Change Management - an example
Every organisation needs change in order to survive in the long run. Change always occurs in the organisation because change is essential. (Fay and Luhrmann, 2004) The process of change is complicated and can have a great effect on the employees of an organisation. Change has to be managed and controlled. It leads the organisation to improve their effectiveness. (Hayes, 2007) The leader must have the ability to identify, analyze and develop the firm’s capacity for change which is one of the most important and difficult aspects of change. (Judge and Douglas, 2009) One of the common definition for change management is ’a set of processes that is employed to ensure that significant changes are implemented in an orderly, controlled and systematic fashion to effect organizational change.’ (techFAQ, n.d.)
The University had introduced the IT Service Management course and was successful in attracting many students. Both online and traditional classroom course has been run effectively and the University has a high reputation for it. With the emerging needs of ITIL and PRINCE2, the University has spotted a chance for introducing this new course. ‘ITIL is a consistent and comprehensive documentation of best practice for IT Service Management’ which is used by 1000’s of organisations around the world. (ITIL, 2009) While PRINCE2 is a widely used Project Management method that helps to run a successful project. (PRINCE2, 2009) With more and more company, both public and private using ITIL and PRINCE2 as their standards, there is a great deal for any organisation offering this course as more and more people are interested in getting certified in these two standards.
In the case of the University, we can see the change manager as a director, which is viewed as management controlling and the change outcomes being possible. The change manager directs the organization in particular way so that the required change is achievable. (Palmer, et al., 2009) It assumes that change is a strategic choice that the managers make. The survival and general well being of the organization depends on them. (White et al., 1997) There is variety of n-step models or theories of change that assume the image of change manager as director. The change manager should implement the change using a set of steps outlined by the n-step models. There is a positive view that this change can be achieved if the correct steps that are needed to be taken are followed. (Palmer, et al., 2009)
Kotter’s (1995) eight step model is one of the best known change management models. Kotter framework simplifies the change process. He mentions that to achieve successful change the organization should follow the eight phases which he outlined and then ‘skipping these steps are only illusion of speed and that this never produces a satisfying result.’ (Kotter, 1995) This model is helpful for understanding and managing change. Kotter has identified key principle in each of the eight steps and has related it to people response and approach to change. (Chapman, 2005-2009a)
The first step is to establish the need for urgency and this is the step which needs significant amount of time and energy. Here the market analysis is performed, problems and opportunities are determined and people are inspired to move. With the demands of ITIL and PRINCE2 increasing in the market, this is one of the opportunities that the University can make full use of. The second step is to ensure that there is a powerful change group to guide the change. The team structure is built to help drive the change and it is ensured that this team have sufficient power to achieve the desired change. Third step is to get the vision right where the action is to develop a vision that provides a focus for the change. The fourth step is to communicate the vision. The university should role model the behaviour implied by the vision and use multiple channels to constantly communicate the vision. (Chapman, 2005-2009a; Palmer, et al., 2009) They should know the strength of its internal capabilities and then properly communicate the vision to the staffs. If the staff’s suggestions are enthusiastically sought then we can see a positive work-group spirit for the change. (Appelbaum, et al., 1998) They should involve as many staff as possible who will be affected by the change and respond to the staffs needs too.
