Análisis de componentes principales
8. PERSPECTIVAS FUTURAS Y RECOMENDACIONES
Following their comprehensive review of the empirical research for QM in manufacturing organisations, Sousa and Voss (200 1 ) recommend that QM researchers develop integrative theory and practices by integrating QM and organisational development and change
knowledge. In this section the researcher discusses the nature of organisational development and change, and then explores organisational development and change models.
2.3.1 The natu re of organisational development and change
Both strategic change and process change are associated with BE (Ford & Evans, 2 001) and BEFs (Leonard & McAdam, 2002). Strategic change is characterised by Ford and Evans as being driven by environmental forces, involving a shift in organisation direction and typically involving much of the organisation. Burke and Litwin ( 1 992) describe strategic change as involving multiple levels of the organization and a transformational change in culture; and they describe process change as typically involving incremental improvement in operational processes. As discussed in Section 2.2, the evolution of BE reflects a shift in concern for process change to strategic change. For example early QM practices focused on process change such as inspection, control and quality assurance. The next phase of evolution, TQM and BE are described as strategic change initiatives (Hermel & Ramis Pujol, 2003) that are also likely to involve process change (Leonard & McAdam, 2 002). 2.3.2 Models of organisational development and change
Scholars have developed a number of frameworks or models to represent organisational development and change. Van de Yen and Poole ( 1 995) classify models of organisational development and change based on different sequences of change events, and propose four perspectives to assist analysis of organisational development and change such as ( 1 ) life cycle, (2) teleological, (3) evolutionary, and (4) dialectical. Each of these perspectives is described below and illustrated with examples from the BE literature where available. life-cycle perspective
The life-cycle perspective adopts the notion from life-cycle theory that change is a natural process that follows a prescribed order. Van de Yen and Poole describe the typical progression of change events in life-cycle models as following a sequence of stages or phases, that these stages are cumulative, and that they share a common underlying process.
The life-cycle perspective is evident in the "Processual Framework" for organisational change developed by Dawson and Palmer ( 1 995). These researchers describe the QM journey as a continuous journey of organisational development and change that can be
categorised into three general timeframes for analysi s ( 1 ) conception of the need for a quality initiative, (2) process of establishing TQM, and (3) operation of TQM and ongoing change (see Figure 2.4). Likewise Rao et al. ( 1 996) describe the TQM journey as "Landmarks for the TQM Road" and identify three landmarks; awareness, understanding and maturity. Both
models imply the common underlying process is continuous change, and that the sequence of stages are cumulative.
Dawson and Palm er (1995) challenge the traditional view of "re freezing" being the fmal stage of organisational change as promoted by Lewin ( 1 95 1 ) and argue that organisational development and change is continuous and that concern for sustainability is more relevant. Dervitsiotis (2003) considered the impact of ongoing change on BE implementation in his conceptual model of conventional BE and sustainable BE. He argues that conventional BE and existing BEFs have proven to be useful when the external environment is relatively stable; and that in the future, sustainable BE and BEFs will need to emphasise "resilience" and the ability to adapt to a changing business environment (p.266).
The "Levels of TQM Adoption" proposed by Dale and Lascelles ( 1 997) illustrate the lifecycle perspective (see Figure 2.2). These researchers represent the TQM journey as a sequence of levels and provide descriptions for each level ( 1 ) uncommitted, (2) drifters, (3) tool-pushers, (4) improvers, (5) award winners, and (6) world class. Level 1 organisations are described by Dale and Lascelles as "those who have not yet started a formal process of continuous improvement" (p.4 1 9); Level 2 organisations are described as drifting although prepared to try a new way of working; Level 3 organisations are recognised by their ongoing adoption of a range of quality tools, often with no alignment or integration with
organisational strategy.
Level 4, the Improver stage signifies the most dramatic improvement. Dale and Lascelles suggest that an organisation is likely to have been engaged in the TQM journey for three to eight years by the time it achieves the improver level. At this level of maturity they suggest managers understand the importance of customer focused continuous improvement; there is engagement of senior leaders in the TQM journey; and there is development and deployment of a TQM strategy; plus the organisation has an approach to developing the organisational cultural in line with TQM. Level 5 award winners are characterised by being capable of competing for a top national quality award. Level 6 is characterised by full alignment and integration of all facets of the organisation and evidence of exception organisational results.
Figure 2.2: Levels of TQM adoption (Source: Dale & Lascelles, 1 997) � a c: 6. World class 5. Aw�rd winners
Uncommitted 2. Drifters Tool·pushers
Levels
Within the BE literature HEFCE (2004) also illustrate the life cycle perspective. They propose that the excellence journey is characterised by a shift in maturity from using a BEF as a health check, to a planning tool and finally as a fully integrated strategic tool. They make the observation that "excellence is only achieved and sustained when the wider perspective of BE is adopted and integrated into planning and eventually applied as a strategic tool" (p. ! 7).
