EG only

Research Article

The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study

Abdelouahab Errida 1

and Bouchra Lotfi 2

Abstract The main purpose of this study is identifying the various factors affecting change management success, as well as examine their relevance in the case of a Moroccan construction company. A combination of a literature review and research action was employed to this end. Specifically, an in-depth review of 37 organizational change management models was conducted to identify the factors that affect change management success. Additionally, a research action approach validated the identified factors. Several factors that affect organizational change management success were identified and categorized into 12 categories relevant to the successful implementation of organizational change initiatives within the case company. While further research is needed to explore the relevance of the identified factors in other organizations and sectors, this study provides an integrated understanding of change management success based on the analysis of various organizational change models. Understanding success factors can help managers implement change initiatives in their organizations effectively.

Keywords Organizational change, change management models, change management success, success factors

Date received: 21 September 2020; accepted: 14 April 2021

Introduction

In an increasingly complex and dynamic business environ-

ment, organizations are continually striving to change and

adapt their operations to circumstances as they evolve. 1,2

Organizations are, therefore, required to make significant

investments for implementing various changes to adapt to

the changing context. However, managing change is a com-

plex process and risky endeavour. 3

Hence, many compa-

nies struggle with organizational change projects and fail to

realize expected outcomes. 4

Several studies have highlighted that most organiza-

tional change initiatives fail, with an estimated failure rate

of 60–70%.1,5,6 High failure rate raises the sustained con- cern and interest about the factors that can decrease failure

and increase the success of organizational change. 7

Researchers and consultancy firms have developed several

change management models that can improve the success

rate of change projects. Despite many models, there is still

a need to identify these factors comprehensively and to

bridge the gaps in understanding how to succeed in orga-

nizational change management. 1,6

Indeed, existing models

do not fully explore or display all factors that influence the

success of organizational change. 6

Some models place

emphasis on specific factors that are not major success

1 Hassan First University of Settat, Faculty of Sciences and Technology of

Settat, IMII, Settat, Morocco 2 Hassan First University of Settat, National School of Applied Sciences of

Berrechid, IMII, Berrechid, Morocco

Corresponding author:

Abdelouahab Errida, Hassan First University of Settat, Faculty of Sciences

and Technology of Settat, IMII, Settat 26000, Morocco.

Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Engineering Business Management

Volume 13: 1–15 ª The Author(s) 2021

DOI: 10.1177/18479790211016273 journals.sagepub.com/home/enb

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further

permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/

open-access-at-sage).

factors as demonstrated in other models, while some mod-

els incorporate factors not included in others.

Therefore, the use of a single model or few models is not

sufficient to cover various change situations 8

and certain

factors may be omitted or neglected, which could result in

failure if the model is inappropriate to the change context. 9

Consequently, integrating existing models may lead to an

integrated understanding of how to ensure successful orga-

nizational change and help develop a comprehensive

approach for managing change.

This study is conducted within this framework, with the

aim of investigating various organizational change man-

agement models and to identify the most important factors

influencing change management success, which is tested in

a selected Moroccan construction company that recently

implemented several organizational changes.

Construction companies have frequent organizational

changes at the project and business levels. 10,11

These firms

need to continually implement changes initiatives to adopt

new methods and technologies to improve performance and

ensure operational excellence. Some initiatives include

implementing lean construction, 12

increasing digitalization

and implementing building information modeling (BIM), 13

integrating supply chains, 14

and improving project man-

agement practices. 15

Due to the multidisciplinary nature, the geographical dis-

persion of organizational structures, the complexity of pro-

cesses 10,16

and the nature of projects, 17,18

construction

companies have difficulty implementing change manage-

ment processes. However, these factors make the construc-

tion sector an interesting industry for analyzing

organizational issues. 11

Specifically, the industry is of partic-

ular interest for organizational change management, which is

a developing and emerging research topic in this sector. 19

The paper is divided into four main sections. First, a

literature review on organizational change models, includ-

ing commonly used models, is presented. Second, an in-

depth analysis of 37 organizational change models is

conducted, providing an integrated understanding of fac-

tors affecting organizational change success. Third, the

study examines an empirical case study within a Moroccan

construction company to outline critical factors for success

of two change initiatives. Finally, the conclusion details the

limitations of the study and areas for future research.

Literature review

Organizational change models

A change management model serves as a compass that can

facilitate or lead change efforts 20

by determining the spe-

cific processes and steps to follow, by illustrating the var-

ious factors influencing change, or by determining the

levers used to succeed in the change management pro-

cess. 21–23

Several change management models have been

developed over the years using various theories and prin-

ciples from different disciplines. 24,25

Parry et al. 21

distinguish between two categories of

change management models: processual and descriptive

models. A processual model determines the steps for con-

ducting and managing change: for example, Lewin’s 26

3-

stage model of change, Kotter’s 27

8-step model, Kanter’s 28

change wheel, IMA’s 29

10 steps, and Luecke’s 30

7-step

model. A descriptive model specifies the main variables

and factors that affect organizational performance and

organizational change success: for example, Parry

et al.’s 21

change tracking model, Cummings and Wor-

ley’s 31

change management model, Burke and Litwin’s 32

model of organizational change, and Nadler and Tush-

man’s 33

congruence model.

Processual models

Lewin’s 26

three-stage model is considered the theoretical

foundation of planned change management. 34,35

This

model involves three main steps for managing planned

change: unfreezing, transition, and refreezing.

“Unfreezing” consists of destabilizing the status quo by

creating the need and buy-in for change and preparing for

the upcoming change. “Transition” involves moving to the

desired future state. “Refreezing” takes place after the

implementation of the change, resulting in a new culture,

behaviors, and practices. The second notable change man-

agement processual model is the one proposed by Kotter, 27

consisting of eight steps to ensure a successful change pro-

cess: (1) establish a sense of urgency about the need to

achieve change, (2) create a guiding coalition, (3) develop

a vision and strategy, (4) communicate the change vision,

(5) empower broad-based action, (6) generate short-term

wins, (7) consolidate gains and produce more change, and

(8) anchor new approaches in the corporate culture.

While other processual models exist, many of these

models are extensions of Lewin’s 26

model by dividing its

three stages into more steps. For example, “unfreezing”

corresponds to the first four steps in the Kotter’s 27

model,

“moving” corresponds to the following three steps and

“refreezing” to the eighth step, as presented in the Table 1.

Similar to Kotter’s 27

model, Jick 37

developed a tactical

change model involving 10 steps: (1) analyze the need for

change, (2) create a shared vision, (3) separate from the

past, (4) create a sense of urgency, (5) support a strong

leader role, (6) line up political sponsorship, (7) establish

an implementation plan, (8) develop enabling structures,

(9) communicate and involve people, and (10) reinforce

and institutionalize change.

The seven-step change acceleration process model

developed by the General Electric Company (GE) and

reported by Garvin 38

aligns with Lewin’s 26

model and fol-

lows its three steps. In essence, this model focuses on the

role of the change leader in creating a shared need for

change, developing a vision for change, mobilizing the

2 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

commitment, making change lasts by developing longer-

term plans, monitoring and measuring the progress of

change including the use of appropriate metrics and mile-

stones, and reinforcing and integrating change into the

organization’s culture.

By combining Jick’s 37

model with GE’s change model 38

and Kotter’s 27

model, Mento et al. 36

proposed a 12-phase

approach to implement and manage change efforts success-

fully: (1) determine the idea and its context, (2) define the

change initiative, (3) evaluate the climate for change, (4)

develop a change plan, (5) identify a sponsor, (6) prepare

the recipients of change, (7) create cultural fit, (8) develop

and choose a change leader team, (9) create small wins for

motivation, (10) constantly and strategically communicate

the change, (11) measure progress of the change effort, and

(12) integrate lessons learned.