The fifth step in this model is to empower the staff. The university should remove its policies and structure that restrains the road to the change, the barriers should be removed. The change manager should talk face to face with the staffs continuously wherever possible and support them. The sixth step is to create short term wins. Aims should be made small and brief so that it is easily manageable and easy to achieve. When the staff win this aims, it help support need for the change. The initiatives should be finished first before moving to the new one and these initiatives should be of manageable number so there is a clear path ahead of staffs. (Chapman, 2005-2009a; Palmer, et al., 2009) Also if the wins are rewarded, then the staffs are motivated to move towards to the next initiative and hence towards the change. (Chapman, 2005-2009b) The seventh step is to consolidate gains or don’t let up. The university should continue removing their policies and process that restrains the change. Again rewarding to the employees who have engaged positively with the change motivates them further and helps them understand the change better. The eighth and the final step is to make the change stick or to embed the change into the culture. The university should link the change to the organizational performance and also support, strengthen and emphasize the value of the successful change. The change then embeds into the culture. (Chapman, 2005-2009a; Palmer, et al., 2009)
Force-field analysis is a model that helps us to look at the factors. These factors are the ones which assist or hinder the implement of change. The factor or the forces both drive and restrain change. (Palmer, et al., 2009) This analysis can be used in the project to picture which forces work in the favour of the change initiatives and which ones works against it. It also helps the organization visualize an open clash between two different forces around a given issue. (ValueBasedManagement, 2009) A force field analysis is a very useful tool when we want change to happen where people are involved. This tool is useful in this case scenario where the university wants to run ITIL and PRINCE2 courses alongside traditional academic provision that is when making a decision about introducing new service. (improvementnetwork, n.d.)The forces pushing for change or seeking to promote change are the driving forces and those forces which are against the change are the restraining forces. Driving forces tends to begin a change and keep it moving and restraining forces restrain the driving force. (ValueBasedManagement, 2009) In the case scenario, the driving forces are full support from the top management, increase in competitiveness, increasing customer expectation and access a wider range of course and the restraining forces are staff frightened by new course, no staff with curriculum development activities, cost and resources. The resources include classrooms, staff room and facilities for staff, books, journals, magazine and internet space.
For both of the forces, relative strength of each factor is indicated. (Palmer, et al., 2009) Let the relative strength of driving forces in the case scenario be 3, 4, 2 and 2 respectively and the relative strength of the restraining forces be 3, 1, 2 and 3 respectively. If the sum of the forces for the change is equal to the sum of the forces against the change then equilibrium is reached. This equilibrium can be changed by changing the relation between the two opposing forces. (Accel-Team, 2009) The differences between the forces will show if the change can be successfully implemented or not. This number helps to question if it’s worth going ahead with the change plan. (Palmer, et al., 2009) So at this point if the sum of both forces for the case scenario be calculated, then the driving forces would be 11 and the restraining forces would be 9. So the change can be successfully implemented according to the force field model. If the organization wants to go ahead and implement the change then the force field analysis will help the organization to work on how to improve the probability of success for the change. The organization will have two options. One is to increase the strength of driving forces and the other is to decrease the strength of restraining force. (improvementnetwork, n.d.) If the organization increases the strength of driving forces, then they can face some serious problems as people become resistance to change and uncooperative if the change is forced upon them. (Ford, et al., 2002) The analysis might suggest some important changes to be made. For example by training and increasing the wages of the staffs, the university could eliminate the fear of staffs because of the new course. Here the cost is increased but the strength of the staff frightened by new course is decreased or might be zero as well. Again if the university decides to buy some resources then the cost would go up but the strength of the resources will come down. Here we can see how force field analysis helped to suggest the change actions such as decreasing the restraining forces and increasing the probability of success of implementing change.
For handling the change in the given case scenario, we can analyse, plan, implement and review. In the analysis phase the first question to be asked is what is the need of change? (JISCinfoNet, 2009) The university products should be such that they should hit the ground running and “give way to a framework that is more functional in its orientation and reflects the likely characteristics of the future working life of graduates”. (Atkins, 1999) Hills and Stewart (2001) argued that the educational provision should be changed so as to meet the employers’ requirements and that this was the prime challenge to the education sector in the future. The introduction of ITIL and PRINCE2 training course, both traditional classrooms based short courses and longer online delivery course is a developmental change which is planned.