The CPE (NZBEF, 2005) scoring guidelines recognise levels of maturity in BE
implementation. Organisations achieve increasingly higher scores as they progress from evidence of an approach to the deployment ofthat approach, to learning and improvement, and finally alignment and integration. In New Zealand, the national business excellence awards are based on scores achieved when assessed against the CPE. There are four awards based on overlapping scoring bands and descriptors; progress award (at least 25 1 points), commendation or bronze award (at least 376 points), achievement or silver award (at least 5 0 1 points), and national or gold award (at least 75 1 points). While a direct comparison with the levels of TQM adoption proposed by Dale and Lascelles ( 1 997) is difficult, there are similarities particularly between the achievement award and the improver level, and the national award and award winners or world class organisations.
Teleological perspective
The second perspective of organisational change described by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) is the teleological perspective. This perspective is concerned with change processes focused
on a final destination. The change occurs within an iterative process of goal formation, implementation and evaluation and revision. Van de Ven and Poole explain that the teleological perspective differs from the life cycle perspective in that it assumes change moves an organisation towards a defmed final state and that there is no prescribed sequence of events.
A well known illustration of the teleological perspective in the QM literature is the PDCA or PDSA cycle, originally developed by Deming ( 1 986) and applied as a tool for guiding continuous improvement processes (Dale, 2003). The 'P' represents plan (i.e. the
development of action plans), 'D' represents do (i.e. the deployment of implementation of action plans), 'C' represents check (i.e. evaluation, analysis, reporting) and 'A' represents action (i.e. possible change the plan based on the evaluation findings). An organisation may go through a number of cycles of improvement as it aspires to achieve the final destination of total quality (Dale, 2003) or excellence (Kanji & Wallace, 2000).
Leonard and McAdam (2002, 2002a) suggest BE implementation involves ongoing cycles of improvement at three hierarchical levels within an organisation; strategic, tactical (concerned with translating strategy to action) and operational (implementation of improvement
initiatives) as represented in Figure 2.3. These researchers make the observation that BE implementation often starts at the operational level and often never achieves the strategic level. They propose that improvement in organisational performance is more likely to be achieved if BE is implemented at all three levels simultaneously.
Evolutionary perspectives
A third perspective is the evolutionary approach. Van de Ven and Poole ( 1 995) describe this approach as being concerned with cumulative changes across entities such as organisations and communities. The evolutionary perspective is described as "proceeding through a continuous cycle of variation, selection and retention." (p. 5 1 5). Variation is seen as
occurring by chance, selection involves competing for scarce resources and retention considers the 'forces' that influence the ongoing nature of the change process.
Figure 2.3: The strategic application of the Business Excellence Model (Source: Leonard &
McAdam, 2002)
T&T). ��g. compctitm' 9U8lyais. iDJImllltiOJi
fTtBnSJAtiOg
direction. in� dcliVci8b1o �gic DrlVer$OperatleJDW
T&T). Tool. and t:cclmiquea
Dialectical perspective
improvement initiatives
The dialectical perspective as described by Van de Ven and Poole ( 1 995) assumes the organisation exists in a pluralistic world of competing and opposing entities, Change is believed to occur in response to contextual changes, The researcher identified three approaches to the analysis of organisational development and change that align with the dialectical perspective and have the potential to guide the development of a conceptual
framework to represent the BE journey. The approaches are: ( 1 ) Contextualism as a mode of
analysis (Pettigrew, 1999); (2) the Processual Framework (Dawson & Palmer, 1995); and (3)
the Model of Organisational Performance and Change (Burke & Litwin, 1 992).
Contextualism as a Mode of Analysis (Pettigrew. 1999)
Pettigrew ( 1 999) advocates the use of contextualism to inform theory development and data collection when studying organisational change. Both Pettigrew ( 1 999) and Dawson &
Palmer ( 1 995) challenge the value of traditional models of change for today's complex environments. Pettigrew describes the traditional organisational development models as "a historical, a-processual and a-contextual" (p.232). Dawson and Palmer suggests these models based on Lewin's ( 195 1 ) three stage model of 'unfreezing-changing-refreezing' are only
relevant for understanding change in relatively stable conditions but not for complex environments.
Pettigrew describes the contextualist approach as having three basic components (context, process, and outcome) and that contextualist research requires an examination of variability of each component over time. The three basic components of the contextualist approach are described below and represented in Figure 2.3.
