4U2P
I've been using the 4U test for years, but I shared it for the first time in 2017 when I talked about Productive Paradoxes in Projects. Then, in 2020, I mentioned it in Essential Balances. It was only recently that I extended the checklist with the 2Ps and shared it on LinkedIn.
After getting confirmation about its validity and utility, it's time to put it properly here for more people to use.
The first section is very short. It contains only the checklist itself, so you can start using it right away. If you have time, you may check the second section for some explanations.
Checklist
4U2P is a checklist to see if an (IT) transformation can succeed.
It has 5 questions:
4U
There are three questions about the change that is brought:
Does it work?
Is it useful?
Is it used?
2P
And two questions about influencers in the organization:
Does it help somebody with (or to get into) power?
Does it threaten somebody in power?
You need 4 "yes" and one "no". That's it.
It's also easy to remember: 4U2P, for you to pee.
Notes
The checklist is about enterprise-wide transformation, not a single project. For a single project, or rather, the fate of a project product, the 4U part may suffice. For a program, you may need the full 4U2P.
The transformation on which 4U2P − spells out a healthy attitude, but let's not digress − is usually related to technology and very applicable, for example, to the so-called "digital transformation" (it seems to be falling out of fashion or to keep up by including AI in some way). Yet "IT" is bracketed because 4U2P can be used for any radical change in the way work is done, not only for those involving information technology.
Transformation and, more generally, organizational change have a stable image. People echo ancient axioms like Pantha Rhei and circulate derivatives like you cannot step in the same river twice, yet somehow organizations are exempt. A choir of voices sings loudly and in unison: "It's difficult to change organizations." Change is seen as an exception. Given the multitude and loudness of voices about organizational change and the persistence of narratives such as the "resistance to change," "roadmap from current to the target state," or "unfreeze-change-refreeze"(Lewin's Model), it might be useful to remind that change is natural, not exceptional. It is continuous, not episodic. Taken a step further, this way of thinking can lead to a new way of understanding organizational change:
Change must not be thought of as a property of organization. Rather, organization must be understood as an emergent property of change1.
Organizations can be seen as ever-changing, but also – especially in the public sector – as ever-reforming and never-changing2.
In any case, 4U2P doesn't oppose the orthodox view of change. Additional vaccination is needed to fend off this highly transmissible misconception.
Now, on the first set of three questions.
In that talk from 2017, the context was one of the project paradoxes. Projects often create local optima at the expense of the enterprise in both space and time. The concern for enterprise coherence is either not represented at all, represented formally (IT Governance) or not taken seriously (Enterprise Architecture). What does this lead to? A project can achieve its KPIs but bring no enterprise-wide benefits and incur technical debt. But it can also be perceived as successful at some point and as a failure at a later point. That's usually when something works but is no longer considered useful or is simply not used. The reality of not being used may have nothing to do with its utility and functionality.
So you need all three. If it doesn't work, not much can be done. Yet, it's still possible to be used, painfully, because it has utility and there are no alternatives.
And it can work and be useful but still not be used. Organizations are complex social systems, and linear inferencing won't help explain or predict. If whatever is brought about works and is useful, then the reason why it is not used might be outside. Here, the point is to avoid the common fallacy of looking for a root cause. Such a quest will work for a broken car engine, not for a failing enterprise transformation.
Finally, it may work and be used, but if it is not useful, it won’t be used for long.
That was the 4U part. In case it needs saying, two of the Us come from useful and used, and the other two Us come from works (w is double-U). That's how you get 4Us.
Now, about the two Ps.
Cohesion forces in physics are better studied than cohesion forces in social systems (See Cohesion Forces and Tools). With power, it seems almost the opposite. For Machiavelli, Hobbs, Locke, Montesquieu, Marx, Weber, Foucault, and Luhmann, power was either the central theme of their work or played a prominent role. All these theories have merits, but if I had to pick one, it would be Luhmann's3. He treated power not as something held by somebody but as a medium for coordinating selections and producing expectations. Power is the specific medium of the political system, but politics is ubiquitous in organizations. When we talk about corporate politics, we talk about power dynamics.
Can any knowledge about power in physics help us understand power in social systems? No. They are different. To some, they are diametrically opposite. As Tom Graves wrote over a decade ago, while power in physics is defined roughly as the ability to do work, in enterprises, it is the ability to avoid work.
Yet another theory of power.
Do you need any knowledge of theories of power to check the 2P in the 4U2P checklist? No. Your experience and good observation skills will suffice. Yet, a deeper understanding of power dynamics usually pays off.
Now, about the first P. The transformation in question or some part of it should solve a problem for somebody with power. Or, it can be that a person or a group with some influence can increase it by leading or supporting the change.
But if the change threatens an authority figure, the second P, they can use their power to prevent the transformation as long as they have it, and that can be until they retire.
Now, let's talk about the reliability of the checklist.
Can it be that you have all five covered, four yes and one no, and yet the transformation fails? Yes, that's possible, though unlikely. And can a transformation succeed with only four out of five questions ticked? That's even less likely, but it is still possible. How come? Well, a checklist is attractive because it is simple and neat. Organizations are just the opposite: complex and messy. Every situation is unique.
The opposite is also true. Organizations respond to similar challenges and opportunities and need to adopt the same new technologies or whatever corporate FOMO drives that agenda. This makes them more alike.
When the checklist seems not to work, it could be due to the quality of the information. You ask around and find out that whatever the change brings works. Yet, it turns out you have missed an important, and not recognized as such, group of people for which it doesn't. Or, in the opposite scenario, you might be convinced that you don't have one of the Ps covered, and yet it might be that you are simply unaware that it is.
4U2P is easy to apply and easy to remember. You can even order a good-quality 4U2P plaque online, no joke. If you put that plaque on your office door, every time you enter, you'll be reminded of the checklist. There is a potentially bigger benefit. The plaque will make the door suggest it's a WC, so you can get random people entering. A great opportunity to do corporate ethnography at no cost. You better have some questions handy, as you may not have much time to ask. Since some people will storm in feeling a pressing need, there is a high chance you'll get honest answers.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
Brunsson, N. (2009). Reform as Routine: Organizational Change and Stability in the Modern World. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reform-as-routine-9780198296706
Luhmann, N. (2017). Trust and Power (1st edition). Polity. https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=trust-and-power--9781509519453