In the planning phase, change roles are looked into. In the change process, staffs may take number of different role. To start with the change process, the university needs a good leader who would walk from the front. The Vice Chancellor has the ultimate source of authority and must exhibit commitment to the change. After the vice chancellor comes the change sponsor who is the senior member of the management team. The change sponsor, the dean should monitor and support the change progress. The dean should make sure that the necessary resources for the change process are available and should communicate the change progress to the interested party so that everyone is well informed of what is going on. The university should bring an experienced change manager who has the expertise to lead the change. The change manager is responsible for managing the change process daily. The change manager is mainly responsible for design, approach, and communication strategy for the change process and should monitor the change. Then the role of the change agent, Head of Department is to implement the change at the local level. This change agent should have a sense of purpose, the capability to act and sell success, should be strategically connected, critically reflective, supportive and opportunistic for implementing the change successfully. (JISCinfoNet, 2009)
After the planning phase it is not that easy to implement the change as resistance to change comes into the place. It is the result of personal experiences and evaluation about the reliability of others. (Ford, et al., 2002) The resistance also comes because people, culture and process. (JISCinfoNet, 2009) People resist to change because of dislike of change, discomfort with the uncertainty, perceived negative effect on interests, attachment to the established organizational culture, lack of conviction that change is needed, lack of clarity as to what is expected, belief that change is inappropriate or the timing is wrong, reaction to the experience of previous change and so on. (Palmer, et al., 2009) Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) proposed six classic methods for managing resistance. Education and Communicating comes into context where resistance is due to lack of information. The people should be informed as to the rationale for the change. Participation and involvement is used where resistance is a reaction to a sense of exclusion from the change process. People should be involved in the change process as active participants. Facilitation and support is used where resistance is due to anxiety and uncertainty. People should be provided with resources, both technical and emotional. Negotiation and Agreement is used where resistors are in a strong position to undermine the change if their concerns are not addressed. Incentive should be offered to actual or potential resistor. Manipulation and cooptation is used where participation, facilitation, or negotiation is too time consuming or resource demanding. Explicit and Implicit coercion is used where the change recipients have little capacity to effectively resist; where survival of the organization is at risk if change does not occur quickly. But people do not always resist change; they will often embrace the change and work enthusiastically in support of change. (Stensaker, et al., 2002)
In the implementation phase we consider transition and adaptation to change which doesn’t occur overnight. It is not always the change but the transition that the people resist. People resist the uncertainty of the new beginning. They have to do what they have never done before and be who they were never before. To implement the change effectively, people should be helped in this phase. (JISCinfoNet, 2009) ‘Transition management (TM) is a systemic approach, postulated as a new governance model which is concerned with steering and coordinating large-scale system innovations towards greater sustainability.’ (Sondeijker, et al., 2006)
The final phase is the control and post project review where the whole change process is reviewed. This means to look back and see if the change desired is achieved, reinvent and redesign accordingly. In this phase it is also crucial to check if the staffs assigned for any position in the change process needs to be reassigned. There should also be a check on the role redefine of the staffs that have been affected during or after the change process. Tools like balance scorecard and benchmarking should be used and keep recorded for any future references. (JISCinfoNet, 2009)
The two potential difficulties that the university may encounter are employees and professional competence of the staff. There are many institutions that provide both traditional classroom and online course for ITIL and PRINCE2. So one might think why the university wants to run this training course. There may be resistance to the change because of lack of conviction that this change is needed and discomfort with the uncertainty (Palmer, et al., 2009) that people will get attracted to this course in the university. The management should communicate well with all the employees regarding this idea. Everyone should understand to why this can be a competitive advantage to the university. Management can also overcome this concern by providing evidence to the employees that this training course is popular to people worldwide. (McAdam and Bickerstaff, 2001) At the beginning the staff will lack the sense of mastery over the skills and knowledge required by this change. (Vegt, et al., 2001) Staff may and may not have taken ITIL and PRINCE2 training before and even if they have they will not have the confidence as to how to deliver it effectively to the students in a quality way. Management can overcome this concern by training program, organizing workshops and by facilitating learning.
References:
Accel-Team (2009) Force Field Analysis [online] Available from:
http://www.accel-team.com/techniques/force_field_analysis.html [Accessed 21st November 2009].
Appelbaum, S. H., St-Pierre N. And Glavas W. (1998) Strategic organizational change: the role of leadership, learning, motivation and productivity. Management Decision. 36 (5), 289-301.
Atkins, M.J. (1999) Oven-ready and self-basting: taking stock of employability skills. Teaching in Higher Education. 4, 267-80.
Chapman, A. (2005-2009a) Change Management [online] Available from:
http://www.businessballs.com/changemanagement.htm [Accessed 23rd November, 2009].
Chapman, A. (2005-2009b) Organizational change, training and learning [online] Available from:
http://www.businessballs.com/organizationalchange.htm [Accessed 23rd November, 2009].
Fay, D. and Luhrmann, H. (2004) Current themes in organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 13 (2), 113-19.
Ford, J. D., Ford L.W. and McNamara, T. (2002) Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 15 (2), 105-121.
