International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 12
Managing Human Resources and Organizational
Change for Effective Information Systems
Reengineering in Nigeria
1Dr. Amaeshi Uzoma Francis,
2Akujor Jane C.,
3Amade Benedict
1,2,3Department of Project Management Technology
Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Nigeria [email protected]
Corresponding author: Dr. Amaeshi Uzoma Francis
Abstract-- This study focuses on managing human
resources and organizational change in Nigeria’s banking
industry within the context of organizational culture in the
domain of Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Our
purpose is to find out why well-tested scientific
management theories in advanced countries do not seem to
be applicable in Nigeria with a view to working out an
alternative methodology that can best suit our culture and
environment. We adopted a social science descriptive
survey research targeted at a finite population of 1500
respondents spread throughout Nigeria; collecting
qualitative and quantitative data from the Human
Resources Departments of three study banks (First Bank
Plc, Union Bank Plc and United Bank for Africa). Since
our study was correlational that provided statistical
associations (rather than causal between variables) we
used Mckinsey’s 7–S framework to measure the core
research constructs and utilized both parametric and non-
parametric tests to ensure that no significant differences
occurred in the means of the respective survey
instruments. We also used ANOVA and Pearson
Correlation to determine the significance of association
between the specified variables; performed all statistical
tests at 95% confidence level using SPSS version 8. Our
major finding is that once generic standard solutions are
defined, they can be implemented to reach the desired
coverage of the new solutions if top management properly
understands the role of organizational culture in change
implementation while at the same time performing their
function of coordinating the change according to the
workers readiness for the change initiative. We therefore
recommend cultural audit which can reveal the unwritten
code of conduct that encourage system users to hoard
information. Further research might look at the
differences between the results found in this study with
small and medium sized companies, as this research
focused only on large scale organizations.
Keywords-- Flexcube, Information Systems Reengineering,
Organizational Culture
I. INTRODUCTION
Organizational requirements for competitive
advantage in the 21st century have changed the
philosophy of management by direction and control
hitherto aimed at motivating employees. The recent
emphasis on “people” and “people management
systems” as a source of competitive advantage has
become important topics for discussion both in
academic and business circles. In the research area of
Human Resource and Organizational Change
Management, organizations must understand how
technology management can enhance individual and
organizational effectiveness as well as the quality of
human experiences in organized settings [1]; [2];
[3];[4].
Business Process Reengineering (BPR) arose at the
beginning of the 1990s following attempts by large US
companies to use Information Technology (IT) for
linking business processes that cut across functional
boundaries. Managing and implementing change
undoubtedly became one of the most critical factors for
successful management of business [5]. Factors
influencing successful change management of
information technology have been studied and
documented in various research reports on BPR yet
many of the efforts fail.
Researchers have looked at observable changes in
one or more organizational subsystems, such as people,
processes, cultures, procedures and practices, structures,
information systems[6];[7];[8];[9];. Like the mainstream
of Management Information System (MIS) writers, the
interpretivists’ have focused mainly on the nature of
MIS to the relative neglect of the concept of
organization. Their writings do imply particular views
of organization which are different from the goal-
seeking model but they do not present well-defined
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 13
models of organization which could be used in any
detailed sense to shape and guide the provision of MIS
within an organization [9]. Their focus in the change
initiatives as well as in the theory, is primarily on
creating and designing optimal solutions for new ways
of doing business [11]; [12]. Concerning the process of
making the change real, the main emphasis lies on
planning and leading the change process, whereas
implementing the solutions in practice is often
considered as a mechanistic task of executing the plans.
[13]. Consequently, a lot of effort and resources are
spent on development work and planning; investors
invest in Information Technology hoping to achieve
better organizational effectiveness but the targets are
seldom met [14].
The relationship between people and tasks for the
purpose of redesigning work process is to increase
efficiency. In order to achieve any such objectives of
organizational effectiveness, the firm must be able to
implement the new technology effectively [15]. This is
where the problem starts. In other words, problems
emerge in the implementation phase when the change
methods developed, concepts and processes are brought
into real business environment in Nigeria. These are
considered as failure of the whole initiative as a result
new development programs are started for replacing the
existing ones[16].
Our aim in this study is to examine the applicability
of BPR to organizations in Nigeria especially the
banking institutions and, particularly, to determine how
the ‘people’ element of re-engineering projects in banks
affect the success of such projects. The performance of
banks is of great significance for the competitiveness of
nations. It follows, therefore, that achieving successful
change in banks is of utmost importance, and
determining the applicability of BPR to transaction -
processing systems of banks is a highly significant
exercise. If ‘traditional’ working practices are no longer
efficient in the modern banks, then they must determine
effective ways of successfully achieving change. The
experience with BPR in the manufacturing sector has
demonstrated that failing to ‘change people’ has been a
major barrier to success. Thus, changes in work
environment without worker participation wreak havoc
because they have no capacity to adapt. If organizations
are machines, control makes sense. “If organizations are
process structures, then seeking to impose control
through permanent structure is suicide” [17]; [18].
A. Statement of the problem
Three Nigerian commercial banking organizations
namely: - First bank Plc (FBN), Union bank of Nig. Plc
(UBN) and United bank for Africa Plc (UBA)
redesigned their transaction-processing systems by
installing FLEXCUBE, which was the latest
information technology in Nigeria’s banking sector as at
the year 2000. Installation of the new information
system was for quick data processing and electronic
transfer of accurate information to appropriate decision
making locations; reposition and take advantage of
opportunities in the changing banking environment. The
business strategy was for improved customer service
delivery. The estimated banks’ investment in this
information technology as at 31/12/2000 was put at
N1.7b. These banks made these investments in
information technology yet had an average productivity
growth of 0.7%, which is significantly lower than the
growth rate achieved in the 1990’s, and much lower
than the much achieved by the manufacturing sector,
that invested significantly less in IT during the same
period (Aduba,1997). Implementation of this
information technology did not seem to be satisfactory
in the banking industry. These banks seemed to have
difficulties in implementing these information
technology packages as experienced by their customers
such that even after adopting Flexcube, operating costs
constantly rose, productivity decreased and service
delivery to customers continued to deteriorate. The
unsatisfactory output of Flexcube in these banks became
perplexing in view of the huge investment and
management desire to use the latest technology to
render efficient banking services to their customers.
To investigate this implementation problem, we
visited some of the branches of these banks, and
observed long customer waiting time. Consequently, we
explored the perception and attitude of the
contemporary bank customers in a survey and found
that; out of 1090 respondents, 64% think that lots of
inefficiencies exist even with the newly introduced
information technology. This shows that the main
concerns of customers are long queues and delays in
service delivery (59%) and this reflects their switching
pattern. For instance, the study shows that 51 % of
customers have switched banks between January and
December, 2003 with the most important reason for
switching as inefficient service/delay (43%). Thus, the
key attributes of customers’ favorite banks are quick
service/prompt attention/no delays (37%), efficient and
accurate service/no mistakes 25%.
These bring to focus the issue of how to successfully
implement change in Nigerian organizations. Research
efforts of authorities such as [19]; [20]; [21]; [22] that
attempt to establish a link between information
technology and business performance from the point of
view of organizational culture have consistently been
inconclusive. The question is how does organizational
culture influence successful implementation of business
process reengineering in Nigeria? Can this problem be
traced to hardware, software or the operating personnel
and management failure to accept technology’s lead into
the organization willingly?
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 14
1) Research questions.
In this study, we addressed the following sub-problems
with a view to answering the main research question:
1) – How does integration of the new information
system processes with human activities improve
customer service?
2) – How does management understanding of the
role of organizational culture, enhance implementation
of BPR?
3) – How does management recognition and
support for the new Information Technology
dramatically improve customer service delivery?
4) – How does cooperation between the users and
the change agents enhance workers knowledge of the
new information system?
B. Assumptions of the study
Figure 1 McKinsey’s 7 S Model adopted from [27]
Our guiding thesis asserts that organizational and
personal value systems shape the reengineering of
business processes. Without reflection and evaluation of
the impact of values, change becomes conditioned by
the perspectives of management and their managers
based on their assumptions of business and transaction
process redesign.
Taking our bearing from the ideas of [23],
“implementation of organizational change means
building conditions for appropriate use of new solutions
and taking them in use to affect the organization. That is
to say, change implementation is considered as part of
change management, a widely used generic term
referring to systemic approach to planning,
implementing and controlling organizational change”.
According to [24]; [25]; [26]; [27], McKinsey’s 7 S
model (fig. 1) provides a generic model of
organizations.
If BPR has significant impact on all of the other 6
dimensions then it would be reasonable to assume that:
1) BPR involves significant organizational
change; and that
2) It has a significant impact on, or dependency
on, organizational culture.
