HomeHome  PortalPortal  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p

Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
eyesee

avatar

Posts : 182
Points : 447
Join date : 2009-06-18

PostSubject: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:40 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts? (you are expected to read an article about this question) .. at least 3000 words
Back to top Go down
View user profile
aeros salaga



Posts : 45
Points : 63
Join date : 2009-06-21
Age : 27
Location : Davao City

PostSubject: Assignment 5   Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:53 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business re-engineering, or paradigm shifts?


Organizational changes is not a common event happens in the world of business and technology. The changes of the environment and the society may affect the organization and the organizational changes happens. Organizational changes may happen a lot of time because the organization should adopt into fast changing environment. The most factor of organizational changes is the most famous term nowadays which "technology". As the time passes by, technology changes or upgraded into a better one. Therefore, as the technology changes, moat organizations should adopt the changes for some reasons, such as a good competition and better technology.

According to blog found in the Internet, "In today's fast pace business environment where the business landscape continually changes in response to shifting consumer preferences, new and superior production processes, and the development and introduction of disruptive technologies, companies need to have flexible and planned business practices to facilitate change to adapt to the market environment. Aligning resources and employees to a companies goals and objectives is imperative. Whilst machines can easily adapt to a change in command, the human composition does not always provide for such an easy transition. Dealing with the human psyche, entrenched values, fears, anxieties and insecurities necessitates careful change management planning. Several critical success factors for organizational change are discussed further below.

Change to company processes requires dedicated organizational strategic planning. With the dependency between integrated business units, a change in one area of the business can severely impact another. Consider the implementation of a new project management framework in a web development company. Failure to consider the requirements and dependencies of the production process can sabotage development time and create project cost blowouts. Involving team members from business units that will be affected by the change will maximize planning feedback, minimize areas of risk and improve the chances that team members will be prepared for and accept the change to the organizational process. Having the foresight to involve important personnel is a critical success factor for organizational change.

Adopting a long term vision is a critical success factor for managing change. Companies that commit to the process are more likely to experience a greater acceptance than those who implement short term or damage control practices. Initiatives take time to iteratively refine and sometimes processes require an adjustment for best fit. Managing and committing to this can raise a companies chance of success.

Building performance metrics to measure the change process provides a framework for benchmarking the change process. The evaluation stage of change management scopes and bounds this requirement. When you know where you are going you have an immediate point of reference for determining how close you are to goal realization and can make the necessary adjustment when slightly off course. Establishing performance metrics is a critical success factor for organizational change.

A top down approach is important for widespread company adoption. If management set the mandate and fail to adhere to the initial objectives, company personnel can start to assume that goals and objectives are no longer important. It is, therefore, imperative that all levels of management champion the cause and remain accountable.

Committing to employee training and development is a critical success factor for organizational change. When technology processes change or new initiatives are adopted, empowering the workforce, overcoming fear or failure and facilitating change is improved by educating the affected personnel. This is imperative for change management strategic planning success.

An awareness of critical success factors for organizational change better prepares a company for the strategic planning and implementation of change. The above guidelines are an example of proven considerations that need to be factored into the change management framework."

What is Organizational Changes?

Organizational change is the term used to describe the transformation process that a company goes through in response to a strategic reorientation, restructure, change in management, merger or acquisition or the development of new goals and objectives for the company. The realignment of resources and the redeployment of capital can bring many challenges during the transformation process and organizational change management seeks to address this by adopting best practice standards to assist with the integration of new company vision.

Organizational change is not just change for the sake of change itself. The major precursor for organizational change is some form of exogenous force such as an external event. Cuts in a companies funding, the streamline of operations due to a merger are common examples of the magnitude of an event that creates organizational change and development. Companies that are nearing the end of the product life cycle make organizational changes in response to exiting a market or reorienting resources to new or existing business operations.

The challenges encountered by organizational change have a ripple effect on the entire organization. When the business units that comprise a company are fully integrated, a change or restructure in one can have a profound domino effect on another. Trying to increase productivity whilst experiencing a reduction in resources is a prime example of how shorfalls can create stress for company employees. Effectively managing this process is an art that has created a new area of expertise that has become known as change management.

Organizational change can impact the psychological, emotional and physical states of company’s employees. Many people experience comfort zones and develop barriers during their daily lives. A change in company operations can challenge and stress people’s values and central core beliefs. Dealing with behavioral and cultural changes is part of the organizational change process and an important consideration for change management professionals. Adopting new company procedures and practices can require the development of new education programs to assist with aligning people to new company operations.

Companies that are going through extensive organizational changes employ the services of highly specialized personnel who can assist with the integration process. Personnel who operate in this area are adept at translating a companies vision, communicating, integrating and re-educating individuals to align with the new goals and objectives of the company. This can include advising management where rigid operational structures need to be adapted to better serve the needs of the companies and employees alike.

Change management is evolving as the business landscape changes in response to changing customer preferences, developments, tastes and new and improved processes and technologies.


Drivers Of Organizational Change

Organizational change management is becoming increasingly important to the business community. The intensification of competition from manufacturers in emerging economies who can produce superior goods at cheaper prices, the introduction of new technology and changing consumer preferences and tastes can result in companies having to redefine their business goals and objectives. The following factors are some of the primary drivers of organizational change.

Inadequate Financial Performance: Companies that fail to achieve financial benchmarks are forced to evaluate their business objectives and processes. This is one of the most important drivers of organizational change. If a new competitor enters the market with cheaper labor or a superior technology, companies that formally enjoyed prosperity can suddenly find a cannibalization of their market share. A failure to maintain a competitive presence in the market place can stress company resources and force a rethink of the opportunity cost of capital and resource redeployment.

Change In strategic Objectives: If a company shifts its focus form a product centric to a customer centric orientation, new processes are required to facilitate this re-orientation. This can result in redundancy to existing staff or manufacturing processes. Company restructuring from this is a primary driver of organizational change as the old is replaced with the new.

End of the Product Development Life Cycle: A product can reach the end of its product life cycle and companies are forced to cut production and operating costs or exit the market. At this stage some companies sell out or merge with existing competitors. This results in structural changes to a companies business processes to either maintain profitability or refocus on new opportunities.

New technology: New technology can be a significant driver of organizational change. Consider the effect the internet is having on old style media and print companies. As internet access levels increase on a worldwide scale, companies are forced to adapt their existing operations to shifting consumer preferences. Companies that neglect rising trends face a diminishing market share to competitors who better understand and address the demands of their customers.

Mergers and Acquisitions: When companies merge or consolidate operations, significant costs cutting and a re-engineering takes place. Redundancy and restructure to align with management objectives drives organizational change. The integration of two companies creates significant challenges to streamline operations and integrate existing IT operations into a centralized structure. Consider the implications of merging two independent billing systems which use different platforms and infrastructure. The careful dedicated planning required to bring this to fruition is part of the change management process.

As business and markets evolve, so too do business processes. The above represents some of the pertinent drivers of organizational change.


Barriers to Organizational Change

Organizational change initiatives to realign company objectives, capital and resources become necessary when the company shifts its strategic focus in response to exogenous market forces or events that require it to examine the way it does business and implement a new framework to accommodate changed goals and objectives. Despite this re-orientation, not all companies experience a smooth transition to the new paradigm. Some of the problems that befall companies and create barriers to organizational change are outlined below:

Inadequate Requirements Planning: Unlike machines that automatically respond to new commands, human beings have emotional and psychological needs. Issuing a new company mandate may not be fully embraced unless sufficient justification and education is undertaken to convince and realign individuals with the new company direction. Entrenched attitudes and beliefs and fear of failure create barriers that organizations need to examine. Change agents can assist with this process but not all companies possess the vision to realize the importance of managing people’s attitudes and expectations during the realignment process. This can be particularly evident in cases that involve merging two previously competing entities. The sudden realization that a previous adversary is now an accepted team member can require carefully thought out planning to successfully merge operations.

Failure to consult The Affected Members: A natural extension of the failure to plan adequately is excluding or ignoring the deeply affected individuals. The sudden realization that their world is about to be turned upside down can create resentment, anxiety and a resistance to change. Informing the relevant members and soft selling an educational process prior to implementing the changes can assist with the integration process, minimize the risk that resentment will occur and condition the affected members to accept and embrace the change. Not all companies do this, however, and adopt a hardened stance which does little to overcome the resistance to organizational change.

Inadequate Training: With advances in software and technology, applications are becoming increasingly sophisticated and specialized. Basic computer awareness does not always allow the individual to fully absorb the capability of the new application. Consider the case of a personal assistant who is computer literate but suddenly faced with the challenge of operating new accounting software. Learning on the job may not compensate for the necessary background information that is required to successfully use and operate the advanced capabilities of the software. A lack of awareness by management to provide formal training can sabotage the entire process and result in damage control measures to salvage the situation.

Employing the services of specialized personnel to assist with change management can help organizations avoid some of the common barriers to organizational change and assist with organizational decision making process.


Causes of Organizational Changes

Companies are required to modify productive processes or strategic goals and aims in response to an external influence, change in consumer behavior or a shift in the industry landscape. This necessitates a reorientation of capital, resources, employees and corporate systems. Below are some of the common causes of organizational change:

Exit Strategy at The End of the product Life Cycle: As the market for a companies product reaches maturity, market growth and profits begin to diminish. Despite the fact that cost cutting occurs and marketing budgets are reduced, when the opportunity cost of deploying capital and resources to another more favorable opportunity presents, companies either sell off existing operations or cease production altogether. This can be in response to a new superior product release, a change in consumer purchasing habits or the introduction of a new technology. Irrespective of the cause, capital and labor are redeployed to new more promising business activities. The exit strategy is a common cause of organizational change.

Change in Government: Employees that work for government departments can find existing initiatives get discontinued when a change in government takes place. The subsequent refocus of priorities that takes place as a result of the new governments mandate can create redundancies or a radical change in the way the department conducts its affairs.

Mergers and Acquisitions: When two competitors merge the existing business operations of both companies get centralized and streamlined. This can result in the merging of departments and processes, cost cutting and a redeployment of existing resources. Mergers and acquisitions are one of the most frequent causes of organizational change.

Strategic Refocus: When the company changes its business processes to adopt a new paradigm organizational change ensues. Consider the plight of a company that shifts its focus form a product centric to a customer centric platform. New manufacturing specifications, new marketing and a change in logistical operations create a change reaction for change throughout the organization.

Structural Change: When new administrative processes get introduced, organizational change results. Consider the ramifications of centralizing an archiving process using computer technology. Old redundant processes get replaced by new software and hardware and staff members are required to retrain to operate the new systems.

Process Oriented: When a company redefines its manufacturing operations by changing its manufacturing process to a JIT operation, infrastructure, warehousing and logistical operations are required to be redesigned and deployed. This structural shift in the way a product is created has a domino effect on organizational change.


Organizational Change Strategies:

Change is brought about by internal and external factors. The desired change in any organization cannot be brought about without implementing organizational change strategies. The whole process requires evaluating, planning, implementing, benchmarking and monitoring the goals and objectives of the organization. To bring about the desired changes a strong, confident and motivated leader is required. In this fast paced world where each and every company struggles to survive and grow amidst cut throat competition, the leader must be able to extend vision and unify the organization.

Adapting to new competitive and market demands is an important mechanism for both organizational and personal survival. To bring about desired change in the organization requires the careful formulation of organization change strategy to address the key variables that affect the change outcome.

Some considerations for organizational change strategies follows:

Motivation is necessary: The worker should be made aware of the various benefits attached to the change. This helps to mobilize support and minimize resistance. The top leaders should be selected according to how well they can unify team members. They are the change agents responsible for spreading the change like a positive virus. After the development of realistic goals, the upper management should create objectives, missions and goals pertaining to the separate departments.

Cultural and procedural organization change strategies need to be implemented using tools like negotiation, persuasion and learning. A user friendly approach is required for persuasion. This helps the employees to vent their complaints and express their feelings without harboring resentment. Negative attitudes can be countered appropriately and education extended to improve awareness levels and garner support.

Managers should have an encouraging demeanor. These managers should be effective communicators and be well respected within the workplace. This helps to win broad support and leaders who are respected can heavily influence change process initiatives.

Reward success. This involves recognizing internal champions from among the individuals who assist with achieving company goals and objectives. It also motivates others to do better and shows that good performance is rewarded.

Promote changes with the help of workshops. Team building and education increases confidence and reduces fear and anxiety conventionally associated with change.

Launch the change management program with a social initiative. Research indicates people respond more positively to changes initiated in social situations.

Alignment is essential: Ensure that the slogans and words which are used have the same meaning across all levels.

These are some guidelines to follow to design and implement effective strategies for organizational change.


Information Technology and Organizational Change

Information Technology is significant driving force behind organizational change. As the business landscape changes in response to new innovation, changing consumer preferences and new competitive pressures, companies adopt information technology to improve business processes, streamline operations, cut costs and increase profitability. The impact of information technology on organizational change permeates the entire organization. Organizational structure, employee skill base, process change, product delivery and marketing methodology all change in response to information technology.

Examples of Information Technology and Organizational Change

Organizational structural change is a natural consequence of advancements in information technology. Consider the plight of print media since the advent of the internet. As internet access levels increase on a worldwide scale, consumers are demanding the delivery of conventional print publications in digital format. Companies affected by this are forced to establish new infrastructure and delivery methods to accommodate the change in consumer preferences. New business frameworks require suitably qualified personnel who have skill levels to operate new company processes.

As information technology and organizational change grips the print industry, the online platform gives birth to demand for new a new set of skills to run the necessary infrastructure. Web delivery methods require a shift in the employee skill base from print skills to online digital savvy. Mechanical engineers now find they have internet counterparts. Content Management platforms replace the traditional printing press to deliver the medium online. Marketing efforts shift from offline media to online media or a combination of the two. This requires new skills to accommodate the demand for the new services that bring the changes into effect.

How does a company facilitate this change? A company is required to hire personnel who have the skills to work with the new technology processes. This might involve retrenchment of existing staff or an introduction of training programs to retrain a companies existing skill base. When dimensional shifts occur in the way business is conducted, the transition often presents a shortfall in skilled labor as demand outstrips supply. New industries emerge to fill this shortfall and information technology and organizational change has a rippling effect on the industry as a whole.

Change management is a growing area of business services. As technology changes the business landscape, qualified and experienced professionals are required to guide and assist companies in unfamiliar territory. The change in processes, corporate culture, systems management and operational objectives that result from information technology and organizational change requires careful and dedicated planning. Organizations that do not take the time to plan appropriately risk compromising their operational goals and objectives.



...for me PARADIGM SHIFTS is the radical type of organizational change. According to my researches a Paradigm Shifts is a revolutionary change from one thinking to another, it is a shifting of structure, a revolution transformation. A constant changes will be more radical to paradigm shifts because it is a moving from one thought system to another. Paradigm Shifts is radical to fast changing environment.

Here's some information about the history of Paradigm Shifts:

According to Wikipedia "Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system. In 1900, Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years. In this case, the new paradigm reduces the old to a special case in the sense that Newtonian mechanics is still a good model for approximation for speeds that are slow compared to the speed of light. Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it. Kuhn's original model is now generally seen as too limited.

Kuhn himself did not consider the concept of paradigm as appropriate for the social sciences. He explains in his preface to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that he concocted the concept of paradigm precisely in order to distinguish the social from the natural sciences (p.x). He wrote this book at the Palo Alto Center for Scholars, surrounded by social scientists, when he observed that they were never in agreement on theories or concepts. He explains that he wrote this book precisely to show that there are no, nor can there be any, paradigms in the social sciences. Mattei Dogan, a French sociologist, in his article "Paradigms in the [Social Sciences]," develops Kuhn's original thesis that there are no paradigms at all in the social sciences since the concepts are polysemic, the deliberate mutual ignorance between scholars and the proliferation of schools in these disciplines. Dogan provides many examples of the non-existence of paradigms in the social sciences in his essay, particularly in sociology, political science and political anthropology."


References:

http://www.organizational-change-management.com/
http://www.organizational-change-management.com/drivers-of-organizational-change.php
http://www.organizational-change-management.com/barriers-to-organizational-change.php
http://www.organizational-change-management.com/causes-of-organizational-change.php
http://www.organizational-change-management.com/organizational-change-strategies.php
http://www.organizational-change-management.com/information-technology-and-organizational-change.php
http://wikipedia.org/


<<<Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!>>>
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://aerosusep.blogspot.com
sharlyn joy pines

avatar

Posts : 53
Points : 59
Join date : 2009-06-19
Location : Philippines

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:49 am



“Begin at the beginning in organizational change”


In business, the only constant is change. Systems change, partnerships change, markets change, the business world is in a constant state of flux. Unfortunately, enterprise software applications are by their nature rigid, complex and often inaccessible to untrained users or external audiences. As such, users adapt by managing business processes with homegrown databases, spreadsheets and email. Visibility, cycle time and decision making suffer.


What is Organizational Change?

Typically, the concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations like for example, restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc., new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical reorientation in the way the organization operates.

What provokes Organizational Change?


Change should not be done for the sake of change, it's a strategy to accomplish some overall goal. Usually organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, like substantial cuts in funding, address major new markets/clients, need for dramatic increases in productivity/services, etc. Typically, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle,like going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to more stable and planned development. Transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.

Range of Organizational Change

1. Automation - Using technology to perform current tasks more efficiently & effectively.

2. Rationalization of Procedures - Streamline Standard Operating Procedures; eliminate bottlenecks

3. Business Reengineering - Radical redesign of processes to improve cost, quality, service; maximize benefits of technology

4. Paradigm Shift

Paradigm - A complete mental model of how a complex system functions

A Paradigm Shift Involves:

Rethinking the Nature of the Business,
– Overhaul of the Organization;
– A Complete Reconception of How The System Should Function


Paradigm Shift

A major change in the way of thinking about something or doing something. For example, development of the Internet has resulted in a paradigm shift in the way people gather information.

The Most Radical Type of Change is… Paradigm Shift;

The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing:

• Margaret Mead, noted anthropologist, shows a flashlight to the indigenous New Guinea people.
• People blind since birth are suddenly enabled to see.
• Development of new techniques in genetics impact long-standing assumptions in anthropology.
• An apparently miraculous healing is witnessed by someone who has never believed in miracles.
• Brainwashing — conversion experiences, patterned or forced shifts in ideology and social behavior.

Examples of paradigm shifts in complex systems and organizations:

• The English monarchy with the signing of the Magna Carta.
• The "explosion of life" during the Pre-Cambrian era.
• Society with the invention of any of several innovations (fire, the wheel, gunpowder, the microchip, etc.).
• Warfare and corporate structure with the development of the Prussian military model.


I don’t really know how to explain this further by my own interpretation of some articles that I have read. That is why I choose to paste some write ups that I found when browsing the internet. I know it could help to understand the real paradigm situation that I’m trying to discuss here.

Journal Article Excerpt
Coping with consumer fraud: the need for a paradigm shift.

by Monroe Friedman

For years law enforcement and consumer education practitioners have developed speaker programs, user guides, and other informational initiatives to help consumers avoid economic exploitation by criminal elements. (For recent examples, see Mott 1993; Schulte 1994; Shadel and John T. 1994; Whitlock 1994.) While these practitioner-launched undertakings are undoubtedly valuable to many consumers, it is the contention of this paper that they would be even more valuable if the advice they offered drew upon a larger and more diverse informational base.

In this paper an informational base commonly associated with consumer initiatives for avoiding victimization is described along with its limitations. Also described and illustrated with a detailed case study is a plan for enlarging the informational base to provide more useful behavioral guidelines for helping consumers avoid victimization.

CURRENT INFORMATIONAL BASE AND ITS LIMITATIONS

The informational initiatives noted above, like most consumer guides for avoiding victimization by criminals, are often authored by practitioners with considerable professional experience dealing with criminal cases of consumer fraud. This experience typically takes the form of criminal investigations or prosecutions at federal, state, or local levels. The natural unit of description and analysis is often the individual police or agency report which describes in detail the particulars of an alleged act of fraud and its impact on the victim (e.g., financial losses incurred).

While such reports offer several advantages to the practitioner who hopes to help consumers avoid victimization (e.g., the reports provide a wealth of swindle particulars useful in informational and educational programs), the cases they consider are unlikely to be representative of seams at large. Many crimes go unreported. This is especially true of confidence swindles (Alston 1986). The victims who fail to report these crimes are often found to be naive individuals who do not know they have been swindled, and if they do, they do not know to whom to turn once a swindle has occurred (Blum 1972). For these various reasons, among others, available case studies may offer an unrepresentative picture of the population of actual confidence swindles.

A second weakness of case studies concerns their lack of information about critical incidents or stimuli that lead to consumer victimization (Fattah and Sacco 1989). It may be helpful to get an impression, albeit unrepresentative, of when and where swindles occur, but this general information is unlikely to be sufficient to help consumers ward off a swindle's sophisticated approach. It is not enough to provide a set of general background characteristics to be on guard against as this leads to many "false positives" being identified by consumers in that many individuals or circumstances that fit the swindle category also fit the non-swindle category.

What is especially needed to resolve such dilemmas is what behavioral theorists refer to as discriminative stimuli and responses, stimuli and responses whose presence is associated with a swindle situation and whose absence is associated with a non-swindle situation (Donahoe and Palmer 1994). In lay terms we should think of discriminative stimuli as danger signals and discriminative responses as escape mechanisms.

Unfortunately, analyses of case studies of swindles reveal few danger signals and escape mechanisms. This finding should come as no surprise because case studies typically found in police files have been placed there as a result of the failure of swindle victims to recognize and act upon discriminative stimuli.

HELPING OLDER AMERICANS COPE WITH CONFIDENCE SWINDLES: A PILOT STUDY

To secure needed information on danger signals and escape mechanisms, it was decided that a new strategic approach was needed, one that focused on the coping behaviors of consumers who have been successful in dealing with the attempts of confidence swindlers to defraud them. As older Americans are often victimized by confidence swindles (Friedman 1992), it was also decided to focus on this population subgroup. The first step in implementing the new strategic approach consisted of placing public service announcements (PSAs) in various news media and newsletters regularly received by older Americans in an effort to identify such success stories. A primary source was the AARP Bulletin, the newsletter of the American Association of Retired Persons, which is distributed each month to the more than 30 million AARP members, all of whom are at least 50 years of age. These older Americans were asked by the PSAs to submit a short letter relating a personal story of a suspected confidence swindle directed at them that they managed to avoid; they were also asked to identify relevant ...

Here is another piece that tackle Paradigm Shift

The entire nation on some level knew what they were doing; they just never noticed what it was doing to them, or in the case of the sub-prime mortgage lenders and investors -- never cared. The United States is now riding on what appears to be an unstoppable conveyor belt towards losing its top ranking within the global hierarchy. With such a massive tipping point, often comes a new way of thinking.

Economic Tipping Point Leads to Consumer Paradigm Shift

According to Edmund L. Andrews and Jackie Calmes in the December 17, 2008 New York Times article, “Fed Cuts Rates to A Record Low,” the Federal Reserve cut federal-fund rates to zero in a desperate effort to revive frozen credit markets and to stimulate bank lending and consumer spending.

Some economists feel however, that despite the fact that money is now “on sale,” making it easier to pay credit card debt and afford equity loans; lowering interest rates might not be the golden ticket to boost consumer confidence. Americans are too worried about losing their jobs to assume more debt, while banks are unwilling to lend to people they view as a high credit risk. People are too scared to borrow what they might not be able to pay back and banks are reining in loose lending standards, two changes in fiscal behavior that in hindsight, seem long overdue.
This involuntary shift to how consumers and institutions view and manage money flow could move this once-or-twice in a century economic crisis into the next critical phase of social change: a complete paradigm shift. The nation might be ready to adopt an entirely new belief system about how to ensure the health of an economy. Consumers, lenders, bankers, investment firms and leaders will likely have to permanently alter how they now operate liquidity levels and money systems.

http://tim.oreilly.com/articles/paradigmshift_0504.html -
This site offers an article which has the title of “Open Source Paradigm Shift” by Tim O'Reilly dated June 2004. He said that “This article is based on a talk that I first gave at Warburg-Pincus' annual technology conference in May of 2003. Since then, I have delivered versions of the talk more than twenty times, at locations ranging from the O'Reilly Open Source Convention, the UK Unix User's Group, Microsoft Research in the UK, IBM Hursley, British Telecom, Red Hat's internal "all-hands" meeting, and BEA's eWorld conference. I finally wrote it down as an article for an upcoming book on open source," Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software," edited by J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, and K. R. Lakhani and to be published by MIT Press in 2005”. See for more details…

Leaders in Organizations are in a position to change the evolution of humanity. For example, in changing our perception from wrong-mindedness to right-mindedness---moving from a fear-based to love-based perception---the scarcity principle of there's not enough and I'm afraid I won't get mine no longer governs. This movement can facilitate a change from the having mode to the being mode...not wanting more and consuming only what I need, thus sustainability by acting responsible. This transformation in perception no longer requires the endless search for outside material contentment which gives us an illusion of success for the intrinsic elements of happiness, security, satisfaction, purpose, and fulfillment are found within.

John P. Kotter's 8 steps to successful change:

John Kotter's highly regarded books 'Leading Change' (1995) and the follow-up 'The Heart Of Change' (2002) describe a helpful model for understanding and managing change. Each stage acknowledges a key principle identified by Kotter relating to people's response and approach to change, in which people see, feel and then change (see a more detailed interpretation of the personal change process in John Fisher's model of the process of personal change): Kotter's eight step change model can be summarised as:

1. Increase urgency - inspire people to move, make objectives real and relevant.
2. Build the guiding team - get the right people in place with the right emotional commitment, and the right mix of skills and levels.
3. Get the vision right - get the team to establish a simple vision and strategy, focus on emotional and creative aspects necessary to drive service and efficiency.
4. Communicate for buy-in - Involve as many people as possible, communicate the essentials, simply, and to appeal and respond to people's needs. De-clutter communications - make technology work for you rather than against.
5. Empower action - Remove obstacles, enable constructive feedback and lots of support from leaders - reward and recognise progress and achievements.
6. Create short-term wins - Set aims that are easy to achieve - in bite-size chunks. Manageable numbers of initiatives. Finish current stages before starting new ones.
7. Don't let up - Foster and encourage determination and persistence - ongoing change - encourage ongoing progress reporting - highlight achieved and future milestones.
8. Make change stick - Reinforce the value of successful change via recruitment, promotion, new change leaders. Weave change into culture.