Hayes, J. (2007) The theory and practice of change management. 2nd ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hills, J. M. and Stewart, D. D. (2001) A tool for total quality management of educational provision illustrated using advanced coastal management courses. The TQM Magazine. 13 (6), 409-19.
improvementnetwork (n.d.) Force Field Analysis [online] Available from:
http://www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/imp/aio/1035279 [Accessed 5th December 2009].
ITIL (2009) What is ITIL? [online] Available from:
http://www.itil-officialsite.com/AboutITIL/WhatisITIL.asp [Accessed 17th November 2009].
JISCinfoNet (2009) Change Management [online] Available from:
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/change-management [Accessed 23rd November 2009].
Judge, W. and Douglas, T. (2009) Organizational change capacity: the systematic development of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 22 (6), 635-49.
Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review 73 (2), 59-67.
Kotter, J. P., and Schlesinger, L. A. (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business review.
McAdam, R. and Bickerstaff, I. (2001) Reengineering based change in the further education sector in Northern Ireland – A qualitative study. Business Process Management Journal. 7 (1), 50-64.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R. and Akin, G. (2009) Managing Organizational Change. 2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
PRINCE2 (2009) Welcome to the Official PRINCE2® Website [online] Available from:
http://www.prince-officialsite.com/home/home.asp [Accessed 17th November 2009].
Sondeijker, S., Geurts, J., Rotmans, J. and Tukker, A. (2006) Imagining sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight. 8 (5), 2006.
Stensaker, I., Meyer, C. B., Falkenberg, J., and Haueng, A. C. (2002) Excessive change: Coping mechanisms and consequences. Organizational Dynamics. 31 (3), 296-312.
techFAQ (n.d.) What is Change Management [online] Available from:
http://www.tech-faq.com/change-management.shtml [Accessed 23rd November 2009].
ValueBasedManagement (2009) Force Field Analysis [online] Available from:
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_lewin_force_field_analysis.html [Accessed 5th December 2009].
Vegt, R. V. D., Smyth, L. F. and Vandenberghe (2001) Implementing educational policy at the school level – Organization dynamics and teacher concerns. Journal of Educational Administration. 39 (1), 8-23.
White, M.C., Marin, D.B., Brazeal, D.V. and Friedman, W.H. (1997) The evolution of organizations: Suggestions from complexity theory about the interplay between natural selection and adaptation. Human Relations. 50 (11), 1383-1401.
The University had introduced the IT Service Management course and was successful in attracting many students. Both online and traditional classroom course has been run effectively and the University has a high reputation for it. With the emerging needs of ITIL and PRINCE2, the University has spotted a chance for introducing this new course. ‘ITIL is a consistent and comprehensive documentation of best practice for IT Service Management’ which is used by 1000’s of organisations around the world. (ITIL, 2009) While PRINCE2 is a widely used Project Management method that helps to run a successful project. (PRINCE2, 2009) With more and more company, both public and private using ITIL and PRINCE2 as their standards, there is a great deal for any organisation offering this course as more and more people are interested in getting certified in these two standards.
In the case of the University, we can see the change manager as a director, which is viewed as management controlling and the change outcomes being possible. The change manager directs the organization in particular way so that the required change is achievable. (Palmer, et al., 2009) It assumes that change is a strategic choice that the managers make. The survival and general well being of the organization depends on them. (White et al., 1997) There is variety of n-step models or theories of change that assume the image of change manager as director. The change manager should implement the change using a set of steps outlined by the n-step models. There is a positive view that this change can be achieved if the correct steps that are needed to be taken are followed. (Palmer, et al., 2009)
Kotter’s (1995) eight step model is one of the best known change management models. Kotter framework simplifies the change process. He mentions that to achieve successful change the organization should follow the eight phases which he outlined and then ‘skipping these steps are only illusion of speed and that this never produces a satisfying result.’ (Kotter, 1995) This model is helpful for understanding and managing change. Kotter has identified key principle in each of the eight steps and has related it to people response and approach to change. (Chapman, 2005-2009a)
The first step is to establish the need for urgency and this is the step which needs significant amount of time and energy. Here the market analysis is performed, problems and opportunities are determined and people are inspired to move. With the demands of ITIL and PRINCE2 increasing in the market, this is one of the opportunities that the University can make full use of. The second step is to ensure that there is a powerful change group to guide the change. The team structure is built to help drive the change and it is ensured that this team have sufficient power to achieve the desired change. Third step is to get the vision right where the action is to develop a vision that provides a focus for the change. The fourth step is to communicate the vision. The university should role model the behaviour implied by the vision and use multiple channels to constantly communicate the vision. (Chapman, 2005-2009a; Palmer, et al., 2009) They should know the strength of its internal capabilities and then properly communicate the vision to the staffs. If the staff’s suggestions are enthusiastically sought then we can see a positive work-group spirit for the change. (Appelbaum, et al., 1998) They should involve as many staff as possible who will be affected by the change and respond to the staffs needs too.