This research is anchored on the second assumption
that BPR has a significant impact on or dependency on
organizational culture. Given the hypothesis that BPR
involves significant organizational change then one
would expect BPR to impact all the dimensions of an
organization. It is also assumed that the problems
associated with IS management are related not only to
size of the organization but also to the level of
investments in information technology. This assumption
is a priori and still lacks empirical evidence. Hence, in
order to comply with this hypothesis, the largest
organizations as those that use IT extensively were
included in the study.
C. Objectives of the study
The main objective of this study is to explore the key
human resources management initiatives undertaken by
organizations in the process of redesigning their
transaction processing systems as they try to operate in
turbulent environments. To this end, we formulated the
following specific objectives:-
1. To find out whether integration of the new
information system processes with human activities will
improve customer service.
2. To ascertain whether management
understanding of the role of organizational culture will
enhance implementation of BPR.
3. To find out whether management recognition
and support for the new Information Technology will
dramatically improve customer service delivery.
4. To ascertain whether cooperation between the
users and the change agents will enhance workers
knowledge of the new information systems.
D. Hypotheses of the study
Based on the research model and a study of the relevant
literature, we developed the following hypotheses to
solve the research problem.
Ho: There is no significant difference in customer
service if human activities are integrated with the new
information system processes.
Ho: Management understanding of the role of
organizational culture will not increase effective
implementation of BPR as a change initiative?
Ho: Management recognition and support for the
new IT will not dramatically improve customer service
delivery.
Strategy
Structure
Shared Values
Staff
Style
Skills
Systems
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 15
Ho: Cooperation between the users and the change
agents will not enhance workers knowledge of the new
information system.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Theoretical Foundation of the study
Implementing change in an organization is a topic
that involves numerous different actions related to
various elements of the organizational system. The
theoretical domains that provide specific models and
suggestions for carrying out organizational change
include: Organizational Development (OD),
Organizational Transformation (OT), Business Process
Reengineering (BPR), Project Management and
Organizational Learning
The main differences between the theories relate to
the content and outcome of the change. The change
process types (planned and emergent) offer some basic
view points to change implementation revealing that
summarizing or putting together the different theories of
organizational change is challenging. This is because
rather than being a uniform model, each theory is a
collection of somewhat ambiguous concepts, guidelines
and frameworks. However, despite the different
viewpoints, the theories overlap and complement each
other. Due to the different origin of each approach, the
main difference is related to the targeted outcome of the
change.
Whereas Organizational Development theories look
at change from the behavioral point of view,
emphasizing employee well being along organizational
effectiveness, theories of Organizational Transformation
aim at large scale change as a means of strategic
management and highlight the relationship between
organizational change and corporate strategy.
However, the outcome of change is of secondary
importance in this study as long as the change is
beneficial, and the focus is on the process of reaching
the outcome. In other words, what shall it profit an
organization if it adopts a new technology and the
objectives of acquiring the technology are not achieved?
Thus on the subject of implementation, OD highlights
participative diagnosis of the improvement needs,
careful planning of both the target state as well as the
interventions for reaching it. The phase models
describing the change process are a focal element, as
well as the change agent role supported by top
management.
The theory of OT has grown from the critics of OD.
The contribution of OT to the actual implementation
consists of suggesting change initiation not based on a
diagnosis, but on a strategic intent affected by external
change. OT diminishes the importance of the
implementation process, the view of sequential process
dominates also in OT, although many authors have
called for a more adaptive and flexible process that
facilitates learning in the uncertain conditions of today's
business environment.
BPR theory views implementation rather similarly
with OT, but more clearly relies on the phase models
and holistic approach. While [28] and [29] are
extremely doubtful of making a complete and holistic
definition of the target state as a detached task before
implementation, holistic planning and implementation
approach is the definite view in BPR. The BPR theory
essentially views change as a project and supports the
assumption of the traditional project management theory
of being able to determine the target of the project in a
detailed and exact manner at the start. Project
management relies on planning, control and monitoring
and considers a project successful when the execution
and outcome conform to the plan. When considering
change in business processes, the Business Process
Reengineering paradigm cannot be ignored as it
complements the behavioral aspects with the more
content-specific elements as well as provides practical
guidelines for implementation thereby concentrating on
measurable performance improvements through
business process change.
Project Management is a generic theory for carrying
out any temporary task that stresses the planning and
control of the execution. Thus, if an intentional change
effort is typically carried out as a project, the relevant
parts of the Project Management theory are brought to
bear. The theory of Organizational learning then
considers change implementation as a part of learning
and provides a valuable and differentiating viewpoint. It
does not explicitly restrict its object of change, but aims
at an adaptive and continuously renewing organization.
Organizational learning however emphasizes that
change is carried out on all levels and parts of the
organization while each member of the organization
learns besides their practical work. Rather than
concentrating on controlling change, the role of
management is to foster circumstances that· support the
organization members in learning and generating new
ideas and knowledge.
Although [29] link the dilemma of balancing between
the two extremes of planned and emergent change to
complexity theory, we focus on activity theory based
framework for studying user needs and for iteratively
evaluating developing technology.
The Activity theory is a cross-scientific theory for
studying man as an actor in a cultural-historical context.
The approach is based on a specific view of human
activity (the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory). It is
based on the idea of the dual process of man and
artifacts shaping and being shaped by social and
physical environment [30]. Activity theory offers tools
to analyze the problem and possibilities of technology.
“When a new product is introduced to a user activity
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 16
system, it causes implications within and between the
components of the system. Analysis of the different
types of problems and opportunities in the context of
use helps to show not only the existing needs and
opportunities but also the impact of the new product to
the everyday life of the user”.
When studying how the existing theories see change
implementation, the focus in this study is on the
dominant views within each discipline. Yet the critics
and calls for improvements presented by numerous
authors like [31];[32];[33]; [34]; [35] have been used as
a foundation for developing the new implementation
approach.
In addition to the critics, alternative implementation
approaches suggested by [36] and [37] broadened the
view of successful change management. Nonetheless,
these approaches provide alternatives within a specific
theoretical discipline, proposing an alternative for OD
approach and [37] for strategy making and OT thus
leaving many issues open for further research. Our
evolutionary approach thus lies on involving the views
across the discipline: elaborating the common pattern 'of
the seven elements of Mckinsey’s framework and
comparing the characteristics of the different theories
based on the elements. This provided a unique insight in
the study and eliminated the common problem of the
difference between how people think about change and
how they implement it in practice as noted by [38]; [39].
The ultimate aim according to all the theories is
anyhow improved business performance and the
variance stems from different assumptions of the means,
whether it should be employee empowerment,
streamlined processes, ability to learn or something else.
B. Research Context
The research constructs are defined based on the
presented change process types, planned and emergent,
the theoretical basis of implementation (OD, OT, BPR
etc.) Using the quoted examples' from the BPR
literature, the descriptions of BPR closely match the
definitions of each of the elements of McKinsey’s 7 S
organizational models. With this model a full BPR
program impacts 6 of 7 of the organizational
dimensions, and that it is driven by the 7th element,
Strategy. One can infer then, that a full BPR program
will involve significant organizational change. Because
McKinsey places Shared Values at the heart of an
organization one can also infer, in particular, that a full
BPR program will involve significant organizational
culture change.
C. Organizational Change
The most common way to categorize organizational
change is perhaps based on the radicalism of change
[40]. The classification dates back to the model of
evolution by [41] which was based on incremental,
cumulative and continuous change. [41] model of
gradualism has been challenged with that of punctuated
equilibrium by [42]. The punctuated equilibrium
paradigm considers evolution as relatively long periods
of stability, punctuated by compact periods of
qualitative, metamorphic change. The periods of
stability are referred to as equilibrium and a highly
durable underlying order or deep structure which
persists and limits change during the equilibrium
periods. The fundamental issue in punctuated
equilibrium is whether change happens within the
existing deep structure or disassembles it. According to
the model, change obeying the existing order is
incremental and gradual as opposed to revolutionary,
transformational change [42]. Other concepts of
radicalism of organizational change are summarized in
table 1 below as adopted from [43].
