Download - Change management and its results
-
7/24/2019 Change management and its results
1/5
-
7/24/2019 Change management and its results
2/5
Interfaces
infjEEEL
Vol.
40,
No.
2,
March-April
2010,
pp.
159-162
DOI
0.l287/inte.l090.0473
ISSN 092-2102 issN1526-551X 0
1
002
1
159
@ 2010
INFORMS
Hi PeopleSkills: nsuring rojectuccess
A
Change
Management erspective
Robert
.
Levasseur
Waiden
University,
t.
Augustine,
lorida
2084,
This s one
in
a seriesof
articles bout the mosteffective
odels,methods,
nd
processes
f
organization
development
OD),
also
known s
changemanagement, discipline
hat
ffers
much o
professionals
ntent
on
solving
eal-
orld
problems.
ecause
t
is
based on a
systemic
iew of
organizations,
D includes
he
whole
universe f
fuzzy eople
ssues
hat
ncreasingly
etermine
he uccess rfailure feffortso
mplement
otherwise
lawless
echnicalolutions.
his article xamines
roject
uccess
rates,
uggests
easons or
roject
failure,
nd
provides
deas for
ramaticallymproving
he dds
of
project
uccess ased
on established
hange
managementrinciplesndprocesses.
Key
words:
roject
management;
eadership;hangemanagement;rganization
evelopment.
often
do
projects
fail?
According
to
Rubinstein
2007),
almost two-thirds
f
infor-
mation
echnology
IT)
projects
ail. This
startling
statistic
ight
ot
apply
acrossthe
board; however,
evena
project
ailure
ate f
half his
numberwould
seem
to be
too
high
price
o
pay
for
mplementing
needed
organizational
hanges.
houldn't
rganiza-
tions
strive or
ero
defects
n
project
management,
as
many
do in
product
manufacturing
nd service
delivery?
Causes
of
Project
Failure
What are
the causes
of
these
project
ailures?
Are
they rimarily
ue to technical
roblems,
r are
they
rooted
n
people
ssues,
uch
s
seemingly
ntractable
resistance
o
change?
n a
study
of
42 IT
projects,
McManus
nd
Wood-Harper
2007)
found
hat tech-
nical
causal
factors
ccount(ed)
or 5
percent
f the
project
ailure
ate
p.
39).
The
remaining
5
per-
centwerebecauseofwhat hey ermedmanagement
causalfactors
p.
39)
in
other
words,
eople
ssues.
When
hey
onsider
T-enabled
hange,
many eople
see
managers'
nd
IT
specialists'
elief
n the
mag-
ical
power
of
IT as the
root cause of
project
ail-
ure
Markus
nd
Benjamin
997,
p.
55).
That
project
failure
ates remain
high,
lthough
his
magic
bul-
let
theory
f
change
s
widely
understood
nd does
not
appear
to
work,
s
disturbing
ut not
surprising
to someone
amiliar
ith
hange
management.
ech-
nical
specialists
nd
managers,
lthough
heymight
have the est
f
ntentions,
end o
have
very
ew
pro-
cesses
or toolsto use
to
manage
the human ide
of
projectmplementation.
herefore,
hey ely
n their
common
ense
and communication
kills to
facili-
tate
hange.
adly,
hese re
generally
ot
enough
o
ensure
he success
of technical
e.g.,
T-enabled)
r
nontechnicalrojects.
To
address
thesenontechnical
ausal
factors
n
project
ailure,
e need
to
know what
they
re.
An
analysis
f hree
tudies
f
project
ailure
Kappelman
et
al.
2006,
Keil
et al.
1998,
Zwikael
and Globerson
2006)
suggests
ome
answers.
Table
1
shows
10 of
the
highest-ranked
ontechnical
ausal
factors
men-
tioned
n
these
hree tudies.
he studies
re coded
A
for
Kappelman
t
al.
(2006,
p.
33),
B
for
Keil et al.
(1998,
.
78),
nd
C for wikael
nd Globerson
2006,
p.
