QUALITY POWERPOINT PLUS PAPER ADDITIONS

Chapter13EnsuringSustainableChangethroughMonitoringandMeasurement.docx

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >QUALITY POWERPOINT PLUS PAPER ADDITIONS

Reference: Hodges, J. & Gill, R. (2015). Sustaining Change in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

Ensuring Sustainable Change through Monitoring and Measurement

Overview

• Successful change initiatives can be undermined because too little attention is paid to holding on to the gains once the change objectives appear to be achieved. Change may therefore fail to be sustained. When this happens the benefits from it evaporate and the organization will be left to suffer the costs.

• Building into the initial planning ways of sustaining the change rather than leaving it as an afterthought is vital. This should include the measuring, monitoring and reviewing of key objectives, benefits and risks.

• It is vital to monitor and review the implementation of the change in order to identify areas that need to be adjusted and adapted to ensure that the change is effectively implemented and that the intended benefits are achieved.

• Declaring victory too soon can encourage leaders and managers to switch their attention and resources to other change projects without sustaining the current change they are working on. So it is important that leaders and managers do not declare the change finished and a success too early.

• When transformation fails there are a number of strategies leaders and managers can consider for turning the situation around, including: ensuring that there is clarity about the aim and outcome of the change initiative; providing sufficient support and readiness for the change; ensuring that key players are performing; reviewing the implementation plan; focusing on the emotional commitment to the change; reviewing the communication strategy; and recognizing failure and mistakes and using them as opportunities for learning, improvement and development.

Change needs to have not only commitment and support from individuals but processes in place for sustaining it. Monitoring and control mechanisms are required that continue beyond the implementation of change (Jacobs, 2002). Bateman (2005) found this to be the case in a study of the manufacturing sector which highlighted the importance of processes for promoting contribution and buy-in during the early stages of implementation and for maintenance of standards and continuous improvement once the initial changes had been successfully implemented. One of the key processes that is vital for sustaining change is being able to measure its impact, especially by identifying and monitoring benefits and risks.

The 2012 Barometer on Change survey from Moorhouse 1 found that many change programmes do not have their expected benefits measured or tracked. Participants in the survey included 200 UK board members or people reporting into the board working on transformation projects with a direct value of over £10 million. Respondents came from the FTSE 250 multinational and public sector organizations. Less than a quarter (24%) of respondents were found to measure the benefits of these projects properly after they had finished – equating to some £850 million in potentially wasted investment in projects that did not have clear resulting benefits or outcomes. Fewer than half (41%) of respondents felt very or extremely confident that projects would run to time or on budget. Only a third (36%) felt that stakeholders and key staff had ‘bought into’ to the project’s aims and benefits, and a similar third felt that projects were under-resourced at their start. What is concerning about these results is the risk of the lack of monitoring and measurement of the impact of these projects, which are perceived as critical to the success of the business and cost significant amounts of financial investment.

This chapter focuses on how to measure the effectiveness of change, how managers can assess if the chosen interventions are having the desired effect and whether the change plan is still valid. The dangers of declaring victory too soon are explored and what to do if change or transformation fails. Strategies for turning the situation around are also discussed. The chapter concludes by looking at the implications for leaders and managers and providing practical advice.

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

• Identify the factors that contribute to measuring and monitoring organizational change and transformation

• Apply techniques for sustaining change

• Describe the pitfalls that can be encountered when seeking to sustain change

• Identify the benefits and risks of change

• Measure the impact of change

Measuring change

Measuring the impact of change is a key aspect of sustaining change for a number of reasons. First, it is a means of monitoring the progress of the change (‘what gets measured gets managed’). Second, what gets measured is likely to have a significant impact on how people act. Third, it enables leaders to assess whether the chosen interventions are having the desired effect and whether the change plan continues to be valid and practical.

Wells Fargo provides an example of how a company uses measures to sustain change. In the lead-up to the financial crisis in 2008, the CEO of Wells Fargo – John Stumpf – knew the company needed to improve its performance, which was worsening. Stumpf was passionate about positioning the company for success in the longer term by creating a spirit and way of thinking in the company. He and his top team set out the aspiration of ‘One Wells Fargo’, which included equal focus on performance measures such as earnings growth, cross-selling and a culture of customer centricity and collaboration. This was monitored through a series of measures at organizational, team and individual levels.

As in the case of Wells Fargo, change needs to be kept on target, on time and within budget unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. The process for measuring the impact of change should include establishing a clear aim, defining key measures, collecting base-line data, collecting data consistently and charting progress.

1. Establish a clear aim. Establish a clear overall aim or target of the change (for example, increase sales by 25 per cent by 1 December), which can then be broken down into specific measures.

2. Define the key measures. Establish clear definitions of measures prior to starting the change process. The measures should clarify the objectives and be agreed by key stakeholders. Objectives should be ‘SMART’ – specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and time-bound. This ensures that the results are interpretable and accepted within the organization. Responsibility and accountability for the objectives should be clearly allocated to individuals. The objectives should be reviewed with individuals and their managers on a regular basis.

3. Collect baseline data. Baseline data provide a starting point for the change. Such data should be collected before making any changes. This process anchors the change (pre-change) and enables measurement of the impact of the change over time (post-change).

4. Collect data consistently. Consistent channels for collecting measurement data should be established and data shared with relevant stakeholders.

5. Chart progress. As pre-change (baseline) and post-change data become available over time they should be shared with those involved in the change as well as with other stakeholders.

