg5C2b5i

Your most experienced lawyer just gave notice. Suddenly, nobody knows where anything is. The panic that follows: "Where did she keep the template agreements?" "How do we handle IP assignments for contractors?" "What was our position on that regulatory issue?" "Who has the login for the trademark filing system?" This scenario happens at every company. Senior legal talent leaves, and institutional knowledge walks out the door with them. The real cost: junior lawyers spending weeks recreating work that already existed, making mistakes that were already solved, and reinventing processes that were already optimized. Most legal teams store knowledge in three places: -- Individual lawyers' heads -- Email threads from 2019 -- Folders buried in shared drives When knowledge is trapped in people instead of systems, every departure is a crisis. Here's how winning legal teams prevent this: → Document standard processes and decision trees → Create searchable templates and clause libraries → Maintain decision logs for recurring issues → Build internal playbooks for common scenarios → Record the "why" behind policies, not just the "what" The goal: any lawyer should be able to handle any issue with access to the right information. Knowledge management feels like busy work when you're overwhelmed. But losing a key team member without proper documentation feels much worse. Start small: document one process this week. Your future self (and your team) will thank you. How does your legal team capture and share institutional knowledge? What happens when someone leaves?

I once worked with an engineer who came to me in frustration because every time he connected a very expensive computer chip module to a larger module, it would short-circuit. "The documentation is wrong," he told me. "Why did you let it go out that way?" I went into my records and found the information about connecting that module. "Ahem, you were the engineer who approved the content for that section," I informed him, to which he replied, "Well, I didn't know what it was for!" But the damage had been done. All clients had received paper instructions with their products, and anyone performing the same procedure would also short-circuit their module. And it was the company's fault.   Inaccurate, outdated, or incomplete documentation can have significant consequences. Here are some of the top contenders, some of which cost organisations millions of dollars and even saw the closure of the company.   1. Increased support costs Incorrect documentation can lead to more support inquiries, particularly when the information on the customer support site reflects the same mistakes as the documentation. Companies have calculated that having useful - clear, complete, concise, and correct - content can reduce the cost of answering support queries by up to 50%. 2. Decreased productivity Staff who rely on documentation, such as Standard Operating Procedures, to perform particular tasks cannot only engage in activities that waste time, but also results in a waste of materials, such as production line errors. 3. Inaccurate Implementation I've seen two weeks of a software team's development time wasted because they based their work on an incorrect specification, incurring a significant loss for the corporation and a delay that incurred penalties for the late delivery. 4. Compliance Risks In regulated industries, inaccurate documentation can lead to compliance violations, resulting in legal consequences. One client calculated that inaccurate documentation could have cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars every quarter because of potential lawsuits brought against the customers of their product by disgruntled users. 5. Reputational Damage Trust in a brand's documentation reflects on user experience, reliability, and general trustworthiness. Inaccurate documentation, particularly content that prevents users from setting up a product, breaking the product, or impeding its use, can result in customer complaints, "no fault found" returns, and loss of customer loyalty. Customers won't read your documentation the way they would read a novel, but when they do need it, they expect you to have done right by them, and done it right.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮 $𝟱𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹  𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮 $𝟭𝟮𝟱 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗲𝗲  𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿. I witnessed this situation unfold with a high-end construction company last month, and it still baffles me. The customer was ready to sign. They'd test-driven the equipment, negotiated terms, and were prepared to invest $50,000 in a brand new machine. The relationship had been built over weeks. The deal was practically closed. Then came the delivery fee: $125 to transport the equipment a mere 10 miles. The customer was stunned. "You're charging me to deliver a $50,000 piece of equipment practically next door?” The sales rep was clearly uncomfortable, but his hands were tied. “It’s company policy. I can’t waive the fee.” That was all it took. The deal collapsed. The customer walked straight to a competitor who not only delivered the machine for free but also sent a technician. He then spent a full hour on-site, ensuring everything was properly set up and operating perfectly. “100% won’t ever go back to the first dealer,” the customer told him. It wasn’t about the $125. It was about the principle. It was about feeling nickel-and-dimed rather than appreciated. It was a 'tell' that this was the first of many frustrating policies they'd experience. I've seen this pattern repeatedly across many industries. Sometimes the policies affect employees, sometimes customers, and every time the bottom line. Organizations creating rigid policies that technically "protect margins" while costing them millions in lifetime customer value. The sales team did nothing wrong (although I would have paid the $125 out of pocket). The deal was doomed from the moment the company implemented a policy that treated delivery as a profit center. It's not that creating a profit center within operations is a bad idea, it just wasn't evaluated through the lens of the company's vision, mission, and core values. 𝙋𝙧𝙤 𝙏𝙞𝙥: 𝘌𝘝𝘌𝘙𝘠 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺'𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘵, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭, 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦, 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳. Jordan Sitter Associates #HeavyEquipment #ExecutiveSearch #Recruiting #OrganizationalDevelopment #OrganizationalAlignment #CorporatePolicies #PolicyImplementation #CustomerSatisfaction #BusinessStrategy

