D e s i g n i n g C h a n g eHilde Dybdahl Johannessen

This brochure is an introductory guide to designing change. It contains a brief overview of relevant factors and possible design material within the context of organizational change processes. The objective is to create an awareness of what can be designed in regards to change, and why it should be designed. In addition to background information it proposes a possible approach that can be used when designing for change. The content primarily focuses on IT based change initiatives, but the general principles are applicable to most change processes.

Change is necessary. And never has it been more so than now. In a world with exponential growth in knowledge and technologies, keeping up to date with current innovations is imperative if an organization wishes to survive. This race has led to a drastic reduction in the life expectancy of organizations, cutting them from 85 to 15 years within less than a century (Gray, 2012). And yet, approximately 70% of change initiatives within organizations fail (Sirkin et al, 2005; Beer & Nohria, 2000). The efforts exceed their budgets, surpass the given time frame, and as Richard Pascale (1990) beautifully summed up, “the results of change programs are often seriously underwhelming”.

The resistance to change is a multifaceted problem, and an integral part of human nature. In general people are reluctant to alter their habits, believing that what worked in the past is sufficient to tackle current and future issues. Thus, if there is no dire threat on the horizon, people will continue to go about business as usual (Garvin & Roberto, 2008). In addition self-equilibrating forces within the existing organizational framework will contribute to maintaining the status quo. Despite all the inherent obstacles organizations are continuously attempting to change the way they work, often resulting in change fatigue among employees. This mental state is often referred to as BOHICA (Bend Over Here IT Comes Again), and causes employees to simply ignore new change initiatives because they won’t stick anyway.

r e s i s ta n c e t o c h a n g e

IT based changes have failure rates akin to those of other change programs, but are quite distinct in that they tend to ignore the people side of change (Keen, 1981; Cameron & Green, 2012; Davenport, 1994). This happens even though IT changes will always involve people. IT systems are simply tools meant to facilitate work processes, but without people actually using them they will be worthless. This is the fundamental difference between IT adoption and IT implementation. Adoption of a system can be likened to the purchase of exercise equipment (e.g. running shoes). Through the adoption I have acquired equipment that enables me to exercise and thereby reach my intended goal (e.g. complete a marathon). But adoption alone is insufficient in order to create value. I must use the equipment consistently, with enough competence over a period of time for the value to be realized (I won’t complete a marathon if the shoes stay in the box). The role of implementation is to turn the use of the equipment into a consistent habit. Thus, without successful implementation the potential benefits of adopting the new equipment are not realized, and the resources spent on purchasing and installing the equipment are wasted.

Organizations have a tendency to assume that the system contains the value in itself; and consequently that the potential benefits are realized by simply installing the system. But value can only be created through use, and therefore IT changes will always concern behavioural change, requiring people to alter their habits and work in new ways that the system promotes.

i t c h a n g e

Suggested reading:

Klein & Knight (2005).

Innovation Implementation: Overcoming the Challenge

Keen (1981)

Information Systems & Organizational Change

i f t h e s n e a k e r s s t a y i n t h e b o x , y o u w o n ’ t g e t f i t

Action will only occur if the person has sufficient motivation and ability while there is a trigger present.

t h e f o g g b e h a v i o u r m o d e l

Ability

Mot

ivat

ion

Triggerinternal/external

B e h av i o u r a l c h a n g e

Behavioural change is a necessity for successful implementation; hence a fundamental understanding of behaviour is required to properly design for change. Although behavioural change is complex and affected by a multitude of different factors, Fogg (xxxx) has developed a simple and versatile model that allows one to assess (and design for) the likelihood that a behaviour (e.g. log in to a new system) will occur. This model proposes that all human actions are dependent on a sufficient amount of motivation combined with sufficient ability while one is prompted to perform the action. An example of this is when you answer your phone; first you must be “triggered” to answer it via the ringtone or vibration. Second you must have the ability to answer it (e.g. not in the middle of a meeting, or not out of physical reach), at the same time you must have enough motivation to answer it (e.g. if it is a sales person calling you may be less inclined to answer). The simplicity of the model makes it very versatile, and it can be used as a check list for assessing how likely the intended behaviour of the change initiative actually is. If a particular behaviour (e.g. using a new IT system) requires a substantial amount of effort (e.g. training, focus and time) the person must have an increased amount of motivation. This can be used to design interventions that either increase abiity (e.g. by providng adequate training) or increase motivation (e.g. explaning why the system is important).

Suggested reading:

Eyal (2014)

Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products.