Whelan-Berry and Somerville 39

proposed a summarized

approach consisting of five steps, starting with establishing

the vision, moving change to the entire organization,

enabling individuals to adopt change, sustaining the

momentum, and institutionalizing change.

A few models provide a more detailed process list for

these three steps. For example, the ACMP 40

model deter-

mines 33 processes, organized into five process groups: (1)

evaluate change impact and organizational readiness, (2)

formulate the change management strategy, (3) develop the

change management plan, (4) execute the change manage-

ment plan, and (5) close the change management effort.

Descriptive models

There are several descriptive models that explain and iden-

tify the various determinants of the outcomes of organiza-

tional change initiatives. These models have different

emphases and view change from various angles.

The 7-S Model was developed by former McKinsey

consultants Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman in the

late of 1970s and serves as a framework to assess changes

necessary to ensure organizational effectiveness by analyz-

ing seven interrelated elements: strategy, structure, sys-

tems, staff, style, skills, and shared values. These seven

elements interact to create different organizational patterns

but does not explain how these factors are affected by the

external environment or how each factor affects others.

The model of Burke and Litwin 32

is a framework that

hypothesizes how organizational performance and effec-

tiveness can be influenced and identifies the factors influ-

encing organizational change and explains how they are

interrelated. This framework establishes cause and effect

relationships between 12 dimensions that determine orga-

nizational change within an organization: external environ-

ment, leaderships, mission and strategy, organizational

culture, management practices, structure, systems (policies

and procedures), work unit climate, motivation, task

requirements and individual skills/abilities, individual

needs and values, and individual and organizational perfor-

mance. In this model, change is represented in terms of

both process and content, with a comparison between trans-

actional and transformational factors. Transformational

change occurs in response to the external environment and

directly impacts the mission, strategy, leadership, and cul-

ture of the organization. Similarly, transactional factors

(management practices, structure, systems and work cli-

mate) are directly affected. Both factors together affect

motivation, which in turn impacts individual and organiza-

tional performance. 32

Based on the open systems paradigm, Nadler and Tush-

man 33

designed the congruence model, which focuses on

the transformation process and emphasizes the role of con-

gruence between organizational components in producing

effective behavior patterns. This model seeks to explain

Table 1. Change management steps according to Kotter, 27

Mento et al., 36

and Cummings and Worley. 31

Lewin Kotter27 Mento et al.36 Cummings and Worley31

Unfreezing Step 1: establish a sense of urgency Step 1: determine the idea and its context Step 1: motivating change Step 2: create a guiding coalition Step 2: define the change initiative Step 2: creating a vision Step 3: develop a vision and strategy Step 3: evaluate the climate for change Step 3: developing

political support Step 4: communicate the change vision Step 4: develop a change plan

Step 5: identify a sponsor Moving (transition) Step 5: empower broad-based action Step 6: prepare the recipients of change Step 4: managing the

transitionStep 6: generate short-term wins Step 7: create the cultural fit Step 7: consolidate gains and produce

more change Step 8: develop and choose a change leader

team Step 9: create small wins for motivation Step 10: constantly and strategically

communicate the change Step 11: measure progress of the change

effort Refreezing Step 8: anchor new approaches in the

corporate culture Step 12: integrate lessons learned Step 5: sustaining

momentum

Errida and Lotfi 3

how congruence and fit among the four components of the

transformation process of an organization (i.e., work and

tasks, individuals, formal organizational arrangements, and

informal organization) affect and produce organizational

behaviors and impact change and performance.

The Beckhard and Harris 41

change model describes the

conditions necessary for overcoming resistance to change

within an organization, by indicating that for change to

occur, the product of three variables (dissatisfaction with

the current state, vision, and first steps) must be higher than

the resistance to change.

Carnall 42

highlighted the importance of competencies

and skills during change and stated that effective change

management depends on three managerial skill areas: man-

aging transitions, dealing with organizational culture, and

establishing the politics of organizational change.

The critical factors of change management success are

important. The Change First methodology 43

has identified

six critical factors to ensure successful organizational imple-

mentation of change: shared change purpose, effective

change leadership, powerful engagement processes, com-

mitted local sponsors, strong personal connection, and sus-

tained personal performance. Similarly, Knoster 44

identified

five elements that must be in place for successful implemen-

tation: vision for change, availability of resources, skills,

change plans, and incentives for motivation.

Further, Kanter 28

conceptualized an approach through

“the change wheel model,” incorporating 10 key factors

to ensure successful change: (1) common theme and shared

vision; (2) rewards and recognition; (3) measures mile-

stones and feedback; (4) guidance, management structure,

and process; (5) communication and best practice; (6)

quick wins; (7) champions and sponsors; (8) training; (9)

approach of change; and (10) symbols and signals.

Necessity for a holistic analysis

There are many similarities and differences between

change management models. Although there is an abundant

literature on organizational change models, there are still

few studies that compare the various existing models. For

instance, Galli 24

compares five models: Lewin’s, Kotter’s,

Prosci, ADKAR, McKinsey 7-S, and GE’s change model

and concludes that, although these models share many

similarities, they have differences and various advantages,

disadvantages, and perspectives. Previously, Brisson-

Banks 45

compared five models (Lewin, Beckhard, Thurley,

Bridges, and Kotter) and found significant commonalities

between them. Additionally, Mento et al. compared Kot-

ter’s, Jick’s, and GE’s models.

Furthermore, some models focus more on certain

aspects. For example, ADKAR places particular emphasis

on team members and employee change adaptation, 24

Car-

nall’s 42

model focuses on the managerial skills and abilities

required for change, the Beckhard and Harris 41

change

model comprises a formula that may help overcome

resistance to change, and Lewin’s 26

change model focuses

on the reduction of the resisting force. 46

Some processual models provide substantial details con-

cerning the steps to be followed for initiating, managing,

and sustaining change, while others do not separate the

steps enough (e.g., Cummings and Worley’s, 31

Lewin’s, 26

Whelan-Berry and Somerville’s 39

models). Additionally,

some steps are incorporated in some models but do not

appear in others, while some descriptive models place more

emphasis on specific factors that may not be considered as

major success factors in other models.

Furthermore, there is a disagreement concerning the

choice of the most appropriate model to guide change

within an organization. 24,47

It is argued that one or even

two change models cannot be appropriate tools to cover the

different change situations. 8

Indeed, a change model would

not be suitable for all change situations, as change and its

context vary significantly from one organization to

another. 2,48

Using only one model may not provide a full description

of the change management process, may neglect or omit

certain important success factors, or may be inappropriate

to the particularity of a change. Therefore, several change

models could be combined to best fit the particular situation

of change or the circumstances of an organization. 24,45,49

Therefore, considering the complex nature of organiza-

tional change, understanding and controlling change

requires a holistic approach that includes all relevant fac-

tors and steps.

Categorization and descriptions of success factors

This study conducted an extensive literature review,

including a review of books, journals, databases, and sev-

eral publications from world-renowned consulting firms

specializing in change management. This review yielded

the list of models of organizational change management

shown in Table 2.

An in-depth analysis of the selected models was con-

ducted to identify the factors influencing change manage-

ment success. All models were independently examined

and intensively studied. Following this analysis, 77 sub-

factors were identified (Appendix 1).

For example, the first sub-factor, “clear definition of

change,” was suggested by four models. In its framework

for managing organizational changes, “Accelerating Imple-

mentation Methodology,” IMA 29

considers the definition

of change as the necessary first step. Likewise, in their 12-

step model, Mento et al. 36

dedicated the second step to the

definition of change. ACMP 40

considers “the definition of

change” as a key process for managing change and stated

that a clearly defined change is needed to determine the

approach necessary to implement change successfully. The

change management body of knowledge 61

considers the

full definition of change as a key factor of change manage-

ment success.

