The method we prefer to use is to treat the change process as a marketing campaign to a targeted audience, measure the results, and keep running the campaign as long as it's producing economic benefit for the corporation. If you can measure a compelling economic return to the organization, and spend only a fraction of that to achieve those results, it should prove comparatively easy to get the project approved. Our experience is with organizations who have upwards of 10,000 e-mail users, often scattered across the world. I thought it touching faith in people's willingness to change. They collect lots of ideas on how other organizations do e-mail well, and they post them in a central database for use by all employees.
Organizational change is about changing each individual, one at a time.
Money, it turns out, is a poor motivator Changing the habits of lots of people requires concerted effort, over a long period. Changing behaviors requires a constant, metered stream of information that incessantly rains down on employees over a long period of time. And, it needs to be initiated with sufficient energy to convey the sense of top management commitment to the outcome. Like marketing a new service to consumers, changing behaviors can leverage what we know about successful marketing campaigns. You can try to emulate television's aspirin ads and run the same message until users are irritated, but we don't recommend it.