TABLE 1.CLASSIFICATION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE LITERATURE (ADOPTED FROM DUNPHY AND STACE, 2007)
Classification Essential deference
Gersick, 1991 Gradual change
Revolutionary change
Sustains existing deep structure or underlying order
Breaks and replaces existing structure or underlying
order
Durphey and
Stace (1988)
Incremental (evolutionary)
change
Transformational
(revolutionary) change
Continuous, small
Discontinuous, large-scale
Levy (1986) First-order change
Second-order change
Change within the basic rules of the system
Paradigmatic change that involves change in the
“materials” (the rules of the rules) of the system
Tushman et al
(1986)
Convergent (incremental,
evolutionary) change
Frame braking
(transformational change,
upheaval)
Compatible with the existing organizational structure
Discontinuous system wide. Concurrent shift in
strategy, power, structure and controls
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 17
Fiol and Lylos
(1985)
organizational
learning
Lower-level learning
Higher-level learning
Behavioural change, occurs within a given
organizational structure
More cognitive change, adjusts overall rules and norms
and not only specific activities or behaviours
Miller & Friesen
(1984)
Evolutionary (incremental)
Revolutionary (dramatic)
Low number of contemporary change, piecemeal
High number of contemporary and extreme changes,
multi-faceted
Greiner (1972)
organizational
life cycle
Evolution
Revolution
Uses the dominant management style to achieve stable
growth
Due to a problem, creates a new management pattern
before stable growth can continue
Confusion of the fundamental difference has resulted
in disagreement of the terminology and the relationship
between radical and gradual change: are they
alternative, nested or complementary concepts?
Whereas [43] see both gradual and radical change as
different types of evolution, authors like [44] consider
evolutionary change as an opposite to radical change
adding that large scale, strategic change requires radical
change and that “the interdependency between structural
elements of an organization requires multifaceted
change that is expensive, so rational companies
postpone change until a critical state of incongruence
with the environment is reached. Therefore, as change
occurs seldom it must be radical to remedy the serious
mismatch between the organization and its
environment”[44].
Researchers such as [45]; [46] claim that failing to
give priority to human factors at a time of radical
change can break an existing social contract within an
organization. This is exacerbated if people are asked for
ideas in the change process but receive little feedback or
action on their suggestions.
[45] clearly see a new culture as the outcome of BPR
and the process of implementing a new process. “These
force new behavior which will, in due course, change
the culture and the characteristics of the organization.
They map this out in their business system diamond: 1)
business processes that determine 2) the jobs and
structures which are then 3) managed and measured to
4) shape values and beliefs”.
[46] On the other hand argue that “change
management requires a clear understanding of the
existing culture and behavior patterns of the people in a
business, and a deliberate attempt to change this into
some other form of behavior” and “Perhaps the most
important value that BPR either forces or reinforces is
teamwork”. Adding that “one of the key jobs of
business unit leaders is to build and foster that trust, to
reward trust, and to force those who cannot learn to trust
and be part of a team to leave” [46] also recognize that
organizational culture is the: “unspoken, collective rules
and beliefs ... discerned ... through ... language,
symbols, myths, and rituals” and is held within
“individual belief systems [as] the attitudes and mental
models .... [that] shape their attitudes towards others and
their behavior on the job”. They believe that “changing
embedded corporate values is perhaps the most
powerful form of change” but agree that it is not easy
and can take time. It also “requires organization
executives to demonstrate leadership” and “requires
fundamental changes in the values held by executives”.
[47] Highlights a key question of this thesis: ‘should
cultural change precede BPR or is cultural change the
outcome of BPR’? With regard to BPR induced change,
as opposed to other change programs, [47] argues that:
“reengineering change often appears illogical. By its
very nature, proactive change is harder to rationalize
and communicate than reactive change where you can
point to specific events which have already occurred
and are having a clear effect on the business. Indeed,
initial responses are emotional - anger, fear, insecurity -
though, over time, they may become accepted as
logical”. [47] goes on to highlight the consequential
difficulties of managers’ use of BPR and, once
implemented, the resulting ambiguity in “job
definitions, responsibilities and expectations”, as well as
the loss of “career ladders” and “power bases”,
particularly for managers. In Nigeria, we are concerned
that some companies see no benefit of BPR in that it
“creates a culture of insecurity” which keeps people ‘on
their toes’ and suggests “a more positive approach is to
link rewards and remuneration more closely to
Customer satisfaction or team performance”.
[48] Argue that “BPR can mean losing one’s job”.
[49] see the “machine metaphor” as the dominant
metaphor underpinning BPR. They berate some BPR
writers and practitioners for: “giving the impression that
staff savings take precedence over employee
empowerment and argue that “This [the job impact of
BPR] should perhaps be considered from the
perspective of those employees who no longer have
jobs”. These social scientists see culture, or at least the
neglect of people, as an inhibitor to effective
implementation of BPR. They promote soft systems
methodologies (SSM) that use “cultural stream analyses
... to establish which changes are ‘culturally feasible’”.
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 18
According to these authors “successful uses of the
[SSM] methodology have been both participative and
incremental in nature. Incrementalism derives from its
assumption that culture and politics are ‘givens’”. Thus
the implication is that culture is a root metaphor.
D. Evolutionary approach for change implementation
The description of the new implementation approach
provides the basis for assessing it. Table 2 reflects the
evaluation of the extant planned and emergent change
implementation with the new approach and illustrates
how it enables combining the strengths of both extant
approaches and yet avoids the weakness, which in a
rather straightforward way counted as the negations of
the strengths of the other approach.
As the approach combines the strengths of both
planned and emergent approaches, it contributes to
answering the calls for incorporating the extreme views
of change management: top-down, externally driven,
imposed central and lateral change in contrast with
organic, endogenous and local change [49]; [50]. Also
[51] see strategy making as a process of continuous
adaptation that looks for a balance between offering too
much or too little direction and between the benefits of
autonomy without losing the benefits of scale and
scope. Accordingly, [51] note that much important
organizational change is simultaneously deductive and
inductive taking both from conceptual to concrete and
vice versa.
TABLE 2 STRENGTHS OF THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH IN RELATION TO THE PLANNED AND EMERGENT APPROACHES
In the other extreme, the threat is the so-called
complexity catastrophe: the agents of a system the
numerous interconnections between the agents make it
difficult to control the effect of individual agents on the
whole system. [28] applied the theory in strategy
making in organizations, emphasizing that” rigidity and
structure stem from more qualitative features like the
organizational configuration and discipline. Thus, in the
context of organization, the agents’ effort to affect the
overall system seems more relevant than the number of
interconnections between them” [28]. In between the
two extremes, there is an intermediate ‘on an edge of
chaos’ where a system never quite settles into a stable
equilibrium but never quite either. In the edge of chaos
the system effectively changes to stay in relation to its
constantly changing environment.
Coevolutionary Approach
Challenge
Com mon direction
Focus
Relevancy
Concreteness
Co-ordinated, but decentralized
Control
Synergy
Exploitation of knowledge on operative activities and
local context
Commitment of employees
Dynamic
Systematic
Guides to action
Responsive to changing conditions
Systemic
Consideration of interrelationships
Learning through incremental changes
Enables partial solutions
Change
advancement
Process
Management
Structure
Initiation
Planned implementation:
Designed vision
Planned implementation:
Central
Emergent implementation:
Problem or opportunity
Emergent implementation
Local
Planned implementation:
Linear and sequential
Emergent implementation
Continuous
Planned implementation:
Holistic
Emergent implementation
Incremental
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 19
Fig 2 Competing on the edge strategy and edge of chaos (adapted
from [28].
The edge of chaos is characterized by some but not
too much structure. [28] defines the edge of chaos as ‘a
natural state between order and chaos a grand
compromise between structure and surprise’. The edge
of chaos fosters evolution, a process where the system
changes as its agents interact with agents of other
systems. In other words the agents evolve as they
influence the systems that they adapt to. “The
continuous change processes operating throughout the
organization are not coordinated by any overall plan and
the incremental changes are not part of any holistic
design. The approach enables capitalizing the
knowledge throughout the organization, is responsive to
changing condition and to differing needs. The benefits
are flexible individual activities and innovation, but at
the cost of efficiency through missed economies of scale
and synergy” [28].
On the other extreme in planned change, all change
activities are directed by an overall vision and the
people implementing the change form a hierarchical
organization controlled by central management. The
implementation processes are guided by a
comprehensive plan making it difficult to adjust to
changing needs or condition. As well the solutions form
a holistic design that determines all the individual
changes. The planned approach provides a-common
direction for each part of the organization control
through central management and possibility to
efficiently share the solutions and methods across the
sub-units once created. As well a systematic process is
more easily explicated and thus disseminated
throughout the various units of the organization and
holistic implementation prevents it from sub-
optimization. Thus the strengths of the planned
approach count as efficiency through economies of
scale and synergy benefits, but it lacks flexibility,
innovation and ability to fulfill differing individual
needs.