4 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

The models analyzed include many similarities. Some

factors are suggested by several models while others are

mentioned by only one or few models. Considering these

similarities and redundancies of meaning, sub-factors that

seemed to be related to the same phenomenon were cate-

gorized into 12 categories as presented below. For exam-

ple, the four sub-factors (clear definition of change, clear

and shared change vision, change strategy and objectives,

alignment with mission and strategy) were grouped into the

same category “Clear and shared vision and strategy of

change”.

1. Clear and shared vision and strategy of change

Several of the reviewed change models have stressed the

importance of clearly defining change 29,36,40,61

and estab-

lishing a vision and strategy for change. 27,28,31,38,41,44,40

The vision should be aligned with the organizational strat-

egy 61

and describe the characteristics of the future state, the

reasons the change is needed, and the expected outcomes of

the change. According to several processual models, creat-

ing a clear and shared vision is considered a critical early

step of a change process. Moreover, the acceptance of the

vision by all employees and stakeholders is a prerequisite

for change success. 39

Indeed, successful changes require

leaders to develop an appropriate and accepted vision, with

measurable objectives and a strategy that guide the organi-

zation to the realization of expected benefits. 40

2. Change readiness and capacity for change

The AIM roadmap change management methodology 29

identifies readiness to change as one of the 10 stages of any

successful change process. Organizational change

readiness represents an organization’s willingness and pre-

paredness to adapt to change. 68

Change readiness needs to

be prepared at two levels: organizational and individual

readiness. 69

Individual readiness focuses on employees’

skills and abilities, in addition to their motivation, percep-

tions, and behaviors toward change projects. 69,70

Organiza-

tional readiness focuses on the readiness of the

organizational environment, in which change is to be

implemented and can be seen in three aspects: cultural,

commitment, and capacity readiness. 70

Furthermore, some models 44,59,65,67

emphasized the

importance of the availability of change resources as a

precursor to change readiness. Moreover, Prosci 59

reveals

that change management is likely to be more effective in

change projects with dedicated resources than in those

without them. To sustain change, it is not sufficient for

organizations to be ready for implementing single change

initiatives, but they must also have the capacity to maintain

daily operations and manage and implement multiple

changes. 71

In this respect, organizations need to develop

and build sustainable capacity for change. According to

Klarner et al. 72

and Judge and Douglas, 73

organizational

change capacity is a combination of managerial and orga-

nizational capabilities that allows an organization to

develop and implement appropriate changes to constantly

adapt to environmental and organizational evolutions.

However, one of the most important capabilities required

for coping with change is resilience. 74

It helps people and

organizations to increase their abilities to execute a greater

number of changes more efficiently and effectively. In this

context, some authors 75,76

have highlighted the role of the

governance reflexive as a tool that can enable a successful

path towards resilience and sustainability.

Table 2. List of organizational change management models.

Processual models Descriptive models

1. Kotter’s 27

8-Step Change Model 2. Lewin’s26 three step change model 3. Lippitt et al.’s

50 change theory

4. Bullock and Batten’s51 change model 5. Bridges’

52 model of transition

6. Luecke’s30 seven steps 7. Mento et al.’s

36 change model

8. Jick’s37 10 steps model 9. Judson’s

53 five-phase model

10. The change leader’s roadmap54

11. ADKAR55

12. Accelerating Implementation Methodology (AIM)29

13. ACMP’s40 Standard for Change Management 14. Whelan-Berry and Somerville39

15. Kanter et al.28

16. Galpin’s56 wheel of nine wedges 17. Model of Fernandez and Rainey57

18. Kickert58

19. Cummings and Worley’s 31

change management model 20. Burke and Litwin’s32 model of organizational change 21. Congruence model

33

22. Change formula of Beckhard and Harris41

23. Carnall’s 42

change management model 24. Knoster’s44 change model 25. GE’S change acceleration

38

26. Prosci’s59 change management methodology 27. Best practice model for change management

60

28. Change tracking model21

29. Change management body of knowledge61

30. BCG’s change delta62

31. McKinsey’s 7-S63

32. Armenakis et al.64

33. Greer and Ford65

34. Cawsey et al.66

35. CMI’s change Management maturity67

36. Fernandez and Rainey57

37. Change first’s model43

Errida and Lotfi 5

3. Change team performance

One of the first steps to successfully manage change is to

create a guiding coalition, by putting together a group of

selected individuals with enough expertise, position power,

credibility, and leadership skills. 27

These individuals are

generally called change agents and are responsible for

the formulation and implementation of change. Many

models 27,28,29,59

have outlined the importance of building

and preparing a change management team by identifying its

members, clarifying their roles and responsibilities, 40

developing their capacity to change 29,50

and equipping

them with the skills, knowledge and competencies needed

for managing change. 59

4. Activities for managing change management

Various change management models have highlighted

the necessity of using a set of tools to support individuals

through all phases of the change process. 28,38,40,59

The

training, coaching, and empowerment of employees have

been broadly cited among these tools. It is argued that

training facilitates change efforts by developing technical

capabilities and influencing the mind-set of employees,

thus improving their readiness and involvement in change.

Similarly, the coaching of employees aims to liberate their

full potential by helping them develop intrapersonal skills

such as self-awareness and self-motivation. 71

The coaching

process must be part of an integrated approach for empow-

ering employees by preparing them, understanding what

they do and do not know, working with them, watching

their performance, giving them feedback, and creating an

ongoing dialogue with them. 77

This environment allows

employees to explain their beliefs and specific worries and

concerns about change. It can also be an opportunity to

gather feedback about the change progress and to be aware

of the obstacles and difficulties encountered when imple-

menting a new methodology. 78

5. Resistance management

Judson 53

considers people’s resistance as the biggest

barrier that can make change difficult, if not impossible.

Therefore, change management is traditionally used to

identify the sources and causes of resistance and provide

tools and ways to overcome them. 31

Therefore, failing to

overcome resistance is a big failure for change manage-

ment teams and successfully managing resistance is a key

factor for effective change management. 59

6. Effective communication

Effective and constant communication is a key factor for

change success and plays a major role in creating change

readiness, reducing resistance to change, and in obtaining

the buy-in of individuals. 79

Among the objectives of the

communication process is communicating the strategy, the

desired future state, the vision, and the scope of the change

project to all relevant stakeholders. Effective communica-

tion starts with an assessment of the communication needs

of all stakeholders 40

and continues with the development of

a communication strategy and detailed plan. 29,59,61

To

achieve the goals in this plan, it is highly recommended

to ensure regular monitoring and evaluation of the commu-

nication process. 61

7. Motivation of employees and change agents

The majority of the studied models emphasize the

importance of the motivation process in mobilizing

employees to be an active part of change. To this end,

Kotter, 27

Kanter, 28

and Mento et al. 36

recommended creat-

ing short-term wins during change process by advertising

short-term visible improvements and anything that demon-

strates progress toward the future desired state of change.

The employees involved in those improvements should be

recognized and appropriately rewarded. 28,40

Their needs

and values must be considered during change. 32

Addition-

ally, change agents must be highly motivated, 40,50

as they

must motivate in turn individuals and stakeholders to ren-

der their change projects successful.

8. Stakeholder engagement

Change initiatives require the significant engagement

and commitment of all relevant stakeholders, including

employees, supervisors, and managers. Moreover, stake-

holder participation in organizational change initiatives is

considered an important success factor. 61

In accordance

with Peltokorpi et al. 80

a change project stakeholder is any

group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

implementation of the change project. To ensure that all

stakeholders are engaged in the change effort, it is recom-

mended to establish a “stakeholder engagement strategy”

that will identify the required engagement of the various

stakeholders and the necessary activities to achieve the

required engagement. 40

Several studies emphasize the role

of the middle managers in ensuring change suc-

cess. 1,59,81,82,97

In this respect, Prosci’s 2017 report of best

practices in change management cited the middle manage-

ment engagement among the seven factors contributing to

change success. In regard to executives and senior manag-

ers, their active and visible engagement gives more cred-

ibility to change initiatives and leads to a greater degree of

stakeholder acceptance of these initiatives. 69

However, the

lack of employee commitment and engagement may be a

source of resistance and a serious barrier to the successful

implementation of change. Numerous studies have shown

that the success of any change project depends primarily on

employee commitment because the implementation of

change is mainly carried out by the employees. 83

There-

fore, to increase the likelihood of success, middle and

senior managers should get their employees to commit to

6 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

change by targeting individuals or groups whose commit-

ment to the change is required. 36

9. Leadership and sponsorship

Several models have underlined the importance of a

powerful leadership and strong sponsorship in ensuring

successful change initiatives. 59,40

As defined by North-

ouse, 84

leaderships may be considered the process whereby

an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a

common goal. Gill 85

proposed an integrative model that

identifies six elements of effective leadership in change

management: clear and effective vision, strategy, values,

empowerment, motivation, and inspiration. The role that

leaders play evolves throughout the change project, from

defining the vision and strategy to preparing the organiza-

tion, empowering the employees, and sustaining the results

of change. 62

Moreover, leaders must be able to play a

sponsorship role, with the aim of aligning stakeholders to

support and own the change. 40

The importance of this role

was confirmed by consultancy firm Prosci in all its change

management benchmarking studies over the past two

decades, by placing effective sponsorship at the top of the

list of the key contributors to change success. 59

10. Reinforcement and sustainment of change

As confirmed by the majority of the change models

examined in this study, there is a broad consensus that

we cannot achieve a successful change without implement-

ing a process for sustaining the gains and benefits of this

change over the long term. Sustaining change is accom-

plished by embedding new work processes and methods,

integrating lessons learned, reinforcing the new behaviors,

assessing change outcomes against organizational objec-

tives, and developing actions for continuous improvement

and reinforcement. 31,36,40

ACMP 40

highlighted the impor-

tance of developing a sustainability strategy that provides a

clear roadmap, including all the mechanisms and activities

to be used for sustaining and reinforcing the change.

11. Approach and planning for change

Some models (especially those developed by consulting

firms) cited the use of a structured methodology for manag-

ing change as a contributor to success. However, choosing a

ready-made methodology requires tailoring processes and

tools to a specific organization and particular change initia-

tive. 86

Whether choosing a tailored approach or an in-house

developed method, three elements must be carefully consid-

ered: design of process and procedures, planning and inte-

gration of project management, and change management.

Design of processes/procedures

As previously seen, all processual models are based on the

assumption that change process can be successfully

managed by following a series of pre-planned steps. Addi-

tionally, using appropriate procedures and processes con-

tributes to the improvement of organizational readiness and

change management maturity. 43,59,67

Moreover, formal

procedures and policies are also useful to consolidate the

gains of change, as they are intended to explain how new

behaviors and practices will be sustainably conducted. 30

Planning. The majority of the reviewed models have cited planning as a fundamental step or an important factor in the

success of change initiatives. Moreover, poor planning is

considered a main reason for organizational change failure.

Additionally, Faest and Hemerling 62

considered the lack of

milestones to gauge progress as a leading cause of failed

change projects, while Prosci 59

suggests establishing five

plans that define the short-term activities needed to support

individuals during change: communication, training,

coaching, resistance management, and sponsorship road-

map plans.

Integration of project management. Some models have high- lighted the importance of integrating change management

and project management for delivering successful

change. 40,59,87

Additionally, managing change in organiza-

tions nowadays requires project-based management and

excellent practice of project management principles and

tools. Furthermore, PMI 69

stressed the importance of proj-

ect management portfolio in managing multiple change.

Change management and project/portfolio/program man-

agement offices are also cited in some models as organiza-

tional structures providing guidance and ensuring

compliance with project management processes/methodol-

ogy and change management approaches. 61

12. Monitoring/measurement

Organizational change initiatives almost never proceed

according to the initial plan. 30

Accordingly, change prog-

ress must be continuously monitored, tracked, and mea-

sured. 36

Proper measurement and monitoring are critical

to keeping the change project on track. The measurement

system requires creating and establishing metrics, using

milestones and tools for tracking change progress, 30,38

assessing, and measuring change benefits and

outcomes. 40,61

For this purpose, the triple layered business model can-

vas 88

can be a useful tool for assessing the benefits of

changes and appraising how they create value for organi-

zations in a more holistic manner with economic, environ-

mental and social perspectives.

Method

To validate the findings from the literature review, an

action research study involving a series of semi-

structured interviews 89

was conducted within a Moroccan

construction company to investigate the factors that

Errida and Lotfi 7

affected the success of two organizational change initia-

tives over 2 years. This company specializes in the con-

struction of industrial and commercial buildings, with an

annual revenue of around 35 M$, approximately 300

employees and many tens of clients.

Personal observation has been also employed for data

collection, as one of the authors is working at this company

as a senior manager. The research action methodology is

inspired from the constructivist epistemology and promotes

an understanding of complex processes from a learning or

organizational change perspective. 90

It is based on the

hypothesis that, on the one hand, actors in organizations

have practical knowledge and experience and, on the other

hand, researchers have theoretical knowledge about orga-

nizational change processes. 91

A difference between action

research and other types of case studies is that the

researcher is involved in the case as an active participant.

Therefore, their knowledge can be immediately applied to

address the problem at hand, which constitutes an ideal

application of research action. 92

Concern about subjectivity and bias in action research

and in qualitative research is inevitable but can be reduced

in several ways. Shah 93

underlines that researchers must

consider all the data collected, analyze it with a clear and

unbiased mind, and maintain full neutrality to not influence

the research outcome or support pre-established beliefs.

Additionally, the use of triangulation is widely recom-

mended to improve validity and minimize bias. 98

This

includes collecting data from different sources, participa-

tion of two or more researchers, using different theories,

and implementing multiple data collection methods. 94

Interviews were conducted and were followed by sev-

eral focus group discussions involving participants of

change to analyze the identified issues more deeply. For

the change initiatives examined in this study, the partici-

pants are composed of 43 men and 7 women, which

included senior project managers, junior project managers,

site managers, and employees in support functions (pur-

chasing and supply chain, quality, and finance and account-

ing). The Table 3 presents detailed data about the

participants.

Case study

The case company was in the process of implementing four

organizational change initiatives, which made the project to

identify the factors that increase change management suc-

cess appealing to the management.

The four initiatives are:

CI1) Implementation of BIM to respond to an increasing

demand of this approach from customers. The objec-

tive of BIM implementation is to create a digital rep-

resentation of the components of a facility and share

knowledge related design and operational informa-

tion about a project. 95

CI2) Implementation of lean construction best practices:

This change project aimed to implement processes to

eliminate waste across the construction value chain,

as well as to improve productivity and quality. It

focuses on six practices: just-in-time, 5S method,

value stream mapping, standard operating procedures,

waste elimination, and continuous improvement.

CI3) Implementation of a project management metho-

dology (PMM): This change project includes:

P Definition and formalization of project manage- ment processes in accordance with the models pro-

posed by the Project Management Book of

Knowledge (PMBOK) 96

;

PStandardization of documents by creating templates and artefacts (e.g., work control sheet template,

project cost estimation template, task and change

trackers);

P Implementation of good practices associated with the processes (e.g., use of project planning soft-

ware, use of risk analysis tools, use of documents

to track changes).

CI4) Implementation of an ERP system to support

finance, accounting, and project management depart-

ments in their daily operations.

For 2 years, the progress of the four initiatives was

tracked across the company. The first two initiatives

(CI1, CI2) were perceived as unsuccessful changes by the

interviewees while the last two (CI3, CI4) were rated as

successful. At the time of data collection, CI3 had been

achieved and the methodology had been implemented for

more than one year. CI2 and CI4 were in the execution

phase and CI1 was in the initiation phase.

For reasons related to the lack or insufficiency of data,

only two cases were analyzed in this study: (CI3) and (CI2).

The other two initiatives were declined, as (CI1) was still in

Table 3. Interviewee profiles.

Category Number of participants (a) Country Average professional experience (years)

Department director 3 Morocco 10 < Senior project managers 8 Morocco 5 < � < 10 Junior project managers 12 Morocco 2 < � < 5 Site managers 21 Morocco 10 < � < 15 Support functions 6 Morocco 2 < � < 5

8 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

its early steps and CI4 had started more than 5 years prior

and most of the interviewees had not participated in all

phases of its implementation.

To determine which factors are considered by the

employees as the most important determinants of change

management success when implementing the two changes

CI3 and CI2, we have established a semi-structured ques-

tionnaire rated using a five-point Likert scale ranging from

1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. The results are presented in Table 4.

Case 1: Implementation of a project management methodology

The analysis of the information delivered by the respon-

dents through focus groups and interviews has confirmed

the importance of all factors identified in the reviewed

models. The five factors that have obtained the highest

scores are: leadership and sponsorship, effective and con-

stant communication, stakeholder engagement, activities

for managing change, and motivation of employees and

change agents.

Leadership and executive sponsorship. The leadership of the change manager had a visible impact on the successful

implementation of the PMM. Indeed, all interviewees

agreed that the change manager has established a clear

vision and a roadmap on how to implement the PMM.

Through effective communication, regular meetings, per-

sonalized coaching, empowerment and motivation, he suc-

ceeded in convincing the supervisors and project managers

to become effective actors of change.

Although there were low levels of both commitment

and change readiness of employees at the preparation

phase of the PMM implementation, the majority of the

interviewed individuals thought that the strong commit-

ment observed in the execution phase was primarily due to

the role of the change manager. Therefore, leadership

proved to be a success factor of change management when

implementing a PMM.

The designated change manager has a set of skills and

competencies that enabled him to effectively fulfill his

role as a leader. Additionally, he relied on knowledge

from both project and change management, which

allowed him to ensure the proper use of project manage-

ment tools and principles, notably planning and stake-

holder management based on an intelligent use of

change management principles, such as resistance man-

agement and employee empowerment.

Effective and constant communication. Regular communica- tion has proved helpful in mobilizing employees and

increasing their commitment level. With a clearly defined

plan of communication executed by change agents, the

belief that implementing the new methodology will be ben-

eficial was created among employees and managers, which

has contributed to overcoming the reluctance and resistance

to change observed in the early phases. Therefore, commu-

nication had an important role in creating the awareness of

the need for implementing the new PMM, thus contributing

to employee commitment.

The fact that the company is an SME with limited geo-

graphical coverage enabled the change manager to have a

perspective of the entire company, leading to better com-

munication between all relevant stakeholders. Addition-

ally, the adoption of an open communication and “no

blame” attitude had encouraged all change agents and

employees to actively participate in meetings throughout

all phases of the change process.

Learning, coaching, and empowerment. During implementa- tion, various training sessions covering the principles, pro-

cesses, and tools of the new methodology, were carried out

for the individuals involved in projects. Additionally, some

individual coaching sessions were conducted. The respon-

dents revealed that training and one-on-one coaching ses-

sions helped them overcome their fears and misconceptions

and made them aware of the advantages of the new meth-

odology. They also accepted that learning, coaching, and

empowerment are key factors for their motivation and full

commitment.

Table 4. Results of survey.

N� Critical success factor Mean score (CI3) Mean score (CI2)

F1 Clear and shared change vision and strategy 4.1 1.2 F2 Change readiness and capacity for change 3.3 1.6 F3 Change team performance 3.85 1.7 F4 Activities for managing change management 4.2 1.3 F5 Resistance management 3.1 2.1 F6 Effective and constant communication 4.3 1.2 F7 Motivation of employees and change agents 4.15 1.5 F8 Stakeholder engagement and commitment 4.25 1.25 F9 Leadership, sponsorship 4.53 1.3 F10 Reinforcement and sustainment of change 3.3 1.7 F11 Approach for change 3.5 1.8 F12 Monitoring/measurement 3.8 1.15

Errida and Lotfi 9

Stakeholder engagement. The company’s executives were convinced that their way of managing projects was inade-

quate and caused considerable financial losses. They were

aware that the implementation of a new PMM was neces-

sary for the company to improve its overall performance.

Therefore, the executives demonstrated active support for

the change team, by providing it with all the necessary

resources for successful implementation (e.g., funding for

training, consultancy and certification, acquisition of a

project management software). All respondents stated that

executive support has greatly facilitated the change process

by making resources available, thus engendering the senti-

ments supporting change readiness.

Similarly, the other stakeholders (e.g., change agents,

employees, support functions, project management staff)

demonstrated their commitment to change management

activities and made every effort to respect the milestones

specified in the change management plan. Moreover, all

respondents agreed that the PMBOK implementation

would not have been successful without the commitment

of all stakeholders.

Motivation. As reported by most respondents, employee motivation was perceived as a key factor for the successful

PMM implementation. They also stated that their level of

motivation has improved for several reasons, namely the

crucial contribution of the change leader who has suc-

ceeded consider the needs of change agents and employees

by preparing them, tracking their progress in adopting the

PMM, and creating an ongoing dialogue with them through

regular meetings. It was also observed that the change

motivation of change agents helped create a spirit of initia-

tive and developed a willingness to learn, which maintained

a sustained rhythm to managing day-to-day activities

according to the new methodology.

Case 2: Lean construction

The interviews revealed that the lack of a clear change

vision, lack of leadership skills, poor communication, low

commitment of stakeholders, and lack of monitoring sys-

tem were the main barriers to successful change manage-

ment in the case of lean implementation.

Lack of clear vision. There is considerable ambiguity related to the change content and vision was not specific enough.

The operational objectives of change remained unclear and

those related to employees’ transition management were

missing. According to some interviewees, the lack of a

detailed vision and the first steps required to get started

(assessment, vision establishment) constituted the first

major cause of failure.

Lack of leadership skills. As explained by most interviewers, the designated change manager was not able to correctly

manage the lean construction implementation because of

his lack of leadership traits for mobilizing and involving

stakeholders. Indeed, the change lacked a leader who could

make sense of the change and was able to effectively com-

municate, motivate the change team, empower people, and

develop change management plans (communication, resis-

tance management, training, and coaching).

Low stakeholder engagement. As reported by the intervie- wees, there was little conviction and commitment from the

executive committee. The lean implementation was not

considered a priority, which explains why the change team

had not received enough support from this committee.

Additionally, the change agents selected by the change

manager have not shown much enthusiasm for the imple-

mentation process. According to them, a roadmap, as well

as the motivation and encouragement for the change agents

to get involved, were lacking. The insufficient commitment

of the change agents had negatively affected the awareness

of employees and their involvement, thus constituting a real

obstacle to change within different services and sites.

Poor communication. Contrary to the first case, where effec- tive communication was a success factor, the lack of com-

munication was considered as a barrier to success here.

The respondents stated that this change project suffered

from poor communication, information meetings being

rare, which suggested no urgency for change. Further-

more, neither the company executives nor the designated

change manager were concerned about the lack of com-

munication. The employees were not informed about the

expected benefits that lean implementation would bring to

them and the company. Some project managers com-

plained they were not aware of the progress of the lean

construction implementation. Moreover, as explained by

several interviewees, the absence of a communication

plan that would normally maintain the commitment of

employees and stakeholders has created a climate of dis-

interest and low buy-in.

Conclusions

This study comprehensively examined the factors affecting

change management success by reviewing 37 change mod-

els. While most existing literature concerning success fac-

tors for implementing organizational change initiatives has

focused on one or a few models and factors, this study

aimed to comprehensively identify these factors. Conse-

quently, 74 sub-factors were identified and categorized into

12 categories.