Fogg (2011)

www.Behaviormodel.org

Motivation is the reason to act and can be created by extrinsically motivating factors (e.g. money), or

intrinsic ones (e.g the joy of playing soccer).

Ability is how able one is to perform the intended behaviour. Fogg proposes six main categories that

affect a persons ability. Time, Money, Physical Effort, Cognitive Effort, Social Deviance, and Non-routine.

The Trigger can be any cue that initiates someone to act (e.g. a ringtone triggers you to pick up your

phone) and it can be of external or internal nature.

M o t i vat i o n

Motivation is a prerequisite in order for people to alter their behaviour and therefore a necessary component in all change programs. However the nature of motivation will also play a significant role. Studies show that extrinsic motivation initially increases adoption rates, but fails to properly implement the change. Intrinsic motivation is far more conducive for persistent behavioural transformation and thereby increases the probability for successful implementation. This type of motivation is largely fuelled by a person’s sense of autonomy (i.e. the feeling that one is the origin of ones behaviour) in relation to the intended behaviour. It is possible to increase the intended adopters sense of autonomy by actively involving them in decisions regarding the change initiative, however this is not always feasible for large organizations.

In lack of direct user involvement it is paramount that the intended adopters know why the change is necessary. Ideally they should be informed about the contextual factors that created the need for change (e.g. that their customers are experiencing periods of economic decline). This allows them to rationalize the reason for change, and increases the likelihood that they will personally endorse it, thereby enhancing their degree of perceived autonomy. In addition the intended adopter must understand how the change relates to them and how it can be of value. All this must be properly conveyed to the employees, thus communication efforts are critical. However, experience will always triumph communication. It is by experiencing the change that the intended adopters will best understand the purpose and value of the initiative. But this understanding is wholly dependent on their experiences actually reflecting the intended value. If they experience the outcome of the change to be negligible, no amount of communication material will convince them otherwise. Consequently the experience of the change is of outmost importance and should be intentionally designed to promote the transformation.

Suggested reading:

Deci & Ryan (2002)

The Handbook of Self-Determination Research.

Cadwallader et al (2010)

Frontline employee motivation to participate in

service innovation implementation.

Kotter (1995) Leading Change.

e x p e r i e n c e t r i u m p h s c o m m u n i c a t i o n

v a l u a b l e e x p e r i e n c e s a r e n o t g u a r a n t e e d

There seems to be a prevailing assumption during IT changes that if the intended adopters just use a system they will automatically experience the value of it. No they won’t. The value of the system is not embedded within the system itself; it is created during use and is completely determined by the user of that system. Due to the increasingly collaborative nature of IT solutions the experience is often more dependent on the actions of other system users than on the system itself. It doesn’t really help that the process of publicly posting a question is simple; the potential value will not be realized unless someone in the system actually answers it. Hence an individual employee may do all the correct actions, and still not have a valuable experience (e.g. not receive answers to the question). This entails that system implementation must generate behavioural change on a larger scale if the experience is to be consistently valuable. Thus the desired behaviour that the system necessitates (e.g. answer questions) must become the norm within the organization, and this will only occur if the existing organizational framework promotes it. Massive communication efforts will not compensate for a procedure that deters the desired behaviour (e.g. reporting procedure that inhibits employees from sharing information across departments and thereby prohibiting them from answering questions).

Implementation efforts tend to have a predominant focus on preparing the individual adopter for the change. This is normally done through a variety of different communication material and training programs that aim to increase the employee’s knowledge and familiarity with the system. These activities are essential, yet insufficient in order for the intended behaviours to occur. It is not only the individual employees who must be prepared for the change; the organization must also adjust to accommodate the new ways of working.

e x p e r i e n c e

Suggested reading:

Vargo, Maglio & Akaka (2008)

On value and value co-creation: A service systems and

service logic perspective.

Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane & Kyriakidou (2004)

Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations:

Systematic Review and Recommendations.

Without positive experiences the intended adopters will be quick to dismiss the technology as yet another passing trend. Nevertheless, the experience is largely left to chance. Without an organizational framework that supports the intended behaviours the system is unlikely to yield value on a consistent basis. Consequently, if one is to design for successful change initiatives, one must design the organizational framework so that it encourages the necessary employee actions. This demands a fundamental understanding of what the framework comprises, and how it can be influenced. In other words, we must identify the available design material.

The design material is the matter that creates or potentially can create the organizational framework, and which can be used to intentionally direct the organizational behaviour. The material encompasses a wide range of tangible and intangible aspects of an organization. Examples include practices and procedures, roles and responsibilities as well as the companies physical surroundings. Whether intentionally designed or not, this material will exert significant influence on employee behaviour.