Jamie Dimon’s recent town hall comments about JPMorgan Chase’s RTO policy are a textbook example of Executive Debt—the organizational drag created by rigid leadership decisions that fail to account for long-term consequences. In the leaked audio, Dimon dismissed flexibility outright: “There is no chance that I will leave it up to managers… Zero chance. The abuse that took place is extraordinary.” This signals a leadership approach rooted in control rather than adaptability. Instead of trusting managers to balance productivity and flexibility, the decision imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate, creating cultural and talent retention liabilities. Compounding this issue is JPMorgan’s dismissal of an employee petition advocating for flexible work. When employees organize and formally request change—only to be ignored—it sends a clear message: “Your opinions don’t matter.” In Executive Debt, I discuss how dismissing employee concerns erodes engagement: “When employees feel unheard, they disengage. When they feel powerless, they stop taking ownership. And when they feel disrespected, they leave.” Dimon can now expect: 🔹 Erosion of Loyalty – Employees no longer feel a mutual commitment with the company. 🔹 Loss of Motivation – Productivity shifts to meeting minimum expectations rather than striving for excellence. 🔹 Cultural Decay – Ignored employees become resentful, cynical, and disengaged, impacting long-term performance. By enforcing in-office attendance and dismissing employee concerns, Mr. Dimon is making a withdrawal against trust that will demand repayment—through higher attrition, lower engagement, and a weakened employer brand. Executive Debt isn’t just about financial missteps—it’s about how leadership decisions today impact an organization’s resilience tomorrow. Chase risks a quiet exodus of top talent, proving that rigid policies rarely age well. Executives should ask: Are we enforcing control or fostering alignment? Managing for productivity today or retention tomorrow? Short-sighted policies create long-term debt. And if leaders aren’t careful, they’ll realize too late that the real cost wasn’t in office attendance—it was in the talent they drove away. #executivedebt #leadership

Laying federal employees off based on length in position will inevitably create unintended consequences across the federal workforce. Federal occupations with the most probationary employees include cybersecurity specialists, data scientists, forestry technicians, food inspectors, and medical support. Job categories with the the fewest probationary employees are largely administrative: accounting, social insurance administration, program management, and financial management. Public administrators, like workers in the private sector, are hired based on their technical expertise. More seasoned employees tend to move into managerial roles. Trump and Musk's termination of probationary employees has likely cut key technical roles while preserving layers of middle and upper management. In the long run, DOGE's cuts will likely lead to increased hollowing of the state and privatization to fill these technical jobs.

The decimation of the federal career workforce has widespread, adverse impacts for Americans, but, as Andrew Tangel writes, the safety implications for the flying public are particularly acute at the Federal Aviation Administration. Yes, DOT Secretary Duffy rightly notes that many of the problems facing the FAA are not new. But the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers has resulted in a staggering loss of talent at the FAA -- at all levels and across all offices. The consequences are obvious and perilous, undermining the FAA's ability to enhance safety, modernize the system, and optimize the airspace for all users (including new entrants). The loss of vast amounts of institutional knowledge, erosion of the safety culture that is critical to responsibly managing risk, and the serious challenges to hiring new talent in an environment that is hostile to federal workers make it much harder for the FAA to deliver a safe and efficient system that is essential to this country's economic growth and prosperity. The best, most viable solutions will come only from a nonpartisan commitment to provide the funding, the flexibility, and the stability that will allow the FAA to successfully do the job that we all need it to do. https://lnkd.in/e3PzurpN