Sources/References:

http://managementhelp.org/mgmnt/orgchnge.htm#anchor493930
http://www.nexprise.com/solutions/business_process_automation.html
http://www.businessballs.com/changemanagement.htm
http://www.yourdictionary.com/business/paradigm-shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001350002
http://neohumanism.org/p/pa/paradigm_shift.html
http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/economic_tipping_point_leads_to_paradigm_shift

Please do visit my BLOG: http://www.sharlynjoypines.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stihl Lhyn Samonte

avatar

Posts : 55
Points : 55
Join date : 2009-06-22
Location : sasa, davao city

PostSubject: Assignment 5   Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:48 am

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?


Organizational Change


Companies that are undergoing or that have undergone a transformation. This keyword should always be used in conjunction with "Success Story" or "Experiment" or "Failed Experiment."

Organizational change is an ongoing process in order to bring the organizational systems and processes in line with the factors prevailing in the external and internal environment of the organization. The forces of organizational change include internal and external forces. Organization Development (OD) refers to the framework consisting of planned-change interventions involving human interactions that seeks to improve organizational effectiveness. OD is an effective tool to manage change. The paper discusses the dynamics of change management.


Organizational change initiatives to realign company objectives, capital and resources become necessary when the company shifts its strategic focus in response to exogenous market forces or events that require it to examine the way it does business and implement a new framework to accommodate changed goals and objectives. Despite this re-orientation, not all companies experience a smooth transition to the new paradigm.

Managing Organizational Change

It is important to have a change in the organization. In addition, such change should be successful and must contribute towards the success of the organization. The main objective of this paper is to characterize the prevalence of the change process in organizations and understand what occurs during organizational change and the forces responsible for unplanned organizational change. Organization change is a planned or unplanned transformation in an organization’s structure, technology, or people. However, there are internal as well as external factors forcing the change. Besides this, there are critical issues in the organizational development. One should be able to overcome such issues and led to effective change in the organization.

Learning Objectives For Organizational Change

Organizational change is important to usher in long-term success in an organization. A change entails realignment of organizational systems and processes. Managing change involves institutionalizing the philosophy of change in the organization. Effective change management entails creating a definitive vision and managing the transition to the desired future state.

Organizational Change And Stress Management

The forces prevailing in internal or external environment of an organization necessitate organizational change. The prime challenge before organizations is to fully institutionalize the philosophy of the change. The organizational change can be either planned or unplanned. After the change has been effected, initially, there is a resistance to change, primarily, because people have fear of the unknown. This can be overcome by effectively teaching the employees about the philosophy and the reasons for the change. The paper examines change management. In this context, stress management is also discussed.

Steps in the Organizational Change Process
• Assess need for change
• Decide on the change
• Implement change
• Evaluate change

The Three Greatest Barriers to Organizational Change

The need for rapid organizational change is a fact of life in today's business environment. While there may be a few companies whose leaders are committed to a belief that it is good for everyone to "shake things up" from time to time, most organizational change is undertaken to accomplish key strategic goals. No matter how necessary change seems to upper management, many barriers must be broken down if a planned strategic change is to be implemented successfully. The key to successful change is in the planning and the implementation. The three greatest barriers to organizational change are most often the following.

1. Inadequate Culture-shift Planning. Most companies are good at planning changes in reporting structure, work area placement, job responsibilities, and administrative structure. Organizational charts are commonly revised again and again. Timelines are established, benchmarks are set, transition teams are appointed, etc. Failure to foresee and plan for resultant cultural change, however, is also common. When the planning team is too narrowly defined or too focused on objective analysis and critical thinking, it becomes too easy to lose sight of the fact that the planned change will affect people. Even at work, people make many decisions on the basis of feelings and intuition. When the feelings of employees are overlooked, the result is often deep resentment because some unrecognized taboo or tradition has not been duly respected.

2. Lack of Employee Involvement. People have an inherent fear of change. In most strategic organizational change, at least some employees will be asked to assume different responsibilities or focus on different aspects of their knowledge or skill. The greater the change a person is asked to make, the more pervasive that person's fear will be. There will be fear of change. More important, however, there will be fear of failure in the new role. Involving employees as soon as possible in the change effort, letting them create as much of the change as is possible and practical is key to a successful change effort. As employees understand the reasons for the change and have an opportunity to "try the change on for size" they more readily accept and support the change.

3. Flawed Communication Strategies. Ideal communication strategies in situations of significant organizational change must attend to the message, the method of delivery, the timing, and the importance of information shared with various parts of the organization. Many leaders believe that if they tell people what they (the leaders) feel they need to know about the change, then everyone will be on board and ready to move forward. In reality, people need to understand why the change is being made, but more importantly, how the change is likely to affect them. A big picture announcement from the CEO does little to help people understand and accept change. People want to hear about change from their direct supervisor. A strategy of engaging direct supervision and allowing them to manage the communication process is the key to a successful change communication plan.

Radical Type of Organizational Change

Automation

Automation Planning and Organizational Change: A Functional Model for Developing a Systems Plan

Automation represents one of the greatest changes a library can undergo. An automation plan must not only produce an optimum system, but prepare the staff, institution and clientele for far-reaching change. This change can be accommodated by a functional model consisting of three phases: 1) organization and overview, 2) project expansion, and 3) project consolidation and preparationof the system plan. An educational program is the centerpiece of the process.

• Rationalization of procedures

Report on Rationalization of Procedures: (for) Building Approvals and Completion Certificates

The Committee deliberated upon the procedures for grant of building plan approvals and completion certificates including the role of the Delhi Urban Arts Commission therein. The consensus of the opinion was that the present procedures involving a multiplicity of authorities were resulting in considerable harassment and delays. The present procedures of scrutiny of building plans, issue of C & D forms and completion certificate is very cumbersome and involved delays at each stage due to site inspections and site reports. Further, since there was no single person specifically responsible for adherence to regulations at the approval or completion stage, owners with the connivance of building officials and unscrupulous architects, indulged in violations for financial advantage. Thus while honest owners are harassed, unscrupulous architects, indulged in violations for financial advantage. Thus while honest owners are harassed, unscrupulous ones get away with serious violations.

• Business reengineering

Business process reengineering (BPR) is the analysis and redesign of workflow within and between enterprises. BPR reached its heyday in the early 1990's when Michael Hammer and James Champy published their best-selling book, "Reengineering the Corporation". The authors promoted the idea that sometimes radical redesign and reorganization of an enterprise (wiping the slate clean) was necessary to lower costs and increase quality of service and that information technology was the key enabler for that radical change. Hammer and Champy felt that the design of workflow in most large corporations was based on assumptions about technology, people, and organizational goals that were no longer valid. They suggested seven principles of reengineering to streamline the work process and thereby achieve significant levels of improvement in quality, time management, and cost:
1. Organize around outcomes, not tasks.
2. Identify all the processes in an organization and prioritize them in order of redesign urgency.
3. Integrate information processing work into the real work that produces the information.
4. Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized.
5. Link parallel activities in the workflow instead of just integrating their results.
6. Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control into the process.
7. Capture information once and at the source.

The impact of BPR on organizational performance

The two cornerstones of any organization are the people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain, organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%.

How to implement a BPR project

The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. That means:
• Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry.
• Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position.
• Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives.
• Defining behaviours that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims.
• Producing key performance measures to track progress.
• Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization
• Identifying initiatives that will improve performance.

• Paradigm shifts

A paradigm shift is an often radical change of paradigm. It is the successful new theory which explains a phenomenon or phenomena that the previous theory fails to. The term was first used by Thomas Kuhn in his famous 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.
The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th-century theory of poetics, for instance.
A paradigm is our perception of reality, our view of the world. It is our interpretation of events based on previous teaching we have received. If our paradigm is based only on our input from the media of conventional newspapers, magazines, radio, television, Hollywood films, public education etc., may God help us, for we will only see things the way they, the elite and wealthy rulers of this world who control these sources of information, want us to see things! This is often the opposite of the Truth. A paradigm shift means to have a sudden change in perception, a sudden change in point of view, of how you see things. Hopefully this change will be in the right direction. (Based on Stephen R. Covey's definition in "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People")


Sources:
http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/organizational+change.html
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid182_gci536451,00.html
http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000073.shtmlhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/eb047604
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/business-process-reengineering.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift


mY bLog:http://stihlyn.blogspot.com/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
John Paul Pulido

avatar

Posts : 50
Points : 52
Join date : 2009-06-22
Age : 27

PostSubject: Assignment 5   Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:52 am

Before I discuss what is the most progressive or the most radical type of organizational change, I must first discuss what is organizational change and the description of each.

('afro')Automation

Automation is the use of control systems (such as numerical control, programmable logic control, and other industrial control systems), in concert with other applications of information technology (such as computer-aided technologies [CAD, CAM, CAx]), to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention. In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated.

Automation plays an increasingly important role in the global economy and in daily experience. Engineers strive to combine automated devices with mathematical and organizational tools to create complex systems for a rapidly expanding range of applications and human activities.

Many roles for humans in industrial processes presently lie beyond the scope of automation. Human-level pattern recognition, language recognition, and language production ability are well beyond the capabilities of modern mechanical and computer systems. Tasks requiring subjective assessment or synthesis of complex sensory data, such as scents and sounds, as well as high-level tasks such as strategic planning, currently require human expertise. In many cases, the use of humans is more cost-effective than mechanical approaches even where automation of industrial tasks is possible.

Specialised hardened computers, referred to as programmable logic controllers (PLCs), are frequently used to synchronize the flow of inputs from (physical) sensors and events with the flow of outputs to actuators and events. This leads to precisely controlled actions that permit a tight control of almost any industrial process.

Human-machine interfaces (HMI) or computer human interfaces (CHI), formerly known as man-machine interfaces, are usually employed to communicate with PLCs and other computers, such as entering and monitoring temperatures or pressures for further automated control or emergency response. Service personnel who monitor and control these interfaces are often referred to as stationary engineers.

('afro')Rationalization of Procedures

In economics, rationalization is an attempt to change a pre-existing ad hoc workflow into one that is based on a set of published rules. There is a tendency in modern times to quantify experience, knowledge, and work. Means-end (goal-oriented) rationality is used to precisely calculate that which is necessary to attain a goal. Its effectiveness varies with the enthusiasm of the workers for the changes being made, the skill with which management applies the rules, and the degree to which the rules fit the job.

Julien Freund defines rationalization as "the organization of life through a division and coordination of activities on the basis of exact study of men's relations with each other, with their tools and their environment, for the purpose of achieving greater efficiency and productivity."

The rationalization process is the practical application of knowledge to achieve a desired end. Its purpose is to bring about efficiency, coordination, and control of the natural and social environment. It is a product of "scientific specialization and technical differentiation" that seems to be a characteristic of Western culture. Rationalization is the guiding principle behind bureaucracy and the increasing division of labor, and has led to an increase in both the production and distribution of goods and services. It is also associated with secularization, depersonalization, and oppressive routine.

Increasingly, human behavior is to be guided by observation, experiment, and reason (zweckrational). Change in human character is expected to be part of the process; rationalization and bureaucratization promote efficiency, and materialism, both of which are subsumed under Weber's concept of zweckrational.

('afro')Business Reengineering

Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.

Business Process Reengineering Cycle.

Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.

The main proponents of reengineering were Michael Hammer and James A. Champy. In a series of books including Reengineering the Corporation, Reengineering Management, and The Agenda, they argue that far too much time is wasted passing-on tasks from one department to another. They claim that it is far more efficient to appoint a team who are responsible for all the tasks in the process. In The Agenda they extend the argument to include suppliers, distributors, and other business partners.

Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to re-engineering theory.

('afro')Paradigm Shifts

Paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.

The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th-century theory of poetics, for instance.

Since the 1960s, the term has been found useful to thinkers in numerous non-scientific contexts. Compare as a structured form of Zeitgeist.

For me the most radical type of organizational change is the Automation. Automation because it requires less man power, less effort, less errors, and most of all efficient.


References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Back to top Go down
View user profile
brian c. namuag

avatar

Posts : 61
Points : 62
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 27
Location : Philippines, Davao City

PostSubject: Assignment # 5   Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:55 am





Base in our study and readings we are to discuss the spectrum of organizational change, and answer the question which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?


According to them that the only thing that doesn’t change in this world is the time. Change is not an easy thing to go through. It does not matter if it is a change in where someone is living or where someone is working. The change process is not easy. You have to be able to adapt to your new environment quickly because you will be left behind. The change process is also not easy when it comes to changes that affect a whole organization. Everyone needs to be on the same page and all of the pros and cons of the change need to be weighed out before the actual change is taken place. In the following essay I will illustrate to you an organizational change that I was apart of and the result that it had on the future of the organization. In the 21st Century, you will not have an organization change which does not involve some sort of technology change or addition. Implementation of such a change must be planned well in advance and everything that could go wrong, from a production level, is accounted for and corrected. For example, if the new system will cause another system to function improperly then we can not set up that new system until we figure out a way to make sure that both systems work properly together. You have to make sure that business will be running as usual or at a good percentage.

Because of the rapid rate of all technological innovation, technological changes are becoming increasingly important to many organizations. One major area of change involves equipment, thus a change in work processes or work activities maybe necessary. Timex, for example, 3-D design software from Toronto based software Alias Research Inc. to be able to turn out watches faster. Organization control systems may also be targets of such a change.

Another area of organization change has to do with human resources. An organization might decide to change the skill-level of its work force and the level of performance of its workers. Perceptions and expectations, attitudes and values are also a common focus on organizational change. Organizational change is anticipated or triggered because of different changing circumstances; an organization might incur a change because of forces bending its environment. These forces might be either external or internal. The external forces derive from the organization's general or task environments. The general environment is parted into different dimensions: the international, the economic, the technological, the socio-cultural and the political-legal dimension.

Before to choose in which is the most radical type of change either automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts, let me first discuss the terminology “organizational change and its impact”.

What's Organizational Change?


Typically, the concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission,restructuring operations (e.g., restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc.), new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical reorientation in the way the organization operates

What Provokes "Organizational Change"?


Change should not be done for the sake of change -- it's a strategy to accomplish some overall goal. (See Organizational Performance Management.) Usually organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, e.g., substantial cuts in funding, address major new markets/clients, need for dramatic increases in productivity/services, etc. Typically, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, e.g., going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to more stable and planned development. Transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.

Why is Organization-Wide Change Difficult to Accomplish?


Typically there are strong resistances to change. People are afraid of the unknown. Many people think things are already just fine and don't understand the need for change. Many are inherently cynical about change, particularly from reading about the notion of "change" as if it's a mantra. Many doubt there are effective means to accomplish major organizational change. Often there are conflicting goals in the organization, e.g., to increase resources to accomplish the change yet concurrently cut costs to remain viable. Organization-wide change often goes against the very values held dear by members in the organization, that is, the change may go against how members believe things should be done. That's why much of organizational-change literature discusses needed changes in the culture of the organization, including changes in members' values and beliefs and in the way they enact these values and beliefs.

How Is Organization-Wide Change Best Carried Out?


Successful change must involve top management, including the board and chief executive. Usually there's a champion who initially instigates the change by being visionary, persuasive and consistent. A change agent role is usually responsible to translate the vision to a realistic plan and carry out the plan. Change is usually best carried out as a team-wide effort. Communications about the change should be frequent and with all organization members. To sustain change, the structures of the organization itself should be modified, including strategic plans, policies and procedures. This change in the structures of the organization typically involves an unfreezing, change and re-freezing process.


The best approaches to address resistances is through increased and sustained communications and education. For example, the leader should meet with all managers and staff to explain reasons for the change, how it generally will be carried out and where others can go for additional information. A plan should be developed and communicated. Plans do change. That's fine, but communicate that the plan has changed and why. Forums should be held for organization members to express their ideas for the plan. They should be able to express their concerns and frustrations as well.


Some General Guidelines to Organization-Wide Change

In addition to the general guidelines listed above, there are a few other basic guidelines to keep in mind. 

1. Consider using a consultant. Ensure the consultant is highly experienced in organization-wide change. Ask to see references and check the references.
2. Widely communicate the potential need for change. Communicate what you're doing about it. Communicate what was done and how it worked out.
3. Get as much feedback as practical from employees, including what they think are the problems and what should be done to resolve them. If possible, work with a team of employees to manage the change.
4. Don't get wrapped up in doing change for the sake of change. Know why you're making the change. What goal(s) do you hope to accomplish?
6. Plan the change. How do you plan to reach the goals, what will you need to reach the goals, how long might it take and how will you know when you've reached your goals or not? Focus on the coordination of the departments/programs in your organization, not on each part by itself. Have someone in charge of the plan.
7. End up having every employee ultimately reporting to one person, if possible, and they should know who that person is. Job descriptions are often complained about, but they are useful in specifying who reports to whom.
8. Delegate decisions to employees as much as possible. This includes granting them the authority and responsibility to get the job done. As much as possible, let them decide how to do the project.
9. The process won't be an "aha!" It will take longer than you think.
10. Keep perspective. Keep focused on meeting the needs of your customer or clients.
11. Take care of yourself first. Organization-wide change can be highly stressful.
12. Don't seek to control change, but rather to expect it, understand it and manage it.
13. Include closure in the plan. Acknowledge and celebrate your accomplishments.
14. Read some resources about organizational change, including new forms and structures.

Managing Organizational Change


It is important to have a change in the organization. In addition, such change should be successful and must contribute towards the success of the organization. The main objective of this paper is to characterize the prevalence of the change process in organizations and understand what occurs during organizational change. Organizational change is an ongoing process in order to bring the organizational systems and processes in line with the factors prevailing in the external and internal environment of the organization. The forces of organizational change include internal and external forces. Organization Development OD refers to the framework consisting of planned-change.

Learning Objectives For Organizational Change

Organizational change is important to usher in long-term success in an organization. A change entails realignment of organizational systems and processes. Managing change involves institutionalizing the philosophy of change in the organization. Effective change management entails creating a definitive vision and managing the transition to the desired future state.

Organizational Change and Stress Management

The forces prevailing in internal or external environment of an organization necessitate organizational change. The prime challenge before organizations is to fully institutionalize the philosophy of the change. The organizational change can be either planned or unplanned. After the change has been effected, initially, there is a resistance to change.

Organizations and Organizational Change


An organization operates in an environment of constant change. In order to survive, it is imperative for the organization to anticipate any change in the environment and proactively work towards eliminating the effect of the same. Organizational Structure OS defines the roles and the activities of different organizational positions.

Types of Organizational Change

Automation: Using technology to perform tasks efficiently / effectively
Rationalization of Procedures: Streamline SOPs; eliminate bottlenecks
Business Reengineering: Radical redesign of processes to improve cost, quality, service; maximize benefits of technology
Paradigm Shift: A new perspective on things

Automation-using the computer to speed up the performance of existing tasks
• most common form of IT-enabled change
• involves assisting employees perform their tasks more efficiently and effectively
• akin to putting a larger motor in an existing vehicle

Rationalization of procedures-the streamlining of existing operating procedures, eliminating obvious bottlenecks so that automation makes operating procedures more efficient
• follows quickly from early automation
• Toshiba had to rationalize its procedures down to the level of installation manuals and software instruction and had to create standard names and formats for the data items in its global data warehouse
• Think: without a large amount of business process rationalization, computer technology would have been useless at Toshiba (what ERPs do)

Business Process Re-engineering (BPR): The radical redesign of business processes, combining steps to cut waste and eliminating repetitive, paper-intensive tasks to improve cost, quality, and service and to maximize the benefits of information technology
• Involves radical rethinking
• Can change the way an organization conducts its business
• IT allowed Baxter to be a manager of its customer’s supplies
• Strikes fear, its expensive, its very risky and its extremely difficult to carry out and manage
• Develop the business vision and process objective
• Identify the processes to be redesigned (core and highest payback)
• Understand and measure the performance of existing processes
• Identify the opportunities for applying information technology
• Build a prototype of the new process

Paradigm shift-paradigm is a complete mental model of how a complex system functions a paradigm shift involves rethinking the nature of the business, the organization; a complete reconception of how the system should function. Radical reconceptualization of the nature of the business and the nature of the organization
• akin to rethinking not only the automobile, but transportation itself
• e-business is a paradigm shift
• Deciding which business process to get right is half the challenge
• 70% of time programmatic reengineering efforts fail
• Why then change? Because the rewards are high!

To close those gaps managers should know how to face and overcome resistance to change. Although there are no certain solutions, several techniques at least have the potential to decrease or even eliminate this resistance. Participation is often the effective technique for overcoming resistance to change. Employees who participate in planning and implementing a change are better able to understand the reasons for the change. Uncertainty is reduced, and self-interests and social relationships are less threatened. Having had an opportunity to express their ideas and to understand the perspectives of others, employees are more likely to accept the changes more gracefully. Educating employees about the need for and the expected results of an impending change may reduce their resistance. And if open communication is established and maintained during the change process, uncertainty can be minimized. Several facilitation procedures, which include making only necessary changes, announcing those changes well in advance, and allowing time for people to adjust to new ways of doing things, can help reduce resistance to change.

We conclude that whatever the changes inside an organization might be, and whatever the reasons that made these changes necessary, a good way of implementing the changes successfully is for a manager to treat the participation and the communication with his employees as integral parts of the change process.

Sources:
http://managementhelp.org/mgmnt/orgchnge.htm
http://www.zturk.com/edu/zagreb/podiplomski/slides/02-1-short-IT-strategies.pdf
http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/organizational change.html



My Blog: http://brian-takealook.blogspot.com/





Back to top Go down
View user profile http://brian-takealook.blogspot.com/
Ariel Serenado

avatar

Posts : 58
Points : 66
Join date : 2009-06-20
Age : 27
Location : Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:53 am

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?


One of the most challenging tasks of a business may be organizing the people who perform its work. A business may begin with one person doing all the necessary tasks. As the business becomes successful and grows, however, there is generally more work, and more people are needed to perform various tasks. Through this division of work, individuals can become specialists at a specific job. Because there are several people—often in different locations—working toward a common objective, "there must be a plan showing how the work will be organized. The plan for the systematic arrangement of work is the organization structure. Organization structure is comprised of functions, relationships, responsibilities, authorities, and communications of individuals within each department" (Sexton, 1970, p. 23).

Because there are several peoples there is increased in competition, difficulties retaining talented workers, globalization, changing technologies and new business models are just a subset of the drivers requiring companies to re-think how they do business. In the face of such challenges, many companies embark upon ambitious organizational change initiatives, often with goals such as “paradigm shift” or “reengineering of people and processes.” These are complex, challenging change goals to manage and achieve the desired benefits. In a tumultuous business environment, the ability to successfully manage change is what enables companies to survive, even thrive. A comprehensive and integrated approach to organizational change management encompasses three pillars: people, process and technology. By successfully aligning these elements, organizations can effectively manage and deliver change.

What is organizational change?

Organizational change is an ongoing process in order to bring the organizational systems and processes in line with the factors prevailing in the external and internal environment of the organization. The forces of organizational change include internal and external forces. Typically, the concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations (e.g., restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc.), new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical reorientation in the way the organization operates.

Importance of organizational change.

An organization operates in an environment of constant change. In order to survive, it is imperative for the organization to anticipate any change in the environment and proactively work towards eliminating the effect of the same .It is therefore important to have a change in the organization. In addition, such change should be successful and must contribute towards the success of the organization.

To really understand organizational change and begin guiding successful change efforts, the change agent should have at least a broad understanding of the context of the change effort. This includes understanding the basic systems and structures in organizations, including their typical terms and roles. This requirement applies to the understanding of leadership and management of the organizations, as well. Organizational change should not be conducted for the sake of change. Organizational change efforts should be geared to improve the performance of organizations and the people in those organizations. Therefore, it's useful to have some understanding of what is meant by "performance" and the various methods to manage performance in organizations.

How organizational change occurs?

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

Causes of Organizational Structure.

In just a few months, the technology that an organization uses on an everyday basis may be outdated and replaced. That means an organization needs to be responsive to advances in the technological environment; its employees' work skills must evolve as technology evolves. Organizations that refuse to adapt are likely to be the ones that won't be around in a few short years. If an organization wants to survive and prosper, its managers must continually innovate and adapt to new situations.

Every organization goes through periods of transformation that can cause stress and uncertainty. To be successful, organizations must embrace many types of change. Businesses must develop improved production technologies, create new products desired in the marketplace, implement new administrative systems, and upgrade employees' skills. Organizations that adapt successfully are both profitable and admired.

Managers must contend with all factors that affect their organizations. The following lists internal and external environmental factors that can encourage organizational changes:

Generally:

• The external environment is affected by political, social, technological, and economic stimuli outside of the organization that cause changes.
• The internal environment is affected by the organization's management policies and styles, systems, and procedures, as well as employee attitudes.

Specifically:

Change in Government: Employees that work for government departments can find existing initiatives get discontinued when a change in government takes place. The subsequent refocus of priorities that takes place as a result of the new governments mandate can create redundancies or a radical change in the way the department conducts its affairs.
Mergers and Acquisitions: When two competitors merge the existing business operations of both companies get centralized and streamlined. This can result in the merging of departments and processes, cost cutting and a redeployment of existing resources. Mergers and acquisitions are one of the most frequent causes of organizational change.
Strategic Refocus: When the company changes its business processes to adopt a new paradigm organizational change ensues. Consider the plight of a company that shifts its focus form a product centric to a customer centric platform. New manufacturing specifications, new marketing and a change in logistical operations create a change reaction for change throughout the organization.
Structural Change: When new administrative processes get introduced, organizational change results. Consider the ramifications of centralizing an archiving process using computer technology. Old redundant processes get replaced by new software and hardware and staff members are required to retrain to operate the new systems.
Process Oriented: When a company redefines its manufacturing operations by changing its manufacturing process to a JIT operation, infrastructure, warehousing and logistical operations are required to be redesigned and deployed. This structural shift in the way a product is created has a domino effect on organizational change.
Typically, the concept of organizational change is used to describe organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, and so on. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations (for example, restructuring to self-managed teams or due to layoffs), new technologies, mergers, or new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, and so on.
Managers should note that all changes should be implemented as part of a strategy to accomplish an overall goal; these transformations should not take place just for the sake of change.
There are four ranges in organizational change, these are the following:

Automation

Automation is the least risky IT-change by which the organization purchases technology in order to make the life of its employees easier and their job more effective. A relevant example in the operations of a hotel might be the creation of the setting up of a computer network and purchase of workstations.

Is the use of control systems (such as numerical control, programmable logic control, and other industrial control systems), in concert with other applications of information technology (such as computer-aided technologies [CAD, CAM, CAx]), to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention.[1] In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated.