Taking the existing framework into consideration prior to implementation would also enable organizations to better acknowledge their inherent limitations. Due to the somewhat intangible nature of the design material it is underestimated as a barrier to change. When dealing with more physical matter, for example production technologies, a company will have no trouble declaring that a proposed change in product development is impossible since they currently operate with injection moulds. However, there are few organizations that would admit that a more collaborative way of working is not possible due to the present state of managerial culture. This despite replacing production technology would demand far less resources than shifting the normative behaviour of management.

d e s i g n i n g c h a n g e

d o n ’ t l e a v e c h a n g e

u p t o c h a n c e

Design the organizational framework to support the intended behaviours of the change.

Design: to intentionally plan/orchestrate

Material: The matter from which a thing is or can be made (Oxford Dictionar y)

Step 1. Designing for valuable experiences necessitates that one is aware of the intended value of the change (i.e. what the change is meant to afford the adopter and the organization). Hence, when designing for change one should initially identify what the organization aspires to achieve with the change.

Step 2. Change processes are dependent on people performing certain behaviours in order for the objective to be achieved. It might therefore be beneficial to view the change process through the desired user sequences of the employees. In order to do this one must first translate the value proposition into possible actions that can realize the intended benefits of the change. For example if the goal is to improve collaboration, then a possible user sequence would be to post questions on the company’s collaborative system. This sequence comprises multiple actions that the employee (and other involved actors) must perform in order for the value to be realized. In accordance with the behavioural model each of the different steps depend on the employee having sufficient motivation (e.g. believing that he will receive an answer) and ability (e.g. know how to use the system) in order for them to happen. These actions will inevitably be affected by the existing organizational framework, thus it should be intentionally designed to accommodate the desired behaviours.

Step 3. In order to (re)design the organizational framework one must be aware of the “material” of which it comprises. I propose four different categories of design material that can be applied within an organizational context. These are preliminary categories and do not encompass all the relevant factors, but they provide an adequate star ting point. These can be used to evaluate the feasibility of the intended behaviours, and to provide an introduction of possible material that can be used when designing interventions.

g u i d e l i n e s * f o r c h a n g e

*No change processes are identical due to the differing actors, objectives and organizations involved; hence there

will never be a definitive answer to how one can design for change. The guidelines should therefore be viewed as

inspiration when working with change, rather than a procedure that must be stringently followed.

*After the shareholders, executive chiefs, HR department and is not applicable on Friday afternoon.

m a t e r i a l

cu

lt

ur

al

Corporate culture is not defined by the slogans framed on the walls. It consists of all the behaviours that don’t raise an eyebrow. Cultural change is about making people behave in ways that do. The normative organizational behaviours are the manifestations of commonly held values (e.g. loyalty and efficiency) and beliefs (e.g. shareholders are the number one constituent) upon which the organization operates. Consequently one must shift the shared beliefs and underlying mental models in order to achieve persistent behavioural change. Due to its immaterial nature culture cannot be directly designed, but as with experiences, one can design FOR a desired culture. Hence the cultural lens is a purely diagnostic tool. Applying the “cultural lens” enables one to compare the desired behaviour/behaviours of the change initiative with the current organizational values and norms. By doing so one can anticipate which behaviours might be resisted by the existing culture.

o r g a n i z at i o n a l c u lt u r e

Do any of the behaviours deviate from the established behavioural norms?

Would it be considered strange or inappropriate to perform the action?

Do any of the behaviours conflict with organizational values?

For example does the action require collaboration within a culture that values individual effort?

If the organization consists of multiple sub-cultures it might be useful to assess behaviour/culture fit

within the different segments (e.g. national or disciplinary cultures).

Which values are promoted through the intended behaviours?

Are the behaviours based on transparency or collaborative ideals?

Suggested reading:

Leidner & Kayworth (2006)

A Review of Culture in Information Systems

Research: Toward a Theory of Information

Technology Culture Conflict.

Detert, Schroeder & Mauriel (2000)

A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement

Initiatives in Organizations.

i n f o r M at i o n &c o M M u n i cat i o n

This is perhaps the most obvious category of design material, and addresses the knowledge required to perform the intended behaviours. It encompasses a wide range of possible factors such as training and support as well as communication regarding the purpose of the change initiative. It can be used to set expectations, increase the sense of urgency and also enhance the intended adopters ability to perform the desired behaviour. This lens can be used to anticipate the necessary knowledge that the intended adopter may need in order to perform the designated action(s). It can also be used to determine where the “knowledge interventions” (e.g. informative material, support or communications regarding purpose) should be applied throughout the user journey.