6. Ask questions. Measuring the impact of change does not stop here; in fact it is only the beginning. The most important step in the process is to ask questions such as: What are the data telling me about change in my organization? What do we need to do differently? This information will help identify which intervention is the most successful in meeting the overall aim of the change, as well as where there is a need for improvement. It will also help to identify any potential issues in sustaining the change.

By collecting data before, during and after the implementation of change, managers can measure, evaluate and compare progress with the objectives set out at the start of the change.

Effective implementation hinges on measuring whether or not progress is being made at an appropriate pace. The most popular tool for assessing progress is the Balanced Scorecard , developed by Kaplan and Norton (1996). It is a carefully selected balanced set of measures that represent a tool for leaders to use in communicating strategic direction to the organization and to motivate individuals to change. The scorecard enables managers to review performance from four strategic perspectives, which are: financial, internal business process, learning and growth, and customers. Each perspective of the scorecard includes objectives, measures of these objectives, target values of those measures and initiatives, defined as follows:

• Objectives – major objectives to be achieved, for example, an increase in profits

• Measures – the observable parameters that will be used to measure progress towards reaching the objective, for example, the objective of an increase in profits might be measured by growth in net margin

• Targets – the specific target values for the measures, for example, +4% growth in net margin

• Initiatives – action programmes to be initiated in order to meet the objective

The measurements should be linked, consistent and be mutually reinforcing. Some generic measurements are presented in Table 13.1.

The benefits claimed for the scorecard are that it clarifies strategy, focuses the organization on priority issues, encourages continuous improvement, promotes teamwork, motivates individuals and focuses on targets and performance rather than data. Achievement of the scorecard targets is dependent on the actions and achievements of the teams and individuals in the organization.

Determining whether or not change has been sustained will involve measurement of the benefits achieved as well as management of the risks associated with the change.

Identifying the benefits of change

Change can be costly, disruptive and potentially dangerous. As Paton and McCalman (2008) point out, it would be unwise to embark on the journey without first establishing that success would be probable and beneficial. As part of the planning process for sustaining any change, it follows that it is vital to identify the benefits to be achieved. The rationale for identifying benefits is outlined in the box below.

Table 13.1 Generic measurements in the balanced scorecard

Reasons for identifying benefits at the start of a change initiative

• Benefits are identified, measured and the process is locked in from the start.

• The business case for change is identified in a quantifiable way.

• The reason for change is clear; the benefits provide a focus for everyone.

• Return on investment in change can be measured.

• Success can be identified, recognized and celebrated, thereby having a positive impact on future change initiatives.

• There is clear agreed accountability for sustaining change.

• Progress can be tracked, monitored and delivered.

• Stakeholders are clear about both current and expected performance.

• The credibility of the change is enhanced through realization and recognition of the benefits.

• The cost of implementation is calculated, understood and monitored.

The types of benefits that should be identified include financial (such as a decrease in staff costs), operational (such as an increase in stock availability), customer (for example, an improvement in product range), and employee (for example, an increase in retention rates). Once benefits are identified the next step is to ensure that they are realized.

Realizing benefits

Benefits realization depends on the process of organizing and managing so that potential benefits, arising from investment in change, are actually achieved. It should be the core management process of any change initiative. The key activities for realizing benefits comprise engaging stakeholders, developing a business case, identifying risks, developing tracking mechanisms, continually tracking benefits, communicating achievement of benefits, monitoring and reviewing progress against the benefits. In the box below are the key activities and the tasks for each of the activities.

1 Engaging stakeholders

– Stakeholder analysis, mapping and action plan

– Communications with stakeholders

– Feedback from stakeholders and involvement in decisions.

2 Developing the business case

– Identifying benefits opportunities

– Building and quantifying the case for the benefits (from the business case)

– Identifying accountability for achieving the benefits

3 Identifying risks

– Identifying the probability of risks, their impact, and how to mitigate them

4 Developing a tracking mechanism

– Developing and tracking benefits (using baselines)

– Developing a benefits realization action plan

– Assessing implementation readiness

5 Tracking benefits

– Executing the benefits realization action plan

– Reviewing progress

6 Communicating achievement of benefits

– Informing key stakeholders when benefits are achieved

– Asking for feedback from stakeholders

7 Monitoring and reviewing benefits realization

• Realizing results (measurement–review–action)

• Capturing and applying the lessons learned

• Reviewing and revising the benefits realization action plan as appropriate

Taking time to identify benefits may seem like an unnecessary distraction from getting on with the actual change. However, it prevents what Stephen Covey (1989) describes as ‘getting to the top, looking out, and saying “whoops, climbed over the wrong wall”’. It is not about measurement for the sake of measuring, but about measuring the impact of the change so that adjustments can be made in order for change to be sustained.

In the following case study Alison Clare focuses on how benefits were measured and realized during the introduction of a clinical portal to provide a paperless records system to replace hard-copy case notes in a hospital.

CASE STUDY

Measuring and realizing benefits from introducing a clinical portal at the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust is implementing a clinical portal to provide a paperless records system and replace paper case-notes.

The Trust is among the largest university hospitals in the north of England, with an annual budget of over £400 million, more than 5,500 staff including 300 consultants, and serving almost one million patients a year from across the north-west and beyond. It provides general hospital services and specialist and emergency care, including a full range of medical, surgical, diagnostic, rehabilitation and therapy services. These include nationally and internationally recognized services such as ophthalmology, hepatobiliary surgery, gastroenterology and pathology.