Automation plays an increasingly important role in the global economy and in daily experience. Engineers strive to combine automated devices with mathematical and organizational tools to create complex systems for a rapidly expanding range of applications and human activities.Many roles for humans in industrial processes presently lie beyond the scope of automation. Human-level pattern recognition, language recognition, and language production ability are well beyond the capabilities of modern mechanical and computer systems. Tasks requiring subjective assessment or synthesis of complex sensory data, such as scents and sounds, as well as high-level tasks such as strategic planning, currently require human expertise. In many cases, the use of humans is more cost-effective than mechanical approaches even where automation of industrial tasks is possible.
Specialized hardened computers, referred to as programmable logic controllers (PLCs), are frequently used to synchronize the flow of inputs from (physical) sensors and events with the flow of outputs to actuators and events. This leads to precisely controlled actions that permit a tight control of almost any industrial process. Human-machine interfaces (HMI) or computer human interfaces (CHI), formerly known as man-machine interfaces, are usually employed to communicate with PLCs and other computers, such as entering and monitoring temperatures or pressures for further automated control or emergency response. Service personnel who monitor and control these interfaces are often referred to as stationary engineers.

Rationalization of Procedures


Rationalization is the second stage of organizational change where the organization uses information technology to streamline a standard operating procedure. A database that holds information of available rooms is an example of this stage.

Refers to streamlining of standard operating procedures, eliminating obvious bottlenecks, so that automation makes operating procedures more efficient. improves efficiency and effectiveness. This range of organizational structure causes the organization to examine its standard operating procedures, eliminate those no longer needed, and make the organization more efficient. Both types of change cause some disruption, but it's usually manageable and relatively accepted by the people.

Business Reengineering

Business process reengineering is a more complicated and risky type of organizational change. Using the information technology the organization redesigns whole business processes in order to reduce waste and increase efficiency.

Radical redesign of processes to improve cost, quality, service; maximize benefits of technology.
BR on the other hand, can cause radical disruption. The mere mention of the term nowadays strikes fear in the hearts of workers and managers at all levels. Why? Because many companies use it as a guise for downsizing the organization and laying off workers. Business process reengineering causes planners to completely rethink the flow of work, how the work will be accomplished, and how costs can be reduced by eliminating unnecessary work and workers. In order to make BPR successful, you must first redesign the process, then apply computing power to the new processes. If problems existed in the process before the new system was installed and those problems aren't resolved, the new system could actually make them worse. Very few processes in business are as efficient as they can possibly be. It's a fact of life. The idea behind successful BPR is to find improvements or even new opportunities. For instance, Federal Express and UPS both have online package tracking systems. That simple process was never economically feasible before the Internet. They had to reengineer their business processes to incorporate this new paradigm shift.

1. Aims at
2. eliminating repetitive, paper-intensive, bureaucratic tasks
3. reducing costs significantly
4. improving product/service quality

Paradigm Shift

Paradigm shift is actually changing the very nature of the business and the structure of the organization itself. We're talking whole new products or services that didn't even exist before. We're talking major disruption and extreme change.
The success of any organizational change effort can be summed into an equation:

Success = Measurement X Method X Control X Focused Persistence X Consensus
Like any equation with multiplication, a high value of one variable can compensate for lower levels on other variables. Also like any equation with multiplication, if one variable equals 0, the result is zero.

Below is the graph showing the spectrum of organizational change:



As you can see in the graph above paradigm shift is the riskiest and most radical type of organizational change. It involves rethinking and changing business models or even the nature of the organization. Example: information system that combines information about the suppliers, customers and employees of the hotel.

There are many approaches to guiding change -- some planned, structured and explicit, while others are more organic, unfolding and implicit. Some approaches work from the future to the present, for example, involving visioning and then action planning about how to achieve that vision. Other approaches work from the present to the future, for example, identifying current priorities (issues and/or goals) and then action planning about to address those priorities (the action research approach is one example). Different people often have very different -- and strong -- opinions about how change should be conducted. Thus, it is likely that some will disagree with some of the content in this topic. That's what makes this topic so diverse, robust and vital for us all.

• Organizational Change Management Solutions include:

Change Implementations
o Change-related benefits rationalization
o Staffing assessments and role redesign
o Redesign roles to align with new processes and technology
o Cost analysis and staffing evaluations to support organizational redesign
o Change readiness and resistance management
• Communications - Internal & External
• Training - Strategy and Delivery
• Policy and procedure creation
• Process Excellence
o Process reengineering
o Process standardization and improvements in process capability
o Governance design and implementation
o Improve controls effectiveness
o Maximize adoption in operational state
• Lean / Six Sigma Practices
• Program / Project Management


References:

http://www.nouveon.com/organizational-change-management.html
http://www.santarosa.edu/~ssarkar/cs66fl06/ch14notes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
http://www.answers.com/topic/organizational-structure
http://www.organizedchange.com/decide.htm
http://www.organizational-change-management.com/causes-of-organizational-change.php
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm









Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shiela Marie P. Nara

avatar

Posts : 62
Points : 63
Join date : 2009-06-22
Location : Davao City

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:02 am

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?

(You are expected to read an article about this question.)


Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development” – to obtain the entire
When a topic (for example, organizational change and development) becomes very prominent, it often takes on many different interpretations and meanings. The advantage is that that topic becomes very accessible, interesting and enlightening to many. The disadvantage is that it's also increasingly vague and difficult for many to make practical. To make this topic of organizational change and development useful, we should reference some common definitions.

Even if not all people agree with the definitions, we at least have some definitions in common to disagree about -- that alone can enhance the communications about the topic. Having some understanding and discernment about the following phrases will help readers to benefit even more from literature about organizational change.


Organizational performance management
We're used to thinking of ongoing performance management for employees, for example, setting goals, monitoring the employee's achievement of those goals, sharing feedback with the employee, evaluating the employee's performance, rewarding performance or firing the employee. Performance management applies to organizations, too, and includes recurring activities to establish organizational goals, monitor progress toward the goals, and make adjustments to achieve those goals more effectively and efficiently.
Note that, in contrast to organizational change projects, organizational performance management activities are recurring in nature. Those recurring activities are much of what leaders and managers inherently do in their organizations -- some do them far better than others. An organizational change project is not likely to be successful if it is not within the context of the recurring activities of organizational performance management.

Organizational change


This phrase refers to the overall nature of activities, for example, their extent and rate, that occurs during a project that aims to enhance the overall performance of the organization. The activities are often led by a change agent, or person currently responsible to guide the overall change effort. The activities are often project-oriented (a one-time project) and geared to address a current overall problem or goal in the organization. (A relatively new phrase, capacity building, refers to these types of activities, as well.)
Why Is It Critical for Leaders and Managers to Be Successful at Organizational Change? Because It's Their Job

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.


Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change -- it's inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective. There are many schools with educational programs about organizations, business, leadership and management. Unfortunately, there still are not enough schools with programs about how to analyze organizations, identify critically important priorities to address (such as systemic problems or exciting visions for change) and then undertake successful and significant change to address those priorities. This Library topic aims to improve that situation.

WHAT IS A PARADIGM SHIFT?

n 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" (p.10). Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".

Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change.

For example, agriculture changed early primitive society. The primitive Indians existed for centuries roaming the earth constantly hunting and gathering for seasonal foods and water. However, by 2000 B.C., Middle America was a landscape of very small villages, each surrounded by patchy fields of corn and other vegetables.

Agents of change helped create a paradigm-shift moving scientific theory from the Plolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) to the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe), and moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both movements eventually changed the world view. These transformations were gradual as old beliefs were replaced by the new paradigms creating "a new gestalt" (p. 112).

Likewise, the printing press, the making of books and the use of vernacular language inevitable changed the culture of a people and had a direct affect on the scientific revolution. Johann Gutenberg's invention in the 1440's of movable type was an agent of change. Books became readily available, smaller and easier to handle and cheap to purchase. Masses of people acquired direct access to the scriputures. Attitudes began to change as people were relieved from church domination.

Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments, and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant.

In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn states that "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcend


Tapping out the Potential of IT


It is an amazing fact that most of the industries that relate to us in our daily life such as airline industry, automobiles, railways, manufacturing etc. generally exhibit high quality products, timeliness of service delivery, reasonable cost of service and low failure rates. The construction industry, on the other hand, is generally the opposite. Most projects exhibit cost overruns, time extensions, and conflicts among parties. According to a survey conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry in UK;

50% of all construction projects finish over budget
54% of all construction projects finish behind schedule
24% of construction projects are completed unsatisfactorily, 48% of those having a significant negative impact on business operations
. It has become painfully obvious over the past few years that many other industries have outpaced the construction industry when it comes to adopting technology based tools.



Another study of a research advisory firm, reports that companies across all industries spend an average of 2.54% of revenues on IT & technology. The same research shows that the construction industry, far behind most other industries, spends only 0.34%.


Firstly, by IT or Information Technology we mean a combination of computer hardware and software that is used in order to process data in some way to generate information that we use to do our job.
We all know construction project management attempts to achieve project mission objectives within specific constraints. It needs information to make decisions. Managers do not need loads of input data generated in the control process. It is the information extracted from the data that helps managers performing their functions efficiently and effectively. The worlds richest man Bill Gates, put it, “How you gather, manage, and use information will determine whether you win or loose.”

Spectrum Of IT
IT can promote various degrees of organizational change ranging from incremental to far-reaching. Three kinds of structural organizational change that are enabled by IT:



(1) Automation,
(2) Rationalization,

(3) Reengineering.


Each carries different rewards and risks.
The most common form of IT-enabled organizational change or the first phase of IT adoption is automation. This has allowed employees to automate a number of time-consuming and error-prone activities and gain benefits in cycle-time, productivity, and accuracy. For example, a main contractor makes use of standalone software to keep track all Request For Information (RFI) in a project.

A deeper form of organization change or the second phase of IT adoption is rationalization of procedures. Automation frequently reveals bottlenecks in production and makes the existing arrangement of procedures and structures painfully cumbersome. Rationalization of procedures involves the streamlining of standard operating procedures, which eliminates obvious bottlenecks, so that operating procedures become more efficient. Roughly speaking, it is a process of fine tuning the first step. For example, the main contractor implements an intranet and standardizes the data in RFI across all projects in the enterprise.



A more powerful type of organizational change or the third phase of IT adoption is business process reengineering, in which business processes are analyzed, simplified, and redesigned. Reengineering involves radically rethinking the flow of work and the construction business processes with the intention to radically reducing the costs of businesses. Using IT, organizations can rethink and streamline their business processes to improve speed, service, and quality. Business process reengineering reorganizes workflows, combining steps to cut waste and eliminating repetitive, paper-intensive tasks. It is much more ambitious than rationalization of procedures because it requires a new vision of how the process is to be organized. For example, the main contractor sets up an extranet to online collaborate with the architect for the RFI process.


Not many construction industry players have moved beyond the first phase of automation. However, there are some companies have committed to a continuing investment in technological advancement and organizational change. By changing how they are organized and do business, they have achieved far greater benefits than available through automation alone. Companies like this have succeeded in staying ahead of their competitors not merely by automating but by changing their organization as well. Their strategic advantage has been their preparedness and ability to continually innovative, and to manage the change necessary to gain substantial business benefits.

Industry Trends

The knowledge and information revolution began at the turn of the twentieth century and has gradually accelerated. In a knowledge and information based economy, knowledge and information are key ingredients in creating wealth. Never before have owners and directors of smaller construction, building & civil engineering companies felt so much pressure to do more with less. To ensure that the development meets the budget and remains profitable, developers must monitor tightly the project throughout the lifecycle. The imperative pressure from the top hierarchy to build cheaper, faster and better will force the whole project team for seeking enduring improvement in construction project management, and this demands a lot of data processing. The following simple example will tell you the importance of information in a work like earth work excavation. This illustration of a breakeven analysis would be to compare two methods of road construction for a road that involves a limited amount of cut-and-fill earthwork. A breakeven analysis determines the point at which one method becomes superior to another method of accomplishing some task or objective. Breakeven analysis is a common and important part of cost control.


It would be possible to do the earthwork by hand or by bulldozer. If the manual method were adopted, the fixed costs would be low or non-existent. Payment would be done on a daily basis and would call for direct supervision by a foreman. The cost would be calculated by estimating the time required and multiplying this time by the average wages of the men employed. The men could also be paid on a piece-work basis. Alternatively, this work could be done by a bulldozer which would have to be moved in from another site. Let us assume that the cost of the hand labor would be $0.60 per cubic meter and the bulldozer would cost $0.40 per cubic meter and would require $100 to move in from another site. The move-in cost for the bulldozer is a fixed cost, and is independent of the quantity of the earthwork handled. If the bulldozer is used, no economy will result unless the amount of earthwork is sufficient to carry the fixed cost plus the direct cost of the bulldozer operation.

Relationship existing between volume of production and costs can be expressed by the following equations:


Total cost = fixed cost + variable cost × output
In symbols using the first letters of the cost elements and N for the output or number of units of production, these simple formulas are
C = F + NV
UC = F/N + V
if, on a set of coordinates, cost in dollars is plotted on the vertical axis and units of production on the horizontal axis, we can indicate fixed cost for any process by a horizontal line parallel to the x-axis. If variable cost per unit output is constant, then the total cost for any number of units of production will be the sum of the fixed cost and the variable cost multiplied by the number of units of production, or F + NV. If the cost data for two processes or methods, one of which has a higher variable cost, but lower fixed cost than the other are plotted on the same graph, the total cost lines will intersect at some point. At this point the levels of production and total cost are the same. This point is known as the "breakeven" point, since at this level one method is as economical as the other. Referring to Figure 1.1 the breakeven point at which quantity the bulldozer alternative and the manual labor alternative become equal is at 500 cubic meters. We could have found this same result algebraically by writing F + NV = F' + NV' where F and V are the fixed and variable costs for the manual method, and F' and V' are the corresponding values for the bulldozer method. Since all values are known except N, we can solve for N using the formula N = (F' - F) / (V - V')

IT & Technological Push

The advent of various new technologies like the Internet and wireless network with the potential to address some of the limitations facing current construction project management practices has created a major impact on the industry. The role that IT & technology plays in the construction industry has gradually been changing the way companies conduct everyday business. What used to be a paper-and-pen world is starting to become a monitor-and-keyboard world in the immediate future.


Some technologies and advancements pushing the external project management & collaboration adoption change include:

Application software packages meeting the specific construction industry needs including project management, scheduling, document management, estimating, job costing, accounting, field administration etc;


Web based technologies enabling for the sharing and transmitting of information, including drawings, photos, voice, print and computer data. The Internet merges perfectly the time honoured adage that a picture is worth a thousand words, with the contract-mandated assertion that time is of the essence, to produce an on-line, visual construction management system.
Wireless technologies, including 3G, Satellite Broadband, WiFi, WAP, that enable the transfer of information to remote sites without the requirement for, or restrictions of, hard infrastructure such as cabling or wires and that are accessible via mobile phones and other hand held devices.

Interoperability, or seamless information exchange via integrated technologies and based on object modeling, allowing participants in the process to access and value add to the information in a form suitable for their needs. This allows all disciplines and project partners to share information thus avoiding duplicating effort and encouraging shared working processes.



Conclusion


Construction and Building company owners and directors are discovering that IT and technology in construction project management is becoming key to successful construction projects. The challenge they face is persuading other project team members to embrace the technology. The resistance to change, no matter how actively or passively, at the micro or macro levels of the industry, contributes to the major impediment of IT and technology take up in the construction industry. The simple, central argument presented here is that electronic project management & collaboration systems implementation is political as well as, sometimes far more so than, technical in nature. When that is understood and accepted, politics are then the process of getting commitment, or building support, or creating momentum for change.
In today’s world, people are talking about the ‘Real Time Enterprise”. Increasingly decisions need to be made quickly. It could be a few hours or even a day, but in today’s increasingly competitive environment it couldn’t be longer. Without the right information that is shared by everyone collaboratively, at the right time, you become a real-time enterprise - in the sense of making the decision making process swift - is not going to be able to compete let alone survive.

Depending on the investment time horizon, the specific challenges and tools available may change, but the overall direction is unmistakable. The construction industry is about to experience a profound change: leaner organisations, more consistent and rigorous performance metrics, and relentless productivity improvements. The net result of these changes should also be increased profitability for those who are successful at mastering the new IT & technology tools with the promise to enable these changes.


References:
http://www.softlogic.org/blog/
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm

My blog: http://shielamariepnara.blogspot.com/2009/12/mis-25-org-change.html
Back to top Go down
View user profile
kate karen rasonable

avatar

Posts : 36
Points : 44
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 30
Location : Davao City, Philippines

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:14 pm

“In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts? (you are expected to read an article about this question) .. At least 3000 words.”

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change -- it's inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective. There are many schools with educational programs about organizations, business, leadership and management. Unfortunately, there still are not enough schools with programs about how to analyze organizations, identify critically important priorities to address (such as systemic problems or exciting visions for change) and then undertake successful and significant change to address those priorities.

Change is disruptive. Change is dangerous. Change is good. Change is necessary. Change is constant.

The Spectrum of Organizational Change

This figure shows the four degrees of organizational change.
Source: Laudon & Laudon, Management Information Systems, 1996, p. 407

Let me first discuss each type of the IT-enabled Organizational Changes. First is the Automation. Based on Wikipedia definition; it is the of control systems such as computers to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention. In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the physical requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Automation is an organization change that can also be described as using IT to speed up the performance of existing tasks. The activities in these organizational change involves calculating paychecks & payroll registers, giving bank tellers instant access to customer deposit records and developing a nationwide network of airline reservation terminals for airline reservation agents.

Referring to the above illustration that shows the four degrees of organizational change, automation is the easiest (except for those people losing their jobs), and the most common form of change. But that doesn't mean you don't have to plan for the change first. In the change of business environment of yesterday, the automation focuses on the growth, control and cost which compared today, business environment are more focused on new innovations, the flexibility, service, quality and time.
The next IT-enabled organizational change is the rationalization of procedures. Rationalization of procedures is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which unacceptable behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner; this avoids the true explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.

Referring again to the above illustration, the rationalization of procedures causes the organization to examine its standard operating procedures, eliminate those no longer needed, and make the organization more efficient.

Both the automation and rationalization of procedures causes some disruption, but it's usually manageable and relatively accepted by the people.

Another IT-enabled organizational change is the rationalization is the Business process reengineering. Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.

Business process reengineering, on the other hand, can cause radical disruption as described in the illustration above. The mere mention of the term nowadays strikes fear in the hearts of workers and managers at all levels. Why? Because many companies use it as a guise for downsizing the organization and laying off workers. Business process reengineering causes planners to completely rethink the flow of work, how the work will be accomplished, and how costs can be reduced by eliminating unnecessary work and workers.

The last IT-enabled organizational change is the Paradigm Shift. A Paradigm Shift is when a significant change happens usually from one fundamental view to a different view. In most cases, some type of major discontinuity occurs as well. It could have dramatic effects whether positive or negative. But if we’re gonna talk about the
most radical type of change among the four changes given above, I think it is the PARADIGM SHIFTS. It’s like talking about changing the very nature of the business and the structure of the organization itself. We're talking whole new products or services that didn't even exist before. We're talking major disruption and extreme change.

The best example of a paradigm shift is looking at us as a student. Higher education is undergoing a major paradigm shift in the online delivery of education. Classes are now offered through the Internet so that students don't even go to classrooms. Many tried-and-true teaching methodologies are being radically altered to accommodate this shift in how education is offered.

The Internet is causing all kinds of industries and businesses to alter their products, their services, and their processes in radical ways. Entire organizations are being created to handle the paradigm shifts involved in e-commerce. Let’s take the automobile industry as an example of this type of change: Traditional dealerships are being disrupted by auto malls and online buying opportunities. How can a local dealer compete on price with these two environmental challenges? What is the dealers' role in the revolutionary changes taking place all around them?

If business process reengineering and paradigm shifting are so disruptive and so dangerous, why even try to do them? Because companies realize they have to take on the challenges in order to stay competitive. They have had to cut costs and streamline their operations because of global economic pressures, in addition to meeting the demands of their shareholders. And done well, the rewards can be tremendous.

ARTICLES:

Organizational Change and Development, by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Copyright 1997-2009.

http://www.santarosa.edu/~ssarkar/cs66fl06/ch14notes.htm
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://spookywoolybully.blogspot.com
neil rey c. niere

avatar

Posts : 55
Points : 58
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:21 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts? (you are expected to read an article about this question) .. at least 3000 words


Organizations can't change without people changing first. It is the collective action of individual change that emerges as organizational change. One approach to understanding how individuals change is the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), which is also known as Stages of Change (SOC). Change cannot be commanded, yet it is possible to influence individual change. Selecting and implementing significant change is one of the most challenging undertakings that face an organization. If the change involves the entire organization and also requires new paradigms that will replace established ways of doing business the challenge is daunting.


Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change -- it's inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective. There are many schools with educational programs about organizations, business, leadership and management. Unfortunately, there still are not enough schools with programs about how to analyze organizations, identify critically important priorities to address (such as systemic problems or exciting visions for change) and then undertake successful and significant change to address those priorities. This Library topic aims to improve that situation.

A typical planned, systemic (and systematic) organizational development process often follows an overall action research approach (as described below). There are many variations of the action research approach, including by combining its various phases and/or splitting some into more phases. This section provides resources that are organized into one variation of the action research approach. Note that the more collaborative you are in working with members of the organization during the following process, the more likely the success of your overall change effort.



Organizations can't change without people changing first. It is the collective action of individual change that emerges as organizational change. One approach to understanding how individuals change is the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), which is also known as Stages of Change (SOC). Change cannot be commanded, yet it is possible to influence individual change.



The elements that comprise an organization are shown in the four quadrants: structure, work processes, people and tools. These are four key interdependent components.
• Structure is the traditional view of an organization. It is the "faces and spaces" diagram that is shown as an organization chart. It defines the boundaries of authority and decision-making and identifies the key personnel responsible for the business.
• Work processes describe how work gets done in an organization. They range from a few high-level cross-functional integrated core processes that drive the business down to detailed departmental processes and procedures.
• People identifies the skill sets needed for the company and the numbers of people with various skills. The essence of this category is about getting the right people doing the right job in the right place.
• Tools represents physical facilities and capital equipment - hardware and software systems, management and reporting systems, written documents such as policies, procedures and manuals, and compensation tools.
An organization undergoing major change should examine all of these quadrants and assess their alignment to its vision, its customers and each other. This will enable senior management to identify the leverage points that will create sustainable breakthrough change.
Change in complex organizations requires management of the interplay of emotions and cognitive processes. Managers, on the whole, lack the knowledge and background to deal with imminent and forced organizational changes. The modern, dynamic business environment requires large numbers of changes to be made during any given year, from an ever-widening range of change choices. Without training in this area, managers often resist change or avoid organizational transformation effort. When faced with the need to change, resistive actions on the part of the organization’s leaders can precipitate a process that results in rapid deterioration of the organization. Sound knowledge of organizational change processes, on the other hand, allows leaders to view change as an opportunity that can be guided and managed for greater gains.



Automated:

Automated change gets no mention, yet in this era of Web Services, grid computing and so on, ITIL needs to be ready for dynamically self-healing and self-reconfiguring systems. The only human intervention will be after-the-fact approval so someone knows what happened. Automation is the use of control systems (such as numerical control, programmable logic control, and other industrial control systems), in concert with other applications of information technology (such as computer-aided technologies [CAD, CAM, CAx]), to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention. In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated.
Automation plays an increasingly important role in the global economy and in daily experience. Engineers strive to combine automated devices with mathematical and organizational tools to create complex systems for a rapidly expanding range of applications and human activities.
Many roles for humans in industrial processes presently lie beyond the scope of automation. Human-level pattern recognition, language recognition, and language production ability are well beyond the capabilities of modern mechanical and computer systems. Tasks requiring subjective assessment or synthesis of complex sensory data, such as scents and sounds, as well as high-level tasks such as strategic planning, currently require human expertise. In many cases, the use of humans is more cost-effective than mechanical approaches even where automation of industrial tasks is possible.
Specialized hardened computers, referred to as programmable logic controllers (PLCs), are frequently used to synchronize the flow of inputs from (physical) sensors and events with the flow of outputs to actuators and events. This leads to precisely controlled actions that permit a tight control of almost any industrial process.
Human-machine interfaces (HMI) or computer human interfaces (CHI), formerly known as man-machine interfaces, are usually employed to communicate with PLCs and other computers, such as entering and monitoring temperatures or pressures for further automated control or emergency response. Service personnel who monitor and control these interfaces are often referred to as stationary engineers.
Automation has had a notable impact in a wide range of highly visible industries beyond manufacturing. Once-ubiquitous telephone operators have been replaced largely by automated telephone switchboards and answering machines. Medical processes such as primary screening in electrocardiography or radiography and laboratory analysis of human genes, sera, cells, and tissues are carried out at much greater speed and accuracy by automated systems. Automated teller machines have reduced the need for bank visits to obtain cash and carry out transactions. In general, automation has been responsible for the shift in the world economy from agrarian to industrial in the 19th century and from industrial to services in the 20th century.

Rationalization of procedures

What is the Rationalization Program?
• The Rationalization Program is a move to transform the Executive Branch into a more effective and efficient government.
• It aims to:
• focus government efforts on its vital functions and channel government resources to these core public services; and
• improve the efficiency of government services, within affordable levels, and in the most accountable manner
Why do we need to rationalize government operations?
• to keep pace with changing demands and technologies;
• what may have been a relevant undertaking for the government a number of years ago may no longer be necessary at the present time;
• since EO 192, laws that broaden mandate of the agency have been issued;
• priority areas in DENR operations have changed in view of emerging ENR concerns
What are the benefits of this program?
• Strengthened vital government functions;
• More resources to fund priority programs and projects of the government;
• Improved and faster service delivery;
• More satisfied clients of government services;
• Increased morale among government employees.

Business reengineering:


Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.
Business process reengineering (BPR) began as a private sector technique to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. A key stimulus for reengineering has been the continuing development and deployment of sophisticated information systems and networks. Leading organizations are becoming bolder in using this technology to support innovative business processes, rather than refining current ways of doing work.
Reengineering recognizes that an organization's business processes are usually fragmented into subprocesses and tasks that are carried out by several specialized functional areas within the organization. Often, no one is responsible for the overall performance of the entire process. Reengineering maintains that optimizing the performance of subprocesses can result in some benefits, but cannot yield dramatic improvements if the process itself is fundamentally inefficient and outmoded. For that reason, reengineering focuses on redesigning the process as a whole in order to achieve the greatest possible benefits to the organization and their customers. This drive for realizing dramatic improvements by fundamentally rethinking how the organization's work should be done distinguishes reengineering from process improvement efforts that focus on functional or incremental improvement.