Suggested reading:

Vuuren & Elving, (2008)

Communication, sensemaking and change as a chord

of three strands.

Garvin & Roberto, (2005)

Change through Persuasion.

Is the person aware that the behaviour should/can be performed?

In the context of system implementation this would include general awareness about the system, and

that it is available.

Does the person know why the behaviour should be performed?

This involves the person understanding the rationale and purpose behind the desired behaviour and

thus being motivated to act.

Does the person have the necessary knowledge to act?

This relates to the persons ability and will be dependent upon sufficient training, adequate instructions

and proper support mechanisms. The amount of knowledge will also be linked to the complexity/

difficulty of the behaviour (e.g. if a system interface is particularly difficult to navigate it will require a

higher degree of competence).

m a t e r i a l

kn

ow

le

dg

e

w h a t p e o p l e k n o w / / w h a t t h e y s h o u l d k n o w

m a t e r i a l

st

ru

ct

ur

al

t h e o f f i c a l / / u n o f f i c i a l r u l e s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

Through this lens one can view the change in the context of organizational structures, procedures and other types of regulating systems that exist within the organization. In addition to providing behavioural incentives (e.g. career possibilities or monetary rewards) they also signalize what the company considers valuable. Thus these factors enable or deter behaviours by forcing a set of priorities on the employees. For example if a new IT system is meant to increase collaboration, it will be impeded by a measuring system that focus purely on individual performance. By comparing the desired behaviours of the change initiative with the structural factors of the organization one might be able to set more realistic expectations in regards to the effect of the change and the resources required to successfully implement it. Bang posits that there are three main categories of structural material one can work with, these are listed below as inspiration.

p r a c t i c e s & p r o c e d u r e s

Practices & Procedures. This category of influential material concerns the practices, procedures and systems which the organization operates with. These include pay roll and career systems, reporting procedures, meeting practices, government regulations, and various measurement systems. These can be official or unoffical, but will inevitably affect employee behaviour.

Organizational Structure. This category relates to the more formal structures within the organization, such as the divsion of different business units and departments. It also concerns the hierarchical structures and how these impact the distribution of responsibility. In addition the criteria for how sections and divisions are divided can be interesting leverage points.

Physical Workspace. The design of the physical workspace constitutes the third type of structural material that one can use in order to alter behaviour. This relates to the physical environment and how it has been designed. Where people work in relation to other employees (e.g. open workspaces) and the conveyed values of the interior (e.g. round tables for collaboration) will have an impact on how people behave.

Suggested reading:

Bang (1999)

Å endre bedriftskulturen.

This category focuses on the behaviours of management within the organization and how these support or impede the change effort. If the necessary behaviours that the intended adopter must perform are contradictory to what management actually does, the behaviour is unlikely to happen. This because the actions of managers are interpreted as the legitimate way to behave.Thus managerial behaviour is a potentially powerful material when designing for change. It is however important to understand that they are often trapped in a double bind situation, where they are obliged to achieve contradictory goals (e.g. successfully implement new behaviours while maintaining previous production levels). Therefore the goal of this lens is not only to understand how managerial behaviour affects the desired behaviours of other employees, but also to uncover the competing commitments of management.

M a n a g e r i a l B e h av i o u r

What does management do in regards to the change?

Do they perform the desired behaviour on a regular basis? This area might be interesting to juxtapose

with what management says (do they walk the talk?).

Does management have sufficient knowledge about the change?

This concerns their understanding of the purpose of the change, the rationale behind it, and also the

necessary behaviours in order to realize the intended value.

What are the structures that affect their behaviour?

If management is bound to certain KPIs that contradict the desired behaviours, they will have to interpret

which course of action is deemed most important by the organization.

Which cultural norms might affect the behaviours of managers?

Here the cultural lens can be useful in order to uncover normative behaviours that might obstruct the

desired managerial behaviour.

Suggested reading:

Hillestad, T. (2008)

Den krevende reisen fra hierarki til team;

Lederen som kulturell arktitekt.

Repenning & Sterman (2002)

Capability traps and self-confirming attribution

errors in the dynamics of process improvement.

m a t e r i a l

ma

na

ge

ria

l

t h e m a n a g e r i a l d o u b l e b i n d

Beer & Nohria, (2000). Cracking the code of change.

Garvin & Roberto, (2005). Change through Persuasion.

Gray, D. (2012). The Connected Company.

Pascale, R. (1990), Managing on the Edge.

Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, (2005). The hard side of change management.

Hilde Dybdahl JohannessenHildedyjo@gmail.com

+47 93265491

c o n ta c t