Drivers for change

Like many other NHS organizations, staff rely on paper case-notes when seeing their patients. Case-notes, a traditional method of managing medical records, is inefficient and expensive. There are several problems with the paper records: they can be difficult to locate, labour-intensive to maintain, prepare and transport, and they can be in poor condition, with only one person at a time able to read the notes.

The Trust is not alone in its findings. Paper is inflexible and not conducive to information sharing or joined-up patient care. Analysis at the Trust has identified an average of 12% of case-notes are unavailable at the point of care because they are booked out somewhere else in the hospital. Clinical safety is compromised when doctors cannot see the most up-to-date records of their patients, and there is also an increased cost of care. Duplicate tests are expensive and inconvenient to patients who have to visit our hospitals more often than they would otherwise.

The solution

By developing new and improved IT systems and replacing paper case-notes with a clinical portal, efficiency will improve, and the hospital will become more cost-effective and most importantly be able to deliver improved patient care.

The Trust recognizes an electronic patient record is a better way to care for their patients. It has partnered with CSC and Carefx, leading interoperability platform providers, to implement the Carefx Fusion Clinical Portal. Given that the national programme no longer intends to replace systems wholesale and that the government’s ICT strategy is to connect information rather than store everything in a single system, the Trust, rather than ‘ripping and replacing’ all their existing IT systems, has chosen to keep the assets it already has and re-work them into a portal.

Portals are a new cost-effective way to replace paper-based systems. The screen is divided into several portlets, each of which draws and displays live patient information from existing systems. By calling this data in real-time the portal puts it together in seconds and all the portlets show information about the same patient. So if a clinician searches for another patient, that data will replace the previous patient’s data in all of the portlets. This context change ensures a clinician is only ever looking at a single patient’s information.

Before committing to a full rollout, the Trust ran a pilot project to test the principle of paperless clinics and wards. This ran between June and September 2010 for 60 days, initially in two small haematology and dermatology clinics.

Clinical engagement

During the design phase of the pilot, in order to identify the screen layout and content, workshops with a variety of clinicians were set up at the start of the project. By discussing and demonstrating draft versions of the portal during its design, the Trust ensured its clinicians were involved at every point. Normal workflows were documented so that the existing paper case-notes journey could be reviewed and streamlined where possible, creating new more efficient business processes.

The time spent understanding these processes was invaluable in designing the portal and understanding exactly what information was important to the doctors and nurses and when they used it.

Giving clinicians a say in the portal design played a great part in gaining their commitment to the change. There was little evidence of resistance, and as a result of their input they found the portal simple to use. Basically anyone who is able to navigate the internet can use it with minimal training and, because the clinicians were already familiar with the underlying source systems, there was no additional training required.

Input from clinicians was also used to design different roles and access levels for GPs referring their patients, and nurse and doctor views driven by daily clinic lists. The portal design includes a facility to search for patients by name, NHS and hospital number at the same time as maintaining existing data protection and legitimate doctor–patient relationships. This restricted access to appropriate clinicians ensured patient confidentiality was not compromised. From design to implementation the project took three months, with live testing taking place for a further three weeks before the system was signed off for the pilot phase. Such a rapid implementation avoided any disruption to ‘business as usual’.

Managing the change

Once the design phase was complete and developers began writing the interfaces to feed data between existing source systems and the clinical portal, the project team widened their communications to engage with clinicians who had not otherwise been involved in the project. Presenting at departmental meetings and demonstrating the product at key stages in the development enabled clinicians to identify what they liked and didn’t like, and the project team was able to document future requirements. By mapping these requirements to each group of stakeholders, the Trust was able to identify the likely resistance to change, if any, in the future. Using this information the Trust developed communications to allay clinicians’ fears and alleviate resistance to the change before it became a threat to delivery.

After user-acceptance testing by key clinicians, the portal went live in two clinics. Consultants, their registrars and specialist nurses were able to view patient medical history, key treatments, referrals and diagnosis and test results at the touch of a button on a single screen. And although paper case-notes were still available, they were not required by clinicians at all throughout the pilot.

Benefits realization

In order to determine if the project was successful, baseline measurements were taken. The technology was measured against system availability and speed, and information accuracy between the underlying source systems and the portal. The number of missing case notes was also measured to ensure this original driver remained valid. In all cases the baselines taken prior to ‘go-live’ were exceeded, and the project was so successful that it was extended to more clinicians and larger 50-plus patient clinics, which included patients with chronic conditions. This was intended to further challenge the portal and prove that it could be used in very busy clinical environments as well as support more complex patient care than the pilot originally intended.

The project ran for 60 days, during which time the success criteria were measured. Once the official pilot came to an end, clinicians requested that they continue to use the portal rather than return to case-notes. The benefits were clear: clinics finished on average 30 minutes earlier than when run with paper case-notes, nurses saved 12 minutes per 25 patients as a result of fewer administrative tasks, clinic clerks no longer had to search for missing files, accurate and up-to-date patient information was available instantly, resulting in reduced clinical risk.

Clinician feedback was excellent. One renal consultant said: ‘Missing case-notes were a big frustration, though I had reservations about whether the portal was the answer. But it’s brilliant and makes it so much easier to deal with patients properly.’

And because the portal incorporated ‘single sign-on’ functionality, clinicians needed only to remember one password to access multiple systems. So each clinician used a single set of credentials and their access rights were linked to their role.

Pilot outcomes

The pilot proved a complete success, with clinicians agreeing they could run clinics without paper case-notes. Patient safety increased by clinicians’ having an electronic patient record at their fingertips and the removal of paper improved infection control. Frustrations with missing case notes were removed by the end of logging on to multiple systems, with the benefits of having to remember only one password. Basically, the clinical portal allowed clinicians to focus on patient.