Context is described by Pettigrew (1 999) as multiple organisational levels and makes the
distinction between the external and internal context for an organisation
Process is described by Pettigrew as a "continuing system with a past, a present, and a future" (p.242)
Outcome addresses the results of the phenomenon, which in the present study is the BE journey
Figure 2.4: Corn ponents of the con textualist mode of analysis (Source: Pettigrew, 1999)
Context variability Process variability Outcomes variability
Outer context 1
Inner context 2
Processual Framework (Dawson & Palmer, 1995)
Dawson and Palm er ( 1 995) acknowledge the value of Pettigrew's contextualist approach but criticise his work for lacking guidelines for application. They apply contextualism to develop their own "Processual Framework" for analysing and describing the implementation of TQM in Australian and New Zealand manufacturing and service organisations. For analytical purposes Dawson and Palmer represent the process of organisational change as three timeframes and the context of change as three determinants (see Figure 2 .4). The three timeframes are:
Conception of a need; the organisation has recognised they need to change / improve and have decided on the general approach to be adopted eg BE
Process of organisational transition; the organisation starts the implementation of the
change / improvement strategy
Operation of new work practices and procedures; the new way of working is evident throughout the organisation and there is sustainable
And the three determinants of change are:
The context of change e.g. organisational context The substance of change e.g. the quality initiative Politics of change e.g. the influence of people
Figure 2.5: A Processual Framework (Source: Dawson & Palm er, 1995)
Conception
Context of Change Politics of Change
Operation
Although the processual framework developed by Dawson and Palm er ( 1995)
operationalises aspects of contextualism as described by Pettigrew (1 999) and integrates Q M and organisational change it does not address how the determinants of change influence the process of change, nor the results of the process.
Model of Organisational Performance and Change (Burke & Litwin, 1992)
The researcher identified another organisational change model, also with a contextualist perspective that addresses how practices and people influence the results of change. The "Model of Organisational Performance and Change" (Burke & Litwin, 1 992), presented as
Figure 2.5, represents the factors and the most critical linkages between these factors, that Burke and Litwin propose are the most important for achieving organisational change.
Figure 2.6: Model of Organisational Performance and Change (Source: Burke & Litwin, 1992)
Burke and Litwin promote the Model as a causal model of organisational performance and change that is based on empirical research and practice. They propose that external factors influence transformational factors which influence transactional factors and that together, transformational and transactional factors influence individual motivation. They describe transformational factors as "areas in which alteration is likely caused by interaction with
environmental forces and will require entirely new behaviour sets from organisation members" (p. 529).
Table 2.6: Factors within the Model of Organisational Performance and Change (Burke &
Litwin, 1992)
External environment Any outside condition or situation that influences the performance of the organisation eg
Transfonnational factors (total system level)
Interact with the environment, are focused at the level and are to influence culture.
Leadership Mission and strategy Culture
Senior managers provide overall direction and role models; employees perception of
executive values and
What top management and the employees perceive to be the purpose of the organisation and how the intends to achieve the
The collection of overt and covert rules, values and principles that are enduring and guide behaviour
Transactional factors (group or work unit level)
are focused, and are to influence climate
Structure
Management practices Systems
Climate
Arrangement of functions and people into specific areas and levels of responsibility, decision making authority, communication and relationships assure effective implementation of the mission and
What managers do to use the human and material resources available to carry out the
Policy and procedures that facilitate work, such as work systems, management information
The perceptions that individuals have of how their own work unit is managed and how and their work with their each other and with other units.
Transfonnational & transactional factors influence the individual
Task requirements & individual skills ! abilities
Individual needs & values
Motivation Final outcomes Individual & organisational
Feedback
The required behaviour for task effectiveness, including specific skills an knowledge required of to do their work
Psychological factors that provide desire and worth for individual actions or thoughts eg enriched motivates
Net energy; behaviour that moves people towards goals, take needed action, and persist until satisfaction is achieved
Individual and organisational performance outcomes or results Feedback information and influence future actions
Although Burke and Litwin recognise that within the context of general systems theory all factors affect one another, they propose that the external environment has the greatest impact on organisational change, followed by transformational factors, and then transactional factors. They propose that transformational factors have more "weight" than transactional variables as they impact organisational culture.
In their paper Burke and Litwin ( 1992) make the distinction between culture and climate. They define culture as "the way we do things around here . . . the collection of overt and covert rules, values and principles that are enduring and guide organisational behaviour" (p.532) and define organisational climate as a "psychological state strongly affected by organisational conditions, such as systems, structures, and manager practices" (p.526). Burke and Litwin suggest that organisational climate is typically concerned with how individuals perceive the effectiveness of their own work unit and the effectiveness of the working relationships within their unit and between their unit and other units.
In Section 2.3 the researcher has explored models of organisational development and change in order to develop theoretical insights for the BE journey. Although the lifecycle and teleological models address aspects of the BE journey, the researcher proposes that the dialectical perspective provides the most comprehensive insights as the models within this perspective address the organisational context and the complexity of organisational development and change.