Behind every billion-dollar breakthrough seeded by NSF aren't just great ideas—there are dedicated NSF staff cultivating impossible innovation. America’s next transformative technology might never see daylight if the NSF expert who believes in and bets on it disappears. On NSF’s 75th anniversary, let’s celebrate not just the inventions but the expert hands guiding ideas from improbable to inevitable. From web browsers to MRI machines, LASIK surgery to machine learning, NSF’s true product is trust—which catalyzes the discoveries of STEM leaders. Cutting NSF staff doesn't trim costs; it severs the nerves of America’s innovation spine. Innovation isn’t automated—it's fundamentally human. Lose the experts who make NSF great, and breakthroughs don't pause; they vanish. When we dismantle expertise at NSF, we uproot the gardeners cultivating tomorrow’s innovation, hollowing out America’s competitive advantage. Without its backbone of expert staff, our country’s scientific future risks retreat. Let’s celebrate NSF’s 75th anniversary, and stand up for the people who for seven and a half decades have ensured American innovation keeps standing strong.

🧠 Change Amnesia: Your Company is Forgetting Faster Than It's Learning A financial services organization completed a large-scale system modernization, celebrating all milestones. Six months later, they couldn't explain why certain design decisions were made, and within two years, they were solving problems they'd already solved during implementation. They had fallen victim to Change Amnesia – the systematic loss of organizational memory during transformation. 💸 The Hidden Cost of Transformation We track budgets, timelines, and adoption during change initiatives. But we rarely measure what's being lost: institutional knowledge. Research from Deloitte shows financial institutions lose up to 23% of critical knowledge during major transformations. This silent drain has tangible costs: - Key process insights disappear when subject matter experts move on - Workarounds developed during implementation become "the way things are done" - Decision rationales fade, leading to reversed decisions - Hard-earned lessons evaporate, ensuring mistakes will be repeated ☠️ The Four Horsemen of Organizational Forgetting Change Amnesia follows predictable patterns: 1. Knowledge Concentration: Critical information held by few people who may leave 2. Documentation Deprioritization: When timelines tighten, documentation is the first casualty 3. Context Collapse: The "why" behind decisions gets lost while the "what" remains 4. Transformation Layering: New changes begin before the organization has integrated previous ones ING Bank's risk platform implementation saw three different project managers over 18 months. By go-live, no one could explain why certain critical design choices were made – setting the stage for future rework. 🕰️ Building Organizational Memory Resilience Forward-thinking organizations implement memory-preservation strategies: - Decision Journals: Documenting not just what was decided, but why - Knowledge Transfer Programs: Structured approaches for capturing tacit knowledge - Technical Debt Tracking: Monitoring shortcuts that create future vulnerability - Organizational Historians: Dedicated roles focused on preserving institutional memory BBVA reduced rework by 34% through a "memory-first" approach to transformation, treating knowledge preservation as a primary objective rather than an afterthought. 🥫 The Memory Preservation Mindset Change without memory isn't transformation – it's just motion. What's been your experience in organizational change memory loss? How does your organization preserve critical knowledge during periods of change? #ChangeManagement #OrganizationalMemory #KnowledgeManagement

When key people leave your company—whether they resign, retire, or burn out—their knowledge often leaves with them. What’s left behind is silence, duplication, and delay. 📉 IDC estimates companies lose $31.5 billion annually because critical knowledge isn’t shared. 📉 HR Daily Advisor reports that U.S. companies waste $4.5 million per year per enterprise simply trying to transfer knowledge. 📉 In industrial sectors, knowledge gaps lead to $92 billion in lost efficiency and downtime globally. And it’s not just about cost. It’s about risk: - Decisions take longer - Mistakes repeat themselves - New hires take months to reach full speed - AI agents hallucinate because they have insufficient trusted knowledge to draw from This is why Enterprise Intelligence matters. It’s not just about better search. It’s about creating a living, learning organization that captures expertise before it walks out the door—and activates it where and when your teams need it. At Bloomfire, we help companies move beyond knowledge loss and create a self-healing knowledge network. One that learns as your people learn. And stays smart—even when people leave. If you’re treating corporate knowledge like a static library, you’re already losing. Let’s talk about building an intelligent enterprise. https://lnkd.in/gNkmkSTa #EnterpriseIntelligence #CorporateAmnesia #KnowledgeManagement #CIO #CEO