Next steps

Following the pilot, the Trust went through a framework tender process and has now procured the Carefx portal solution from CSC. The Trust decided to opt for a portal solution as they found in the pilot it was easier and quicker to deploy alongside existing systems and would minimize disruption.

The portal was seen as a strategic decision to protect existing investments in IT systems as well as an effective and efficient way to reduce costs and administration, while simultaneously speeding up and increasing the throughput of patients.

Discussion Questions

1 What were the key drivers for the change in the hospital?

2 In your view, was a rapid implementation the best approach? What were the benefits and risks of this approach?

3 What approach could have been taken to address the resistance to the change?

4 How might the sustainability of the project be measured?

Activity

Consider an organizational change you are familiar with:

1 What benefits were expected?

2 Were the benefits realized?

3 If not, why not?

Management of risk during change

Determining whether or not change has been sustained will involve measurement of the benefits achieved as well as management of the risks associated with the change. A risk is the probability of an event or issue being realized that may lead to an undesirable effect on the organization or on the people in it. In his book Managing Risk in Organizations: A Guide for Managers, J. Davidson Frame (2003) outlines the key elements of risk management, which include the planning, monitoring and controlling of actions that will address the threats and problems identified so as to improve the likelihood of the risks not occurring. Risks need to be identified, managed and mitigated during change.

Identifying risks during change

Broadly, there are four main types of risk associated with change:

1. External risks. External events are mainly outside the control of managers or leaders. Examples include government regulatory changes; industry-specific procedures (new standards, issues); mergers and acquisitions; legal issues (disputes, lawsuits and court orders); new products and/or services; changes in the competitive market; and disasters such as fire, flood, earthquake or other natural disasters. Most of these risks are very difficult to control but can be identified and therefore managed. This means that managers must review the external environment regularly in order to identify potential risks.

2. Cost risks. Many of these types of risks are directly or indirectly under the manager’s control or within his or her area of influence. Examples of cost risks include those arising from cost overruns by project teams, subcontractors, vendors and consultants; scope creep, expansion and change that has not been managed; poor estimating or errors that result in unforeseen costs; and overrun of budget and schedules.

3. Technology risks. Technology risks can result from a wide variety of circumstances. Typical examples are problems with immature technology, use of the wrong tools, software that is untested or fails to work properly, requirement changes with no change management, failure to understand or account for product complexity, integration problems, and software/hardware performance issues (poor response times, bugs and errors).

4. Operational risks. Operational risks can result in a failure to realize the intended or expected benefits of the project. Typical causes are inadequate resolution of priorities or conflicts, failure to designate authority to key people, insufficient communication or lack of a communication plan, and rollout and implementation risks – ‘too much, too soon’.

The risk identification process consists of assessing the probability of the risk occurring and its impact on the change initiative, whether it is high, medium or low risk. Guidelines to assist in assessing the probability of a risk are:

• High (certain): the risk could happen at any time if no new or additional measures are implemented.

• Medium (possible): a risk could happen but circumstances are not yet clear or there exist a number of mitigating factors to reduce the possibility of the risk occurring.

• Low (remote): if a risk were to occur, it would require an unusual or exceptional combination of different factors or, alternatively, there is a wider range of mitigating factors to prevent the risk occurring.

Managing risks during change

In general, risk management is based on four steps: risk identification, risk analysis/assessment, risk treatment and the monitoring of risks.

1. Risk identification is the identification of risks and their causes.

2 Risk analysis/assessment is the estimation of the likelihood of risks occurring and their impact.

3. Risk treatment concerns the actions and mechanisms to minimize risks.

4. Monitoring and control comprise the continuous monitoring of risks and the actions to manage them.

The most common reasons for managing risks during a change process are outlined in the box below.

The most common reasons for managing risks

• Reduce or eliminate where possible the impact of a risk that has occurred.

• Increase the chance of success of change(s).

• Reduce or eliminate where possible the probability of a risk occurring.

• Reduce or eliminate where possible the financial impact of a risk that has occurred.

• Increase the visibility of risks to management and other staff.

• Secure successful continuity and profitability.

• Secure a stable working-environment for staff.

Mitigating risks during change

Managers need to decide on a risk management strategy for addressing risks once the probability is identified. This is the process whereby a decision is made as to whether the risk should be managed, contained or eliminated. The responses to risks tend to be:

• Avoid. Counter-measures are put in place that either stop the threat or problem from occurring or prevent it from having any impact upon the change.

• Transfer. A specialist form of risk reduction, where the impact of the risk is passed on to a third party via, for instance, an insurance policy or penalty clause, albeit at a cost.

• Mitigate. Where the response actions either reduce the likelihood of the risk developing or, if the risk occurs, limit the impact on the change to acceptable levels.

• Accept. There is acceptance of the possibility that the risk might occur.

The most appropriate response will be dependent on the following:

• The cost of minimizing the impact on the change initiative of any risk should it occur

• The costs of the risk management strategy in relation to the value (cost) of the risks

• The likelihood and probability of the risk occurring

• The availability of resources to avoid, transfer, mitigate or accept the risk

• The severity of the impact on the change initiative

Once the risk strategy has been agreed on, actions need to be allocated to individuals to address each one. These actions need to be monitored, controlled and the status of the risk and actions agreed updated on a regular basis, as events may occur to remove the risk or to reduce the impact and probability of the risk.