Where is BPR Headed?
Based upon a theoretical analysis and survey of literature relevant to reengineering, Kettinger & Grover (1995) outline some propositions to guide future inquiry into the phenomenon of BPR. Their propositions center around the concepts of knowledge management, employee empowerment, adoption of new IT's, and a shared vision. Earl et al. (1995) have proposed a "process alignment model" that comprises four lenses of enquiry: process, strategy, MIS (Management Information Systems, and change management and control, and used it for developing an inductive taxonomy of BPR strategies. Malhotra (1996) has developed the key emphasis on these issues based primarily on an integrative synthesis of the recent literature from organization theory, organization control, strategy, and MIS.


Paradigm shifts:

The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th-century theory of poetics, for instance.
In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn states that "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands.
Paradigm shifts occur from time to time in business as well as in science. And as with scientific revolutions, they are often hard fought, and the ideas underlying them not widely accepted until long after they were first introduced. What's more, they often have implications that go far beyond the insights of their creators.
One such paradigm shift occurred with the introduction of the standardized architecture of the IBM personal computer in 1981. In a huge departure from previous industry practice, IBM chose to build its computer from off the shelf components, and to open up its design for cloning by other manufacturers. As a result, the IBM personal computer architecture became the standard, over time displacing not only other personal computer designs, but over the next two decades, minicomputers and mainframes.

There are many approaches to guiding change -- some planned, structured and explicit, while others are more organic, unfolding and implicit. Some approaches work from the future to the present, for example, involving visioning and then action planning about how to achieve that vision. Other approaches work from the present to the future, for example, identifying current priorities (issues and/or goals) and then action planning about to address those priorities (the action research approach is one example). Different people often have very different -- and strong -- opinions about how change should be conducted. Thus, it is likely that some will disagree with some of the content in this topic. That's what makes this topic so diverse, robust and vital for us all.

Research shows that the success rate for implementing major organizational change is quite low, for several reasons. First, asking organizations to change the way they conduct their business is similar to asking individuals to change their lifestyle. It can be done but only with the greatest determination, discipline, persistence, commitment and a clear plan for implementing the change.
Second, resistance to change is a natural human phenomenon. All people resist change, some more than others. Managing that resistance is an essential part of the process.
Third, change creates uncertainty. Organizations generally achieve fairly predictable results with their existing business model. Their outcomes may not be the desired results, but they are predictable. Change is unpredictable. The results may be far better – but they may also be far worse. And success often looks and feels like failure until the change is very nearly completed. Staying the course of implementing a change – which is essential for its success – meets with continuing human and organizational resistance and pressure to pull the plug before the process is completed.

References:
http://www.managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm
http://www.worksystems.com/services/organizational_change.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
http://www.kmbook.com/bpr.htm
http://tim.oreilly.com/articles/paradigmshift_0504.html


My blog:

http://neilreyniere.blogspot.com/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
rosemie nunez

avatar

Posts : 47
Points : 49
Join date : 2009-06-22
Age : 29
Location : Davao City

PostSubject: In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?   Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:13 am

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?

• Business Process Reengineering

1. According to Wikipedia; it is an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations.
2. It is one approach for redesigning the way work is done to better support the organization’s mission and reduce cost.
3. It starts with a high level assessment of the organization’s mission, strategic goals and customer needs.
an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.
When a business is in the midst of increasing their productivity, it faces different kinds of organizational change. There are lots of ways in order for a business to make it more efficient and to improve operational flexibility. In the spectrum of organizational change, the most essential type of change is paradigm shift which is the radical conceptualization of the nature of the business process and the organization.

• Automation
Based on Wikipedia definition; it is the of control systems such as computers to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention. In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the physical requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well.
Rationalization of procedures is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which unacceptable behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner; this avoids the true explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.

• Paradigm Shift
1. It is also referred to as scientific revolution.
2. It is a change from one way of thinking to another. It’s a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change.
3. Thomas Kuhn said “the successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual development pattern of mature science”.

Paradigms are central to human culture. They are learned, taught, passed on and often serve to define membership in a culture or subculture. "The passing of paradigms within a society is, in effect the process of acculturation and socialization. Paradigms influence how we govern ourselves, how our public institutions are configured and operate, our economic systems and institutions, the structures of our organizations, and how we manage people and other resources. Imagine the whole system of thought being change. In business, this means a lot of changes on their current paradigm.


Base on the above definitions, I could say that the most radical type of change is the paradigm shift because this kind of change greatly changes a certain status to another status. Let say in an organization, a paradigm shift is a total renovation or change of the whole organization.

Change is constant. Many have changed for the better but others are for worse. Others choose to be adaptive than to be predictive because they have this thought that not all things can be predicted. And it is all because life is a constant change. But for me, I am not really into adaptive side; I choose to be predictive rather. Change makes me nervous at times and I am not that person who can easily adapt but not quite long which is I know wrong but still I am working on it.

The lowest in both risk and reward is automation, which entails that even though there is lesser risk in this type of change, the rewards that you get are also directly proportional to the risk and therefore are also small. However, if we look at the very top of the spectrum, we can find paradigm shift, which has both high risks and high rewards. From this and from the definition of radical alone, I can deduce that paradigm shift is the most radical organizational change. Why? First of all, paradigm shift involves rethinking the whole nature of the business, a complete re-conception of how the system should function. In other words, it offers companies a whole new perspective about their business processes and allows them to rework everything from top to bottom. It brings about a "radical" change in the organization's way of thinking and replaces the old way of thinking with a newer, more insightful idea.
Even though it takes a larger risk than the other type of change it has become the most widely applied organizational change to many other organizations for it changes the overall business process thus making a better impact if it is a success. Although business reengineering is also one radical type of change because this approach deals also in redesigning the way work is done in order to better support the organization’s mission and to reduce cost which has the objective of radical improvement in performance and not just incremental improvement, the term paradigm shift is still the most radical type for this kind of approach has found uses in other situation, representing the concept of a major change in a certain thought-pattern.

If this kind of organizational change will be properly implemented and is put into better application by the people in the organization it can create a big radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems, replacing the former way of organizing with a radically different way of thinking. Through this change, it makes an influential technique and a start of something new to improve profits and business operations. Because when we have the focus on making efficient business with the most profitable segment we can make it grow unpredictably fast simply by making a general change in the organization and the best and most radical type of change is paradigm shift.

All types of change could give an organization a disruption but in two most common types – the automation and rationalization of procedures, usually, it can be managed. For the rest, especially the highly disruptive, most dangerous and most radical type of change which is paradigm shifting, it needs a lot of care and should be done well. And if done well, it can give tremendous rewards.
The most radical type of change in the spectrum of organizational change is the paradigm shift. Paradigm shift is a total change on organization. Unlike on the business reengineering that changes a portion of the organization to improve the cost, quality and service. A paradigm shift involves rethinking the nature of the business, the organization. It is a complete reconception of how the system should function. Using this method will take high risks and give a high or great reward for the organization if it is a success. When if it is a failure it would results the organization will go down or bankruptcy or worst the organization will be closed.
The spectrum of organizational change is composed of four parts, arranged from lowest to highest in terms of both risks and rewards: automation, rationalization of procedures, business re-engineering, and paradigm shift. Meanwhile, the term radical is synonymous with essential, major, thorough, sweeping, and drastic. So when we say radical organizational change, we are referring to a type of organizational change that will bring about largely significant and drastic changes.
Radical means departing markedly from the usual or customary and it also means extreme while paradigm shift means a new perspective on things. It is sometimes known as extraordinary science or revolutionary science (Thomas Khun). A paradigm shift is a radical change of pace in our paradigms, a fundamental change in our unconscious view of reality. It is a transformation of the way humans perceive events, people, environment, and life altogether. It can be a national or international shift, and could have dramatic effects, whether positive or negative, on the way we live our lives today and in the future.

among the four types of organizational change, the most radical type is paradigm shifts. The most common is automation and also the easiest. Automation and rationalization of procedures are slow moving and slow changing strategies. These two types of change carry low rewards but offer little risk. In contrast, business reengineering and paradigm shifts are faster; carry high rewards but offer high chances of failure.
Automation deals with the use of Information Technology (IT) in order to speed up the process of a certain task. Rationalization of procedures is the reformation of operating procedures, removal of bottlenecks to make the operating procedures of the organization more efficient. Business reengineering is the redesigning of the business processes to improve measure of performance while paradigm shifts is the re-conceptualization or change of the nature of the business and the organization itself.
Organizations could have major disruption when it is done. Although we could say that it is very dangerous because it talks about extreme change and taking high risk but still many of the organizations use it and also business reengineering. Why extreme change? As defined above, it is because it deals with changing the very nature of the business, the structure of the organization and it also deals with new products or services. Same as other individuals, organizations use paradigm shifts as their strategy to change in order to stay competitive. I have read from an article that because of the global economic pressure, organizations realized that they have to take on the challenges to meet the demands of their shareholders.

A Paradigm Shift is when a significant change happens usually from one fundamental view to a different view. In most cases, some type of major discontinuity occurs as well. It could have dramatic effects whether positive or negative. Therefore, I think among the organizational changes, the paradigm shift would have greater impact and would be more vital among others. According to Kuhn, paradigm shift is revolutionary science. “Revolutionary science is usually unsuccessful, and only rarely leads to new paradigms. When they are successful they lead to large scale changes in the scientific worldview.” If it would fall short, then it could entirely cause failure to the organization. It could greatly affect an organization since wide changes is being employed in this change. A thorough thought over about implicating this would be considered and required.
Revolutionary measures are of constant in an organization. In implementing developments and improvements, changes should be put through. Perhaps the most asked but least answered question in business today is “What can we do to make our business survive and grow?” The world is rapidly changing into something too hard to easily predict, with a hundred opportunities and pitfalls passing by every moment.

We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed, our knowledge and awareness expands and our state of thinking and ideas is transforming and transcending so as the differences to be made for the expansion and progression of the organization’s state.
Paradigm Shift is a popular, or perhaps, not so popular shift or transformation of the way we Humans perceive events, people, environment, and life altogether. It can be a national or international shift, and could have dramatic effects -- whether positive or negative -- on the way we live our lives today and in the future. I think what makes this different among the four is the fact that it adapts to the changes of the world in reality. The organization will base its ideas and decision on what is important on the current or present time. Unlike the automation that merely uses machines or computers denying the existence of human who is the most critical part of an organization.

Although major risk also awaits in this type of change, its worth the gamble for there also waits major rewards. Anyway, li When a business is in the midst of increasing their productivity, it faces different kinds of organizational change. There are lots of ways in order for a business to make it more efficient and to improve operational flexibility. In the spectrum of organizational change, the most essential type of change is paradigm shift which is the radical conceptualization of the nature of the business process and the organization.
fe is a gamble itself. You just have to play the cards well.

if we compare paradigm shift to business re-engineering, which is the third highest in risk and reward, business re-engineering [and even the other two] focuses only on a particular area of the business organization. While they are coupled with lower risks, the rewards you get are also lower. I think this is a major difference with paradigm shift where you have to be willing to take higher risks in order to attain higher rewards. This alone brings to mind the word drastic, a synonym of radical. It is in fact risky, however, if you can avoid or be prepared for the risks, then you will surely achieve the highest rewards and overcome the highest risks.
Typically, the concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission,restructuring operations (e.g., restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc.), new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical reorientation in the way the organization operates.
Typically there are strong resistances to change. People are afraid of the unknown. Many people think things are already just fine and don't understand the need for change. Many are inherently cynical about change, particularly from reading about the notion of "change" as if it's a mantra. Many doubt there are effective means to accomplish major organizational change. Often there are conflicting goals in the organization, e.g., to increase resources to accomplish the change yet concurrently cut costs to remain viable. Organization-wide change often goes against the very values held dear by members in the organization, that is, the change may go against how members believe things should be done. That's why much of organizational-change literature discusses needed changes in the culture of the organization, including changes in members' values and beliefs and in the way they enact these values and beliefs.
Even though it takes a larger risk than the other type of change it has become the most widely applied organizational change to many other organizations for it changes the overall business process thus making a better impact if it is a success. Although business reengineering is also one radical type of change because this approach deals also in redesigning the way work is done in order to better support the organization’s mission and to reduce cost which has the objective of radical improvement in performance and not just incremental improvement, the term paradigm shift is still the most radical type for this kind of approach has found uses in other situation, representing the concept of a major change in a certain thought-pattern.
Significant organizational change really occurs in a business when it changes its overall strategy for success or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. Although significant organizational change is one of the most difficult strategies to implement, engaging such change is also very rewarding.

If this kind of organizational change will be properly implemented and is put into better application by the people in the organization it can create a big radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems, replacing the former way of organizing with a radically different way of thinking. Through this change, it makes an influential technique and a start of something new to improve profits and business operations. Because when we have the focus on making efficient business with the most profitable segment we can make it grow unpredictably fast simply by making a general change in the organization and the best and most radical type of change is paradigm shift.

Among the four types of change; Automation, Rationalization of procedures, Business process reengineering, and Paradigm Shift, I think it is very evident that paradigm shift is the most important one. It is the best choice among the four. To support this, let us get to know more about paradigm shift. As what I have read, we may think as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. In laymen terms, Paradigm Shift is a popular, or perhaps, not so popular shift or transformation of the way we Humans perceive events, people, environment, and life altogether. It can be a national or international shift, and could have dramatic effects -- whether positive or negative -- on the way we live our lives today and in the future. I think what makes this different among the four is the fact that it adapts to the changes of the world in reality. The organization will base its ideas and decision on what is important on the current or present time. Unlike the automation that merely uses machines or computers denying the existence of human who is the most critical part of an organization.

Although major risk also awaits in this type of change, its worth the gamble for there also waits major rewards. Anyway, life is a gamble itself. You just have to play the cards well
Sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical
http://www.managementhelp.org/mgmnt/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation

visit my blog: http://rosemienunez.blogspot.com
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rosemienp.blogspot.com
Joseph Ethel Valdez

avatar

Posts : 57
Points : 64
Join date : 2009-06-20
Age : 27
Location : Brgy. Villarica,Babak Dist.,IGACOS

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:54 am

Today’s business environment produces change in the workplace more suddenly and frequently than ever before. Mergers, acquisitions, new technology, restructuring and downsizing are all factors that contribute to a growing climate of uncertainty. Jobs, health, even marriages can be placed at risk, jeopardizing productivity and profitability.

People have deep attachments to their organization, work group, and way of working. The ability to adapt to changing work conditions is key for individual and organizational survival. Change will be ever present and learning to manage and lead change includes not only understanding human factors but also skill to manage and lead change effectively.

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change -- it's inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective. There are many schools with educational programs about organizations, business, leadership and management. Unfortunately, there still are not enough schools with programs about how to analyze organizations, identify critically important priorities to address (such as systemic problems or exciting visions for change) and then undertake successful and significant change to address those priorities. This Library topic aims to improve that situation.

The Reaction to Change

During the change process, there are common predictable stressors, but how we react to those stressors will differ for each person since we are all unique individuals. The anxiety and confusion that result from not knowing what lies ahead can create stress. People will utilize basic defences when there is a high degree of uncertainty. In this sate of ambiguity, people can easily resort to distrust, withdrawal and self-protection. People are told that the old ways are no longer working and often this message becomes personalized that they are not valued.

For the employee, the emotional reactions while going through an organizational change can be similar to the stages of grief associated with personal loss. The employee may initially feel shock or denial when the organizational change is announced. Reactions such as “they can’t do this,” this can’t be happening” are common. At this stage, most employees will want to know exactly how this change will affect them, their benefits, their work hours, their family and will not “hear” much other information. At the next stage the employee may feel anger, resentment or sadness in response to the changes. “This isn’t fair,” “why are they doing this to me?” are normal reactions and productivity on the job is usually lower as employees discuss and process the changes among themselves. Tearfulness is common.

The employee experiencing organizational change at a personal level often feels threatened and is fearful. Managers recognizing this can better intervene with employees by acknowledging feelings, letting the employee vent and ask questions, and by being supportive that change is difficult. The Manager who moves straight into why the change is best for everyone and how business is going to be conducted disregards the human nature element - the emotions that are normal and natural for anyone feeling threatened by change to feel. At every step in the process of implementing an organizational change, a good Manager will ask him/herself “How might I react to this information or these changes if I were in the employee’s shoes?” and try to tailor responses accordingly.

As the organization implements the changes though, the reality of the change becomes present and employees may either resist the changes or start to adjust to the changes depending on the person. The employee who continues to resist, remains angry and is labeled as “difficult” is feeling more threatened and may need some one-to-one time with the Manager to discuss the changes or at some point, may need clarification from the Manager about performance expectations in light of the changes.

Effects Seen at the Workplace

Absenteeism: As individuals see jobs eliminated and friends leaving, they may work longer hours. They feel more concern about their own security and future and put less effort into maintaining balance in their lives. Complaints of burnout increase. Health may deteriorate, and stress related symptoms increase. More workdays are missed for illness.

Reduction In Productivity: Less works gets done even by employees who come to work. In an atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty, individuals may withdraw support from one another and become self-protective. Superiors may provide less information and that which is provided may be more inconsistent. Working relationships can deteriorate as competition increases and turf battles are intensified in order to justify and protect departments and jobs.
Loss of Valued Employees: Confident, skilled, and experienced employees in the midst of ambiguity and uncertainty may be looking for or are invited to consider other career opportunities.

Another stress may result from the feeling of being insufficiently skilled as changes are implemented and new ways of conducting business begin. New practices and skills must be intentionally learned and practiced. Consider what you have to offer and what you need to learn.
There is no right or wrong way to react to change. But, there are things you can do to help yourself adjust to change and get involved in positive ways.

Dealing with Organizational Change

Individuals can reduce the impact of change and resulting stress by focusing on the value to be gained. The following are some ways to help approach change with a positive attitude:

• Keep an open mind. Do not assume that the results of change will be negative. Change may be the best thing that ever happened to you.

• Stay flexible. Be ready to let go of the old and try the new. Talking with colleagues can help allay stress and foster a supportive environment.

• Be supportive of colleagues. It is important that people recognize each other’s contributions on a regular basis and show appreciation for one another.

• Take an active role in the change process. Learn new skills, offer suggestions, set goals for yourself.

• Give change a chance to work. Be patient; change takes time.

• Ignore rumors. Instead, focus on gathering as many facts as you can about change. Talk with your supervisor when you have questions.

• Pay attention to yourself. It is important to learn to manage stress. People who feel good mentally and physically are better able to handle change. Eat a nutritious diet, get enough sleep, exercise, limit alcohol use and utilize relaxation/stress management techniques (e.g., deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation), so your body and mind are able to deal with change.

Automation

Automation is the use of control systems (such as numerical control, programmable logic control, and other industrial control systems), in concert with other applications of information technology (such as computer-aided technologies [CAD, CAM, CAx]), to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention.In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated.

Automation plays an increasingly important role in the global economy and in daily experience. Engineers strive to combine automated devices with mathematical and organizational tools to create complex systems for a rapidly expanding range of applications and human activities.

Many roles for humans in industrial processes presently lie beyond the scope of automation. Human-level pattern recognition, language recognition, and language production ability are well beyond the capabilities of modern mechanical and computer systems. Tasks requiring subjective assessment or synthesis of complex sensory data, such as scents and sounds, as well as high-level tasks such as strategic planning, currently require human expertise. In many cases, the use of humans is more cost-effective than mechanical approaches even where automation of industrial tasks is possible.

Specialised hardened computers, referred to as programmable logic controllers (PLCs), are frequently used to synchronize the flow of inputs from (physical) sensors and events with the flow of outputs to actuators and events. This leads to precisely controlled actions that permit a tight control of almost any industrial process.

Human-machine interfaces (HMI) or computer human interfaces (CHI), formerly known as man-machine interfaces, are usually employed to communicate with PLCs and other computers, such as entering and monitoring temperatures or pressures for further automated control or emergency response. Service personnel who monitor and control these interfaces are often referred to as stationary engineers.

Impact

Automation has had a notable impact in a wide range of highly visible industries beyond manufacturing. Once-ubiquitous telephone operators have been replaced largely by automated telephone switchboards and answering machines. Medical processes such as primary screening in electrocardiography or radiography and laboratory analysis of human genes, sera, cells, and tissues are carried out at much greater speed and accuracy by automated systems. Automated teller machines have reduced the need for bank visits to obtain cash and carry out transactions. In general, automation has been responsible for the shift in the world economy from agrarian to industrial in the 19th century and from industrial to services in the 20th century.

At first glance, automation might appear to devalue labor through its replacement with less-expensive machines; however, the overall effect of this on the workforce as a whole remains unclear. Today automation of the workforce is quite advanced, and continues to advance increasingly more rapidly throughout the world and is encroaching on ever more skilled jobs, yet during the same period the general well-being and quality of life of most people in the world (where political factors have not muddied the picture) have improved dramatically. What role automation has played in these changes has not been well studied.

Rationalization of Procedures

It is the streamlining of existing operating procedures, eliminating obvious bottlenecks so that automation makes operating procedures more efficient and the second stage of organizational change where the organization uses information technology to streamline a standard operating procedure. A database that holds information of available rooms is an example of this stage.

Business Reengineering

Business reengineering reorganizes work flows, combining steps to cut waste and eliminating repetitive, paper-intensive tasks (sometimes the new design eliminates jobs as well). It is much more ambitious than rationalization of procedures, requiring a new vision of how the process is to be organized.

BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace. Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to re-engineering theory. Business process reengineering (BPR) began as a private sector technique to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors.

Paradigm Shift

It is a dramatic change in methodology or practice. It often refers to a major change in thinking and planning, which ultimately changes the way projects are implemented. For example, accessing applications and data from the Web instead of from local servers is a paradigm shift. Seeparadigm and buzzword.

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principle argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results -- and some, the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.

Change is the Present and Future

People tend to blame the organization or top management for the changes occurring within the organization. Top management’s actions are usually reactions to some outside force, such as stiffer competition, shifts in the marketplace or new technology. It is important to realize that change is a key to surviving and growing in today’s global economy.

Change is inevitable and we will be surfing on this wave of transition. Without change we would run the risk of becoming stale and unresponsive. The challenge we face is to learn to move through this wave of transition as easily and creatively as possible.

References:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/feap/newsletters/managing-org.-change.pdf
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Paradigm_shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm


my BloG:
http://jevaldez.blogspot.com/ Arrow Arrow


Last edited by Joseph Ethel Valdez on Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:59 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Maria Theresa F. Rulete

avatar

Posts : 66
Points : 75
Join date : 2009-06-20
Age : 27
Location : Obrero, Davao City

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:07 am

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change -- it's inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective. There are many schools with educational programs about organizations, business, leadership and management. Unfortunately, there still are not enough schools with programs about how to analyze organizations, identify critically important priorities to address (such as systemic problems or exciting visions for change) and then undertake successful and significant change to address those priorities. This Library topic aims to improve that situation.

The focus of this topic is on principles and practices to successfully accomplish significant change in organizations. Successful organizational change can be quite difficult to accomplish -- it can be like trying to change a person's habits. Fortunately, there is an increasing body of research, practice and tools from which we all can learn. A major goal of this Library topic is to make this body of information much more accessible to many -- to give the reader more clear perspective on overall organizational change and development, along with sufficient understanding to begin applying principles and practices for successful change in their roles and organizations.

The following resources are not sufficient to guide a large, comprehensive and detailed organizational change effort -- that amount of resources comprises a significantly sized book -- and besides, there is no standard procedure for guiding change. However, the following resources might be sufficient to provide the reader at least a framework that takes him or her from which to begin guiding change in smaller efforts for organizational change -- and then to begin to learn more.

There are many approaches to guiding change -- some planned, structured and explicit, while others are more organic, unfolding and implicit. Some approaches work from the future to the present, for example, involving visioning and then action planning about how to achieve that vision. Other approaches work from the present to the future, for example, identifying current priorities (issues and/or goals) and then action planning about to address those priorities (the action research approach is one example). Different people often have very different -- and strong -- opinions about how change should be conducted. Thus, it is likely that some will disagree with some of the content in this topic. That's what makes this topic so diverse, robust and vital for us all.

To really understand organizational change and begin guiding successful change efforts, the change agent should have at least a broad understanding of the context of the change effort. This includes understanding the basic systems and structures in organizations, including their typical terms and roles. This requirement applies to the understanding of leadership and management of the organizations, as well. That is why graduate courses in business often initially include a course or some discussion on organizational theory.

Organizational change should not be conducted for the sake of change. Organizational change efforts should be geared to improve the performance of organizations and the people in those organizations. Therefore, it's useful to have some understanding of what is meant by "performance" and the various methods to manage performance in organizations.

The past few decades have seen an explosion in the number of very useful tools to help change agents to effectively explore, understand and communicate about organizations, as well as to guide successful change in those organizations. Tools from systems theory and systems thinking especially are a major breakthrough. Even if the change agent is not an expert about systems theory and thinking, even a basic understanding can cultivate an entire new way of working.

The field of Organization Development is focused on improving the effectiveness of organizations and the people in those organizations. OD has a rich history of research and practice regarding change in organizations.

Your nature and the way you choose to work has significant impact on your client's organization, whether you know it or not. You cannot separate yourself from your client's organization, as if you are some kind of detached observer. You quickly become part of your client's system -- the way the people and processes in the organization work with each other on a recurring basis. Thus, it is critical that you have a good understanding of yourself, including your biases (we all have them), how you manage feedback and conflict, how you like to make decisions and solve problems, how you naturally view organizations, your skills as a consultant, etc.

Nowadays, with the complex challenges faced by organizations and the broad diversity of values, perspectives and opinions among the members of those organizations, it's vital that change agents work from a strong set of principles to ensure they operate in a highly effective and ethical manner.

There are several phrases regarding organizational change and development that look and sound a lot alike, but have different meanings. As a result of the prominence of the topic, there seems to be increasingly different interpretations of some of these phrases, while others are used interchangeably. Without at least some sense of the differences between these phrases, communications about organizational change and development can be increasingly vague, confusing and frustrating.