3435).
Given hese
auses,
what an
we do to
dramatically
improve herateofprojectuccess?The answer s to
use
change
management
rinciples
nd
processes
o ddress
these
nd related
ontechnical
easons
or
projectailure,
s
specialists
n
organization
evelopment
o each
day
when
theyacilitate
hange.
lthough
his heoretical
nswer
is
simple,
t s not
very
ractical
olution
o
the
rob-
lem,
given
the time
nd
expense
required
o
master
the
rt f
hange
management,
ven
for
hose
nclined
to
do so. So
what an else
can
we do?
159
This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Change management and its results
3/5
Levasseun
People
kills:
nsuringroject
uccess
160
Interfaces
0(2),
p.
159-162,
2010NFORMS
Nontechnicalausal actor
ABC
Lack
f
opmanagementupport
1 1 2
Failureogain ser ommitment 2
Project
anager
annot
ffectively
ead
eam 3
No
process
or
ontrolling
he
hange
4
1
Stakeholders
ot nvolved
n
he
rocess
5 4 5
Failure
o
manage
nd ser
xpectations
5
15
Weakeammemberommitment
8
1
Breakdown
n takeholderommunication 9 9
Lack
f
key
takeholder
articipation
n
meetings
1
Conflictetweenser
epartments
1
Table
:
This
able hows 0
major
ontechnicaleasons
or
roject
ail-
ure nd heir
mportance
s each
tudy
ankshem.
The
practical
olution s twofold.
irst,
ine
man-
agers, project managers,
nd others nvolved in
implementing
ew methodsmust understand he
potentially
ramatic
mpact
hat
hangemanagement
principles
nd
practices
an have on
project
uccess,
thus
motivating
hem o
acquire
ew soft
i.e.,
eople)
skills nd behave
differently.
econd,
hey
must earn
how to
apply
some
simple
nd
elegant pproaches
to
facilitatinghange
from
he
changemanagement
expert's
oolkit. he
purpose
f this
rticle s to offer
insights
nto both
areas to
provide
managers
with
both the motivationnd
tools
they
need to
ensure
their rojects'uccess.
The
Potential or
mproving
Project
uccess
Trained
s
a
physicist,
urt
Lewin was one of the
most nfluentialf
the
early
ocial scientistsn the
field f
group
ehavior. e contributed
any mpor-
tant
heories nd
tools for
organizational
hange
to
the
field f
OD-changemanagement,
ncluding roup
dynamics,
orcefield
analysis, three-step
hange
model
i.e.,
unfreezing, oving,
nd
refreezing),
nd
the action
research
methodology.
o
professionalsin
OD-change
management,
he nnovative ontribu-
tions of
Kurt
Lewin
are as
important
s those of
Abraham
Maslow,
who
developed
the
hierarchy
f
needs
theory,
nd
Douglas McGregor,
ho
subse-
quently
evelopedTheory
X
-
Theory
Y
based on
Maslow's
theory,
re to
managers.
Inhis
article
Group
Decision nd
Social
Change
(Gold
1999),
ewin
eported
n
an
early
roundbreak-
ing experiment
n
group
behavior onducted n
the
mid-1940s;
group
fworkers
ho chose
s a
group
o
improve
heir
erformance
howed almost mmedi-
ately
n
improvement
f
approximately
0
percent
n
their evel of
productivity
ompared
with heir ver-
age
levelof
productivityrior
o the
xperiment.
his
experiment
lso illustratedhe
permanency
f
group
decisions;
he
group's verage
erformance
emained
at the ame
high
evel
and
showed
no
sign
of dimin-
ishing
ine
months fter he tart f the
xperiment.
This
arly xperiment
n
group
ehavior
peaks
o
a
general henomenon
ithwhichwe are ll familiar
the
power
of
groups
to
achieve
a
goal
when their
membersre motivated
o
act
n
unison.
What
mpact
might
his
ower
of
groups
have
f
we could harness
itto mproveheodds ofprojectuccess?