Monitoring change

Monitoring the progress of change needs to be ongoing and frequent if it is to be sustained. Buchanan and Storey (1997) argue that change can involve much back-tracking. Burke (2002) echoes this view and argues that the change process is often more like a series of loops rather than a straight line, reflecting the reality that things rarely progress as planned, and even when plans are implemented as intended, there are often unanticipated consequences. There is often a need to fix things to keep the change on track. Seeking out and addressing feedback is essential if managers are to monitor whether or not the change plan is working. All too often those leading and managing change fail to deliberately seek out feedback and realize that change is failing or producing unintended consequences only when something unplanned happens to draw their attention to it.

Feedback

Several writers (Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Nadler, 1993) argue that tailored feedback mechanisms not only facilitate monitoring and control of change but can also help to sustain change. Managers can help to develop this kind of feedback by designing feedback mechanisms that can be used to monitor and manage the situation over the longer term.

Another way in which managers can achieve feedback is by ‘managing by walking about’ (known popularly as MBWA), although it is possible that individuals might be nervous about speaking up (recall ‘organization silence’ described in Chapter 10), in which case it may be necessary to use focus groups or some other means of collecting data, such as non-attributable feedback from surveys. Feedback on how the change is progressing can signal a need to think again about the change plan and the way it is being implemented.

Surveys

Surveys are helpful to capture people’s attitudes, opinions and experiences at a particular time and then track these attitudes over time. Surveys can provide anonymity to the respondents and make it possible to capture the opinions of a larger proportion of participants than might otherwise be possible. For instance, in order to gauge the readiness for change (see Chapter 6 for a discussion about the readiness for change) surveys can provide feedback on aspects such as the participation and consultation practices as well as views on the proposed change. While during the implementation stage of change, surveys can provide feedback on the management of the change process. Feedback from employee surveys can help to stimulate discussion about what is working and what needs to be improved. It can also help to identify any required modifications to the change plan or the way it is being implemented or, if necessary, to a reorientation of the vision for the change.

Feedback provides information not only on what people are thinking and therefore doing but also on why. Knowing the why enables leaders and managers to identify which behaviours and actions need to be stopped or changed, either because the behaviours are representative of the past, or because they are new but creating unhelpful interpretations of the change, and which behaviours and actions need to be encouraged because they are fostering helpful interpretations. The ‘why’ enables leaders to engage with the issues of those involved in change and work with them (Balogun, 2006).

The design, administration and analysis of feedback require careful consideration. Although online survey packages such as SurveyMonkey.comand EmployeeSurveys.com provide an accessible design, delivery and analysis of survey data, the ability to frame good questions skilfully is a prerequisite to getting useful information. The same holds true for analysis and interpretation.

The findings from surveys can be used to create learning opportunities and contribute to the way that the change is dealt with. Encouraging discussions about the feedback provides a vehicle for individuals and teams to raise any issues, queries or ideas and help them to agree on commitments to various actions.

Leading a change project or programme without metrics and a risk assessment is like flying a plane without instruments. For a short flight on a clear day you might be able to reach the destination safely, but once you are in some clouds you will find yourself in serious trouble. Too often organizations avoid the discomfort of establishing a robust series of meaningful metrics and end up having to deal with the agony of a stalled change initiative, which results in wreckage.

It is vital to monitor and review the implementation of the change in order to identify areas that need to be adjusted and adapted to ensure that the change is effectively implemented and achieves the intended benefits.

For change to be meaningful in organizations, it needs to be sustained over time, and this implies a shift in the organization’s habitual ways of being. Martin Davis outlines his experience of implementing handheld technology for a mobile workforce in the following case study. Davis describes what the challenges were and how the change was eventually sustained and the lessons he learnt from it.

CASE STUDY

Implementing handheld technology for a mobile workforce and sustaining the change

Traditionally, companies with a mobile workforce have relied upon paper job-sheets, two-way radios and mobile phones to control, dispatch and manage staff in the field. With the increasing capabilities of mobile technology this is rapidly changing. The growth of high-speed 3G and 4G networks plus devices like smart phones and the iPad have led to fully functional mobile solutions that enable real-time information flow and drive significant business improvements. These technologies can be applied in many situations from waste-management pick-ups to freight deliveries, a mobile sales force and repair crews. This case describes the change process when a dispatch company chose to implement handheld technology for its mobile workforce.

Traditional processes have considerable inefficiencies with mobile staff out of contact with their dispatcher or office for long periods of time. Mobile staff can often be found waiting for instructions or for their next job. Similarly dispatchers struggle to know who is free and located nearest when trying to assign a new task. All of this leads to waste and increased costs to the business. Additionally, customer satisfaction suffers as the company is guessing at arrival times based on incomplete and out-of-date information. The key drives for the change were:

• Real-time information – where are the mobile workforce and which tasks have they completed

• Improved customer service – ability to more accurately forecast arrival times at a customer site

• Increased ability to plan and utilize resources

• minimized, resource utilization is improved and ultimately business profitability is increased.

The original way of working in the company included the use of manually completed paper forms to track jobs assigned and work completed and to calculate customer charges and staff performance. These were replaced by using handheld devices, which communicated to control and digital mapping systems at the depots. These systems allowed the dispatcher to understand location and work status in real time, enabling better planning and resource management.