There are different overall types of organizational change, including planned versus unplanned, organization-wide versus change primarily to one part of the organization, incremental (slow, gradual change) versus transformational (radical, fundamental), etc.. Knowing which types of change you are doing helps all participants to retain scope and perspective during the many complexities and frequent frustrations during change.

Successful change efforts often include several key roles, including the initiator, champion, change agent, sponsor and leaders.

Organization-wide change in corporations should involve the Board of Directors. Whether their members are closely involved in the change or not, they should at least be aware of the change project and monitor if the results are being achieved or not.

As the change agent, you might be performing different roles during the project.

Appreciative Inquiry is a recent and powerful breakthrough in organizational change and development. It's based on the philosophy that "problems" are often caused as much by our perception of them as problems as by other influencing factors. The philosophy has spawned a strong movement that, in turn, has generated an increasing number of models, tools and tips, most of which seem to build from the positive perceptions (visions, fantasies, wishes and stories) of those involved in the change effort.

There are numerous well-organized approaches (or models) from which to manage a change effort. Some of the approaches have been around for many years -- we just haven't thought of them as such. For example, many organizations undertake strategic planning. The implementation of strategic planning, when done in a systematic, cyclical and explicit approach, is strategic management. Strategic management is also one model for ensuring the success of a change effort. The following links provide more perspectives on approaches to managing change. (Note that, with the maturation of the field of OD, there are now more strong opinions about which are change management approaches and which are not -- there seems to be no standard interpretation yet.)

Many people would agree that traditional models of organizational performance management are also models for managing change.

There is now a vast array of highly reflective articles about the nature of change.

A typical planned, systemic (and systematic) organizational development process often follows an overall action research approach (as described below). There are many variations of the action research approach, including by combining its various phases and/or splitting some into more phases. This section provides resources that are organized into one variation of the action research approach. Note that the more collaborative you are in working with members of the organization during the following process, the more likely the success of your overall change effort.

Phase 1: Clarifying Expectations and Roles for Change Process

This phase is sometimes called the "Contracting" and/or "Entry" phase. This phase is usually where the relationship between you (the initial change agent) and your client starts, whether you are an external or internal consultant. Experts assert that this phase is one of the most - if not the most - important phases in the organizational change process. Activities during this stage form the foundation for successful organizational change. The quality of how this phase is carried out usually is a strong indicator of how the project will go.

Phase 2: Joint Discovery to Identify Priorities for Change

The more collaborative the change agent is in working with members of the client's organization, the more likely that the change effort will be successful. Your client might not have the resources to fully participate in all aspects of this discovery activity -- the more participation they can muster, the better off your project will be.

Whether you are an external or internal change agent in this project, you and your client will work together during this phase to understand more about the overall priority of the change effort and how you all can effectively address it. It might be a major problem in the organization or an exciting vision to achieve. Together, you will collect information, analyze it to identify findings and conclusions, and then make recommendations from that information. Sometimes the data-collection effort is very quick, for example, facilitating a large planning meeting. Other times, the effort is more extensive, for example, evaluating an entire organization and developing a complete plan for change. The nature of discovery also depends on the philosophy of the change agent and client. For example, subscribers to the philosophy of Appreciative Inquiry (referenced above) might conduct discovery, not by digging into the number and causes of problems in the organization, but by conducting interviews to disover the visions and wishes of people in the organization.

Sometimes, people minimize the importance of - or altogether skip - this critical discovery phase, and start change management by articulating an ambitious and comprehensive vision for change. Many would argue that it is unethical to initiate a project for organizational change without fully examining (or discovering) the current situation in the client's organization. Focusing most of the change efforts on achieving a robust vision, without at least some careful discovery, often can be harmful to your client's organization because your project can end up dealing with symptoms of any current issues, rather than the root causes. Also, the project could end up pushing an exciting vision that, while initially inspiring and motivating to many, could be completely unrealistic to achieve -- especially if the organization already has many current, major issues to address. Therefore, when working to guide change in an organization that already is facing several significant issues, you are usually better off to start from where your client is at -- that usually means conducting an effective discovery to identify priorities for change.

One of the most powerful means to cultivate collaboration is by working with a project team. Besides, no change agent sees all aspects of the situation in the organization -- team members help to see more of those various aspects.

Phase 3: Joint Planning of Organizational Development Activities to Address Priorities

In the previous phase about discovery, you and your client conducted research, discovered various priorities that needed attention, generated recommendations to address those priorities, and shared your information with others, for example, in a feedback meeting. Part of that meeting included discussions - and, hopefully, decisions - about the overall mutual recommendations that your client should follow to in order address the priorities that were identified by you and your client during your discovery. This phase is focused on further clarifying those recommendations, along with developing them into various action plans. The various plans are sometimes integrated into an overall change management plan. Thus, the early activities in this phase often overlap with, and are a continuation of, the activities near the end of the earlier discovery phase. This is true whether you are an external or internal consultant. Action plans together can now provide a clear and realistic vision for change. They provide the "roadmap" for managing the transition from the present state to the desired future state.

Development of the various action plans is often an enlightening experience for your client as members of their organization begin to realize a more systematic approach to their planning and day-to-day activities. As with other activities during change management, plans can vary widely in how they are developed. Some plans are very comprehensive and systematic (often the best form used for successful change). Others are comprised of diverse sections that are expected to somehow integrate with each other. Subscribers to the philosophy of Appreciative Inquiry (referenced above) might do planning by building on past positive outcomes and on the strengths of members of the organization.

Phase 4: Change Management and Joint Evaluation

During this phase, emphasis is on sustaining and evaluating the change effort, including by addressing resistance that arises from members of the organization -- and sometimes in the change agent, as well.

Evaluation occurs both to the quality of implementation of plans so far during the project and also regarding the extent of achievement of desired results from the project. Results might be whether certain indicators of success have been achieved, all issues have been addressed, a vision of success has been achieved, action plans have been implemented and/or leaders in the organization agree the project has been successful.

As part of the final evaluation, you might redo some of the assessments that you used during the discovery phase in order to measure the difference made by the project.

During this phase, if the implementation of the plans gets stalled for a long time, for example, many months, then you might cycle back to an earlier phase in the process in order to update and restart the change management project. Projects can get stuck for a variety of reasons, e.g., if the overall situation changes (there suddenly are new and other priorities in the client's organization), people succumb to burnout, key people leave the organization, the relationship between the consultant and client changes, or people refuse to implement action plans.

(Many times, this activity is defined as a separate phase in the project plan.) These activities are very important to address, even if all participants agree that the project has been successful and no further activities are needed. Project termination activities recognize key learnings from the project, acknowledge the client's development, and identify next steps for you and your client. They also help to avoid "project creep" where the project never ends because the requirements for success keep expanding.

http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm

My Blog: http://etelur.blogspot.com/2009/12/mis2-assignment-5.html



Last edited by Maria Theresa F. Rulete on Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Alfredo V. Ala-an

avatar

Posts : 52
Points : 55
Join date : 2009-06-21
Age : 27
Location : Obrero Davao City

PostSubject: ASSISGNMENT 5   Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:54 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts? (you are expected to read an article about this question)

First of all let us define the meaning of the terms:
organizational change, automation, rationalization of procedures, business re engineering, and paradigm shifts.

Arrow Organizational Culture: Change Process

In our installment on Organizational Culture we discussed cultural analysis as an approach to organization change. We will now look more closely at the process of culture change.

Culture change is difficult and time consuming because "culture" is rooted in the collective history of an organization, and because so much of it is below the surface of awareness. In general, the process of culture change must include the following steps:

* Uncover core values and beliefs. These may include stated values and goals, but they are also embedded in organizational metaphors, myths, and stories, and in the behaviors of members.
* Acknowledge, respect, and discuss differences between core values and beliefs of different subcultures within the organization.
* Look for incongruencies between conscious and unconscious beliefs and values and resolve by choosing those to which the organization wishes to commit. Establish new behavioral norms (and even new metaphor language) that clearly demonstrate desired values.
* Repeat these steps over a long period of time. As new members enter the organization, assure that they are surrounded with clear messages about the culture they are entering. Reinforce desirable behavior.

It's clear that culture change is an ongoing process, so it’s very hard to identify organizations that have "completed" a successful culture change. We can, however, find examples of change-in-progress, in organizations that range from Harley-Davidson to the Pittsburgh Symphony. As we look at several examples, in this installment and the next, we will see some version of the process described above in each–even in organizations that did not originally set out to change their cultures!

Levi-Strauss is a company that did engage in a purposeful culture change process. In 1985, a group of minority and women managers requested a meeting with the CEO, complaining of discrimination. The CEO convened a three-day facilitated retreat at which white, male managers engaged in intense discussions with minority and female managers. These discussions revealed that there were, indeed, hidden attitudes in the organization that were in conflict with its espoused values.

Since that time, Levi-Strauss has worked hard to generate cultural change. The company developed an "Aspiration Statement" including desired beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. The statement specifies the company’s commitment to communication, ethical management practices, employee empowerment, and recognition for those who contribute to the mission of the company.

Employees at all levels also participate in training sessions on leadership, diversity, and ethics. Employee evaluations are based partially on how well they support the "Aspiration Statement."

To underscore the fact that changing an organization’s culture can take a long time, we would note that at Levi-Strauss, change has not been entirely positive in the lowest tiers of the hierarchy. Increased teamwork and peer evaluation have demanded major adjustments in people’s expectations and behavior, and that has led to increased conflict at times.

Symphony orchestra organizations have generally taken a much less direct approach to culture change initiatives. Faced with internal or external challenges, some orchestra organizations have found innovative solutions; in the process, they have created positive change in at least some aspects of their culture. A number of such cases have been documented in Harmony.

For instance, the October 2001 issue of Harmony includes an article about the San Francisco Symphony’s efforts to take a new direction in approaching contract negotiations. Although the San Francisco process was narrowly focused toward transforming relations among those involved in negotiations, it clearly included the cultural change steps outlined above.

As author Robert Mnookin explained in the Harmony article, the symphony secured grant funding to begin a conflict resolution program using outside facilitators. Important symbolically as a commitment to change was the fact that the grant proposal was submitted jointly by the board, management, and the players’ committee on behalf of the orchestra.

Through a series of training sessions and facilitated discussions, including listening, leadership, and negotiating skills, the symphony did begin to transform its culture. With help from the consultant team, they exposed conscious and unconscious assumptions about the negotiating process. They agreed to a new set of assumptions to be shared by all parties, and they created new behavioral norms based on those assumptions.

In the grant proposal, the purpose of the program was described as including goals of improving relations among all parties and creating a more effective, cooperative team. Program activities, including work in cross-constituency groups, helped to make the team metaphor more of a reality.

The important point here is that members of the San Francisco Symphony participated in a process designed to foster cultural change. In the conclusion of his article, Mnookin describes the new leadership of the San Francisco organization as being "at the helm," a metaphor that brings to mind a ship under full sail.

Metaphor can be a surprisingly powerful factor in culture change (or perpetuation). One prominent organizational theorist, Robert Marshak, writes that metaphors and myths are a primary mental framework for both individuals and organizations. He believes we need to analyze organizational symbolism, and reframe or replace metaphors that are no longer serving an organization well.

reources: http://www.soi.org/reading/change/process.shtml

Arrow Automation Process

Test automation raises our hopes yet often frustrates and disappoints us. Although automation promises to deliver us from a tough situation, implementing automated tests can create as many problems as it solves. The key is to follow the rules of software development when automating testing. This paper presents seven key steps: improve the testing process, define requirements, prove the concept, champion product testability, design for sustainability, plan for deployment, and face the challenges of success. Follow these steps as you staff, tool, or schedule your test automation project, and you will be well on your way to success.

The Problems

This fable illustrates several problems that plague test automation projects:

Spare time test automation. People are allowed to work on test automation on their own time or as a back burner project when the test schedule allows. This keeps it from getting the time and focus it needs.

Lack of clear goals. There are many good reasons for doing test automation. It can save time, make testing easier and improve the testing coverage. It can also help keep testers motivated. But it's not likely to do all these things at the same time. Different parties typically have different hopes. These need to be stated, or else disappointment is likely.

Lack of experience. Junior programmers trying to test their limits often tackle test automation projects. The results are often difficult to maintain.

High turnover. Test automation can take a while to learn. But when the turnover is high, you lose this experience.

Reaction to desperation. Problems are usually lurking in the software long before testing begins. But testing brings them to light. Testing is difficult enough in itself. When testing is followed by testing and retesting of the repaired software, people can get worn down. Will the testing ever end? This desperation can become particularly acute when the schedule has dictated that the software should be ready now. If only it weren't for all the testing! In this environment, test automation may be a ready answer, but it may not be the best. It can be more of a wish than a realistic proposal.

Reluctance to think about testing. Many find automating a product more interesting than testing it. Some automation projects provide convenient cover stories for why their contributors aren't more involved in the testing. Rarely does the outcome contribute much to the test effort.

Technology focus. How the software can be automated is a technologically interesting problem. But this can lose sight of whether the result meets the testing need.

resources: http://www.io.com/~wazmo/papers/seven_steps.html

Arrow Report on Rationalization of Procedures for Building Approvals and Completion Certificates

The Committee deliberated upon the procedures for grant of building plan approvals and completion certificates including the role of the Delhi Urban Arts Commission therein. The consensus of the opinion was that the present procedures involving a multiplicity of authorities were resulting in considerable harassment and delays. The present procedures of scrutiny of building plans, issue of C & D forms and completion certificate is very cumbersome and involved delays at each stage due to site inspections and site reports. Further, since there was no single person specifically responsible for adherence to regulations at the approval or completion stage, owners with the connivance of building officials and unscrupulous architects, indulged in violations for financial advantage. Thus while honest owners are harassed, unscrupulous architects, indulged in violations for financial advantage. Thus while honest owners are harassed, unscrupulous ones get away with serious violations.

The functioning of the Delhi Urban Arts Commission has also been inviting attention. While the architects complain about delays in DUAC, the DUAC has been complaining that buildings get constructed in contravention of its approvals. There has been a talk of giving inspecting powers to DUAC which would mean another agency involved in the approval process.

resources: http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000073.shtml

Arrow Business Process Reengineering

Business Process Reengineering is a discipline in which extensive research has been carried out and
numerous methodologies churned out. But what seems to be lacking is a structured approach. In this paper we
provide a review of BPR and present ‘best of breed ‘ methodologies from contemporary literature and introduce a
consolidated, systematic approach to the redesign of a business enterprise. The methodology includes the five
activities: Prepare for reengineering, Map and Analyze As-Is process, Design To-be process, Implement
reengineered process and Improve continuousl

resources: http://webs.twsu.edu/whitman/papers/ijii99muthu.pdf

Arrow Paradigm Shift Process

The quality movement has generated a proliferation of philosophies and approaches to quality practices and techniques. Once businesses successfully solved some of their problems using one of these methods, they would use this method of solving problems as the new model for solving other problems. This 'paradigm' then became their model for how to be successful. The word 'paradigm' comes from the Greek word paradeigma, meaning model, pattern or example. Management is currently very interested in their existing paradigms. However, a new pattern is beginning to emerge. Companies are finding that their efforts to generate significant results have fallen short of expectation and they now see themselves as having hit a 'plateau'. These companies are now searching for the next step in moving their business to higher levels. Paradigm shifts can represent leaps of significant change to organizations and may be the necessary 'next step' in keeping businesses successful. A paradigm shift process offers an applied approach to making changes as an individual or an organization to move beyond existing paradigms.

resources: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119281850/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Conclusion:

As what i have read from the articles above, for me the most radical change in an organization is the automation. Because in the automation is very risky in the sense that their are many posibilities that might happen in changing in the organization. In the automaiton change the problems encountered are the spare time test of the automation,depenidng in the technology, more risky in the sense of budget of the company, another lack of clear goals to be success or the percentage to hav a success automation is not high because their are many posibilities that may occur during the testing of the automation.

Laughing Laughing
Back to top Go down
View user profile
♥ilyn_mapalo♥

avatar

Posts : 45
Points : 48
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 29
Location : Holycross, Agdao Davao City

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:05 am

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts? (you are expected to read an article about this question) .. at least 3000 words


What is meant by "Organizational Change"?
Idea These are the companies that are undergoing or that have undergone a transformation. Typically, the concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission,restructuring operations (e.g., restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc.), new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical reorientation in the way the organization operates.

What Provokes "Organizational Change"?
Idea Change should not be done for the sake of change -- it's a strategy to accomplish some overall goal.Usually organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, e.g., substantial cuts in funding, address major new markets/clients, need for dramatic increases in productivity/services, etc. Typically, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, e.g., going from a highly reactive, entreprenueral organization to more stable and planned development. Transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.

Idea Spectrum of change
1. automation
2. rationalization of procedures
3. business reengineering
4. paradigm shift



Idea Automation refers to computerizing processes to speed up the existing tasks or using the computer to speed up the performance of existing tasks. It improves efficiency and effectiveness. It also involves assisting employees perform their tasks more efficiently and effectively.

Idea Rationalization of procedures refers to streamlining of standard operating procedures, eliminating obvious bottlenecks, so that automation makes operating procedures more efficient.It improves efficiency and effectiveness.This follows quickly from early automation.

Idea Business reengineering refers to radical redesign of business processes.Aims at eliminating repetitive, paper-intensive, bureaucratic tasks,reducing costs significantly and improving product/service quality.Involves radical rethinking.Can change the way an organization conducts its business. Strikes fear, its expensive, its very risky and its extremely difficult to carry out and manage.Develop the business vision and process objective. Identify the processes to be redesigned (core and highest payback).Understand and measure the performance of existing processes.Identify the opportunities for applying information technology. And it build a prototype of the new process. Business reengineering includes BPR or the business process reengineering. Reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service, and speed. And Business Process is a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of inputs and creates an output that is of value to a customer.

Idea Paradigm shift refers to a more radical form of change where the nature of business and the nature of the organization is questioned. It improves strategic standing of the organization. It is the radical reconceptualization of the nature of the business and the nature of the organization. Here, deciding which business process to get right is half the challenge for which 70% of time programmatic reengineering efforts fail.

Idea One of the most important things to know about building a new information system is that this process is one kind of planned organizational change. Frequently, new systems mean new ways of doing business and working together. The nature of tasks, the speed with which they must be completed, the nature of supervision (its frequency and intensity), and who has what information about whom will all be decided in the process of building an information system. This is especially true in contemporary systems, which deeply affect many parts of the organization. System builders must understand how a system will affect the organization as a whole, focusing particularly on organizational conflict and changes in the locus of decision-making. Builders must also consider how the nature of work groups will change under the impact of the new system. Builders determine how much change is needed.New information systems can be powerful instruments for organizational change.

Idea The most common form of IT-enabled organizational change is automation. The first applications of information technology involved assisting employees perform their tasks more efficiently and effectively. Calculating paychecks and payroll registers, giving bank teller’s instant access to customer deposit records, and developing a nationwide network of airline reservation terminals for airline reservation agents are all examples of early automation. Automation is akin to putting a larger motor in an existing automobile.

Idea A deeper form of organizational change – one that follows quickly from early automation – is rationalization procedure. Automation frequently reveals new
bottlenecks in production, and makes the existing arrangement of procedures and structures painfully cumbersome. Rationalization of procedures is the streamlining of standard operating procedures, eliminating obvious bottlenecks, so that automation can make operating procedures more efficient.

Idea A more powerful type of organization change is business re-engineering, in which business processes are analyzed, simplified, and redesigned. Re-engineering involves radically rethinking the flow of work; the business procedures used to produce products and services with a mind of radically reduce the costs of business. A business process is a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome. Some examples of business processes are developing a new product, ordering goods from a supplier, or processing and paying an insurance claim. Using information technology, organizations can rethink and streamline their business processes to improve speed, service and quality. Business re-engineering reorganizes workflows, combining steps to cut waste and eliminating repetitive, paper-intensive tasks (sometimes the new design eliminates jobs as well). It is much more ambitious than rationalization of procedures, requiring a new vision of how the process is to be organized. Rationalizing procedures and redesigning business processes are limited to specific parts of a business. New information systems can ultimately affect the design of the entire organization by actually transforming how the organization carries out its business or even the nature of the business itself.

Idea The still more radical form of business change is called a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift involves rethinking the nature of the business and the nature of the organization itself. Banks, for instance, may decide not to automate, rationalize, or reengineering the jobs of tellers. Instead they may decide to eliminate branch banking altogether and seek less expensive source of funds, like international borrowing. Retail customers may be forced to use the Internet to conduct all their business, or a proprietary network. A paradigm shift is akin to rethinking not just the automobile, but transportation itself.

Idea Paradigm shifts and re-engineering often fail because extensive organization change is so difficult to orchestrate. Some experts believe that 70% of the time they fail. Why then do so many corporation entertain such radical change, because the rewards are equally high. In many instances firms seeking paradigm shifts and pursuing re-engineering strategies achieve stunning, order-of magnitude increases in their returns on investment (or productivity).

ref: http://alexandra.di.uoa.gr/courses/mis/docs/lecture6.ppt., http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/cem/bushait/cem515/term-papers/Business-Process-Reengineering.ppt. , http://www.ignou.ac.in/edusat/mba/ms-07/ms7b4.pdf


My Blog....


Last edited by ♥ilyn_mapalo♥ on Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:43 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AlyssaRae Soriano

avatar

Posts : 38
Points : 39
Join date : 2009-06-20
Age : 28

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:24 am

The rate of organizational change has not slowed in recent years, and may even be increasing. The rapid and continual innovation in technology is driving changes to organizational systems and processes. Witness the startling growth of the internet, which is enabling much faster and easier access to knowledge. Add to this the increased expectations of employees as they move more freely between organizations. And, of course, globalization has seen the tearing down of previous international market barriers. It is no wonder that relentless change has become a fact of organizational life.

In spite of the importance and permanence of organizational change, most change initiatives fail to deliver the expected organizational benefits. This failure occurs for a number of reasons. You might recognize one or more of these in your organization.
absence of a change champion or one who is too junior in the organization
poor executive sponsorship or senior management support
poor project management skills
hope rested on a one-dimensional solution
political infighting and turf wars
poorly defined organizational objectives
change team diverted to other projects


Failed organizational change initiatives leave in their wake cynical and burned out employees, making the next change objective even more difficult to accomplish. It should come as no surprise that the fear of managing change and its impacts is a leading cause of anxiety in managers.

Understanding your organization and matching the initiative to your organization’s real needs (instead of adopting the latest fad) is the first step in making your change program successful. Beyond that, recognize that bringing about organizational change is fundamentally about changing people’s behavior in certain desired ways. As is apparent from the above list of reasons for failure, lack of technical expertise is not the main impediment to successful change. Leadership and management skills, such as visioning, prioritizing, planning, providing feedback and rewarding success, are key factors in any successful change initiative.

Change Management Principles
Adopting a principled approach that displays integrity and engenders openness and trust will see your change program through the hard times. Our consultancy promotes five key principles of successful change management. Adopting these principles in both spirit and practice will enhance significantly your chances of success. These principles are:

1.Sponsorship
The change program has the visible support of key decision-makers throughout the organization and resources are committed to the program.

2.Planning
Planning is conducted methodically before program implementation and committed to writing. Plans are agreed with major stakeholders and objectives, resources, roles and risks are clarified.

3.Measurement
Program objectives are stated in measurable terms and program progress is monitored and communicated to major stakeholders.

4.Engagement
Stakeholders are engaged in genuine two-way dialogue in an atmosphere of openness, mutual respect and trust.

5.Support structures
Program implementers and change recipients are given the resources and supporting systems they require during and after change implementation.

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change -- it's inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective. There are many schools with educational programs about organizations, business, leadership and management. Unfortunately, there still are not enough schools with programs about how to analyze organizations, identify critically important priorities to address (such as systemic problems or exciting visions for change) and then undertake successful and significant change to address those priorities. This Library topic aims to improve that situation.

As I continuously browse the net for further articles, I had found some of the Major roles during and
Capacity Building, The process of organizational change can include a variety of key roles. These roles can be filled by various individuals or groups at various times during the change process. Sometimes, individuals or
groups can fill more than one role.

Change Initiator
It is conventional wisdom among organizational development consultants that successful change is often provoked by a deep “hurt” or crisis in the organization, for example, dramatic reduction in sales, loss of a key leader in the organization, warnings from a major investor, or even actions of a key competitor. It is not uncommon then that someone inside the organization reacts to that deep hurt and suggests the need for a major change effort. Often the person who initiates the change is not the person who becomes the primary change agent.


Change Agent
The change agent is the person responsible for organizing and coordinating the overall change effort. The change agent role can be filled by different people at different times during the project. For example, an outside consultant might be the first change agent. After the project plan has been developed and begins implementation, the change agent might be an implementation team comprised of people from the organization. If the change effort stalls out, the change agent might be a top leader in the organization who intercedes to ensure the change process continues in a timely fashion.

Champion for Change
Change efforts often require a person or group who continues to build and sustain strong enthusiasm about the change. This includes reminding everyone of why the change is occurring in the first place, the many benefits that have come and will come from the change process. The champion might be the same person as the change agent at various times in the project.

Sponsor of Change
Usually, there is a one key internal person or department that is officially the “sponsor,” or official role responsible for coordinating the change process. In large organizations, that sponsor often is a department, such as Human Resources, Strategic Planning or Information Technology. In smaller organizations, the sponsor might be a team of senior leaders working to ensure that the change effort stays on schedule and is sustained by ongoing provision of resources and training.

Leadership, Supervision, and Delegation
In this Field Guide, leadership is defined as setting direction and influencing people to follow that direction. A person can lead themselves, other individuals, other groups or an entire organization. Supervision is guiding the development and productivity of people in the organization. Effective supervisors are able to achieve goals by guiding the work of other people – by delegating.

Organizations can't change without people changing first. It is the collective action of individual change that emerges as organizational change. One approach to understanding how individuals change is the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), which is also known as Stages of Change (SOC). Change cannot be commanded, yet it is possible to influence individual change.

Automation is the use of control systems (such as numerical control, programmable logic control, and other industrial control systems), in concert with other applications of information technology (such as computer-aided technologies [CAD, CAM, CAx]), to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention.In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated.

The widespread impact of industrial automation raises social issues, among them its impact on employment. Historical concerns about the effects of automation date back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, when a social movement of English textile machine operators in the early 1800s known as the Luddites protested against Jacquard's automated weaving looms[4] — often by destroying such textile machines— that they felt threatened their jobs. One author made the following case. When automation was first introduced, it caused widespread fear. It was thought that the displacement of human operators by computerized systems would lead to severe unemployment.