The fifth step in this model is to empower the staff. The university should remove its policies and structure that restrains the road to the change, the barriers should be removed. The change manager should talk face to face with the staffs continuously wherever possible and support them. The sixth step is to create short term wins. Aims should be made small and brief so that it is easily manageable and easy to achieve. When the staff win this aims, it help support need for the change. The initiatives should be finished first before moving to the new one and these initiatives should be of manageable number so there is a clear path ahead of staffs. (Chapman, 2005-2009a; Palmer, et al., 2009) Also if the wins are rewarded, then the staffs are motivated to move towards to the next initiative and hence towards the change. (Chapman, 2005-2009b) The seventh step is to consolidate gains or don’t let up. The university should continue removing their policies and process that restrains the change. Again rewarding to the employees who have engaged positively with the change motivates them further and helps them understand the change better. The eighth and the final step is to make the change stick or to embed the change into the culture. The university should link the change to the organizational performance and also support, strengthen and emphasize the value of the successful change. The change then embeds into the culture. (Chapman, 2005-2009a; Palmer, et al., 2009)
Force-field analysis is a model that helps us to look at the factors. These factors are the ones which assist or hinder the implement of change. The factor or the forces both drive and restrain change. (Palmer, et al., 2009) This analysis can be used in the project to picture which forces work in the favour of the change initiatives and which ones works against it. It also helps the organization visualize an open clash between two different forces around a given issue. (ValueBasedManagement, 2009) A force field analysis is a very useful tool when we want change to happen where people are involved. This tool is useful in this case scenario where the university wants to run ITIL and PRINCE2 courses alongside traditional academic provision that is when making a decision about introducing new service. (improvementnetwork, n.d.)The forces pushing for change or seeking to promote change are the driving forces and those forces which are against the change are the restraining forces. Driving forces tends to begin a change and keep it moving and restraining forces restrain the driving force. (ValueBasedManagement, 2009) In the case scenario, the driving forces are full support from the top management, increase in competitiveness, increasing customer expectation and access a wider range of course and the restraining forces are staff frightened by new course, no staff with curriculum development activities, cost and resources. The resources include classrooms, staff room and facilities for staff, books, journals, magazine and internet space.
For both of the forces, relative strength of each factor is indicated. (Palmer, et al., 2009) Let the relative strength of driving forces in the case scenario be 3, 4, 2 and 2 respectively and the relative strength of the restraining forces be 3, 1, 2 and 3 respectively. If the sum of the forces for the change is equal to the sum of the forces against the change then equilibrium is reached. This equilibrium can be changed by changing the relation between the two opposing forces. (Accel-Team, 2009) The differences between the forces will show if the change can be successfully implemented or not. This number helps to question if it’s worth going ahead with the change plan. (Palmer, et al., 2009) So at this point if the sum of both forces for the case scenario be calculated, then the driving forces would be 11 and the restraining forces would be 9. So the change can be successfully implemented according to the force field model. If the organization wants to go ahead and implement the change then the force field analysis will help the organization to work on how to improve the probability of success for the change. The organization will have two options. One is to increase the strength of driving forces and the other is to decrease the strength of restraining force. (improvementnetwork, n.d.) If the organization increases the strength of driving forces, then they can face some serious problems as people become resistance to change and uncooperative if the change is forced upon them. (Ford, et al., 2002) The analysis might suggest some important changes to be made. For example by training and increasing the wages of the staffs, the university could eliminate the fear of staffs because of the new course. Here the cost is increased but the strength of the staff frightened by new course is decreased or might be zero as well. Again if the university decides to buy some resources then the cost would go up but the strength of the resources will come down. Here we can see how force field analysis helped to suggest the change actions such as decreasing the restraining forces and increasing the probability of success of implementing change.