Even more significant than the use of technology was the change of work processes for the mobile workforce, the administrative staff and the dispatchers. While this may not be the most complex of technology implementations it had significant impact on the people involved and made many changes to their daily life. For example, dispatching a new job used to involve guessing at who might be nearest, calling them on the radio or cellphone and then relaying instructions orally, and of course completing the paperwork. Now it simply involves checking the digital map, seeing who is nearest and available and then assigning the job to them with a single click. The mobile staff are then alerted on their handheld device and press a button to accept the job. The device then calculates the route needed and provides the necessary guidance. Upon arrival the driver clicks a button to notify dispatch, completes the work and clicks another button to say ‘finished’, and enters any additional information related to extra work or charges.

In order to achieve success with this project the team spent as much if not more effort on change management compared with what they did on technology implementation. The change-management approach closely followed Kotter’s eight steps for leading change in helping the staff to see the reasons for the project, guiding them towards the new reality and finally anchoring it into new working practices – what Kurt Lewin termed ‘unfreeze – change – refreeze’.

Changing long-used processes comes with a number of challenges and, when combined with new technology, the problems multiply. The main challenges we faced were:

• Staff not used to using technology – there was a fear of technology leading to concerns and resistance. This required considerable effort, with face-to-face training, videos and online help. Not everyone was used to using a keyboard, a mouse or a handheld device every day.

• Long-ingrained traditional processes – when people have been doing their jobs in certain ways for many years, it becomes second nature to them and therefore very difficult to change. New processes had to be carefully designed, involving as many key workers as possible, coupled with thorough training and support. This was further assisted by removing the opportunity for staff to continue to use the old processes.

• Resistance due to fear of the unknown – people do not naturally resist change; in fact everyone likes to have variety. People do, however, fear the unknown, which leads to resistance. To combat this we used communication and involved everyone affected in the project.

• Short timescales – balancing the time to involve everyone with the need for urgency was a difficult trade-off. However, it was essential to a successful change that sufficient consultation and communication took place.

• ‘Big brother is watching you!’ Within the mobile workforce this generated more concern than was expected and required additional communications and discussions in order to resolve it. The bottom line though was that, unless people were misusing company vehicles, they had nothing to worry about.

As Kotter, Lewin and others have made clear, unless a change is anchored in the organization, then once the project team has gone, processes will start to revert to the old ways of doing things. So key to sustaining success was removing or dismantling the old processes, giving staff no option to go back to paper-based processes. Additional actions included ensuring that all communications happened via electronic dispatch messages – removing the use of the phone – and, finally, using key performance indicators from the technology in order to measure workforce performance.

Lessons learnt

The key lessons learnt were:

1 Ambition. Base the project around a sufficiently ambitious business change, of which IT is just one component. Is the change ambitious enough? Will it motivate the organization to alter and adopt new processes and systems?

2 Project name. Name the project carefully by choosing a word, phrase or acronym related to the business processes that are changing and the desired end-result. It may seem like a small thing but the name can set the mood for the whole project. Also do not choose the name of a technology, because that implies the project belongs to IT as opposed to its being a business project.

3 Design a structured and coherent change programme. To be successful you need a structured approach, such as Kotter’s ‘Leading Change’ framework.

4 Leadership. The change requires strong leadership from senior management, painting a clear picture of the reason for change, leading the staff who are affected towards a new vision (‘The Promised Land’!) and then anchoring that new reality in the organizational culture.

5 Urgency. The leadership and management teams need to emphasize the reason for change and create a real sense of urgency within the business. Without urgency it becomes just another ‘management bright idea’. Urgency in the business motivates the staff to take action.

6 Ensure it resonates with staff. Make sure the staff understand and embrace the vision and the need for change. If it resonates with them as the way to move forward then they will start helping drive the future, and over time this will develop into the bottom-up change that you need to sustain. If you can achieve this, the battle is 50% won already.

7 Involve everyone. Have the employees affected by the change as part of the decision-making process. Helping to define the needs, the solution and the revised processes means they are far more likely to embrace change. It also goes a long way to reducing the fear factor. The problem for management becomes how to involve as many people as possible, keep the project moving forward and continue daily business.

8 ‘What’s in it for me?’. Staff will become far more interested if they know how they might benefit. This can range from their ability to influence future directions to elevation of status, new opportunities, recognition and so on.

Discussion Questions

1 Was the linear approach to change the right one to take within the context of the organization and the change required? Why?

2 What else could be done to sustain the change?

Changing the change

Just as it is important to be aware of the premature labelling of change as successful, it is also important to recognize that not all changes are a good idea. If change is not producing the desired outcome, it may be that the change needs to be reconsidered. In this regard, there may be the assumption that the failure of the change is due either to the lack of sufficient resources or to the change needing longer to prove itself. This may lead to a further commitment of resources, referred to by Staw and Ross (1987a) as ‘escalation of commitment’. Staw and Ross identify four factors (determinants) that can lead to escalation:

1. Project determinants. Commitment is likely to increase where the lack of progress is considered to be due to a temporary problem, where additional funding is considered likely to be effective, or where the relative payoff to come from additional investment is considered to be large.

2. Psychological determinants. Escalation can result from self-justification biases in which having been personally responsible for a decision can lead to continued commitment to try to avoid being associated with losses.

3. Social determinants. Escalation may occur as those most closely identified with a project throw more resources at it in an attempt to revive it and thereby save face by not being associated with a failed project. This response is encouraged by the ‘hero effect’ – the special praise and adoration for managers who stick to their guns in the face of opposition and seemingly bleak odds.

4. Organizational determinants. Organizational units are likely to resist abandoning a change that is seen as central to the organization’s identity. Staw and Ross (1987b) cite the example of Lockheed’s L1011 Tri-Star Jet programme, noting that Lockheed persisted with the project for more than a decade, despite huge losses and predictions that it was unlikely to earn a profit, because to abandon it would have meant admitting that they were simply a defence contractor and not, as they preferred to believe, a pioneer in commercial aircraft.

Sustaining change is helped if actions are taken to reduce the prospect of escalation occurring. Keil and Montealegre (2000) identify seven practices that can help to reduce escalation:

1. Do not ignore negative feedback or external pressure.

2. Hire an external assessor to provide an independent view on progress.

3. Do not be afraid to withhold further resources. As well as limiting losses, doing this has a symbolic value as an emphatic signal that there is concern with progress.

4. Look for opportunities to redefine the problem and generate ideas for courses of action other than the one being abandoned.

5. Manage impressions. Frame the ‘de-escalation’ in a way that saves face.

6. Prepare your stakeholders because, if they shared the initial belief in the rationale for the change, their reaction to an announcement of the abandonment of the change may be to resist it.

7. Look for opportunities to de-institutionalize the project, making clear that the project is not a central defining feature of the organization, so that stepping back from the change, should it occur, does not imply any weakening of commitment to the central mission of the organization.

Additional practices that can help to reduce escalation are suggested by Ghosh (1997):

1. Unambiguous feedback on progress reduces escalation: where feedback is ambiguous, the tendency of people to filter ambiguous information selectively will lead to escalation by those already committed to the change.

2. Regular progress reports reduce escalation: where they are not required, they will not necessarily be sought prior to further commitment to resources.

3. Information on the future benefits of incremental investment reduces escalation: without this specific information, decision-making is too heavily influenced by historical costs.

Being aware of the implications of the existence of the escalation of commitment is important. However, even when there is awareness, it is still challenging to manage. Keil and Montealegre (2000) point out that the line between an optimistic ‘can-do’ attitude and over-commitment is very thin and difficult to discern.

What to do when change starts to fail

At an intellectual level, change can appear to be easy to create, plan and even to produce templates and checklists for. But what happens when problems start to occur, as they inevitably will? How can one mistake be prevented from turning into a major failure of the whole change effort? Sustaining a change programme requires courage – sometimes the courage to admit that it was the wrong plan or that there should be a change of direction. At other times it is a question of perseverance, of keeping going even when the going is tough.

Attention needs to be given to sustain change for as long as it is beneficial to do so; this caveat is important because there may be circumstances where it may not be beneficial to continue to maintain a change. The change may not have been successful or it may have produced unanticipated consequences. Buchanan and colleagues (2005) say that sustaining change can be counterproductive when:

• Changes in the wider environment render recently implemented working practices, outcomes and lines of development obsolete

• Maintaining recently implemented practices impedes further and more significant developments

When transformation starts to fail there are a number of strategies managers can consider for turning the situation around, including the following:

1. Ensure that there is clarity about the aim and outcome of the change initiative. Some change initiatives start with a vague intention of improving something about the organization’s performance or functioning. Consider the following:

Is there a link between the planned change and the organization’s vision for the future, purpose, core values and strategic plan? (See Chapter 3 for more information on core leadership practices.)

Is there a clear picture of the organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and how the change effort will influence them? (See Chapter 6 for diagnostic tools.)

Can the outcomes and benefits be measured?

Which changes will have the greatest impact with the least risk?

Is too much trying to be changed at once?

Are there unrealistic timescales?

2. Ensure that there is sufficient support and readiness for the change. There is a network of stakeholders in and around the organization, including shareholders, customers, employees and suppliers, whose commitment needs to be gained to ensure that the change effort does not fail. Each of these stakeholder groups has an important role to play in ensuring the success of the change. Stakeholders will have their own, sometimes conflicting, agendas and needs that require delicate balancing. Some will be unconvinced about the benefits of change and others may feel threatened by it. A project manager or sponsor who possesses sufficient credibility, experience and capability to manage the complexities of these challenges will be needed to ensure stakeholder support (see Chapter 12 for a stakeholder analysis tool).

3. Ensure that key players are performing. Ensure that there is clarity about the key roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in the change. Poorly defined roles mean that individuals will be unclear about their tasks, how their roles interlink with others, or about the authority they have to resolve problems within the scope of their roles. This can lead to confusion and frustration. It may also be that the wrong individuals have been selected for these roles. Sometimes, an individual is chosen because of his or her specialist knowledge without due attention being paid to the whole range of skills required (the capabilities required for change are discussed in Chapter 13).

4. Review the implementation plan. The rules of effective project planning apply here. There is bound to be pressure to take swift action and cut corners to save time and resources, but careful planning and monitoring are essential. Milestones need to be defined clearly and problems anticipated and acted upon swiftly. There may be opposition to changes in pace or direction, and therefore the manager will need the on-going support of leaders to secure stakeholders’ commitment and additional resources (see Chapter 7 on planning and implementing change).

5. Focus on emotional commitment to the change. People need to be able to engage with the change effort on an emotional level. Their rational mind may understand the business benefits and what that means to them personally but their ‘heart’ plays an even greater role in accepting change (see Chapter 11 for a discussion of how people react to change). All key players in change have to take feelings into consideration throughout the change process. Every opportunity to communicate with employees and other stakeholders should reflect this need. The power of the unofficial network in organizations should not be underestimated, because a whispering campaign against change can seriously undermine its success.