Rationalization of Procedures is the application of efficiency or effectiveness measures to an organization. Rationalization can occur at the onset of a downturn in an organization's performance or results. It usually takes the form of cutbacks intended to bring the organization back to profitability and may involve layoffs, plant closures, and cutbacks in supplies and resources. It often involves changes in organization structure, particularly in the form of downsizing. The term is also used in a cynical way as a euphemism for mass layoffs.

Business process reengineering (often referred to by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance.

The two cornerstones of any organization are the people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain, organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%.

The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. That means:

Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry.
Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position.
Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives.
Defining behaviours that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims.
Producing key performance measures to track progress.
Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization
Identifying initiatives that will improve performance.

To be successful, business process reengineering projects need to be top down, taking in the complete organization, and the full end to end processes. It needs to be supported by tools that make processes easy to track and analyze.

Paradigm Shifts (or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.

The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th-century theory of poetics, for instance.
Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change.

Agents of change helped create a paradigm-shift moving scientific theory from the Plolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) to the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe), and moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both movements eventually changed the world view. These transformations were gradual as old beliefs were replaced by the new paradigms creating "a new gestalt".

In initiating organizational change, the first step is raising awareness that some change is needed. An Organizational Assessment can be used as a point for initiating the dialogue that is necessary for organizational change to gain grassroots acceptance (the 1st step towards commitment). -”Rose A. Wirth, Ph D

References:

file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator.UNIT10/Desktop/ASSign5MIS2/change_management.html
file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator.UNIT10/Desktop/ASSign5MIS2/org_chng.htm
http://www.managementhelp.org/misc/roles-during-change.pdf
file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator.UNIT10/Desktop/ASSign5MIS2/Automation.htm
file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator.UNIT10/Desktop/ASSign5MIS2/index.htm
file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator.UNIT10/Desktop/ASSign5MIS2/rationalization.html
file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator.UNIT10/Desktop/ASSign5MIS2/business-process-reengineering.html
file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator.UNIT10/Desktop/ASSign5MIS2/Paradigm_shift.htm
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alma cabase

avatar

Posts : 56
Points : 58
Join date : 2009-06-20

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:17 pm

flower In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts? (you are expected to read an article about this question) .. flower

Principles of Organizational Change
Written by Jack Welch & Suzy Welch
Thursday, 15 October 2009 20:22

Change is an absolutely critical part of business. And yes, your company does need to change—preferably now and not later, when you have no other choice.
The problem is that people hate it when their bosses announce a “transformation initiative.” They run back to their cubicles and start frantically e-mailing one another, complaining that the changes are going to ruin everything.
People love familiarity and patterns. They cling to them. The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.

Ultimately, implementing change comes down to embracing the following four practices:
1. Attach every change initiative to a clear purpose or goal. Change for change’s sake is stupid and enervating. Change should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a competitor has dropped prices 20 percent.
But sometimes the need for change isn’t immediately apparent. Competitive threats seem to be emerging, but you don’t know for certain, and still, you have to respond. In those cases, relentless communication about the business rationale for change, reinforced with lots of data, is the best ammunition you have.
The larger your company, the more challenging it will be to communicate the need for change. In big companies, calls for change are often greeted noncommittally. After all, if the company has been through enough change programs, employees will assume you’ll go away if they just wait long enough.
Stick to your guns—your solid, persuasive business case. Over time, logic will win out.
2. Hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-it types. Everyone in business claims to like change. To say otherwise would be career suicide. But by my estimate, less than 10 percent of all businesspeople are true change agents. Once the next group—about 70 to 80 percent of people working in business—is convinced that change is necessary, they’ll say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters.
To make change happen, companies must actively hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-it. But with everyone claiming to like change, how can you tell who is for real?
Luckily, change agents usually make themselves known. They’re typically brash, high-energy and more than a little paranoid about the future. They often invent change initiatives on their own or ask to lead them. Invariably, they are curious and forward-looking.
These people have a certain fearlessness about the unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and move on. They’re thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make bold decisions without a lot of data.
3. Ferret out and remove the resisters, even if their performance is satisfactory. This is the hardest of the four practices to implement. It’s tough to let anyone go, but it’s particularly difficult to fire people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well.
But in any organization, there are people who will not accept change, no matter how sound your case is. They are so invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go.
That may sound harsh, but you’re not doing anyone a favor by keeping resisters in your organization. They foster an underground resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They’re wasting their own time: They’re working at a company where they don’t agree with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where they do.
4. Look at car wrecks. Most companies capitalize on obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product line extensions.
But to be a real change organization, you also have to have to look at bolder, scarier, more unpredictable events, assess the opportunities they present and make the most of them. Fostering this capability takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge.
Take the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Currency traders certainly capitalized on this awful event; they live on exploiting change. But they’re not the only ones who should do this. GE had real success buying undervalued Thai auto loans in this period. Others prospered by buying real estate at fire sale prices.
Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they’re tragic to the employees. Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can also be created from the cinders.
With all the noise out there about change, it’s easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices that matter. That’s it. There’s nothing to be afraid of.


What is organizational change?
Organizational change is any action or set of actions resulting in a shift in direction or process that affects the way an organization works. Change can be deliberate and planned by leaders within the organization (i.e., shift from inpatient hospital focus to outpatient primary care model), or change can originate outside the organization (i.e., budget cut by Congress) and be beyond its control. Change may affect the strategies an organization uses to carry out its mission, the processes for implementing those strategies, the tasks and functions performed by the people in the organization, and the relationships between those people. Naturally, some changes are relatively small, while others are sweeping in scope, amounting to an organizational transformation. Change is a fact of organizational life, just as it is in human life. An organization that does not change cannot survive long Ð much less thrive Ð in an unpredictable world. Several factors may make organizational change necessary, including new competition in the marketplace or new demands by customers. These types of external forces may create expectations of improved efficiency, better service, or innovative products. When organizational change is well planned and implemented, it helps assure the organizations continued survival. It can produce many tangible benefits, including improved competitiveness, better financial performance, and higher levels of customer and employee satisfaction. These benefits may take some time to achieve; however, and the transition period that accompanies major organizational change usually is a time of upheaval and uncertainty. Not every individual in the organization will benefit personally from change; some will be casualties of change, especially if jobs are cut or realigned. But change should make the organization as a whole stronger and better equipped for the future.
Organizational change occurs when a company makes a transition from its current state to some desired future state. Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in organizations in such a way as to minimize employee resistance and cost to the organization, while also maximizing the effectiveness of the change effort.
Today's business environment requires companies to undergo changes almost constantly if they are to remain competitive. Factors such as globalization of markets and rapidly evolving technology force businesses to respond in order to survive. Such changes may be relatively minor—as in the case of installing a new software program—or quite major—as in the case of refocusing an overall marketing strategy. "Organizations must change because their environments change, " according to Thomas S. Bateman and Carl P. Zeithaml in their book Management: Function and Strategy. "Today, businesses are bombarded by incredibly high rates of change from a frustratingly large number of sources…. Insidepressures come from top managers and lower-level employees who push for change. Outside pressures come from changes in the legal, competitive, technological, and economic environments."
Organizational change initiatives often arise out of problems faced by a company. In some cases, however, companies are encouraged to change for other, more positive reasons. "Change commonly occurs because the organization experiences some difficulty, " Bateman and Zeithaml wrote. "But sometimes the most constructive change takes place not because of problems but because of opportunities." The authors used the term "performance gap" to describe the difference between a company's actual performance and the performance of which it is capable. Recognition of a performance gap often provides the impetus for change, as companies strive to improve their performance to expected levels. This sort of gap is also where many entrepreneurs find opportunities to begin new businesses.
Unfortunately, as Rick Mauer noted in an article for HR Focus, statistics show that many organizational change efforts fail. For example, 50 percent of quality improvement programs fail to meet their goals, and 30 percent of process reengineering efforts are unsuccessful. The most common reason that change efforts fail is that they encounter resistance from employees. Change appears threatening to many people, which makes it difficult to gain their support and commitment to implementing changes. Consequently, the ability to manage change effectively is a highly sought-after skill in managers. Companies need people who can contribute positively to their inevitable change efforts.

SPECTRUM OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
AUTOMATION: Using technology to perform tasks efficiently / effectively
RATIONALIZATION OF PROCEDURES: Streamline SOPs; eliminate bottlenecks
BUSINESS REENGINEERING: Radical redesign of processes to improve cost, quality, service; maximize benefits of technology
PARADIGM SHIFT: A new perspective on things.
:Is a complete mental model of how a complex system functions.
:Involves rethinking the nature of business, the organization; a complete reconception of how the system should function.

Areas of Organizational Change
Bateman and Zeithaml identified four major areas of organizational change: strategy, technology, structure, and people. All four areas are related, and companies often must institute changes in the other areas when they attempt to change one area. The first area, strategy changes, can take place on a large scale—for example, when a company shifts its resources to enter a new line of business—or on a small scale—for example, when a company makes productivity improvements in order to reduce costs. There are three basic stages for a company making a strategic change:1) realizing that the current strategy is no longer suitable for the company's situation; 2) establishing a vision for the company's future direction; and 3) implementing the change and setting up new systems to support it.
Technological changes are often introduced as components of larger strategic changes, although they sometimes take place on their own. An important aspect of changing technology is determining who in the organization will be threatened by the change. To be successful, a technology change must be incorporated into the company's overall systems, and a management structure must be created to support it. Structural changes can also occur due to strategic changes—as in the case where a company decides to acquire another business and must integrate it—as well as due to operational changes or changes in managerial style. For example, a company that wished to implement more participative decision making might need to change its hierarchical structure.
People changes can become necessary due to other changes, or sometimes companies simply seek to change workers' attitudes and behaviors in order to increase their effectiveness. "Attempting a strategic change, introducing a new technology, and other changes in the work environment may affect people's attitudes (sometimes in a negative way), " Bateman and Zeithaml wrote. "But management frequently initiates programs with a conscious goal of directly and positively changing the people themselves." In any case, people changes can be the most difficult and important part of the overall change process. The science of organization development was created to deal with changing people on the job through techniques such as education and training, team building, and career planning.

Resistance to Change
A manager trying to implement a change, no matter how small, should expect to encounter some resistance from within the organization. Resistance to change is a normal reaction from people who have become accustomed to a certain way of doing things. Of course, certain situations or tactics can increase resistance. "Individuals, groups, and organizations must be motivated to change. But if people perceive no performance gap or if they consider the gap un-important, they will not have this motivation. Moreover, they will resist changes that others try to introduce, " Bateman and Zeithaml explained.
The authors outlined a number of common reasons that people tend to resist change. These include: inertia, or the tendency of people to become comfortable with the status quo; timing, as when change efforts are introduced at a time when workers are busy or have a bad relationship with management; surprise, because people's reflex is to resist when they must deal with a sudden, radical change; or peer pressure, which may cause a group to resist due to anti-management feelings even if individual members do not oppose the change. Resistance can also grow out of people's perceptions of how the change will affect them personally. They may resist because they fear that they will lose their jobs or their status, because they do not understand the purpose of the change, or simply because they have a different perspective on the change than management.
Fortunately, Bateman and Zeithaml noted, there are a number of steps managers can take to help overcome resistance to change. One proven method is education and communication. Employees can be informed about both the nature of the change and the logic behind it before it takes place through reports, memos, group presentations, or individual discussions. Another important component of overcoming resistance is inviting employee participation and involvement in both the design and implementation phases of the change effort. "People who are involved in decisions understand them better and are more committed to them, " Bateman and Zeithaml explained. Another possible approach to managing resistance to change is through facilitation and support. Managers should be sure to provide employees with the resources they need to make the change, be supportive of their efforts, listen to their problems with empathy, and accept that their performance level may drop initially.
Some companies manage to overcome resistance to change through negotiation and rewards. They offer employees concrete incentives to ensure their cooperation. Other companies resort to manipulation, or using subtle tactics such as giving a resistance leader a prominent position in the change effort. A final option is coercion, which involves punishing people who resist or using force to ensure their cooperation. Although this method can be useful when speed is of the essence, it can have lingering negative effects on the company. Of course, no method is appropriate to every situation, and a number of different methods may be combined as needed. As Bateman and Zeithaml stated, "Effective change managers are familiar with the various approaches and capable of flexibly applying them according to the situation."

WHAT IS THE HUMAN SIDE OF CHANGE AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT ?
Organizational change is about people changing. Organizational change, then, is a highly complex process that must take into account how people respond psychologically when asked to make major changes at work. Their reactions inevitably vary. While some people embrace change, others will resist it Ð sometimes passively, giving the impression that they support it. A small number of people are energized by change, but many others feel threatened and anxious. This is particularly true if, under the change initiative, people may be transferred to new positions or work sites or even lose their jobs. The human side of change is frequently ignored or handled inadequately despite managers’ best intentions or their intellectual understanding of how difficult change is. Recognizing the pain and insecurity that change can cause in the workplace is not enough; managers must devise ways for responding effectively to these feelings. This may involve engaging employees more actively in change efforts, communicating with them more frequently and comprehensively about new developments, creating a forum for them to vent their frustrations and fears, or simply maintaining an "open door" environment, where employees can approach their managers individually to discuss concerns.


>>Amongst the spectrum of organizational change identified above, the most radical type of change is automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts. Yes, all of these fields can be treated as a major change in an organization. As what I have read from the article written by Jack Welch & Suzy Welch in the Principles of Organizational Change, “The problem is that people hate it when their bosses announce a “transformation initiative”.” And it is merely true; there is really a resistance in every act of change. And the vital factor of this change is people, the ones that will apply the change.




References:
http://www.zturk.com/edu/zagreb/podiplomski/slides/02-1-short-IT-strategies.pdf
http://www.answers.com/topic/managing-organizational-change
http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/internal/organizational_change_primer.pdf
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/pf/17334-principles-of-organizational-change.html
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Gabrielle Anne Rae Deseo

avatar

Posts : 61
Points : 64
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 27
Location : Davao City

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:52 pm

Organizational Change


Change is an absolutely critical part of business. And yes, your company does need to change—preferably now and not later, when you have no other choice.
The problem is that people hate it when their bosses announce a “transformation initiative.” They run back to their cubicles and start frantically e-mailing one another, complaining that the changes are going to ruin everything
People love familiarity and patterns. They cling to them. The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.

Ultimately, implementing change comes down to embracing the following four practices:
1. Attach every change initiative to a clear purpose or goal. Change for change’s sake is stupid and enervating. Change should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a competitor has dropped prices 20 percent.
But sometimes the need for change isn’t immediately apparent. Competitive threats seem to be emerging, but you don’t know for certain, and still, you have to respond. In those cases, relentless communication about the business rationale for change, reinforced with lots of data, is the best ammunition you have.
The larger your company, the more challenging it will be to communicate the need for change. In big companies, calls for change are often greeted noncommittally. After all, if the company has been through enough change programs, employees will assume you’ll go away if they just wait long enough.
Stick to your guns—your solid, persuasive business case. Over time, logic will win out.

2. Hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-it types. Everyone in business claims to like change. To say otherwise would be career suicide. But by my estimate, less than 10 percent of all businesspeople are true change agents. Once the next group—about 70 to 80 percent of people working in business—is convinced that change is necessary, they’ll say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters.
To make change happen, companies must actively hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-its. But with everyone claiming to like change, how can you tell who is for real?
Luckily, change agents usually make themselves known. They’re typically brash, high-energy and more than a little paranoid about the future. They often invent change initiatives on their own or ask to lead them. Invariably, they are curious and forward-looking.
These people have a certain fearlessness about the unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and move on. They’re thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make bold decisions without a lot of data.

3. Ferret out and remove the resisters, even if their performance is satisfactory. This is the hardest of the four practices to implement. It’s tough to let anyone go, but it’s particularly difficult to fire people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well.
But in any organization, there are people who will not accept change, no matter how sound your case is. They are so invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go.
That may sound harsh, but you’re not doing anyone a favor by keeping resisters in your organization. They foster an underground resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They’re wasting their own time: They’re working at a company where they don’t agree with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where they do.

4. Look at car wrecks. Most companies capitalize on obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product line extensions.
But to be a real change organization, you also have to have to look at bolder, scarier, more unpredictable events, assess the opportunities they present and make the most of them. Fostering this capability takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge.
Take the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Currency traders certainly capitalized on this awful event; they live on exploiting change. But they’re not the only ones who should do this. GE had real success buying undervalued Thai auto loans in this period. Others prospered by buying real estate at fire sale prices.
Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they’re tragic to the employees. Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can also be created from the cinders.
With all the noise out there about change, it’s easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices that matter. That’s it. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
Jack and Suzy Welch are the authors of the international bestseller Winning (Collins). Their latest book is Winning: The Answers: Confronting 74 of the Toughest Questions in Business Today (Collins). They are eager to hear about your career dilemmas and challenges at work and look forward to answering your questions in future columns. Please visit their new web site at www.welchway.com and submit questions through the online form at welchway.com/Contact-Us.aspx. Please include your name, occupation, city and country.
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/pf/17334-principles-of-organizational-change.html

To really understand organizational change and begin guiding successful change efforts, the change agent should have at least a broad understanding of the context of the change effort. This includes understanding the basic systems and structures in organizations, including their typical terms and roles. This requirement applies to the understanding of leadership and management of the organizations, as well. That is why graduate courses in business often initially include a course or some discussion on organizational theory. This topic includes several links to help you gain this broad understanding. The following links (broadly reviewed in the following order) might be helpful to establish some sense about organizations, and their leadership and management.
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm


Major Types of Organizational Change

Typically, the phrase “organizational change” is about a significant change in the organization, such as reorganization or adding a major new product or service. This is in contrast to smaller changes, such as adopting a new computer procedure. Organizational change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful if you can think of change in terms of various dimensions as described below.

Organization-wide Versus Subsystem Change
Examples of organization-wide change might be a major restructuring, collaboration or “rightsizing.”
Usually, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, for example, going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to one that has a more stable and planned development. Experts assert that successful organizational change requires a change in culture – cultural change is another example of organization-wide change.
Examples of a change in a subsystem might include addition or removal of a product or service, reorganization of a certain department, or implementation of a new process to deliver products or services.

Transformational Versus Incremental Change
An example of transformational (or radical, fundamental) change might be changing an organization’s structure and culture from the traditional top-down, hierarchical structure to a large amount of self-directing teams. Another example might be Business Process Re-engineering, which tries to take apart (at least on paper, at first) the major parts and processes of the organization and then put them back together in a more optimal fashion. Transformational change is sometimes referred to as quantum change.
Examples of incremental change might include continuous improvement as a quality management process or implementation of new computer system to increase efficiencies. Many times, organizations experience incremental change and its leaders do not recognize the change as such.

Remedial Versus Developmental Change
Change can be intended to remedy current situations, for example, to improve the poor performance of a product or the entire organization, reduce burnout in the workplace, help the organization to become much more proactive and less reactive, or address large budget deficits. Remedial projects often seem more focused and urgent because they are addressing a current, major problem. It is often easier to determine the success of these projects because the problem is solved or not.
Change can also be developmental – to make a successful situation even more successful, for example, expand the amount of customers served, or duplicate successful products or services.
Developmental projects can seem more general and vague than remedial, depending on how specific goals are and how important it is for members of the organization to achieve those goals.
Some people might have different perceptions of what is a remedial change versus a developmental change. They might see that if developmental changes are not made soon, there will be need for remedial changes. Also, organizations may recognize current remedial issues and then establish a
Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development” – to obtain the entire book, select “Publications” at http://www.authenticityconsulting.com
Copyright; Authenticity Consulting, LLC 175 developmental vision to address the issues. In those situations, projects are still remedial because they were conducted primarily to address current issues.

Unplanned Versus Planned Change
Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization, which causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion. Unplanned change might occur when the Chief Executive Officer suddenly leaves the organization, significant public relations problems occur, poor product performance quickly results in loss of customers, or other disruptive situations arise.
Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs with successful implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a change of this magnitude.
Note that planned change, even though based on a proactive and well-done plan, often does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change tends to occur in more of a chaotic and disruptive fashion than expected by participants.

The levels of organizational change
Perhaps the most difficult decision to make is at what "level" to start. There are four levels of organizational change:
shaping and anticipating the future (level 1)
defining what business(es) to be in and their "core competencies” (level 2)
reengineering processes (level 3)
incrementally improving processes (level 4)

First let's describe these levels, and then under what circumstances a business should use them.
Level 1- shaping and anticipating the future
At this level, organizations start out with few assumptions about the business itself, what it is "good" at, and what the future will be like.
Management generates alternate "scenarios" of the future, defines opportunities based on these possible futures, assesses its strengths and weaknesses in these scenarios changes its mission, measurement system etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."

Level 2 - defining what business(es) to be in and their "Core Competencies
Many attempts at strategic planning start at this level, either assuming that 1) the future will be like the past or at least predictable; 2) the future is embodied in the CEO's "vision for the future"; or 3) management doesn't know where else to start; 4) management is too afraid to start at level 1 because of the changes needed to really meet future requirements; or 5) the only mandate they have is to refine what mission already exists.
After a mission has been defined and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis is completed, an organization can then define its measures, goals, strategies, etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."

Level 3 - Reengineering (Structurally Changing) Your Processes
Either as an aftermath or consequence of level one or two work or as an independent action, level three work focuses on fundamentally changing how work is accomplished. Rather than focus on modest improvements, reengineering focuses on making major structural changes to everyday with the goal of substantially improving productivity, efficiency, quality or customer satisfaction. To read more about level 3 organizational changes, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."

Level 4 - Incrementally Changing your Processes
Level 4 organizational changes are focusing in making many small changes to existing work processes. Oftentimes organizations put in considerable effort into getting every employee focused on making these small changes, often with considerable effect. Unfortunately, making improvements on how a buggy whip for horse-drawn carriages is made will rarely come up with the idea that buggy whips are no longer necessary because cars have been invented. To read more about level 4 organizational changes and how it compares to level 3, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."

One organization we consulted with has had a more positive experience with the incremental approach. We trained an internal facilitator, helped them deliver training in a just-in-time fashion, and had them focus on specific technical problems. The teams management formed reduced initial quality defects by 48%.
The disadvantages of such an incremental approach include avoiding structural, system-wide problems, and assumes existing processes need modest improvement. In addition, using incremental approaches can be frustrating to employees and management if (pick a buzzword) does not catch on in the organization. As a result of these disadvantages, many organizations experience a high risk of failure in the long run.
http://www.organizedchange.com/decide.htm

Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.
Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.
The main proponents of reengineering were Michael Hammer and James A. Champy. In a series of books including Reengineering the Corporation, Reengineering Management, and The Agenda, they argue that far too much time is wasted passing-on tasks from one department to another. They claim that it is far more efficient to appoint a team who are responsible for all the tasks in the process. In The Agenda they extend the argument to include suppliers, distributors, and other business partners.
Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to re-engineering theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering

Business process reengineering (often referred to by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance.

The impact of BPR on organizational performance
The two cornerstones of any organization are the people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain, organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%.

How to implement a BPR project
The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. That means:
• Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry.
• Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position.
• Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives.
• Defining behaviours that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims.
• Producing key performance measures to track progress.
• Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization
• Identifying initiatives that will improve performance.
Once these building blocks in place, the BPR exercise can begin.

Tools to support BPR
When a BPR project is undertaken across the organization, it can require managing a massive amount of information about the processes, data and systems. If you don't have an excellent tool to support BPR, the management of this information can become an impossible task. The use of a good BPR/documentation tool is vital in any BPR project.

The types of attributes you should look for in BPR software are:
• Graphical interface for fast documentation
• "Object oriented" technology, so that changes to data (eg: job titles) only need to be made in one place, and the change automatically appears throughout all the organization's procedures and documentation.
• Drag and drop facility so you can easily relate organizational and data objects to each step in the process
• Customizable meta data fields, so that you can include information relating to your industry, business sector or organization in your documentation
• Analysis, such as swim-lanes to show visually how responsibilities in a process are transferred between different roles, or where data items or computer applications are used.
• Support for Value Stream mapping.
• CRUD or RACI reports, to provide evidence for process improvement.
• The ability to assess the processes against agreed international standards
• Simulation software to support 'what-if' analyses during the design phase of the project to develop LEAN processes
• The production of word documents or web site versions of the procedures at the touch of a single button, so that the information can be easily maintained and updated.
The software we use by choice is Protos, a very comprehensive Dutch system that has been translated into English. Protos meets all the above requirements, and many more, and is better than any system originated in English that we have seen.

Conclusion
To be successful, business process reengineering projects need to be top down, taking in the complete organization, and the full end to end processes. It needs to be supported by tools that make processes easy to track and analyze.
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/business-process-reengineering.html

blog link for this post:
http://xiibee.blogspot.com/2009/12/mis-2-assignment-5.html
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://xiibee.blogspot.com/
Karen Palero

avatar

Posts : 40
Points : 41
Join date : 2009-06-23
Location : Davao

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:40 am

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?

Change can take many forms; it can be planned or unplanned, incremental or radical , and recurrent or unprecedented. Trends in the process or sequence of changes can be observed over time. These trends can be accelerating or decelerating in time, and they can move toward equilibrium, oscillation, chaos, or randomness in the behavior of the organizational enitity being examined. Thus, the basic concept of organization change involves three ideas: difference, at different temporal moments, between states of an organizational unit or system.

Automation
-Mechanizing procedures to speed up the performance of existing tasks.
-most common form of IT-enabled change
-involves assisting employees perform their tasks more efficiently and effectively
-akin to putting a larger motor in an existing vehicle


Rationalization of Procedures
-The streamlining of existing operating procedures, eliminating obvious bottlenecks so that automation makes operating procedures more efficient
-follows quickly from early automation
[Toshiba had to rationalize its procedures down to the level of installation manuals and software instruction and had to create standard names and formats for the data items in its global data warehouse. Without a large amount of business process rationalization, computer technology would have been useless at Toshiba (what ERPs do) ]


Business Reengineering
-The radical redesign of business processes, combining steps to cut waste and eliminate repetitive, paper-intensive tasks to improve cost, quality, and service and to maximize the benefits of information technology
-Involves radical rethinking
-Can change the way an organization conducts its business
-Strikes fear, its expensive, its very risky and its extremely difficult to carry out and manage
-Develop the business vision and process objective

Business Process Re-engineering Steps:
-Identify the processes to be redesigned (core and highest payback)
-Understand and measure the performance of existing processes
-Identify the opportunities for applying information technology
-Build a prototype of the new process


Paradigm Shifts
-Radical reconceptualization of the nature of the business and the nature of the organization
-akin to rethinking not only the automobile, but transportation itself
-e-business is a paradigm shift
-Deciding which business process to get right is half the challenge
-70% of time programmatic reengineering efforts fail
-Why then change? Because the rewards are high!