For handling the change in the given case scenario, we can analyse, plan, implement and review. In the analysis phase the first question to be asked is what is the need of change? (JISCinfoNet, 2009) The university products should be such that they should hit the ground running and “give way to a framework that is more functional in its orientation and reflects the likely characteristics of the future working life of graduates”. (Atkins, 1999) Hills and Stewart (2001) argued that the educational provision should be changed so as to meet the employers’ requirements and that this was the prime challenge to the education sector in the future. The introduction of ITIL and PRINCE2 training course, both traditional classrooms based short courses and longer online delivery course is a developmental change which is planned.
In the planning phase, change roles are looked into. In the change process, staffs may take number of different role. To start with the change process, the university needs a good leader who would walk from the front. The Vice Chancellor has the ultimate source of authority and must exhibit commitment to the change. After the vice chancellor comes the change sponsor who is the senior member of the management team. The change sponsor, the dean should monitor and support the change progress. The dean should make sure that the necessary resources for the change process are available and should communicate the change progress to the interested party so that everyone is well informed of what is going on. The university should bring an experienced change manager who has the expertise to lead the change. The change manager is responsible for managing the change process daily. The change manager is mainly responsible for design, approach, and communication strategy for the change process and should monitor the change. Then the role of the change agent, Head of Department is to implement the change at the local level. This change agent should have a sense of purpose, the capability to act and sell success, should be strategically connected, critically reflective, supportive and opportunistic for implementing the change successfully. (JISCinfoNet, 2009)
After the planning phase it is not that easy to implement the change as resistance to change comes into the place. It is the result of personal experiences and evaluation about the reliability of others. (Ford, et al., 2002) The resistance also comes because people, culture and process. (JISCinfoNet, 2009) People resist to change because of dislike of change, discomfort with the uncertainty, perceived negative effect on interests, attachment to the established organizational culture, lack of conviction that change is needed, lack of clarity as to what is expected, belief that change is inappropriate or the timing is wrong, reaction to the experience of previous change and so on. (Palmer, et al., 2009) Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) proposed six classic methods for managing resistance. Education and Communicating comes into context where resistance is due to lack of information. The people should be informed as to the rationale for the change. Participation and involvement is used where resistance is a reaction to a sense of exclusion from the change process. People should be involved in the change process as active participants. Facilitation and support is used where resistance is due to anxiety and uncertainty. People should be provided with resources, both technical and emotional. Negotiation and Agreement is used where resistors are in a strong position to undermine the change if their concerns are not addressed. Incentive should be offered to actual or potential resistor. Manipulation and cooptation is used where participation, facilitation, or negotiation is too time consuming or resource demanding. Explicit and Implicit coercion is used where the change recipients have little capacity to effectively resist; where survival of the organization is at risk if change does not occur quickly. But people do not always resist change; they will often embrace the change and work enthusiastically in support of change. (Stensaker, et al., 2002)
In the implementation phase we consider transition and adaptation to change which doesn’t occur overnight. It is not always the change but the transition that the people resist. People resist the uncertainty of the new beginning. They have to do what they have never done before and be who they were never before. To implement the change effectively, people should be helped in this phase. (JISCinfoNet, 2009) ‘Transition management (TM) is a systemic approach, postulated as a new governance model which is concerned with steering and coordinating large-scale system innovations towards greater sustainability.’ (Sondeijker, et al., 2006)
The final phase is the control and post project review where the whole change process is reviewed. This means to look back and see if the change desired is achieved, reinvent and redesign accordingly. In this phase it is also crucial to check if the staffs assigned for any position in the change process needs to be reassigned. There should also be a check on the role redefine of the staffs that have been affected during or after the change process. Tools like balance scorecard and benchmarking should be used and keep recorded for any future references. (JISCinfoNet, 2009)
The two potential difficulties that the university may encounter are employees and professional competence of the staff. There are many institutions that provide both traditional classroom and online course for ITIL and PRINCE2. So one might think why the university wants to run this training course. There may be resistance to the change because of lack of conviction that this change is needed and discomfort with the uncertainty (Palmer, et al., 2009) that people will get attracted to this course in the university. The management should communicate well with all the employees regarding this idea. Everyone should understand to why this can be a competitive advantage to the university. Management can also overcome this concern by providing evidence to the employees that this training course is popular to people worldwide. (McAdam and Bickerstaff, 2001) At the beginning the staff will lack the sense of mastery over the skills and knowledge required by this change. (Vegt, et al., 2001) Staff may and may not have taken ITIL and PRINCE2 training before and even if they have they will not have the confidence as to how to deliver it effectively to the students in a quality way. Management can overcome this concern by training program, organizing workshops and by facilitating learning.
References:
Accel-Team (2009) Force Field Analysis [online] Available from:
http://www.accel-team.com/techniques/force_field_analysis.html [Accessed 21st November 2009].
Appelbaum, S. H., St-Pierre N. And Glavas W. (1998) Strategic organizational change: the role of leadership, learning, motivation and productivity. Management Decision. 36 (5), 289-301.
Atkins, M.J. (1999) Oven-ready and self-basting: taking stock of employability skills. Teaching in Higher Education. 4, 267-80.
Chapman, A. (2005-2009a) Change Management [online] Available from:
http://www.businessballs.com/changemanagement.htm [Accessed 23rd November, 2009].
Chapman, A. (2005-2009b) Organizational change, training and learning [online] Available from:
http://www.businessballs.com/organizationalchange.htm [Accessed 23rd November, 2009].
Fay, D. and Luhrmann, H. (2004) Current themes in organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 13 (2), 113-19.
Ford, J. D., Ford L.W. and McNamara, T. (2002) Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 15 (2), 105-121.
Hayes, J. (2007) The theory and practice of change management. 2nd ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hills, J. M. and Stewart, D. D. (2001) A tool for total quality management of educational provision illustrated using advanced coastal management courses. The TQM Magazine. 13 (6), 409-19.
improvementnetwork (n.d.) Force Field Analysis [online] Available from:
http://www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/imp/aio/1035279 [Accessed 5th December 2009].
ITIL (2009) What is ITIL? [online] Available from:
http://www.itil-officialsite.com/AboutITIL/WhatisITIL.asp [Accessed 17th November 2009].
JISCinfoNet (2009) Change Management [online] Available from:
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/change-management [Accessed 23rd November 2009].
Judge, W. and Douglas, T. (2009) Organizational change capacity: the systematic development of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 22 (6), 635-49.
Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review 73 (2), 59-67.
Kotter, J. P., and Schlesinger, L. A. (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business review.
McAdam, R. and Bickerstaff, I. (2001) Reengineering based change in the further education sector in Northern Ireland – A qualitative study. Business Process Management Journal. 7 (1), 50-64.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R. and Akin, G. (2009) Managing Organizational Change. 2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
PRINCE2 (2009) Welcome to the Official PRINCE2® Website [online] Available from:
http://www.prince-officialsite.com/home/home.asp [Accessed 17th November 2009].
Sondeijker, S., Geurts, J., Rotmans, J. and Tukker, A. (2006) Imagining sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight. 8 (5), 2006.
Stensaker, I., Meyer, C. B., Falkenberg, J., and Haueng, A. C. (2002) Excessive change: Coping mechanisms and consequences. Organizational Dynamics. 31 (3), 296-312.
techFAQ (n.d.) What is Change Management [online] Available from:
http://www.tech-faq.com/change-management.shtml [Accessed 23rd November 2009].
ValueBasedManagement (2009) Force Field Analysis [online] Available from:
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_lewin_force_field_analysis.html [Accessed 5th December 2009].
Vegt, R. V. D., Smyth, L. F. and Vandenberghe (2001) Implementing educational policy at the school level – Organization dynamics and teacher concerns. Journal of Educational Administration. 39 (1), 8-23.
White, M.C., Marin, D.B., Brazeal, D.V. and Friedman, W.H. (1997) The evolution of organizations: Suggestions from complexity theory about the interplay between natural selection and adaptation. Human Relations. 50 (11), 1383-1401.
Comments
Post a Comment