6. Review the communication strategy. Communication planning and implementation are key to turning around a failing change (see Chapter 10 for a discussion on communications and their impact). Leaders and managers need to be consistent and transparent even when the news is bad because it is better for employee motivation to be honest. Bad news should be balanced, of course, with some hope: ‘Here is the problem, and here is how we are going to fix it.’ Otherwise there is a risk that people will be left with the impression that the change is bound to fail.

7. Identify and address the mistakes and avoid blaming others. Although ultimate accountability for the sustainability of change resides at the top of an organization, the responsibility for it should be part of the role of all key stakeholders. It is too easy for one team or function to blame another for the failure of a change. Managers need to ensure that there is coordination of effort and that everyone shares successes and challenges (see Chapter 4 on managing change).

8. Recognize productive failure. The failure of an intended change may be due to its inappropriateness. In this situation, it is important to learn from the experience (Chapter 8 discusses learning from failure).

Organizational change may vary in complexity: from the basic form of incremental change to improve on what has been done already to the highest levels of transformational change when the organization undergoes a true metamorphosis. However, sustaining it needs to be a key part of every type of change if the benefits are to be realized. If change does fail and is irretrievable then it is important to take time to learn from the failure and apply the lessons learnt to future change(s).

Implications for leaders and managers of the need to sustain change

Successful change initiatives can be undermined because too little attention is paid to holding on to the gains once the change objectives appear to be achieved (Hayes, 2014). Change may therefore fail to be sustained. When this happens the benefits from it evaporate and the organization will be left to suffer the costs. Knowing what influences and determines the sustainability of change is a starting point. However, these influences and determinants will vary depending on the nature, pace, sequence and timing of the change as well as the way in which the organization is operating. Building into the initial planning ways of sustaining the change rather than leaving it as an afterthought is vital. This should include the measuring, monitoring and reviewing of key objectives, benefits and risks.

Measuring the change

Setting clear, measurable targets or objectives at the start of a change initiative will help an organization head in the right direction, use resources efficiently, make corrections along the way and assess whether the change has achieved what it set out to do. Change measures rely on the identification of clear measurable objectives at the outset and the tracking of progress towards these objectives. Key performance indicators, objectives and reward systems that are aligned with changes and help to track the progress of change initiatives ensure that managers’ attention remains focused on the change at each level and in each area of responsibility.

Performance management

Managing performance and rewarding individuals for their performance in change initiatives are important requirements for sustaining change. Reward systems should include public recognition of those whose behaviour is consistent with the desired change. This will reinforce the behaviour of individuals concerned and send signals to others about what is expected. Reward systems aligned with change remind individuals that their daily work activities have direct implications for them and that they are responsible for what they initiate or improve. The performance management process, including the setting of objectives, serves a similar function (Sackmann et al., 2009).

When change initiatives became part of individuals’ personal objectives, they remain in their centre of attention rather than getting lost in their daily operational business. The appropriate use of performance objectives and a performance-based reward system can be effective instruments for reviewing and evaluating the progress of the implementation and how the change will be sustained.

Figure 13.1 Decision tree map

Contingency planning

Along with identifying and managing benefits and risks managers also need to think through possible contingencies should events not go as planned. Two tools that aid in contingency planning are decision tree analysis and scenario planning .

Decision tree analysis

Decision tree analysis (see Figure 13.1) asks managers to consider the major choices and the possible consequences of those alternatives. They are then asked to plan for the possible actions and consider what the consequences of these actions might be. Such alternating action–consequence sequences can be extended as far as reasonable. Probabilities can also be assigned to the likelihood of each consequence. For many applications, a simple scale (very likely, likely, possible, unlikely, or very unlikely) is sufficient. This approach helps model the possible consequences to change decisions and assess the benefits and risks associated with different pathways.

Scenario planning

A second tool that helps managers with contingency planning is scenario planning (Gill, 2011: 220–1). Here a change strategy is formed by first developing a limited number of scenarios or stories about how the future may unfold and then assessing what the importance and implications of each of these would be to the organization. By raising and testing various ‘what-if’ scenarios, managers can brainstorm together and challenge their assumptions in a non-threatening, hypothetical environment before they decide on a certain course of action. Scenario planning starts by painting a picture of the future and works backwards, asking what would have to happen to make this future scenario a reality and what could be done.

Measuring how people are responding to the change

Over the long term, managers can use measures such as customer satisfaction, customer retention and the bottom line to assess the validity of the change. Over a shorter timescale, they may focus attention on whether interventions are being implemented as intended and are producing the immediate outcomes that were anticipated. Another source of feedback is employees’ collective perceptions of the way that the change is being managed and the effect this has on their experience of and attitudes towards the change. As we have mentioned in earlier chapters the way that the change is managed can have a powerful impact on how individuals experience the change, their attitudes towards the change and their readiness to support it. Gaining feedback from employees is an important part of measuring change.

Hayes and Hyde (2008) have developed the change management indicator (CMI) as a structured means of receiving this feedback. It is available as an online survey (www.peterhyde.co.uk). Hayes (2014) points out that the survey can be used in a number of ways, including the following:

• As a one-off diagnostic instrument to identify major areas of concern for remedial action

• As a barometer of opinion at a series of points of time, indicating whether the trend is in the desired direction

• To compare the situation in different departments, functions, locations and teams and thereby identify local issues

• As an intervention to get people thinking about the issues and to promote dialogue

• To benchmark against other organizations going through similar changes

Failure to measure and review the way a change is being implemented and managed can affect the achievement of the objectives and timescale for implementing the change. It can also undermine staff commitment to the organization, cause reputational damage and tie up resources managing unintended consequences. As a result it can ultimately adversely affect the sustainability of the change.