Additionally, by adopting an action research approach

within a Moroccan construction company, the relevant fac-

tors for effective change management of two change initia-

tives were investigated. A survey and focus groups with

change agents revealed that the leadership of the change

manager, effective and constant communication during

change, engagement of stakeholders, and motivation of

employees and change agents are the most relevant factors

10 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

for change management success when implementing a

PMM. Conversely, for lean construction, the lack of a clear

vision, lack of leadership skills, low engagement of stake-

holders, and poor communication are the main causes of

change management failure. In the case study, the factors

were scored differently by the interviewees, which explains

why some factors may be more critical while others are less

critical for successful management of change. Furthermore,

the case study revealed that some factors may influence

others. This was illustrated in the first case by the contri-

bution of the change manager’s leadership in developing

other factors, such as stakeholder engagement, motivation,

and communication.

The findings of this study may provide useful insights

for improving activities and decisions needed for the suc-

cessful implementation of organizational change initia-

tives. Additionally, the results can allow managers to

focus efforts and resources on essential issues necessary

to ensure the success of organizational change manage-

ment. Therefore, managers can increase the success of

organizational change initiatives and can use the study

findings to develop better strategies to improve change

management maturity within their organizations.

This study has some limitations that should be addressed

in future studies. Although we have executed an extensive

literature review that focused principally on change mod-

els, some practical success factors may have been over-

looked. Thus, to complete the theoretical analysis, future

studies could identify the key factors contributing to

change success from the published case studies dealing

with organizational change initiatives success. These find-

ings could be compared with results issued from the models

and those of this study.

A case study is useful to address managerial issues

despite any disadvantages associated with generalization

problems. Thus, we advise future studies to combine a case

study and a large-scale study by broadening the methodol-

ogy employed here to a larger number of companies in the

construction sector. Additionally, researchers are encour-

aged to conduct this study in different countries to deter-

mine specific aspects that may affect the outcomes.

Furthermore, a quantitative approach should be per-

formed to rank factors by type of change and to identify

factor correlations or inter-relationships.

Finally, the findings of this study may provide the foun-

dation for developing a change management measurement

model and a new change management maturity model.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with

respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Abdelouahab Errida https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8350-8058

References

1. Burnes B. Introduction: why does change fail, and what can

we do about it? J Change Manag 2011; 11: 445–450.

2. Al-Haddad S and Kotnour T. Integrating the organizational

change literature: a model for successful change. J Organ

Change Manag 2015; 28: 234–262.

3. Jacobs G, van Witteloostuijn A and Christe-Zeyse J. A theo-

retical framework of organizational change. J Org Change

Manag 2013; 26: 772–792.

4. Rick T. Companies are struggling with change management.

https://www.tobenrick.eu/blog/change-management/compa

nies-are-struggling-with-change-management (2012,

accessed 17 May 2020).

5. Ashkenas R. Change management needs to change. https://

hbr.org/2013/04/change-management-needs-to-cha (2013,

accessed 25 June 2020).

6. Jones J, Firth J, Hannibal C, et al. Factors contributing

to organizational change success or failure: a qualitative

meta-analysis of 200 reflective case studies. In: Hamlin R,

Ellinger A and Jones J (eds) Evidence-based initiatives for

organizational change and development. Hershey, PA: IGI

Global, 2018, pp. 155–178.

7. Rafferty AE, Jimmieson NL and Armenakis AA. Change

readiness: a multilevel review. J Manag 2013; 39: 110–135.

8. Burnes B and Jackson P. Success and failure in organizational

change: an exploration of the role of values. J Change Manag

2011; 11: 133–162.

9. Mosadeghrad AM and Ansarian M. Why do organizational

change programs fail? Int J Strat Change Manag 2014; 5:

189–217.

10. Erdogan B, Anumba C, Bouchlaghem D and Nielsen Y.

Change management in construction: the current context.

In: Khosrowshahi F (ed) 21st Annual ARCOM Conference,

University of London, London, UK, 7–9 September 2005.

11. Keegan AE and Turner JR. Managing human resources in the

project-based organization. In: Turner JR (ed) People in proj-

ect management. Aldershot: Gower, 2003, pp. 1–12.

12. Forman M. Inertia and change: lean construction and health

and safety work on construction sites. Constr Manag Econ

2013; 31: 647–660.

13. Liao L and Teo EAL. Managing critical drivers for building

information modelling implementation in the Singapore con-

struction industry: an organizational change perspective. Int J

of Constr Manag 2018; 19: 240–256.

14. Briscoe G and Dainty A. Construction supply chain inte-

gration: an elusive goal? Supply Chain Manag 2005; 10:

319–326.

15. Arefazar Y, Nazari A, Hafezi MR, et al. Prioritizing agile

project management strategies as a change management

tool in construction projects. Int J Constr Manag 2019;

19: 1–12.

Errida and Lotfi 11

16. Shash A, Zaaza M and Alsalti M. Change management in

construction contracting organizations in Saudi Arabia. Int

J Constr Eng Manag 2020; 9: 142–153.

17. Lines BC, Sullivan KT and Wiezel A. Support for organiza-

tional change: change readiness outcomes among AEC proj-

ect teams. J Constr Eng Manag 2016;142: 1–11.

18. Bresnen M, Goussevskaia A and Swan J. Organizational rou-

tines, situated learning and processes of change in project-

based organizations. Proj Manag J 2005; 36:27–41.

19. Wong SP, Zwar C and Gharaie E. Examining the drivers and

states of organizational change for greater use of prefabrica-

tion in construction projects. ASCE J Constr Eng Manag

2017; 143: 1–9.

20. Rothwell W and Sullivan R. Models for change. Practicing

organizational development: a guide for consultants, 2nd ed.

San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, 2005.

21. Parry W, Kirsch C, Carey P, et al. Empirical development of a

model of performance drivers in organizational change proj-

ects. J Change Manag 2013; 14: 99–125.

22. Bezboruah KC. Applying the congruence model of organiza-

tional change in explaining the change in the Indian economic

policies. J Org Transform Soc Change 2008; 5: 129–140.

23. Stouten J, Rousseau DM and de Cremer D. Successful

organizational change: integrating the management prac-

tice and scholarly literatures. Acad Manag Annal 2018;

12: 752–788.

24. Galli BJ. Change management models: a comparative analy-

sis and concerns. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 2018; 46: 124–132.

25. Worren NAM, Ruddle K and Moore K. From organizational

development to change management: the emergence of a new

profession. J Appl Behav Sci 1999; 35: 273–286.

26. Lewin K. Field theory in social science. New York, NY:

Harper & Row, 1947.

27. Kotter JP. Leading change: why transformation efforts fail.

Harv Bus Rev 1995; 59–67.

28. Kanter RM. The change wheel: elements of systemic change

and how to get change rolling. Background note 312-083.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2011.

29. Implementation Management Associates (IMA). The AIM

change management methodology. https://www.imaworld

wide.com/aim-change-management-methodology (2018,

accessed 15 April 2020).

30. Luecke R. Managing change and transition. Boston: Harvard

Business School Publishing Corporation, 2003.

31. Cummings TG and Worley CG. Organization development

and change. 10th ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College

Publishing, 2013.

32. Burke WW and Litwin GH. A causal model of organizational

performance and change. J Manag 1992; 8: 523–546.

33. Nadler DA and Tushman ML. A model for diagnosing orga-

nizational behavior. Org Dynam 1980; 9: 35–51.

34. Robbins S and Judge TA. Organizational behavior: concepts,

controversies, and applications. 13th ed. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2009.

35. Schein EH. Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed.

San Francisco: Wiley, 2010.

36. Mento AJ, Jones RM and Dirndorfer W. A change manage-

ment process: grounded in both theory and practice. J Org

Change Manag 2002; 3: 45–59.

37. Jick T. Implementing change. Note 9-191-114. Boston: Har-

vard Business School Press, 1993.

38. Garvin D. Learning in action: a guide to putting the learning

organization to work. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press, 2000.

39. Whelan-Berry KS and Somerville KA. Linking change driv-

ers and the organizational change process: a review and

synthesis. J Change Manag 2010; 10: 175–193.

40. Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP).

Standard for change management. Winter Springs, FL:

ACMP, 2014.

41. Beckhard R and Harris RT. Organizational transitions: manag-

ing complex change, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,

1987.

42. Carnall C. Managing change in organizations. 5th ed. Pre-

ntice Hall: Financial Times, 2007.

43. Change First. White paper: our change management metho-

dology, overview how change first helps you implement

change. https://changesynergy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/

2016/10/PCI-Our-Change-Management-Methodology.pdf

(2016, accessed 15 May 2020).

44. Knoster T. A framework for thinking about systems change.

In: Villa R and Thousand J (eds) Restructuring for caring

effective education: piecing the puzzle together, Baltimore:

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co, 2000, pp. 93–128.

45. Brisson-Banks CV. Managing change and transitions: a com-

parison of different models and their commonalities. Library

Manag 2010; 31: 241–252.

46. Galli BJ. Comparison of change management models: simi-

larities, differences, and which is most effective? In: Daim

T, Dabic M, Basogli N, Lavoie JR and Galli BJ (eds) R&D

management in the knowledge era challenges of emerging

technologies. Washington, DC: Springer, 2019, pp.

605–624.

47. Bamford DR and Forrester PL. Managing planned and emer-

gent change within an operations management environment.

Int J Oper Prod Manag 2003; 23: 546–564.

48. Michel A, By RT and Burnes B. The limitations of disposi-

tional resistance in relation to organizational change. Manag

Decis 2013; 51: 761–780.

49. Schech-Storz MD. Organizational change success in project

management: a comparative analysis of two models of

change. ProQuest Dissertations Theses 2013; 20–25.

50. Lippitt R, Watson J and Westley B. The dynamics of planned

change. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace, 1958.

51. Bullock RJ and Batten D. It’s just a phase we’re going

through: a review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group

Org Stud 1985; 10: 383–412.

52. Bridges W. Managing transitions, making the most of

change. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2003.

53. Judson AS. Changing behavior in organizations: minimizing

resistance to change. 2nd ed. Hokoben, NJ: Blackwell Pub-

lishing, 1991.

12 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

54. Anderson LA and Anderson D. The change leader’s road-

map: how to navigate your organization’s transformation.

2nd ed. Hokoben, NJ: Pfeiffer, 2010.

55. Hiatt JM. ADKAR: a model for change in business, govern-

ment and our community. How to implement successful

change in our personal lives and professional careers. Love-

land, CO: Prosci Research, 2006.

56. Galpin T. The human side of change: a practical guide to

organization redesign. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

1996.

57. Fernandez S and Rainey HG. Managing successful organiza-

tional change in the public sector. Public Admin Rev 2006;

66: 168–176.

58. Kickert WJM. Specificity of change management in public

organizations: conditions for successful organizational

change in Dutch ministerial departments. Am Rev Public

2014; 6: 693–717.

59. Prosci. Five levers of organizational change management,

https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/five-levers-of-

organizational-change-management. (2017, accessed 10 May

2020).

60. Clarke A and Garside J. The development of a best practice

model for change management. Eur Manag J 1997; 15:

537–545.

61. Smith R, King D, Sidhu R, et al. The effective change man-

ager’s handbook: essential guidance to the change manage-

ment body of knowledge. 1st ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd,

APMG-International, 2014.

62. Faest L and Hemerling J. Transformation delivering and sus-

taining breakthrough performance. Boston, MA: Boston

Consulting Group, 2016.

63. Peters TJ and Waterman RH. In Search of Excellence: Les-

sons from America’s Best-Run Companies. Harper & Row,

New York, 1982.

64. Armenakis AA, Bernerth JB, Pitts JP, et al. Organizational

change recipients’ beliefs scale. Development of an assess-

ment instrument. J Appl Behav Sci 2007; 43: 481–505.

65. Greer BM and Ford MW. Managing change in supply chains:

a process comparison. J Bus Logist 2009; 30: 47–63.

66. Cawsey F, Deszca G and Ingols CA. Organizational change:

an action-oriented toolkit. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Sage,

2016.

67. Perkins C. Organizational change management maturity.

Change Management Institute. 2012.

68. Alwheeb M and Rea DM. Assessing organizational readiness

for the improvement and change initiatives in public hospi-

tals. Manag Issues Healthcare Syst 2017; 3: 49–57.

69. Project Management Institute (PMI). Managing change in

organizations: a practice guide. Newtown Square, PA: PMI,

2013.

70. Combe M. Change readiness: focusing change management

where it counts. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management

Institute. White Paper, 2014.

71. Meyer CB and Stensaker IG. Developing capacity for change.

J Change Manag 2006; 6: 217–231.

72. Klarner P, Probst G and Soparnot R. Organizational change

capacity in public services: the case of the world health orga-

nization. J Change Manag 2008; 8: 57–72.

73. Judge WQ and Douglas T. Organizational change capacity:

the systematic development of a scale. J Org Change Manag

2009; 22: 635–649.

74. Hodges J. Building capabilities for change: the crucial role of

resilience. Dev Learn Org 2017; 31: 5–8.

75. Ferrari M. Reflexive governance for infrastructure resilience

and sustainability. Sustainability 2020; 12: 1–8.

76. Feindt P.H and Weiland S. Reflexive governance: exploring

the concept and assessing its critical potential for sustainable

development. J Env Policy Plan 2018; 20: 661–674.

77. Duck JD. Managing change: the art of balancing. Harv Bus

Rev 1993; 71: 109–118.

78. Errida A and Lotfi B. Measuring change readiness for imple-

menting a project management methodology: an action

research study. Acad Strat Manag J 2020; 19: 1–17.

79. Appelbaum S, Cameron A, Ensink F, et al. Factors that

impact the success of an organizational change: a case study

analysis. Ind Commerc Train 2017; 49: 213–230.

80. Peltokorpi A, Alho A, Kujala J, et al. Stakeholder approach

for evaluating organizational change projects. Int J Health

Care Qual Assur 2008; 21: 418–434.

81. Herzig SE and Jimmieson NL. Middle managers’ uncertainty

management during organizational change. Leadersh Org

Dev J 2006; 27: 628–645.

82. Eskerod P, Justesen JB and Sjøgaard G. Enriching project

organizations with formal change agents- health promotion

projects at the workplace. Int J Manag Proj Bus 2017; 10:

578–599.

83. Shah N, Irani Z and Sharif AM. Big data in an HR context:

exploring organizational change readiness, employee atti-

tudes and behaviors. J Bus Res 2016; 70: 366–378.

84. Northouse P. Leadership: theory and practice. 3rd ed. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004.

85. Gill R. Change management or change leadership? J Change

Manag 2003; 3: 307–318.

86. Whitaker S. The benefits of tailoring: making a project man-

agement methodology fit. Project management institute white

paper, 2014.

87. Parker D, Charlton J, Ribeiro A, et al. Integration of project-

based management and change management: intervention

methodology. Int J Prod Perform Manag 2013; 62: 534–544.

88. Joyce A and Paquin R.L. The triple layered business model

canvas: a tool to design more sustainable business models. J

Cleaner Prod 2016; 135: 1474–1486.

89. Adams WC. Conducting semi-structured interviews. In:

Wholey JS, Harty, HP and Newcomer KE (eds), Handbook

of Practical program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass, 2015, pp.492–505.

90. Chanal V, Lesca H and Martinet AC. Vers une ingénierie de

la recherche en sciences de gestion. Rev Française de Gestion

2015; 41: 213–229.

91. Werkman RA and Boonstra JJ. Action research as a method

for improving the effectivity of change processes and

Errida and Lotfi 13

stimulating learning in organizations: a case study. In Pro-

ceedings of the European Group for Organizational Studies

(EGOS) Conference, Lyon, 2001.