To answer his
uestion,
etus
imagine
hat
roject
managers
re able to
successfully
pply
the
change
management oncepts
escribed
n
the next ection
to their
rojects.
ssuming
hat
hangemanagement
methods
directly
ddress about two-thirds f the
causes of IT
project
failure
i.e.,
the nontechnical
causal
factors),
hen heir uccessful
pplication
ould
dramaticallymprove
he rate of
IT
project
uccess
(Table2).
As Table
2
shows,
the effective
pplication
f
change management
methodshas the
potential
o
improvehe urrentrojectuccess ate i.e., bout 3
percent)
y
as much s 200
percent.
ven
f
only
50
percent
ffectiven
average,
heuse of
change
man-
agement
methods
y project
managers
ould dou-
ble the success rate of
IT-enabled
projects.
Given
the
high
ffectivenessf
hangemanagement-enabled
projects,
hich
rough pproximation
ased on
per-
sonal
experience
would
estimate
t
well above 80
percent,
his
evel of
project
uccess
i.e.,
67
percent)
would eem
more
hat
easonable o
expect
or
hange
management-augmented
T-enabled
rojects.
Change anagement ITprojectuccess Improvementn T
effectiveness
%)
rate
%)
project
uccess ate
%)
0
33 0
25
50
50
50
67
100
75
83
150
100
100 200
Table
:
Thedata show he
potential
mpact
f
changemanagement
methodsn
t
project
uccess.
This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Change management and its results
4/5
Levasseun
People
kills:
Ensuring roject
uccess
Interfaces
0(2),
p.
159-162,
2010 NFORMS
161
Change
anagement
Non-IT
roject Improvement
n
non-IT
effectiveness
%)
success ate
%)
project
uccess ate
%)
0 67 0
25
75
12
50
83
25
75
92
38
100
100 50
Table :
The data show
he
potential
mpact
f
changemanagement
methodsn
non-IT
roject
uccess.
Similarly,
f
we assume
that
the current ate of
project
uccess
s twice
as
high
fornon-IT
projects
(i.e.,
7
percent)
s for T-enabled
rojects,
he
oppor-
tunity
ora
major mprovement
n
project
uccess
because
of
applying
hangemanagement
ethods s
still
uite
ubstantial
Table
3).
We
hope
that
this
analysis
makes a
convincing
enough
ase
for he
effect
hat
hange
management
methods
an
have on
project
uccess
hat t motivates
line
and
project
managers
o learn
more
bout these
methods.
n
the
next
ection,
e examine
ome
imple
yet
legant
deas
that hesemotivated
hange gents
might
se to
improve
heir
ateof
successful
roject
implementation.
ChangeManagementdeas for
Improving
roject
uccess
Trying
o distill
rich set
of
change
management
principles,rocesses,
nd
practices
nto
a few
key
guidelines
hat o not
oversimplify
hem
s
challeng-
ing.
Nevertheless,
ur
objective
s
to
demystify
hese
very
mportant
ools
for
managing
he
human ide of
any
project
mplementation
o
that
rojectmanagers
and other
hange
gents
with ittle r
no
formal D-
change
management
raining
ill chose
to
use them
and
(or)
engage
OD-change
managementrofession-
als for ssistance; herefore,his section ontains
description
f
five
undamental
nderlying
oncepts
of
changemanagement,
ritten
n
ayman's
erms.
Implementation
egins
on
Day
1.
Viewing
a
change
ffort
s
a
sequential
rocess
n
which
small
group
evelops
n
implementation
trategy
ndepen-
dent fothers
n
the
rganization
nd
tries o
sell tto
individuals
nthe
rganization
ffected
y
the
hange
is
an
almost ertain
rescription
or
ailure.
broader,
more
systemic
iew of
change
s crucial o
project
success.
Viewing
hange
rom
systemic erspective
means
acknowledging
nd
embracing
he
ntercon-
nectedness fthe
people
affected
y
the
change,
nd
argues trongly
or
n
implementationtrategy
hat
emphasizes
arly
nvolvementf stakeholders
n
the
process,
n
lieu of
top-down, ne-way
ommunica-
tion,
s the
primary
eans
f
nfluencing
takeholder
attitudesnd behavior
t theonset f the
project.