Each kinds of structural organizational change that are enabled by IT carries different rewards and risks. The most common form of IT-enabled organizational change or the first phase of IT adoption is automation. This has allowed employees to automate a number of time-consuming and error-prone activities and gain benefits in cycle-time, productivity, and accuracy. For example, a main contractor makes use of standalone software to keep track all Request For Information (RFI) in a project.

A deeper form of organization change or the second phase of IT adoption is rationalization of procedures. Automation frequently reveals bottlenecks in production and makes the existing arrangement of procedures and structures painfully cumbersome. Rationalization of procedures involves the streamlining of standard operating procedures, which eliminates obvious bottlenecks, so that operating procedures become more efficient. Roughly speaking, it is a process of fine tuning the first step. For example, the main contractor implements an intranet and standardizes the data in RFI across all projects in the enterprise.


A more powerful type of organizational change or the third phase of IT adoption is business process reengineering, in which business processes are analyzed, simplified, and redesigned. Reengineering involves radically rethinking the flow of work and the construction business processes with the intention to radically reduce the costs of businesses. Using IT, organizations can rethink and streamline their business processes to improve speed, service, and quality. Business process reengineering reorganizes workflows, combining steps to cut waste and eliminate repetitive, paper-intensive tasks. It is much more ambitious than rationalization of procedures because it requires a new vision of how the process is to be organized. For example, the main contractor sets up an extranet to online collaborate with the architect for the RFI process.

Paradigm Shift is the fourth kind of structural organizational change that are enabled by IT. It is a dramatic change in methodology or practice. It often refers to a major change in thinking and planning, which ultimately changes the way projects are implemented. For example, accessing applications and data from the Web instead of from local servers is a paradigm shift.

Not many construction industry players have moved beyond the first phase of automation. However, there are some companies have committed to a continuing investment in technological advancement and organizational change. By changing how they are organized and do business, they have achieved far greater benefits than available through automation alone. Companies like this have succeeded in staying ahead of their competitors not merely by automating but by changing their organization as well. Their strategic advantage has been their preparedness and ability to continually be innovative, and to manage the change necessary to gain substantial business benefits.

The changes in technology has impact the whole sectors and even the whole society. This is because the changes take place at system level, involving technology and market shifts. This involves the convergence of a number of trends which result in a 'paradigm shift' where the old order is replaced. For example, the invention of computer has long been replaced the usage of a typewriter, and since after the appearance of this computer, scenario of the workplace has changed significantly. We can see that all the work can be done in a short time. Computer has become a crucial tool in any office in the world. There are many examples of the technology advances such as the internet, e-business, mobile phone and many more that makes every activities becomes faster and easier. Therefore, based on my readings the most radical type of change are all of the aforementioned structural organizational change, beginning from Automation (wherein an organization will adopt what's the latest technology) proceeds Rationalization of Procedures (which eliminates bottleneck to make automation efficient) followed by Business Process Re engineering (which maximizes the benefits of IT) and lastly is the Paradigm shift (which is a transformation driven by change).



References:
http://www.softlogic.org/blog/
http://quantifactus.wcupa.edu/mis601/chapter14.ppt
http://alexandra.di.uoa.gr/courses/mis/docs/lecture6.ppt
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.misallabouts.blogspot.com
Jethro Alburo Querubin

avatar

Posts : 43
Points : 45
Join date : 2009-06-22

PostSubject: Business Process Reengineering   Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:42 am

Organizational change

Perhaps the most asked but least answered question in business today is “What can we do to make our business survive and grow?” The world is rapidly changing into something too hard to easily predict, with a hundred opportunities and pitfalls passing by every moment.
To add to this confusion, there are hundreds, if not thousands of techniques, solutions and methods that claim to help business improve productivity, quality and customer satisfaction. A company President, CEO or business owner has so many choices in these buzzwords, whether they be called Total Quality Management, Customer Satisfaction, Re-engineering or Teambuilding. They are like new shoppers in a giant grocery store: They are hungry, but there are so many brands, sizes and varieties you don’t know what to buy.
In response to this confusion, many do nothing, often afraid of making the wrong choices. Others change the techniques they use every few months, using the “program du’jeur” method of organizational change, otherwise known as MBS (Management by Best Seller). Neither of these responses help the organization in the long run. Changing nothing will produce nothing. Implementing a different buzzword (Total Quality, Just in Time, Re-engineering, etc.) every few months often creates a “whipsaw” effect that causes mass confusion among your employees. These buzzwords are often a hammer in search of a nail, techniques applied with no clear focus as to the why, expected results or return on investment.
One of the organizations we consulted with started on this path. Senior management proclaimed in a memo that Total Quality should be a way of life. One senior vice president declared that he wanted 25% of his organization using Total Quality tools within a year. This caused tremendous excitement in the organization, However, the follow-through was delayed, occasionally inappropriate and sometimes not there. Many employee became discouraged with the process and considered it just another management fad. With the next business downturn, virtually all training had stopped and little enthusiasm was left.
Other organizations clearly focus on technical problems and on improving what they had. They are initially successful, but become victims of their own success. I call this an improved, planned incremental approach. Their initial quality improvement teams may be so successful they rapidly create more teams, without the qualitative organization-wide changes (re-engineering) necessary to sustain a permanent effort.
One organization we worked with had over 70 quality improvement teams in a plan with only 300 employees. They had shown little results after their first successes, and asked us what their next steps should be. We suggested the union’s leadership in their efforts, look at restructuring their organization along more product-focused lines, and possibly start profit sharing. They were not interested in taking any of these actions. A few months later, its parent company shut down the site, partly because of its poor productivity.
Organizations need to move beyond the buzzwords into deciding what actions they need to perform that will help them grow and develop. In response to this problem, this article will provide you a framework for coping with organizational change independent of buzzwords or the latest management fad. Organizations must first decide on the framework their organizational change long before they choose a buzzword to implement.
The major decisions
Instead of grasping for the latest technique, I suggest instead that organizations should go through a formal decision-making process that has four major components:
Levels, goals and strategies
Measurement system
Sequence of steps
Implementation and organizational change

The levels of organizational change
Perhaps the most difficult decision to make is at what "level" to start. There are four levels of organizational change:
shaping and anticipating the future (level 1)
defining what business(es) to be in and their "core competencies” (level 2)
reengineering processes (level 3)
incrementally improving processes (level 4)

First let's describe these levels, and then under what circumstances a business should use them.
Level 1- shaping and anticipating the future
At this level, organizations start out with few assumptions about the business itself, what it is "good" at, and what the future will be like.
Management generates alternate "scenarios" of the future, defines opportunities based on these possible futures, assesses its strengths and weaknesses in these scenarios changes its mission, measurement system etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
Level 2 - defining what business(es) to be in and their "Core Competencies
Many attempts at strategic planning start at this level, either assuming that 1) the future will be like the past or at least predictable; 2) the future is embodied in the CEO's "vision for the future"; or 3) management doesn't know where else to start; 4) management is too afraid to start at level 1 because of the changes needed to really meet future requirements; or 5) the only mandate they have is to refine what mission already exists.
After a mission has been defined and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis is completed, an organization can then define its measures, goals, strategies, etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
Level 3 - Reengineering (Structurally Changing) Your Processes
Either as an aftermath or consequence of level one or two work or as an independent action, level three work focuses on fundamentally changing how work is accomplished. Rather than focus on modest improvements, reengineering focuses on making major structural changes to everyday with the goal of substantially improving productivity, efficiency, quality or customer satisfaction. To read more about level 3 organizational changes, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."
Level 4 - Incrementally Changing your Processes
Level 4 organizational changes are focusing in making many small changes to existing work processes. Oftentimes organizations put in considerable effort into getting every employee focused on making these small changes, often with considerable effect. Unfortunately, making improvements on how a buggy whip for horse-drawn carriages is made will rarely come up with the idea that buggy whips are no longer necessary because cars have been invented. To read more about level 4 organizational changes and how it compares to level 3, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."

One organization we consulted with has had a more positive experience with the incremental approach. We trained an internal facilitator, helped them deliver training in a just-in-time fashion, and had them focus on specific technical problems. The teams management formed reduced initial quality defects by 48%.
The disadvantages of such an incremental approach include avoiding structural, system-wide problems, and assumes existing processes need modest improvement. In addition, using incremental approaches can be frustrating to employees and management if (pick a buzzword) does not catch on in the organization. As a result of these disadvantages, many organizations experience a high risk of failure in the long run.
What level do I choose?
These levels have much of the same goals: increasing customer satisfaction, doing things right the first time, greater employee productivity, etc. Despite these similarities, they differ substantially in the methods they use to achieve these goals.
Levels one through three, on one hand, focuses on "big picture" elements such as analysis of the marketplace, out-sourcing, purchase/sale of subsidiaries, truly out-of-the box" thinking and substantial change in the management and support systems of the company . In my experience, companies that use these methods tend to have a high need for change, risk-tolerant management, relatively few constraints and have substantial consensus among its management on what to do. Types of industries include those whose environment requires rapid adaptation to fast-moving events: electronics, information systems and telecommunication industries, for example.
Companies using mostly incremental tools (level 4) have management that perceives only a modest need for change, is relatively risk-avoidant, has many constraints on its actions and only has a modest consensus among themselves on what to do. Instead of focusing on new opportunities, they wish to hone and clarify what they already do. Types of industries that often use these methods include the military, aerospace, and until recently, health care organizations. Those organizations whose strategic planning solely focuses on refining an existing mission statement and communicating the paragraph also fall into using incremental (level 4) methods.
When discussing the continuum of structural vs. incremental change, its important to realize that what labels companies use are not important here. One must carefully observe their actions. Many companies have slogans, "glitter" recognition programs and large budgets to provide "awareness" training in the buzzword they are attempting to implement. The key, however, is to note what changes they are really making. If management is mostly filling training slots with disinterested workers and forming a few process improvement teams, they are using level three methods. If they are considering changes in business lines, re-organizing by customer instead of by function, or making major changes in how the everyday employee is being paid, they are using level 3 methods.
Unfortunately, all of this discussion hinges in management's belief about how much change is necessary. This belief often hinges on their often unassessed beliefs of 1) how well the organization performs compared to other organizations (a lack of benchmarking); and 2) what the future will be.
As a result, my recommendation is that organizations conduct scenario/strategic planning exercises (level 1) anyway, even if they have already decided that level 4 (incremental) methods will suffice to solve their problems. This way management can be aware of the limitations of the lower-level methods they are using and realize when it is best to abandon these lower-level methods for something more substantive.
Based on this exercise, comparison of existing internal processes with world-class examples (benchmarking) and market analysis, management may come to realize how much change is necessary. The greater the gap between what the organization needs to be and how it currently operations and what businesses it is in, the more it suggests that greater change is necessary, and greater restructuring is necessary.
This decision is very important. IBM in the mid 1980’s felt that the future would be much like the past and a result didn't have to change much. They did not realize how much microcomputers would replace the functions of their bread-and-butter business, the mainframe. The net result was tens of thousands of people were laid off, with the company suffering the first losses in its history.
Goals
Based on whatever level work you are doing, the opportunities that are found need to be evaluated to determine which of them best suit the existing and future capabilities of the organization and provide the most "bang for the buck" in terms of improvement in your measures of success. In addition, goals need to have the resources and management determination to see to their success.
Goals also need to be SMART, that is:
Specific - concrete action, step-by-step actions needed to make the goal succeed
Measurable - observable results from the goal's accomplishment
Attainable - The goal is both possible and is done at the right time with sufficient attention and resources
Realistic- The probability of success is good, given the resources and attention given it.
Time-bound- The goal is achieved within a specified period of time in a way that takes advantage of the opportunity before it passes you by.

Some examples include:
“We will expand into the polystyrene market within the next five years and achieve 20% market share”
We will decrease the time from research to customer delivery by 50% within two years
We will increase the quality of our largest product by 20% in three years.
Strategies
Where goals focus on what, strategies focus on how. Some examples include:
“We will re-engineer our research and development process”
“We will evaluate and improve our sales and marketing department”
We will conduct a SWOT analysis and then define our core competencies


Additional examples of strategies are included in the "Moving from the Future to your Strategy" chapter.
Wait a second. Aren't goals and strategies really the same. They are in one sense as they both need to be SMART. As what you might guess, the goals of a level are achieved by creating strategies at the lower levels.
The Measurement System
Without measures of success, the organization does not know if it has succeeded in its efforts. Someone once said, “What gets measured gets improved.” Someone else said, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
For more information on measurement systems and their place in organizational change, please see the "Balanced Scorecard" article, along with a number of articles where employee surveys are used.
Implementation and Organizational Change
The success of any organizational change effort can be summed into an equation:

Success = Measurement X Method X Control X Focused Persistence X Consensus
Like any equation with multiplication, a high value of one variable can compensate for lower levels on other variables. Also like any equation with multiplication, if one variable equals 0, the result is zero.
On employee involvement
Some organizations involve employees right from the start, where they have significant influence in the strategic plan of the organization. This kind of involvement tends to reduce employees’ resistance, which is always a very important factor in the success of any organizational change. Such organizations as Eaton, Eastman Chemical and Rohm and Haas have used such an approach.
Such employee involvement, however, might also be threatening to management’s traditional power. Some organizations decide employee involvement will be limited to implementing the strategic decisions management makes, or further limit involvement to purely task-focused teams working on technical problems. Many aerospace organizations have used this approach.
Focused persistence, good project management and the sequence of implementation
The sequence of implementation is also an important factor. There are four basic options, with many variations of them. The first involves the entire organization from the start, with the whole organization intensively working at once on making the change. Ford Motor Company is currently restructuring its entire organization, moving from planning to implementation in nine months.
Another option is a more relaxed approach, in which divisions or business units of the organization go at their own pace. This option can often become an incremental approach like the first or second village. Many conglomerates or other companies with diverse operations try this approach.
A third option is similar to the previous one, with the focus being on individual business units doing the implementation. In this case, however, business units implement roughly the same things in roughly the same time schedule. Unisys, the computer company, is using this method on some of its organizational change efforts.
A fourth option is to create a pilot project in one division or business unit, learn from its mistakes, and then apply those lessons to the rest of the organization. Examples of this option include the Saturn car facility at General Motors and the Enfield plant of Digital Equipment Corporation. It’s important to note here that creating pilot projects is a high-risk business. In both cases, the lessons learned from these pilot projects have not gained widespread acceptance in their parent companies due to their heavily ingrained cultures.
Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.


Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.
The main proponents of reengineering were Michael Hammer and James A. Champy. In a series of books including Reengineering the Corporation, Reengineering Management, and The Agenda, they argue that far too much time is wasted passing-on tasks from one department to another. They claim that it is far more efficient to appoint a team who are responsible for all the tasks in the process. In The Agenda they extend the argument to include suppliers, distributors, and other business partners.
Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to re-engineering theory.

Business process reengineering (BPR) began as a private sector technique to help organizations fundamentally rethink how they do their work in order to dramatically improve customer service, cut operational costs, and become world-class competitors. A key stimulus for reengineering has been the continuing development and deployment of sophisticated information systems and networks. Leading organizations are becoming bolder in using this technology to support innovative business processes, rather than refining current ways of doing work.

Business process reengineering is one approach for redesigning the way work is done to better support the organization's mission and reduce costs. Reengineering starts with a high-level assessment of the organization's mission, strategic goals, and customer needs. Basic questions are asked, such as "Does our mission need to be redefined? Are our strategic goals aligned with our mission? Who are our customers?" An organization may find that it is operating on questionable assumptions, particularly in terms of the wants and needs of its customers. Only after the organization rethinks what it should be doing, does it go on to decide how best to do it.[1]
Within the framework of this basic assessment of mission and goals, reengineering focuses on the organization's business processes--the steps and procedures that govern how resources are used to create products and services that meet the needs of particular customers or markets. As a structured ordering of work steps across time and place, a business process can be decomposed into specific activities, measured, modeled, and improved. It can also be completely redesigned or eliminated altogether. Reengineering identifies, analyzes, and redesigns an organization's core business processes with the aim of achieving dramatic improvements in critical performance measures, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.

Reengineering recognizes that an organization's business processes are usually fragmented into subprocesses and tasks that are carried out by several specialized functional areas within the organization. Often, no one is responsible for the overall performance of the entire process. Reengineering maintains that optimizing the performance of subprocesses can result in some benefits, but cannot yield dramatic improvements if the process itself is fundamentally inefficient and outmoded. For that reason, reengineering focuses on redesigning the process as a whole in order to achieve the greatest possible benefits to the organization and their customers. This drive for realizing dramatic improvements by fundamentally rethinking how the organization's work should be done distinguishes reengineering from process improvement efforts that focus on functional or incremental improvement.

Base on the articles I have read above, I think the most radical type of change in the spectrum of organizational change is the business reengineering or business process reengineering (BPR) which is the fundamental innovation of the business processes. Many companies wants a redesign of the business processes before considering automation or rationalization of procedures. Considering the fast changing environment due to technology-oriented generation, reengineering or changing the design of the company is focused in order to cope up with what is happening around. Reengineering becomes the basis for many development management also because recent management information systems developments wants to integrate a wide number or bigger business functions.


References:
David Chaudron, PhD
http://www.organizedchange.com/decide.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Norena T. Nicdao

avatar

Posts : 58
Points : 64
Join date : 2009-06-22
Age : 27
Location : Davao City

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:36 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?


Definition of Organizational Change


Companies that are undergoing or that have undergone a transformation. This keyword should always be used in conjunction with "Success Story" or "Experiment" or "Failed Experiment." (Process)

Organizational Change

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change -- it's inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective. There are many schools with educational programs about organizations, business, leadership and management. Unfortunately, there still are not enough schools with programs about how to analyze organizations, identify critically important priorities to address (such as systemic problems or exciting visions for change) and then undertake successful and significant change to address those priorities. This Library topic aims to improve that situation.

Organizational Change Theory

Article By: eHow Contributing Writer

An organization may have no other choice but to change. There are many reasons for an organization to change, such as a sudden change of the economic climate or the arising threat of competition. Through understanding the process and theory of organizational change, you and your organization can handle change in the best possible way.

In Gareth R. Jones and Jennifer M. George's book, Contemporary Management, organizational change is defined as "the movement of an organization away from its present state and toward some desired future state to increase its efficiency and effectiveness." During organizational change, managers must balance the need to improve current operations with the need to respond to new and unpredictable events.

Lewin's Force-Field Theory of Change

Kurt Lewin developed a theory about organizational change called the force-field theory. George and Jones describe the force-field theory as follows: a "wide variety of forces arise from the way an organization operates, from its structure, culture and control systems that make it resistant to change. At the same time, a wide variety of forces arise from changing task and general environments that push organizations toward change. These two sets of forces are always in opposition in an organization." For an organization to change, managers must find ways to increase the forces for change, decrease the resistance of change, or do both at the same time.

•Evolutionary Change
Evolutionary change is described by George and Jones as "gradual, incremental, and narrowly focused." It is not drastic or sudden, but a constant attempt to improve. An example of evolutionary change is total quality management that is consistently applied and shows improvement over the long term.

•Revolutionary Change
Some organizations need change--fast. When faced with drastic and unexpected change, an organization may have no other choice but to implement revolutionary change. George and Jones describe this as "change that is rapid, dramatic, and broadly focused. This bold shift may be due to a change in the economic climate or a new technological advancement that is integral to the function of the organization."

•Managing Change
Four steps exist in organizational change. First, assess the need for change through recognizing that a problem exists and identifying the problem's source. Secondly, decide on the change needed to be made by deciding what is the organization's ideal future state, as well as the obstacles that may occur during change. Thirdly, apply the change and decide whether change will occur from the top down or bottom up, then introduce and manage change. Lastly, evaluate the change by comparing the situation before and after the change or using benchmarking.

Explaining change and how it occurs has been a central theme in management and related disciplines. In a recent literature search using change and development as key words, researchers found more than a million articles on the subject in the disciplines of psychology, sociology, education, business, economics, as well as biology, medicine, meteorology, and geography (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). We know from this research that concepts, metaphors, and theories used to investigate change have yielded a rich, diverse theoretical landscape. Yet, at the same time, such diversity often has confounded rather than enlightened. It is difficult to compare and contrast theories and their results, let alone work out the relationships among them, when different units, levels of analysis, time frames, and perspectives are employed. Ideally, it would be useful to have a basic road map to guide us through the conceptual maze. While no map could possibly cover the entire terrain, one that puts the major elements of change into relief would be of advantage. That is the intention of this article. The goal is to provide an overview of change—its definition, scope, pace, and processes, with particular attention paid to radical change given the focus of this Special Issue. We seek to answer such questions as: “What is change? What are the types of change? How does change occur?” in order to inform the efforts to dramatically transform acquisition policy and process. While acquisition reform is not in the foreground of this analysis, it certainly provides the impetus and rationale for this endeavor. We begin with a conceptual framework that provides the backdrop for our understanding of radical change. We introduce four types of change that are differentiated by two dimensions—the pace and the scope of change. Building on these two dimensions, radical change is defined as the swift, dramatic transformation of an entire system. In the next section, we explore alternative explanations of how radical change occurs. Here the attention shifts to how change happens rather than what actually is changed. Four radical change processes are examined: radical change by chance, radical change by consensus, radical change by learning, and radical change by entrepreneurial design. We explore radical change by entrepreneurial design in the next section, since the overall focus in the symposium is how individuals can influence the radical change process. The intent is to outline various strategies and tactics that well-known public entrepreneurs have employed to affect radical change. The article concludes by identifying the conceptual framework’s most important implications for acquisition reform, such as whether radical change in acquisition can be pursued and who would be the likely public entrepreneurs leading the charge.

The most radical type of Organizational Change is the Automation.

Automation is the use of control systems (such as numerical control, programmable logic control, and other industrial control systems), in concert with other applications of information technology (such as computer-aided technologies [CAD, CAM, CAx]), to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention.[1] In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated.

These are the other types of Organizational Change:

A Business Definition for Rationalization

The application of efficiency or effectiveness measures to an organization. Rationalization can occur at the onset of a downturn in an organization's performance or results. It usually takes the form of cutbacks intended to bring the organization back to profitability and may involve layoffs, plant closures, and cutbacks in supplies and resources. It often involves changes in organization structure, particularly in the form of downsizing. The term is also used in a cynical way as a euphemism for mass layoffs.

Business process reengineering (BPR)


Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.

Paradigm shift

Paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.

The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th-century theory of poetics, for instance. Since the 1960s, the term has been found useful to thinkers in numerous non-scientific contexts. Compare as a structured form of Zeitgeist.

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" (p.10). Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".

Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change. For example, agriculture changed early primitive society. The primitive Indians existed for centuries roaming the earth constantly hunting and gathering for seasonal foods and water. However, by 2000 B.C., Middle America was a landscape of very small villages, each surrounded by patchy fields of corn and other vegetables.

Agents of change helped create a paradigm-shift moving scientific theory from the Plolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) to the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe), and moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both movements eventually changed the world view. These transformations were gradual as old beliefs were replaced by the new paradigms creating "a new gestalt" (p. 112).

Likewise, the printing press, the making of books and the use of vernacular language inevitable changed the culture of a people and had a direct affect on the scientific revolution. Johann Gutenberg's invention in the 1440's of movable type was an agent of change. Books became readily available, smaller and easier to handle and cheap to purchase. Masses of people acquired direct access to the scriputures. Attitudes began to change as people were relieved from church domination.

Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments, and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant.

In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn states that "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands.


References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
http://www.taketheleap.com/define.html
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm#anchor61645
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dau/roberts.pdf
http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/rationalization.html
Back to top Go down
View user profile
creza_jill_bulacito

avatar

Posts : 57
Points : 65
Join date : 2009-06-20
Age : 27
Location : DavaO

PostSubject: assignment 5(MIS2)   Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:03 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is
the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures,
business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?




Change is an absolutely critical part of business. Companies
do need to change—preferably now and not later, when they have no other choice.


The problem is that people hate it when their
bosses announce a “transformation initiative.” They run back to their cubicles
and start frantically e-mailing one another, complaining that the changes are
going to ruin everything



People love familiarity and patterns. They cling to
them. The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human
nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it
can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.



Ultimately, implementing change comes down to
embracing the following four practices:




1. Attach every change initiative to a clear
purpose or goal. Change for change’s sake is stupid and enervating. Change
should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to
understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is
easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a
competitor has dropped prices 20 percent.



But sometimes the need for change isn’t immediately
apparent. Competitive threats seem to be emerging, but you don’t know for
certain, and still, you have to respond. In those cases, relentless communication
about the business rationale for change, reinforced with lots of data, is the
best ammunition you have.



The larger your company, the more challenging it
will be to communicate the need for change. In big companies, calls for change
are often greeted noncommittally. After all, if the company has been through
enough change programs, employees will assume you’ll go away if they just wait
long enough.



Stick to your guns—your solid, persuasive business
case. Over time, logic will win out.



2. Hire and promote only true believers and
get-on-with-it types. Everyone in business claims to like change. To say
otherwise would be career suicide. But by my estimate, less than 10 percent of
all businesspeople are true change agents. Once the next group—about 70 to 80
percent of people working in business—is convinced that change is necessary,
they’ll say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters.



To make change happen, companies must actively hire
and promote only true believers and get-on-with-its. But with everyone claiming
to like change, how can you tell who is for real?



Luckily, change agents usually make themselves
known. They’re typically brash, high-energy and more than a little paranoid
about the future. They often invent change initiatives on their own or ask to
lead them. Invariably, they are curious and forward-looking.



These people have certain fearlessness about the
unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves
off and move on. They’re thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make
bold decisions without a lot of data.



3. Ferret out and remove the resisters, even if
their performance is satisfactory. This is the hardest of the four practices to
implement. It’s tough to let anyone go, but it’s particularly difficult to fire
people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well.



But in any organization, there are people who will
not accept change, no matter how sound your case is. They are so
invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that
they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go.



That may sound harsh, but you’re not doing anyone a
favor by keeping resisters in your organization. They foster an underground
resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They’re
wasting their own time: They’re working at a company where they don’t agree
with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where
they do.



4. Look at car wrecks. Most companies capitalize on
obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their
customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product
line extensions.



But to be a real change organization, you also have
to have to look at bolder, scarier, more unpredictable events, assess the
opportunities they present and make the most of them. Fostering this capability
takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge.