In contrast, the evolutionary implementation approach
conceptualized in this study incorporates some structure
yet leaving room for flexibility and adaptation. Change
initiation based on a challenge is about a balance
between predicting the future by exhaustive design of a
vision and chaotic reaction to the problems and
opportunities emerging in the environment. “The co-
ordinated but distributed management structure then
meets the challenge of taking advantage of the synergies
across the organizational units and yet maintaining
enough independence so that the unique and changing
needs of the particular units can be successfully met.
The dynamic implementation process and systemic
change advancement enable both innovation and
execution by keeping most activities loosely constructed
but having a few structure points based on the
standardized process alternatives and implementation
targets”[52]; [53].
Analogous with the benefits of the competing on the
edge strategy the evolutionary change can be assumed
to feature an advantageous change implementation
approach that incorporates both efficiency through
economies of scale and synergy benefits as well as
flexibility, individual success and innovation as
illustrated in fig. 11.
Figure 3 Evolutionary approach for change implementation (Source: Researcher)
Edge of choas (effective adaptation)
Competition on the edge
Improvement
Co-adaptation through focused collaboration Regeneration
Experientation
Time pacing to find rhythm of change
Too little structure: the chance trap
Too little collaboration: the star trap
Ignoring the past: the disconnect trapToo much reacting the insight trap
Too much structure: the bureaucratic trap
Too much collaboration: the lockstep trap
Stuck in the past: the over connect trap Too much planning : the foresight trap
Structure (rigid order)
Choas(complexity catastrophe)
Piloting Implementation
P ro g ra m m a n a g e m en t
Challenge
Co-ordination
Standardization
Local Rollout
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 20
E. Issues from review of literature
The research objectives concerning the linkages of
environment, business strategy; redesign and
performance are well documented in literature.
However, there is a gap in the linkage between the role
of HR functions, evolution of HR strategies and the
association of these strategies with redesign variables
that are largely exploratory. There is also little
knowledge about them due to little empirical research
and theory development in this area. Clearly the
analysis provided above is rather general in character
and individual writers depart from the stereotype to
offer wider insights. The stereotype is not exclusive
insofar as aspects of other paradigms and perspectives
are often observable. A broader brush must be used to
paint BPR to offer a recognizable picture.
Despite embracing some of the ideas of systemic
modeling, in BPR the perceived (real) world and the
conceptual world are not differentiated sufficiently
clearly, the result being an uncomfortable mix of hard
and soft systems thinking. Surfacing and challenging
assumptions (the ‘traditional’ way) will normally be a
prerequisite for ‘visioning’ radical Change ('breaking
the chain'), implying the need for a methodology for
working with mental models, perceptions and
perspectives. It is probably unreasonable to assume that
people can reliably be manipulated.
Although there is a concern for employee
empowerment in some parts of the BPR literature, given
the dominance of the functionalist approach and the
machine metaphor, we can safely conclude that only
those employees who survive BPR can be empowered.
Cultural and political implications of large-scale
redundancy are not considered. The concern with
employee empowerment goes hand in hand with
recognition of the need for cultural change. The trouble
is that these values and beliefs do not promote the
performance that customer-oriented organizations
require. They are inconsistent with the new processes
created in a reengineered environment: and unless the
values change, new processes, no matter how well
designed, will never work. Changing values is as
important a part of reengineering as changing processes.
The following is a summary of the most significant
unanswered questions raised from review of literature in
relation to the previous research efforts on change
management.
>Why has the definition of BPR become a contentious
issue? Is there practical value in developing an agreed
definition of BPR? If so, what issues should that
definition address?
>How important is it to make comparative assessments
of the approaches and values of BPR, TQM, HRM and
other management concepts (like Theory X/Theory Y)?
How can such comparisons help guide organizations
towards the most appropriate solution for their needs?
>Can organizational/national/regional characteristics be
defined which indicate which particular management
approach (es) are most likely to succeed in particular
contexts?
>What is the actual BPR success/failure rate? Is there an
agreed framework which can be defined as a realistic
basis for comparative assessments?
>Does the success/failure rate provide any valid
indication of the value of the BPR approach as such?
Why does BPR succeed or fail?
>How widely applicable is the radical BPR paradigm?
Is it possible to identify the organizational and other
environmental characteristics which make such change
more likely to succeed and how can the high risks
involved in radical change be managed effectively?
F. The issues that the above literature research has
highlighted include:
1. Why are employee’s views and feelings so unknown,
and/or under-reported during change initiatives?
2. How do in-placement programs for stayers compare
to out-placement programs for leavers?
3. Does management think organizational culture can be
changed?
4. Which BPR attributes influence success?
G. This study therefore brings the following to the
debate?
1. Change program initiation based on the
challenge of integration of the automation processes
with human activities according to the existing HR and
organizational change management theories.
2. Coordinated, but decentralized management
structure that understands the role of Organizational
culture within the context of change management
initiatives.
3. Dynamic process with high level management
support for skills and abilities that match the system
redesign towards successful implementation of the new
technology.
4. Systemic change advancement that enables
systems operators to understand the system for
improved customer service delivery.
Much of the literature does concur that change
is increasingly impacting many organizations; however
it is still a relatively new concept to many people. The
position adopted then is that change may have a
moderate impact, on organizations now, and of those
that have adopted it, all the elements of the framework
would be utilized to some extent.
This review of the complex nature of culture has
shown the widely varying views of what culture is from
the visible artifacts and behavior patterns to invisible
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 21
behavior norms, values, assumptions and beliefs. From
basic tenets as to whether culture is a root metaphor
embedded deep within an organization's beliefs and
values, an external, almost uncontrollable, variable, or
as an independent variable that can be manipulated.
These relate to whether researchers take an objective
stance that see humans as a responding mechanism or, a
subjective stance that humans are transcendental being,
or some mid-point view.
Given the divergent views, there was disagreement
about -whether culture could be measured and if so
what should be measured and how. A brief history of
culture research showed how the theory had moved
from systems based contingency, to the dynamics of
change, through diversity to post-modernism. Some
justified only measuring visible manifestations whilst
others proposed joint exploration to uncover deeply held
assumptions. The danger of measuring climate instead
of culture was highlighted.
As to the role and value of culture, consensus view is
that culture directly impacted performance and was
therefore a variable to be controlled and aligned to
strategy. Others highlighted the anxiety reducing value
of culture to the individual and the sense of belonging it
gave. In organizational change, many advocated a dual
hard analytical plus soft cultural approach, although
systems people tended to implement the former before
the latter. To various extents, the literature also revealed
that:
>Not everybody will perceive the benefits associated
with BPR in the same way and there may be certain
factors that can influence the perceptions of the benefits
that BPR can bring.
>There exist barriers to implementing and sustaining
BPR including a lack of understanding of organizational
culture, globalization, information overload, and
justification.
Finally, certain sections of the literature presented
mixed and inconclusive evidence. It failed to suggest
with any authority, the relative position of companies
using BPR. Nor did it make any correlations with
respect to the extent of adoption of the change
components, or the relationship of industry type or
organizational size in terms of revenue, and the extent
of adoption.
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study is a social science descriptive survey
research to test out why well-tested scientific
management theories in advanced countries do not seem
to be applicable in developing economies like Nigeria.
This research focused on the issue of how to
successfully implement organizational change in
Nigeria i.e. information systems reengineering
according to the existing theories of human resource and
organizational change management. The research issues
in this study are closed and require numbers as data to
solve. This means that the proposition presented can be
answered through statistical testing techniques of
measurable constructs. These informed our choice and
use' of quantitative research procedures of survey data
[54] .
The domain of Business Process (Information
Systems) Reengineering requires a multidisciplinary
approach to studying the range of socio-technical
phenomena, which determine their [i.e. information
systems as entities] development, use and effects in
organizations and society. To this end, we drew together
three approaches - interpretive field studies, grounded
theory, and hermeneutics to explore the data in depth
and to triangulate methods to strengthen our
interpretations.
A. Research Design
This empirical research was positivist, descriptive
and confirmatory. It is a descriptive survey research to
determine success or failure of information system
reengineering in selected banks that adopted the
information technology (Flexcube) as a change
technique as well as the extent that BPR thinking has
permeated into the Nigerian banking industry.
B. Area of the study
This study targeted a finite population spread all over
Nigeria. All the respondent bank branches numbering
521 were selected. However, a total of 21 branches
located in very remote areas under the Federal
Government rural banking scheme were excluded.
These remote branches do not have electricity and
telecommunications facilities and are yet to be
connected to their respective banks’ new technology.
They were excluded from the research for obvious
reasons.
C. Population of the study
Available data from the Human Resources
departments of the three organizations under study
showed that the total work force of information
technology managers as well as managers of the
information technology users as at 30/06/2004 stood at
1500. We studied the entire population. This target
population was chosen for consistency with previous
studies [3;36;54]. While we noted that this group’s
perspectives may be somewhat more technologically
biased than the average workers, they were also in a
position to be in touch with the specifics of BPR plans
that were being introduced in their organizations.
Working with such respondents was consistent with the
research goal to identify the opinions of such people as
to how sustainable performance can be achieved during
an organizational redesign process with sustainable
implementation of human resources strategies [36].
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 22
D. Method of data collection
Sources of data
a) Secondary source
The first stage of the study was a search of secondary
sources of information to summarize the state of
knowledge on this topic. This includes reviewing audio
training tapes, CD ROMS, and participating in
conferences of the selected banks. This approach has
been used on its own for systems redesign [51] or as a
way of providing data for further analysis using
distributed cognition [34]. Although a deeper
understanding of the banks’ strategies was gained from
these sources, it also allowed a further understanding of
BPR in general. Resources of research groups such as
Nigerian Institute of Management (NIM), Chartered
Institute of Bankers (CIB) and Federal Research
Institute were also utilized, as well as Intranet and
Internet searches in which several BPR surveys were
located.
b) Primary source
We used this method involving direct user reactions
to obtain various qualitative data about users’
experiences with systems (either immediately or a little
while after use) by utilizing Likert five point scale. This
method has been used particularly as a way to capture
data before further analysis and to improve a
commercial product by collecting user feedback [3].
Their subjectivity (in that direct user opinions are being
collected) makes them useful and limited. However, we
did guard against the flaws of the method by using a
large group of people and by wording questions so that
they contain various ‘consistency checks’.
E. Method of data analysis
We used descriptive statistical analysis by
summarizing, describing information (data) and
presenting them the way they are. All statistical
analyses were done using a statistical package for the
social sciences (SPSS) version 8. All of the questions
from the survey were coded as variables and input into
SPSS for quantitative analysis.
Several open-ended questions were used in the survey.
We used content analysis method to examine and
interpret the non-numerical information. Both
parametric and non-parametric tests of significance
were utilized to ensure no significant differences were
found in the means of the respective survey instruments
expected. Normal sampling distribution supported the
use of parametric (independent samples) T-Test; whilst
the use of a nonparametric (chi-square) test was
warranted for data that did not meet the assumptions of
parametric statistics.
ANOVA was used to study variables with an interval
or ratio measurement level. The ANOVA produced an
F- value and significance value that indicated whether
the probability of the differences between certain groups
is due to chance.
A Pearson Correlation was also used to determine the
significance of association between the specified
variables. All statistical tests were performed at the 95%
confidence level. This means that results were
considered significant if they yielded a significance
level less than .05.
Reliability for all of the continuous variables was
established using Cronbach’s Alpha. Any Alpha score
less than 0.7 was deemed unreliable and removed from
further analysis.
F. Hypotheses Testing
In this study, the entire hypotheses were tested
following the same procedure. The decision rule is
based on whether the computed value of the test statistic
exceeds the computed value of the same statistics. If so,
the null hypothesis will be rejected, but if the t-critical is
greater, the null hypothesis will not be rejected.
Therefore, reject Ho in favor of Hi if the computed
value of the statistics exceeds the critical or table value.
Otherwise, do not reject the Ho.
G. Presentation of results
Our survey was conducted in two stages. Stage one
included mailing out the survey and cover letter. The
second stage was to follow up with a reminder letter
encouraging further responses. Initially 126 valid
surveys were received out of 1500 sent. After excluding
48 surveys marked return to sender, an 8.7% response
rate was achieved. This low initial response rate raised
concerns about the generalisability of the results. In this
situation, we used the strategy of mailing out reminder
letters to the entire population.As an added incentive,
another copy of the survey was made available to them.
At the close of the second return period, 549 additional
completed surveys were received, and 4 were marked
return to sender. One of the surveys was excluded from
any analysis as it was only partially completed. This left
a total of 670 respondents. All variables in the survey
were coded and entered into SPSS.
Surveys received pre-reminder letter were marked, as
group 1, and those received post-reminder letter were
marked group 2. Before the results from the two groups
were combined, non-response bias was tested for. Non-
response bias implies that those who did not respond
may differ from those who did respond thereby creating
bias and weakening validity. To limit non-response bias,
both parametric and non-parametric tests were done to
ensure that there were no significant differences
between the mean results of the two groups. To do this,
the data were divided based on their normal or non-
normal distribution using normal probability plots to
compare the cumulative distribution of actual data
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 23
values with the cumulative distribution of a normal
distribution.
For normally distributed data, an Independent
Samples T-Test was used. This tested the significance
of the differences in the means between the two
independent groups, by determining if the
administration of the reminder letter, lead to
significantly different results to the absence of the later.
For non-normally distributed data, the Chi-Square Test
of goodness fit was used to test for the differences in the
means between the two independent groups. No
significant differences were found between the means of
group 1 and 2, using parametric or non- parametric
tests. As no non-response bias was apparent, it was
considered reasonable to combine the two samples for a
total population size of 670 and a response rate of 45%.
The following analysis and discussions applies to the
population of 670 responses.
H. Personal Demographics
The four main positions held by respondents were
information systems or information technology manager
(58%), CIO (13%), and general manager (10%). About
9% of respondents were supervisors. Significant
ANOVA results were not found for the position held
variable, with all of the p > .05. This indicates that the
position by the respondent did not have a significant
effect on any of the perception statements. Respondents
had been with the organization between 6-10 years.
75% of the respondents had been with the organization
for an average of 3-5 years. The remaining 25% who
were also with the organization for less than one year
posed a problem, as one of the qualifying conditions to
participate in the research was to have worked for the
organization for at least one year.
More than half of the respondents agree they have a
lot of power in decision-making in their organization
compared to 13% who disagree. Almost 27% of people
chose neutral. 87% enjoy being involved in decision
making in the organization. Overall, the mean age for
respondents’ was 36 to 45 years (42%), with the next
highest responding group being 46-55 years.
TABLE 3 ANOVA RESULTS: PERCEPTION STATEMENTS
Statement (IS importance) Age (years) Mean Std. Dev. F Sig.
Reducing duplication of work 18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
3.50
1.82
1.78
1.90
2.50
.707
.982
.831
.683
1.00
Overall 1.92 .858 2.610 *.044
Improved decision making 18-25 3.0 0
26-35 1.91 .701
36-45 1.75 .750
46-55 2.04 .844
56-65 2.75 .957
Overall 1.97 .816 2.506 *.049
* Significant at p < .05
More males than' females participated (84%). The top
three levels of education achieved overall were a
university degree (28%), followed by a
Diploma/Certificate (22%) and Masters Degree (21 %).
There were no significant differences in the results for
the level of education held by the respondent with
significance levels of p > 0.05. This means that the level
of education did not impact significantly on the answers
given to any of the 14 questions.
Significant ANOVA results were found for the age
variable on two of the perception statements. The
importance of BPR for reducing the duplication of
work, F (4, 62) = 2.61, P < .05, and improved decision-
making, F (4, 62) = 2.51, P < .05 (Table 4- 6). The 18-
25 year age group, are likely to believe that IS
reengineering is not too important in reducing the
duplication of work. Ages between 26 and 55 years see
it, as somewhat important and 55 to 65 year old
respondents tend to remain neutral. For the variable
improved decision-making, the youngest and oldest age
range tended to remain somewhat neutral, whilst the
ages between 26 and 55 view it as somewhat important.
espondents were asked to view 14 statements and rank
how important the information systems management is
in achieving them. This question set was reliable with
an Alpha of .9064 (n = 670). The Likert scale
percentage results for each statement are presented in
Table 4- 5. A visual examination of the data for this
variable allowed the researcher to subjectively
determine that the respondents fell into 5 main groups,
therefore this variable was recoded using SPSS recode
into new variable function, into those groups.
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 24
Organizational Demographics
The first step was to perform descriptive statistics. The
results yielded several findings for the category of
organizational demographics. There were originally 20
possible categories for branch type. A visual
examination of the' data through frequency counts and a
pie graph, determined that the respondents fell into 7
main groups. Therefore this variable was re-coded using
SPSS ‘recode into new variable’ function, into those
groups category ‘other’ held 4.8% of the branch
responses. As can be seen in Graph 1, the largest branch
representation came from the big branches (A - D).
GRAPH 1 Type of Branch
Almost 75% of the branches surveyed did not have a
specific role responsible for managing change. Of those
who did, about 10% was from an existing role of
information system or information technology manager,
or chief information officer, whilst, only 6% were actual
change managers, or equivalent titles. The majority of
branch physical premises consisted of some employees
having their own separate offices (75%). Many of the
offices contained cubicle type partitions (54%). Only
12% report having a completely open-design meaning
that there is a lot of open floor space. About 63% of
respondents reported having a hierarchical
organizational structure as opposed to a flat structure,
and almost 48% report the organizations as, centralized.
About 45% reported that the general management style
in the organizations was that of formal procedures and
rules, 33% have few rules and considerable autonomy,
and 22% have cooperative and group oriented
management styles.
I. Test statistic
In order to accept or reject the null hypothesis we
determined the value of the test statistic from sample
information using the following formula:
fe
fefo2
2
Where: Fo is an observed frequency in a particular
category
Fe is an expected frequency in a particular
category
CRITICAL VALUE
This is the level of significance at K-l degrees of
freedom (df) =K-l Where K= the number of categories.
= 5 -1 x 5 - 1
= 4 x 4 i.e. 16 degrees of freedom:
X216 .05 =2 6.296
DECISION RULE
Do not reject the null if the computed value of Chi-
square. is less than or equal to the critical value
otherwise reject the null. In other words, do not reject
H0 if the calculated value X216, .05 X
216, .05 = 26.296.
HYPOTHESIS 1:
Question: Do you agree that integration of the new
information system processes with human activities will
improve customer service?
TABLE 4.0 LIKERT SCORE FOR HYPOTHESIS I
Description No %
Strongly agree 110 16.42
Agree 253 37.61
Neutral 87 12.99
Disagree 109 16.27
Strongly disagree 112 16.71
TOTAL 670 100
D 14.9%
C 14.9%
H 4.8%
F 9.0%
E 7.5%
A 20.9%
G 7.2%
B 20.9%
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 25
TABLE 4.1 IMPACT OF INTEGRATION ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
Description No %
Very positively 160 23.88
Positively 214 31.94
Neutral 60 8.96
Negatively 146 21.79
Very negatively 90 13.43
TOTAL 670 100
TABLE 4:2 IMPROVEMENT OF CUSTOMER SERVICE DUE TO INTEGRATION IMPACT
Integration Very
positively
Positively Neutral Negatively Very
negatively
Total
Strongly
agree
34
(26.27)
20
(35.13)
12
(9.85)
24
(23.91)
20
(14.78)
110
Agree 66
(60.18)
80
(80.49)
34
(33.57)
38
(54.91)
34
(33.85)
252
Neutral 26
(20.78)
34
(27.79)
4
(7.79)
14
(18.97)
9
(11.68)
87
Disagree 24
(26.03)
32
(34.81)
6
(9.76)
37
(23.75)
10
(14.65)
109
Strongly
disagree
14
(26.74)
48
(35.77)
4
(10.03)
34
(24.42)
17
(15.04)
112
TOTAL 160 214 60 146 90 670
The computed value for this hypothesis is 52.55
DECISION
The computed Chi-square of 52.55 is in the rejection area
beyond the critical value of 26.296.
Since X216. 05 = 52.55 is greater than X
216, .05 = 26.296
Therefore, reject H0 and accept H1
This means that there is a significant difference in customer
service if the new information system processes are integrated
with human activities. Rejection of H0 means that it is highly
unlikely that such large discrepancies between the observed
frequencies and the expected ones would appear if the sampled
scores were true.
HYPOTHESIS II
Question: Do you agree that management understanding of the
role of organizational culture will enhance BPR
implementation?
TABLE 4.3 LIKERT SCORE FOR HYPOTHESIS 2
Description No %
Strongly agree 200 29.85
Agree 287 42.84
Neutral 82 12.24
Disagree 54 08.06
Strongly disagree 47 07.01
TOTAL 670 100
TABLE 4.4 UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Description No %
Highly enhanced 201 30.00
Enhanced 259 38.66
Neutral 82 12.24
Not enhanced 75 11.19
Highly not enhanced 53 07.91
TOTAL 670 100
TABLE 4:5 IMPACT OF CULTURE
Highly
Enhanced
Enhanced Neutral Not
Enhanced
Highly
Not enhanced
Total
Strongly agree 58
(60.01)
78
(77.31)
14
(24.48)
26
(22.38)
18
(15.82)
200
Agree 84
(86.10)
109
(110.94)
36
(35.12)
27
(32.14)
20
(22.70)
287
Neutral 24
(24.6)
37
(31.70)
8
(10.03)
9
(9.18)
7
(6.49)
82
Disagree 17
(16.2)
11
(20.87)
16
(6.61)
7
(6.040
4(18.28) 54
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 26
Strongly
disagree
18
(14.1)
24
(18.17)
8
(5.75)
6
(5.26)
4
(3.72)
47
TOTAL 201 259 82 75 53 670
The computed value for this hypothesis is 30.23
DECISION
The computed Chi-square of 30.23 is in the rejection
area beyond the critical value of 26.296. Since X216, .05
= 30.23 is greater than X216, .05 = 26.296, we reject H0
and accept H1 and concluded that management
understanding of the role of organizational culture
enhances implementation of BPR.
HYPOTHESIS III
Question: Do you agree that management recognition
and support for the information technology will
dramatically improve customer service delivery?
TABLE 4.6 LIKERT SCORE FOR HYPOTHESIS 3
Description No %
Strongly agree 234 34.92
Agree 114 17.02
Neutral 168 25.08
Disagree 94 14.03
Strongly disagree 60 8.95
TOTAL 670 100
TABLE 4.7 IMPACT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
Description No %
Very positively 350 52.23
Positively 210 31.34
Neutral 50 7.46
Negatively 40 5.97
Very negatively 20 3.00
TOTAL 670 100
TABLE 4.8 IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
Integration Very
positively
Positively Neutral Negatively Very
negatively
Total
Strongly
agree
140
(122.24)
43
(73.34)
28
(17.41)
12
(13.97
7
(6.99)
234
Agree 60
(59.55)
21
(35.73)
13
(8.51)
7
(6.81)
2
(3.40)
114
Neutral 92
(87.76)
50
(52.66)
12
(12.53)
11
(10.03)
4
(5.02)
168
Disagree 53
(49.10)
27
(29.46)
6
(7.01)
6
(5.61)
3(2.82) 94
Strongly
disagree
34
(31.34)
17
(18.80)
3
(4.48)
4
(3.58)
2
(1.79)
60
TOTAL 350 210 50 40 20 670
The computed value for this hypothesis is 33.13
DECISION
Again the computed Chi-square of 33.13 is in the rejection
area beyond the critical value of 26.296. Since X2
16, .05 = 33.13
is greater than X216, .05 = 26.296, we reject H0 and accept H1 and
conclude that management recognition and support for the new
information technology dramatically improves customer
service.
HYPOTHESIS IV
Question: Do you agree that cooperation between the operators
and the reengineering consultations will enhance workers
knowledge of the new information system
TABLE 4.9 LIKERT SCORE FOR HYPOTHESIS 4
Description No %
Strongly agree 122 18.21
Agree 256 38.21
Neutral 80 11.94
Disagree 110 16.42
Strongly disagree 102 15.22
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 27
TOTAL 670 100
TABLE 4.10 IMPACT OF INTEGRATION ON CUSTOMER
SERVICE
Description No %
Very positively 153 22.84
Positively 219 32.69
Neutral 62 9.25
Negatively 140 20.90
Very negatively 96 14.32
TOTAL 670 100
TABLE 4.11 COOPERATION BETWEEN OPERATORS AND REENGINEERING CONSULTANTS AND ITS IMPACT ON WORKERS KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW INFORMATION
SYSTEM INTEGRATION
Very
positively
Positively Neutral Negatively Very
negatively
Total
Strongly agree 38
(27.86)
30
(39.88)
16
(11.29)
30
(25.49)
8
(17.48)
122
Agree 76
(58.46)
82
(83.68)
24
(23.69)
40
(53.49)
34
(36.68)
256
Neutral 24
(18.27)
32
(26.15)
2
(7.40)
7
(16.72)
15
(11.46)
80
Disagree 28
(25.12)
34
(35.96)
8
(10.18)
30
(22.99)
10
(15.76)
110
Strongly
disagree
13
(23.29)
41
(33.34)
12
(9.44)
33
(21.33)
29
(14.62)
102
TOTAL 153 219 62 140 96 670
The computed value for this hypothesis is 96.44
DECISION
The computed Chi-square of 69.44 is also in the
rejection area beyond the critical value of 26.296. Since
X216, .05 = 69.44 is greater than X
216, .05 = 26.296; we
reject H0 and accept H1.