People Support
What
They
Help
to
Create.
I
learned
his
ittle
earl
of
changemanagement
is-
dom from
very
wise
professor
henI was
pur-
suing
a master's
degree
n
management
Levasseur
2007).
t
succinctlyaptures
he ssence
fthe
hange
process namely,hat hebestwayto overcomeesis-
tance o
change
s to
involve
eople
affected
y
t
n
the
hange rocess
s
early
nd
often
s
possible.
his
corollary
o thefirst
oint
about
beginning
mple-
mentation
n
the first
ay
of
the
project
rovides
rationale
or
why
nvolvement
s such
an
important
element
n
an effective
hange
trategy.
Two-Way
ommunication
s Essential.
Although
not
sufficient
n and of
itself o ensure
the effec-
tive
mplementation
f
change
roject,
egular,
on-
est,
two-way
ommunication
s,
nonetheless,
rucial
to the successof a changeeffort.veryone nows
that
managers
o not
ike
urprises.
he same
s
true
for
employees
nd other
takeholders
n
a
change
effort.
t the
outset,
ffective
wo-way
ommunica-
tion
engages
both
the
senders
i.e.,
project
eaders)
and receivers
i.e.,
takeholders)
n a
meaningful
ia-
logue
about
thevision
and
scope
of
the
proposed
change
effort
nd its
organizational
nd
personal
implications,
hereby
educing
atural
esistance
o
change.
his
happens
ecause
meaningful
xchange
(i.e.,
wo-way
ommunication)
ends
a
clear
message
that he
people
ffected
y
the
hange,
nd
theirdeas
and
feelings,
re
mportant;
hus,tfostershe evelof
engagement
nd nvolvement
eeded
o
enable
take-
holders
o
address
their oncerns
atisfactorily
nd
develop
a sense
of commitment
o
the
project.
As
project
mplementation
rogresses,
ctive,
wo-way
communication
eeps
vital nformation
nd
progress
about
project
oals,
bjectives,
nd milestones
lowing
throughout
he
system
ffected
y
the
change
ffort.
This reinforces
he notion
hat he
stakeholders
nd
This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 Change management and its results
5/5
Levasseur.
People
Skills:
Ensuring
roject
uccess
162
Interfaces
0(2),
p.
159-162,
2010
NFORMS
project
eaders
are
engaged
n a
joint
undertaking,
which
osters
he
kindof concern or
roject
uccess
necessary
o
address
nd
collectively
olve
problems
when
hey
rise.
Attendance
s
Not
Agreement.Manyproject
man-
agers
mistakettendance
t
meetings
ith acit
gree-
ment
with
project oals.
Hence,
they
feel
ustified
in
assigning
esponsibility
or
follow-up
ctions
o
meeting
ttendees.
nfortunately,
ecausethis
radi-
tional
op-downmanagement
ehavior
ends o cre-
ate resentment
nd increase esistance
o
change,
t s
often
ounterproductive.
ssigning
asks o
meeting
attendees oes
not
guarantee
ommitment;
t
gener-
allyproduces
he
pposite
ehavior.
n
contrast,
om-
mitted eoplevolunteer or mportantssignments.
This makes
the task of
project
eaders
who
begin
actively ngaging
takeholders
n
the
process
from
day
one of he
project
much asier. or
hem,
t s suf-
ficiento ask for olunteers
nd watch s committed
and
empowered
meeting
ttendees
oluntarily
eter-
minewho
will take
responsibility
or
ompleting ey
action
tems.