Take the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Currency
traders certainly capitalized on this awful event; they live on exploiting
change. But they’re not the only ones who should do this. GE had real success
buying undervalued Thai auto loans in this period. Others prospered by buying real
estate at fire sale prices.



Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that
reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they’re tragic to the employees.
Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can
also be created from the cinders.



With all the noise out there about change, it’s
easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices
that matter. That’s it. There’s nothing to be afraid of.



Jack and Suzy Welch are the authors of the
international bestseller Winning (Collins). Their latest book is Winning: The
Answers: Confronting 74 of the Toughest Questions in Business Today (Collins).
They are eager to hear about your career dilemmas and challenges at work and
look forward to answering your questions in future columns. Please visit their
new web site at www.welchway.com and submit questions through the online form
at welchway.com/Contact-Us.aspx. Please include your name, occupation, city and
country.




What's Organizational Change?

Typically, the concept of organizational change is
in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as
adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide
change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations (e.g.,
restructuring to self-managed teams, layoffs, etc.), new technologies, mergers,
major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total
Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational
transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical
reorientation in the way the organization operates.



What Provokes "Organizational Change"?


Change should not be done for the sake of change --
it's a strategy to accomplish some overall goal. (See Organizational
Performance Management.) Usually organizational change is provoked by some
major outside driving force, e.g., substantial cuts in funding, address major
new markets/clients, need for dramatic increases in productivity/services, etc.
Typically, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a
different level in their life cycle, e.g., going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial
organization to more stable and planned development. Transition to a new chief
executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique
personality pervades the entire organization.



Why is Organization-Wide Change Difficult to
Accomplish?


Typically there are strong resistances to change.
People are afraid of the unknown. Many people think things are already just
fine and don't understand the need for change. Many are inherently cynical
about change, particularly from reading about the notion of "change"
as if it's a mantra. Many doubt there are effective means to accomplish major
organizational change. Often there are conflicting goals in the organization,
e.g., to increase resources to accomplish the change yet concurrently cut costs
to remain viable. Organization-wide change often goes against the very values
held dear by members in the organization, that is, the change may go against
how members believe things should be done. That's why much of
organizational-change literature discusses needed changes in the culture of the
organization, including changes in members' values and beliefs and in the way
they enact these values and beliefs.



How Organization-Wide Change Is Best Carried Out?

Successful change must involve top management,
including the board and chief executive. Usually there's a champion who
initially instigates the change by being visionary, persuasive and consistent.
A change agent role is usually responsible to translate the vision to a
realistic plan and carry out the plan. Change is usually best carried out as a
team-wide effort. Communications about the change should be frequent and with
all organization members. To sustain change, the structures of the organization
itself should be modified, including strategic plans, policies and procedures.
This change in the structures of the organization typically involves an
unfreezing, change and re-freezing process.



The best approach to address resistances is through
increased and sustained communications and education. For example, the leader
should meet with all managers and staff to explain reasons for the change, how
it generally will be carried out and where others can go for additional
information. A plan should be developed and communicated. Plans do change.
That's fine, but communicate that the plan has changed and why. Forums should
be held for organization members to express their ideas for the plan. They
should be able to express their concerns and frustrations as well.



Some General Guidelines to Organization-Wide Change

(Note that the library topic Basic Overview of
Major Methods and Movements to Improve Organizational Performance includes
overviews of major methods and movements associated with organizational change.
Readers would best be served to read the following basic guidelines as
foundation for carrying out any of the methods associated with organizational
change.)

In addition to the general guidelines listed above,
there are a few other basic guidelines to keep in mind.



1. Consider using a consultant. Ensure the
consultant is highly experienced in organization-wide change. Ask to see
references and check the references.



2. Widely communicate the potential need for
change. Communicate what you're doing about it. Communicate what was done and
how it worked out.



3. Get as much feedback as practical from
employees, including what they think are the problems and what should be done
to resolve them. If possible, work with a team of employees to manage the
change.



4. Don't get wrapped up in doing change for the
sake of change. Know why you're making the change. What goal(s) do you hope to
accomplish?



6. Plan the change. How do you plan to reach the
goals, what will you need to reach the goals, how long might it take and how
will you know when you've reached your goals or not? Focus on the coordination
of the departments/programs in your organization, not on each part by itself.
Have someone in charge of the plan.



7. End up having every employee ultimately
reporting to one person, if possible, and they should know who that person is.
Job descriptions are often complained about, but they are useful in specifying
who reports to whom.



8. Delegate decisions to employees as much as
possible. This includes granting them the authority and responsibility to get
the job done. As much as possible, let them decide how to do the project.



9. The process won't be an "aha!" It will
take longer than you think.



10. Keep perspective. Keep focused on meeting the
needs of your customer or clients.



11. Take care of yourself first. Organization-wide
change can be highly stressful.



12. Don't seek to control change, but rather to
expect it, understand it and manage it.



13. Include closure in the plan. Acknowledge and
celebrate your accomplishments.



14. Read some resources about organizational
change, including new forms and structures.


Business reengineering


Business process reengineering (often referred to
by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more
efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization
in ways that directly affect performance.



The impact
of Business process reengineering on organizational performance



The two cornerstones of any organization are the
people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet
the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain,
organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the
key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in
processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer
satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will
typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%.



An article about Paradigm Shift:

Modeling a
Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative
InnovationPublished: December 1, 2009

Paper
Released: November 2009

Authors: Carliss Y. Baldwin and Eric von
Hippel


Executive Summary:


We are in the midst of a major paradigm shift:
technological trends are causing a change in the way innovation gets done in
advanced market economies. In addition to the model of producer-based
design—the idea that most important designs for innovations would originate
from producers and be supplied to consumers via goods and services that were
for sale—two increasingly important models are innovations by single user firms
or individuals, and open collaborative innovation projects. Each of these three
models represents a different way to organize human effort and investments
aimed at generating valuable new innovations. HBS professor Carliss Y. Baldwin
and MIT Sloan School of Management professor Eric von Hippel analyze the three
models in terms of their technological properties, specifically their design
costs and architectures, and their communication requirements. The researchers
argue that as design and communication costs decline, single user and open
collaborative innovation models will be viable for a steadily wider range of
design. These two models will present an increasing challenge to the
traditional paradigm of producer-based design—but, when open, they are good for
social welfare and should be encouraged by policymakers. Key concepts include:



When it is technologically feasible, the transition
from closed producer innovation or single user innovation to open single user
or open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare and is
worthy of support by policymakers.



Free dissemination of innovation designs is
associated with the open model. Open innovation generates innovation without
exclusivity or monopoly, and so should improve social welfare, other things
being equal.



Intellectual property rights grants can be used as
the basis for licenses that help keep innovation open as well as closed.



Policymakers should seek out and eliminate points
of conflict between present intellectual property policies designed to support
closed innovation that at the same time inadvertently interfere with open
innovation.



As design costs fall, many more innovations will
originate with single users.



Open collaborative innovation projects thrive on
low communication costs.



References:


http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/pf/17334-principles-of-organizational-change.html
http://managementhelp.org/mgmnt/orgchnge.htm
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/business-process-reengineering.html
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6325.html
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Roy Cuevas

avatar

Posts : 41
Points : 43
Join date : 2009-06-21
Age : 29
Location : Dabaw

PostSubject: Ass. 5   Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:40 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts? (you are expected to read an article about this question) .. at least 3000 words

For an organization to grow better and to adapt to the needs of its customers, is has to be ready for change. And I mean organizational change. That’s what we’ll be discussing now. The words itself give these two words its meaning, that is, a change in the organization. For the business to succeed or prosper there has to be a change in its management or its activities. Some others say that change is bad because you’re not gonna be doing what is regularly done and you are risking something just for that. Same goes for companies. But change is good, really. So many have undergone changes in their organization and are now still doing well. It’s now just a matter of what type of change you’re gonna be following.

For this post, there are four types of organizational changes to be considered; automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering and paradigm shifts. And we are to choose which among these types of changes the most radical one is. From Encarta Dictionaries, radical means far-reaching, searching or thoroughgoing. So we are to pick an organizational change among these four which we think has the most thoroughly done process. Here are the definitions of these four which I have researched.

AUTOMATION
Automation, system of manufacture designed to extend the capacity of machines to perform certain tasks formerly done by humans, and to control sequences of operations without human intervention. The term automation has also been used to describe nonmanufacturing systems in which programmed or automatic devices can operate independently or nearly independently of human control. In the fields of communications, aviation, and astronautics, for example, such devices as automatic telephone switching equipment, automatic pilots, and automated guidance and control systems are used to perform various operations much faster or better than could be accomplished by humans.

This is also what’s going to happen with the elections of the Philippines this coming May 2010, Automation. The tasks usually done by us humans are now replaced with machines, hence automating these certain tasks. With automation, the tasks are done faster and more accurately. The issue would just be technical. It would be hazardous if there would be mechanical errors or glitches in large scale operations. That’s why the manufacturer of the machinery should be a factor in organizations which want automation to be the process in which they change.

RATIONALIZATION OF PROCEDURES
Rationalization is an attempt to change a pre-existing ad hoc workflow into one that is based on a set of published rules. There is a tendency in modern times to quantify experience, knowledge, and work. Means-end (goal-oriented) rationality is used to precisely calculate that which is necessary to attain a goal. Its effectiveness varies with the enthusiasm of the workers for the changes being made, the skill with which management applies the rules, and the degree to which the rules fit the job.
Julien Freund defines rationalization as "the organization of life through a division and coordination of activities on the basis of exact study of men's relations with each other, with their tools and their environment, for the purpose of achieving greater efficiency and productivity."
The rationalization process is the practical application of knowledge to achieve a desired end. Its purpose is to bring about efficiency, coordination, and control of the natural and social environment. It is a product of "scientific specialization and technical differentiation" that seems to be a characteristic of Western culture. Rationalization is the guiding principle behind bureaucracy and the increasing division of labor, and has led to an increase in both the production and distribution of goods and services. It is also associated with secularization, depersonalization, and oppressive routine.
Increasingly, human behavior is to be guided by observation, experiment, and reason (zweckrational). Change in human character is expected to be part of the process; rationalization and bureaucratization promote efficiency, and materialism, both of which are subsumed under Weber's concept of zweckrational.

Here, the organization changes in accordance to a set of rules or procedures, which will help them (the organization), prosper. This type of change can be considered as a “by-the-book” kind of change, because it uses knowledge as its main basis on what to change in the organization.

BUSINESS REENGINEERING
Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.
Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.
The main proponents of reengineering were Michael Hammer and James A. Champy. In a series of books including Reengineering the Corporation, Reengineering Management, and The Agenda, they argue that far too much time is wasted passing-on tasks from one department to another. They claim that it is far more efficient to appoint a team who are responsible for all the tasks in the process. In The Agenda they extend the argument to include suppliers, distributors, and other business partners.
Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to re-engineering theory.
It seems that this so-called business reengineering process in organizational change has helped many organizations in their activities. Why not, since its goal is to integrate the services and activities of the organization so that they will not be obliged to have the tasks passed down from one department to another (which takes more time).

PARADIGM SHIFTS
A radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing

The nature of the paradigm shift in alignment with organizational change is that it shall change the organization wholly. But it doesn’t just change it for the company or organization; it changes considering the situation of the economy and the society.

Which organizational change is the most radical one? Well, let’s compare the four…

In automation, the activities and the tasks of the company remain the same, except that the ones doing these certain activities and tasks are machines. That’s why they’re called automated. By automation, the activities are done faster and more accurately. In rationalization of procedures, the organization changes its procedures based on a set of procedures or standards that are meant to help an organization in its processes and activities. Business reengineering is, according to Wikipedia, a radical way of organizational change. It concerns doing anything to cut the costs of the company and making it work efficiently, thus increasing its profit. The bad thing is, it ca include the layoff of employees. Paradigm shift meanwhile, is the complete change of the business. It is done by looking at the organization in a different way, or shall we say, a way that will make the company better and be successful.

For me, paradigm shift is the most radical of all these organizational changes. That’s because it’s like a complete overhaul. You change the way the company or organization runs and replace it with a new one. By changing all of it, that means starting again from step one. Although that’s just my opinion. I don’t know if companies have a certain style in paradigm shifting, but to completely change something requires hard work and patience, as to a paradigm shift in a company or organization.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28economics%29

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/jul-aug/brown.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Michelle Adlawan

avatar

Posts : 34
Points : 36
Join date : 2009-06-23
Age : 28
Location : Lupon, Davao Oriental

PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:38 pm

“One of the lessons from the Darwinian world is that the excellence of an organism's nervous system helps determine its ability to sense change and quickly respond, thereby surviving or even thriving.” Bill Gates, The New York Times - "Leaders Must be Candid, Consistent"

Nowadays, as technology modernization arises, many organizations had adapted into certain innovations in their business. Organizational changes are vital and customary for certain developments and growth in the organization. Significant organizational change occurs when an organization changes its overall strategy for success. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management.

It is strength for leaders and management to recognize changes and continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change. To really understand organizational change and begin guiding successful change efforts, the change agent should have at least a broad understanding of the context of the change effort. This includes understanding the basic systems and structures in organizations, including their typical terms and roles. This requirement applies to the understanding of leadership and management of the organizations, as well. That is why graduate courses in business often initially include a course or some discussion on organizational theory. This topic includes several links to help you gain this broad understanding.

Organizational change is an important in the trend toward better integration of social service functions in a certain organization. This kind of change is the term used to describe the transformation process that a company goes through in response to a strategic reorientation, restructure, change in management, merger or acquisition or the development of new goals and objectives for the company. The realignment of resources and the redeployment of capital can bring many challenges during the transformation process and organizational change management seeks to address this by adopting best practice standards to assist with the integration of new company vision. This should not be conducted for the sake of change. Organizational change efforts should be geared to improve the performance of organizations and the people in those organizations. Therefore, it's useful to have some understanding of what is meant by "performance" and the various methods to manage performance in organizations.

The ultimate goal of change management is to continuously align personnel and business processes with technology. This management discipline has emerged in recent years as a critical area for IT leaders at mid-size organizations for three primary reasons: the need to boost IT service quality within complex and distributed environments; the emergence of industry standards; and requirement to comply with government regulations.

There are different overall types of organizational change, including planned versus unplanned, organization-wide versus change primarily to one part of the organization, incremental (slow, gradual change) versus transformational (radical, fundamental), etc. Knowing which types of change you are doing helps all participants to retain scope and perspective during the many complexities and frequent frustrations during change. The spectrums of organizational change are the following:

1.) Automation
This uses technology to perform current tasks more efficiently & effectively. This is done by using the computer to speed up the performance of existing tasks. This is most common it IT-enabled change which involves assisting employees to perform their tasks proficiently.
The most common form of IT-enabled organizational change or the first phase of IT adoption is automation. This has allowed employees to automate a number of time-consuming and error-prone activities and gain benefits in cycle-time, productivity, and accuracy. For example, a main contractor makes use of standalone software to keep track all Request For Information (RFI) in a project.

2.) Rationalization of Procedures

This is the streamlining of existing operating procedures, eliminating obvious bottlenecks so that automation makes operating procedures more efficient. This is a management approach that examines aspects of a business and their interaction and attempts to improve the efficiency of the underlying processes. A deeper form of organization change or the second phase of IT adoption is rationalization of procedures. Automation frequently reveals bottlenecks in production and makes the existing arrangement of procedures and structures painfully cumbersome. Rationalization of procedures involves the streamlining of standard operating procedures, which eliminates obvious bottlenecks, so that operating procedures become more efficient. Roughly speaking, it is a process of fine tuning the first step. For example, the main contractor implements an intranet and standardizes the data in RFI across all projects in the enterprise.

3.) Business Reengineering
This is the radical redesign of business processes, combining steps to cut waste and eliminating repetitive, paper-intensive tasks to improve cost, quality, and service and to maximize the benefits of information technology. Business process reengineering (often referred to by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance (Parker, P., 2005).
Business Reengineering involves radical rethinking and it can change the way an organization conducts its business. The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. The ways in implementing Business Reengineering as discussed by the business process reengineering expert Peter Parker are the following:

Arrow Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry.
Arrow Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position.
Arrow Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives.
Arrow Defining behaviors that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims.
Arrow Producing key performance measures to track progress.
Arrow Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization
Arrow Identifying initiatives that will improve performance.

To be successful, business process reengineering projects need to be top down, taking in the complete organization, and the full end to end processes. It needs to be supported by tools that make processes easy to track and analyze.

4.) Paradigm Shift
This is the radical reconceptualization of the nature of the business and the nature of the organization. This involves rethinking of the nature of the business, overhauling of the organization, and making a complete reconception of how the system should function.
The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th-century theory of poetics, for instance.

In finding an article for events in an organizational change, I’ve found an article that used paradigm shift in the development of their business.

“VICTO as an organization has grown tremendously since its modest beginnings in 1970 not only in terms of programs and services but also in terms of membership scope and area coverage.
Along the way, it has pioneered in a lot of innovative ideas and concepts, marrying these into the classical co-op theories. In many cases, it has succeeded. These were primarily due to pilot-testings courtesy of various projects.
As the Center takes on more roles and functions, as it seeks to interface more and more with various publics, as it undertakes more programs and services, as it tries to consolidate organizing efforts by various co-op promoting institutions, and as it tries to struggle to sustain operations, there are some questions that have been highlighted. And questions that must be answered, and responded to now.
Among them:
Who is VICTO?
Why are the staffs representing VICTO in fora, and seldom its leaders?
What is the Center managing, or rather, what should it be managing - its development programs or a co-op development process?
Are VICTO's affiliate’s members or customers or just a list?
Why is the Center always busy with projects, sometimes forgetting its members?

Hence, "paradigm shift".

Paradigm Shift means a revolutionary change in VICTO's approaches, systems and structures. It means a change in the way of thinking of the Center's membership, leadership and staff along three aspects, via: membership, organizational posturing and management systems.
Slogans shall be adopted to rally everyone to these changes:

membership ---> from stockholders to stockholders
organizational posturing ---> from Secretariat to Movement
management systems ---> from managing development programs to managing a development process

In summary, what the paradigm shift hopes to achieve is the strengthening of VICTO -- the co-op movement.”



In today’s world, people are talking about the ‘Real Time Enterprise”. Increasingly decisions need to be made quickly. It could be a few hours or even a day, but in today’s increasingly competitive environment it couldn’t be longer. Without the right information that is shared by everyone collaboratively, at the right time, you become a real-time enterprise - in the sense of making the decision making process swift - is not going to be able to compete let alone survive.

Depending on the investment time horizon, the specific challenges and tools available may change, but the overall direction is unmistakable. The construction industry is about to experience a profound change: leaner organizations, more consistent and rigorous performance metrics, and relentless productivity improvements. The net result of these changes should also be increased profitability for those who are successful at mastering the new IT & technology tools with the promise to enable these changes.

References:
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm
http://www.cebu-online.com/coop-victo/paradigm.html
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sheila Capacillo

avatar

Posts : 57
Points : 57
Join date : 2009-06-21
Age : 28
Location : Davao City

PostSubject: Assignment 5   Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:20 pm

In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business reengineering, or paradigm shifts?


“Change is an absolutely critical part of business. And yes, your company does need to change—preferably now and not later, when you have no other choice.”


By:Jack Welch & Suzy Welch



The problem is that people hate it when their bosses announce a “transformation initiative.” They run back to their cubicles and start frantically e-mailing one another, complaining that the changes are going to ruin everything

People love familiarity and patterns. They cling to them. The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.

Ultimately, implementing change comes down to embracing the following four practices:

1. Attach every change initiative to a clear purpose or goal. Change for change’s sake is stupid and enervating. Change should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a competitor has dropped prices 20 percent.
But sometimes the need for change isn’t immediately apparent. Competitive threats seem to be emerging, but you don’t know for certain, and still, you have to respond. In those cases, relentless communication about the business rationale for change, reinforced with lots of data, is the best ammunition you have.
The larger your company, the more challenging it will be to communicate the need for change. In big companies, calls for change are often greeted noncommittally. After all, if the company has been through enough change programs, employees will assume you’ll go away if they just wait long enough.
Stick to your guns—your solid, persuasive business case. Over time, logic will win out.

2. Hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-it types. Everyone in business claims to like change. To say otherwise would be career suicide. But by my estimate, less than 10 percent of all businesspeople are true change agents. Once the next group—about 70 to 80 percent of people working in business—is convinced that change is necessary, they’ll say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters.
To make change happen, companies must actively hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-its. But with everyone claiming to like change, how can you tell who is for real?

Luckily, change agents usually make themselves known. They’re typically brash, high-energy and more than a little paranoid about the future. They often invent change initiatives on their own or ask to lead them. Invariably, they are curious and forward-looking.
These people have a certain fearlessness about the unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and move on. They’re thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make bold decisions without a lot of data.

3. Ferret out and remove the resisters, even if their performance is satisfactory. This is the hardest of the four practices to implement. It’s tough to let anyone go, but it’s particularly difficult to fire people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well.
But in any organization, there are people who will not accept change, no matter how sound your case is. They are so invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go.
That may sound harsh, but you’re not doing anyone a favor by keeping resisters in your organization. They foster an underground resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They’re wasting their own time: They’re working at a company where they don’t agree with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where they do.

4. Look at car wrecks. Most companies capitalize on obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product line extensions.
But to be a real change organization, you also have to have to look at bolder, scarier, more unpredictable events, assess the opportunities they present and make the most of them. Fostering this capability takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge.
Take the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Currency traders certainly capitalized on this awful event; they live on exploiting change. But they’re not the only ones who should do this. GE had real success buying undervalued Thai auto loans in this period. Others prospered by buying real estate at fire sale prices.
Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they’re tragic to the employees. Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can also be created from the cinders.
With all the noise out there about change, it’s easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices that matter. That’s it. There’s nothing to be afraid of.

TERMINOLOGIES

  • Organizational change

This phrase refers to the overall nature of activities, for example, their extent and rate, that occurs during a project that aims to enhance the overall performance of the organization. The activities are often led by a change agent, or person currently responsible to guide the overall change effort. The activities are often project-oriented (a one-time project) and geared to address a current overall problem or goal in the organization. (A relatively new phrase, capacity building, refers to these types of activities, as well.)


  • Automation

Automation is the use of control systems (such as numerical control, programmable logic control, and other industrial control systems), in concert with other applications of information technology (such as computer-aided technologies [CAD, CAM, CAx]), to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention.[1] In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated.
Automation plays an increasingly important role in the global economy and in daily experience. Engineers strive to combine automated devices with mathematical and organizational tools to create complex systems for a rapidly expanding range of applications and human activities.


  • Paradigm shift

Paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.
The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th-century theory of poetics, for instance.
Since the 1960s, the term has been found useful to thinkers in numerous non-scientific contexts. Compare as a structured form of Zeitgeist.


  • Business Process Reengineering Cycle.

Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.

Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.

The Article

Clearing Up the Language About Organizational Change and Development


Written by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Copyright 1997-2008.
Adapted from the Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development and Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development with Nonprofits.

When a topic (for example, organizational change and development) becomes very prominent, it often takes on many different interpretations and meanings. The advantage is that that topic becomes very accessible, interesting and enlightening to many. The disadvantage is that it's also increasingly vague and difficult for many to make practical. To make this topic of organizational change and development useful, we should reference some common definitions.
Even if not all people agree with the definitions, we at least have some definitions in common to disagree about -- that alone can enhance the communications about the topic. Having some understanding and discernment about the following phrases will help readers to benefit even more from literature about organizational change.

Organizational performance management

We're used to thinking of ongoing performance management for employees, for example, setting goals, monitoring the employee's achievement of those goals, sharing feedback with the employee, evaluating the employee's performance, rewarding performance or firing the employee. Performance management applies to organizations, too, and includes recurring activities to establish organizational goals, monitor progress toward the goals, and make adjustments to achieve those goals more effectively and efficiently.
Note that, in contrast to organizational change projects, organizational performance management activities are recurring in nature. Those recurring activities are much of what leaders and managers inherently do in their organizations -- some do them far better than others. An organizational change project is not likely to be successful if it is not within the context of the recurring activities of organizational performance management.

Organizational change

This phrase refers to the overall nature of activities, for example, their extent and rate, that occurs during a project that aims to enhance the overall performance of the organization. The activities are often led by a change agent, or person currently responsible to guide the overall change effort. The activities are often project-oriented (a one-time project) and geared to address a current overall problem or goal in the organization. (A relatively new phrase, capacity building, refers to these types of activities, as well.)

Organizational development

This phrase refers to the evolution of the organization during the overall organizational change activities, for example, evolution of its members to be able to resolve a major problem, achieve an overall project goal and/or achieve overall organizational goals. Organizational development is an outcome of organizational change activities.

Change management

This phrase refers to the implementation of a certain approach or methodology to ensure the organizational change effort is successful, including to ensure a clear vision and/or goals for the project, and to modify systems in the organization to more effectively achieve the goals. Change management activities can range from a planned, structured and explicit approach (successful change efforts usually are) to unplanned and implicit.

Change agent

A change agent is the person who's currently responsible for the overall change effort. The role can be performed by different people at different times. For example, an effective consultant (internal or external) might first perform the role, but work in such a way during the project that the role ultimately is adopted by someone else inside the organization.

Organization Development (OD)

OD is a field of research, theory and practice dedicated to expanding the knowledge and effectiveness of people to accomplish more successful organizational change and performance. Different people often have different perspectives on the field, depending on their particular values and skills. Many people assert that, for OD projects to be highly effective, they must be systems-based in design and highly humanistic in implementation. (Occasionally, someone refers to the field as "organizational development," but for the sake of clarity in this topic, that definition will not be used in the Free Management Library.)

Reflection:
For me the most radical type of chenge in the spectrum of organization is the business reengineering because in this case we should be careful in analying our steps and ways in redesigning our organization.

References:

http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/pf/17334-principles-of-organizational-change.html
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/keyt-terms.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering

Blog Blog Blog
http://shecapacillo.blogspot.com/


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p   

Back to top Go down
 
Assignment 5 (Due: December 23, 2009, before 01:00p
Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Amendments to the Revised IRR through GPPB Resolution No. 06-2009
» A Boutique and an assignment against me.
» New Baby, New Assignment, Old Dress
» UPDATED[MediaFire]3 Idiots • 2009 • 550MB • X264 DVDRiP • English SubTitles •
» Shopping as explained by GPPB Resolution 09-2009

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
USEP-IC  :: MIS 2-
Jump to: