In the late 1990’s a new conceptualisation evolved that had validity, efficacy and implications for practice. In many change projects the relevant team or system includes persons outside the functional unit; the relevant function is a cross-functional team (Ahmad 1999). The criterion is still the same – identifying those persons who are interdependently related in the successful accomplishment of the task. Peters (1988) advocated the use of cross-functional teams in order for an industry to compete successfully. Cross-functional representation may require the involvement of the total organisation and to bring the whole system in the room to work on the agenda (Weisbord & Janoff 1996). Future Search Conferences (Weisbord & Janoff 1996), Team Syntegrity (Beer 1994), Confrontation Meeting (Beckhard 1967) and Cultural Analysis (Schein 1985) are examples of whole systems interventions.
Participative Approaches
Revans (1972; 1983) developed the action learning approach, which uses real-life organisational problems as the vehicle for learning. Action Learning case studies and examples are reported by several authors including: Casey & Pierce, (1978); Boddy, (1981); Limerick et al (1994) and Pedler, (1983) however although their approaches clearly describe cross-functional practices, it is not clear whether external stakeholders are included in the action learning processes.
Several well-documented approaches that use the principles of Action Learning take into account stakeholder perceptions; these include Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland 1981; 1991), Interactive Planning (IP) (Ackoff 1981), Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) (Ulrich 1987) and Total Systems Intervention (TSI) (Flood & Jackson 1991).
Many organisational development interventions are directed toward the internal workings of the organisation. There has been a growing awareness that this internal focus should be complemented with external focus if these interventions are to serve the best interests of the organisations.
Outward looking interventions directed towards environmental analysis and strategic planning are required to ensure that the organisation is in synchrony with its environment. Future search conferences and other organisation wide interventions are considered appropriate for environmental analysis and strategic planning activities.
Structured Frameworks
A continuing paradox is that as management becomes increasingly overloaded it becomes essential for them to stand back and review the state of the company. They need to design new organisational structures and management styles and culture that will be able to adapt to these changes in complexity. It is the failure to make this transition that is at the heart of many business failures. Where management has not yet learned how to adapt to meet the increasingly complex environment they have little choice but to buy a technical solution and to fit this on top of existing organisational and management processes. This will increase the variety imbalance and is unlikely to produce the desired results.
This need to adapt and manage effectively is at the heart of whether the organisational and management processes can cope with the increasing day to day complexities of running a business in a competitive business climate. Ashby uses the term variety as a measure of this complexity and defines it as the number of possible states of whatever it is whose complexity we want to measure (Ashby, 1956). Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety (Ashby 1956 p206) states that “only variety can absorb variety”. This requires management to have sufficient (requisite) variety capability to exceed the variety of the system that is being managed (Beer 1979). In practical business terms this means that if a Change Framework is to be effective then the management should be capable of managing, at least, that level of complexity (the requisite variety). Large companies will have higher levels of variety than small companies but there is a common need to balance the variety. If there is an imbalance then management will not be able to cope. To generate the requisite variety either you reduce the variety of the organisation (attenuation) or increase the capacity of the management (amplification).
In many organisations the extent of the complexity and the expanding variety of tasks and responsibilities to be undertaken by the manager engenders a feeling, often well founded, that the business is running out of control. Management fire fighting becomes the norm with significant involvement in operational matters often related to keeping costs low and/or getting orders out on time. This leaves management with almost no time, or energy, to looking to the future either in terms of how the organisation should be or how it is to get there. As the company is often not coping at present there is very little prospect that it will be able to cope as complexity increases in the future.
Haines categorises six stages in a “Rollercoaster of Change”. (Haines, 2002, p267):
shock and denial
acknowledgement that change is required
depression and anger that the changes have not worked
hang in
hope and readjustment
rebuilding
In the shock and denial stage some companies continue fire fighting at an ever increasing rate but these are leaving themselves vulnerable to failure from an inability to respond to external factors, such as customer pressure. Others choose to resolve this by deciding to reduce the complexity of the business by limiting operations to a level at which they believe they can manage. Again this leaves the company vulnerable in the longer term (Storey 1996).
Eventually most companies acknowledge that change is necessary and that there needs to be an increase in managerial capacity which will help resolve the variety balance, although this would not be expressed in these terms. This often takes the form of employing a manager to take charge of the operational side of the business. In general, this is achieved by recruiting externally or by promoting an internal employee.
Unfortunately this strategy further increases the complexity of the business for the senior manager.
At its most basic this creates, in the short term at least, an additional task of managing the new manager. The new manager, especially if brought in from outside, will not have the same in depth knowledge of the business as the original manager. They will also have a different style of working which may not sit comfortably with the style of the owner/manager. The new manager will need to be given the autonomy to do their job otherwise management capacity will not be increased. Delegation of responsibility necessitates tolerating mistakes. This can be very difficult to accept when the result of such mistakes can be seen to have an immediate impact on the financial position of the company and thus, in many cases, the original manager. It is imperative that the new manager can learn from these mistakes, preferably with the support of the owner/manager, to ensure that better quality decisions are made in the future.
The owner/manager, who probably has placed a great deal of value on their independence (Dewhurst et al, 1993) has to develop skills in judging the balance between getting actively involved when there is a problem and offering support and advice to the new manager to help them learn to deal with problematic situations better in the future. An additional key change in the owner/manager’s role will be that they no longer need to be able to observe directly what is happening on the shop floor. They will receive any relevant information on performance through the new manager in charge of operations. In practice this communication needs to be supported by information systems which record and analyse performance data and report frequently enough to enable the owner/manager to be comfortable that they will know when anything goes seriously wrong. Such feedback will need to be carried out on a more formal basis so that it is seen to be part of the normal process of business rather than any interference in autonomy of the manager. In the short term there will inevitably be some confusion and ambiguity of tasks but this is part of the learning process that is necessary if the additional management capability is to become a reality (Mulhaney et al 2004). It is important that during this depression and anger stage (of Haines’
Rollercoaster of Change) all parties see that this is an inevitable phase before the hope and re- adjustment and rebuilding stages where real benefits in management capacity start to occur.
Unfortunately experience in a number of companies undergoing such change shows that many owner/managers are unable to give the new managers enough freedom to settle in and do their job properly and that many newly appointed operations managers remain in post for only a short higher standards of management through shared knowledge and mutual recognition - to promote, support and implement Sustainable Excellence (EFQM, 2010). EFQM focuses on designing, co-ordinating and facilitating the connection and collaboration between business leaders and experts across organisations, supporting organisations on their definition of sustainability and providing approaches towards Sustainable Excellence that considers the conflicting responsibilities towards an organisation’s various stakeholders. It does this through several methods: assessing the organisation’s performance, providing organisations with networking and mutual learning experience’; offering education and learning opportunities; recognising the achievements of organisations; and, supporting each organisation’s implementation of best in class tools and practices (EFQM 2010).
The main model utilised by the EFQM is the EFQM Excellence Model (Figure 3), which is a non-prescriptive framework for understanding the connections between what an organisation does, and the results it is capable of achieving (EFQM 2010). The EFQM Excellence Model is the most widely used organisational framework in Europe. It is used as an assessment tool that compares organisations and their many counterparts and identifies areas for improvement, delivering fresh insight, and defines what capabilities and resources are necessary in order to deliver the organisation’s strategic objectives. The framework is based on nine criteria: five of the criteria are enablers (what an organisation does and how it does it) and, four of the criteria are results – (what an organisation achieves...caused by enablers) (EFQM, 2010).
According to EFQM (2010), “the model is based on the premise that: Excellent Key Results, Customer Results, People Results and Society Results are achieved through Leadership driving the Strategy, that is delivered through People, Partnerships and Resources, and Processes, Products and Service” Figure 3.
Figure 3: EFQM Excellence Model (source: EFQM 2010)
The Project Management Perspective
Synergy between Change Management and Project Management exists in the need for organisational-wide strategies to be adopted by top management to allow new ideas to be tested (Rudolph et al., 2008) and effective transitions to permeate throughout the organisation (Brown and Botha, 2005). In their research on project management in South African district municipalities, Brown and Botha (2005) found that it was necessary to include a change management process as a sub-project of the major project (running concurrently with the major project), such is its importance in alleviating resistance during transformational management. This is supported by Nicholas (1990) and Knutson (1994). Incorporating such a change management process allows one to differentiate between internal and external factors impacting on organisational behaviour during a change (Brown and Botha, 2005).
Cooke-Davies (2002) observed that it is people who deliver projects, and the same can be said about the delivery of organisational change - the people dimension (Rudolph et al., 2008) is equally as important. In the modern business environment, an environment that is both volatile and ever-changing, an organisation should be agile and dynamic in its responsiveness to change (Dove, 1996; Goldman et al., 1995; Mafakheri et al., 2008), and adapt accordingly. Such agility, dynamism and responsiveness are particularly important for goal-orientated, project-led organisations (Mafakheri et al., 2008). Highsmith (2004) proposed agile project management to guide practitioners on how to construct a change-responsive project organisation (Mafakheri et al., 2008). Sherehiy et al. (2007) point out that the manufacturing industry in particular, employs agile practices in management of projects, (Mafakheri et al., 2008) in order for them to effectively adapt to change, and monitor improvements.
As a project and its constituent elements are liable to change throughout a project's lifetime (Douglas, 2009) it is necessary to ensure that a project's scope, quality, resources and costs are considered and thought through, and an accurate (yet flexible) project schedule is in place (Douglas, 2009). Zou and Lee (2008, p388) make a significant observation in stating that “the impact of project changes on project schedule is far less significant that the effect on cost, and the reason is that cost is additive, while schedule is not”. Such considerations enable a cooperative change environment to be established, which in turn benefits the project and its team (Douglas, 2009). “Scope’ is the project element that most ‘effects change in project performance” (Douglas, 2009, p3) as it derives from stakeholders in the internal and external business environments.
PRINCE (PRojects IN Controlled Environments) and its revisions - PRINCE2 and PRINCE2:
2009 Refresh - is the de facto standard project management methodology (Emerald Viewpoint, 2004; Lewis, 1995; OGC, 2009). Originally designed in 1989 by the UK government as a way of managing IT projects in central government (Emerald Viewpoint, 2004; Kuruppuarachchi et al., 2002; Lewis, 1995), its success prompted a revision that would promote a generic methodology for any project; regardless of size, type, organisation or culture (OGC, 2009). As a methodology, PRINCE is able to facilitate various projects due to its structured (for accountability, delegation, authority and communication , yet flexible and adaptable (Emerald Viewpoint, 2004; OGC, 2009) Effectively harnessing resources, roles, responsibilities and skills (Lewis, 1995; OGC, 2009) to ensure optimal performance (Emerald Viewpoint, 2004), PRINCE delivers “the right products created by the right people at the right time and at the right cost” (Lewis, 1995, p233).
According to OGC (2009), PRINCE delivers principles that focus on the seven themes of:
1. The Business Case 2. The Organisation 3. Quality (of Product) 4. Plans
5. Risks 6. Changes 7. Progress
Due to its structure, nature and the common language used at each stage, as a mechanism PRINCE2 can help develop the communication practices between a project, its team, and the benefitting organisation. As has been mentioned previously, communication is vital for success in change management initiatives. Because of this one is able to say that PRINCE2 can, therefore, help reduce the risk of project failure and can keep customers satisfied (BestManagementPractice.com, 2010). Although the practitioners of PRINCE2 range in size, some of the most notable adopters include Barclays, BT, GlaxoSmithKline, and the Ministry of Defence (BestManagementPractice.com, 2010).
The Structure of PRINCE2
As it is a comprehensive methodology that considers various factors, the structure of PRINCE2 involves integrating many principles (seven guiding obligations and good practices), themes (need to be addressed continually throughout the project) and processes (considers the product life cycle); as well as considering the project environment (OGC 2009). There are six main variables that define a project (cost, timescales, quality, scope, risk and benefits) which PRINCE2 accounts for. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the structure of PRINCE2.
Figure 4: The Structure of PRINCE 2
By defining each stage of each process within the methodology, PRINCE2 enables resources to be reused, can diagnose and troubleshoot any problems that arise within the project, improves control, focuses on the Business Case objectives, and successfully includes all stakeholders in the decision making process(OGC 2009). Each definition means that the organisation is continually improving its learning, and evolving as a modern, adaptable organisation as a result (OGC 2009).
The framework is so effective because it considers almost every activity involved in a project (OGC, 2009) however, it does not consider leadership and people management and isolates the management aspects of each; whilst also defining the elements that make up an organisation (Kuruppuarachchi et al., 2002).
It is becoming clearly evident that an effective model for change involves a number of key elements. It involves a structure that will allow for the overall control and management but which allows participation of those affected by the change intervention.