We therefore conclude that cooperation
between the operators and the reengineering consultants
will enhance workers knowledge of the new information
system.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Initiation of change project and integrating it with
human activities
From table 4.0 to 4.2, there is evidence that
integration of the new information system with human
activities leads to improved customer service 54.03% of
the respondents agreed to this. Again, the hypothesis
tested revealed that there is a significant positive
difference in customer service if the new information
system processes are integrated with human activities.
Existing theory is consistent with the importance of
the perceived need for change as a source of motivation
and condition for success. Planned change for need is
corporate- wide and stems from a vision of the
organization as a result of the change, defined mainly
and centrally by management. In emergent change, the
need is perceived by each employee as he or she
observes problems or opportunities for change in
everyday work. The underlying difference is that
planned change aims at having a commonly perceived
need among all stakeholders, whereas in emergent
change the need is individually perceived. Whereas a
vision or how reaching the vision affect the problems
currently at hand. However, a common vision prevents
sub-optimization, which may be a problem in the
emergent change implementation where all
organizational members initiate changes according to
their observations.
Rather than being guided by an abstract overall
vision or individual everyday problems, evolutionary
change implementation is guided by a strategic
challenge that can be evidently related to the
organization’s business performance. The challenge
drives change towards a certain performance level, but
not necessarily towards a specific design of the target
state.
J. Management structure & the role of organizational
culture
In testing this hypothesis (Tables 4.3 to 4.5), there is
evidence that management understanding of the role of
organizational culture enhances BPR implementation.
Whereas 72.69% of the respondents agreed to this, only
15.07% disagreed and 12.24% remained neutral.
Top management as a criterion for successful change
is as well recognized by both planned and emergent
implementation approaches. In planned change, top
management has overall responsibility for making the
change whereas in emergent change its role is rather to
create the condition for change to be made by all
employees. In the evolutionary approach,
implementation is managed in a co-ordinated but
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 28
decentralized manner. Co-ordination is achieved by
having global or central instances in the management
structure such as a steering group and program
management team. The responsibility of the local
implementation is decentralized throughout the
organization. Both the global and local instances of the
management structure have their important and specific
roles the former ensuring consistency and synergy and
the latter providing knowledge on everyday work and
the local context of the change.
K. Management support for the implementation process
From tables 4.6 to 4.8, there is strong evidence that
management recognition and support for the new
information technology improves customer service
delivery. 51.96% of the respondents attested to this,
only 22.98% disagreed and 25.08% remaining neutral.
The implementation process is neither linear as
according to planned nor continuous like in emergent
change. The process is not about executing a predefined
plan, which is completed as a separate step in the
beginning of the effort. Nor is it a continuously on
going and repeated cycle responding to observed needs
for change without rimy pre-planning.
L. Cooperation between users and reengineering
consultants (Change Advancement)
Findings from testing this hypothesis (Tables 4.9 to
4.11) corroborate the respondents’ views wherein
56.42% agreeing and supporting the hypothesis and
31.64% disagreeing while 11.94 remained neutral.
This means that the planned implementation
approach considers organizational change to begin with
a complete and holistic design of the solutions to be
implemented throughout the organization. Quite the
contrary, the emergent approach views change as an
accumulation of incremental more or less individual
changes, According to the evolutionary approach,
change is systemic in a way that it, can be built up
incrementally yet considering the interrelationship
between the various organizational elements and the
overall challenge. The systemic change advancement is
related to the order of both implementations in. different
organizational units as well as the solutions to be
implemented. Thus, the advancement is systemic in
terms of the coverage of the implementation as well as
the level of detail and completeness of the solutions.
IV. CONCLUSION
The answers to sub-questions 1) and 2) were
grounded on the various theories of organizational
change. The division of planned and emergent
approaches was proposed in the existing body of
knowledge. However, the concept of emergent change
was not fully established. The validity of the two
distinctive implementation approaches was confirmed in
this research by reflecting them with the main
theoretical disciplines contributing to organizational
change implementation. How the theories proposed to
implement change conformed relatively closely with
either planned or emergent approach. Further findings
related to the existing theories were the four elements of
organizational change implementation: initiation,
management structure, process of implementation and
change advancement.
These were the main aspects of the implementation
that the theories dealt with and so also differentiated the
planned and emergent approaches to change. Therefore,
the answers to sub-questions 1) and 2) consist of the
following dimensions:
1) the two alternative implementation approaches,
planned and emergent and,
2) initiation, management structure, process of
implementation and the change advancement as the
elements of implementation. The planned approach is
characterized by initiation based on a designed vision,
centralized management structure, linear and sequential
process and holistic change advancement. In contrast,
initiation based on an observed problem or opportunity,
local management structure, continuous process and
incremental change advancement feature the emergent
approach.
Finally, sub-questions 3) and 4) were answered using
the four elements of the implementation used as the
basis for the study. Data from this research provided no
evidence of an implementation approach that was either
planned or emergent thereby reflecting the evidence that
the existing implementation approaches formed the
grounding for a new implementation approach labeled
as evolutionary change implementation. This approach
was as well characterized based on the elaborated four
elements of implementation. A rational comparison
between the new and existing approaches showed how
the evolutionary change shared some characteristics of
both planned and emergent approaches and combined
their strengths to some level.
Thus, the evolutionary approach can be concluded as a
successful implementation approach, characterized by:
a) initiation based on a challenge
b) co-ordinated, but decentralized management
structure
c) dynamic implementation process and
d) system change advancement.
Finally, the main research question gets an answer
based on the presented findings related to the sub-
questions.
The novelty of this study is the evolutionary
approach for organizational change implementation.
Secondly, the scattered and manifold theory of
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 29
organizational change implementation is elaborated into
four constructs representing the essential elements of
implementation. The third theoretical contribution
involves the conceptualization of the two
implementation approaches, which are presented in the
existing theory but not fully established and linked to
the various theoretical disciplines contributing to change
implementation. The study summarizes the extant
understanding of change implementation across
different disciplines that have been addressing the issues
of implementation separately, yet providing very similar
models and approaches. Additionally, the study links
both the extant and the new approach with complexity
and activity theories.
The practical utility of this research consists of the
new implementation approach and the synthesis of the
existing theory. The basis for the change program
implementation study was the microcosm approach that
was further complemented with an overall program
viewpoint introduced by Davenport et al. (2001). This
research continues the work with a more theoretical
viewpoint and a deeper, more systematic and extensive
study. Based on previous research, change practitioners
are probably already familiar with the most important
factors critical for successful change.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
For BPR to be widely applicable, it is necessary to
find ways of looking beyond the limitations of the
dominant paradigm and metaphor. With so much at
stake, both in the business and the reputations of the
protagonists, and the claimed and actual benefits to
organizations, the subject of BPR is one that is likely to
be with us for some time. Given the variance in thinking
as to whether culture is a material factor in success or
failure, and the difficulties highlighted in measuring
culture, then meaningful, definitive, and objective
research will no doubt be the province of major business
school and other academic institutes.
The review revealed that change management is
about partnering technology with a corporate culture
and business processes, and then using it as the vehicle
to manage and deliver the business information and
knowledge to the most fundamental driver of business
growth: the worker. Whilst technology is a required
foundation for managing knowledge assets and bringing
people together, especially those in geographically
dispersed organizations, at the same time, creating
incentives for change and having focused business goals
will help avoid many of the common pitfalls on BPR.
Those branches that are not practicing BPR face the
barriers of the need for more education and justification,
and cultural issues. Whilst most believe that BPR is
important in achieving certain organizational goals,
there still exists a hick of understanding of it, which in
turn affects the ability to be able to justify investing in
it. This means that most of the branches surveyed may
also need more management commitment to BPR and
perhaps they can get this once management also
becomes more educated. Until they are educated in
BPR, and until this education is communicated
throughout all levels of the organization, there exists an
organizational stalemate. To improve their scale scores,
the following areas of these organizations generally
needed attention employing dedicated staff, better
communication of business processes, non-technical
education and training, incentives, and technology and
processes for locating and inputting critical information.
Although information technology (IT) plays a central
role in reengineering, the Information System
organization in many companies is unable to play, This
ineffectiveness may be due to the historic inability of IS
to do “anything big quickly”, the “breeding out” of risk-
taking, the lack of advanced technology groups, the
Nigerian factor and dysfunctional facilities such as
telecommunications and electricity.
Again, since the Information Technology (IT) group
is not perceived as being part of the business process,
they are excluded from the reengineering team. Senior
management may be skeptical about the effectiveness of
IT as a whole due to the “lackluster” performance of
many information systems in the past decades.
Based on this record, it is not unreasonable to view
IT as a disabler, which is never used to challenge why
things are done the way they are done in Nigerian
companies, but instead justify the way they are done.
Systems in the service sector have been used to generate
more unneeded reports, speed up superfluous work
steps, generate unnecessary information, encourage
shoddy thinking and misdirect attention to spurious
details.
Therefore reengineering and information technology'
are irrevocably linked. It is common knowledge .that
Walmart, for example, would not have been able to
reengineer the processes used to procure and distribute
mass-market retail goods without IT. Again, Ford was
able to decrease its headcount in the procurement
department by 75% by using IT in conjunction with
BPR. Despite studies that indicate over half of all
reengineering efforts are initiated because of a
perceived information technology opportunity, the
actual technological solution in Nigeria is far less
important than educating employees on how to use IT as
both a strategic initiative and as a tool in the
reengineering process.
Based on the above findings, we argue that when
developing a reengineering strategy, the best is to ignore
information technology. Only after the strategy is
complete should innovative IT applications be
benchmarked, since innovative applications often stem
from a combination of breakthrough ideas and from
modifying several best practices.
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 30
REFERENCES
[1]. Argyris, C. (1992). Seeking truth and actionable knowledge: How the scientific method inhibits both. On organizational learning (pp.
286- 294). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
[2]. Burack, E. H. (1991), Changing the Corporate Culture - The Role of Human Resource Development, Long Range Planning, 24(1) pp
88-95
[3]. Chase R, International Survey on change management Drivers, Journal of management; The Benchmarking Exchange; Best
Practice Club, September 1997, [Online, accessed 9 Aug. 1999],
URL: http://www.managementbusiness.com/international.html.
[4]. Davenport, 1. H. (1998), Process Innovation - Reengineering
Work through Information Technology, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Business School Press
[5]. Dove R, Change management, response ability, and the agile
enterprise, Journal of management, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1999: 18. [6]. Ernst and Young (1996). Creating the Value Network; New York
[7]. Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the
Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York: Harper Business.
[8]. Hedin M, What is change management? IDC Bulletin No. 14910,
International Data Corporation, December 1997, pp. 1-10. [9]. Hunter R, Frick V, Rosser B, Applying change management: key
issues for 1998, Key Issues Research Note, Gartner Group,
January 1998. [10]. Jones M, Arnett K, Linkages between the CEO and the IS
environment: An empirical assessment, Information Resources
Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1994, pp. 33-38. [11]. Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967), Organization and
Environment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP
[12]. Murray P, Myers A, The Facts About Knowledge, Cranfield School of Management, [Online, accessed 9 Aug. 1999], URL:
http://www.info-strategy.com/knowsur1.
[13]. Quinn, R.E. & McGratth, M.R. (19985). The Transformation of Organizational Cultures: A Competing Values Perspective. In : P. J.
Frost et al (eds), Organizational Culture. Newburk Park,
California: Sage, pp315 – 334. [14]. Shevlin R, Deutsch W, Change management’s half-life, The
Forrester Brief, Microsoft Library, October 1998.
[15]. Sveiby K, The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, CA,
1997
[16]. Salminen K (2006). Factors Influencing Successful Change Management in IT Outsourcing from Transferred Personnel Point of
View. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uta-1-15807
[17]. Galliers R, Merali Y, Spearing L, Coping with information technology? How British executives perceive the key
information systems, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 9, No.
3, 1994, pp. 223-238.
[18]. Amburgey, T.L., Kelly, D., and Barnett, W.P. (1993). Resetting
the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 51-73
[19]. Imaga, E.U.L (2000) Elements of management and culture in
organizational behavior. Rhyce publishers, Enugu Nigeria. [20]. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R A., & Spector, B. (1997), Why Change
Programs Don’t Produce Change, In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B.
(eds.), Managing Change (2nd ed), London: Paul Chapman, pp 99-107 [21]. Johansson, H. J., McHugh, P., Pendlebury, A. J. & Wheeler III,
W. A. (1993), Business Process Reengineering: Breakpoint
Strategies for Market Dominance, Chichester, England: Wiley
[22]. Aduba, N.C.O. (1997) Technology Driven Banking Services, a
paper presented at a workshop in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
[23]. Beckard, R. & Harris, R. T. (1987), Organizational Transitions
(2 ed), Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley
[24]. Benjamin, G. & Mabey, C. (1993), Facilitating Radical Change,
In: Maybe, C. & Mayon- White, B. (eds.), Managing Change (2nd ed), London: Paul Chapman, pp 181-186
[25]. Argyris C, Harvard business review on knowledge management:
Teaching smart people how to learn, Harvard Business School Press, USA, 1998.
[26]. Kling, R. and Allen, J.P. (1996). Can computer science solve
organizational problems? In R. Kling (Ed), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed.), (pp. 261-
276). New York: Academic Press.
[27]. Henley (1991), Managing People - Creating Successful Organizations, Henley-onThames, England: Henley Distance
Learning Ltd.
[28]. Brown, Shona L. & Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Havard Business
School Press, Boston.
[29]. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future
discipline. The Belknap Press of Harward University Press;
Cambridge.
[30]. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on
activity theory, (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press. [31]. Leavitt, H.J., (1995), ‘Applying Organizational Changes in
Industry’, In: March, J. G., (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Rand
McNally, Chicago [32]. Kono, T. (1990), “Corporate Culture and Long Range Planning”,
Long Range Planning, 23(4) pp 9-19 [33]. Moad, J. (1993), Does reengineering really work?, Datamation,
39(15) August 1, 1993 pp 22-28.
[34]. Rogers Y, Ellis J, Distributed cognition: An alternative framework, for analyzing and explaining collaborative working,
Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1994, pp. 119-128.
[35]. Vidgen, R., Rose, J., Wood, B., Wood-Harper, T. (1994)
“Business Process Reengineering: the Need for a Methodology
to Revision the Organization”, In: TC8AUS IFIP Information Systems
International Working Conference - Conference Pre-prints, Queensland, Australia: Queensland Branch of the Australian
Computer Society
http://www.nvo.comlrunninglightskiprsurveyinstructions 1 [36]. Pervan G, How chief executive officers in large organizations
view the management of their information systems, Journal of
Information Technology, Vol. 13, No. 2,1998, pp. 95- 109. [37]. Davenport T, DeLong D, Beers M, Successful change
management projects, Sloan Management Review, Winter 1998, pp.
43-57. [38]. Orlikowski, W.J. (1997) The Duality of Technology: Rethinking
the Concept of Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, 3,
398-427. [39]. Goodstein, L. D. & Burke, W. W. (1993), Creating Successful
organizational Change In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B. (eds.),
Managing Change (2 ed.), London: Paul Chapman, pp 164-172 [40]. Nadler, D. A. (1993), Concepts for the Management of
Organizational Change, In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B. (eds.),
Managing Change (2nd Ed), London: Paul Chapman. [41]. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995), “The
knowledge-creating company. How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of innovation”, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York [42]. Andrews, D. A. & Stalick, S. K. (1994), Business
Reengineering: The Survival Guide, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall [43]. Dunphy, D. and Stace, D (2007), Transformational and coercive
strategies for planned Organizational change: Beyond the O.D. Model.
Organization studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 317-334. [44]. Gergen, K. 1. (1992): Organizational Theory in the Postmodern
Era In: Reed, M. & Hughes, M. (eds.), Rethinking Organization,
London: Sage, pp 207-226 Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
[45]. Abdullahi, S.A (1985) Management and culture and the Nigerian
enterprise: An exercise in relevancy in Pita Ejiofor (ed)
International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org
2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 31
Development of management education in Nigeria, Ikeja, center
for management education. [46]. Klein, Katherine J. and Sorra, Joann Speer (1996) “The
challenge of innovation, implementation”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 2 1, No. 4, pp. 1055 - 1080. [47]. Key S, Analyzing managerial discretion: An assessment tool to
predict individual policy decisions, The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1994, pp. 20-34 [48]. Hendry, Chris (1996) Understanding and creating whole
organizational change through learning theory, human Relations, Vol.
49, No. 5, pp. 621 -641. [49]. Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (1992) Cycles of organizational
change, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 39-59.
[50]. Glaser, B.G. (1993). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
[51]. Holtshouse D, Change research issues, California Management
Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1998, pp. 277- 280.
[52]. Alvesson, M. (1993), Cultural Perspectives on Organizations,
Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP
[53]. Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books, Inc.
[54]. Eldredge, N and Gould, S. (1972) Punctuated Equilibria: An
alternative to phyletic Gradualism in TJ. Schopf (ed.): Models in palebiology, Freeman, Cooper & Co., San Fransisco
[55]. Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R: (1993), “Understanding the
Environment” In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B. (eds.), Managing Change (2 ed.), London: Paul Chapman, pp 5-19.