92. Naslund D and Norrman A. A performance measurement sys-

tem for change initiatives: an action research study from design

to evaluation. Bus Proc Manag J 2019; 25: 1647–1672.

93. Shah S. 7 Biases to avoid in qualitative research, https://

www.editage.com/insights/7-biases-to-avoid-in-qualitative-

research, (2019, accessed 10 December 2020).

94. Laffitte EJ. La recherche action: oubliée de la recherche dans

le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat. Revue De l’Entrepreneuriat

2009; 8: 1–35.

95. Smith D. An introduction to building information modeling

(BIM). J Build Inform Model 2007; 1: 12–14.

96. Project Management Institute-PMI. A guide to the project

management body of knowledge. 6th ed. Newtown Square,

PA: Project Management Institute-PMI, 2017.

97. Tabrizi B. The key to change is middle management. Harvard

Business Review, https://hbr.org/2014/10/the-key-to-change-

is-middle-management. (2014, accessed 21 June 2020).

98. Jonsen K and Jehn KA. Using triangulation to validate

themes in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research in Org

and Manag 2009; 4: 123–150.

Appendix 1

Critical factors Sub-factors Reference

Change vision and strategy

Clear definition of change Mento et al., 36

IMA, 29

ACMP, 40

Smith et al. 61

Clear and shared change vision Kotter,27 Cummings and Worley,31 Kanter,28 Beckhard and Harris,

41 Knoster,

44 Jick,

37 Garvin,

38 ACMP,

40 Kickert,

58

Anderson and Anderson, 54

Galpin 56

Change strategy and objectives Lippitt et al.,50 Burke and Litwin,32 ACMP,40 Kickert58

Alignment with mission and strategy Smith et al., 61

Burke and Litwin 32

Change readiness and capacity for change

Sense of urgency Kotter, 27

Jick, 37

Kickert 58

Need for change Kotter,27 Jick,37 Garvin,38 Change First,43 Lippitt et al.,50 Bullock and Batten,

51 Mento et al.,

36 IMA,

29 Jick,

37 Fernandez and

Rainey, 57

Kickert, 58

Cawsey et al., 66

Galpin 56

Case for change Anderson and Anderson54

Capacity for change Lippitt et al., 50

IMA, 29

ACMP, 40

Anderson and Anderson 54

Enabling structures Jick 37

Organizational competencies ACMP40

Individual skills and abilities Burke and Litwin, 32

Knoster, 44

Hiatt, 55

Change First 43

Infrastructures and conditions to support change Sufficient resources Prosci,59 Knoster,44 Lippitt et al.,50 Fernandez and Rainey,57

Kickert 58

Organizational and individual readiness Prosci, 59

ACMP, 40

Smith et al., 61

Perkins 67

, PMI 69

Perkins,67 IMA,29 PMI,69 Anderson and Anderson54

Organizational culture/cultural fit Burke and Litwin 32

Change team performance

Change agents capacity IMA 29

Clear change agent’s roles and responsibilities ACMP40

High performance team Faest and Hemerling 62

Skilled and experienced change team Change First,43 Prosci59

Organizational change competency ACMP40

Change team have the necessary training and expertise in change management

Prosci 59

Power and stamina of change agents Lippitt et al.50

Preparation of change management team Prosci, 59

Kotter, 27

Kanter 28

Effective and constant communication

Communication of the change vision and strategy to all people

Kotter,27 Judson,53 Change First43

Constant communication to all stakeholders during change

Jick, 37

Mento et al., 36

Garvin, 37

Kickert 58

Assessment of communication Needs and channels ACMP40

Development and implementation of a communication strategy and plan

ACMP, 40

IMA, 29

Smith et al., 61

Prosci 59

Monitoring and evaluating communication effectiveness

Smith et al.61

(continued)

14 International Journal of Engineering Business Management

Appendix I (continued)

Critical factors Sub-factors Reference

Motivation of employees and change agents

Motivation of change agents Lippitt et al.50

Creating short wins Kotter, 27

Kanter, 28

Mento et al. 36

Motivation Cummings and Worley,31 Burke and Litwin32

Rewards, celebration, and recognition Kanter,28 Garvin,38 Prosci,59 ACMP,40 Anderson and Anderson54

Incentives Knoster 44

Building a support system for change agents Cummings and Worley31

Consideration of individual needs and values Burke and Litwin32

Stakeholder engagement

Engagement and commitment of supervisors, mid- level managers, and senior managers

Prosci 59

Stakeholder engagement ACMP,40 Faest and Hemerling,62 Smith et al.61

Personal and employee commitment Change First 43

Organizational engagement Faest and Hemerling62

Internal support Fernandez and Rainey,57 Kickert58

External support Fernandez and Rainey, 57

Kickert 58

Change agents’ commitment Lippitt et al.,50 Change First43

Training, coaching, and empowerment

Coaching of employees Prosci59

Mobilizing commitment Luecke, 30

Garvin, 38

Change First, 43

Jick 37

Knowledge, ability, and learning development Smith et al.,61 Hiatt,55 ACMP40

Training Garvin,38 Prosci,59 Kanter,28 ACMP40

Employee empowerment Kotter, 27

Kickert 58

Skill development Greer and Ford65

Resistance management

Transition management Lewin,26 Cummings and Worley,31 Carnall,42 Prosci,59 Smith et al.,

61 Cawsey et al.

66

Resistance management Beckhard and Harris,41 Judson,53 Prosci59

Behavior management Greer and Ford65

Leaderships Political support and external support Fernandez and Rainey, 57

Kickert 58

Leadership; enabled leaders E first, Faest and Hemerling62, Burke and Litwin32, Garvin38, Jick37, Mento et al.,36 Kotter,27

Champions and sponsors Kanter, 28

sponsorship Jick,37 Prosci59, ACMP40, IMA29, Mento et al.,36

Structured approach for change

Continuous improvement Anderson and Anderson54

Planning Knoster, 44

Bullock and Batten, 51

Judson, 53

Prosci, 59

Smith et al., 61

ACMP,40 Cawsey et al.,66 Anderson and Anderson54

Action planning Greer and Ford65

Develop a change plan Mento et al., 36

Jick, 37

Fernandez and Rainey, 57

Kickert 58

Planning and road mapping Faest and Hemerling62

Structure, systems (policies and procedures) Prosci,59 Change First,43 Perkins,67 Kanter,28 ACMP40

Formal policies, procedures, and systems Luecke 30

Management structure and processes Kanter28

Structured approach of change Faest and Hemerling,62 Prosci,59 ACMP,40 IMA,29 Cummings and Worley

31

Governance and PMO Faest and Hemerling,62 Smith et al.,61 Perkins67

Integration of project and change management Prosci,59 ACMP,40 Smith et al.,61 Perkins67

Monitoring, measurement

Tracking, measuring, reporting, and feedback Kanter, 28

Mento et al., 36

Prosci, 59

ACMP, 40

Faest and Hemerling, 62

Perkins,67 Smith et al.,61 Galpin,56

Progress monitoring Luecke,30 Garvin,38 ACMP40

Reinforcement and sustainment of change

Reinforce new behaviors Cummings and Worley, 31

Hiatt 55

Reinforce, maintain, and institutionalize change Kotter,27 Lippitt et al.,50 Bullock and Batten,51 Jick,37 Judson,53

Garvin,38 Prosci,59 ACMP,40 IMA,29 Change First,43 Smith et al.,

61 Fernandez and Rainey,

57 Kickert

58

Anchor change in the corporate culture Kotter27

Consolidate gains and improvements, integrate lessons learned, establish best practices

Mento et al.,36 ACMP,40 Anderson and Anderson54

Develop reinforcement strategy and create cultural fit

IMA,29 Smith et al.61

Pursue comprehensive and systemic change Fernandez and Rainey, 57

Kickert 58

Errida and Lotfi 15