Collaboration s
the
Key.
n
case
you
have not
yet figured
ut the fundamental
rinciple
hat
dis-
tinguishes
ffective
hange
ffortsrom ess success-
ful
ones,
t
is collaboration.
ollaborations essen-
tialto theeffectivepplication f the wide array f
changemanagement
nterventionsvailable
to OD-
change
management rofessionals.
f
you
believe
n
the
power
of collaboration
aka
teamwork,
articipa-
tion,
ollective
ffort,
ooperation,
tc.)
o harness he
inherent
ower
of
groups,
hen
you
understand
hy
implementation
ust
begin
on
day
one,
whypeople
support
what
hey elp
to
create,
hy wo-way
om-
munications essential o effective
hange,
nd
why
commitments
a
benefit hat
ngaged, mpowered
stakeholders
ffer,
ather han
omething
hat
roject
leadersdemand f them.
Lewin'sModel Shows
the
Way.
Although
hefive
fundamental
hangemanagementoncepts
escribed
above
can,
if
embraced nd
applied, mprove
he
effectivenessf
any prospective
hange gent, hey
work estwhen
hey
re een s elements f
change
process
or
model. The most
simple
and
elegant
of
these is Kurt
Lewin's
three-step hange
model
unfreezing, oving,
nd
refreezing
Gold
1999,
Lev-
asseur
2001).
When
viewed
through
he lens
of
Lewin's
model,
hese
five
oncepts
ddress
he
three
phases
of
changedirectly.
n
my experience
s
a
project
eaderand a facilitatorf
planned,
ystemic
change,
hebest
way
to
nitiate,
acilitate,
nd ensure
project
uccess
s
(1)
to
unfreeze
y
engaging
take-
holders
arly
nd
actively
n
a collaborative
ialogue
about the
change
effort;
2)
to initiate
nd sustain
movement
y continuing
he
high
evel of
two-way
communication,
oint
action
planning,
nd shared
implementation
ffort;
nd
(3)
to refreeze
o a
higher
level of
individual
nd
organizational
erformance
and
satisfaction
y reinforcing
he commitmento
project
uccess
based on continued
ollaboration
or
theduration ftheprojectndbeyond.
Conclusion
In
this
rticle,
e examined
roject
uccess
ates,
ug-
gested
easons or
roject
ailure,
nd
provided
deas
for
dramaticallymproving
he odds of
project
uc-
cess based
on established
hangemanagement
rin-
ciples
and
processes.Hopefully,
his
will
encourage
managers
nd
project
eaders
n
all arenas o embrace
changemanagement
methods
nd set much
higher
expectations
or
roject
uccess.
References
Gold, M,
ed. 1999.
The
Complete
ocial
Scientist:
Kurt ewinReader.
American
Psychological
Association.
Washington.
C.
Kappelman,
L.
A.,
R.
McKeeman,
L.
Zhang.
2006.
Early warning
signs
of
T
project
ailure: he dominant
dozen.
Inform.ystems
Management 3(4)
31-36.
Keil, M.,
P.
E.
Cule,
K.
Lyytinen,
.
C. Schmidt.1998.
A
framework
for
dentifying
oftware
roject
isks.Comm.ACM
41(11)
76-83.
Levasseur,
R. E. 2001.
People
skills:
Change management
tools
Lewin's
change
model.
Interfaces
1(4)
71-73.
Levasseur,
R.
E. 2007.
People
skills:
Marketing
OR/MS-
A
people
problem. nterfaces
7(4)
383-384.
Markus,
M.
L.,
R. I.
Benjamin.
1997. The
magic
bullet
theory
of
IT-enabled transformation.loanManagement ev.38(2) 55-68.
McManus,
J.,
T.
Wood-Harper.
007.
Understanding
he sources of
information
ystemsproject
failure.
Management
ervices
1(3)
38-13.
Rubinstein,
D.
2007. Standish
Group report:
There's
less devel-
opment
chaos
today. Software evelopment
imes
March 1).
Retrieved
August
10,
2009,
http://www.sdtimes.com/content/
article.aspx?ArticleID=30247.
Zwikael,
O.,
S. Globerson. 2006. From critical success
factors o
critical
success
processes.
Internat.
J.
ProductionRes.
44(17)
3433-3449.
This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp